University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Sustainable reform: a follow-up case study on one urban superintendent’s efforts to improve student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

Sustainable reform: a follow-up case study on one urban superintendent’s efforts to improve student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SUSTAINABLE REFORM:
A FOLLOW-UP CASE STUDY ON ONE URBAN SUPERINTENDENT’S EFFORTS TO
IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by

Tyler William Ream

________________________________

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

December 2014

DEDICATION
This work is dedicated specifically to five people; my inspiration, my support and my
foundation.
My Inspiration: First, to my two little boys, Rylan and Paxton. You may not understand
why daddy worked on "his book" so often but in many ways, I did this for you. I love you more
than you can possibly understand and I wanted you to see daddy complete this commitment. One
day, I'll watch you both cross many stages to receive your degrees and there will not be a father
in the audience that is more proud of his sons than I will be of you.
My Support: The third person is my amazing wife and chief supporter, Thi. Thank you
for always understanding and encouraging my efforts. Since we married, you have been by my
side through nearly 11 years of graduate work. Yet, never once did you show any signs of
frustration or fatigue. You've been an amazing support and I could not have completed this
without you. I love you and thank you for all that you are in my life and the life of our two boys.
My Foundation: The last two people I dedicate this to are my parents, Chuck and Linda
Ream. I am truly blessed to have a mom and dad that love me as much as you do. Your support
has been invaluable along with your encouragement to "get it done." You continue to be my
heroes in life as you truly serve God through your love and support of others. Thank you for
being my model of unconditional love.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to specifically acknowledge and thank a few key individuals who helped and
provided me with consistent feedback and guidance throughout this journey. My appreciation
begins with my colleagues who lead with both care and courage each day in service to our
children and community. It is an honor to work alongside each of you. To my current and former
colleagues and especially one key leader. You accomplish more each day than you realized and
in reflecting on our past and present work throughout this study, your brilliance, grit and
dedication stood out as you are all difference makers in helping us move towards our potential as
an organization and city. To the faculty and leaders of the Rossier School of Education, thank
you for allowing me to be part of such an exceptional university and school. Finally, to Dr.
David Marsh, thank you for your unconditional patience, your dedication and your wise
guidance. You were my difference maker and I will be eternally grateful for you both as an
educator and as a person.

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Queen City Public School District Student Demographics ...…...……….. 96
Table 2: Queen City Public School District Proposed Budget ...…...….........…….. 97
Table 3: Garcia (2009) Rubric Ratings of HOUSE Model Reform Strategies ...….. 102
Table 4: Garcia (2009) Rubric Ratings v. Sustainability Index (2011) ......……….. 112
Table 5: Rubric Scoring of Strategic Planning ...…...…….................................….. 112
Table 6: Rubric Scoring of Assessment ...…...............................................……….. 118
Table 7: Rubric Scoring of Curriculum ...............................................…...……….. 125
Table 8: Rubric Scoring of Professional Development ...….......................……….. 132
Table 9: Rubric Scoring of HR Systems and Human Capital Management ...…….. 140
Table 10: Rubric Scoring of Finance and Budget ...…...….............................…….. 151
Table 11: Rubric Scoring of Communications ...…....................................……….. 157
Table 12: Rubric Scoring of Governance and Board Relations ...…...........……….. 164
Table 13: Rubric Scoring of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations ......…….. 170
Table 14: Rubric Scoring of Family and Community Engagement ...…...…….….. 175
Table 15: Combined HOUSE Elements within the Strategic Staffing Initiative ….. 183
Table 16: Sustainability Index Scores ...…...……...............................................….. 188
Table 17: Cross-HOUSE Reform Initiatives ...….......................................……….. 219

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: The PELP Coherence Framework ...….....................................……….. 43
Figure 2.2: The USPL Framework ...….......................................................……….. 44
Figure 2.3: HOUSE Model ...…...…...............................................................…….. 45
Figure 2.4: Linked Strategy Planning, Practice and Continuous Assessment ....….. 50
Figure 3.1: HOUSE Model ...…..................................................................……….. 81
Figure 4.1: HOUSE Model ..................................................................…...……….. 110
Figure 4.2: Goals, Focus Areas and Measurements of the 2014 Strategic Plan .….. 115
Figure 4.3: Cycle of Continuous Improvement ...…...……................................….. 121
Figure 4.4: Elementary Math Non-Negotiable Elements ....................…...……….. 130
Figure 4.5: FF&A Non-Negotiable Elements for Curriculum .............…...……….. 130
Figure 4.6: Super Standards for Principal Development ...…...…..................…….. 138

v

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to advance learning in relation to how urban superintendents
lead sustainable reform within their districts. This study specifically focuses on the background,
strategies, actions and reactions of one urban superintendent in his efforts to implement key
reform strategies that produced sustainable student achievement gains. This study builds upon
several associated studies and serves as a third phase of work specifically related to the Phase II
study on the Queen City Public School District (Garcia, 2009). Like the first two phases of
associated research, this study specifically examines reform through ten specific strategies as
identified through the Urban School Leadership Institute’s HOUSE Model. These elements
include strategic planning, assessment, curriculum, professional development, communication,
finance/budget, human resource systems/human capital management, labor
relations/negotiations, family and community engagement, and governance/school board
relations.
In an effort to add contextual understanding regarding sustainable leadership practices,
this study also examines reform efforts employed by the superintendent that blended both the
traditional reform elements of the HOUSE Model but also ventured beyond through new and
innovative initiatives aimed at improving the outcomes of student learning and achievement. Key
to both areas of study is the element of sustainable reform as short-term results generally are not
the aim of large, urban districts and their leaders. This analytical study incorporated the
following two main research questions and the seven related sub questions. Interviews were
structured through the use of specified interview guides and collected data was compared against
a quality rubric that expressly measured reform efforts for consistency and sustainability.
vi

Results indicated that the superintendent and district at the center of this study were able
to sustain student achievement gains across the entire tenure of the superintendent despite the
historic funding shortfalls associated with the later years of the recent recession. Specifically, the
district leaders were able to sustain their organization's momentum through quality strategic
planning and uncompromising budgeting and financial practices. Several clear themes emerged
that defined the superintendent's leadership practices including aligned strategic planning,
balancing needs and talent, maintaining a finite focus on results and sustaining an ongoing
practice of transparent leadership.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION …………………………………………………………………….. i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …………………………………………………………. ii

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………. iii

LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………… iv

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………... v

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………… 1
Statement of Problem ……………………………………………………… . 8
Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………... 9
Importance of the Study ……………………………………………………. 11
Assumptions ………………………………………………………………... 12
Limitations ………………………………………………………………….. 13
Delimitations ……………………………………………………………….. 13
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………… 14
Organization of the Study ………………………………………………….. 20

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE …………………………….. 21
Student Achievement: Trends, Gaps and Implications …………………….. 22
Standards-Based Reform …………………………………………… 23
International Comparisons …………………………………………. 23
Achievement within the United States ……………………………… 24
Urban Schools and Achievement Gaps …………………………….. 26
National Trends in Accountability …………………….……………. 28
Local Focus: The Roles of Districts and Schools …………………………... 29
Schools as a Lever for Change ……………………………………… 29
Districts as a Lever for Change ……………………………………... 32
Developing and Cultivating a Shared Sense of Purpose .…… 33
Teaching and Learning ……………………………………… 34
Program Coherence …………………………………………. 35
Practices of Continued Improvement ….............................…. 36
Professional Development ………………………………….. 36
District Leadership ………………………………………………………….. 37
Developing Role of the Superintendent ……………………………. 37
Leadership, Change and Sustainability …………………………….. 40
District Leadership Strategies ………………………………………………. 41
PELP Framework …………………………………………………… 42
USPL Framework …………………………………………………… 43
HOUSE Model and Associated Reform Elements …………………. 45
Preparation for Leadership and Reform of Urban Districts ………………… 62
Superintendent Preparation …………………………………………. 62
viii

Traditional Programs ………………………………………………. 62
Non-Traditional Programs …………………………………………. 63
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………. 65

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY …………………………… 67
Purpose of the Study …………....………………………………………….. 67
Related Studies ………………….............………………………………….. 67
Study Design ………………………................…………………………….. 69
Sample and Population ……………………………………………... 72
District Profile ……………………………………………… 72
Superintendent Profile ……………………………………… 76
Key Player Participants …………………………………..… 77
Instrumentation …………………………………………………….. 79
Instrument Design ………………………………………….. 81
Data Collection Instruments ……………………………….. 85
Data Collection …………………………………………………….. 90
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………. 91
Validity and Reliability …………………………………….. 92
Summary …………………………………………………………………… 93

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ……...……….. 94
Superintendent Profile and Background …………………………………… 95
District Background and Characteristics……………….…….……………. 96
Garcia’s 2009 Case Study………...…………………….…….……………. 102
Gains and Associated Efforts …………………………...…….……………. 102
Strategic Plan 2010…………………………..………….…….……………. 103
Strategic Plan 2014……………………………..……….…….……………. 107
House Model Elements………………………………….…….……………. 109
Strategic Plan ……………………………...…….…….……………. 112
Assessment…………………………………...….…….……………. 118
Curriculum……………………………………….…….……………. 125
Professional Development……………………….…….……………. 132
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management.........…. 140
Finance and Budget……………….…….…………………………… 151
Communications……………………………...….…….……………. 157
Governance and Board Relations…………….….…….……………. 164
Labor Negotiations and Contract Negotiations ……………….……. 170
Family and Community Engagement……………….…….………… 175
Cross-HOUSE and Non-HOUSE Related Elements…….…….……………. 182
Discussion………………………………….…………….…….……………. 183
Summary………………………………………...……….…….……………. 195

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS …..….. 196
Purpose of Study ……………….…………………………………………… 197
Methodology ……………………………………………………………….. 199
Sample ……………………………………………………………… 199
ix

Data Collection and Analysis ………………………………………. 201
Selected Findings …………………………………………………………… 202
Research Question #1 ………………………………………………. 203
Research Question #2 ………………………………………………. 219
Conclusions …………………………………………………………………. 220
Implications for Practice ……………………………………………………. 224
Educational Leaders ........................……………………………….... 224
Community Stakeholders and School Board Members ...…………... 225
State and Federal Policy Makers ………………………………........ 226
Superintendent Preparation Programs ……………………………… 227
Recommendations for Future Research …………………………………….. 228

REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………… 230

APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………………. 242
A: ……………………………………………………………………………. 242
B: ……………………………………………………………………………. 243
C: ……………………………………………………………………………. 244
D: ……………………………………………………………………………. 247

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
In 1981, Secretary of Education, T. H. Bell created the National Commission on
Excellence in Education. That commission’s often cited report, A Nation at Risk (1983),
expounded on the vast differences that existed in public education between different subgroups
of students. The subsequent call for reform captured the attention of the American public but
some three decades later a similar call for reform, driven by similar concerns echo throughout the
United States.
In their report, The National Commission on Excellence in Education cited a national
decline in comparison to international educational trends and historic educational gaps between
student subgroups. In the report’s section entitled Hope and Frustration, these concerns captured
the determined of nationwide calls for reform.
We have heard the voices of high school and college students, school board
members, and teachers; of leaders of industry, minority groups, and higher
education; of parents and State officials. We could hear the hope evident in their
commitment to quality education and in their descriptions of outstanding
programs and schools. We could also hear the intensity of their frustration, a
growing impatience with shoddiness in many walks of American life, and the
complaint that this shoddiness is too often reflected in our schools and colleges.
Their frustration threatens to overwhelm their hope. (p. 13)
In three decades that have followed A Nation at Risk (1983), continuous public concern
regarding the quality of American public education has been matched by the number of theories
2

as to how to improve schooling for students. From the class size debated to the quality of teacher
preparation programs, recommendations of needed reform have been numerous.
In the 1990s, the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Congress introduced the country to
a set of educational reforms entitled Goals 2000: Educate America Act. These goals which
included grade level competency rates by subject, a 90 percent high school graduation target, an
emphasis on classroom technology, and other outcomes-based objectives, were predecessors to
the reform package introduced by the Bush Administration which became the federal No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (Heise, 1994; Goodwin & Sheard, 2001).
With No Child Left Behind, schools throughout the United States began to carefully
target achievement gaps through student performance on state-based exams. Federal mandates
associated with NCLB assured that individual states set goals and monitored school and district
progress in both reading and mathematics. School, district and state level data was desegregated
according to student subgroups and expected performance gains were carefully tracked. Any
school or district not making adequate progress received federally-based sanctions including
enhanced school choice for parents and the restructuring of chronically under-performing
schools.
Student progress under NCLB remains in question as racial and social-economic
achievements gaps have remained constant (Dee & Jacob, 2011; Gamoran, 2007; Krieg, 2011).
While the summative results of NCLB have yet to be determined, the Obama Administration is
working to reauthorize NCLB to include increased flexibility, an emphasis on student growth
over proficiency and non-tested targets like high school graduation and college-going rates
(Fuller, Gesicki, Kang, & Wright, 2006; Klein, 2010; United States Department of Education,
2010). Yet, despite never-before accountability measures employed nation-wide, American
3

students continue to struggle when compared to their international peers. According to a recent
international academic benchmark, the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA), U.S. students performed about average in reading and science and below average in
mathematics. Of the 34 countries cited in PISA’s survey results, the United States ranked 14
th
in
reading, 17
th
and science and 25
th
in mathematics (Miller &Warren, 2011; OECD, 2010; Sung-
Jun, 2010).
Some twenty year ago, U. S. students ranked first in the world in the number of adults
who successfully completed both high school and college. Today, according to the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States ranks ninth in high
school completion and seventh in college completion. While these rates suggest incremental
growth in both measures when compared to previous years, only 8 of the 34 countries in the
study were assessed as having lower high school graduation rates than the United States (OECD,
2011). Equally as concerning, OECD reported that U.S. students growing up in poverty were less
resilient than their international peers. Low levels of resiliency, a measure of a student’s ability
to overcome the challenges of poverty, suggest that students growing up in poverty in the United
States are less likely to succeed academically than like students in other countries. This
diminished likelihood for children growing up in poverty again echoes the concerns of well-
known reports from both 1966 and 1983 regarding the equity of public education in America.
Within the United States, well known and persistent educational achievement gaps exist
as well. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), published every four years
by the Department of Education, has monitored trends in student achievement for the past four
decades. These trends illustrate longstanding discrepancies in achievement between white and
minority students. While scores for all student subgroups have risen since the early 1970s, the
4

progress of efforts to narrow and eliminate achievement gaps has been inconsistent. While the
Black-White gap narrowed consistently between 1971 and 1988, the gap widened again between
1988 and 1999 (Lee, 2002). Progress in narrowing the Hispanic-White achievement gap during
this same time period was less significant as that gap has widened considerably since 1982.
The impact of poverty in relation to the achievement gap was recently measured by the
2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). In the United States,
schools in which at least 50 percent of the students are growing up in poverty scored on average
significantly lower than more affluent schools. More specifically, while composite scores have
improved, the gap between students of poverty and their non-impoverished peers have remained
relatively unchanged between 1999 and 2007 (Gonzales et al, 2008).
Within these persistent and historic gaps in achievement are questions regarding urban
education. Large urban school district superintendents and district leaders often cite achievement
gaps as an ongoing a major concern (Fuller at al, 2003; Huang et al, 2003). Calls for reform often
center on large urban school districts as those systems tend to serve larger cities with more robust
media environments. While large urban cities are often characterized by higher rates of poverty,
poverty is not exclusive to urban environments. However, large urban districts across the United
States do serve student populations that are more diverse than their suburban and rural
counterparts including higher shares of poor and minority students (Jacob, 2007). As Quinn
(2007) suggested, “While (urban) districts comprise less than one percent of all school districts
in the country, they actually serve about a quarter of our nation’s children, approximately 60
percent whom live in poverty and 70 percent are minority.” While the failures of large urban
systems are often well known, so too is the potential these school districts have to dramatically
5

improve the lives of their children. For these reasons, the majority of America’s attention
regarding school reform is squarely focused on its large urban school systems.
While it is true that change in education begins with a focus on the classroom,
meaningful reform cannot be achieved in isolation. Good classrooms with effective teachers
exist in every city and in every district but systemic reform initiatives ensure enhanced practices
at all levels including classrooms, schools, and districts (Childress, Elmore & Grossman, 2006;
Elmore, 1990; Elmore, 1996). As Fullan (2009) termed, “whole system reform” represents a
deepening and widening of reform initiatives that include not only classroom factors but also the
non-school factors that often impact student learning. This is particularly true for high-poverty
schools as the absence of cohesive district priorities only increases the likelihood of teacher and
student mobility (Elmore, 2003). Over the past decade, large urban school districts around the
country have started and restarted the work of system-wide reform. These districts educate a
disproportionate number of students whom enter school well behind their peers and by age nine,
are, on average, some three years behind in reading and mathematics. Only half of the minority
students in the United States are graduating high school and for those that do graduate, research
suggests significantly depressed levels of academic attainment (Childress, Elmore & Grossman,
2006). Clearly, reform efforts initiated within large urban school districts require greater focus,
scope, intensity, and support for change to occur system wide.
As the United States prepares for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind –
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), large urban districts across the country are
beginning to reframe age old questions regarding school turn-around initiatives, district reform
strategies, and what it means to succeed in an American public school classroom. With increased
accountability (United States Department of Education, 2010) comes a renewed need for
6

effective district leadership. Change leadership and reform strategies remain in high demand.
The inception of key reform strategies begin with the leadership of the district superintendent.
Systemic change that leads to increased student learning and achievement has become one of the
most pressing responsibilities of urban district superintendents since the inception of the No
Child Left Behind – Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 2001.
The role and job related demands of superintendents have changed dramatically since
Oliver G. Steele became the nation’s first superintendent in 1837. While original superintendents
tended to carry out the everyday requests of their school board, modern superintendents are
expected to be effective instructional leaders, systems managers, politicians and the public
spokesperson for their organizations. To succeed, superintendents must skillfully navigate both
internal and external influences while keeping both eyes squarely focused on improving the
educational climate of their districts (Kowalski, 2005). As Houston (2001) termed, “there is
much about the current role (superintendent) that is dysfunctional. Expectations and resources
are mismatched. Accountability and authority are misaligned.” Yet, the impact that an effective
superintendent has on student learning is significant.
A 2006 study by McREL found the correlation between the impacts of superintendents
on student achievement to be significant (Waters & Marzano, 2006). More importantly,
superintendents who were found to be highly involved in implementing inclusive goal-setting
processes that resulted in board-adopted non-negotiable goals for instruction and student
achievement were far more likely to align district resources accordingly and ultimately achieve
greater levels of student achievement. To succeed, an urban superintendent must do as Houston
(2001) suggested and rise above the management of the “Killer Bs” of buildings, buses, books,
budget and bonds to the “Crucial Cs” of connecting communicating, collaborating, community
7

building, child advocacy and curricular leadership. Childress, Elmore and Grossman (2006)
agree and suggest that the creation of a performance culture characterized by collaboration, high
expectations and accountability is vital to district-wide reform in urban systems.
While the importance of an effective superintendent is well known in relation to
successful reform and increased student achievement, knowledge of key reform strategies
continues to be an area of needed research. As Huang et al (2003) reported, one large urban
district leader warned:
We know their (underperformers) problems pretty well but we need research to
tell us ways to reduce the gaps and improve learning. Kids are venerable; they are
fundamentally struggling in those urban schools and neighborhoods. Research is
needed to inform us about what to do. We are at meetings and when questions are
raised about what services are needed to help those high-risk children, people just
look at each other. The problem is worsening into a national crisis (p. 9).

Coupled with the fact that urban superintendents have an average tenure of somewhere
between 2.5 and 4.6 years, it has become increasingly more important for leaders to implement
strategies upon entry that lead to immediate and sustainable student achievement gains (Council
of Great City Schools, 2010, Fuller et al, 2003; National School Boards Association, 2002 ). As
Goleman (2000) suggested, it is the singular job of a leader to get results. In this continued era of
No Child Left Behind, the results that large urban superintendents seek are increased rates of
student achievement. However, Fuller at al (2003) suggested that the job of the superintendent as
it is current structured may be indeed “undoable” as effective superintendents will be those who
are enabled to do what needs to be done to achieve the goal of creating public schools that
effectively meet the needs of all students. More than ever before, how a superintendent is
prepared for the role, what they choose to do upon entry, what they prioritize across their tenure
and what strategies they employ are of significant importance not only to the longevity of that
superintendent but also to the achievement of their students. As Marsh and Castruita (2008)
8

concluded, reform efforts employed by superintendents happen across several stages including
launching strategies, the completion of a strategic plan and action in association with prioritized
key levers. What a superintendent chooses to do within each of these stages clearly has lasting
impacts on the students they serve.
Statement of Problem
While numerous studies have worked to identify key characteristics of change leadership
within urban superintendents, less is known regarding how superintendents are prepared for
urban leadership roles, how they initiate change, what strategies they choose to employ and how
those strategies work to produce both short and long term success for the district in relation to
increased learning rates. While some may argue that urban superintendents lack the capacity to
bring about sustainable district reform, it is evident that effective superintendents not only outlast
the average tenure of their job-alike peers but also impact their districts in a systemic and
sustainable manner. For this reason, it is becoming increasingly crucial for educators and
educational leaders to understand the rationale and methodology utilized by effective urban
superintendents in creating, implementing, monitoring and revising reform strategies that
produced sustainable achievement results. It is important to better understand what prepared
such superintendents for their roles as leaders in urban districts, the genesis of key reform
strategies that were selected and how the implementation of these strategies produced results in
the form of consistent student achievement gains.
This analysis serves as a follow-up case study to two phases of previous related work.
The first phase of related research was initiated in 2006 by Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Rudy
Castruita and served as an exploratory study focusing on urban school districts and leaders
(Takata, Marsh & Castruita, 2007). The second phase of associated research, also initiated by
9

Marsh and Castruita convened a study across 10 individual urban school districts. All of these
districts were led or previously led by superintendents that completed their preparation as
participants in the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI). While these studies provided
immediately relevant information regarding successful leadership efforts and reform strategies of
entering superintendents in large, urban districts, each of the studies were limited in terms of
scope as they could not assess the sustainability of these efforts. In order to better understand
leadership strategies and actions that result in sustainable trends of student achievement, a third
phase of research is needed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study is to advance learning in relation to what urban
superintendents are doing to lead sustainable reform within their districts. This study will
specifically focus on the background, strategies, actions and reactions of one urban
superintendent in his efforts to implement key reform strategies that produced sustainable student
achievement gains. As a follow-up case study to a previous study by Garcia (2009) that focused
on the same district and superintendent, this study will specifically examine the inception and
maturation of ten previously identified reform strategies. This in depth analysis across the five
year tenure of this superintendent will examine how the background and preparation shaped the
decisions that were made in regards to key reform initiatives.
This case study builds upon the Phase I study conducted by Takata, Marsh and Castruita
(2007) and an in-depth case study completed by Garcia (2009). It is important to note that the
specific urban superintendent that is the focus of this study was prepared through the Urban
School Leadership Institute (USLI). This program, founded and managed by the Urban School
Leadership Foundation (USLF), is considered one of the nation’s most effective superintendent
10

preparation programs and has been successful in providing leadership training for numerous
urban superintendents throughout the last decade (Samuels, 2011). The Urban School Leadership
Institute trains future district leaders in a wide variety of leadership aspects specific to the
responsibilities of an urban superintendent. One important example of USLI’s training is their
focus on the House Model as a conceptual framework for key reform decisions. This four-framed
model provides leaders with key reform strategies, ten of which were previously identified in
Garcia’s 2009 case study. These ten identified strategies serve as the foundation for this long
term analysis on sustainable reform.
This study will investigate the following research questions and related sub-questions:
1. Which of the ten key change levers utilized by the superintendent and previously
identified by Garcia (2009) produced sustainable reform that resulted in significant,
multi-year, upward trends in student achievement?
a. How did the identified ten key change levers develop across the first five years of
the superintendent’s tenure?
b. How did the quality, tenure and degree of implementation of successful change
levers vary in comparison to less successful efforts?
c. Were additional or previously unidentified House Model related change levers
implemented across the first five years of the superintendent’s tenure? If so,
which of these levers proved most impactful and why?
2. Of the additional (non-House Model) levers that were identified and implemented, which
produced sustainable reform that resulted in significant, multi-year, upward trends in
student achievement?
a. What necessitated the need for these additional levers?
11

b. Of the additionally identified levers, which proved to be most impactful and why?
c. How did these additional change levers develop across the first five years of the
superintendent’s tenure?
d. Of the additionally identified levers, which proved to be most impactful and why?
Importance of the Study
With one in four American school-aged children attending school in a large urban school
district, improving and sustaining reform in all urban areas is critical to the long-term success of
the United States. While some 70 percent of high school students nationally are graduating from
high school, urban school districts are graduating, on average, only 50 percent of their students
(Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & Kewal-Ramani, 2011). For students not graduation from high school,
lifetime opportunities are statistically depressed when compared to their graduating peers. The
2010 Digest for Education Statistics reports that the average annual salary for a high school
graduate is $27,380 per year. By comparison, non-high school graduates earn considerable less
making an average salary of only $19,540 (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Furthermore, non-graduates
are statistically more likely to experience longer periods of unemployment, require government
assistance or cycle in and out of the prison system as adults. As a nation, non-high school
graduates not only represent a less employable citizen but also are statistically more likely to
require increased resources throughout their lifetimes. Had the entire class of 2011 graduated
from high school, the nation’s economy would have benefited from an estimated $154 billion in
additional income across the course of their anticipated work careers. While not all high school
dropouts attend school in urban areas, a disproportionate number of non-graduates do grow up in
American cities. That known, improving large urban school districts throughout the United
States is a matter of national importance.
12

This study aimed to better understand the factors that contributed to the effectiveness of a
superintendent’s efforts to implement and refine reform strategies that ultimately led to sustained
increases in student achievement in one specific large urban school district. This district, which
was awarded the Urban School Leadership Prize in 2011 for excellence in urban education,
outperformed other large urban school districts throughout the five year tenure of the
superintendent. By examining the long term actions of this superintendent and the subsequent
reform initiatives that came to fruition during his tenure, educators and those who are considered
educational stakeholders have the opportunity to gain further insight as to the critical factors
associated with the background, strategies, actions and reactions of this superintendent and better
understand his efforts to implement key reform strategies that produced sustainable student
achievement gains. This study is particularly important for district and school leaders including
superintendents, district administrators, principals and assistant principals. In addition, school
board members, local community leaders, university leaders, educational researchers, policy
makers and concerned parents will benefit from the findings associated with this study.
Assumptions
There are several key assumptions that should be considered when reviewing the findings
of this case study. This study assumed that the sustained gains in student achievement are
directly related to the reform efforts of the superintendent. This assumption is based on the
understanding that as the district leader, the superintendent’s decisions both directly and
indirectly impact both teaching and learning.
This study additionally assumed that the training that the superintendent received as part
of the Urban School Leadership Forum (USLI) had a direct impact on the key strategies that
13

were employed as part of district reform. This assumed impact included decisions that were
made by the superintendent prior to entry into the school district as the system’s leader.
This study also assumed that the data and information collected for this analysis are both
accurate and credible. In addition, it was assumed that all interview participants, both currently
and formally employed by the district, will provide accurate and credible information.
Limitations
Although intentional, this case study is limited to one superintendent and one urban
public school district. It is intended that this limitation will help the researcher conduct a more
detailed and thorough investigation resulting in specified findings from across the five year
tenure of the superintendent. Data collection for this study occurred during the month of May,
2012 and consisted primarily of interviews including current and former district stakeholders.
Data collection before, during and after the interview process was the primary responsibility of
one researcher.
Delimitations
This case study is intended to be a qualitative analysis of reform strategies and the
sustainable impact of those strategies on student achievement. This single district study is
expected to yield a set of best practices utilized by one urban superintendent that produced a
multi-year trend of positive student achievement gains. The superintendent and district were
originally selected during Phase I (exploratory study) and Phase II (initial case study) because
this district was outperforming similar districts. The original criteria for selecting this district
included the following:
 District was identified from the largest 125 school systems in the United States;
 The superintendent must have been in office since 2006 or earlier; and,
14

 The superintendent must have graduated from the Urban School Leadership Institute
(USLI).
Based on these criteria, the Queen City Public School District (QCPSD) was selected as a
focus district for the original round of case studies. In 2011, the Urban School Leadership
Foundation (USLF) named QCPSD the recipient of the distinguished Urban School Leadership
Prize. This award recognizes the nation’s top urban school district and awards this prize based on
a multitude of criteria including success in closing achievement gaps between high-performing
and under-performing student subgroups. The awarding of Urban School Leadership Prize
underscores the related gains in student achievement within QCPSD over the last five years. This
positive trajectory across the superintendent’s tenure warranted a follow-up case study to
determine key reform strategies that produced sustainable student achievement gains.
Definition of Terms
According to the context of this study, the following terms are operationally defined as specified
below:
Accountability: The act of being held responsible or answerable for specific results or
outcomes. For the purpose of this study, educators are often held responsible for the learning and
achievement of their students.
Achievement Gap: A statistical difference in performance or results between two
subgroups. For the purposes of this study, achievement gaps often refer to the difference in
performance between subgroups of students.
Assessment: A tool designed to measure the knowledge or performance of a subject. In
education, assessments often measure what a student has learned and can be either formal
(administered under regulated or controlled test-taking conditions) or informal (casually
15

observed). Various types of assessments are used in education for different purposes including
formative, summative, performance-based, standardized and curriculum-based.
Board of Education: An elected or appointed body that provides oversight and
governance of a particular group of schools (local) or districts (state).
Capacity: Typically associated with the maximum amount something or someone can manage or
sustain.
Central Office: The office or group of offices that serves as the central administrative
center for an organization. Central Office personnel include both administrative and support
services.
Conceptual Framework: A framework in education used primarily when working with
research to form an outline for possible courses of action to address a perceived problem.
Content Standards: Curriculum frameworks designed to outline specific knowledge
concepts and skills which students must acquire in each class, subject and grade. These learning
expectations are often developed at the state level and aligned with state exams.
Curriculum: Materials used for instructing students. Materials often include textbooks,
digital materials, consumable materials (worksheet based resources), teacher planning books, etc.
Materials are typically designed to meet state standards of learning.
Data-Driven Decision Making: The act of using data to influence key decisions. For the
purposes of this study, data-driven decision making may be both classroom related or in
association with district-wide decisions made by a district’s leadership. In both instances, key
indicators that aide in predicting the effectiveness of a decision are identified, monitored and
considered as related decisions are finalized.
16

Entry Plan: An employee’s plan for entering a new organization or role. This plan often
includes priorities and short-term goals that are associated with an individual’s first few months
in a new position.
Governance: The act of governing. For the purposes of this study, an elected or appointed
school board governs a local school system by setting the policy-based direction for the district.
House Model: A conceptual framework developed by the Broad Academy as a model for
system-wide reform. Used by the Broad Academy when training superintendents, the House
Model incorporates the four key components of resource allocation, instructional alignment,
organizational effectiveness and system governance as the foundational elements for district-
wide reform.
Implementation: The act of carrying out, executing, or putting into practice a plan,
method, project or design.
Instructional improvement: The act of enhancing the effectiveness of teacher instruction
to increase student learning. Instructional improvement is closely aligned with data-driven
decision making and professional development as both aim to improve teacher effectiveness in
the classroom.
Instructional leadership: The influence or actions that an educational leader utilizes to
promote growth in student learning. Rooted in instructional improvement, instructional
leadership is the influence that a site or district leader has on improving the effectiveness of
classroom instruction to enhance student learning.
Leadership capacity: The maximum extents that a system leader can successful lead an
organization.
17

Monitoring: The act of periodically checking or assessing the progress and quality of an
implemented strategy, program or initiative.
Non-traditional: Not conforming to or in accordance with traditional educational
practice. For the purposes of this study, a leader can also be considered non-traditional meaning
that they do not come from a traditional K-12 background.
Professional development: The act of bettering oneself from a professional sense by
acquiring the skills and knowledge needed to improve the effectiveness of job-related practices.
Professional development opportunities are often both personal choice and district related. For
example, a personal choice opportunity may include an educator choosing to enroll in a local
university for job-related reasons. District related professional development may include optional
or required workshops, trainings or seminars organized by school district personnel.
Reform strategy: A strategy, initiative, or effort that produces consistent and meaningful
change resulting in enhanced levels of student performance.
Resiliency: An indicator used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) to measure a student’s ability to overcome the challenges of childhood
poverty to succeed academically.
Resource: The supply of money, materials, staff or other assets that can be utilized to
accomplish a key function within that organization. For the purposes of this study, resources in
public education are often referred to as time, people or available funding (Miles and Frank,
2008).
Sanction: An accountability based consequence imposed upon a system, school or
individual for not meeting expected outcomes.
18

Standards-based instruction: Instructional practices that are aligned closely with content
standards to ensure a high level of fidelity with state-driven expectations for classroom learning.
Stakeholder: A person with a consistent interest in something. For the purposes of this
study, a stakeholder is a person with a consistent interest in public education. This may include
district personnel, school board members and any member of the public.
Strategic Plan: An organization's process of defining strategy and direction for all future
endeavors. The planning process involved in creating a strategic plan is often labor and time
intensive. Plans are utilized going forward to align key decisions and ensure the coordination of
resource allocation.
Student achievement: Student performance within a subject area usually measured by a
formal assessment. Student achievement is often cited through the use of state mandated
standardized assessments and may include proficiency rates (pass/no pass) or growth measures.
Superintendent: The system leader that is hired or elected to lead a school district.
Subgroup: The subdivision of a larger group typically in reference to demographic-based
student groups when applied within educational settings.
Systemic reform: Change that takes place across an entire system or organization. For the
purposes of this study, systemic reform refers to change across an entire school system or
district.
Sustainable reform: Change that continues to improve results across a significant period
of time. Sometimes referred to as sustaining turnaround at scale, sustainable reform considers
consistent improvement across time.
Theory of Action: A guiding theory that provides the foundational basis for all associated
work, efforts, or initiatives. For a theory of action to produce systemic results, it must: a)
19

promote understanding, b) enable all stakeholders to imagine possibilities, c) support planning,
d) serve as a compass for future decision making, and e) provide a basis for critical reflection
(Peterson-Veatch, 2006).
Traditional: Existing as part of a tradition or long-standing practice or belief. For the
purposes of this study, traditional refers to something or someone closely associated with
conventional K-12 experiences or practices. A traditional leader is someone whose training,
experiences, and background are closely associated with K-12 education.
Large Urban School District: A school district that is typically defined by student
enrollment and its proximity to serving a primarily urban and possibly suburban environment.
The top 125 school districts in terms of student enrollment are typically considered as part of this
large urban category.
Urban School Leadership Foundation (USLF): One of four large foundations founded
and funded by a well-known entrepreneur and philanthropist. The USLF specifically focuses on
the advancement of public good in education and aims to dramatically transform urban K-12
public education through the improvement of governance, management, labor relations and
competition.
Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI): A 10 month, non-traditional program to
prepare leaders for the rigors or becoming a superintendent in a large, urban school system.
Created and funded by the Urban School Leadership Foundation (USLF), the program selects
only a small number of participants annually to participate in cohorts. Each cohort is made up of
both traditional and non-traditional leaders with backgrounds ranging from traditional K-12
experience to non-profit and military leaders.
20

Urban School Leadership Prize: Created by the Urban School Leadership Foundation
(USLF), the Urban School Leadership Prize recognizes the nation’s top large urban school
district on an annual basis. To be eligible for the prize, districts must serve at least 37,500
students and must exist in and serve an urban environment characterized as a large city, a mid-
sized city, or a suburb of a large city. Eligible districts must have at least 40 percent of students
qualify for free or reduced-price school lunch and 40 percent who are nonwhite. Eligible school
districts are selected by a panel specifically appointed by the Urban School Leadership
Foundation.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is purposefully a five chapter study. Chapter One presented an
introduction to the study and summarized the purpose and importance of examining reform
strategies used by urban superintendents to improve student learning and achievement in their
districts. Chapter Two will review and discuss relevant literature including the following areas of
study: (1) Student achievement trends, gaps and implications across our country including
achievement rates compared internationally, nationally and locally; (2) Developing roles of local
school districts; (3) Developing role of the superintendent; (4) Leadership strategies employed by
urban superintendents to improve student learning and achievement rates; and (5) Reform and
sustainability of leadership strategies across the tenure of a superintendent. Chapter Three will
present and discuss the research methodology and design of this study including instrumentation,
data collection and the analysis of data. Chapter Four will present and discuss the findings of this
study. Chapter Five will summarize the study and present recommendations for consideration
and practice by education leaders and stakeholders within public school systems.

21

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Reports and studies citing the decline of public education in the United States continually
highlight the critical challenges facing schools, particularly in urban areas. In an increasing
manner, international rankings over the last few decades have produced a significant sense of
urgency to improve the effectiveness of schooling for all children. Discrepancies in student
achievement at the national level have additionally underscored beliefs that continued reform is
needed. Reform across public education, from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to the
countless state-based exams and accountability systems, have produced mixed results in terms of
teaching and learning. As these pressures build and converge, sustainable leadership in the field
of education has received renewed attention (Fullan, 2002; Hargraves & Dean, 2003; Eisinger &
Hula, 2004; Bjork & Kowalski, 2005; Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves & Dean, 2006).
A review of current research and findings relevant to this study includes five associated
areas of analysis. The first area examines trends in student achievement, both past and present, in
an effort to better understand existing trends, gaps and implications. The second area of study
explores the role that schools and school districts play in improving student learning and
achievement. The third area examines the role of superintendents and discusses research related
to how this role has changed as legislative mandates and accountability have increased in
intensity. The fourth area of study analyzes research associated with the strategies employed by
urban superintendents including the research of Marsh, Castruita, Takata, Garcia and others
connected with the previous phases of this research study regarding superintendents trained by
the Urban School Leadership Institute (Takata, Marsh & Castruita, 2007; Garcia, 2009). The
final area of study within this chapter explores both the traditional and non-traditional
22

preparation programs in which superintendents engage prior to beginning the challenge of
leading an urban school district.
Student Achievement: Trends, Gaps and Implications
As calls for educational reform have permeated the beliefs of Americans in an increasing
manner over the last three decades, public schools have responded in various ways to improve
student achievement. From the warnings and lessons of the Civil Rights legislation, the Coleman
Report and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of the 1960s to the reforms of
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and its subsequent expected reauthorization, American public
schools have moved in a direction that is more specific, if not ridged, in terms of expectations
and accountability (Ladd, 1996; Elmore, 2000). As the country moved towards a standards-based
educational model, gone were the days that where individual teachers decided what content
needed to be learned and how that content was to be best delivered. The move away from an
environment characterized by Elmore (2000) as “loose coupling,” drove such decisions away
from the classroom toward the large district and state levels. Standards-based reform, while
defined in many different ways, often refers to the act of teaching according to specific content
standards (Snow-Renner & Lauer, 2005). Content standards, typically created and assessed at the
state level, define the specifics of what students need to learn in a particular subject or grade.
Standards-based instruction does not provide an individual teacher with the option of deciding
what to teach as state standards drive state assessments. However, standards at a state level do
not typically dictate how or when to teach a particular area of content. As Elmore (2000)
suggested, “with standards-based reform, policy reaches, at least in theory, directly into the
instructional core of schools, making what actually gets taught, a matter of public policy and
open political discourse” (p. 9).
23

Standards-Based Reform
Standards-based reform is grounded in the mindset that schools and school systems
should be held accountable for student learning. In theory, standards-based reform suggests that
if everyone is exposed to the same content and assessed in the same manner, differences in
student performance indicate differences in the effectiveness of instruction. While this
generalization does not take into account the complexity of factors that impact student learning,
accountability over the last few decades has been driven down from a national or state level to
districts, schools and individual classrooms. As Elmore (2006) argued, accountability systems
are not designed to exclude factors that are external to schools when assessing student learning.
Never-the-less, American high schools are graduating some 70 percent of students annually
while in urban areas, that rate of graduation drops to only 50 percent (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, &
Kewal-Ramani, 2011). Whether these discrepancies can be explained through the differences in
internal factors, external factors or both, the fact remains that the United States is falling behind
its international peers in both the quality of education that students are receiving and the
educational outcomes those students are attaining.
An International Perspective
From an international perspective, the last four decades have produced concerning trends
when comparing American students with their international peers. Coupled with the nation’s
long-term recession, questions regarding the preparedness of American students on an
international level have grown increasingly urgent. Since the 1970s, American student
achievement on the international stage has experienced only minor gains and has slipped steadily
in the rankings of industrialized nations (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Since 2000, U.S.
scores on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) have remained flat in both
24

reading and mathematics. On the recent 2009 assessment, American students were deemed
average in the subjects of reading and science and were considered below average in
mathematics. Rankings when compared to the other 33 Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OCED) countries placed the United States fourteenth in reading, seventeenth
in science and twenty-fifth in mathematics (OECD, 2011).
When compared to other countries like its northern neighbor Canada, the United States is
losing ground educationally. Declining statistics internationally are not necessarily the result of a
declining educational system. Rather, the OECD is quick to point out that educational attainment
for the United States has remained flat while other countries have improved rapidly in recent
decades. Based on 2009 statistics, the United States ranks near the bottom in terms of high
school graduation rates and is falling rapidly in college graduation rates (OECD, 2011). In 1995,
the United States graduated the second highest rate of students from college. In 2008, the U.S.
rate was only the thirteenth best not because the rate declined steadily over the interim 14 years
but rather because other countries rapidly improved. All of these rates and declines
internationally add up to a startling reality for the United States as it has become clear that other
countries are preparing their future workforce in a manner that supersedes the American public
education system (NCEE, 2007).
Achievement within the United States
Comparative statistics within the United States offer an equally concerning picture as
those that suggest a declining educational status internationally. As the country continues to
struggle through a nearly decade long recession, questions regarding workforce preparedness
have surfaced amidst dire reports both nationally and internationally. As suggested by Buffum,
Mattos and Weber (2012),
25

Gone are the days when hard work and elbow grease were enough for an average
person to make a living. To prepare for a successful life in a competitive global
marketplace, today’s students must learn more than the three Rs; they must also
master the higher level thinking skills required to learn beyond high school (p. 1).

In 1973, 72 percent of the workforce the United States had an educational level of high
school or less. In 2007, that percentage dropped to 41 percent as it has become increasingly clear
that a high school education is no longer a ticket to the American middle class (Symonds,
Schwartz, & Ferguson, 2011). In 2010, the average annual salary for a high school graduate in
the United States was $27,380 per year. A non-high school graduate earned considerable less
making an average salary of only $19,540. College educated peers made on average $46,930 and
over the course of their lifetimes, can expect to make an estimated one million more in earnings.
Additionally, as levels of education increase, the likelihood of less than full-time employment
decreases (Snyder & Dillow, 2011).
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has served as the longest
standing national assessment. Associated with the National Center for Education Statistics and
created by the United States Department of Education, NAEP has monitored educational trends
within American public education since 1969. Utilizing nationally representative samples of
students at ages 9, 13 and 17 years, NAEP has been able to gauge student achievement by
administering a similar set of exams periodically for the past four decades (Campbell, Hombo &
Mazzeo, 2001). Thirty years trends from 1971 through 2001 illustrate significant declines in both
mathematics and science in the 1970s followed by increases in composite performance in the
1980s and early 1990s. Since that time, mathematics and science scores have been relatively flat.
In the area of reading, composite scores suggest modest gains but are minimal when compared to
the composite growth over time in the areas of mathematics and science. Modest gains have
again been noted since early 2000 (NCES, 2009).
26

Urban Schools and Achievement Gaps
Gaps within American public education suggest longstanding discrepancies in terms of
educational attainment. These gaps are most notable when examining the underperformance of
certain populations of students factoring for different racial and ethnic minority subgroups,
backgrounds and langauges (Kao and Thompson, 2003; Fryer and Levitt, 2004; Clotfelter, Ladd
& Vigdor, 2006; Stiefel, Schwartz & Ellen, 2006; Kohler and Lazarin, 2007, Gardner, 2007;
Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Gaps in academic achievement can be identified and tracked well
before a child enters school for the first time. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth
Cohort (ECSL-B), administered to a cohort of children born in 2001, was conducted at the ages
of nine months, two years and again at four years in an effort to better understand the
development of early cognitive skills like communication (verbal and non-verbal), listening
comprehension, language, early literacy and number recognition. Gaps in achievement were
most discernable by poverty status and age as children as early as nine months old who were
growing up in poverty scored lower in three of five cognitive areas. These patterns at nine
months become significant differences by two years of age as children growing up in poverty
showed significantly depressed rates of listening comprehension and expressive vocabulary.
These differences again held at age four as children in poverty scored well below their non-
impoverished peers in both early literacy and early mathematics skills (NCES, 2009).
While achievement scores for minority students in the United States have risen since the
early 1970s, the gap in performance between minority and white children has remained constant.
According to 2007 NAEP results, achievement gaps between Black/White subgroups and
Hispanic/White subgroups have remained relatively static when compared to data across the last
four decades (NCES, 2009). Measured in points (score range between 0 and 500), achievement
27

gaps between subgroups at the ages of nine and thirteen on the 2007 NAEP exams are as
follows:
 9 Year Old – Reading Proficiency:
- Black/White gap of 27 points
- Hispanic/White gap of 26 points
 9 Year Old – Mathematics Proficiency:
- Black/White gap of 26 points
- Hispanic/White gap of 21 points
 13 Year Old – Reading Proficiency:
- Black/White gap of 27 points
- Hispanic/White gap of 25 points
 13 Year Old – Mathematics Proficiency:
- Black/White gap of 32 points
- Hispanic/White gap of 26 points
The impact of poverty is additionally noted in the Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS). These gaps in performance are noted at both the school and
individual student levels. In schools where at least 50 percent of the student population is
growing up in poverty, composite scores are significantly lower than the composite scores of
more affluent schools. Additionally, while average scores have improved for students growing
up in poverty in recent years, the gap between students in poverty and their non-impoverished
peers has remained constant due to the overall improvements by all subgroups of students on
related TIMSS exams (Gonzales et al, 2008).
28

Trend data related to the achievement gaps between student subgroups is particularly
troubling to urban school systems in which poverty and minority rates between 60 percent and
70 percent are considered average (Jacob, 2007; Quinn, 2007). Knowing that one in four children
in the United States are attending schools in urban school districts, these gaps are having far
reaching impacts from high school and college graduation rates to eventual career attainment.
Achievement gaps between minority students and students of poverty when compared to their
white peers are historic and in some cases, growing. As Reardon (2011) suggested, the
achievement gaps between children from high and low income families is roughly 30 to 40
percent larger for children born in 2001 than it was for children born twenty-five years earlier.
National Trends in Accountability
Flat or declining educational trends and persistent gaps in student achievement have held
the attention of the American public and policymakers alike. Reform agendas have developed in
every city and state and have as of the mid-1990s, included the White House. In 1994, the
Clinton Administration introduced the Goals 2000: Educate America Act which became the
precursor for a more comprehensive plan introduced by the Bush Administration in 2001. The
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) required evidence of student-by-student progress
including a 100 percent proficiency target for all students in English Language Arts and
Mathematics by the year 2014. As a standards-based reform initiative, NCLB’s associated targets
came with sanctions for underperforming schools that failed to meet state-derived marks for
progress, also referred to as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). As the country fast approaches the
target year of 2014, reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind – Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) by the Obama Administration is expected (Fuller, Gesicki, Kang, &
Wright, 2006; Klein, 2010; United States Department of Education, 2010).
29

Despite marginal progress through standards-based reform, the national attention,
countless studies and thousands of local, state and federal policies suggest that K-12 education in
the United States remains in peril (Roach, 2006). As Symonds (2011) suggested, “millions of
young adults arrive in their mid-20s without a college degree and/or a route to a viable job” (p.
23). As a country, U.S. students are graduating high school at a rate of 70 percent but students
growing up in urban environments are graduating at a rate of roughly 50 percent (Chapman,
Laird, Ifill, & Kewal-Ramani, 2011). This loss of entire generations of children is translating into
adult populations of unemployable workers who do not have the prerequisite skill sets to
compete on an international scale (Friedman, 2005; NCEE, 2007).
Calls for educational reform tend to center on large urban school districts yet conditions
in urban environments, schools and school districts continue to raise concerns. Within urban
environments, household income is less and families can expect increased rates of poverty,
unemployment, property crime and violent crime. Urban schools and school districts are larger
than their suburban or rural peers, have twice the rate of students who receive Free or Reduced
Price Lunch (FRL) and have twice the rate of students who are learning English as a second or
other language (ESL). These challenges disproportionately impact African-American and
Hispanic children as 64 percent of students in urban school districts are minority verses only 32
percent in more suburban schools and districts (Jacob, 2007).
Local Focus: The Roles of Districts and Schools
Schools as a Lever for Change
While reform initiatives and accountability measures at the national level are well known,
the reform efforts of local schools and school districts often produce more student specific
results. Parents and families do not often identify with state or federal actions as the driving
30

initiative behind their child’s classroom success. As previous participants in school systems,
Perkins (2008) found that the views of parents tend to transcend what the current practice may be
within their school of focus. Conversely, parents tend to hold a significantly more positive
perspective of their school’s climate than the perceptions that their children have of the same
school. Even parents in urban districts are generally optimistic and positive about their schools.
Despite performance, one’s local school resides as a symbol of hope for those that the school
serves as education remains the foundation for all future opportunities.
The impact that a school can have on the education of their students is undeniable. From
the effectiveness of a classroom teacher to the structure of support during a literacy block, a
school represents the convergence of countless factors. While research on the characteristics of
high performing schools is abundant, four clear themes emerge from findings on effective
schools. These characteristics include effective classroom teachers, a clear, school-wide
academic focus, data-driven instruction and effective site leadership.
 Effective classroom teachers: The effectiveness of a classroom teacher has been found to
be the most important school-related factor (Nye, Konstantopoulos & Hedges, 2004;
Loeb, Kalogrides & Beteille, 2011). Characteristics of an effective teacher include the
emotional environment they provide students, their instructional skill, their ability to
motivate, their ability to involve all students in their learning, and their management of
the classroom including grading practices (Walls, Nardi, von Miden & Hoffman, 2002;
Takona, 2012).
 Clear, school-wide academic focus: Clear learning goals and a coherent, standards-based
instructional program are vital components of an effective school (Williams, Kirst &
31

Haertel, 2005). A coherent instructional program includes aligned planning, instruction
and assessment practices.
 Data-driven instruction: The use of relevant data was found to be a critical factor in
student achievement and school-wide effectiveness (Marsh et al, 2005). This includes a
teaching staff’s ability to collaboratively plan, implement, assess, analyze and reflect in
an effort to provide students with an individualized instruction (USDOE, 2010).
 Effective site leadership: An effective principal is critical to the success of a school.
Effective instructional leaders provided clear expectations, are goal oriented, and work to
hold themselves and others accountable for student achievement (Williams, Kirst &
Haertel, 2005; Marsh et al., 2005). As Sammons, Hillman and Mortimore (1995)
suggested, “Leadership is not simply about the quality of individual leaders. It is also
about the role that leaders play, their style of management, their relationship to the vision,
values and goals of the school and their approach to change” (p. 19).
As Reardon (2011) suggested, “the relationship between family socioeconomic
characteristics and student achievement is one of the most robust patterns in educational
scholarship, yet the causes and mechanisms of this relationship have been the subject of
considerable disagreement and debate” (p. 4). No matter the challenge, certain schools across the
United States have always been able to respond better to the diverse needs of students. Reeves
(2003) researched such schools and termed the phrase 90/90/90 schools for their ability to
effectively serve student populations that were in excess of 90 percent poverty, 90 percent
minority with 90 percent or high rates of proficiency. While schools impacted by poverty in such
a manner tend to be associated with challenging academic reputations, Reeves found 90/90/90
schools to be similar in their strategic use of research to align curriculum, instruction and
32

assessment. These schools were reported to have five common characteristics relevant to the
success of their students. These characteristics, although the product of independent research, are
similar to those mentioned above for high performing schools in general. The five characteristics
of 90/90/90 schools include a focus on academic achievement, clear curriculum choices, frequent
assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for improvement, an emphasis on
nonfiction writing, and collaborative scoring of student work (Reeves, 2003)
Districts as a Lever for Change
While most families associate student success in a singular manner reflecting the
effectiveness of their home school, districts also play an increasingly significant role in assuring
that every student has access to a quality teaching and learning environment. While there are
many detractors, most schools in the United States are part of a larger district. This is certainly
true for nearly all non-charter public schools in urban areas. Therefore, the role that the district
plays in improving schools is significant (Mac Iver and Farley, 2003; Childress, Elmore &
Grossman, 2006). As Elmore (2000) suggested, “improvement at scale is largely the property of
organizations” as districts have the scale and capacity to bring about system-wide change and
avoid becoming an organization with pockets of excellence amongst a culture of mediocrity (p.
26). While most public schools are not built to function by themselves from a capacity
standpoint, districts can clearly support schools by a nurturing site-based emphasis and reversing
policies and practices that hinder school focused reform (Fullan, 2000). A district’s role can be
particularly crucial for schools that serve high numbers of students who are growing up in
poverty (Snipes, Dolittle & Herlihy, 2002). Aligning district resources to district priorities has
particular importance for high poverty schools that if left unprotected, are more susceptible to
district instability (Elmore, 2003).
33

While the functions and connections of support that school systems provide schools are
innumerable, there are clear internal priorities that exist in school districts that outperform peer
systems (Skrla, Scheurich & Johnson, 2000; Cawelti &Protheroe, 2001; David & Shields, 2001;
McLaughlin et al, 2002; Snipes, Doolittle, and Corinne, 2002; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003;
Togueri & Anderson, 2003; Childress, Elmore & Grossman, 2006; Marsh et al., 2005; Corum &
Schuetz, 2012). Based on research, four broad areas of support are evident in districts that build
and sustain system-wide change. First, high-performing school districts develop and maintain a
shared sense of purpose through common priorities and beliefs. Second, districts maintain a
responsibility for high levels of student learning. Third, districts understand the nature of
sustainability and systematically engage in continuous improvement. Last, high-performing
districts engage in reflective practice and professional development.
Developing and cultivating a shared sense of purpose
As Fullan (2002) suggests, there is a direct relationship between moral purpose and
leadership. From an organizational standpoint, the moral purpose of a district cannot be singular
in nature as it must include the improvement of all schools. In high performing districts, leaders
throughout share an aligned understanding of their moral purpose which often includes the
mindset of a collective sense of success rather than what may be best for one school or group of
schools (Skrla, Scheurich & Johnson, 2000). This ethical calling is often reflected within a
district’s mission and vision but the context of these shared beliefs is rooted in an aligned set of
consistent practices. High performing urban districts share a focus on improving all schools with
special attention provided to the lowest performing schools. Furthermore, Fullan (2002) suggests
that sustained improvement is not possible unless the whole system is moving forward.
34

The development and cultivation of a shared sense of purpose begins with the
superintendent and district leadership (Cawelti & Protheroe, 2001). Included in this purpose are
explicit expectations that become foundational to district goals, plans and initiatives. Goals and
associated targets are explicit, easily understood, and well recognized by all stakeholders
(Snipes, Doolittle and Herlihy, 2002) McLaughlin and Talbert, 2003; Togneri & Anderson,
2003; Corum and Schuetz, 2012). However, as Corum and Scheutz (2012) suggest, this shared
sense of purpose and the common expectations associated with that purpose are not exclusive to
classroom instruction and often directly target any number of areas from a district’s culture to
shared norms for customer service. Courageous leadership that acknowledges deficiencies and
develops a collaborative sense of responsibility is a pervasive characteristic of high-performing
urban schools districts (Togneri & Anderson, 2003)
Maintaining teaching and learning as system-wide priorities
A systemic focus on the classroom is an imperative characteristic of high performing
urban school districts (Cawelti &Protheroe, 2001; McLaughlin et al, 2002; Snipes, Doolittle, and
Corinne, 2002; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Togueri & Anderson, 2003; Corum & Schuetz,
2012). Traditionally viewed as a classroom-based or site-based responsibility, efforts to improve
student achievement through enhanced and prescriptive instructional practices have become a
collaborative responsibility district-wide. This focus, directly connected to a shared sense of
district-wide purpose, begins with the superintendent and is evident throughout the system
(Skrla, Scheurich and Johnson, 2000).
A focus on learning includes more than unified curricular expectations (Snipes, Doolittle
& Herlihy, 2002). As Hargreaves (2003) suggested, it is imperative that students “learn how to
learn” and master “thinking skills.” The ability to continuously learn, create and innovate, work
35

as part of a team, cope with unpredictable environments and communicate effectively in every
regard are vital skills for future success. District-wide practices in this regard include interim
assessments, tiered interventions, and additional funding for students in need (Cawelti &
Protheroe, 2001). As Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy (2002) suggest, a district can better serve
classroom learning by developing a shared sense of instructional coherence. Setting aligned
instructional goals, standards for learning, and instructional objectives creates a consistency of
instruction in every school. In high performing urban districts, this focus on instruction is
coupled with a strict commitment to protect the internal reform agenda from the numerous
measures and initiatives imposed at the state or federal level (Snipes, Doolittle & Herlihy, 2002;
McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003).
Understanding and implementing the practices of continuous improvement
As described by Fullan (2007), reform and the practices of continuous improvement are
directly related. Continuous improvement, often referred to in the business world as a continual
drive to improve products, services or process, is specifically tied to the improvement of student
learning when referred to within the context of education. Continuous improvement is often
incremental but constant in nature and includes the practices of strategic planning, strategic
policy design and reform implementation. Within high performing urban districts, continuous
improvement practices include researched-based reforms, implemented over a sustained period
of time, that directly enhance classroom learning environments on a daily basis (Cawelti &
Protheroe, 2001; Marsh et al., 2005). Strategic initiatives are specific in focus but not entirely
classroom related. Reform initiatives may include enhanced processes that increase district-wide
efficiency (David & Shields, 2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Reform initiatives are also
designed to be sustainable and produce positive results over time. As Togneri and Anderson
36

(2003) suggest, making a difference takes years if not decades. The continuous improvements of
effective reforms are best sustained across stable periods of time. These periods of stability can
endure a change of leadership but not a dramatic overhaul of district priorities.
Often noted elements within the framework of continuous improvement in education are
practices associated with accountability. As defined by Rothstein (2008), accountability in public
education requires schools “to pursue the goals established by the people and their
representatives through the democratic processes, and to achieve these goals to the extent
possible by using the most effective strategies available” (p. 1). In addition, high performing
urban school districts understand the nature of accountability and have finite views on what
students need to learn and how educators are to monitor student growth and progress (Skrla,
Scheurich & Johnson, 2000; David & Shields, 2001; Snipes, Doolittle & Herlihy, 2002). These
districts understand the demands of federal and state accountability measures and have designed
internal assessment platforms accordingly. Assessment is designed to inform classroom
instruction not replace classroom instruction. Districts are careful in their practices of mandating
specific assessments and as David and Shields (2001) suggest, best practices in this regard
require the demonstration of what has been learned beyond checking one of several choices.
Engaging in reflective practice and professional development
When considering traditional professional development, many teachers and site-based
staff have developed a skeptical view of school reform and have become wary of agendas that
change every few years only to boast of the new “best way” (Lieberman and Miller, 2000).
Traditional reflective practice and professional development strategies have tended to focus
exclusively on individual behavior in terms of instructional practices, behavior management
techniques, and planning related applications (Takona, 2012). High performing urban districts
37

understand these views and the need to align development strategies in ways that are both
relevant and applicable (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). As Togneri and Anderson (2003)
recognized, high performing districts keep student learning the priority and understood that “a
clear vision, curricular coherence, and improved data and accountability systems were unlikely
to have much impact unless teachers in the classroom learned how to use these supports to
improve instruction for individual students” (p. 23).
High performing urban districts are also keenly aware of their responsibility to develop
capacity system-wide through a targeted and dynamic framework of professional development
that includes, teachers, support staff and administrators (David and Shields, 2001; McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2003; Corum & Schuetz, 2012). Professional development is specifically aligned to both
district priorities and strategic initiatives and utilizes internally developed research-based
principles to guide associated developmental practices (Snipes, Doolittle and Herlihy, 2002,
Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Additionally, reflective practices and professional development
opportunities are often site or practice-based, responsive to teacher perceptions and value the
insight and expertise of teachers and support staff (David and Shields, 2001, McLaughlin et al,
2002; Marsh et al., 2005; Corum & Schuetz, 2012).
District Leadership

Developing Role of the Superintendent
Like all other organizations, schools and school districts do not improve or reform
themselves by accident. As suggested by Teach for America founder Windy Kopp at a Harvard
University forum on March 11, 2010, “the large-scale change needed (in public schools) is
unbelievably difficult to tackle, but it does not require magic” (Brooks, 2010). Kopp’s assertion
that leadership is the driver of needed change in public education is not an exclusive view as
38

district leadership has become increasingly critical component of district reform (Marsh &
Robyn, 2006). Such leadership is “transformative” and as Quinn and Keith (2011) suggested, if
there is one silver bullet in leading successful reform, it is leadership and the effectiveness of
people at all levels of an organization. This leadership begins with the district superintendent but
the role of an urban superintendent may be amongst the most challenging positions in the United
States (Lashway, 2002; Fuller et al, 2003).
When considering the role of a district leader, much has changed since Oliver G. Steele
became the nation’s first district superintendent some 175 years ago. Modern superintendents are
no longer considered mere managers of district resources and personnel. Superintendents in this
reform-driven age of accountability must be keenly aware of the multiple influences or systems
impacting their district. As Fullan (2005) stated, “Systems change on an ongoing basis only if
you have enough leaders who are system thinkers. This is what is meant by ‘thinking outside the
box.’ If you think context, you change context” (p. 29). Their role as the district’s chief decision
maker has a strong influence on policy, curriculum, reform initiatives, school board relations,
budgetary decisions, resource allocation, facility development, employee satisfaction, and
community perception. Lashway (2002) described the conflicting forces that a superintendent
must consider with every decision.
As instructional leaders, they bear ultimate responsibility for improving student
achievement. As managerial leaders, they have to keep their districts operating
efficiently, with a minimum of friction, yet taking risks to make necessary
changes. As political leaders, they have to negotiate with multiple stakeholders to
get approval for programs and resources (p. 2).
39

While system-level understanding is imperative, it is also important that superintendents
remain closely involved in their district’s core mission of teaching and learning. As Elmore
(2000) suggested, high performing superintendents are knowledgeable about and key innovators
of changes in curriculum and classroom instruction. Additionally, Kowalski (2005) referred to
the modern superintendent as both a manager and a teacher-scholar suggesting that district
leadership directly impacts teaching and learning throughout a district. Houston (2001) described
the challenge of the superintendent’s role as pushing beyond accountability, standards and test
scores to what he termed the “the demanding Ds” of demographics and growing diversity.
Leading in a manner that ensures that every student is provided the resources they require to
learn at high levels is an opportunity that squarely rests on the shoulders of the superintendent
and speaks directly to a leader’s moral purpose.
While regularly questioned, the impact that a superintendent has on the quality of
teaching and learning in their district is statistically significant (Waters & Marzano, 2006). With
a correlation of 0.24, a positive change of just one standard deviation in terms of the
effectiveness of a superintendent’s leadership would enhance student achievement scores
district-wide nearly 10 percentile points. While leadership in public education is complicated by
numerous internal and external forces, the straightforward end goal of student achievement
encourages explicit goals transparent accountability practices (Broad Foundation & Fordham
Institute, 2003). Furthermore, Waters and Marzano (2006) found five goal-oriented leadership
responsibilities to be statistically significant in their collective impact on student achievement.
These responsibilities include a superintendent’s leadership in district-wide goal setting, non-
negotiable expectations for classroom instruction and student achievement, strategic resource
40

allocation, the manner in which instruction and achievement are monitored, and the degree in
which the Board of Education is aligned with district goals and priorities.
While the leadership role of the superintendent is challenging, the convergence of
complicating factors in urban school districts exacerbates the difficult nature of the job. As
Alsbury and Whitaker (2007) suggested, district leaders, particularly in large urban districts, are
well aware of the impacts of poverty within their districts. Efforts to provide all students with the
educational opportunities they deserve despite out-of-school circumstances points to the
awareness and sense of purpose needed to successfully lead an urban school system. This sense
of social justice in transformational leadership is critical in ensuring that students from varied
racial, socioeconomic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds have equal opportunities to succeed
(Brown, 2004; Theoharis, 2007).
Leadership, Change and Sustainability
While it is not hard to find examples of reform initiatives that have produced impressive
results in urban school districts, these examples all too often chronicle short term successes
(Reeves, 2007). Sustained reform that leads to dramatic progress in raising student achievement
across the board and reducing achievement gaps is more difficult to identify and as some have
suggested, nearly impossible when schools and school districts bear sole responsibility. As
Rothstein (2010) suggested, “Improving lower-class childrens’ learning requires ameliorating the
social and economic conditions of their lives” (p. 288). While there is no silver bullet in school
reform, research suggests clear leadership practices associated with sustainable results (Fullan,
2002; Fullan, 2005; Quinn & Keith, 2011).
As Fullan (2005) suggests, there are eight elements associated with sustained results
through educational leadership practices. These elements include the following:
41

1. Public service with a moral purpose
2. Commitment to changing context at all levels
3. Literal capacity building through networks
4. Intelligent accountability and vertical relationships (encompassing both capacity building
and accountability).
5. Deep learning
6. Dual commitment to short-term and long-term results
7. Cyclical energizing
8. The long lever of leadership
Fullan’s eight elements of sustainability mirror the characteristics of successful districts
in terms of a shared sense of purpose and a similar value of learning, continuous development
and accountability. Fullan’s eighth element, the long lever of leadership, requires a high level of
resonance and as Fullan suggests, “If a system is to be mobilized in the direction of
sustainability, leadership at all levels must be the primary engine” (p. 27). While reform is
consistent topic of conversation in public education, it is the sustainability of reform efforts that
leads to the long-term results that most impact student learning in a meaningful manner. As
Hargreaves and Fink (2006) suggested, sustainable leadership must become a fundamental
priority in school systems engaged in change.
District Leadership Strategies
A number of leadership tools and frameworks have been developed over the past few
decades in an effort to improve the effectiveness of leadership in urban school districts. Many of
these frameworks are the collaborative results of successful district reforms and the leadership
practices associated with those reforms. From traditional universities to non-profit organizations
42

founded to improve public schooling, suggestions of successful leadership practices abound.
This study analyzed the practices of three specific models; the Coherence Framework from
Harvard University’s Public Education Leadership Project (PELP), the Leadership Framework
from Harvard University’s Urban Superintendents Program (USPL), and the House Model
utilized by the Broad Superintendents Academy.
Public Education Leadership Project Coherence Framework (PELP)
The Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University developed their
Coherence Framework to assist urban school district leaders connect key elements of district-
wide reform. Developed to help leaders recognize the interdependence of various aspects of their
school district, the framework aims to ensure the alignment of resources, systems, structures,
culture, and stakeholders (Childress, S., Elmore, R., Grossman, A., & Johnson, S., 2009).
Aligning these elements around a common set of strategies to improve teaching and learning, the
PELP framework strives to achieve and sustain district-wide coherence through the following:
1. Connecting the instructional core with a district-wide strategy for improvement;
2. Highlighting district elements that can support or hinder effective implementation;
3. Identifying interdependence among district elements; and
4. Recognizing forces in the environment that have an impact on the implementation of the
strategy (Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University, website, 2012).

43

Figure 2.1: The PELP Coherence Framework

Source: Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University (Adapted from Tushman and
O’Reilly’s Congruence Model, 2002).
While not a defined set of practices or strategies, the PELP Coherence Framework pulls
from both business and educational research and is more organizational in nature (Childress, S.,
Elmore, R., Grossman, A., & Johnson, S., 2009). Through the recognition of the research
regarding the value of system-wide alignment, the framework stresses a cohesive environment
within districts to ensure that leaders understand how their decisions impact the effectiveness of
others, particularly those most responsible for teaching and learning. Keeping student learning a
priority, the PELP Coherence Model establishes a three-pronged instructional core by
prioritizing the interdependent factors of teacher knowledge and skill, academically challenging
content and the degree in which students are engaged in their own learning.
Urban Superintendents Program Leadership (USPL) Framework
Like the PELP Coherence Framework, the Urban Superintendents Program Leadership
(USPL) framework prioritizes teachers, students and content as an instructional core. Developed
44

by the Urban Superintendents Program at Harvard University, the USPL Framework was utilized
by that program to train future superintendents of urban districts. The framework is an
interdependent model that is organizational in nature. As Leverett (2011) describes:
“(The framework) provides a comprehensive approach for leading and managing
system-wide efforts to improve academic outcomes; foster collaboration across all
stakeholders; pursue aggressive actions to plan, implement, and sustain an
aligned, coherent focus on the improvement of the instructional core; and support
accountability systems that are reciprocal and consistently applied across the
entire school district organization” (p. 2).
Figure 2.2: The USPL Framework

Source: Peterkin, R., Jewell-Sherman, D., Kelley, L., & Boozer, L. Every child, every classroom,
every day: School leaders who are making equity a reality (2011).
Founded on the district-wide pillars of equity, collaboration, accountability and
policy/practices, the USPL Framework recognizes both internal and external factors that impact
45

district, school and classroom performance. Created for use by urban superintendents, the
framework demands that a district leader has a sound knowledge of the instructional core. The
framework requires that all district leaders weigh their decisions against a potential impact to the
classroom. The Urban Superintendent Program concluded that if district-wide decisions are made
in a manner that prioritizes the instructional core, related decisions will lead to sustainable,
whole-system change across all levels of the organization (Leverett, 2011).
Broad Superintendents Academy HOUSE Model
The Broad Superintendents Academy utilizes their HOUSE Model as a conceptual
framework to prepare both traditional and non-traditional leaders for the rigors of becoming an
urban superintendent. The model, which provides a visual representation for system-wide reform
strategies, centers on the three key outcomes of increased student achievement, the closing of
achievement gaps and improved college and workplace readiness (Marsh & Castruita, 2008).
Figure 2.3: HOUSE Model

46

The House Model is built upon the three pillars of instructional alignment, operational
excellence and stakeholder management. Each pillar represents a significant focus area within
the Broad Superintendents Academy curriculum and includes the following reform strategies
(The Broad Superintendents Academy, 2012).
Instructional alignment:
 Standards: Raising overall student achievement and eliminating achievement gaps using
research-based strategies
 Assessment: Developing systems to assess and improve the quality of instruction
 Program effectiveness: Appropriate use of student assessment data
 Curriculum: Reviewing curriculum and instructional material
 Professional Development: Assessing professional development impact
Operational excellence:
 Human resources: Recruitment, hiring and evaluation
 Resources alignment: Multi-year budgeting and equitable allocation of resources
 Facilities: Fair and transparent maintenance and capital improvement processes
 Performance management and accountability: Performance management systems
 Operations: Improving the effectiveness of business operations services
Stakeholder engagement:
 Communications: Working effectively with the media to communicate good news and
build community understanding of work
 Governance: Strategic partnering with the school board to advance district priorities
 Labor relations: Maintaining labor-management partnerships aligned to student
achievement goals
47

 Political relationships: Partnering with key stakeholders to support the district’s work
 Philanthropic and institutional partnerships: Fundraising aligned with overall strategy
 Family and community: Forging relationships with parents and the community
In addition to the three pillars, associated leadership strategies are included within the
model. These strategies include the formation of an entry plan for a superintendent new to a
district, an emphasis on an aligned theory of action, project planning, data utilization and the
creation of an all-encompassing strategic plan that outlines goals, targets, strategies and
initiatives (Takata, Marsh, & Castruita, 2007; Marsh & Castruita, 2008; The Broad
Superintendents Academy, 2012). The superintendent’s entry plan and 10 specific elements of
the House Model are key elements of this study. The ten House Model elements selected for this
study are listed below. Research associated with superintendent entry plans and each of the
selected elements follows.
 Assessment
 Communications
 Curriculum
 Family and Community
 Finance and Budget
 Governance
 Human Resources
 Labor Relations
 Professional Development
 Strategic Planning

48

Entry Plan
A good entry plan can be viewed as both offense and defense for an entering
superintendent. True to the name, an entry plan charts the course for a new superintendent and
sets a strategic direction for leadership efforts across the first three months. The value of a
quality entry plan can be significant to an entering superintendent when well-intentioned
decisions can accidently produce catastrophic results. As Appelbaum, Molson, & Valero (2007)
suggested:
Most executive failures are not the results of commonly cited causes, such as
insufficient intelligence, questionable motivation, dishonestly, or even lack of
leadership capabilities. Most top executives actually have the intellect, skills and
experience to lead their companies through the inevitable challenges they
encounter. It turns out that softer issues, such as communication mishap,
misaligned expectations, and the notion that you have to be the savior are more
often than not the real culprits, especially in the early days (p. 1).

In addition, an entry plan defends a superintendent from needless compromises and
conflicts as it assists leaders in withstanding the pressure of premature change by demanding the
collection of data and the development of relationships as priorities (Jentz, & Murphy, 2005).
Entry plans are designed to be collaborative in nature as entering superintendent’s work with key
groups to draft, revise, publish and publicize a plan that will guide leader’s initial actions within
a district (Boozer, 2011). The process is not one of isolation and can assist leaders in building
public consensus.
Entry plans demand the collection and use both quantitative and qualitative data in an
effort to ensure that leaders are not susceptible to premature decisions (Jentz & Wofford, 2008;
Boozer, 2011). Jentz and Murphy (2005) encouraged new leaders to embrace the confusion and
instability present in a leadership transition by utilizing a process entitled Reflective Inquiry and
Action (RIA). By beginning with an acceptance of environmental confusion, leaders are
49

encouraged to assert their need to make sense, structure meaningful and varied interaction, listen
reflectively to learn, and openly process information to build towards a shared sense of direction.
The RIA process, while valuable at any point in a superintendent’s tenure, is particularly helpful
upon entry when the value of different data points can be difficult to gauge.
This planning process begins with the design of an entry plan to include goals, targets and
associated actions. After seeking feedback and consensus from key stakeholders including
members of the Board of Education, entering superintendents share the plan publically. A
listening and learning tour of sorts should follow as leaders begin holding interviews and making
site visits in earnest. Finally, in an effort to make sense of what has been learned, leaders are
encouraged to convene collaborative meetings that result in actionable goals (Jentz & Wofford,
2008; Boozer, 2011).
Strategic Plan
For urban superintendents, the “honeymoon” period is notoriously short as challenges
and associated expectations are often immense (Quinn & Keith, 2011). A thoughtful, thorough
and well-executed strategic plan is vital to the success of urban leaders and their districts. The
strategic plan defines the aligned mission, vision, needs, goals and efforts of a district. Used
effectively, the plan provides the foundation and direction for all future work within a system
(Quinn & Keith, 2011).
With roots as a planning mechanism for the military in the 1960s and 1970s, strategic
planning is now a practice widely used by nearly every organization (Sullivan & Richardson,
2011). Synonymous with reform, public school districts began the practice of strategic planning
in a broad manner in the 1980s (Schmoker, 2004). Unfortunately, as Kotter (2007) concluded, a
substantial number of organizations fail to make positive changes as a result of their strategic
50

planning for a variety of reasons including a systemic lack of urgency, diminished buy in, and an
unclear or unknown vision.
The integrated model in figure 4 was designed specifically to illustrate key elements
associated with strategic planning. Created by Sullivan and Richardson (2011), this linked
framework provides a visual framework for the role of strategic planning within a continuously
improving organization. Driven by a system’s mission, vision, guiding principles, inputs, data
(qualitative and quantitative) and goals, the strategic plan includes target outcomes, initiatives
and associated timelines. For entering superintendents, the translated learning of an entry plan
should inform intended efforts and outcomes. A quality plan ensures both alignment and
accountability and internally recognizes and removes barriers for achieving desired results
(Schmoker, 2004; Reeves, 2007; Peterkin, R., Jewell-Sherman, D., Kelley, L., & Boozer, L.,
2011).
Figure 2.4: Linked strategy planning, practice and continuous assessment

Source: Sullivan and Richardson, (2011).
Research regarding successful strategic planning suggests a three-phase process (Chang,
2008). This process begins with a careful analysis of the district including system-wide strengths,
51

weaknesses, lessons and opportunities. The second phase, policy design, is the practice of setting
forth the foundational mission, vision, and theory of actions follow as districts begin setting
goals and creating aligned objectives (Sullivan & Richardson, 2011). The third phase involves
creating an action plan that, as Chang (2008) suggests, “aims to translate into operational terms
the policy directions that education authorities intend to implement in a given time horizon” (p.
6). Preparing for and creating the systems for implementation works to directly align district
resources and efforts (Hargreaves, 2003).
Assessment
Commonly associated with accountability, assessment has been traditionally defined as
the wide range of methods used to evaluate the attainment and application of knowledge (Gripps,
1998). However, as Buffum, Mattos and Weber (2012) argued, assessment should be convergent
in nature and include the “ongoing process of collectively analyzing targeted evidence to
determine the specific learning needs of each child and the effectiveness of the instruction the
child receives in meeting these needs” (p. 77). As Fullan (1999) suggested, a rigorous district-
wide accountability system is essential as it informs instruction, shapes policy and provides a
leader with the tools to ensure school-by-school reform. An accountability system and the
associated assessment elements must adhere to a fine line of pressure and support. As Leverett
(2011) contends, “All pressure + no support = no change” but “all support + no pressure = no
change” (p. 10).
Over the last two decades, national reforms and state-by-state standards of learning have
placed the practice of assessment in the national spotlight. While standards-based, summative
assessments are commonly quoted as evidence of student achievement, assessments range in
both function and format. Aligned with both the strategic direction and curriculum of a district,
52

assessment must be driven by a system-wide instructional focus. By nature, assessments are
designed to help stakeholders focus on the bottom-line of student achievement. Summative
examinations associated with both state and federal mandates tend to measure student
performance against standards-based expectations. Local assessments, ranging from district to
school-based exams, include a wider scope and range from formative to summative, formal to
informal, and selected-response to performance-based (Fuhrman & Elmore, 2004; Marzano,
2010).
A cohesive, district-wide accountability system is vital to ensuring that assessments
inform classroom instruction (Schmoker, 2004). As Bambrick-Santoyo (2010) stated,
“Assessment is the first core principle of data-driven instruction” (p. 6). Aligned with district,
school and student goals, assessments provide educators with data to inform instructional
practices and improve student learning. Traditionally the last step in the learning process, a
balanced assessment platform includes targeted assessments prior to learning, throughout
instruction and as a follow-up to gauge student progress (Herman & Dietel, 2008; Bambrick-
Santoyo, 2010). The processes that districts and schools put in place to utilize student-by-student
data are vital to the effectiveness of classroom assessments. Processes, including the three-phase,
eight-step Data Wise process, are designed to aid educators in data analysis (Boudette, City &
Murnane, 2005). Increased access to student data provides educators with the opportunities
needed to collaboratively analyze and gauge student performance and design prescriptive
learning experiences according to identified areas of need.
Curriculum
Curriculum is commonly referred to as the set of instructional materials in a classroom.
While an associated set of classroom books and teacher instructional materials are considered
53

parts of the curriculum, the larger definition includes all materials used for instructional
purposes. These materials often include both consumable and non-consumable student materials
such as workbooks and textbooks and teacher materials including district pacing guides (Schmidt
et al, 2001; Marzano, 2002). With the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, curriculum is often
aligned with standards for learning (Hamilton et al, 2007). Curriculum is closely associated with
the instructional core of a district and a strong system-wide curriculum has been found to be one
of the most critical factors in classroom learning (Schmidt et al, 2001; Anderson, 2003; Togneri
& Anderson, 2003). These elements are vital to school and district reform efforts as changes in
the effectiveness of the instructional core are the primary lever for increasing student learning
and performance (City, Elmore, Fiarman & Teitel, 2010).
In addition to alignment, the fidelity of a district’s curriculum has a significant impact on
student learning and achievement. As Marzano (2002) stated, “Once the essential information
and skills for a unit of instruction have been identified, individual teachers should not have the
option of disregarding or replacing that content” (p. 8). Gaps between curriculum and learning
are associated with a number of factors including the effectiveness of classroom instruction
(DeFour and Marzano, 2009). Within each classroom, clear distinctions exist between the
intended curriculum (what should be taught); the implemented curriculum (what is actually
taught); and the attained curriculum (what students learn) (Marzano, 2003). Closely associated
with professional development, gaps between curriculum, instruction and learning
disproportionately impact urban schools and districts as student needs tend to be more substantial
than peer schools and districts in suburban or rural areas. (Teale, Paciga & Hoffman, 2007).

54

Professional Development
Professional development refers to the act of bettering oneself professional by acquiring
the skills and knowledge needed to improve job-related effectiveness. Well-constructed
professional development opportunities improve teacher effectiveness and urban superintendents
understand the value of a quality professional development program in enhancing classroom
instruction (David and Shields, 2001; Desimone et al, 2002; Fuller et al, 2003; McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Corum & Schuetz, 2012). Effective professional
development is a vital component in strategies used to reduce and eliminate achievement gaps as
a multifaceted teacher development program aids in closing the aforementioned gaps between
curriculum, instruction and learning (Kennedy, 2010).
As Desimone (2009) suggested, there is consensus research that cites a core set of
characteristics specific to effective professional development. While alignment with district
goals and priorities is essential, professional development opportunities must recognize both the
needs of the learner and the needs of the teacher (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Elements of
effective professional development include the following characteristics.
 Content focus: Effective professional development includes a finite focus on the content
of subject matter and how students learn and recall that content.
 Active learning: As with students, participant engagement in professional development is
necessary as teachers should have opportunities to become actively involved in their
learning.
 Coherence: A correlation between individualized student needs and the goals of the
district is an important function of an effective professional development program as
55

associated learning should be consistent with other professional development
opportunities and aligned with site and district priorities and long-term goals.
 Duration: Effective professional development opportunities should be consistent across
time and should include no less than 20 hours of learning time.
 Collective participation: Collaboration across the district is an important function of
professional development. Learning opportunities should be inclusively designed to
involve teachers from similar grades, subjects, or schools in an effort to build a more
cohesive and interactive instructional staff.
Human Resource Systems and Human Capital Management
When considering the outcome of student achievement, no other school related factor has
a more significant impact than the quality of the classroom teacher (Nye, Konstantopoulos &
Hedges, 2004; Loeb, Kalogrides & Beteille, 2011). Urban superintendents understand and value
this relationship and in recent years, have placed an even greater emphasis on ensuring the
effectiveness of adults on behalf of children. This emphasis has had a considerable impact on
human resource systems and district-wide philosophies regarding human capital management.
When taking into consideration the human capital impacts of teacher placement and
mobility on student achievement, factors facing urban school systems raise concerns. Large
urban districts tend to include schools with high mobility rates and disproportionately weaker
teacher qualifications than those in more affluent districts (Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler,
2007; Jacob, 2007; Ingersoll, 2009; Plecki et al, 2009; Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2011).
Consequently, recruitment, hiring, retention and incentive strategies in large urban schools
systems tend to consider factors that are not as relevant for other peer districts in suburban or
rural areas (Ingersoll, 2009). These factors include administrator support, the lack of quality
56

induction and support programs for new teachers, diminished collegial support, increased class
size, decreased teacher autonomy, increased accountability related to school underperformance,
declining school facilities and a lack of consistent parent and community involvement. Such
factors, which lead to increased teacher instability and turnover, disproportionately impact
schools in urban environments (Milanowski et al, 2009; Feng, Figlio & Sass, 2011).
Strategic investments in human capital can aid reform and improvement in large urban
school systems. Research indicates several key strategies utilized by effective human resource
systems including, as Jacob (2007) termed, the differentiation of supply-oriented strategies and
demand-oriented strategies. Supply-oriented strategies include a deliberate focus on teacher
recruitment and hiring, the development of mentor programs, the improvement of working
environments, the development of alternative pathways into teaching, and consistent efforts to
enhance employee compensation. Demand-oriented strategies include site-based or decentralized
hiring and the system-wide implementation of policies and practices that support the dismissal of
ineffective educators. In addition, improving hiring practices by utilizing strategies like
prescreened “pools” of applicants and streamlined job offer practices increase a district’s
opportunity to better identify and hire quality teachers (Milanowski, 2004; Jacob, 2007; Jackson
& Bruegmann, 2009; Plecki et al, 2009; Weisberg et al, 2009).
Finance and Budget
Aligning and managing the limited means of school system budgets is an ongoing
challenge that district leaders must be constantly mindful of as the scrutiny of public funding
requires both transparent and highly ethical leadership (Fuller et al, 2003). As Childress, Elmore
and Grossman (2006) suggested, “Schools are not businesses” (p. 2) as the complexity of forces
impacting public education places demands on leadership to educate students at high levels while
57

considering the divergent opinions of parents, elected officials and other associated stakeholders.
While keeping student learning a priority, superintendents must build and manage their district
budgets in a manner that prioritizes the needs of students and teachers, considers the demands of
the public, and meets the approval of school board members. The transparency that leadership in
this regard demands requires consistent communication, an openness to public scrutiny and an
ability to build trust across an organization (Bird, Wang & Murray, 2009).
As Childress et al (2007) stated, “Districts are also rethinking how financial resources
flow throughout the organization so that they are more coherent with the strategy and more likely
to produce desired outcomes” (p. 10). Strategies employed by districts to maximize funding on
behalf of student achievement include zero-based budgeting, site-based budgeting and the
weighing of certain factors within allocation models in an effort to prioritize specific needs. The
most common of the weighting strategies is weighted student funding which commonly regards
needs associated with poverty to ensure additional resources for schools with larger subgroups of
economically disadvantaged students (Rubenstein, Schwartz & Stiefel, 2006; Ladd, 2008).
Linked to site-based management, this weighted approach can increase a schools per-pupil
funding, student-to-staff ratios or access to needed programs (Archer, 2004). While such
strategies prioritize investing for equity, they do not call for the equal distribution of resources.
While such strategies invite debate, district leaders can utilize them effectively when weighted
priorities are well aligned with district goals and priorities (Ladd, 2008; Plecki et al, 2009).
Communications
Given the internal and external factors that impact public education, school systems and
leaders must employ a wide range of communication strategies that consider the needs of their
publics. This coalition building is vital to the aligned direction of a district and as Childress et al
58

stated, “District leaders must either persuade a majority of stakeholder groups to back the
strategy or, at the very least, secure the backing of one or two with enough power to prevent the
others from becoming a disruptive force” (p. 11). Effective communication builds relationships
and trust between both internal and external stakeholders (Fuller et al, 2003). This sense of trust
is important in day-to-day management of the district but vital in times of crisis (Carr, 2006).
As Fullan (2005) suggests, effective communication is both direct and indirect. Direct
communications, those that relay information in a straightforward manner, are traditionally
considered part of a district’s communication plan. Indirect communication, on the other hand, is
relationship oriented. This type of communication is both cultural and ongoing and becomes
increasingly important when a district and community are required to come together to make
collective improvements. Inconsistency in indirect communication erodes the long-term nature
required to build trust between school districts and their communities (Carr, 2006b). Effective
communication plans recognize this need for a multifaceted approach and move beyond the mere
reporting of facts (Carr, 2006).
Governance and Board Relations
The important of governance and board relations cannot be understated and serves as one
the greatest challenges for an urban superintendent (Houston, 2001; Fuller et al, 2003). As one of
the few hires that a Board of Education makes within a district, the superintendent effectively
reports to the members of the board unless the district is governed by mayoral control or another
similar reporting structure. The National School Boards Association (2012), in collaboration
with the work of Gemberling, Smith & Villani (2009), created an eight element framework for
district governance around the priority of student achievement. This framework defines eight
interrelated areas of focus that include vision, standards, assessment, alignment, culture,
59

collaboration, community engagement and continuous improvement. Research from the Center
for Public Education (Barth, 2011) concurs with these areas of focus and suggests eight
characteristics of effective school boards as follows:
 Effective school boards commit to a vision of high expectations for student achievement
and quality instruction and defines clear goals toward that vision.
 Effective school boards have a strong sense of shared beliefs and values about what is
possible for students and their ability to learn, and of the system and its ability to teach all
children at high levels.
 Effective school boards are accountability driven, spending less time on operational
issues and more time focused on policies to improve student achievement.
 Effective school boards have a collaborative relationship with staff and the community
and establish a strong communications structure to inform and engage both internal and
external stakeholders in setting and achieving district goals.
 Effective school boards are data savvy: they embrace and monitor data, even when
information is negative, and use it to drive continuous improvement.
 Effective school boards align and sustain resources, such as professional development, to
meet district goals.
 Effective school boards lead as a united team with the superintendent, each from their
respective roles, with strong collaboration and mutual trust.
 Effective school boards take part in team development and training, sometimes with their
superintendents, to build a shared knowledge, values and commitments for their
improvement efforts.
60

Alignment between school boards, superintendents, staff and the community is a
characteristic of particular importance (Marzano & Waters, 2006). As Barth (2011) termed, a
“united team” (p. 28) of superintendent and a board ensures an alignment of system-wide
priorities. This differentiation of policy from administration further develops the collaborative
partnership needed between staff and the governance structure of a district (Land, 2002). This
continuous relationship building, while internally important, is not limited to staff and should be
utilized to build an aligned vision across the communities that a board, superintendent and
district serve (McAdams, 2006).
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
Few annual experiences are more challenging for a superintendent than labor relations
and contract negotiations. When considering such situations, Hewitt stated, “The world of
collective bargaining seems to defy everything that we assume governs human behavior” (p. 26).
Constrained by national, state and local reforms, labor relations have been altered over the last
two decades by both internal and external pressures (Cooper & Liotta, 2001; Johnson et al,
2008). Coupled with an aging workforce and increasingly constrained resources, labor relations
and contract negotiations have developed a new sense of urgency in recent years.
As Ingram and Snyder (2008) suggest, “the negotiation process cannot succeed without
informed leadership, equipped with the skills to plan and implement a sound strategy at the
(negotiation) table” (p. 30). Research in the area of labor negotiations points to a number of
successful practices. These practices include the development of collaborative goals, the
establishment of common expectations and a commitment to consistent communication from
both sides (Hewitt, 2007). Decisions agreed upon in such negotiations often impact
superintendents and may restrict their ability to hire, place, develop, retain or reduce district
61

employees. In urban districts, increased accountability and constrained resources have
heightened awareness of labor agreements and contracts. While superintendents do not always
play a central role in formal negotiations between labor unions and their associated school
boards, understanding the process, roles, views and desired outcomes of each group of
stakeholders is important to maintaining a district-wide focus (Prosise & Himes, 2002).
Family and Community Engagement
Educators understand well the relationship between family involvement and student
achievement in school (Henderson and Mapp, 2002; Epstein and Sanders, 2006). A highly
collaborative relationship in this regard has been correlated with high grades, high graduation
rates and better college attendance rates. In addition, the positive motivation that meaningful
parental involvement and consistent home-school expectations has on a child is significant (Fan
& Williams, 2010). As one of the strongest predictors of school success, meaningful parental
involvement has become an area of significant focus for both schools and districts (Mapp, 2011).
While two-way communication between schools and parents is a vital component,
successful practices for parental engagement extend beyond the timely sharing of information.
Efforts including regular attendance at school events, regular assistance with homework, and
regular monitoring of academic progress were all correlated to enhanced levels of student
achievement (Henderson and Mapp, 2002). However, a meta-analysis by Jeynes (2010) found
that the most powerful aspects of parental involvement are subtle and include such factors and
maintaining high expectations of one’s children, communicating consistently with children, and
the nature of a parent’s childrearing practices. These more subtle factors can be both encouraged
and modeled by schools as environmental factors including efforts to value parents are positively
62

correlated with how often parents are on campus and involved in a meaningful manner with the
academic efforts of their children (Jeynes, 2005).
Preparation for Leadership and Reform of Urban Districts
Superintendent Preparation
Leadership at the system level is an imperative factor to district success and student
achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Yet, the task of preparing leaders for superintendent
positions in large, urban school districts remains an understandable challenge. The
synchronization of theory and actual practice for a leadership role with innumerable challenges
causes the accuracy of preparation to be a difficult aspect to consider. A vast amount of research
pertaining to programs that specialize in the preparation of educational leaders focuses on
principals and not superintendents (Kowalski, Petersen & Fusarelli, 2011). This is
understandable considering the sheer numbers of principals to superintendents nationwide. This
challenge is compounded by the scale and scope of challenges within urban systems. Large,
urban school districts are in the minority yet they educate a disproportionate number of the
nation’s students by comparison to their smaller, more suburban or rural peer districts (Kowalski,
2006). As national attention on education in urban districts has evolved, so too have the
traditional and non-traditional preparation programs that ready future superintendents for the
complexity of challenges they will face in leading large urban districts.
Traditional Programs
Traditional superintendent preparation programs are often university-based and
connected in some regard to a degree or certification (Kowalski, 2008). Nationally, there are
approximately 600 educational leadership programs and while not all of these programs pertain
to the preparation of superintendents, few are specific to the needs of urban district leadership
63

(Kowalski et al, 2011). One of the original programs specific to urban leadership was Harvard
University’s Urban Superintendents Program (USP). Beginning in 1990, the USP served as a
national example of a university-based, superintendent preparation program that focused on the
complex needs of urban schools and districts. With the final USP cohort in 2009, the Harvard
Graduate School of Education built upon their urban-focused curriculum in initiating a Doctor of
Educational Leadership (Ed.L.D.) program in 2010. A three-year program, the Ed.L.D. program
combines traditional coursework with a third year, paid internship within a variety of
organizations including urban public school systems, departments of education, nonprofit or
philanthropic organizations, and mission-based for-profits companies (Anderson, 2010; Harvard
University Graduate School of Education website, 2012).
Like Harvard’s transition to an urban focused program for superintendents, prestigious
universities, particularly in urban environments, have worked to tailor preparation programs to
better prepare future superintendents. Well regarded programs with an urban focus include
Columbia University’s (Teachers College) Urban Education Leaders program, Vanderbilt
University’s (Peabody College) Ph.D. in Teaching, Learning and Diversity, University of
Southern California’s (Rossier School of Education) Ph.D. in Urban Education Policy, Michigan
State University’s Urban Immersion Fellowship and the University of Maryland’s Minority and
Urban Education (EDIC) program.
Non-Traditional Programs
While a majority of traditionally trained superintendents cite being effectively equipped
for their roles as the system leader, the need for specially prepared urban leaders has initiated a
number of non-traditional programs (Kowalski et al, 2011). Non-traditional programs including
The Supes Academy and The Broad Superintendents Academy were created to train both
64

traditional and non-traditional leaders for the rigors of becoming an urban superintendent. The
Broad Foundation’s Broad Superintendents Academy is largely considered the nation’s most
well regarded non-traditional preparation program for urban school system leaders (Quinn,
2007). Part of the Broad Center for the Management of School Systems, the Broad
Superintendents Academy has been training both traditional and non-traditional leaders since its
initial cohort in 2002. Often associated with their manifesto to deregulate superintendent
licensure and credential practices, the academy has trained some 29 current superintendents,
dozens of cabinet-level district leaders and a handful of national and state leaders (The Broad
Foundation & The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003; The Broad Superintendents Academy
website, 2012). The year-long program is designed to train and nurture leaders from education,
business, military and other similar backgrounds to become superintendents in large, urban
districts nationwide.
Continued Development
While both traditional and non-traditional programs have worked to recreate themselves
in an effort to better serve system leaders in urban districts, questions regarding how to best
prepare future leaders for the rigors of being a superintendent in a large urban system remain.
The management of school districts, especially those serving urban areas, requires a unique skill
set and while innovate programs have been created to meet this need, both traditionally and non-
traditionally trained leaders continue to require constantly evolving preparation programs that
will aid them in their efforts to lead systemic reform (Kowalski, Petersen & Fusarelli, 2011). As
Fuller (2003) suggested, “While nontraditional superintendents try to think outside the box, they
are struggling with the same issues as their traditional peers and their success is by no means
assured” (p. 47). Whether the path be traditional or non-traditional, preparation for the role of
65

becoming a superintendent remains a critical step in the path of a leader’s professional
maturation. Learning from the successes of both traditional and non-traditional school system
leaders and refining preparation programs accordingly remains vital to the curricular validity of
preparation programs (Quinn, 2007).
Conclusion
A review of the literature in this chapter highlighted trends in student achievement both
internationally and nationally, the impact that schools have on student learning, the increasing
significance of districts in relation to the success of their schools, the importance of system
leadership, strategies utilized by superintendents and consideration of both traditional and non-
traditional preparation programs on the eventual effectiveness of urban superintendents.
Research in each of these areas points to a need for additional analysis of strategies utilized by
superintendents to sustain the improvement of student achievement in large, urban school
districts. As suggested by Takona (2012) “Test scores and the school dropout problem is not a
phenomenon that can be fixed by a single initiative or change in policy” (p. 3). Further
information is needed regarding systemic reform strategies employed by system leaders and how
these levers of change are implemented, monitored, and continually refined across a sustained
period of years.
This case study closely examines the background, strategies, actions and reactions of one
urban superintendent in his efforts to implement key systemic reform strategies that produced
sustainable student achievement gains. As a follow-up case study to a previous study by Garcia
(2009) that focused on the same district and superintendent, this study specifically examines the
inception and maturation of ten originally identified House Model reform strategies that were
previously discussed in this chapter. This in-depth analysis across the five year tenure of this
66

superintendent will examine how his background and preparation shaped the decisions that he
made regarding these identified strategies and the associated reform initiatives.
As a continuation of this study, chapter three provides a description of the methodology
used within this study. Chapter four presents and discusses the findings of this study. Chapter
five provides a concluding summary and discusses the conclusions and implications of this study
as well as potential topics for further associated research.

67

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research design, sampling and criteria
process, instrumentation, and the methodology for data collection and analysis that was
employed during this case study. The purpose of this study is to advance learning in relation to
how urban superintendents lead sustainable reform within their districts. This study specifically
focuses on the background, strategies, actions and reactions of one urban superintendent in his
efforts to implement key reform strategies that produced sustainable student achievement gains.
This study builds upon several associated studies and serves as a third phase of work specifically
related to the Phase II study on the Queen City Public School District (Garcia, 2009).
Related Studies
This study builds upon previous research initiated in 2006 by Dr. David Marsh and Dr.
Rudy Castruita on the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI). Their research represented
Phase I of this work and was exploratory in nature, focusing on two initial school districts to
identify characteristics in terms of both strengths and challenges that exist in large, urban school
districts (Takata, Marsh & Castruita, 2007). Phase II of this research, also initiated by Marsh and
Castruita convened a study across 10 individual urban school districts. All of these districts were
led or previously led by superintendents that completed their preparation as participants in the
Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI). The ten large, urban districts were selected based on
similarities in size, poverty, and minority enrollment. The tenure of the superintendent was a
qualifying factor as leaders must have been in office for at least two years from the time of the
completion of the study. Each superintendent was still in office at the time of the data collection
68

but some of these leaders were not leading in this same regard at the time of completion for each
individual study. The 10 districts studied were Baywater, East-Side, Eastern Seaboard, Fair City,
Keystone, Rocky Mountain, Western, Southwest, Triangle County, and Queen City.
Each of ten selected districts discussed by Marsh and Castruita were studied by
individual researchers including Garcia’s 2009 analysis of the Queen City Public School District.
Methodology selected by Marsh and Castruita included interview guides as each studied district
utilized a similar series of interviews focusing on the superintendent and key staff members as
selected by the superintendent. Quality rubrics were constructed to assess each district in relation
to 10 selected HOUSE Elements. These included each district’s strategic plan, assessment,
curriculum, professional development, communication, finance/budget, human resource
systems/human capital management, labor relations/negotiations, family and community
engagement, and governance/school board relations.
In conclusion, Marsh and Castruita found the impact of USLI trained superintendents to
be favorable in relation to the 10 examined HOUSE elements. The largest gains in terms of
improvement were in relation to strategic planning but significant gains were also noted in
assessment, curriculum, communication and governance. While assessed gains in pre and post
scores did vary, Marsh and Castruita concluded that the implementation of HOUSE elements
made important contributions to the success of reform strategies in selected districts. However,
given the constraints of Marsh and Castruita’s study in terms of timeline, related trends in
sustainable student achievement gains could not be assessed.
In 2009, Garcia concluded a related study on the Queen City School District. Garcia’s
study was part of Marsh and Castruita’s 2008 study as it was included as one of the 10 selected
USLI districts. Garcia focused on the leadership of USLI trained superintendent Dr. Simon Reed
69

who led the Queen City School District from July of 2006 until August of 2011. Utilizing the
quality rubrics created in relation to Marsh and Castruita’s 2008 study, Garcia noted significant
gains of three points on a five point scale in both strategic planning and communication. Also
noted were moderate gains of two points apiece in the quality of the district’s assessment
practices, curriculum, human resource systems, finance/budget, governance, and family and
community engagement. In relation to the leadership of Dr. Reed, Garcia noted that
implementation in each of the assessed areas was noted a relatively high with the exception of
governance. However, like Marsh and Castruita’s 2008 study, related trends in sustainable
student achievement gains could not be comprehensively measured as Garcia’s analysis included
only one year of district assessment data under Dr. Reed’s leadership.
Unrelated to the aforementioned Phase I and Phase II studies by Marsh, Castruita and
Garcia, Tim Quinn and Michelle Keith produced an analysis of the Queen City School District in
2011. Specifically, Quinn and Keith focused on leadership and school reform efforts within the
school district across the Dr. Reed’s five year tenure as the superintendent. Qualitative in nature,
their work is a narrative as opposed to a study as they purposefully highlight leadership lessons
through the perspectives of Reed and many of the leaders that served in the district alongside him
from 2006 to 2011.
Study Design
As a follow-up case study that focused on both the leadership of Dr. Simon Reed and the
Queen City School District, this work represents a Phase III of research built upon the Phase I
and Phase II studies of Marsh, Castruita and Garcia. Findings from this study suggest a set of
useful strategies that may inform and aid the reform efforts of urban superintendents and district
leaders. As a follow-up case study, the researcher explored the specific decisions and actions of
70

one urban superintendent. This superintendent led reform efforts that produced sustained
improvements in student achievement across his five year tenure in the system. Consequently,
this district outperformed other large urban districts nationwide and was named the 2011
recipient of the Urban School Leadership Prize for its successful efforts to raise student
achievement and close achievement gaps. Additionally, the researcher associated with the study
served as a member of the district’s executive staff beginning in 2007. The researcher served in
several positions during that time including the Chief of Staff, the interim Chief Operating
Officer and a Regional Superintendent for two of the district’s five geographical areas. The
researcher’s in-depth participation across this period of time is evident throughout the findings of
this study and is meant to add both perspective and context to the study’s conclusions.
This analytical case student incorporated the following research questions and the seven
related sub questions.
3. Which of the ten key change levers utilized by the superintendent and previously
identified by Garcia (2009) produced sustainable reform that resulted in significant,
multi-year, upward trends in student achievement?
a. How did the identified ten key change levers develop across the first five years of
the superintendent’s tenure?
b. How did the quality, tenure and degree of implementation of successful change
levers vary in comparison to less successful efforts?
c. Were additional or previously unidentified House Model related change levers
implemented across the first five years of the superintendent’s tenure? If so,
which of these levers proved most impactful and why?
71

4. Of the additional (non-House Model) levers that were identified and implemented, which
produced sustainable reform that resulted in significant, multi-year, upward trends in
student achievement?
a. What necessitated the need for these additional levers?
b. Of the additionally identified levers, which proved to be most impactful and why?
c. How did these additional change levers develop across the first five years of the
superintendent’s tenure?
d. Of the additionally identified levers, which proved to be most impactful and why?
Related to the purpose of this study, qualitative, descriptive-analytical case study research
methods were used to elicit in-depth insight regarding important district-wide decisions in
relation to the ten House Model change levers and other associated reform efforts. Case study
methodology allowed the researcher to better understand the context in relation to the how and
why of the superintendent’s decisions (Yin, 2009). Understanding the associated background and
preparation of the superintendent was important but as a follow-up case study to previous phases
of related research, the context of decisions was of critical importance to deciphering clear
findings. In relation to this important element of context, the qualitative nature of this study
allowed the researcher to better understand the multiple perspectives related to reform decisions
and associated actions. As suggested by Creswell (2012), qualitative research allows for the
collection of data in a natural setting that is sensitive to the people and places of the study.
Context played an important role in this regard and was critical to gaining insight and developing
meaning within collected data. As Srivastava (2009) explained:
“The stated role of iteration, not as a repetitive mechanical task but as a deeply
reflexive process, is key to sparking insight and developing meaning. Reflexive
72

iteration is at the heart of visiting and revisiting the data and connecting them with
emerging insights, progressively leading to refined focus and understandings.” (p.
77).
Due to the purpose of this study and the multifaceted nature of feedback associated with
implemented reform decisions, targeted interviews were selected as the primary tool for data
collection. These interviews produced a significant amount of detailed information from multiple
perspectives regarding the superintendent’s decisions and the associated actions and reactions as
perceived by both district and community leaders. Findings in relation to the purpose of the study
provide insight into the superintendent’s initiative as the system’s leader and how his reform-
based decisions were translated into action that produced sustainable improvements in student
achievement.
Sample and Population
The sampling for this case study was purposefully aligned to the sampling criteria
utilized by Marsh, Castruita, Garcia and others throughout their Phase II work on large, urban
school districts led by leaders who completed the USLI program. As a follow-up case study, this
work focused specifically on the senior leadership team of the Queen City Public School District
across the five year leadership tenure of Dr. Simon Reed. This case study builds specifically on
the Phase II research completed by Garcia (2009) on the same superintendent and district. This
aligned work utilized purposeful sampling that yielded information on key district-wide
decisions made by the superintendent and others that ultimately impacted student achievement.
District Profile
Queen City Public School District (QCPSD) is a large, urban district located on the east
coast of the United States. This county-wide district serves both the metro and suburban areas of
73

Queen City in a rapidly growing region of the country. According to the most recent report
available from the Nation Center for Educational Statistics (2010) OCPSD is the nation’s 18th
largest public school district serving some 143,866 PreK-12th graders. With a reported 159
schools and a teaching force of 18,143 teachers, the district serves a diverse population of
students including 42 percent African-American, 32 percent White, 18 percent Hispanic, 5
percent Asian, and 3 percent American Indian and multiracial. Queen City does serve a student
population in which more than one in two students is growing up in poverty. With an
economically disadvantaged student population of 53.4 percent, the district serves an average of
105,663 school meals on a daily basis.
Queen City is the second largest public school district in the state and has been rapidly
expanding since the early 1990s. A banking center for the United States, Queen City has
experienced continued growth as families and business professionals have continually relocated
from other areas of the nation. As a result, QCPSD students speak 165 different native languages
and represent 168 countries. The district boasts of an annual graduating class of over 8,000
students and as of the most recent school year, Queen City improved its graduation cohort rate to
75.1 percent. With a 2014 goal of 90%, QCPSD has been specifically focused on increasing on-
time graduation rates since Dr. Simon Reed’s arrival in 2006.
Elected to lead the Queen City Public School District is a nine member Board of
Education. Members serve four year terms and are elected in two alternating cycles, 3 members
elected county-wide and 6 members elected specifically to represent designated areas of the
county. The Board’s statement of core beliefs and commitments includes its mission, “to
maximize academic achievement by every student in every school” and a vision statement that
74

prioritizes the “best education available anywhere, preparing every child to lead a rich and
productive life.”
Academically, the Queen City Public School District has been consistently recognized
nationally as one of the nation’s top, urban school districts (NAEP, 2011). According to the
Queen City Public School District, state results from the most recent school year showed
continued gains in performance composites for mathematics, reading and science in grades three
through eight. District high schools achieved continued gains in performance composites most
significantly in the areas of biology and English I. In addition, 44.8 percent of the district’s
schools met all of the designated AMO targets. These results continue student achievement
trends for the district that span the last five years. Across the leadership tenure of Dr. Reed,
QCPSD significantly narrowed achievement gaps between African-American and white students
in both reading and mathematics at all levels. Achievement gaps between Hispanic and white
students were additionally reduced in both reading and mathematics at the middle and high
school levels. Since 2007, student performance composite gains in grades 3 through 8 in
mathematics have improved 17.1 percentage points. Results for reading cannot be compared a
full five years as the state’s reading assessments were realigned in 2008. However, since that
realignment, performance composites in reading have improved steadily from 55.2 percent in
2008 to 71.1 percent in 2012, some 15.9 percentage points. Performance composites at the high
school level mirror the same student achievement trends improving from 66.9 percent in 2007 to
80.3 percent in 2012, some 13.4 percentage points.
In 2006, shortly after completing his entry plan, Dr. Simon Reed initiated a strategic plan
with seven goals and numerous expected outcomes. This plan, referred to as the 2010 Strategic
Plan, outlined the below goals:
75

1. High Academic Achievement
2. Effective Educators
3. Adequate Resources and Facilities
4. Safe and Orderly Schools
5. Freedom and Flexibility with Accountability
6. World-Class Service
7. Strong Parent and Community Connections
The district’s most recent strategic plan, initiated as a follow-up to the 2006 plan, was
created by Dr. Reed prior to his resignation in 2011. The plan, referred to as Strategic Plan 2014,
built on the district’s previous years of success and included the following six goals:
1. Effective Teaching and Leadership
2. Performance Management
3. Increasing the Graduation Rate
4. Teaching and Learning Through Technology
5. Environmental Stewardship
6. Parent and Community Connections
Following Dr. Reed’s resignation, QCPSD’s Board of Education selected an interim
superintendent to lead the district through the 2011/2012 school year. That spring, a succeeding
superintendent was selected by the Board. Queen City’s newly appointed leader, also an Urban
School Leadership Institute trained superintendent, began in July, 2012. At the time of this study,
it is unknown whether or not the district’s new leadership will choose to continue, revise or
replace QCPSD’s 2014 Strategic Plan.

76

Superintendent Profile
Dr. Simon Reed served as the superintendent for the Queen City Public school district for
five years. He came to QCPSD in 2006 after being heavily recruited from a smaller school
district in Southern California. While he is considered a traditional educator with roots in K-12
education, Reed is well regarded for his business sense and progressive reform initiatives. Dr.
Reed was raised and attended schools in both United States and Canada. He graduated from
Michigan State University with a B.A. in Elementary Education. Shortly after, he began his
career as an elementary school teacher in 1987. After earning both a Master’s Degree in
Educational Leadership and a Doctor of Education from the University of Central Florida, Reed
pursued a Masters of Business Administration from Rollins College. In Florida, Reed served as
teacher before becoming a Dean of Students, Assistant Principal, Principal, Assistant
Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Area Superintendent, Chief Information Officer
and Chief Operating Officer for Business and Finance. In 2001, Dr. Reed became the
superintendent for a mid-size school district of 20,000 students in Southern California. Over the
next five years, he would become well known for both his ability to raise levels of student
achievement system-wide and his micro-political skill in garnering community support for the
passage of the district’s first bond.
In 2004, while serving as a superintendent in California, Reed attended and became a
graduate of the 2004 Class of The Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI). As a successful
superintendent, he was recruited consistently by districts across the next few years including the
superintendent opening for the Queen City Public School District. After careful consideration by
Reed and his family, he accepted the position with QCPSD and on April 12, 2006 was appointed
by an 8-0-1 vote by the Board of Education with an official start date of July 2, 2006.
77

Key Player Participants
Key Players are defined as leaders within the Queen City Public School District that
served critical roles on the district’s leadership team between 2006 and 2011. Along with Dr.
Reed, each of the included participants shared valuable information and context related to
important leadership decisions that led to sustainable trends in student achievement. However, at
the time of this study, some of the participants did not serve the district. Others still serving in
the district may have moved to new positions within QCPSD. A sample of participants is
included below. Current roles for each of the sample participants are listed as follow:
Governance Players:
 Key Player One: Former Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Education
 Key Player Two: Current member of the Board of Education Member with
multiple years of service.
Reform Strategy-specific Players:
Strategic Plan:
 Former leader in the Operations Department and current Superintendent in a
large, southeast district.
 Former regional leader and leader in the Office of the Superintendent, current
Superintendent in a large, southeast district.
 Current leader in the Operations Department
Assessment:
 Former regional leader and leader in the Accountability Department, current
Deputy Superintendent in a large, southeast district.
Curriculum:
78

 Current leader within the Curriculum and Instruction Department
 Current regional leader
Professional Development:
 Current leader within the Curriculum and Instruction Department
 Former Director associated with teacher professional development
Human Resources and Human Capital Development:
 Current leader within the Curriculum and Instruction Department
 Current leader within the Human Resources Department
Finance and Budget:
 Current leader within the Budget and Finance Department
Communications:
 Current leader within the Superintendent’s Office
 Former leader in the Communications Department and current leader in the
Partnerships Department
Governance/Board Relations:
 Current member of the Board of Education with multiple years of service
 Current leader within the Superintendent’s Office
Labor Relations/Contract Negotiations:
 Current leader within the Human Resources Department
Family and Community Engagement:
 Former leader in the Communications Department and current leader in the
Strategic Partnerships Department
 Former leader in the Curriculum and Instruction Office
79

 Two members from the Strategic Partnerships Department
Instrumentation
The instrumentation for this study was developed in alignment with the instrumentation
of the previous Phase I and Phase II studies related to this specific area of research. Developed in
collaboration with Dr. David Marsh, the instrumentation was developed to accurately follow-up
on the findings of Dr. Eimi Garcia’s 2009 study on The Queen City Public School District. As
Phase III, instrumentation was developed to yield critical insight regarding the background,
strategies, actions and reactions of Dr. Simon Reed in his efforts to implement key reform
strategies that produced sustainable student achievement gains as superintendent of QCPSD.
Instrumentation and Methodology of Previous Studies
Phase II instrumentation used by Garcia built upon the Phase I study by Takata, Marsh,
and Castruita (2007). Phase II instrumentation was developed by ten doctoral students in the Ed.
D. program at the University of Southern California. Their work in this regard was led by David
Marsh, Ph.D. and Rudy Castruita, Ed.D. and was developed in spring, 2008. Like the Phase I
work of Takata, Marsh and Castruita, Phase II studies utilized the Urban School Leadership
Institute’s House Model as the main conceptual framework for the ten subsequent case studies.
Quality rubrics were created to evaluate each of the ten selected reform strategies associated with
the House Model and based on these rubrics, two conceptual frameworks and three data
collection/analysis instruments became the main points of focus for the subsequent studies
completed by the ten doctoral students. The ten key reform strategies that were selected served as
a foundation for all of the Phase II case studies. These included 1) strategic plan, 2) assessment,
3) curriculum, 4) professional development, 5) human resource systems and human capital
management, 6) finance and budget, 7) communications, 8) governance and board relations, 9)
80

labor relations and contract negotiations, and 10) family and community engagement.
Subsequently, these ten key reform strategies also served as foundational elements for this Phase
III follow-up case study on the Queen City Public School District.
Garcia and the other nine members of the doctorial team associated with the case studies
of Phase II worked to develop interview guides as key instruments for data collection. These
guides were used throughout each of the associated interviews and ensured alignment across the
data collection for each of the ten selected focus districts. The data collection process associated
with all ten of the Phase II studies was facilitated by both Dr. Marsh and Dr. Castruita. Two-day
site visits were conducted in collaboration with each district and throughout those visits;
interviews were facilitated utilizing the developed guides. These interviews occurred with either
with the superintendent or in small groups of key players, identified in collaboration with each
superintendent. Each interview focused on one of the selected key reform strategies however,
some selected individuals participated in more than one interview depending on the breadth of
their responsibilities with their district. Collected data was then analyzed, coded, categorized into
themes and ratings were collaboratively assigned and refined.
In their study and analysis of the Queen City Public School District, authors Tim Quinn
and Michelle Keith utilized less defined instrumentation and methodology to tell the story of
QCPSD from 2006 to 2011. To understand the context of important system-wide decisions that
Dr. Reed and other district leaders made during that time period, Quinn and Keith utilized
targeted, individualized interviews with 12 key individuals. These individuals each served in
leadership positions within QCPSD during the years of focus. However, three of the members of
the selected leadership group had left the district prior to the interviews conducted by Quinn and
Keith to pursue leadership opportunities as district superintendents elsewhere. Each interview
81

provided information that the authors used in their narrative of the district throughout the
selected years of 2006 to 2011.
Instrument Design
As a third phase of study associated with Urban School Leadership Institute trained
leaders serving in large, urban school districts, this case study on the Queen City Public School
District and Dr. Simon Reed has been purposefully aligned with the Phase I and Phase II work of
Marsh, Castruita, Garcia and others. This alignment, in particular of the study’s methodology is
critical in order to accurately follow-up on Garcia’s (2009) initial findings. In relation to the first
two phases of related study, the House Model, developed by USLI, served as the conceptual
framework for this follow-up case study. This model, included in figure 1, is foundational to the
training of USLI leaders and includes twenty-five, research-based reforms strategies that have
been proven to positively impact student learning.
Figure 3.1: House Model

82

Like the research of phases one and two, this case study utilized ten specific reform
strategies selected from the HOUSE Models initial twenty-five. While the HOUSE Model is
divided up into timeline specific rooms by suggested year of implementation, the ten selected
reform strategies span the model. These selected reforms, as defined below, are both foundation
to a superintendent’s entry to a district but also include reforms like an aligned Theory of Action
that is meant to serve as a foundational element across a leader’s tenure.
1. Strategic Plan: A Strategic plan defines and aligns a system’s mission, vision and
goals. The plan outlines significant areas of needs and defines aligned goals that will
directly target each identified area. Goals typically include associated objectives that
specify what actions will be taken system-wide in a collaborative effort to meet each
intended target. As a guiding document, a quality Strategic Plan is meant to be
dynamic in nature allowing those responsible the ability to utilize the developed plan
in an ongoing manner.
2. Assessment: Aligned to the goals and objectives of a Strategic Plan, assessment
efforts allow a system to monitor progress. In relation to public school districts,
assessment efforts generally monitor the rates of student learning in both a formative
and summative manner. Formal and informal assessments are used depending on the
purpose and regularity of need. Formal assessments in particular are regularly
scheduled and aligned to expected rates of learning, standards, pacing guides and
other instructionally related tools utilized by teachers and administrators.
3. Curriculum: Curriculum generally refers to the materials and content associated with
student learning. Classroom materials in a formal sense often include guides for
learning, textbooks, and aligned student work. While often guided by state and/or
83

district expectations, curriculum is typically dynamic as defined by teachers or teams
of teachers for targeted instruction based on identified areas of student need.
4. Professional Development: Aligned to both the curriculum and practices of
instruction, professional development is intended to improve the instructional
effectiveness of teachers and other professionals in a school and district. While
professional development initiatives are not always aligned to classroom and student
specific needs, best practices suggest a strong level of alignment between a goals and
objectives and an individual’s daily areas of responsibility.
5. Human Resource System and Human Capital Management: Related to the quality and
effectiveness of an employee, Human Resource Systems and Human Capital
Management efforts specifically target the hiring, development and retention of
quality staff. School districts often seek to hire the most effective, highly-qualified
administrators and teachers. However, while hiring is an often associated
responsibility of Human Resources, development and retention are equally important
areas that are prioritized as part of a system’s efforts to continually improve.
6. Finance and Budget: Aligned with the goals and objectives of a system’s strategic
plan, the prioritization and management of fiscal resources make possible a district’s
efforts to deliver a quality learning environment across all schools. While there are
several budget practices that a district considers in this regard, school systems
generally work to align the funding of initiatives to related goals and objectives.
Additionally, the Board of Education typically has a significant amount of authority
as annual budget often require a Board’s approval.
84

7. Communications: Effective communication connects a school district with the
community it serves. Leaders typically prioritize communication which covers the
spectrum of proactive communication to crisis management. Communication is often
both internal and external and is designed to provide both sets of stakeholders with
the information they need regarding the district. Increasingly, external facing
communication includes technology driven forms of information sharing including
the use of such applications as Facebook and Twitter.
8. Governance and Board Relations: Governance in relation to public school districts
often includes a multi-member, community elected group of representatives.
However, districts with single points of governance like mayoral control have become
increasingly more utilized models in recent years and currently include some of the
nation’s largest, urban districts. Traditional school boards are often charged with
hiring and evaluating the superintendent and setting the policy direction for their
districts. In such traditional governance structures, the superintendent reports to the
Board and collectively, they utilize regular public meetings to consider and
communicate information in relation to a external-facing practice for making key
decisions.
9. Labor Negotiations and Contract Negotiations: In many states and public school
districts, labor relations and contract negotiations are critical relational practices that
impact a system in an organizational and operational manner. Often an ongoing
process, successful negotiations often begin with the long-term relationship between
district leaders and elected or appointed union officials. The content of their
collective agreements impact contract language that includes rates of pay, hours,
85

benefits and other important aspects related to the district’s strategic plan, budget and
human resources practices.
10. Family and Community Engagement: Related to communication, family and
community engagement specifies the district’s practices in engaging and empowering
parents and community members as valued stakeholders. Involvement is often at the
individual school site level but most public school systems utilize the involvement of
parents in making critical, district-wide decisions. The perceptions of parents and the
community are typically assessed and monitored to better inform how the public
perceives the district leadership, services, and system as a whole. Public levels of
support are often positively correlated to the passage of key funding measures
including bonds, tax-rates and other valued elements related to fiscal resources.
Phase III Instrumentation
Building upon the methodology developed by Garcia and others in their related district
case studies, this particular study utilized similar structures in terms of instrumentation and data
analysis. Garcia’s 2009 study included findings regarding the quality of implementation and
improved nature of each of the ten assessed HOUSE Model elements. In relation to these
findings and the research questions of this follow-up study, each of the ten HOUSE Model
elements was reassessed to determine eventual improvement trends, sustainability and
correlation to the outcomes of improved student learning. Prior to the development of interview
guides, quality rubrics for each of the ten assessed areas were developed. Each quality rubric
utilized a 5-point Likert scale indicating high (5), moderate (3) or low (1) levels of perceived
performance in terms of the below defined criteria.
 Perceived level of shared understanding and commitment to improvement
86

 Connectivity to student achievement
 Sustainability of improvement
 Malleability and connectedness to other areas of reform
Related to the conceptual framework and developed quality rubrics, interview guides
were created and served as the primary data collection instruments for this study. These
interview guides were developed to assess each of the ten selected HOUSE Model reforms and
were aligned to the aforementioned research questions in an effort to assess the sustainability of
each area. Differentiated interview guides, included as samples below, were developed as
separate tools for the superintendent (Appendix A), key district players (Appendix B) and an
individualized reform-specific guide (Appendix C) that were correlated to each research question
in an effort to probe long-term trends related to the sustainability of reform efforts.
Throughout the development of interview guides, the understanding of long term district
successes and what key decisions led to those sustainable successes remained a critical desired
outcome. Each interview guide was developed in manner that would allow the researcher access
to valuable qualitative data regarding the keys to sustainability and the a comprehensive
understanding as to how the required actions of district leaders evolved as areas developed in
response to both internal and external challenges.
Data Collection Instrument 1: The Superintendent Interview Guide.
The Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A) was developed in consideration of
questions previously explored in both Phase I and Phase II of this research. Each question was
designed to assess sustainability and probe the context and rationale related to decisions that
were required of the leader. The guide assumed that each of the two scheduled interviews would
span an hour but with related follow-up questions, interviews with the superintendent were
87

allowed to exceed the sixty minute timeframe. Lead questions and sub-questions associated with
the Superintendent Interview Guide included:
1. Please describe the general status of QCPSD when you assumed your position as
superintendent in 2006?
a. At that time, what were the major strengths of the district?
b. In this same regard, what were the most significant needs of the district?
2. Of the named reform strategies, which areas do you believe were most critical to the
success of QCPSD beginning in 2006, leading-up to 2011?
a. How were successes in these areas associated with the long-term sustainability of
improved student achievement outcomes?
b. What key decisions or efforts do you most attribute to sustained improvement in
each named area?
c. What led to these decisions or efforts?
d. Which district leaders were most closely associated with improvements in this
regard?
3. Aside from the named reform strategies, what additional levers of reform do you believe
most impacted sustained trends of improved student achievement?
a. What necessitated the need for these additional levers of reform?
b. What key decisions or efforts most significantly benefited the successful
implementation of these additional reform strategies?
c. Which district leaders were most closely associated with improvements in this
regard?
88

4. Of the named reform strategies, which areas were least improved across your tenure as
the superintendent?
a. Why do you believe sustained success in these named areas was so difficult to
achieve?
b. In retrospect, what decisions would you have made differently that may have
improved outcomes in each of these areas?
Data Collection Instrument 2: The Key Player Interview Guide
Like the Superintendent Interview Guide, Key Player interviews (Appendix B) were built
to follow-up on findings associated with both previous phases of research related to this case
study. Designed with four lead questions and sub-questions, each interview was targeted to span
an hour. Questions were designed to assess sustainability and probe the rationale for decisions
made by the superintendent and others that ultimately lead to positive long-term trends in student
achievement. Those questions included:
1. Please describe the general status of QCPSD when Dr. Simon Reed began as the
superintendent in 2006?
a. At that time, what were the major strengths of the district?
b. In this same regard, what were the most significant needs of the district?
2. Of the named reform strategies, which areas do you believe were most critical to the
success of QCPSD beginning in 2006, leading-up to 2011?
a. How were successes in these areas associated with the long-term sustainability of
improved student achievement outcomes?
b. What key decisions did Dr. Reed make that most impacted improvement in each
named area?
89

c. In your opinion, what led Dr. Reed to make those decisions?
3. Aside from the named reform strategies, what additional levers of reform do you believe
most impacted sustained trends of improved student achievement?
a. What necessitated the need for these additional levers of reform?
b. What key decisions did Dr. Reed make that most significantly benefited the
successful implementation of these additional reform strategies?
4. Of the named reform strategies, which areas were least improved across Dr. Reed’s
tenure as the superintendent?
a. Why do you believe sustained success in these named areas was so difficult to
achieve?
b. In retrospect, what possible decisions or areas of intervention could have been
included that might have led to different results in these areas?
Data Collection Instrument 3: The Reform-Specific Interview Guide
The Reform-Specific Interview Guide (Appendix C) was developed in an effort to
follow-up on the ten specifically selected HOUSE Model reform strategies associated most
significantly with the Phase II work of Garcia and others. Aligned to the instrumentation of
Phase II research which evaluated the initial quality of each reform strategy across the first year
of each superintendent’s tenure of leadership, interview questions associated with this Phase III
study focus more on the long-term development and sustainability of strategy. As interviews
followed a semi-structured design, lead questions and sub-questions often led to context-specific
follow-up questions that strategy specific and related to the feedback provided by each
participant. Lead questions and sub-questions from each hour long interview included:
90

1. How would you describe the development of (reform specific) within QCPSD from 2006
to 2011?
a. In your opinion, would you consider this development significant in relation to
improved student learning outcomes?
b. Which leaders within QCPSD had the most significant impact on efforts to
improve?
2. What key strategies and decisions do you most attribute to this development?
3. What were the most significant challenges that the leadership of QCPSD in developing
(reform specific)?
a. Of these named challenges, which were most significant and why?
b. In your opinion, which key decisions were most significant in aiding QCPSD to
overcome these challenges?
4. If improvement was viewed as significant, what do you believe the keys were to the
sustainability of success in this regard?
5. If improvement was not viewed as significant, what decisions do you believe could have
been made to better sustain success in this regard?
Data Collection
Developed in relation to Creswell’s (2003) semi-structured interview protocol, questions
included on each of the interview guides were purposefully open-ended in an effort not to
constrain the feedback of participants. Participants were selected based on their roles as district
leaders during the time of the superintendent’s tenure. At the time of this study, some of the
participants were still serving as leaders within the Queen City Public School district while
91

others had moved on to new opportunities in other districts and states. Regardless of their current
role or district, each participant’s feedback remained both meaningful and relevant.
In preparation of each scheduled interview, participants were provided an overview of the
intended topics of discussion and asked to provide any relevant documentation that would aid the
researcher in understanding the context of feedback. As the researcher was local to the school
district of study, interviews occurred across a two week period of time in February, 2013. For
participants that no longer served QCPSD or live in the general area, interviews were conducted
using videophone technology. However, the large majority of interviews were conducted in
person. Interviews typically were completed in one hour and as sessions were conducted, data
was gathered in the form of digital recordings, notes and collected documentation.
Due to the researcher’s role as a leader within the Queen City Public School District
across the period of time included in this study, confidentiality was an area of critical
importance. Confidentiality was valued not only by the participants but also the researcher as
many of the individuals included served as colleagues or former colleagues. Therefore, all
participants were not identified by name in any regard. General information pertaining to their
current or former roles was included for contextual reasons. Information shared throughout this
study remained confidential and while quotations from interviews were included, information
was not attributed to any specific participant. In addition, guidelines and procedures in adherence
to USC’s Institutionalized Review Board (IRB) were upheld to the fullest extent to both protect
the confidentiality of participants and the integrity of the associated research.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study is to advance learning in relation to how urban superintendents
are leading sustainable reform within their districts. This study specifically focuses on the
92

background, strategies, actions and reactions of one urban superintendent in his efforts to
implement key reform strategies that produced sustainable student achievement gains. In order to
explore these important areas of study, two research questions and seven sub-questions were
developed. These research questions built upon the findings of a Phase I study by Takata, Marsh,
and Castruita (2007) and, more specifically, a Phase II study by Garcia (2009) on the same
school district and superintendent. Alignment between the research questions and sub-questions,
developed rubrics and developed interview guides ensured the reliability of findings and
decreased opportunities for bias as the researcher was a key leader within this district during the
time of study, 2006 to 2011. In alignment with Garcia’s Phase II study, the researcher selected a
data analysis process associated with Creswell’s (2012) steps for data processing. These steps
include organizing data, interpreting the data, and representing and visualizing the data.
As participant feedback was reviewed and analyzed, information was coded according to
each of the specific research questions and preliminary ratings were recorded according to each
of the developed rubrics. A spreadsheet was developed and utilized to ensure that findings were
sorted effectively. As the spreadsheet was developed, patterns within the data emerged that
worked to inform findings in relation to the research questions and sub-questions.
Validity and Reliability
In an effort to ensure validity and reliability, traditional scientific research criteria was
utilized throughout both the research and analysis of this case study. As this is a qualitative
study, some variation is expected as individual perspectives are impacted by differing roles,
background knowledge, and viewpoints (Creswell, 2012). However, procedures were established
to minimize bias and ensure alignment between this study and the prior research done in Phase I
and Phase II. As a result, instruments including interview guides and quality rubrics were utilized
93

as these tools not only ensured alignment but also yielded data rich resources. Due to the
multiple perspectives that yielded this information, context became an important factor.
Therefore, the triangulation of data was utilized given the need to understand the convergence of
multiple viewpoints and sources. As Golafshani (2003) suggested, “reliability, validity and
triangulation, if they are to be relevant research concepts, particularly from a qualitative point of
view, have to be redefined as we have seen in order to reflect the multiple ways of establishing
truth” (p. 604). In an effort to better understand the context of decisions made by the
superintendent and others in relation to this case study, multiple sources were utilized.
Throughout the analysis of these sources, the researcher made efforts to triangulate the data, a
practice in which multiple sources are considered to ensure the internal validity of findings.
These findings, the composite result of multiple perspectives, include the depth and complexity
of decisions that leaders in large, urban districts are forced to engage on a daily basis. With
consideration, the associated points of learning can be applied to aid other leaders in their roles
of leading urban public school districts.
Summary
This chapter contained information related to the research methodology that was utilized
throughout this case study. Information included a description of previous, related research, a
summary of the design of this study, descriptions of the data collection instruments that were
developed and an overview of the data analysis practices that were used to consider findings and
outcomes. These findings are presented and discussed in chapter four.

94

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter analyzes findings specifically related to the background, strategies, actions
and reactions of one urban superintendent in his efforts to implement key reform strategies that
produced sustainable student achievement gains. The purpose of this case study is to advance
learning in relation to how urban superintendents lead sustainable reform within their districts.
This is the third phase of research associated with reform in urban school districts and builds
specifically on Garcia’s 2009 Phase II study on the Queen City Public School District (QCPSD).
Like Garcia’s 2009 study, this third phase of associated work focuses on the ten key reform
strategies associated with the HOUSE model developed by the Urban School Leadership
Institute (USLI). The superintendent, Dr. Simon Reed, and district, the Queen City Public School
District, at the core of this study were also studied by Garcia (2009). However, this study
specifically examines the five year tenure of that superintendent, a tenure that resulted in the
QCPSD being awarded the Urban School Leadership Prize in 2011. By examining the
superintendent’s efforts and key decisions associated with the ten reform strategies of the
HOUSE Model, this study probes for sustainability defined as significant, multi-year, upward
trends in student achievement.
Similar to the methodology of both phases of prior research related to the study, a series
of targeted interviews were conducted as the primary tool for data collection. Utilizing interview
guides developed in association with this study’s research questions, these interviews specifically
explored the sustainability of reform-based efforts within QCPSD. Each examined reform area
was measured to explore association with the year-to-year student achievement gains of the
95

QCPSD. In addition, each studied area of reform was also measured for sustainability in an effort
to ensure that the employed leadership decisions produced initiatives that benefited the district
for multiple years going forward. As discussed at length in Chapter Three, instrumentation
utilized in this study include (1) Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A); (2) Key Player
Interview Guide (Appendix B); (3) Reform Specific Interview Guide (Appendix C); and the
Quality Rubric (Appendix D). Data from the nineteen interviews conducted with former and
current district and community leaders was probed for elements and trends that specifically led to
year-to-year student achievement gains. The use of multiple sources in relation to developed
quality rubric identified a series of key trends within the collected data. As presented in this
chapter, these trends led to decisions and efforts in association with the district’s sustained
results in student achievement.
Findings
Superintendent Profile and Background
Dr. Simon Reed was hired by the Queen City Public School District Board of Education
with an 8-0-1 vote in the spring of 2006. This came after a national search that included an
internal candidate serving as Queen City’s Interim Superintendent. At that time, Reed was
serving as the superintendent of a school district in southern California and joined QCPSD on
July 1, 2006. A graduate of Michigan State University, Reed’s journey to the superintendent
position was largely traditional as he had served as a teacher, site administrator and district
administrator in Orlando, Florida. Reed continued his education earning a doctorate degree from
the University of Central Florida and a Masters in Business Administration from Rollins College.
Reed also attended Harvard University’s New Superintendents Institute, Columbia University’s
Superintendents Institute and the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) in preparation for the
96

role as a superintendent in a large, urban public school district. In QCPSD, Reed got his
leadership opportunity in a large, urban setting. The county-wide nature of public school districts
in the state created a somewhat unique situation as QCPSD serves the whole of the county within
and surrounding the city’ traditional urban core. These areas include urban, suburban and rural
neighborhoods. Reed’s experiences both in Florida and California provided him valuable
experience in preparing for the varied communities and neighborhoods of QCPSD.
District Background and Characteristics
Located in the Southeast region of the United States, the Queen City Public School
District serves one of the country’s fastest growing communities. The Nation Center for
Educational Statistics (2010) ranked QCPSD as the nation’s 18th largest public school district
serving some 143,866 PreK-12th graders. With a reported 159 schools and a teaching force of
18,143 teachers and staff, the district serves a diverse population of students including 42 percent
Black, 32 percent White, 18 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian, and 3 percent American Indian
and multiracial. The second largest school district in the state, QCPSD serves a community with
significant and increasing needs. As the community and district grew rapidly across the last ten
years, so too did the percentage of students growing up in poverty as measured by free/reduced
lunch statistics. The district now serves a student base where over 50% (53.4%) of the students
qualify for Federal assistance with both breakfast and lunch.
Table 1: Queen City Public School District Student Demographics

As a large public school district, QCPSD has a recent history of working to create regions
or zones of schools within the district that have been level-based, geographically-based or need-
based. This effort began prior to Dr. Reed’s arrival in 2006 when he would further push the
PK-12 Student
Population
Black White
Hispanic or
Latino
Asian Other
Free or Reduced
Price Lunch
143,866 42% 32% 18% 5% 3% 53%
97

decentralized nature of these school groupings. Over the last decade, schools have been grouped
by level, elementary, middle and high school regions; by geography, north, northwest, east,
south, west and central; and by need including zones of Title I Schools and a distinct
Achievement Zone made up entirely of the ten lowest performing schools in the district at that
time. Each region, community or zone has been led by a designated superintendent who reported
either directly to the district’s superintendent or a chief.
Given the size and needs of the Queen City Public School District, the annual budget and
funding mechanisms are equally immense. Funded in part through Federal funds, the district
receives significant portions of its annual budget through the state (formula driven) and through
the local county. With a budget of $1.2 billion, QCPSD depends on local county funds for one-
third of its annual budget. While state funding is formula driven, the district-county funding
process is more dynamic with an annual request-based process beginning in April each year with
the Superintendent’s proposed budget request. This process continues through the summer with
state and local funding decisions leading to the start of school each year in late August.
Table 2: 2013/2014 Queen City Public School District Proposed Budget

State

County

Federal/Grant

Other

Total

$715,578,978

$356,544,548

$151,533,596

$19,050,747

$1,242,707,869

The Queen City Public Schools are governed by a nine member Board of Education.
Three of the Board seats are elected at-large across the county while the other remaining six seats
are elected by distinct geographically-based districts within the county. Board Members are
elected to four year terms but the county utilizes a rotating election cycle that offsets at-large and
district elected positions. Therefore, Board of Education elections are held in some regard every
two years with county-wide, at-large seats elected together one year and district-based seats
elected together two years later. After each election, the Board is responsible for electing a new
98

Chair and Vice Chair position. Members serving in these positions have varied in terms of at-
large and district-based in recent years. While political affiliation is not a function of Board of
Education elections, the political backgrounds and beliefs of QCPSD Board Members typically
varies.
Mission, Vision and Theory of Action for Change
In 2006, the members of the Queen City Public School District Board of Education
agreed to a Mission Statement that specified that the mission of the district “is to maximize
academic achievement by every student in every school.” Their agreed upon Vision Statement
read “The Queen City Public School District provides all students the best education available
anywhere, preparing every child to lead a rich and productive life.” Both statements detailed the
every-student, competitive and preparatory commitments of the district and set the stage for a
defining decision as they crafted a collective Theory of Action for Change in advance of Dr.
Reed’s arrival. These declarative statements, still listed on the school district’s webpage today,
were crafted with the intent of driving the district policies, budgets, and administrative strategies
“in order to transform the culture of The Queen City Public School District into one of high
performance in both academics and operations.”
The Board’s Theory of Action particularly mandated a shift from the district’s former
foundations in managed instruction to managed performance/empowerment. Their collective
work in this regard started well before Reed’s entry as Superintendent and came through a
rigorous program, entitled Reform Governance in Action (RGA), facilitated by Don McAdams
from the Center of Reform of School Systems. As defined, managed performance/empowerment
“strikes a balance between centralized direction (Managed Instruction) and freedom for
innovation in local implementation (Performance/Empowerment), with an emphasis on creating
99

a culture of accountability throughout every level of the school district.” While this by no means
created a district-wide culture where every school was provided the ability to do as they chose,
the Board’s decision did signal a striking departure from the tight, centralized culture that had
become a hallmark of QCPSD. These changes demanded aligned leadership and in July, 2006,
Dr. Simon Reed entered as the district’s Superintendent with the charge from the Board to
deliver on their Theory of Action for Change.
Entry: July, 2006 to July, 2007
Dr. Simon Reed entered the Queen City Public School District as the Superintendent
amidst a time of both opportunity and divide. The district was recognized nationally as a model
for managed instruction, a practice that tightly controlled curricular and teaching aspects across
schools. The Board of Education crafted and adopted a Theory of Action for Change that
mandated a change away from the managed culture of the district. Upon entry, Reed viewed
these changes as both strengths and weaknesses. As Reed stated, “A big strength was that the
Board had just adopted a Theory of Action – Vision, Mission, Core Beliefs, and Commitments –
which helped me with alignment for putting things in place. That was a huge strength.”
However, misaligned views within the Board led to divisions that Reed had to acknowledge and
manage. As Reed explained, “although the Board had adopted it, there wasn’t a common
understanding of what the Theory of Action meant.” This void pushed Reed to aggressively
define the district’s efforts to implement the managed performance/empowerment pathway that
the Board had set.
Nationally, QCPSD was viewed by many as a leader, especially with regards to the gains
that the district had made in relation to the defined system of managed instruction. The district
had been recognized as a finalist in 2004 for the esteemed Urban School Leadership Prize, an
100

honor that the district would again serve as a finalist for in 2010 and be awarded in 2011.
Stagnation in gains however pushed the district toward a new direction prior to Reed’s entry. As
Garcia (2009) and Quinn and Keith (2011) both noted in relation to the strength of the district in
2006, QCPSD had a strong, data driven culture that focused on student achievement and the
closure of existing gaps. The School Board’s progress through governance training and the
crafting of the Theory of Action for Change were noted positives. However, challenges within
the district were also obvious. Divisions within the Board of Education were often noted
challenges that the district faced. As a key district leader during Reed’s tenure remarked, “Our
Board was in considerable strife, and was actually being lifted up as an exemplar of what not to
do as a school board.” Adding to the Board’s needs, low levels of community confidence in the
transparency of district leaders, slowing student achievement progress and a failed 2005 bond
initiative signaled concern.
Armed with this knowledge, Dr. Reed began his tenure with a distinct listening and
learning tour that would span his first 100 days on the job. Grounded in what Jentz and Murphy
(2005) termed Reflective Inquiry and Action (RIA), this listening and learning process
encourages incoming leaders to embrace the confusion and instability present in a leadership
transition. As was previously noted, by beginning with an acceptance of environmental
confusion, leaders are encouraged to assert their need to make sense, structure meaningful and
varied interaction, listen reflectively to learn, and openly process information to build towards a
shared sense of direction. As noted by Quinn and Keith (2011), Reed began his tenure by
meeting with every imaginable group of district stakeholders including students, teachers, staff,
principals, parents, community leaders, and faith leaders. His meetings were intentionally simple,
beginning with the story of his journey and transitioning to three basic questions for feedback:
101

(1) what is working well in the district and what is not? (2) What are the key issues facing the
district? (3) What do you want from the Superintendent? The rigor of these first 100 days was
immense and began well before his start in July. As Reed described, “I’d get to my office in
California at 6:00 a.m., 5:30 a.m., and I would be on calls, I was working that whole time. So for
my entry, I got this gift of two extra months. It wasn’t 100 days; it was like 160 days.” In total,
Reed met with over 700 individuals across his first 100 days and, in hindsight, clearly felt that
these first days and months on the job were foundational to his tenure in QCPSD. As he noted, “I
would put our entry right up there – the process we used for entry, for understanding, for the
development of the plan. Going back and reference checking. ‘Did we understand that right?’
and ‘Are there touch points?’ And just the volume of folks we talked with to get different
insights. We did that well.”
Looking back on his tenure as the Superintendent of the Queen City Public School
District, Reed is quite clear in his reflection of the strengths and weaknesses of the district. As
stated by Reed,
Phenomenal things have happened at the Queen City Public School District for
years and years and years that were going on before I got there, they were going
on when I got there, they’re going on now that I’ve left, and this theory that any
of us needed to come in and be the savior and protect the district from itself is
malarkey and hogwash. Great things were going on; they’re still going on, we
were just the team that was in the right place at the right time to handle a certain
group of problems. But by no means was the district broken. I think there were
areas where we needed to improve, and we were the right team to work on those
improvements at that time.

This right-time, right-team mentality provided Reed with the opportunities that he felt he needed
to craft plans for significant change. These plans, as outlined in the two strategic plans created
during Reed’s tenure, outlined the goals, objectives and efforts for intended improvement across
the five years that Dr. Reed served as the Superintendent.
102

Garcia’s 2009 Case Study and Phase II Research
As Dr. Reed completed his first year as Superintendent of QCPSD, the second phase of
research informing this Phase III case study was completed by Garcia. Garcia’s work was
connected to the Phase I research completed by Marsh and Castruita in 2008. Garcia specifically
studied QCPSD as one of the 10 selected USLI districts and focused particularly on the entry
phases of Reed’s leadership as the Superintendent. Quality rubrics were utilized to measure the
district at the time of Reed’s entry against summative ratings associated with the completion of
his first year in leadership. As illustrated below in Table 3, Garcia noted significant gains of
three points on a five point scale in both strategic planning and communication. Also noted were
moderate gains of two points apiece in the quality of the district’s assessment practices,
curriculum, human resource systems, finance/budget, governance, and family and community
engagement.
Table 3: Garcia (2009) Rubric Ratings of HOUSE Model Reform Strategies

House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Implementation
Level

Strategic Planning

2

5

5

Assessment

3

5

5

Curriculum

3

4

4

Professional Development

3

4

4

HR Systems and Human Capital Management

2

4

4

Finance and Budget

3

4

5

Communication

2

5

5

Governance and Board Relations

1

3

3

Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations

3

4

4

Family and Community Engagement

3

5

5

Sustainability was not a factor considered by Garcia as her research targeted only the first
year of Dr. Reed’s leadership as Superintendent. However, these scores became the baseline for
103

this third phase of research focusing on the tenure of Dr. Reed as a whole. Spanning July, 2006
through Mid-August, 2011, Dr. Reed led the Queen City Public School District for a complete
five years. He resigned just prior to the last day of school in 2011 announcing his plans to join
the private sector as the Senior Vice President of an educational technology company. His tenure
with QCPSD was one of the longest leadership terms in the district’s recent history and outlasted
national research norms related to superintendents in large, urban school systems by some two
years (Council of Great City Schools, 2010, Fuller et al, 2003; National School Boards
Association, 2002). Reed’s tenure and the changes made in QCPSD during that time provide a
rare opportunity to fully examine the key decisions and efforts made within a large, urban school
district that lead to sustainable, year-after-year gains in student achievement.
Strategic Plan 2010
Prior to the completion of his first 100 days, Reed promised the district and community
an “action plan” that would reflect his findings from his listening and learning tour. Reed’s
findings were not surprising and as Quinn and Keith (2011) noted, “the public had little faith in
the school system and its leadership.” His listening and learning tour were largely viewed as
successful in building the foundations of trust. A senior district leader during Reed’s entry added,
I would say his entry plan and his listening and learning tour of this district was
probably the most authentic listening and learning. Lots of superintendents I’ve
seen, both here and in other places, talk about a listening and learning tour, but
when they get out there, they’re doing all the talking. And that’s easy to
understand, because people want to hear what the new superintendent has to say.
And I really saw Simon Reed be very, very measured in terms of truly listening,
asking questions, listening to the responses, and having those play out in both his
first and his second strategic plan.

Prior to the completion of his first 100 days, Reed began to use his findings to zero in on
what would become the district’s Strategic Plan 2010. This plan would be the foundation of
Reed’s tenure in QCPSD and from the start, Reed knew in essence what he wanted. As Reed
104

noted in reflection, “The first thing was that we were going to come up with a structure for a
plan. It was going to have goals, objectives, tangible targets to hit, people accountable for
achieving them, and we tied it to their evaluation.” Reed and a small team of district leaders
moved aggressively and on day 103 of his tenure at QCPSD, Reed unveiled his plan.
The process leading up to Reed’s first strategic plan ended up being far different than his
second plan. As a key leader in the district at that time noted, ‘the first strategic plan was
essentially done in the closet with about four people.” The Board of Education did not play a role
in the development and sponsorship of the 2010 plan. It was largely viewed by the Board as the
Superintendent’s Plan but as one Board Member remarked "He had to look at what we were
going to do with failing schools." The plan, in fact, was written by a small group of key district
leaders across Reed’s first few months on the job. Reed’s listening and learning efforts played
the part of district and community input but with his 2010 Strategic Plan, there was no formal
public feedback loop in the development of themes, goals and objectives.
The 2010 Strategic Plan included four key elements: goals, objectives, strategies and
monitoring. The plan included seven over-arching goals:
1. High Academic Achievement
2. Effective Educators
3. Adequate Resources and Facilities
4. Safe and Orderly Schools
5. Freedom and Flexibility with Accountability
6. World-Class Service
7. Strong Parent and Community Connections
105

Each of the seven goals had defined objectives that served essentially as targets for intended
success by the year 2010 (later defined as June, 2010). For each objective, a set of strategies was
defined to include actions associated with the achievement of set targets. For example, the plan
stated that “Eighty percent of schools will make expected or high growth on ABCs (54 percent as
of 2005-06).” Under this objective, it was noted that the district would take such actions as refine
the K-8 comprehensive reading model, integrate writing across the curriculum, expand access to
more rigorous courses, and establish an Achievement Zone comprised of low-performing
schools.
Within the first plan, two specifically unstated courses of action were included for the
superintendent. In reflecting on the plan, it became clear that communication and accountability
were significant levers associated with the execution of the plan. The communication side of this
operational strategy came specifically out of feedback that Reed had received from the
community across his first 100 days. As Reed commented, “We said this is what we’re going to
do - We developed a plan, we put it in place, we operationalized it, we checked to see if we were
on track, we measured, we communicated, and people knew what was going on.” In terms of
accountability, it became important within the district that every target and strategy had an
owner. Efforts associated with each target were reported on internally on a weekly basis. This
personal accountability was important to Reed and as mentioned,
That’s huge, in that everyone can love a plan if no one’s accountable for
accomplishing it” I think a big piece was that we decided we were going to hold
people accountable for the plan. That we were going to report it out. That our
team was going to produce a strategic plan update, quarterly, or whatever the
scale was. That we were going to do briefings with the media about it, that we
were going to address it at the Board, that we were going to disclose where we
were, that we were going to publish those things.

106

By 2009, Dr. Reed was beginning to transition his attention from the completion
of the 2010 Strategic Plan to the development of a 2014 Strategic Plan. In doing so, Reed
wanted to remain transparent with the community and report the district’s progress under
the 2010 plan accordingly. Achievements and areas of success associated with the 2010
plan were numerous but included clear strides forward. Most notably:
 89.6 percent of schools made expected or high growth on state exams – an
improvement over the 54 percent making such growth in 2006. This rate
exceeded the district’s 2010 Strategic Plan goal of 80 percent.
 Student achievement increased in 24 of 25 assessed areas (assessments with
consistent, year-over-year data).
 Reading proficiency rates as measured by state exams for grades three through
eight grew to 59 percent in 2009 (55.2 percent in 2008). Reading exams were
recalibrated two years prior, lowering proficiency rates across the district and
state.
 Math proficiency rates rose to 72 percent in 2009 from 64.3 percent in 2006.
 The district-wide composite score on middle and high school state exams
increased to 76.2 percent in 2009 from 66.2 percent in 2006.
 Achievement gaps between African- American and white students were
reduced in both reading and math at all school levels. From 2007 to 2010,
achievement gaps between African-American and white students decreased by
11 percentage points in high school reading. In addition, the district narrowed
achievement gaps between Hispanic and white students in math at all school
levels, and in reading at the middle and high school levels.
107

 Between 2007 and 2010, the percentage of low-income students performing at
the highest achievement level increased an average of 6 percentage points per
year in high school math compared with an average 2 percentage point
increase per year for other districts (on-average) in the state.
Strategic Plan 2014
In approaching his second strategic plan, Dr. Reed developed a very different mindset for
a variety of reasons. The 2010 Strategic Plan had been written in conjunction with feedback that
he received before and during his entry phase to the district. The 2014 Strategic Plan, written
during the 2009/2010 school year, came after four full years in the district for Reed and included
targets that, according to his acknowledgement, were going to be more rigorous than his first
plan. As Reed noted, “we started to see nice increases in student achievement, but then we
realized, oh my-gosh, to keep this going and to get even more, we’re going to have to tackle
more difficult issues.” The first plan had been associated with significant increases for the
district, student achievement and otherwise. But as Reed entered his fourth year and considered
the district’s direction going forward, the challenge of systemic issues became inevitable. As
Reed recalled in reflection, “the second plan had to be a little more aspiration and it’s not as
concrete as the first, because it’s harder work.”
Complicating the rigor of the 2014 Strategic Plan were previously unseen economic
challenges. The district had not existed in total during the Great Depression of the 1920s and
1930s. By 2010, the full weight of the Great Recession was taking a significant toll on the
district’s funding sources and mechanisms. The reality of the economic situation, coupled with
the rigor of issues needed to move the district forward, became the foundations of the district’s
2014 Strategic Plan. In reflection, Reed captured the gravity of these two factors,
108

We have to look at how we utilize our resources – people, time, and money, and
that’s ordinal. People are the most important, and then how much time you get.
But, the piece that was big, we said, we’ve got no more money, we can’t come up
with a bunch more programs. We’re going to tackle this with people issues, and
now we give people better information for what they’ve already got, and put those
people in positions to tackle those issues. That’s going to be the second plan. So if
the second plan is going to be about effectiveness, and that’s a lot harder to do,
but we had built some capital, we can do this, and we’ve got to do it. Otherwise,
we were lying to our principals and teachers when we said go to these tough
schools, if we’re not tackling it all over, and doing it systemically. And if we at
the district office aren’t willing to do the hard work, hey? You go and tackle these
hard problems, but I’m not going to do that, I’m going to do what’s easy?

Reed did not allow the district to head down the path that he entitled “easy.” Instead, he launched
an intensive feedback process that included months of internal and external meetings. The
feedback loops that he did not include in the 2010 Strategic Plan were thoroughly considered as
the district crafted Reed’s second plan. As one of Reed’s executive staff members recalled of that
process, “I have never seen a more intentional, almost exhaustive, engagement process in terms
of taking our goals out and getting feedback, and then taking our strategies out and getting
feedback, almost down to the tactic level, getting community feedback.”
The 2014 Strategic Plan was crafted with two overarching goals – Improving Teaching
and Managing Performance. The plan included six specific minor goals:
1. Effective Teaching and Leadership
2. Performance Management
3. Increasing the Graduation Rate
4. Teaching and Learning Through Technology
5. Environmental Stewardship
6. Parent and Community Connections
The 2014 Strategic Plan focused on the growth of students rather than their proficiency, as was
largely the focus of the 2010 plan. Each goal included key strategies and tactics that were
109

number accordingly. For example, Key Strategy 1.1.2 called for the development of a measure
for a year's worth of growth for every subject and grade level. The tactics included: (1.1.2.1)
Provide teachers with student work samples to gauge the rigor of student work in all subjects and
grade levels and (1.1.2.2) Develop assessments for all non-tested subjects and grade levels. The
sustainability of these measures, as discussed below in relation to strategic planning, would come
into question with Reed’s departure at the end of the 2011 school year. The plan remained the
guiding document for the district for the next two year but as Reed’s successor was hired, a new
plan would be crafted and launched in the fall of 2013.
HOUSE Model Reform Elements
As with Takata, Marsh and Castruita’s (2007) Phase I research and Garcia’s (2009) Phase
II research, the core of this case study focused on the reform strategies embedded in the HOUSE
Model (Figure 1), originally developed and utilized by the Urban School Leadership Institute
(USLI). The origin of the first research question guiding this study specifically focused on the
ten HOUSE-related reform strategies and probed for trends that led to sustainable, year-after-
year gains for the district. The researcher utilized a series of 21 interviews with the
superintendent, members of the Board of Education and key players that served in leadership
positions within the district alongside Dr. Simon Reed. Trends in terms of strengths and
weaknesses were identified and measured against the gains noted by Garcia (2009). Gains that
continued across the five years of Dr. Reed’s tenure and beyond were identified as being
sustainable and explored for further context. In addition, interviewees were asked questions
related to non-HOUSE associated efforts and initiatives. While a majority of the feedback
provided in this regard did relate to the HOUSE Model in some regard, this additional context
110

was valuable as it provided the researcher a broader view of how the superintendent and his team
utilized efforts that often combined multiple aspects of traditional reform work.
Figure 4.1: House Model

Overview of the HOUSE Model
The HOUSE Model was developed and is utilized by the Urban School Leadership
Institute as a conceptual framework to prepare both traditional and non-traditional leaders to
become superintendents in large, urban school districts. The model provides a visual
representation for system-wide reform strategies and centers on the three key outcomes of
increased student achievement, the closing of achievement gaps and improved college and
workplace readiness (Marsh & Castruita, 2008). The HOUSE is divided into five specific levels
meant to represent both the phases and impact of superintendent’s work. The first two
foundational floors of the HOUSE introduce actions more commonly associated with a leader’s
entry into a district. The main floor of the model, floor three, is divided into the core work of the
HOUSE; Instructional Alignment, Operational Excellence, and Stakeholder Management. These
111

three areas represent a significant bulk of the reform work that a superintendent may engage. The
fourth and fifth floors of the model are reserved for a superintendent’s work well in advance of
their first few years on the job.
Sustainability (floor 4) and the three outcomes associated with floor 5, student
achievement, achievement gap closure and increases in college readiness, are all intended
outcomes of reform work. While the HOUSE Model provides a framework for reform, it is
purposefully not all-encompassing as the work of improving large, urban school districts is far
too complex. As Reed best described, “(The House Model) helped me ask some questions to
understand and frame things so we were able to build the frame of the house, but when it came to
‘this is a room we want in our house’ then we had to go about doing it through the strategic
plan.” For these reasons, how district leaders lead, shift and revise reform work is at the core of
this case study.
Finding and Results
The following sections are particular to the research outcomes associated with the above-
mentioned research questions. The following ten sections particular discuss research findings
related to the select areas of reform associated with the HOUSE Model. The following section
discusses reform efforts that produced sustainable, year-to-year gains but are not specifically
related to one area of the HOUSE Model. This non-HOUSE related discussion is important as
many of the efforts mentioned in this section helped tie together the overall action plan used by
Dr. Reed and his team to sustainably improve their district. An overview of the associated results
is listed below in Table 4. This table builds upon the pre and post assessments of Garcia’s Phase
II research and factors in a sustainability index that measures whether or not results were
sustained from 2006 through 2011 and beyond. Individualized tables that provide further context
112

in relation to evidence and keys to sustainability additionally follow in association with each of
the measured HOUSE Model elements.
Table 4: Garcia (2009) Rubric Ratings v. Sustainability Index (2011)

House Elements
Quality
Pre (2006)
Quality
Post (2007)
Entry Gain
2006 v. 2007
Sustainability
Index (2011)

Strategic Planning

2

5

3

4.8

Assessment

3

5

2

3.8

Curriculum

3

4

1

4.2

Professional Development

3

4

1

3.2

HR Systems and Human Capital Management

2

4

2

4.2

Finance and Budget

3

4

1

5.0

Communication

2

5

3

3.8

Governance and Board Relations

1

3

2

4.2

Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations

3

4

1

3.5

Family and Community Engagement

3

5

2

4.0

Cumulative Impact

25 (2.5)

43 (4.3)

18 (+1.8)

40.7 (4.0)

Strategic Planning

Table 5: Rubric Scoring of Strategic Planning

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

2

5

4.8

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 Two plans were developed, the second built upon the success of
the first plan. Collectively, these plans spanned eight years.
 Year-to-year gains in student achievement in relation to strategic
plans were evident across all five years of Reed’s tenure as
superintendent.
 Employees and community members had general knowledge of
the strategic plans.
 The plans contained in SP 2014 continued beyond the tenure of the
superintendent. Elements of this plans are noted in the district’s
current plan.

 Both plans included stakeholder feedback as a formative lever in
the writing process.
 Both plans were created and delivered in a timely manner.
 Strategic planning included detailed and aligned goals, objectives
and tactics.
 Goals and objectives were continuously monitored internally.
 Progress towards goals and objectives was consistently
communicated both internally and externally.
 Progress towards goals and objectives were included as part of the
evaluation process of key district leaders including the
superintendent.

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Evidence of buy-in by member of the Board of Education varied.
 Funding decreased which limited the implementation of some tactics.
 The superintendent resigned in 2011, three years prior to the completion of timelines laid out in the 2014 strategic plan.

113

Upon entry, Dr. Simon Reed began to push the Queen City Public School District
towards alignment through strategic planning. Strategic plans had been developed in the district
prior to Reed but in recent years, a cohesive, multi-year plan that included stakeholder feedback
did not exist. Reed also entered on the tails of a report delivered by a well-known community
taskforce that outlined ways to improve the district. While the taskforce’s report did not become
the foundation of the district’s 2010 Strategic Plan, elements like decentralization of schools into
communities illustrated some areas of obvious alignment. With the creation of the 2010 Strategic
Plan, Reed was able to provide the district and community with a well-communicated,
comprehensive direction that could be tracked, monitored and communicated for year-to-year
growth.
Formative Feedback Loops: Both of the strategic plans written during the tenure of
Reed’s leadership included definite but unique public feedback loops. These loops were
important to the creation of both plans but served very different formative purposes. The first
plan was written during Reed’s entry phase and was delivered on day 103 of his tenure as the
superintendent. As noted by Quinn and Keith (2011), “Producing a comprehensive district
strategic plan by the end of the first 100 days is quite unusual and can even be risky for a new
superintendent.” Strategic plans are typically developed between six and twelve months on the
job but the timing of Reed’s first plan underscores his aggressive nature in relation to planning
and communication. As Reed commented, “Now, that doesn’t sound as substantive as ‘we
executed the plan,’ but if you execute the plan really well, but you didn’t develop it well, and
you didn’t communicate what you were doing, it can hinder the other pieces.” The timing of the
2010 Strategic Plan did not backfire but was instead received by the community as being largely
aligned with the feedback that they provided during Reed’s listening and learning tour.
114

Reed’s second plan, the 2014 Strategic Plan, required a different formative feedback
plan. The second plan was written in advance of the 2010 timeline expiration of his first plan but
both were intentionally aligned. Results associated with the first plan had been noted but Reed
knew that his second plan would need to include aspects that were more systemic and therefore,
harder to improve. As Reed noted, “With the first one, I could visualize, here’s what that looks
like. Here’s what a media briefing looks like. But we knocked out easier things in the first plan.
The harder work was in the second plan.” In advance of this hard work, Reed and district leaders
rolled out what would be termed by a key stakeholder at that time as an “exhaustive” process.
General internal and external feedback was gathered and then “bucketed” into categories that
would eventually become the foundations of the plan’s six goals.
Aligned Details: An overarching theme of both strategic plans produced during Dr.
Reed’s leadership tenure were detailed and aligned goals, objectives and tactics. The structure of
these organizational components changed slightly as the details of the second plan, produced in
2009, were even more significant than Reed’s first plan. Both plans included a clear number of
goals, seven in the 2010 plan and six in the 2014 plan. Goals were supported by objectives and
tactics that detailed the actions that the district would take in an effort to achieve each goal. One
example includes the third goal of the 2014 Strategic Plan, Increasing the Graduation Rate.
Under this goal was an explicit key target, “increase the number of students who graduate in four
years from 66 percent to 90 percent by 2014,” and five key strategies (Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools, 2009). Each strategy was supported by various tactics. Strategy three under goal three
stated that the district would improve accuracy of student records and registrations to better
manage students’ academic progress. This strategy was supported by four specifically define
tactics including: (1) Develop an electronic four-year plan to assess each high school student’s
115

progress toward graduation, semester by semester; (2) Review and rewrite the job description
and scope of work for school registrars; (3) Train and retain skilled registrars; (4) Provide
training for counselors to improve and increase the use of strategic scheduling. A general
overview of this alignment is evident below in Figure 2.
Figure 4.2: Goals, Focus Areas and Measurements of the 2014 Strategic Plan

Ownership and Accountability: A key element that helped drive both of the strategic
plans during Reed’s tenure was an intentional lever that ensured internal accountability. Most
notably, executive staff members were responsible for the implementation and results of
specified areas within each plan. The personal accountability nature of both plans was important
to Reed, “Everyone can love a plan if no one’s accountable for accomplishing it. But we actually
tied it back to the specific items, and we looked at who did what, and where.” Central in this
accountability was the superintendent himself whose annual evaluation by the Board of
Education included detailed reports of how each goal and objective within strategic plans were
116

progressing. As Reed noted, “We decided we were going to hold people accountable for the plan.
That we were going to report it out.” This detailed, week-by-week process was coupled with an
external communication plan that included regular updates for the Board of Education and the
media. Weekly updates were provided to Board Members but on a monthly basis, a specific
strategic plan update was produced that detailed both progress and challenges. This intentional
communication plan was important to Reed for a number of reasons but central to his belief that
leaders needed to be publically accountable. As elaborated by Reed, “We were going to do
briefings with the media about it, that we were going to address it at Board Meetings. We were
going to disclose where we were and we were going to publish those things.”
Year-to-Year Results: Without gains in student achievement, sustainability cannot be
achieved within public school districts. Dr. Reed understood this and made student progress the
hallmark of both strategic plans. Whether it was goal one of the 2010 Strategic Plan, High
Academic Achievement or goals two and three of the 2014 Strategic Plan, Performance
Management and Increasing Graduation Rates, year-to-year student achievement was an explicit
focus of strategic planning throughout Reed’s tenure. As Reed stated, “That was what I kept
using as the barometer: are kids learning more? Are more kids getting opportunities, are more
kids graduating?” Results across Reed’s tenure included significant gains in student achievement
K-12. As a key district leader at the time stated,
Clearly, if you look at the results of that balance between pressure and support,
we did find a nice fulcrum where we began to see results change, and the district’s
graduation rate that was just released this past year is clear evidence that double-
digit gains over five to six years happened because of the attention given to those
key areas.

As the 2010 Strategic Plan graduated towards the 2014 Strategic Plan, the district produced a
document that outlined year-to-year results for 27 indicators related to the plan’s seven goals.
117

These year-to-year gains marked the progress that the district had made since 2006 and set the
direction for gains intended through the 2014 plan.
Longevity of Initiatives: As stated, a significant sign of progress and sustained results is
the fact that Reed remained as the superintendent long enough to lead an effort to write a second
plan. With a four year timeline, most urban leaders do not remain long enough to craft a two or
more plans in this regard. When asked, a key district leader at the time responded, “Yeah, they
were sustainable, and we saw the second iteration of the Strategic Plan. We also saw, from a
communications standpoint, the strategy of weekly media briefings and such.” This obvious yet
important factor certainly underscores the sustainable nature of strategic planning during Reed’s
tenure as two aligned plans were created, collectively spanned a timeline of eight years. This
succession purposefully extended the work of important district-wide initiatives beyond the span
of a single plan. Elements of both the 2010 Strategic Plan and the 2014 Strategic Plan remained
present in the districts work after Reed’s departure and into the tenure of the next superintendent.
In October, 2013, the Queen City Public Schools unveiled their 2018 Strategic Plan.
Written entirely by Reed’s successor and team, the newly adopted plan was well-aligned to the
succession of plans that Reed had created. As noted by a key district leader,
An example of that would be the graduation cohort goal. That’s goal three. And I
would say also an effective teacher and principal in every school as a signature
piece of his reform strategy had traction and still has traction to this day in terms
of how he embedded that into the culture of the organization.

Reed’s successor, also a USLI trained superintendent unveiled a plan with six goals including
goals related to student achievement, performance management, family and community
engagement and customer service. As noted, “our new plan also builds on the foundation of the
2014 Strategic Plan: Teaching Our Way to the Top. It extends the reach of the 2014 plan in time
and scope while also sharpening the focus on specific areas intended to strengthen every school,
118

every students and every employee” (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 2013). This stated and
intentional succession of plans across multiple leaders again underscores the vital nature of
longevity in sustaining systemic reforms for long-term district improvement.
Assessment

Table 6: Rubric Scoring of Assessment

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

3

5

3.8

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 Implementation of a data-informed culture that matches formal
and informal indicators still exists across the district.
 Internally-supported interim exams still exist and have further
developed.
 Value-add measures were adopted in-part by the state and continue
to develop.

 Transparency: Both Reed and the Board of Education were aligned
in their views that assessment and accountability needed to be
concise and simple. Reed’s take, information should be presented
with “Clarity, Context and Candor.”
 Consistent development of a strong assessment platform including
a variation and alignment of formative, interim and summative
assessments.
 Board of Education consistency and support as assessment
practices develop.

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Shifting internal and external support for assessment measures hampered progress.
 Internal support was varied for assessment tied value-add initiatives.
 Data Wise practices employed at the school level for data analysis were inconsistently utilized and no longer remain in practice.
 The adoption of new state content standards and assessments changed established baselines making year-to-year comparisons increasingly
difficult.

Shortly after Reed’s entry in 2006, the QCPSD Board of Education began to craft policy
to guide the practices of how testing and accountability-related information would be
disseminated for the public. Policy AE: School Accountability System, stipulated that the
district’s actions in this regard would be “rigorous, fair, difficult to manipulate, easy to
understand and describe, and designed with the purpose of holding all schools and their staffs
accountable for student achievement results and success in meeting other operational
performance goals.” The policy stressed a concise and simple nature in an effort to cut through
educationally-related jargon so that the public at-large would be able to better understand school
progress. The policy stressed three specific components that would drive Reed and his team in
rethinking and redesigning the district’s accountability practices. These components included,
119

 A school performance classification system that would reliably and consistently measure
how students and schools were performing.
 A system of rewards and sanctions including teacher and staff bonuses, pay-for-
performance, salary differentiation, increased site-level freedom, and flexibility in certain
aspects of the instructional program and school operations. Schools that did not meet
performance expectations would lose site-level flexibility in favor of tighter district
oversight.
 A clear communication practices built to inform employees, students, parents, and the
community.
The policy included distinct timelines and mandated that the district would pilot new
accountability measures in accordance with this policy across the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008
school years. As the policy stated, “At the end of 2007-2008 school year, the Superintendent
shall report to the Board regarding each school's performance according to the classification
system.” This gave Reed little time to comply but with the adoption of the 2010 Strategic Plan,
Reed and his team began to lay the groundwork for the district’s accountability practices to
come.
Clarity, Context and Candor: Dr. Reed and team set out to rethink and redesign an
Accountability Department that had largely been compliance oriented. As Reed and district
leaders acknowledged, talent existed in that department but the shop was not necessarily design
to do all that the Board required through Policy AE. As Reed remarked, “I don’t think we had
enough data and accountability systems in place.” Reed added, “While we knew what good
teaching was, we didn’t give research back to teachers and principals for who is doing that good
work, and we didn’t use that data to manage.” Data with regards to assessment was summative in
120

nature and could rarely be utilized to inform forthcoming instructional decisions. Quarterly
benchmark exams were in use but not trusted by teachers and principals across the district. As
one district leader remarked of the district’s strengths and weaknesses, “Quarterly assessments
were there but the quality of the assessments wasn’t good. The timeliness of getting the data
back was good, but it was housed in data dashboards that were a nightmare.” Reed in-turn hired
a new Accountability Chief from outside the district and set out to align accountability and
instructional practices.
District leaders who served alongside Reed often cite a phase that he quoted, “Clarity,
Context and Candor,” with regards to how the superintendent expected information to be
disseminated. Reed had picked-up the phrase from a former state board member and utilized this
mindset throughout this tenure. An early adopter of this philosophy, Reed himself aligned his
entire annual evaluation process to the goals and objectives outlined in the district’s 2010
Strategic Plan. This transparency became one of the district’s three guiding elements in creating
the “Cycle of Continuous Improvement.” As illustrated below in figure 3, this cycle included
support (focus on learning), transparency (collaborative culture) and pressure (focus on results)
in a continuous cycle focused on improving and refining the use of data.

121

Figure 4.3: Cycle of Continuous Improvement

Qualitative v. Quantitative: In an effort to improve the formative side of the district’s
assessment and accountability practices, Reed and team moved early to develop a number of
measures, both qualitative and quantitative, to gauge school progress. Aware of the mistrust that
existed in how data was used, Reed included practices that were both formative and qualitative
as opposed to the numbers-only practices of summative, quantitative measures. As the
Accountability Department worked to develop and refine assessment and data usage practices
throughout the district, resources like Harvard University’s Data Wise Project were implemented
to help schools decipher and use data. District and school resources were applied to implement
data utilization practices including the eight steps of the Data Wise Improvement Process. This
formative work helped teachers and administrators better understand how to use student
indicators to inform instructional plans.
122

During Reed’s tenure, he also moved the district toward a balanced internal platform of
formative and summative measures. Efforts like School Quality Reviews (SQR) provided
principals and schools with a qualitative full-school evaluations by internal district peers. The
development of interim measures such as Measures of Academic Performance (MAP) and the
Teachers Reading College (TRC) assessment provided teachers with interim data that could be
used to inform instructional plans and designs. Ahead of the state, Reed and team also worked to
satisfy one of the Board’s initiatives in the development of a user-friendly, public-facing school
report card. This annual public report purposefully did not grade schools but rather, provided
parents and shareholders with access to needed academic, operational and behavioral information
on every QCPSD school. Such developed measures, including the below mentioned formative
assessments, better balanced the district’s efforts to provide teachers, principals and parents with
meaningful information.
As a district leader noted, “If you want to inform instruction, you’ve got to give teachers
periodic formative assessments along the way that says, hey, are we moving in the right direction
or not?” While this began with assessments like the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS) series out of the University of Oregon, the district steadily progressed towards
district-created measures developed in conjunction with outside partners. “We moved from begin
involved just in fluency, for example, and measuring fluency, to comprehension. There was a
nice evolution that existed during that time,” remarked a key district leader. However, as the
district progressed towards Strategic Plan 2014, the intensity of measures and the intent of those
assessments would be called into question.
Shifting Sands: Federal, State and Local: The district’s assessment platform began to
develop into a fairly robust system of formative and summative assessments and just as
123

indicators could be used to drive instruction, so too could these indicators help principals better
understand the effectiveness of teachers. Aided by a federal grant, QCPSD began an effort to
craft and implement a pay for performance system across the district’s Achievement Zone
(lowest performing schools). Created through the Department of Education's Teacher Incentive
Fund, QCPSD constructed an internal stakeholder group and initiative entitled Leadership for
Educators' Advanced Performance (LEAP). This initiative’s lead team, including teachers,
principals and district administrators, pushed to create structures that supported paying teachers
according to student results. As expected, this work was met with immediate resistance but in a
quote from a February, 2010 meeting, Reed cited his belief regarding the importance of the pay
for performance work. “What this research tells us is that our highly effective teachers come in
all shapes and sizes – and at present, we don’t have an effective way to predict which teachers
will succeed,” stated Reed. “What we can conclude is that paying teachers based on years of
experience or credentials does not necessarily reward our most effective performers in the
classroom.”
As Reed and the district pushed forward, a Human Capital Strategies Team was created
that spanned both the Accountability and Human Resources departments. This team worked to
formulate the district’s first value-add study which allowed teachers, principals and district
administrators the opportunity to better understand the growth impact of individual teachers
based on student of record and state exams. Reed and team worked to establish Teacher Design
Teams tasked with developing recommendations that would inform the intended
performance/pay initiative. In an effort to supplement the state’s assessment platform, subject-
specific measures were needed including any subject not already measured by a state exam. A
key district leader at that time summed up this progression in citing,
124

“We started with formative assessments and developing high quality formative
assessments. Then we started developing unit assessments where they were tied to
each of the individual units – a pre and post – that schools could use or not use.
Then the one that I think was the straw that broke the camel’s back was the last
project I worked on, which was the significant investment in the summative
assessments that were field tested. They (summative assessments) began to build
the test blueprints on, which was the idea that in order to have a compensation
system that honed in on the best teachers, you had to be able to assess them in
every subject in every grade.”

This effort, which included at that time, some 52 field tests, was met with considerable
resistance both internally and externally. This resistance included a petition with some
2,000 signatures generated by a local group of parents and citizens. As cited in a 2011
opinion piece in the Washington Post, “a recent school board meeting was packed with
hundreds of angry parents who want funding for the tests to be redirected to reduce
teacher layoffs for next year and others (Strauss, 2011). A quotation from a 2010-2011
district question and answer publication regarding summative exams and teacher
performance pay underscores the fragility of trust that had developed across the district
during this time period.
We (QCPSD) know that teachers will make up their own minds. We are trying to
create a teacher-assessment system through the teacher design teams and focus
groups that will be a system that everyone can believe in. Engaging teachers in
the work, as we are doing with the design teams and focus groups, will help build
support for it.

As assessment and teacher compensation became publically inseparable, other changes began to
complicate the district’s efforts in this regard. The state’s shift to Common Core signaled
forthcoming changes to state exams. Federally aligned Race to the Top efforts by the State Board
of Education and the state’s Education Department were beginning to define school performance
expectations, value-add measures and teacher compensation. A portion of the state’s work in this
regard was informed by the efforts exhibited by QCPSD in recent years but was mandated.
125

In reflection, Reed considered steps that could have been taken to ensure sustainable
efforts by saying, “I didn’t do enough work to build up constituencies of support, and there are
certain times that I think you go ahead whether there’s a constituency built or not. But there’s
other times when you have to build constituencies.” Other district leaders considered the efforts
working against QCPSD’s assessment efforts. “The biggest threat was the non-reformers, who
were always out beating the drum, saying that this was just the corporatizing of public education
in America…, we don’t care about people and kids” sited a district leader. Another leader cited a
different perspective and point for consideration.
In schools with great principals, who showed how data and information can be
used as a tool for improvement, I don’t think you saw a backlash. It’s where
principals weren’t good a change management and drawing people to the work;
they used it as a hammer instead of just a tool to get better. That was the
distinguishing factor, which is, do you let the best principals lead this work so that
we can start getting great examples, or do you just turn the faucet on and make
everyone do it at once?

Whether internal forces, external forces or a combination of the two, much of the initial
assessment and accountability work that Reed and team set out to do in 2007 had transitioned by
2011. While Reed’s assessment of his work to build constituencies may have led to increased
sustainability, the shifting directions of state and federal bodies with regards to assessment and
the ever-growing tie to teacher performance became inevitable changes.
Curriculum

Table 7: Rubric Scoring of Curriculum

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

3

4

4.2

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 Curricular efforts were tied to year-after-year growth on both local
and state exams across all levels.
 Curricular practices in mathematics and science remain in use and
continue to produce year-to-year gains for the district.
 The district narrowed achievements gaps continuously between
2007 and 2011 especially in the areas of science and mathematics.

 Define clear targets and sense of urgency for all schools, low-
performing, high-performing, etc.
 Develop and communicate user-friendly sets of system-wide
expectations in relation to teaching and learning.
 Align your most significant resources with your most urgent
needs.
 Manage the cadence of change by practicing patience with
126

urgency.

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Statistical evidence for some programs including the district’s Freedom and Flexibility with Accountability initiative and the K-3 Intensive
Reading Program was varied. Those programs did not continue past 2011.

If for no other reason, the Queen City Public School District was known nationally as one
of the leading public education districts in the 1990s and 2000s as a result of their work in the
area of curriculum. Defined more broadly as teaching and learning, QCPSD had for decades
worked to define explicit expectations both in what teachers would teach and how they would
teach it. Defined as managed instruction, these systemic practices were centrally managed with
the district’s Curriculum and Instruction Department holding significant authority in this regard.
Pacing guides, weekly planners and daily lessons were all scripted and tight adherence was
mandated and managed across the district. These intentional efforts knowingly capped the
ceiling as autonomy for specific high-performing teachers and schools was not allowed.
However, the effort did raise the floor to ensure that pockets of curricular dysfunction were
eliminated.
As a district leader mentioned, “We had extraordinarily strong instructional leadership in
the district, particularly with Eric Smith, and Frances Haithcock as his Chief Academic Officer,
and both of them believed passionately in this notion of managed instruction – almost a scripted
approach to instruction.” Dr. Simon Reed agreed and cited former superintendent Dr. Eric Smith
in particular as having been the visionary behind the district’s strong culture of managed
instruction and the creation of the district’s Pre-Kindergarten Program. However, Smith departed
long before Reed’s entry and by 2005, the district was experiencing stagnation in year-to-year
academic gains. This stagnation in-part led the Board of Education to craft the Theory of Action
mandating that QCPSD move away from closely managed practices to a systemic culture of
managed performance empowerment. As noted within the Board’s theory, “Managed Instruction
127

does not stimulate innovation, create incentives for adults or build a performance culture.” The
Board sought to create a culture where earned autonomy would lead to innovation within school.
Reed’s entry as superintendent in 2006 was purposeful in this regard as he was charged with
leading the district forward in this new direction. The curricular side of the district was vital to
Reed and at the core of his personal theory of action. “I’ve always believed when there’s more
than incremental increases in student achievement it’s all about the people, it’s all about teaching
and learning, it’s all about leadership and instruction,” cited Reed. That noted, this was not an
area that the superintendent needed to overly manage as he was flanked by district leaders that he
trusted to work with him in order to advance the district in this regard..
Freedom and Flexibility with Accountability
Aligned with the tenants of Managed Performance/Empowerment, Freedom and
Flexibility with Accountability (FF&A) was founded directly from the Board of Education’s
Theory of Action. As noted in the Theory of Action, “The district’s core business – teaching and
learning – must be managed by the central office with some flexibility. This flexibility must
balance accountability with empowerment, according to the needs and performance of individual
schools or particular classrooms.” Developed and defined by Reed and team in 2007, the
initiative specifically outlined specifics which stipulated which principals in the district would be
granted FF&A. Most notably, growth was a driving indicator as selected principals had to have
averaged a growth rate above a year’s growth in a year of time. Using 0.00 as a statistical year of
growth, selected principals had to have a two year growth average of 0.04 or above. A small
2007 cohort of principals expanded rapidly to 48 principals by the 2008-2009 school year with
another 13 added the following year.
128

Selected principals were provided a streamlined list of district non-negotiable elements.
This shortened listed meant that principals were free to implement new academic programs,
introduced new curriculum, implement new student/teacher assignment practices and pilot new
internal assessment practices. However, to Reed’s dismay, few FF&A principals opted for any of
the above opportunities. While a few leaders pushed the dial of innovative school design, at best,
most principals adjusted minor elements within their school. The innovation that Reed expected
was slow to develop as the district’s site leaders embraced their newly earned autonomy. A key
leader in the district during Reed’s tenure described the challenge and complexity of this
significant change well in comparing it to baking cookies.
You’re going to say to somebody who’s been reading a recipe that never changes
– you don’t ever get to substitute brown sugar for regular sugar. And you’re all of
a sudden going to say, ‘Okay, now you’ve got freedom and flexibility and you can
make those cookies with brown sugar, you can make them with flour, with or
without, you can throw in some chocolate chips, you put in some butterscotch
chips, you can put in some nuts, you can pick the kind of nuts you want.’ You
can’t do that and expect the first batch of cookies to come out perfectly. The
person is going to have to have some time to bake a few batches of cookies, to
figure out what’s right for their school, and what their teachers can handle.

This hesitation around trying new things at the site-level hindered the development of
FF&A. “It eventually reached the point where Freedom and Flexibility with
Accountability didn’t mean anything to people” cited a district leader. “Initially, it felt
like being freed from a prison of structure. However, once people got out there, I don’t
think we did enough to honor, share, cross-pollinate, lift-up, and celebrate successes. I
wouldn’t say it failed – I think it faltered.”
Incremental Steps: While Dr. Reed was not a leader characterized by his peers as having
incredible patience for the inevitable cadence of change, Reed did recognize early that shifting
the teaching and curricular practices of QCPSD would require managed incremental steps.
129

Leaders within the district cited this intentional move away from the district’s base of managed
instruction as “nerve wracking” as much of QCPSD’s progress across the previous decade came
from educators being able to know exactly what was expected of them in their classrooms. One
of the district’s leaders at that time recalled and captured this effort clearly.
We went from one of the most tightly managed curriculum oversight districts in
the nation to one where there was earned autonomy, where principals, based on
their student achievement results, earned the opportunity for freedom and
flexibility with accountability, and I think that was intentional on the part of the
superintendent, not just to throw the doors open.

The managed portion of the Board’s phrase Managed Performance Empowerment dictated an
intentional level of step-by-step progress. Reed stressed transparency and through the 2010
Strategic Plan, Reed and team clearly defined what was expected in relation to year-to-year
academic progress. The plan defined numeric targets but Reed’s interim work, as reported to the
Board through his annual evaluation, cited specific year-to-year targets aligned with 2010 goals.
This progression began with a carefully crafted set of non-negotiable structural and
curricular elements that helped span the district’s move away from tight pacing guides to site-
based decision making. Entitled Non-Negotiables, this list included an adherence to the “what”
as opposed to the “how” of teaching and learning. A key leader at the time recalled,
I think the strength of that transition was actually our non-negotiables, holding on
to some non-negotiables, and having some non-negotiables even for our Freedom
and Flexibility (FF&A) principals. There were just some basic things that it didn’t
matter how good you were, you were still going to do. What I saw evolve over
those five years, and even to this day, is a real commitment to getting those non-
negotiables for our FF&A principals, as they were called, down to a page.

Non-Negotiables included two pages of centralized, district-mandates including what
principals were required to do with regards to scheduling, curriculum, assessment,
planning, and lesson design. A math portion from the elementary Non-Negotiable
elements is listed below in figure 4.
130

Figure 4: Elementary Math Non-Negotiable Elements
Elementary Math: Use Investigations in Number, Data and Space as the core curriculum. Provide 100 minutes
daily in instructional schedule as specified below:
 60 minutes for Investigations in Number, Data and Space lesson (including Investigations workshop)
 30 minutes for differentiated workshop based on student data
 10 minutes for Classroom Routines (Grades K-2) or Ten-Minute Math (Grades 3-5).
Notes:
 Directions can be found in the Investigations Implementation Guide at each grade level.
 This time should not be immediately before/after the Investigations 60-minute lesson. For example; at the start
of the day or 10 minutes before a special or 10-minutes before or after lunch.
 Emphasize student engagement in the 8 Standards for Mathematical Practice.

Principals that had received the Freedom and Flexibility with Accountability designation
received a refined list of non-negotiables. An example of the FF&A non-negotiables
included only the below items under the heading of curriculum instead of the two-page
document that non-FF&A principals received.
Figure 5: FF&A Non-Negotiable Elements for Curriculum
Elementary Curriculum:
 Follow the North Carolina Standard Course of Study
 Use the district resource, Imagine It!
 Follow the K-3 Intensive Reading Model for Level I and II students

Despite the Freedom and Flexibility with Accountability initiative and paired down lists
on non-negotiables, progress was slow towards site-based innovation that Reed had envisioned.
Reed’s frustration with the district’s development in this regard led him to tap national experts as
resources. He brought in groups including the Aspen Institute to examine the districts practices
including its journey towards managed performance empowerment. As one of those experts
defined, the district’s growth was akin to a dilemma that he likened to free-ranged chickens. Like
chickens raised in a pen, simply opening the door does not mean that they will venture out onto
the range. Similarly, simply inviting and encouraging principals to take bold and innovative steps
towards school and curricular design does not guarantee that they will follow. Many of the
district’s principals had been professionally raised during the district’s managed instruction era
and were most comfortable leading in this regard. As his tenure in QCPSD continued, Reed and
131

the Board of Education would confront other challenges that limited their ability to provided
additional resources in this regard. Much of the district’s progress during this time came through
other initiatives including new district curriculum-based programs.
Defining Equity in Teaching and Learning: As a superintendent, Dr. Reed could be
considered balanced in his approach to the district’s curricular programs. During his five-year
tenure, Reed and his team would add few district-wide curriculum-based programs. Significant
shifts did occur however, in the areas of mathematics and science. These shifts could be noted
early on in the 2010 Strategic Plan. Reed and his team zeroed in on Algebra as a gatekeeper of
sorts to high school graduation and a college-bound pathway. To tackle this, the district shifted
its focus away from a traditional, process-driven form of mathematics. They worked to
implement a new curriculum series entitled Math Investigations funded and produced by the
National Science Foundation, TERC, and Pearson. This effort produced almost immediate results
that helped elevate the district’s overall composite student achievement results across Reed’s
tenure. Double-blocking became a well-utilized scheduling strategy in an effort to ensure that
students had consistent access to instruction that would allow them further their progress.
Progress in the area of science could also be tracked back to curriculum-based decisions.
The district implemented several experiential, hands-on approaches to science education
including enhanced approaches to STEM and programs like Engineering is Elementary, Odyssey
of the Mind, Science and Math Olympiads and Camp Invention. Much of this work began at the
district level but produced site-based impacts including robotics programs at the high school and
middle school levels. Progress in this regard has remained sustainable and as one district leader
noted, significant.
The results are stunning, whether you look at student achievement, whether you
look at the achievement gap, whether you look at the participation of elementary
132

teachers in science professional development, whether you look at the number of
Engineering is Elementary (sites), Science Olympiad, Odyssey of the Mind. Any
metric you look at, the results defy the possible. In the thousands – from zero to
thousands of students participating in science fairs. I think about those kids who
have now had seven years of that kind of rich experience in science. They’re now
in middle school and high school. So, I think that’s probably, for me, the most
dramatic, intentional, real strategy to change science instruction.

An example of a non-curricular teaching and learning initiative implemented during
Reed’s tenure is the district’s K-3 Intensive Reading Program. Specifically cited in the 2010
Strategic Plan, this effort was designed to ensure that students with the most significant needs
had access to scheduled, daily interventions. As mandated in the district’s non-negotiables for
both FF&A and non-FF&A principals, students with significant reading needs were to receive an
additional 90 minutes of leveled reading instruction within the regular school day. The details
and scheduling of the program were site-based decisions and results varied accordingly. A 2011
internal evaluation of the program found “few positive results for this program” but cautioned
that this assessment was made without having a true comparison group as all of the district’s
intensive readers received this same intervention (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 2011).
Despite statistical significance, the cultural impact of providing resources based on need would
become a significant reoccurring theme across Reed’s tenure in the Queen City Public School
District.
Professional Development
Table 8: Rubric Scoring of Professional Development

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

3

4

3.2

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 All of the principal development programs created during Reed’s
tenure continue today and have begun producing leaders
recognized as district principal of the year.
 Alignment of principal development work continues from training
and selection to evaluation and development.

 Align your funding streams to ensure fidelity of professional
development plans and initiatives.
 Provide teachers a vision for the multiple career pathways that
exist through continued professional development.
 Use talent streams, talent pools and talent management strategies
to deepen and preserve leadership bench strength.
 Use external partners to bring targeted programs to scale.

133

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Defined teacher career pathway work was never taken to scale or aligned specifically with professional development.
 Budgetary reductions and leadership turn-over decreased the capacity of the district’s Professional Development Department during the
later years of Reed’s tenure.

Dr. Reed entered the Queen City Public School District to a professional development
track record that included a history of short-lived initiatives. Alignment of programs varied
especially with regards to any effort designed to develop teachers beyond the basics of managed
instruction. Reed understood that results as a district would have everything to do with how
QCPSD developed teachers and principals. Through the 2010 Strategic Plan, Reed and team
initiated several changes designed to align development efforts across the district. A key district
leader summarized this shift well in her acknowledgement of this intentional resources design.
And within a few years of Dr. Reed’s arrival, we moved to an Executive Director
of Professional Development, a Director of Leadership Development, and a
Director of Teacher Professional Development. So there was an
acknowledgement that you can’t stand before your community and your
employees and say that in order to be the best district in this nation, and to
eliminate the achievement gap, we have to have an effective teacher in every
classroom, an effective principal in every school, and not think that you’re going
to have to dedicate some resources, both people and financial, to building the
capacity of those two critical positions

While Reed worked to add depth and an organizational structure to the district’s
professional development team, he also worked to decentralize teacher development
efforts through the seven newly created Learning Communities. Regional groupings
allowed for targeted efforts including development efforts in the Achievement Zone
focused on school turn-around work.
Systemic Teacher Development: At the core of professional development work in
QCPSD was the needs of the district’s teachers. Reed and team understood this but the
scale of professional development needs in a district the size of QCPSD became an
immediate challenge. As cited by a district leader, the district had to “step back and say,
134

‘Okay, we’ve got 4,000 elementary teachers, and we’ve just declared that we’re going to
be Balanced Literacy. How do you scale that?’” The strategy of utilizing the Learning
Community structure worked in some regard as each community office was staffed with
specific curriculum and professional development specialists tasked with regional teacher
development efforts. As a result, departments and school sites began to enhance their
efforts to develop teachers. A district leader at that time noted, “You’ve got Title I
investing in PD, you’ve got the PD department investing in PD, you’ve got the
Curriculum and Instruction team investing in PD, you’ve got principals and teachers
investing in PD.” Efforts like learning community led Data Wise training occurred for all
schools across the 2009-2010 school year and was aligned to district-wide assessment
developments. A similar effort was taken to scale in 2012-2013 in preparation for the
district’s adoption of the Common Core.
The district did take to scale several other organizational initiatives including a web-
based directory of professional development opportunities offered across the district. This
system, MyPD, provided teachers with access to offerings by teaching strand. While these
systems helped align efforts and increase access, specified content at the district level was never
matched to the individualized needs of site-based teachers. Self-selection remained the primary
lever for teachers determining their professional development needs.
Defining Multiple Career Pathways: Teacher and administrator professional development
efforts began to gain traction district-wide through Reed’s appointment of a new Chief Academic
Officer in 2009. Pushed in this regard by the district’s work around teacher compensation, a
specified career pathway model was developed with the intent that professional development
work in the district would be aligned accordingly. Pathway efforts included intentional
135

development of teachers as mentors, facilitators, specialists and administrators. The scale and
scope of these positions would depend on both a teachers aspirations and their performance in
their classroom and across their school. The district’s development of a career pathway for
teachers never reached full scale during Reed’s tenure as superintendent. These efforts were tied
to the district’s teacher compensation work which lost momentum after Reed’s departure in
2011. Budgetary reductions and additional turnover on the district’s professional development
team additionally reduced leadership capacity to take these efforts to scale. In addition, with the
adoption if the Common Core and other state-initiated changes, the focus of the professional
development team had to tack quickly to meet the changing needs of schools and teachers.
Career pathway work is still underway in the district but now includes the work of Public Impact
and Educational Resource Strategies (ERS) in developing what has been termed Opportunity
Culture in extending the reach and compensation of high-performing teachers.
Deepen the Bench: Career pathway work, most commonly associated with teachers,
likely produced the best results during Reed’s tenure with the district’s principals. This work,
tied specifically to the district’s 2014 Strategic Plan, developed aligned strategies that
purposefully linked hiring to professional development. The urgency of these effort grew in
intensity with the inception of the district’s Strategic Staffing Initiative (SSI). Described in detail
in the Human Resources portion of this case study, SSI reassigned high-performing principals
within the district to low performing schools for three deliberate years of intensive turn-around
work. However, as one district administrator noted, a bench of talented leaders became vital to
the continual progress of all schools. “We cannot pluck a high-performing principal out of
Sharon (Elementary) and think the people over there are going to sing ‘Kumbaya’ and the
136

‘Hallelujah Chorus’ that they’re leaving and not be expecting the equivalent coming in right
behind.”
As termed, the Principal Pipeline, this work developed a series of aligned efforts that
grew principals from interested but untrained employees to successful fifth-year site
administrators. The program included multiple partners across the multiple phases of role
definition, principal preparation, hiring, evaluation and professional development. Two specific
programs aided the district in attracting and developing administrative talent. Developed to
deepen the district’s bench of talent, one grew internally while one brought a national recruiting
base.
 Leaders for Tomorrow: In an effort to grow leadership talent that was internal to the
district, QCPSD partnered with a well-known local university to create the district’s
Leaders for Tomorrow Program. Developed in 2008, the partner university specifically
worked to co-create a specified program for the district that focused on key leadership
competencies that QCPSD targeted in school leaders. This master’s level program takes
two years to complete. Cohorts are developed to journey through the program together
and at any given point, the district has two cohorts of future leaders in preparation.
Designed to mix real-world, job-embedded rigor with the reflective practices of a college
classroom, the program has already produced several leaders that have been recognized
as principals of the year in the district.
 New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS): Working to build a national pipeline of
leadership talent, Reed and team intentionally entered a competitive process to bring New
Leaders for New Schools to Charlotte. Selected for expansion in 2008, the first cohort of
New Leaders entered QCPSD schools as Resident Principals in a year-long residency
137

program. These leaders were specifically trained to take on roles in high-needs, low-
performing schools within the district and were paired with high performing principals
for their year-long experience. The program begins with an intensive summer training
component and is followed by a year of practice, reflection and targeted professional
development provided specifically by NLNS. The program remains in existence with
several former New Leaders now serving as principals in high-needs schools within the
district.
Candidates found to be ready for principal consideration moved into a candidate pool
used by regional superintendents in their hiring process. Once a principal was hired for the role,
the district moved that person into a second phase of their development process. A grant from the
Wallace Foundation significantly aided this portion of the professional development process for
principals. The effort was two-fold and began with the development of Super-Standards (listed
below is figure 6) for all QCPSD principals that focused on 13 key competencies that the district
felt were vital to successful site leadership. These competencies mixed instructional with
managerial skills that principals and principal mentors would focus on as experience was gained
across the first five years of a principal’s career.

138

Figure 6: Super Standards for Principal Development

Principals hired together were grouped in cohorts by year. As a key district leader noted,
“Because they had a cohort of people they were traveling with, they were supported, they were
getting better, they were getting pushed.” With regards to the results thus far she added, “We’re
seeing that first group of principals finish their fifth year. It’s an amazing group of principals.”
This intentional five-year development process began with the basics of mentorship in years one
and two. This two-year period is vital as a principal’s first contract is a two-year agreement and
does not guarantee renewal if the district does not believe a leader is heading in the right
direction.
Once a principal’s contract is renewed, they enter a four-year agreement that requires a
different phase of leadership. In year three, principals attend a year-long program that the district
developed with a local university partner to push principals to reflect on their development as
139

leaders. This program, developed in conjunction with Executive Leadership Institute at Queen’s
McColl Business School, purposefully challenged principals in the area of change leadership. In
year four, they attend a program that the district developed with the Innovation Institute at the
McColl Center of Visual Art. This program was specifically design to push principals to rethink
and redesign key structures within their schools. This fourth year experience is coupled with a
fifth year, year-long project designed to push principals to take these key changes to scale in an
intentional leadership project.
Sustainability versus Scale: In retrospect, Reed may be his harshest critic with regards to
his perspective of professional development work during his tenure. As a district, metrics were
never developed that matched what the district needed to offer individual teachers to what those
teachers needed in terms of professional development. As Reed noted, “I never figured out
enough of how to map what teachers want and need versus what we offer. I don’t know if
anyone has figured that out yet.” A colleague of Reed’s at that time summarized the challenge of
this scale and scope well.
That’s the tension you have in a large district, scope, scale and fidelity of
implementation… Going to scale quickly bumps up against fidelity of
implementation. So it’s always trying to take that three legged stool and get the
stool to balance, urgency versus fidelity of implementation. And to feel like
you’re scaling this in a way that can be managed by the talent that you have.

Of the reform elements assessed in this case study, professional development efforts, especially
with regards to principals, had some of the strongest trends of sustainability. Nearly all of the
efforts developed during Reed’s tenure continue today.
With regards to the district’s professional development efforts, scale became a significant
challenge for Reed and team. Sustainability was evident though the continuation of efforts well
beyond Dr. Reed’s tenure as superintendent. However, the work that Reed and team did to create
140

these initiatives was step one in the sustainability question. When asked about whether or not
these efforts can be tied to sustainable trends in student achievement, a key district leader
responded, “We were game-changing in terms of student achievement with our principal
appointments.” She added, “We were on a roll for a number of years in producing amazing
principals who had the urgency, were instructionally grounded, understood how to lead teachers
with data, and had the human relations skills. They came with the complete package.” While the
district was able to get to scale in the area of professional development for principals, similar
efforts with regards to teacher became a different matter.
HR Systems and Human Capital Management

Table 9: Rubric Scoring of HR Systems and Human Capital Management

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

2

4

4.2

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 Strategically staffed schools showed significant year-to-year
proficiency gains and academic growth rates across the life of the
SSI initiative.
 Reed’s Strategic Staffing Initiative has been continually revised
and was utilized by his successor to address the needs of under-
performing schools.
 Leaders for Tomorrow and New Leaders continue to train and
prepare future principals for leadership positions.

 Talent Matters - Define and uphold rigorous selection processes.
 Rigorously build equitable practices by ensuring that your most
effective employees are focused on your most urgent needs.
 Widen the Pipeline - Add quality recruitment and development
streams to your talent pool.
 Seek input and expertise from external partners but develop
practices and leadership internally.

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Ineffective leadership hampered the development of Human Resources across Reed’s tenure.
 Few initiatives internal to Human Resources produced the intended results or continued after Reed departed the district.

Few if any reform areas were more important to Dr. Reed than that of a highly-effective
educator. Whether intentional or unintentional, Reed clearly prioritized reform in this area across
his tenure in the Queen City Public School District and began immediately in addressing these
matters through his first strategic plan. Reed’s tenure in relation to Human Resources was varied.
The district made significant, impactful strides towards recruitment and selection, especially with
regards to principals. Initiatives like Strategic Staffing reshaped the culture of QCPSD and
changed the views of how the district utilized the resources of time, people and money.
141

However, internal challenges marred forward progress inside the Human Resources Team. While
progress overall was significant, Reed and others clearly viewed this period in the district as both
progressive and challenging.
Reed entered in 2006 to significant needs of a different kind then those that the district
had when he exited. In 2006 and 2007, the district hired over 1,500 new teachers each year. The
challenge in that regard was simply whether or not enough quality, credentialed teachers could
be identified, sourced and hired. At that time, the local economy was still progressing, jobs were
available and teacher turnover was high especially in low-performing schools. This environment
changed rapidly less than two years later when the downturn of the local economy altered local
and state funding streams. The district went from hiring in mass to specified reductions including
teacher-level positions. Known logistical and personnel cracks within the system began to show
and new leadership was called into the department to usher the system through these challenges.
As a key district leader recalled of that time,
From 2006 to 2011 there were multiple shifts within Human Resources -- Who
answered to who, and how to get work done. The fallout from that in 2009 to
2011 and beyond required you to call different people, but if you could get it
done, if you knew one person that could get it done, that one person wound up
doing it all. So, you found your one connection, if you were lucky.

Such strategies were not sustainable and unacceptable given Reed’s priorities. “I can remember
Simon saying over and over again, talent matters,” cited a district administrator. The fact that
organizationally, that department continued to falter frustrated Reed. While several initiatives
would produce significant results and gain national attention, Reed zeroed in on his own
leadership in reflecting on Human Resources. “We never got Human Resources right as a
department,” stated Reed. “So, here’s part of my challenge. And I don’t say that to blaspheme or
damn the people working. I’ve never seen a great HR Department. I’ve never worked with one.”
142

Reed cited his own context in stating, “I don’t know what to ask for, I don’t know the right
questions, (and) I don’t know who that leader is. So, I don’t think I did a good job with that.”
Widen the Pipeline: To address turnover both at the teacher and principal levels,
Reed and team began to focus on widening recruitment, sourcing and development
options for talent. Perhaps more than any other area in Reed’s tenure as superintendent,
the district had numerous external partners that aided in this collective work. On the
teacher side, Reed immediately worked to enhance and increase the district’s partnership
with Teach for America (TFA). Reed and the district used a $4 million dollar grant from
a local family foundation to grow its TFA corps from 80 to 150 teachers in advance of
the 2007-2008 school year. Likewise, Reed worked to build capacity within the district
to attract teachers from non-traditional backgrounds. Like New Leaders for New
Schools, the district courted and finally was selected by the New Teacher Project as a
district for expansion. Teach Charlotte grew from this partnership and in 2011, began
efforts to recruit mid-career professional to teach in the district in the areas of math,
science, special education, and English as a second language. The program included an
alternate pathway for state certification that was aligned to both teacher professional
development and effectiveness ratings.
Pipeline efforts also significantly shaped how principals were recruited, sourced
and hired. As noted in the previous section, professional development, Reed and team
again partnered with external organizations to recruit and develop talent. Nationally, the
New Leaders for New Schools program added some seven to 15 resident principals to
the district’s reserve of leadership candidates each year. Likewise, the internally
developed Leaders for Tomorrow Program paired internal candidates with the resources
143

of a local university partner for a two year leadership experience. Each graduating
cohort varied in size but typically added another 20 to 30 principal candidates to the
pipeline each year.
Rigor in Selection: Partially due to the significant numbers of teachers being hired during
the early years of Reed’s tenure, teacher selection was not a significant part of the 2010 Strategic
Plan. That noted, the rigor of the selection process for becoming a principal in QCPSD increased
significantly. “We certainly hired the teachers. I don’t know that I would say that was a signature
piece of his (Reed’s) reform strategy,” cited a district leader at the time. “I would argue that on
the principal side, we completely redefined the principal process.” Reed immediately zeroed in
on efforts to ensure that every school was staffed by a high-quality leader. While classroom
teaching and learning remained at the core of the district’s work, the scale of 9,000 teachers was
much more significant than the district’s 160 principals. Reed was able to focus his team on
finding, hiring and developing 160 principals.
Particularly with administrative appointments, Reed’s attention to detail was relentless.
He interviewed every principal and assistant principal, prior to being recommended to the Board
of Education. More than a few did not pass Reed’s interview which sent shockwaves through the
district’s administrative ranks. As recalled by a district leader, “It sent a strong signal to
principals that you’ve got to be on your A-game.”
To take those selection processes to scale, the district began work on the development of
pool processes that further allowed the district to selectively source talent. Processes began in a
centralized manner with interviews, panel discussions, scenarios, and writing samples.
Candidates that advanced to various administrative pools were the only candidates that the
district interviewed when vacancies opened. While the process was lengthy for potential
144

candidates, these strategies allowed for greater selectivity in the hiring process. These
developments were viewed as significant steps forward in terms of sourcing talent. As recalled
by a key leader at the time, “You had to get into a pool. That was a game changer in terms of
getting people’s attention. ‘What do you mean?’ Licensure was no longer an entitlement for a
job, no longer a proxy for job ready.” Well after Reed’s departure in 2011, the district’s pool
processes continued and increased to include, assistant principals, facilitators, and specialist
positions.
Development and evaluation were interconnected parts of Reed’s reform efforts in this
regard. While development began to gain traction, especially with regards to administrators,
Reed was challenged by long-standing practices with regards to evaluation and administrator
contract renewal. A key district leader at that time recalled,
If you looked at our evaluation ratings of our teacher, 97.6% of the teachers were
at standard or better, and it was about the same for principals. Contracts were
being renewed as a regular course, so I think that was certainly, bench strength
was something that he identified early on.

For Reed, such blanket rates of proficiency did not adequately meet the needs of the district’s
students and schools. As noted in the previous section, Assessment, Reed and team attempted to
define an effective teacher and principal differently, through student results. While contentious
and controversial in nature, these efforts were aligned with Reed’s views on equity.
Defining Equity in Human Resources: Issues of equity have for decades been on the
forefront of challenging issues faced by the district. Whether it was desegregation efforts in the
1960s or student assignment changes in the 1990s, who has access to what resources has
historically played a part in the district’s story. Upon entry, Reed expected these issues and did
not shy away. Early in his tenure, Reed and team worked to create and name an intentional
community of historically low-performing schools that would be separate from their peers in
145

geographically structured learning communities. Titled the Achievement Zone, Reed
intentionally coupled the district’s ten lowest performing schools into this specific community.
Utilizing his framework of time, people and money, Reed challenged typically resource practices
in demanding of his team, “the Achievement Zone comes first.”
As Reed would later note, “an Achievement Zone is not a reward.” In fact, schools that
were named to the zone in 2007 were all designated by the state as being persistently low-
performing and in the words of one of the state’s Superior Court Judge’s, committing “academic
genocide.” The zone’s structure and resources were significantly different from other learning
communities and included a Community Superintendent that reported directly to Reed instead of
the district’s Chief Academic Officer. Every need associated with the Achievement Zone was
prioritized. From facility needs to human resource matters, the Achievement Zone came first in
every regard. New programs including the district’s partnership with Harvard University’s Data
Wise Project were piloted in the Achievement Zone. External partners including a $1.4 million
investment by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and consultant support from the Parthenon
Group out of Boston, MA.
Higher funding rates included much lower class sizes, as low as 12 to 1 in some
Achievement Zone schools. Ultimately however, severe budget shortfalls led Reed and team to
dismantle the zone in 2010 as the resources required to sustain the initiative were not attainable
given the rates of funding that the district was receiving. Two year earlier, in 2007, the zone’s
schools had led the district with the highest academic growth rates. This progress continued for
much of the following two years including, as Reed recalled, a return call from that same
Superior Court Judge congratulating him on the progress made within the Achievement Zone. As
the economy staggered in 2010 and funding streams dried, Reed and team disbanded the
146

Achievement Zone in favor of two significantly larger zones of Title I schools. Clearly, given the
funding demands of the Achievement Zone, the initiative cannot be considered a sustainable
reform efforts. Yet, the lessons learned from this zone laid the groundwork for Project LIFT, a
later initiative funded privately with $55 million that targeted the feeder pattern of the district’s
most in-need high school.
Reed and team additionally used weighted student staffing in an effort to equitably
balance resources, especially the resource of people. The district received teacher allotments
from the state in terms of how many positions would be provided. A formula of 1.0 was used for
every student in the district, K-12, but students that qualified for the free/reduced lunch (FRL)
program were weighted 1.3 by comparison to their non-FRL peers. This weighting added staff as
a school’s size or poverty rate grew. Principals could subsequently use additional positions
gained through weighted student staffing to lower class sizes or exchange for various support-
based positions including deans, counselors, social workers, and academic facilitators.
Yet, despite significant efforts to increase resources, support and oversight, progress
towards the elimination of historic achievement gaps was not significant enough to meet Reed’s
expectations. As the superintendent, he wanted district leaders to view their resources differently
and break free from long-held beliefs regarding who teaches, where and how. Reed summarized
his intention in this regard as follows.
The teaching component wasn’t a big challenge, but how we use great teachers
was a challenge, and how we best put their skills in place. In many ways, we
operated like a shop that required negotiation for what people do instructionally,
when we had the authority and the ability to just do it. An example I would give
you is in QCPSD, there’s nothing stopping a principal from assigning teachers
with the greatest skills to the kids with the greatest deficiencies and gaps. Yet, our
research was pretty clear that that wasn’t happening.

147

Reed continued to push and midway through his leadership tenure, he began to see the
impact of his work with regards to how principals assigned teachers. Terms like
effectiveness began to trump terms like qualified and principals in particular began to
assign their most in-need students to the teachers who were statistically mostly likely to
help those students achieve success. Reed had the opportunity to experience these equity-
based practices first-hand through the assignment of teachers for his middle school aged
daughter. With principals focusing on assigning their most effective teacher to their most
in-need students, Reed’s own daughter was not receiving instruction from her school’s
statistically best teachers. As one the district’s leaders at the time recalled, “He (Reed)
had to receive one of his own reform strategies, because he had told the principals, put
your best teachers where they’re needed most.” Undeterred, Reed continued to push and
in 2008, Reed rolled out one of the signature reform efforts of his leadership in the Queen
City Public School District.
Strategic Staffing: Statistically and culturally, few if any of the district’s reform efforts
during Reed’s tenure as the superintendent had the impact of the Strategic Staffing Initiative
(SSI). Hailed both nationally and at the state level, this particular effort aligned well with Reed’s
beliefs regarding equity and had a profound systemic impact across the Queen City Public
School District. As a key district leader cited, “I think strategic staffing is probably the most
significant thing that I think Simon did, and probably had the most profound impact on my belief
system and who I am.” Cited specifically in the 2010 Strategic Plan, the evolution of this
initiative began early. Reed’s colleague at the time summed this up in remembering the
superintendent’s willingness to dig-in and “fix” these historic equity issues.
When I came into this position, I was like, “We have some of the worst principals
in our Title I schools that I’ve ever seen. I didn’t know there were people that were
148

this bad.” And he (Reed) said, “Fix it.” So I came back down to my office and
piddled around for a week, and then went back. “You know what, we’ve got our
best people in the game but there’s nobody on the bench. There’s nobody there to
put in the game. So we’re sort of strapped.” And he said, “Fix it.”

Understanding the needs of the district’s lowest performing schools, Reed consciously weighed a
“push” versus a “pull” in relation to transferring in the district’s most effective leaders. He
understood that principals needed to make a choice to be reassigned as the ramifications of a
forced transfer would likely backfire both at that leader’s new school and across their former
school.
Beginning in 2008, Dr. Reed initiated strategic staffing by reassigning and naming seven
high-impact principals to underperforming schools across the district. Each of these schools
qualified as Title I with free/reduced lunch rates of 75% or higher. Principals made the choice to
be reassigned as Reed approached each one personally with the opportunity. This choice
mechanism was important for logistical and cultural reasons as the transferring principal was a
significant element in every iteration of the SSI design. As echoed in a 2009 district publication,
Reed emphasized, “I have never seen a truly great school without a great principal. When we
decided to create the Strategic Staffing Initiative, we knew that the principal was the key lever to
achieve successful reform at any struggling school.”
The basic design of SSI began with five specific tenants. Listed below, each of these
elements consciously considered important human resource elements associated with turning
around under-performing schools. The five basic tenants included:
 A high-impact principal with a track-record of success in raising student achievement
rates.
 A principal named, high-impact team of five to seven staff members including teachers,
facilitators and administrators.
149

 The authority to out-place as many as five under-performing staff members on entry.
 A three year commitment including an evaluation hold-harmless clause that ensured that
principals were not held accountable for immediate results but rather, sustainable school
turn-around.
 Compensation for all entering staff members. Administrators received a 10% pay
increase and were able to name up to five teachers or teacher-level staff members who
received a $10,000 first year recruitment bonus and a $5,000 bonus each of the second
and third years of their SSI contract.
As Reed and team named the first round of principals in 2008, they prepared for the
potential backlash from schools and communities that were losing their high-impact leaders to
the named SSI schools. This reaction did not develop however, as newly named SSI principals
stressed, as one principal cited, “the moral thing to do.” This moral theme would become
reoccurring across the life of strategic staffing as the initiative developed to include nearly 30
schools at its height. A key district leader at that time recalled the significance of this moral
initiative,
I mean, how embarrassing, to get all this national attention and stand up at all
these national conferences and talk about strategic staffing when you come from
a banking town where if you’ve got a struggling branch, you put your best
people there overnight, and it either works in a couple of weeks or you close it
down.

Results associated with SSI schools were scrutinized closely despite the relatively low-
dollar amount of this turn-around initiative. An internal evaluation completed in 2011 (Pulliam
and Schoeneberger) by the district summarized three concluding characteristics found across all
of the strategically staffed schools that the studied.
150

 Because SSI schools were found to be consistently fragile, it was important that leaders
utilized leadership styles that were consistent with the intended stage of reform.
Relationships with staff characterized by trust and respect occurred in time.
 Early success in terms of enhanced rates of student achievement were vital in building
buy-in and relationships between administration and staff. In-turn, these relationships
helped ensure sustainability.
 Principals who instituted the largest number or greatest intensity of reform initiatives on
entry reported the highest rates of fatigue across time.
While the academic gains were noteworthy, perhaps the most significant and sustainable shift in
this regard was not related to student achievement rates or gap reductions. Rather, SSI changed
the culture of the district with regards to the equity of resources. As a school leader at that time
noted,
“Our district made it an honor to go to the most at-risk schools. That’s a cultural
thing. They did it through naming this program, they did it through money, but
they made it a badge, that forever a teacher or a principal who was tapped for
strategic staffing… In other districts it was the lowest job on the rung, but in our
district, it was the ultimate compliment."

With regard to SSI as it was created by Reed and team, the last group of
associated schools and principals was named shortly after his departure from the district
in 2011. However, the Interim Superintendent who followed Reed continued to stress the
initiative and even worked to structure retention compensation for SSI teams that
remained after the expiration of their three-year contracts. When Reed’s successor was
named in the spring of 2012, the continuation of strategic staffing was noted to be in
some peril. However, after a year on the job, Reed’s successor developed the district’s
2018 Strategic Plan which called specifically for a redesign of SSI in relation to the
151

plan’s fifth goal, district performance and accountability. This redesigned turn-around
initiative was reworked, refined and rolled out by QCPSD in June, 2014. Redesigned in
nearly every facet, the new plan was founded on the same basic tenants, leadership,
resources, support; that were originally utilized by Reed in the initiative’s initial design.
The year-after-year student achievement trends of SSI schools during Reed’s tenure, the
continued cultural resonance of the initiative, and the redesigned version currently in use
by QCPSD, all point to indicators that suggest that strategic staffing was one of Reed’s
most impactful and sustainable initiatives as a leader.
Finance and Budget

Table 10: Rubric Scoring of Finance and Budget

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

3

4

5.0

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 Adherence to goals and associated efforts outlined in both the
2010 and 2014 strategic plans remained tight despite
unprecedented decreases in funding.
 Funding for key district initiatives including Strategic Staffing
were never deprioritized and never experienced reductions in
funding.

 Transparent budgeting and financial processes and decisions allow
stakeholder input and understanding.
 Budget decisions, including reductions, were aligned first to the
Strategic Plan and second to related indicators including impacts
on student achievement.
 Budgeting and resource allocation practices are aligned to needs
and emphasize outputs over inputs.

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Difficult budget decisions led to mistrust of the district within specific communities.
 Some resource heavy initiatives including the Achievement Zone were discontinued as they required funding that became unsustainable as
budgets tightened significantly in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

As a county-wide school district, the Queen City Public Schools receives funding through
fairly consistent federal, state and local sources. As a general rule, the district receives two-thirds
of its funding from the state and another third from the county government. However, during the
time that Reed served as superintendent, state and funding streams decreased so significantly that
less-flexible federal funds became a significant source by comparison. When Reed entered in
2006, funding was consistent with the fairly stable local economy. Critical budget and resource
decisions were minimal and Reed was able to redirect funds with relative ease in his first two
152

years to align and grow efforts related to the 2010 Strategic Plan. The superintendent’s
relationships with state and county leaders were viewed as a positive for the district as in his
early years, Reed, the School Board, the County Manager and County Commissioners went so
far as to agree to terms as to how the school district and county would align their priorities and
processes. As noted by a key member of Reed’s team, “That was monumental, to sit at a table,
agree and sign a document to say that we’re one, we’re together.” The complexity of these
relationships however, would be challenged across the years to come.
By the 2009-2010 school year, midway through Reed’s five year tenure in QCPSD, the
downturn of the economy nationwide began to impact state and local resources for the district.
After consecutive years of redirections to competitively fund needed efforts across the district,
easy to cut programs and positions were difficult to find. Consistent shortfalls at both the state
and county levels led to reductions in funding allocations. These year-after-year decreases,
consistent with the Great Recession of the late-2000s, would become the most significant
challenge for QCPSD to overcome under Reed’s leadership.
Alignment and Fidelity
In general, the budget process for the Queen City Public School District would begin in
the late fall and early winter months of November and December. By January, the superintendent
would begin working with members of the Board leading up to an initial draft of the budget
presented publically in April. From that point in early spring, the superintendent and district
enter into a series of back and forth requests, meetings and negotiations with local leaders in
anticipation of the county’s budget in early June. With state funding, the process involves very
little negotiation between district and state officials. The state budget requires agreement in both
153

houses and a final vote or veto by the Governor. This vote, typically in the early to mid-summer
months brings QCPSD their state allotment including positions and funding.
When asked about Reed’s philosophy in relation to funding decisions made in alignment
with the Board of Education, a key leader in the district stated, “The philosophy was about
transparency.” From the beginning and especially as budgets began to retract, Reed emphasized
transparency, alignment and communication with regards to district budgeting practices.
Throughout the months that made up the budget process, Reed consciously spent hours in
budget-related discussions with Board Members, county officials, employees and local leaders.
The hallmark of his budgets from 2006 through 2011 was an alignment with the associated
strategic plan. Every proposed and recommended budget item was tied and explicitly noted as
being aligned to objectives and initiatives as outlined in the district strategic plan. In response to
a question posed about guidance in terms of priorities and reductions, a key stakeholder
responded without hesitation, “the strategic plan.” As noted, “Strategic staffing as an example.
Even in those tough economic times, we did not back away from that.” In particular, the district
took aligning priorities a step further and enhanced funding for initiatives that were producing
the most significant impacts on student achievement rates. This was true of the previously
highlighted example, strategic staffing. Funding for that initiative was never reduced even when
the district faced reductions of over $100 million. The initiative was producing year-after-year
results which produced unflinching support from Reed and team who proceeded to add
additional schools in both 2009 and 2010.
Doing More with Less: The downturn of the national, state and local economy began to
significantly impact district funding in 2009. Noting the trends of fiscal decline nationally, Reed
and team began to put in place frameworks for possible priorities and reductions. These
154

frameworks included a preference to cut as deeply as possible away from the classroom in an
effort to preserve site funding. As noted by a key decision maker on Reed’s team, “The first
priority was to minimize the schoolhouse impact. The second priority, what investments do we
need to continue to make to hit our objectives?” Reed acknowledged the pain of reduced funding
but keep his expectations district-wide high as evidenced by his publically shared mindset, “more
with less.”
Efforts to save schools from funding reductions lasted through 2009 as reductions hit
district services but generally spared schools and school-based staff from the pains of reductions.
As the 2010-2011 school year approached, Reed and team could see very difficult days ahead on
the horizon. In reflection, a key district leader at that time noted,
We’d plan for the worst. The first year it was $34 million, the next year it was $15
million from the county. We had exhausted all of the operational efficiencies that
we could find. When you look back, you can see that as a percentage of the
budget, most of the cuts were in operations for years. But after we went through
those two years of significant reductions, we realized that we had to go to the
school house.

Reed’s external mantra with regards to the budget changed from “more with less” to “less
with less.” As early as August, 2010, Reed began to publically acknowledge the possibility of
school closures. Coupled with program closures like reductions to pre-kindergarten services, the
possibility of school closures sent shockwaves of anxiety through the QCPSD community.
Throughout the 2010-2011 budget process, Reed continued to push for transparency
including open budget work sessions, budget-related town hall meetings, and regular media
briefings throughout the budget process each year. With some alignment to a School Board that
was growing further divided by the prospects of historic budget cuts, Reed and team crafted
guiding principles for making decisions around the budget, school closures, program cuts and
performance-based layoffs. As a leader noted, “Our intent was to do it in a thoughtful, planned
155

way so that principals had time to plan and think about it. That theory, that philosophy, worked
really well. We weren’t surprised. We were prepared when those cuts came.” Never-the-less,
public discontent in relation to school closures from impacted communities grew into rallies,
marches, and arrests at QCPSD School Board meetings.
As early as October, 2010, Reed and team understand the particularly difficult budget
cycle ahead spanning the next six months. The necessity of school closures was becoming a
reality in conjunction with other drastic cuts and Reed understood that the road ahead was going
to be internally and externally difficult for the district and community. As noted in an interview
at that time with local radio station WFAE, Reed stated, “I believe this is a process we have
needed to go through. Added Reed, "Have I wanted to go through it? No. But have we've needed
to? Absolutely. I'm tasked with making recommendations for the entire district. As a whole
district, we've got tough choices ahead with what challenges we face.”
With regards to the school closing decisions of 2010, a district leader at that time noted,
“We had evidence to show that they (schools) were not performing. We had evidence that
showed that they were extremely costly models because they were very small; that the facilities
were in ill-repair in many cases.” Never-the-less, discord around closures reached a high as the
School Board voted to support Reed’s school closure recommendations in November, 2010,
closing 11 of the district’s schools. At the time, district leaders felt that they had utilized
feedback loops to adequately gauge stakeholder input. In reflection however, most felt that they
missed opportunities to gain internal and external opinions as reductions were being made. As
noted by a key stakeholder, “In terms of the outreach of the budget communications, we could
have done that better.”
156

Equitable Resource Allocations: Across his tenure as superintendent, Dr. Reed stressed
the levers of differentiated resources and support. Reed named these resource distribution
practices as a key component to his leadership tenure in QCPSD stating, “I truly believe that
every principal in the district during my tenure knew that we were about great leaders, great
teachers, data, and accountability systems, and differentiating resources for kids who needed it.”
The district’s most broadly utilized tool in this regard was a prioritized practice entitled weighted
student staffing. This practice weights every student as a 1.0 but adds additional weight equaling
1.3 to any student growing up in poverty.
In QCPSD, district funds follow students based on their needs rather than school-driven
formulas. However, based on scale and scope, district schools received varied staffing levels
equaling often noted differences in per-pupil funding rates. Schools that served students with
significant needs received as much as $6,000 more per student from the district than the schools
with the lowest poverty rates. This additional allotment for students in high-need schools
amounted to approximately $48 million annually during a signal school year under Reed’s
leadership. In addition to other differentiated resource allocation practices including the Strategic
Staffing Initiative and the Achievement Zone, weighted student staffing was viewed as a
relatively contentious model. Reed would often counter back citing that two-thirds of the
district’s academically at-risk students attended school together in only one-third of the district’s
schools. Aligned with Reed’s focus on equitable resource practices based on outcomes rather
than inputs, these composite needs drove differentiated resource distribution across Reed’s
tenure including years that required significant budget reductions.
Sustainable Practices v. Unsustainable Funding: Sustainability can be difficult to
measure when variations of year-to-year inputs force drastic cuts and redirections. While the
157

practices that Reed employed in budget matters aligned across his five year leadership tenure, the
superintendent was forced to lead the district through historic budget shortfalls at the local and
state levels. When asked about the sustainability of the budget practices that developed during
Reed’s tenure, a key district leader respond, “Yes. I can show you an email that I got just last
night that states clearly, ‘goal one, goal two.’ There are definitely conversation that are
continuing.” In reflection, Reed cautiously considered the sustainability of the district’s budget
and financial practices with a slightly different perspective.
When you look back, the greatest decrease in funding for schools in the past sixty
years occurred on our watch, while we were in the midst of our reform initiative,
and we still increased student achievement. We fought some tough battles.

These battles, as previously noted, ended in programs being ended, jobs being lost, and an
economic downturn that altered everything including the closure of schools. However, as noted
by Reed and others, student achievement rates continued to climb.
Communication

Table 11: Rubric Scoring of Communication

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

2

5

3.8

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 Several key efforts started by Reed including regular media
briefings have continued.
 The QCPSD Communications Department have continued efforts
to include principals as key communicators.
 Reed’s current successor continues to embrace the practice of the
superintendent as the district’s central communicator both
internally and externally.

 Communicate early, often and with a clear focus on public
transparency.
 Embrace the spotlight of leadership - Reed worked to enjoy his
role as the district’s central communicator.
 Put in the time - Reed dedicated hours, days and weeks to both
internal and external communication and understood that he could
not lead from the Office of the Superintendent.
 Inform and equip school principals as key assets to district-wide
communications.
 Leaders need to be aware and track their presence to ensure that
they are meeting with as many parents and employees as possible.

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Budget reductions significantly reduced the capacity of the Communications Department leaving it under-resourced to meet the demands of
budget cuts, layoffs and school closings.
 Key leaders that initially influenced communication plans either departed the district for other leadership opportunities or moved into
different roles.

158

Prior to his entry in 2006, Dr. Reed began to view communication as a key lever to
district improvement and community perception. Reed viewed his strengths as a leader to be
well-aligned with these need citing, “This required a skill set that I thought I was decent at doing.
He added that, “There was a willingness to put the time, energy, and effort into communicating
effectively.” His work in this regard was well informed. Prior to Reed’s hire, the Chamber of
Commerce had conducted polling in the wake of the failed bon referendum. Respondents cited a
lack of faith in the board as their most significant reason for not voting to pass the proposed
bond. Upon entry, Reed’s work in this critical area began early as he and the district’s
communications lead understood well that they would need to push the superintendent to the
forefront of the community’s interest in the Queen City Public School District. Reed’s first few
months on the job confirmed his early views regarding the importance of regular, transparent
communication. A key district leader in 2006 reflected, “At that time, the public did not feel that
they had access to key district leadership.” As Reed recalled,
People complained that a previous superintendent never talked with people. They
said, we have a number of superintendents who have done this, and we’ve just
gone through a little bit of a gap, or drought, because the person who had been
there, it just wasn’t a fit for them, there wasn’t a level of comfort.

Reed’s momentum as a leader both internally and externally got an immediate shot in the
arm three months into his tenure when the district unveiled the 2010 Strategic Plan.
Communication leading up to and in conjunction with the plan’s rollout were critical and well
aligned to Reed’s views regarding transparency. As he cited in reflection, “We communicated to
people so that they knew what we were going to do and why we were going to do it.” Reed and
team understood that early communication around the elements of “what” and “why” were to be
crucial to building district and community support. The plan was well aligned to what Reed had
159

learned during the listening and learning portion of his entry plan. Reed in particular understood
that early communication would be critical to successful reform work. As he noted,
So, those things all added up. The block where reform occurs is in schools, in
classrooms, not in a district or a region. If the school doesn’t know what you’re
doing, if the principal doesn’t buy in and they don’t understand, you can’t tackle
it. So we just chose, if our unit of change is a school, then we have to make sure
principals buy in, know, and understand. That’s why we spent so much time
communicating with them.

This element of momentum became a critical lever for building the district’s brand as the
community choice for public education. Reed’s presence as a leader and district communications
furthered this momentum and as one key leader recalled in this regard, “We were representative.
We were in schools. Our schools were beginning to take the shape of neighborhoods at the time.”
Culturally, communication during the early portion of Reed’s tenure positively impacted the
organization as a whole. Reed’s entry was well received, the 2010 Strategic Plan was well
communicated and across the district, employees and parents alike seemed to show general
support of the direction that QCPSD was headed. A key district leader included, “When you
have a focus in internal communication, when you create an environment in which authentic
communication can happen inside the organization, then you are supporting your front level
staff, you teachers, your principals.”
Quality in Communications: In reflection, Reed acknowledged that upon his entry
into QCPSD, significant talent already existed within the district’s Communications
Department. Reed was able to bridge and narrow the gap of trust between stakeholders
and the district. As he noted, “It was a combination of there was a gap because a person
hadn’t been doing it; there was great coaching from our Chief Communications Officer
on how to go about doing it.” With Reed, the district and the communications team had a
leader that understood that he had to be a public leader. A key member of his team added
160

in reflection, “One of the things that Dr. Reed really focused in on was how, through a
number of different mechanisms, we can become much more engaged with our
community both internally and externally.” That known, Reed clearly inherited and
worked to further develop a team that was capable of doing more both internally and
externally.
Most notably, Dr. Reed joined forces early on with a key leader in his
Communications Department that remains a nationally recognized leader in developing
and facilitating targeted communication plans. He trusted the insight that he received
from his team and valued the historical context that these leaders were able to provide. As
one of those leads noted,
Dr. Reed was an amazing person in terms of his ability to present information and
communicate information exceedingly well. Combining that with a
communication’s lead who I think is the absolute best in terms of knowing how to
pull certain communication levers for maximum result. That combination of those
two really transformed our district as far as making our community feel much
more invested in our school district.

This transformation in relation to district communications would continue to develop as Reed
and team worked to enhance the QCPSD’s communications platform to include a combination of
television, web, and in-person opportunities that furthered enhanced messaging across the
organization and community.
Transparency, Clarity and Regularity: Dr. Reed’s philosophy with regards to
communication mirrored the mindset that he employed in assessment, finance and other areas of
leadership. Transparency was a key characteristic of communications during Reed’s tenure as he
demanded the dissemination of clear information on a regular basis. As with other key levers,
Reed reflected on transparency in communications by citing, “We’re going to tell the truth to
adults and not lie to kids.” As noted of that time by a key district leader, the community did not
161

feel that they knew or regularly heard from key district leaders including the superintendent
during previous administrations to Reed’s leadership. She cited, “We had to change the tide in
saying, ‘how can we grant you access to the top?’” This included a key district strategy in
creating regular weekly opportunities for local media to converse with the superintendent and
key district leaders. A leader at that time noted, “Now, if you (the media) get your superintendent
twice a month, you have to come prepared or you run out of questions because we answered
everything.”
In the early years of Reed’s tenure, the district had developed a robust
communications platform that included a professionally run district television station,
QCSTV, a developing web presence and scheduled regular interactions with the local
media through weekly briefings with the superintendent. This regularity was not just a
key lever fulfilled by the superintendent as principals and schools played a significant
role as well. The district began to utilize phone messaging systems like ConnectED, web
updates, Facebook and Twitter feeds, and text messaging to more regularly communicate
with parents. As added by a key district leader at that time, there were national concerns
that the utilization of tools like ConnectED were designed to meet. As stated, “In 2006-
2007 we were coming out of Columbine (High School shooting incident). There was
increased safety awareness. People wanted to feel a lot safer than I think they wanted to
feel before.” Suggested by another key leader, “They (parents) needed to have a
relationship with their school and feel that they got a response in a timely manner.” The
public responded to these changes and in particular, to Reed as a leader. The district’s
external communications were aided by Reed’s ability and desire to communicate. He did
not shy away from the media and worked to provide reasonable access. In reflection, a
162

key leader at that time noted, “It helps when you have a good-looking superintendent that
wanted to talk.”
Internally, these key levers of transparency, clarity and regularity with regards to
communication seemed to produce significant results within the organization. The
communications team employed regular email blasts that scheduled opportunities for Reed to
interact candidly with school and department staff. He meticulously tracked the frequency of
visits to ensure that he met with as many employees county-wide as possible. Reed also focused
deliberately on his relationships with school principals. He regularly attended the district’s
principal meetings and began these monthly opportunities with unscripted updates as to what
was occurring within the district, state and at the federal levels. As Reed recalled, “The way I did
the principals’ meeting process was a big peg in our reform.” In particular, Reed cited a recent
interaction with a district principal well after Reed’s departure from QCPSD.
That’s one thing I’ve heard from principals when I’ve seen them. “Man, I miss
your principals’ meetings.” What do you mean, you miss my principals’
meetings? “I miss you talking for that 45 minutes at the start. We knew why we
were doing what we were doing, what was important, how it tied in both federal,
state, local. We knew what the Board was going to be dealing with next. You
didn’t roll something out to the Board or the public without holding the
principals’ meeting at 2:00 o’clock on Tuesday.

As Reed noted in reflection to principal meetings, “We did things so they knew. We did these
thematic, you be the editor, don’t let them pick the truth. If you don’t tell the truth… We did
things that were all around messaging.”
Balancing Capacity with Demands: When asked about the sustainability of
communications under Reed’s leadership, a key district leader stated, “I’m conflicted.” She
added, “It was good but then we had to lay people off because of the budget.” The idea that it
was good was shared by several respondents. Clearly, Reed almost immediately changed the
163

relationship that the public had with its superintendent. He became the face of the district and the
go-to person for the media in terms of leadership and information. Reed had the early support of
a strong team but budget cuts across departments reduced the personnel and capacity of the
district’s communications team. As noted by a key leader, “Up until the economy crashed, oh-
my-god, you should have seen some of our approval ratings. They (community) loved the man,
he could do no wrong.” Unfortunately for Reed, this capacity reduction coincided with the most
significant challenges that QCPSD would face during his tenure.
As budget cuts became the norm and school closings dominated the media headlines,
Reed found himself with a communications team that was roughly half of the size of the one that
he had a few years earlier. Facing budget shortfalls in the $100 million range, reductions moved
beyond internal departments and into schools. QCSTV fell victim to needed cuts and was
eliminated in 2011. Reed went from public forums focused on strategic plan initiatives to hostile
environments of angry parents and teachers demanding answers. Instead of playing offense with
regards to communicating publically, Reed and team had to play defense and were forced to do
so with significantly reduced communication capacity. Communications in this regard seemed to
peak in terms of intensity around school closures but as district leader acknowledged, the team
simply did not have the capacity to meet the community’s demands in this regard. As a key
member of Reed’s team recalled, “I do think that the leadership was interested in the historical
perspective; I do think we thought of it. But perhaps we didn’t dig deep enough before the
communications had to come out. She continued,
I guess you just intuitively think that people understand that you are at the bottom
and that these choice are what we believe are in the best interest of kids. But
perhaps we didn’t understand some of the historical context around what that
would feel like to those communities.

164

As added by Reed, “I just don’t think we nailed those pieces.” He continued, “There’s a
whole other piece, too, about what didn’t go well, and that was at the end of my time as
superintendent. The school closures were very difficult, so that was certainly a concern.”
In relation to sustainability, a member of Reed’s team suggested, “You can sustain any
communication tactic forever but what is the point and what is the context? Who is your
audience and what are you trying to accomplish?” For Reed and his team at QCPSD, the context
changed perhaps more during his tenure than any other time in the history of the district. Reed
and team clearly moved the dial in terms of both internal and external communications.
However, budget challenges, school closings and other controversial matters in the later years of
Reed’s administration shifted the context and left him working to do more with a team that was
undersized by comparison to the task at hand.
Governance and Board Relations

Table 12: Rubric Scoring of Governance and Board Relations

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

1

3

4.2

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 Reed successfully replaced the Board of Education as the key
communicator for the district. This change remains in effect today
as Board relations continue to improve.
 The Board’s move away from micromanagement to policy and
governance has continued.
 Reform governance policy work has continued to provide the
superintendent and district leadership with general leadership
autonomy and avenues for meaningful reform.

 Reed and team meticulously prepared and communicated with the
Board of Education in order to avoid mistakes or surprises at the
dais.
 Manage split decisions by the Board of Education with care to
avoid a trend characterized by internal divide.
 Reed worked to ensure alignment between the Board’s policy
work and reform initiatives developed and implemented by the
district.

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Reform governance work slowed significantly as funding became unavailable for new initiatives.
 Some evidence showed relational strain between Board Members and the superintendent around the key issues of budget reductions and
Reed’s departure from the district.

As described by Garcia (2009), the Board of Education that Dr. Reed entered to was
often characterized as unfocused and micromanaging. Polarizing issues stemmed from recent
changes including a court-mandated move away from forced busing to a district that focused
165

more on building neighborhood schools. As a key leader alongside Reed recalled of these issues,
“The district had gone through a process, including litigation, where it was ultimately declared a
unitary school district. It was beginning to try to figure out how to work in that environment
including things like student assignment.” Board Meetings often included arguments between
members and gained the attention of the local media. The Board of Education had in many ways
become the face of the district. This troubling development furthered the divide that the
community felt from their school district.
Just prior to Reed’s arrival, the Board had begun governance training through the Urban
School Leadership Foundation (USLF). This training led to the development of the Theory of
Action which passed narrowly just prior to Reed joining in 2006. Reed’s early work in QCPSD
was aligned to this newly developed Theory of Action. A key leader on Reed’s team noted,
The area that focused on the Theory of Action and Freedom and Flexibility with
Accountability was reflective of where the Board wanted to take the district in
terms of how we would be organized and how we would do certain things. But
beyond that, the Board really wasn’t involved in strategic plan development.

Reed worked to align strategic planning to the direction provided by the Board of Education but
rarely involved Board Members other than updates on the progress of planning. Reed also never
sought the Board’s approval of either plan but in effect, the goals and objectives of both the 2010
plan and the 2014 plan were adopted by the Board of Education when they approved the criteria
for the superintendent’s evaluation. That noted, the absence of the Board in the strategic planning
process did not lead to feelings or perceptions of misalignment. Rather, as noted by a Board
Member at that time, “It was incredibly aligned to the mission, vision, core beliefs in terms of the
way that Simon and staff put that together. We (the Board) could see the alignment even though
in putting it together, we were not participants.”
166

Nothing Left to Chance: Reed immediately understood that as a district, good decisions
were not made at the dais without extensive preparation and management. Specific
representatives on the Board of Education had a history of micromanagement, an effort that was
focused on in their training with USLF. Reed was forced to use defense as his offense and
worked meticulously to meet with Board Members on a regular basis, call them directly when
district matters needed their attention, and ensure that they received information and materials
well in advance of required decisions. As he recalled in detail,
And there was dysfunction among Board members that, for the majority of my
time as superintendent, I played defense with the Board, not offense. And my job
was to partner with those Board members who I felt were focused on increasing
student achievement for all kids, raising the bar, closing gaps, increasing
graduation rates, and in playing defense, there was just a lot of time that didn’t get
used as much as it should, that I could have done more with the staff, to help us
move the direction forward.

As a Board Member at that time recalled with respect to Reed’s exact schedule, “Because
of the regularity of Simon’s meetings, I tended to know what was going on (in the district) before
the day before.” Reed wanted the Board to be consistently in the loop meeting with the Board
Chair and Vice Chair every week and with all Board Members every two weeks in advance of
Board Meetings. As another Board Member recalled, “Simon called us almost on a weekly basis
to fill us in. And then if there was something major happening we got a phone call and they were
almost always from him.” In addition, Reed structured quarterly sit-down meetings with each
Board Member to review the progress of the district including indicators specifically aligned to
the strategic plan and his evaluation. These regular feedback loops ensured predictability both for
Reed and for members of the Board of Education.
Reform Governance Policy Work: Early in Reed’s tenure, a plan was crafted to push the
superintendent publically forward in an effort to change the external perception of the district.
167

This move away from a public focus on the Board produced immediate results. The Board began
to make consistent shifts from micromanagement and towards work as a policy-focused Board
dedicated to governance. As noted by a Board Member at that time, “We were in that moment
between being a Board that wanted to do all of the constituent stuff on its own and realizing that
it really wasn’t a Board that was activist in that sense, in the schools to tell the principals what to
do.” The Board Member added, “It was a policy Board that hired a superintendent to do the rest
of it. We were beginning to fall over more on the policy side but it (previously) had been an
activist Board.”
During Reed’s time, significant steps were taken to adopt, establish and refine reform
governance policies. These included policies pertaining to duties of the Board,
Board/Superintendent relations, constituent services, accountability, and teacher effectiveness.
These policies became the foundation of reform work initiated by Reed including the Strategic
Staffing Initiative. Reed recalled SSI as an example of this foundational policy work,
Strategic staffing came from these discussions, combined with research, and
looking and talking with folks on both the national level, the state level, talking
with the Board, matching our theory of action, looking at our reform governance
policies that were in place that I could take advantage of; that said I could move
teachers.

True to his efforts to leave nothing to chance, Reed worked closely with the Board Chair, the
Board Vice Chair and the Policy Committee to ensure alignment and fidelity. By doing this early
work, Reed and team were able to move forward with reform initiatives without having to return
to the Board to ask for additional permissions. Requests for additional permissions would have
led to micromanagement, a characteristic that both Reed and the Board were working to avoid.
Alignment v. Counting to Five: From the start, Reed was working in an environment
where the Board rarely unanimously agreed on anything including his initial hiring (Reed
168

received an 8-0-1 approval from the Board with one member abstaining). Never-the-less, Reed
understood the importance of strong numerical support for action items as 5-4 and 6-3 votes
meant that Reed and team were a member or two away from not having the Board’s support. As
previously mentioned, Reed worked to avoid surprises and provide the Board with an abundance
of information and personal time in an effort to move away from Board Members making
uninformed decisions during meetings. He wanted to know well in advance if he had their
maximum support even if 9-0 votes of approval were rare.
Changes on the Board and the stress of consecutive years of significant budget reductions
strained both the Board and the superintendent’s relationships with members in the later portion
of Reed’s tenure. A Board Member recalled Reed being “furious” after a Board Work Session as
the Board of Education had altered the recommended list of schools that were being considered
for closure. Reed’s aggressive reform work did not slow despite budget concerns and towards the
2010 and 2011 budget cycles, Reed continued to push reform even if it meant less numerical
Board support. A key leader on Reed’s team at the time recalled this matter in detail,
I think he took a hill around assessments in every grade and subject without his
Board, certainly without his Board chair, and, I believe, the rest of the Board,
certainly without his executive team, and really not with his principals and
teachers. Tactically, I think that was one of his weakest strategies.

A Board Member at that time concurred that the winter and spring of the 2010/2011
school year proved difficult to maintain positive relations. As they cited, “That
(assessment) on top of the closing of schools and Simon’s departure… made it difficult.”
No Good Decisions Left to Make: As noted, the stress and strain of historic budget
deficits proved to be a difficult governance challenge for both Reed and the Board of Education.
A Board Member recalled of that time period, “The drumbeat, whether I was reading Education
Week, or seeing what was happening in Raleigh, or seeing what was happening in QCPSD with
169

our own staff and superintendent; it was all about cuts, cuts, cuts.” Years of redirections and
reductions left the superintendent and Board aligned in their views that there were no good
budget decisions left to make. Any new initiative required further budget redirections meaning
that schools or departments would need to move forward with less resources than intended.
Understandably, the speed of reform slowed and as a Board Member at that time concluded,
“The whole school closure matter dragged us deep, deep into muddy waters.” He continued, “I
don’t think were ever took our eyes off the student achievement ball but the financial picture was
so bleak.”
During Reed’s final months, declines in Board/Superintendent relations were marked
most notably by the Board’s disappointment with Reed’s departure in the spring of 2011. Prior to
his decision, the Board had voted to approve an extension of the superintendent’s contract and as
a whole, continued to show confidence and faith in his leadership of the district. As a Board
Member recalled, “To find out in that June meeting that he was leaving… It was the absolute
worst time. We were floundering and we spent a year (after Reed’s departure) floundering.”
Reed’s decision to leave the district came at a time when public and Board support for the
superintendent may have declined but was still relatively strong. Reed’s departure was by no
means forced by the public or Board in any regard rather, it was a personal decision by Reed and
his family. Even in his departure and after, general comments by Board Members reflected their
appreciation and support for Reed in consideration of his tenure as superintendent.

170

Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations

Table 13: Rubric Scoring of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

3

4

3.5

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 Collaboration between the superintendent and teacher and
principal representative groups continue to date.
 Compensation reform work has been taken up by the state which
has allowed district leaders to avoid the relational pitfalls of this
work.

 Ensure teacher and staff input and feedback with regards to
strategic planning initiatives to increase buy-in and reduce reform
anxiety.
 Carefully include key teacher and staff representatives on lead
teams tasked with management oversight for significant district
reform efforts.
 Avoid taking the hill alone - Consider deliberate speed when
working to reform matters that require labor relations and prepare
for conflict.

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Efforts including the introduction of House Bill 546 eroded teacher and staff trust in the transparency of compensation reform efforts.
 Reduction in Force efforts tied to budget reductions compromised the integrity of labor relations.
 Funding with regards to reform compensation was limited at best and hindered progress.

In comparison to other large, urban school districts, labor relations in the Queen City
Public School District are different as there are not specific labor unions or forced bargaining
clauses in the state. Other structures to ensure teacher representation do exist including monthly
meetings, entitled the Superintendent’s Teacher Advisory Committee (STAC), between the
superintendent, members of the district’s executive staff and teacher representatives from
schools. Early gains in this area were noted by Garcia (2009) as Reed’s entry to the district
included substantial efforts to visit all schools and gain feedback from teachers and staff. Reed
enjoyed a good working relationship with teachers and principals and structured regular feedback
loops through meetings with representative groups including the aforementioned STAC. Early
efforts to consider teacher incentives aligned with student results were not opposed. Rather,
representative teachers and association leads served on oversight committees including the lead
team for the district’s Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) efforts. In addition, there was general
support for the 2010 Strategic Plan as goals and objectives were well understood.
171

Ties to sustained student achievement rates may be loose at best as much of the efforts
with regards to labor relations and contract negotiations were based on aligning pay with
effectiveness. The pressure of this work may have elevated performance as one key leader cited
specifically,
There was an increase in student achievement – graduation rates specifically.
There was an increase in student achievement during those times because this was
not “I’m just going to hunker down and wait this out; things will change.” It was,
“Oh my gosh! It’s not going away. I have to learn this new instrument.” And I
might be saying it’s not fair, but I’m still going to trying to – because if they use
it, are there going to be RIFs again? If they’re going to use performance.

The mentioned reductions in force (RIF) were specifically tied to budget reductions that occurred
across two specific years, 2010 and 2011. The district consciously used performance as a proxy
for which teachers and staff members were not invited to return. Reed would often note
publically that compensation reform work would be done with teachers and not to them.
However, it is difficult to gauge just how much the average QCPSD teacher believed this
intention. From the start, local associations worked to oppose Reed’s efforts in this regard, a
development that the superintendent and team expected. As a key district leader at that time
commented, “When you shake the status quo, the unions and the teacher associations come out
of the woodwork to protect adults and not worry too much about kids.” This active opposition
coupled with the demands of budget strains proved to be significant challenges as Reed
proceeded in this work.
Pressure and Support: Like Reed’s work with the Board and his executive team, his
work with principals was well-aligned to the goals and initiatives of the Strategic Plan. As a
principal at that time cited, “Coming from a place where everything wasn’t driven by the
strategic plan, to hear the PMOC 4.7.3.9, or whatever that was, was kind of comical. However,
everyone knew graduation rate mattered.” This reference to PMOC cited the district’s Project
172

Management Oversight Committee, a group of executive staff members tasked specifically with
ensuring that strategic plan related efforts were proceeding effectively and efficiently. The
principal went on to add, “Everyone knew the expectation of you manage performance, and you
actually complete evaluations, and those expectations.”
Reed worked to ensure that principals were well informed. As noted previously, he
focused on his relationships and candor with principals but also worked to ensure that these
leaders understood the accountability that he expected across the district. One example came
from a principal at the time that recalled Reed’s comments at one of the district’s monthly
principal meetings.
I remember when the superintendent said, “We have a school with 90 teachers,
where 100% of the teachers are performing at or above standard. So we either all
need to go to that school and visit, and figure out what they’re doing, or the
principal needs to be gone.” I will never forget that conversation, because what it
said to me about our district leadership is that he knew a data point – he might
have been told it on the way in the door – but he knew a data point that his
audience had complete control over, and he knew how to make his expectation
toward that.

This intentional focus on a balance of pressure and support became a critical labor relations tool
in propelling schools forward as Reed set the tone regarding effectiveness and accountability. He
expected principals to be key communicators in this regard and modeled these expectations in
both general and specific interactions with site leaders. Reed was regarded for his support of
principals but also known for expecting more than compliance from school-level leadership.
Relations and Teacher Effectiveness: Years after Reed’s departure from the district, he is
still widely remembered by teachers and staff for his relentless efforts to measure and improve
teacher effectiveness. Reed himself recalled his impact in this regard in stating, “We didn’t do
enough of the work we needed to do, and my whole relationship with teachers changed the day
we showed a couple of slides from the strategic data project.” Reed’s citation specifically
173

recalled the research-based disconnect between teacher effectiveness and teacher compensation.
This research was clear with regards to the district paying teachers more based on factors other
than their measured impact on students. Reed was uncomfortable with this disconnect and stated
in reflection, “Showing that slide has to change your relationship because people say, ‘and then
what?’ or ‘so what?’ You can talk about those things but when you show the research that shows
it’s happening in your district, it changes your relationship.”
In reflection, Reed suggested several times that he “didn’t do enough” on the frontend to
explain to teachers and staff why these discussions and initiatives were vital to not only student
achievement but the vitality of education as a career. As he recalled, “I didn’t do discussion
groups. I got too focused on we’re going to deliver this, and we’re going to drive it home. And I
think that made the work harder.” A key site and district leader at that time recalled the
environment in her reflection.
That was a time when teachers were ranked, where we internally, in a very small
circle, developed our own formula to rank these teachers that we wouldn’t share
and couldn’t necessarily describe. We lined them up and said, “You’re in the 98
th

percentile and you’re in the 97
th
percentile.” We made that kind of a distinction,
but we couldn’t give them any information that would help them move. It’s a
different philosophy from where most educators come from. I can see that being
very much a business model. If you’re that person who works for commission,
then that’s empowering, to know that I’m 98
th
percentile. Or that I’m 57
th
, and I
want to be 90
th
. But when most people enter teaching, they lean toward mission-
minded work, and that’s not necessarily a catalyst for change, and it actually
disengaged.

Complicating the matter of pay and teacher effectiveness from a relational standpoint was
the deepening budget deficits that the district encountered beginning in 2009. Reed worked to
begin structures that would align pay to student achievement rates but struggled to answer for
where the additional dollars to support the initiative would originate. In reflection, Reed cited his
work around labor relations in California as providing him the basis for his understanding in this
174

regard. “One thing I learned from my time in California, if you’re going to get language in the
contract, you have to give dollars, and if you’re going to give dollars, you can get certain things
language-wise.” Without mandated bargaining with unions or associations due to the state’s
Right to Work status, Reed had to work specifically through the Board to create a framework for
aligning student achievement indicators to pay. At that time, the Board of Education was
preoccupied with year-after-year budget reductions, staff lay-offs and school closings. As Reed
recalled, “At a time of dollar drought, getting language related to teacher effectiveness is even
harder and takes more legwork than I did. I didn’t do enough.”
With v. To: Reed’s ongoing mantra with regards to teacher effectiveness and
compensation reform cited an effort to do this work with teachers, not to teachers. Public belief
in this statement took a significant hit with the introduction of House Bill 546. This bill,
championed at the state level by a local representative, provided the Board of Education with the
exclusive ability to implement an alternative pay structure. Overnight, the introduction of this
bill frayed the last remaining threads of trust that district staff had in the collaborative nature of
district compensation reform efforts. A key leader on Reed’s team at the time recalled this matter
in detail,
It wasn’t that it was a bad idea, it’s just that if you get to the top of the mountain
as a leader and there’s nobody with you or behind you or beside you, you’re
pretty sure you’re going to topple off the other side of the mountain pretty quick,
because you’re alone. I think Simon found himself at the top of the mountain, and
he didn’t self-correct to realize about halfway up the mountain that he was alone.

Reed, in consideration of labor relations, mentioned the following, “I don’t think I looped in the
associations enough. But then again, I never figured out how they could be partners in this with
the structure they had organized in.” In the end, the district immediately backed away from most
of the compensation reform work that Reed and team had begun prior to his departure in 2011.
175

Work in this regard moved to the state level as teacher effectiveness measure and compensation
reform remain ongoing state-level efforts. Family and Community Engagement
Table 14: Rubric Scoring of Family and Community Engagement

Quality Pre (2006)

Quality Post (2007)

Sustainability (2011)

3

5

4.0

Evidence of Sustainability

Keys to Sustainability

 The district has continued to use the summit format to engage
community partners including a district-wide Faith Summit during
the 2013/2014 school year.
 Partnerships formed in many of the district summits that Reed
initiated continue to produce results for students and schools.

 Be Specific - Reed named engagement and customer service in the
2010 Strategic Plan including goals, objectives and targets.
 Utilize philanthropic organizations as key partners pairing district
efforts with the mission/vision of these established local and
national leaders.
 Pair engagement efforts at the district level with empowerment
efforts at the school level.
 Move forward in careful consideration of the important context of
history as even well-intended steps can be derailed by the memory
and emotion of the past.
 Manage community perceptions and engagement efforts through
both quantitative and qualitative measures.

Evidence Contrary to Sustainability

 Regional structures of schools changed twice during Reed’s tenure and an additional time since. Changes have included the groupings of
schools, the names of regional structures and the services offered at each regional office. These changes have been hard for parents to track.
 Parent University was discontinued after the 2012/2013 school year.
 The district’s Strategic Partnerships Office was discontinued and folder into the Communications Department for funding reasons.

On entry, Dr. Reed was what the Queen City Public School District needed to boost
morale, momentum and public confidence. His entry plan set a torrid pace that Reed would
continue across the five years of his tenure in QCPSD. Reed paired with his Communications
Department in an effort to meet with as many stakeholders as possible in his first 90 days. On
day 103, Reed rolled out his first strategic plan that seemed to emphatically answer that he was
indeed listening. However, to Reed’s credit, he surrounded himself early with leaders that could
help him understand the context of the district’s past. As suggested by one of those leaders,
“People can take ‘don’t forget your history’ to suggest that we don’t want to change what we are
currently doing.” While this was not the case in QCPSD, Reed also understood that he needed to
understand that past in order to move a willing organization forward. One of Reed’s key advisors
at the time summarized this mindset in the following,
176

We’re not going to hold on to the past for the past but the thing you have to
appreciate is, there is a past. So much of this organization is tied up in that
collective past. So, you may need to spend time with this group of ministers. You
may need to spend time with this Board Member. Or, you may need to spend time
with this group of principals who have done it this other way for all of these
years. If you don’t, you may end up more frustrated than you ever realized.

In acknowledgement of that past, Reed and team provided historical context as part of the
2010 Strategic Plan. The plan included aggressive targets and initiatives but skillfully avoided
pitfalls associated with good-intended efforts that treaded incorrectly on past mistakes. In
particular, the 2010 Strategic Plan rolled out a framework for how Reed and the organization
would better engage stakeholders. A key member of Reed’s team remarked of the first strategic
plan, “It was the first time that we acknowledged that our parents and students are our primary
customers.” Another member of Reed’s team added, “As more people got engaged with our
school district, it put pressure and a focus on us to be able to deliver better academic results for
our children.”
Cross-Community Engagement: Through his first strategic plan, Reed and team worked
to develop detailed efforts for how they would improve family and community engagement
through day-to-day services and supports. These efforts include asset mapping as Reed wanted to
partner with organizations capable to aiding the district in this work. As noted by a district leader
at that time, “We sat down and decided, we were going to touch every organization that we
could. We mapped out who the organizations were and we put someone there to share
information.” An Office of Strategic Partnerships was created within the district’s
communications team that would work hand-in-hand to not only deliver information but use such
opportunities to enhance customer engagement.
Reed and team scheduled a series of summit meetings including a faith summit with local
faith leaders of every denomination. These summits focused on how the community could
177

partners with the school district to more comprehensively meet the needs of students and
families. As a Board Member at that time recalled, “I think Simon did some good things getting
that first Faith Summit and getting some churches involved. That has continued to work pretty
well.” The sustainability of these relationships continue to date as one leader that spanned Reed’s
tenure suggested, “From that, we began a conversation that is still going on today around the role
of faith houses in public education.”
In addition, significant gains were made with regards to philanthropic partnerships both
locally and nationally. Reed’s reform efforts and presence as a leader attracted willing supporters
ranging from a local donor that committed millions in funding to grow and support Teach for
America in the district to national organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which
played a significant role in helping the district develop everything from the Achievement Zone to
better understanding the inputs and outputs of effective teaching. Support from these
organizations peaked in 2011 with the announcement of a joint funding collaboration that created
the district’s Project L.I.F.T. (Leadership and Investment for Transformation). This effort
brought together hundreds of individual funders with 7 key philanthropic organizations to raise
over $55 million in funding. An Achievement Zone like initiative, Project L.I.F.T. specifically
targeted schools along the city’s western corridor that comprised of a single feeder pattern for the
district’s most in-need high school. Significant goals were set including a 90% proficiency target
for all students in reading and math and a composite high school graduation rate of 90%.
Academic interventions were coupled with initiatives to meet the social and emotional needs of
students and families. This one of a kind initiative was a first for QCPSD and continues to date.
Gains have been noted but changes in state measures have hindered the district’s ability to
accurately track year-to-year gains.
178

One of the key initiatives that attracted significant attention both locally and nationally
was the district’s development of Parent University. This program focused attention on bringing
families and the community together for targeted events and school-based classes. During Reed’s
tenure, hundreds of classes were offered and thousands of parents participated. However, with
regards to Parent University, a key member of Reed’s team summarized that the initiative was
“Initially impactful but not sustainable.” Inputs were tracked carefully in terms of which schools
offered the most classes, what classes were most offered and how many participants attended.
The outputs of parent engagement and empowerment were harder to accurately assess across
time. Another key member at that time stated, “Sometimes we thought we knew what parents
needed but didn’t always ask them.” Parent University as an initiative did produce results in
terms of the number of classes that schools offered for their parents. However, a follow-up
strategy, whether at the school level or at the district level, never seemed to develop. A leader in
the district concluded, “The concept of engaging families in a real way and providing them the
things that they need through a set thing that would be the umbrella for the whole community is
really what we are still trying to do today.” She added, “I don’t think that it costs the money that
was raised to do that.”
Making Big, Small: Following the lead of a community taskforce report that was released
just prior to his arrival, Reed initiated several efforts to scale down the size of the district in the
eyes of the QCPSD community. Efforts included large, significant initiatives like the creation of
regional learning communities and smaller, more individualized opportunities like the
superintendent’s open email. Tools like the ConnectED program were added to schools which
allowed principals to make regular school-wide or targeted phone calls in an attempt to deliver
information to parents. Bilingual communication efforts increased as many schools began to
179

communicate all home/school information in both Spanish and English. Reed and team worked
to use these tools to increase parental access thus furthering transparency efforts across the
district.
Reed’s most intensive effort in this regard was the creation of regional offices across
QCPSD. Beginning in the 2007/2008 school year, schools were grouped geographically into
Learning Communities including North, Northwest, West, East, South and Central. As
previously noted, a special group of schools was created separate from these regional structures
in the Achievement Zone. Learning Community offices were headed by Community
Superintendents and staffed with both externally facing employees and internally facing
specialists.
As noted in the 2010 Strategic Plan, the creation of Learning Community Offices were
just as aligned to goal six: world class customer service as they were goal one: high academic
achievement. A key leader that the time noted, “Putting things in like the regionalization
(learning community offices) was, as much as it was focused on academic improvement, it was
focused on community engagement as a mechanism.” However, led and staffed by educators,
proficiency gains and growth rates quickly became focus areas for each learning community. As
a strategy to improve teaching and learning, the learning community structure certainly produced
year-after-year gains in student achievement rates. As a customer service or engagement
strategy, sustainable results were more difficult to gauge. When asked about parental buy-in and
support of community structures, a key leader on Reed’s team commented that in general,
parents did not know what learning community included their child’s school. She added, “We
knew that they (parents) didn’t because of the types of calls that we got.” The outlier in that
regard seemed to be the Achievement Zone which included a smaller group of schools.
180

Customer Service: As noted, customer service became a significant district-wide focus
across Reed’s tenure. A priority in the 2010 Strategic Plan, World-Class Customer Service was
listed as one of the district’s seven significant goals. Through this goal, Reed was able to set
expectations including guidelines for retuning emails and phone calls within 24 hours. Volunteer
hours and partnerships were tracked and regular surveys were utilized to monitor the public
perception of the district with regards to involvement, engagement and customer service. Reed’s
accessibility and personal touch helped the community connect with him as a leader. He worked
to answer emails from across the community according to his 24 hour rule and tracked
constituent services to make sure that parent and community concerns were being addressed in
an effective and timely manner.
A key leader within the district captured this desire for an authentic leader well in stating,
“There was a huge need for people to see and touch, if you will, the superintendent, and for the
superintendent’s voice to be very authentic.” She went on to add one of the most telling
comments associated with this research.
Now, in terms of what Simon said would happen did happen, if you’re going to
get out there and talk about customer service, you sure as heck better have a plan
internally, already well oiled, before you start talking about that. Because those
wheels can come off the cart pretty quickly if you just say, “Of course we’re
going to have customer service, and of course I expect people to return phone
calls and emails within 24 hours.” But if you haven’t set the stage, and modeled
that, and I think that’s one of the things that the superintendent did really well,
from the top, from the very beginning, he modeled customer service and
responsiveness whether it was a phone call, whether it was an email. He had an
informal system of keeping cards in his pocket, so that if he was making a
commitment to somebody he was writing down their name or their email address,
and that was a symbol. You know, I really do care about what you just said about
your child’s school, and I’m writing down your name and how to get in touch
with you. And if I’m not back in touch with you, you can be sure a member of my
executive team will be. And you repeat that four or five times a day over a 365
day year, and all of sudden you’ve built some traction and some collateral with
the community.

181

Reed was conscientious about his ability to “walk his talk,” and demanded his team to respond in
just the same way. Whether it was customer service audits or survey feedback, Reed was well
aware of the trajectory of the community’s perceptions. However, as funding grew tight and
budget reductions and cuts became the norm, Reed’s ability to manage customer perceptions was
reduced as funding was quickly cut for non-classroom initiatives.
The Cautionary Note of History: As Reed entered the fourth and fifth years of his tenure
in QCPSD, it was well acknowledged that he had moved the dial in terms of family and
community engagement. The district’s failed 2005 bond now seemed like a distant memory as
one of Reed’s executive staff members recalled, “In the time that he was there, we had another
bond referendum that closed in on 70%.” He added, “It was significantly better than anyone ever
thought was going to happen and I give so much of the credit to Dr. Reed… It was a concrete
way of showing his ability to transform the district with regards to communications and
relationships.”
In reflection, both Reed and district leaders had a difficult time gauging sustainability
with regards to family and community engagement efforts. When probed as to how parental
engagement transferred to become parental empowerment, district leaders were clear that their
employed strategies in this regard did not produce the intended change. As suggested by one key
leader, “We did not intentionally go after families. We put a program there. To engage families,
we paid for a program called Parent University. That became the poster child for how to engage
families.” She added, “It became the strategy when in actuality it is a tactic.”
The school closing process and decisions that came during the 2011-2011 school year
certainly hindered engagement efforts. Reed was his harshest critic in reflection, “I think I got
sloppy to push some things through.” He added, “It’s hard to build a constituency to close a
182

school.” In a matter of months, the school closing process undermined the progress that was
made in terms of building trust and engagement through transparent leadership. Schools that
were closed disproportionately served neighborhoods and communities impacted by poverty.
From a demographics standpoint, these schools served neighborhoods with relatively large
numbers of African-American and Hispanic/Latino students and families. The closing of these
schools were seen within those communities as negatively symbolic. In many of these
communities, history had been unkind including history with the QCPSD. Ramifications from
those closings still hinders district/community relations in many of the impacted neighborhoods
to date.
Non-HOUSE and Cross-HOUSE Related Efforts and Initiatives
The broad nature of the HOUSE Model incorporates a majority of reform work that a
system leader might choose to initiate. That noted, across his tenure as superintendent of the
Queen City Public School District, Dr. Reed by no means obsessed over implementing reform
initiatives that were aligned in any specific sense to the HOUSE Model. Rather, his work in this
regard tended to incorporate several levers within the HOUSE Model into a single initiative. For
example, the Strategic Staffing Initiative (SSI) was one of Reed’s boldest efforts as a leader and
purposefully combined elements of instruction alignment, operational excellence and stakeholder
management. By design, SSI focused on building services to low and under-performing students
and schools through the primary use the human resources related efforts of aligning teams of
effective teachers and leaders while out-placing low performing employees within a school. As
illustrated in table 15 below, he initiative incorporated elements of family and community
engagement, communications, contract negotiations, Board and political relations, resource
alignment, performance management, finance, curriculum and instruction and student support
183

services. The combination of these levers illustrates the complexity of this turn-around initiative
but also provides evidence of Reed’s proficiency as a leader in merging seemingly incongruent
elements into one seamless plan.
Table 15: Combined HOUSE Elements within the Strategic Staffing Initiative
Instructional Alignment Operational Excellence Stakeholder Management
Family and Community Engagement
Political Relations
Contract Negotiations
Communications
Board Relations
Resource Alignment
Performance Management
Finance
Performance Management/Accountability
Curriculum and Instruction
Student Support Services
Focus on Lowest Performers

Discussion
The purpose of this study is to advance learning in relation to how urban
superintendents lead sustainable reform within their districts. This case study specifically focuses
on the background, strategies, actions and reactions of one urban superintendent in his efforts to
implement key reform strategies that produced sustainable student achievement gains. Findings
noted within this chapter were identified in a review of data gained through interviews with key
stakeholders including the superintendent, Board of Education members and key district leaders.
The purpose of the below section is to reflect on and discuss these findings through the
identification of four key characteristics. These four characteristics were central to the successful
and sustainable reform initiatives implemented by the superintendent and district focused on
throughout this case study.
Sustained Efforts and Results
A key question raised during this case study probes how long an efforts must achieve
year-to-year results before it can be considered sustainable. While the answer to the question
varies depending on the context of the factors impacting a particular area, in general, sustainable
results needed to span multiple years and continue to impact the organization after the departure
of key leaders that initiated the reform. In relation to Dr. Reed’s leadership, nearly every
184

measured reform area was positively impacted by his tenure within the district. However, key
reform initiatives and practices produced more sustainable gains that continued to impact
QCPSD well after Reed’s resignation. The three key foundational elements noted below were
found to be related to the plans and gains associated with Reed’s leadership.
 Time on Task: Overall, Reed’s leadership as the superintendent or a large, urban school
district is considered sustainable. His tenure in the district outlasted the averages
associated with leadership in large, urban school districts by some two years. This is an
important note as many leaders simply are not in their positions long enough to produce
any results that can be considered sustainable. Reed’s five year tenure was different in
this regard as it gave him enough time to design, implement and conclude a full four-year
strategic planning cycle. Gains associated with Reed’s first strategic plan drove district-
wide improvements across much of his the five years that he served as superintendent.
The subsequent 2014 Strategic Plan never came to fruition under Reed’s leadership but it
did sustain the district through 2012 including a year of interim leadership for the district
as it searched for Reed’s successor. That noted, Reed’s five year tenure in QCPSD and
the consistency that this provided the organization was foundational to the gains made
from 2006 to 2011 and beyond.
 Favorable Conditions: Reed entered a district and community ready for change in 2006.
The community signaled for change when it voted down a $427 million school bond in
2005. This was followed by a subsequent community taskforce report that called for
sweeping changes that were acknowledged in part by the Board of Education. While
organizational change is never easy, Reed understood that he was entering within a small
window of time in which the case for change had been made. What the district lacked in
185

this regard was leadership, a void that Reed filled well. His sense of urgency in this
regard can be seen in analyzing the speed and intensity of the 2010 Strategic Plan. Reed
also inherited a number of open cabinet seats which allowed him to more effectively
reorganize his executive team. Within a year, Reed had added a Deputy Superintendent
position, a Chief Accountability Officer, a Chief of Staff, and seven Community
Superintendents for each of the newly created regions within the district. In addition,
Reed realigned the positions and roles of current and new members on his executive team
to ensure alignment to the district’s new strategic plan. While these changes are not
uncommon for leaders in large, urban school districts, Reed was able to accomplish more
in a condensed period of time as a result of the conditions that existed and the alignment
of his skill set to the challenge at hand.
 Aligned Leadership Skill Set: As noted above, the community and district of QCPSD
were ready for a change as Reed entered but in particular, Reed was well-suited to take
on his role as the new face of leadership for the district. Reed immediately embraced the
community’s desire to know and support a leader that would provide hope for the future
of the district. Reed communicated a vision in this regard and followed-through on a plan
to bring that vision to fruition. His willingness to communicate publically was a noted
asset as it stood in stark contrast to recently departed district leaders with whom the
community struggled to connect on a personal level. Reed’s ability to connect in this
regard helped build immediate support and a wave of momentum that allowed him to
bring significant reform efforts to scale in his first few years in QCPSD. These early
successes and gains would serve as an important foundation to the district’s continued
186

improvement across the later years of Reed’s tenure when year-after-year budget cuts
would decimate local and state resources and push to constrain district reform efforts.
The year-to-year academic gains made by the district from 2006 to 2011 were striking
considering that QCPSD faced some of the most historic budget shortfalls during that period of
time. These gains were certainly noted as sustainable After Reed’s departure in the spring of
2011, the district continued to move forward with year-to-year gains in student achievement
leading up to the implementation of Common Core related content expectations and realigned
state exams. Consistent with other districts across the state, student achievement rates in QCPSD
dropped during the 2012-2013 school year. While 127 of the district 156 assessed schools made
or exceeded expected gains, proficiency rates dropped significantly in relation to the new state
exams. Composite proficiency rates that had been over 70% fell a full 30 percentage points
including the below rates:
 Composite proficiency rates in elementary and middle school language arts exams
fell from 71.1% to 45.5% (state average was 43.9%)
 Composite proficiency rates on high school English assessments fell from 82.6% to
53.2% (state average was 51.1%)
 Composite proficiency rates in elementary and middle school math exams fell from
82.5% to 46.4% (state average was 42.3%)
 Composite proficiency rates on high school algebra assessments fell from 75.1% to
45.4% (state average was 42.6%)
 Composite proficiency rates in elementary and middle school science assessments fell
from 76.8% to 53.5% (state average was 52.2%)
187

 Composite proficiency rates on high school biology/science assessments fell from
84.2% to 47.2% (state average was 45.5%)
While declines in proficiency rates were expected with these new exams, drops were still
striking for a district that had enjoyed year-to-year gains on the state’s former assessments. Most
strikingly, the gains made in reducing the size of achievement gaps from 2006 to 2012 widened
again as a result of the new content and assessments implemented in 2013. The fragility of the
prior gains, especially with regards to achievement gaps, became an important target for QCPSD
as it entered a new phase of leadership with its 2018 Strategic Plan.
Within the span of time associated with Reed’s leadership, significant gains were noted
that spanned a number of key HOUSE Elements. As measured by this study, these gains were
noted above in relation to the sustainability index scores discussed within each section and as
reflected below in Table 16. Sustainable gains were most prominent in the areas of strategic
planning and finance. These areas in particular were drivers for the district in terms of overall
organization reform and combined, leadership efforts in this regard bolstered the district through
the most difficult financial challenges in a half decade. Tangible and cultural impacts related to
these areas were still present within the district at the time of this study including aligned and
sustainable strategic planning, an alignment of resources to needs, and a district-wide focus on
results. Improvements were certainly made during Reed’s tenure in other areas but as noted in
the element specific sections above, gains may not have produced noted year-to-year
improvements that were able to be sustained beyond Reed’s departure in 2011.

188

Table 16: Sustainability Index Scores

HOUSE Elements
Sustainability
Index

Strategic Planning

4.8

Assessment

3.8

Curriculum

4.2

Professional Development

3.2

HR Systems and Human Capital Management

4.2

Finance and Budget

5.0

Communication

3.8

Governance and Board Relations

4.2

Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations

3.5

Family and Community Engagement

4.0

Sustainable Leadership Practices
As noted across the research of this case study, clear practices that aided sustainable
gains for the district were repeatedly employed by Dr. Reed. The practices spanned multiple
reform areas and often included blended initiatives that included elements from several reform
areas into a single, cohesive effort. These four practices, aligned strategic planning, aligning
resources to needs, a finite focus on results and a commitment to transparency in all things
became the foundation to sustainable leadership practices employed by Dr. Reed. These practices
led to the creation of impactful initiatives that spanned multiple years and aided year-to-year
gains in student achievement rates for the district. Each of these sustainable leadership practices
are explored in detail below.
Aligned Strategic Planning: Consistent through nearly every initiative and measure
across Reed’s tenure is the steady thread of the district’s strategic planning efforts. Whether it
was the 2010 Strategic Plan or the 2014 Strategic Plan, Reed demanded alignment and a
cohesive sense of focus. As was reported by several leaders within the district at that time, the
189

plan was far more than a document used by the superintendent and cabinet. Reed understood the
power and vitality of the development and cultivation of a shared sense of purpose (Cawelti &
Protheroe, 2001). These efforts began with targeted nature of the 2010 plan and transformed into
the sustainable work noted in the 2014 plan. Reed’s plans included explicit expectations that
became foundational to district goals, initiatives and the culture of QCPSD as a whole. Goals and
associated targets were easy to understand and connected well with stakeholders (Snipes,
Doolittle and Herlihy, 2002; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Corum
and Schuetz, 2012). The public nature of reporting that Reed worked to develop built a more
profound sense of recognition and buy-in from across the district. Even years after the 2010
Strategic Plan expired, current and former staff recalled numerous goals and could explicitly
name how initiatives and resources aligned to support associated efforts.
Reed also understood and embraced the Board of Education’s focus on building a district
as a continuously learning organization. Reed acknowledged that within high performing
districts, continuous improvement practices include researched-based reforms, implemented over
a sustained period of time, which directly impacted classroom learning environments (Cawelti &
Protheroe, 2001; Marsh et al., 2005; Fullan, 2007). He valued feedback and revamped the
district’s Accountability Department to move beyond the mere management of local and state
exams. Reed often talked about the importance of exceeding one year of student growth in one
year of time. He worked to guarantee an alignment of resources and support to ensure that efforts
received needed support. As concluded by Childress, Elmore, Grossman, and Johnson, (2009) in
association with their Public Education Leadership Project Coherence (PELP) Framework,
connecting the instructional core with a district-wide strategy for improvement is central to
reform efforts. Reed was ever-conscious of this need and demanded aligned priorities across his
190

executive staff. During the early years of Reed’s tenure, this alignment was far easier as
resources were relatively abundant. However, as budgets tightened to historic constraints in the
2009, 2010 and 2011, the agreed-upon alignment that Reed had developed just may have saved
the district from performance declines. While his public mantra was “do more with less,”
alignment across the district actually produced a continuation of progressive year-after-year
results.
Aligning Resources to Needs: Across his tenure of leadership in QCPSD, Reed
demonstrated a consistent focus on aligning student and school needs to talent. As noted by
Elmore (2003), aligning district resources to district priorities has particular importance for high
poverty schools that if left unprotected, are more susceptible to district instability. Reed
understood that congruency in this regard could not be singular in nature but rather, efforts to
raise student achievement rates and close gaps had to include aligned support from across the
district. In addition, Reed worked to make a case for change calling for an ethical balance as
opposed to strategies that merely defined equity as equal.
As Fullan (2005) noted, public service with a moral purpose is a key element to
sustainable results. In Reed’s tenure, no single initiative had the moral ramifications district-wide
than the Strategic Staffing Initiative. Reed began this initiative through a careful examination of
the needs associated with under-performing schools. He knew the power and influence of a
highly-impactful school leader (Williams, Kirst & Haertel, 2005; Marsh et al., 2005) but sought
to do more than employ the traditional lever of displacing principals. As noted by Reed in
relation to turn-around personnel, “We started having discussions. How many of you will it take?
And we determined it was five; we learned that it isn’t five. What it is depends on the size of the
school.” He added, “There needs to be enough of a massing of individuals who have a belief in a
191

culture and excellence in teaching skills to bring about this change. This is feedback that came
direct from QCPSD teachers. I want a great leader; I don’t want to go alone.” Knowing that the
classroom effectiveness of classroom teachers is the most important school-related factor (Nye,
Konstantopoulos & Hedges, 2004; Loeb, Kalogrides & Beteille, 2011), Reed set out to better
analyze the levers that he would need to pull to build strong turn-around teams within
underperforming schools. He discovered that there needed to be an equitable sense of addition
and subtraction when building a staff. As Reed summarized in the noted conversation below, he
was able to build a formula for SSI through open-ended discussions with highly impactful
teachers and leaders.
“I sat down with one group of teachers, and one said, “The problem I have with
going to that school is there’s a toxic teacher.” And I said, “Tell me about that.”
“It’s Ms. Jones. She leaves for lunch early every day. She’s the first one in the
teachers’ lounge. Sits in the middle of the room. All through lunch, she tells
everyone she hates her job, she hates being at that school, this is lousy, everything
sucks.” I said, “Wow.” She said, “Yeah, she pollutes the whole lunch room.” I
said, “So what do you do?” She said, “I don’t go there for lunch anymore.” I said,
“Really.” And she said, “Yeah, and it’s terrible, because I’m dying for adult
interaction during lunch. But I can’t go there anymore.” I said, “Tell me more.”
She said, “We’ve got to get rid of some of the teachers.” I said, “Is it just the toxic
ones?” She said, “Well, some may be just generally low performing. But that
toxic piece – there’s certain people who, when we’re doing reforms at schools,
they’ve got to go.” So I said, “Okay, we’ve got to be able to move some teachers.
Great leader, go in a team, get some folks out. What else?” She said, “You’ve got
to leave us alone. Because it’s hard.”

Across his tenure, Reed and team poked and prodded at the levers of needs versus talent.
Learning was an ongoing theme as some of the ideas and initiatives never produced the intended
results in Reed’s eyes. As Reed noted, “An Achievement Zone turned out in many ways to be a
stigma. Strategic staffing was support.” Whether it was the Achievement Zone, weighted-student
staffing, extended school day programs, or Strategic Staffing, Reed consistently showed boldness
and a sense of courage in aligning needs to talent. This leadership characteristic is well aligned to
192

research regarding district reform as Togneri & Anderson (2003) noted “Courageous leadership
that acknowledges deficiencies and develops a collaborative sense of responsibility is a pervasive
characteristic of high-performing urban schools districts.” Reed’s sense of duty in this regard led
him to understand that based on the district’s sheer size, immense talent existed in QCPSD to
solve these problems of equity. In any organization, talent often exists to push results and reduce
achievement gaps. Aligning that talent to the needs of students and schools was a central theme
in Reed’s leadership tenure and shaped the culture of QCPSD in a sustainable way moving
forward.
Finite Focus on Results: Throughout his tenure in QCPSD, Reed consistently developed
and utilized efforts that called for differentiated resources and support. Work in this regard
relates back to the equity efforts associated with the district long before Reed’s arrival. Equity-
related matters had historically been assessed through the balancing in inputs. Aside from
weighted-student staffing, district initiatives often focused on defining equity by ensuring that
schools had balanced support and resources. As noted by a key district leader at that time, “There
was a lot of focus on being sure that there were qualified teachers in each classroom based on
inputs, not necessarily outputs.” Reed worked to change the lens of assessing equity by focusing
the district on analyzing and determining the success of initiatives with regards to whether or not
these efforts were achieving the intended results. As noted by Reed, “Equity was measured by
inputs, not outcomes. So, we measured, if we give two times as much to someone, that’s an
equitable situation. Well, what if it’s a double dosage of ineffective teaching? So, it’s not always
about portion; it’s portion and effectiveness.” A key leader on Reed’s team at the time noted of
this philosophical shift, “One thing that Dr. Reed really brought to the table was a much stronger
193

focus on outputs. We were going to spend a lot less time counting whether x number had
master’s degrees.” He added, “We were much more focused on outcomes.”
This focus on outcomes was evident from day 103 on the job when Reed and team
unveiled the district’s 2010 strategic plan. The plan was targeted to the point of specifying where
the district would be in terms of performance by the 2010 school year. As Fullan (2005) noted,
leaders committed to sustainable results need to have a dual commitment to short-term and long-
term results. Reed understood this value of blended results and developed year-to-year interim
measures to ensure that the district was tracking according to expectations towards the 2010
targets. Progress in this regard was public knowledge and was communicated with clarity on a
regular basis including through the superintendent’s annual evaluation with the Board of
Education. Each evaluation report leading to the completion of the district’s 2010 plan included
full-page spreadsheets by goal that publically reported progress. Additionally, Reed utilized
weekly written reports to the Board and local media and agenized in-depth reports by department
and initiative as part of monthly Board Meetings. Furthermore, each initiative and effort were
tracked through weekly internal reports during Reed’s executive staff meetings. The regularity of
this approach alleviated surprises and provided the staff with opportunities to correct if efforts
were not progressing towards targets.
Transparency in All Things: One final characteristic of Reed’s tenure of leadership as
superintendent of the Queen City Public School District was his unwavering commitment to
internal and external transparency. As Fullan (2003) suggested, effective communication builds
relationships and trust between both internal and external stakeholders. This was true of Reed’s
entry and early years as he worked to transform how both employees and the public viewed their
school system. Reed was ever-committed to communication and comfortable with the spotlight
194

of being the superintendent of the only district serving one of the nation’s largest cities. Reed’s
candor in this regard also proved to be a significant asset for the district with regards to
communication. As Reed noted, “I like talking about what we’re doing, because I believe it’s
sharing the message, and evangelizing.” Reed had a confidence to him that is likely necessary to
any public leadership role. That noted, he also seemed to genuinely enjoy public opportunities
speak about the district’s work both with stakeholders and the local media. While Reed’s skill as
a communicator was an asset in building an internal and external sense of trust and support,
district progress in this regard was also related to diligent efforts and an ongoing commitment.
Research with regards to successful district communication efforts illustrates the bond of
trust that is formed when districts successfully manage day-to-day communication as opposed to
a crisis-only mode (Carr, 2006). Reed and team seemed to maximize these day-to-day
opportunities through careful structuring of the superintendent’s calendar. The public rigors of an
urban superintendent leadership role are well known and documented. Never-the-less, Reed
often hit the ground running early with public breakfasts and typically ended his evenings late
after district events, meetings or forums. This schedule, while taxing physically and mentally,
also produced public results as Reed was a leader that people felt they regularly saw and knew.
He became the public face of the district, allowing QCPSD to shed its pervious cloak of Board-
related arguments and misunderstandings. Reed was also front and center when things went
wrong on his watch. He structured media briefings to discuss public concerns and rarely steered
clear of an interview with the local media. In stark contrast to leaders that had gone before him,
Reed clearly moved the dial in terms of improving public perception of the school district.

195

Summary
This chapter reviewed and discussed the findings associated with this third phase of
research in relation of how one superintendent worked to reform and sustainably improve a
large, urban public school district. These findings were the products of 21 interviews including
the superintendent, members of the Board of Education and district leaders that served alongside
the superintendent during his leadership tenure. The associated findings were compared against
Garcia’s 2009 study and specifically assessed the sustainable, year-after-year results of intended
reform efforts. The associated discussion within this chapter sought to analyze, discuss and
reflect upon the significant trends and practices identified in this research. Chapter five follows
and will present a summary, conclusions and implications of this study.

196

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Very few leadership positions are more complicated or critical than that of a
superintendent in a large, urban school district. Changes in accountability systems and the rise of
standardized testing have only heightened the pressures associated with being a superintendent.
Yet, few leadership opportunities offer the impact that an urban superintendent has on the lives
of thousands of students. When effective, superintendents chart a strategic course for their
districts that allows the organization to flourish on behalf of its students. As student achievement
rates rise, so too do college-going rates as a single large urban school district can
disproportionately impact the future of the community and city that it serves.
As leaders of these organizations, superintendents of large, urban school districts must
navigate unparalleled internal and external forces. Mandates at the federal level push in with
both funding and tight accountability. State exams are often the measure of student achievement
and signal locally a school district’s positive or negative impact. Often times, urban
superintendents must manage publically elected Board of Education members that represent
varying constituents and viewpoints within a city. Public pitfalls for urban superintendents have
recently ranged from fiscal mismanagement to outright testing fraud. Yet when effective, urban
superintendents hold as much, if not more power than any other local leader in terms of
impacting a community’s collective future.
For these reasons and more, the leadership of successful large, urban superintendents
must be studied, analyzed and chronicled for the learning of current and future leaders. Best
practices must be shared that aid others in their journey towards sustainable reform. Quick turn-
around efforts must be weighed against the impactful and systemic change that is brought about
197

when urban superintendents successfully guide their organizations forward for years at a time.
The levers employed by these leaders are rarely the same but in studying successful urban
superintendents, we learn and advance the chances that other large urban leaders and districts
will find their ways to the critical apex that is sustainable change.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to advance learning in relation to how urban superintendents
lead sustainable reform within their districts. This study specifically focuses on the background,
strategies, actions and reactions of one urban superintendent in his efforts to implement key
reform strategies that produced sustainable student achievement gains. This study builds upon
several associated studies and serves as a third phase of work specifically related to the Phase II
study on the Queen City Public School District (Garcia, 2009). Like the first two phases of
associated research, this study specifically examines reform through ten specific strategies as
identified through the Urban School Leadership Institute’s HOUSE Model. These elements
include strategic planning, assessment, curriculum, professional development, communication,
finance/budget, human resource systems/human capital management, labor
relations/negotiations, family and community engagement, and governance/school board
relations.
This study also specifically examines reform efforts employed by the superintendent that
both blend reform elements and go beyond the conceptual framework provided through the
HOUSE Model. Key to both areas of study is the element of sustainable reform as short-term
results generally are not the aim of large, urban districts and their leaders. This analytical study
incorporated the following research questions and the seven related sub questions.
198

1. Which of the ten key change levers utilized by the superintendent and previously
identified by Garcia (2009) produced sustainable reform that resulted in significant,
multi-year, upward trends in student achievement?
a. How did the identified ten key change levers develop across the first five years of
the superintendent’s tenure?
b. How did the quality, tenure and degree of implementation of successful change
levers vary in comparison to less successful efforts?
c. Were additional or previously unidentified House Model related change levers
implemented across the first five years of the superintendent’s tenure? If so,
which of these levers proved most impactful and why?
2. Of the additional (non-House Model) levers that were identified and implemented,
which produced sustainable reform that resulted in significant, multi-year, upward
trends in student achievement?
a. What necessitated the need for these additional levers?
b. Of the additionally identified levers, which proved to be most impactful and why?
c. How did these additional change levers develop across the first five years of the
superintendent’s tenure?
d. Of the additionally identified levers, which proved to be most impactful and why?
In examining the decisions made by Dr. Simon Reed, superintendent of the Queen City
Public School District (QCPSD) from 2006 to 2011, this study advances research with regards to
both leadership and sustainable reform. Reed’s five year tenure in QCPSD produced significant
year-to-year gains in student achievement. Despite historic challenges associated with a
significant nation, state and local recession, the district outperformed other large, urban school
199

districts and was recognized as doing such with the 2011 School Leadership Prize. These results
and honors drew national attention as Reed was able to successfully lead his district through a
sustained period of impactful reform that resulted in the transformation of the organization as a
whole. In association with Garcia’s 2009 study, this third phase of research provides a five year
analysis of Reed’s leadership at the helm of the Queen City Public School District.
Methodology
In order to achieve the intended purpose of this study, understanding the context of the
superintendent’s leadership decisions was of particular importance. Descriptive-analytical case
study research methods were utilized for this reason as this approach provided the researcher
with detailed qualitative information both from the superintendent, Dr. Simon Reed, and leaders
within the school district and community during Reed’s leadership tenure. Given the
multifaceted nature of leadership decisions, targeted interviews were selected as the primary tool
for data collection. Interviews were conducted of Reed and 23 other leaders. Through this
process, a significant amount of detailed information from multiple perspectives was acquired.
This data was analyzed in an effort to triangulate trends and gain context with respect to reform
efforts that led to sustainable gains in student achievement. Identified trends were measured
against developed quality rubrics that assessed information according to each of the ten selected
reform areas associated with the HOUSE Model. Data included evidence of sustainability,
evidence contrary to sustainability and keys to sustainability.
Sample
This case study specifically focused on the leadership decisions and reform efforts of one
superintendent serving a single large, urban public school district. To gain needed context,
sampling was done through a series of interviews with the superintendent, selected district
200

leaders and selected leaders on the Board of Education. While not all of these participants
remained in district-related leadership roles at the time of this study, all served in key stakeholder
roles during Reed’s tenure as superintendent of the Queen City Public School District. All
participants were selected according to their ability to provide valuable insight regarding the
selected district’s progress from 2006 to 2011. Participants included current and former chief
officers, regional superintendents, executive directors, and members of the QCPSD Board of
Education.
Instrumentation
Instrumentation for this case study was developed in alignment with the instrumentation
utilized during the previous Phase I and Phase II studies related to this specific area of research.
As a third phase of research in this regard, instrumentation was developed to yield critical insight
regarding the background, strategies, actions and reactions of Dr. Reed in his efforts to
implement key reform strategies that produced sustainable student achievement gains as
superintendent of QCPSD. Keeping the HOUSE Model as the conceptual framework for this
research, three specific interview guides were developed to gather data. Interview guides
included a separate tool for the superintendent (Appendix A), key district players (Appendix B)
and an individualized reform-specific guide (Appendix C) that were correlated to each research
question in an effort to probe long-term trends related to the sustainability of reform efforts.
Developed guides were established according to the below specifications.
1. The Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A) was developed in consideration of
questions previously explored in both Phase I and Phase II of this research. Each
question was designed to assess sustainability and probe the context and rationale
related to decisions that were required of the leader as superintendent.
201

2. The Key Player Interview Guide (Appendix B) was designed specifically to follow-
up on findings associated with both previous phases of research related to this case
study. Designed with four lead questions and sub-questions, each interview was
targeted to span an hour. Questions were designed to assess sustainability and probe
the rationale for decisions made by the superintendent and others that ultimately lead
to positive long-term trends in student achievement.
3. The Reform-Specific Interview Guide (Appendix C) was developed in an effort to
follow-up on the ten specifically selected HOUSE Model reform strategies associated
most significantly with the Phase II work of Garcia and others. Aligned to the
instrumentation of Phase II research which evaluated the initial quality of each reform
strategy across the first year of each superintendent’s tenure of leadership, interview
questions associated with this Phase III study focus more on the long-term
development and sustainability of strategy. As interviews followed a semi-structured
design, lead questions and sub-questions often led to context-specific follow-up
questions that were strategy specific and related to the feedback provided by each
participant.
Data Collection and Analysis
Once data was gathered according to the above-mentioned interview guides, information
was transcribed and analyzed for trends. For the purposes of construct validity, data from
multiple sources was considered in an effort to triangulate key findings. Information in this
regard was assessed according to quality rubrics that were specifically designed to consider data
with regards to the ten selected HOUSE Model reform strategies. Developed specifically to
202

assess for sustainability, rubrics utilized a 5-point Likert scale indicating high (5), moderate (3),
or low (1) levels of perceived performance in terms of the below defined criteria.
• Perceived level of shared understanding and commitment to improvement
• Connectivity to student achievement
• Sustainability of improvement
• Malleability and connectedness to other areas of reform
Information, especially with regards to the second research question, was used to identify reform
efforts and initiatives that were either crossed multiple rooms of the HOUSE model or were not
related to any the associated HOUSE model elements.
Selected Findings
The two research questions generated numerous key findings and best practices related to
district improvement efforts and sustainable reform. The first research question in particular
probed the ten key change levers, previously identified and studied by Garcia (2009), that were
utilized by Dr. Reed and team to produced sustainable reform that resulted in significant, multi-
year, upward trends in student achievement. The first sub-question probed how the key change
levers develop across the first five years of the superintendent’s tenure. Question 1b explored the
quality, tenure and degree of implementation of successful change levers. Question 1c
specifically investigated whether previously unidentified change levers were utilized and to what
degree these efforts produced year-to-year gains in student achievement. Sustainable results in
this regard were difficult to identify as many of the efforts and initiatives that Reed led involved
multiple areas of reform. Never-the-less, clear patterns and practices emerged associated with
each of the ten identified HOUSE Model elements as summarized later in this chapter.

203

Strategic Plan
Evidence of Sustainability:
 Two plans were developed, the second built upon the success of the first plan.
Collectively, these plans spanned eight years.
 Year-to-year gains in student achievement in relation to strategic plans were evident
across all five years of Reed’s tenure as superintendent.
 Employees and community members had general knowledge of the strategic plans.
 The plans contained in SP 2014 continued beyond the tenure of the superintendent.
Elements of this plans are noted in the district’s current plan.
Keys to Sustainability:
 Both plans included stakeholder feedback as a formative lever in the writing process.
 Both plans were created and delivered in a timely manner.
 Strategic planning included detailed and aligned goals, objectives and tactics.
 Goals and objectives were continuously monitored internally.
 Progress towards goals and objectives was consistently communicated both internally
and externally.
 Progress towards goals and objectives were included as part of the evaluation process
of key district leaders including the superintendent.
During his tenure, Reed implemented two different but related strategic plans. The first of
the plans, implemented shortly after his entry in 2006, included clear goals and well-defined
numeric targets. His first plan, entitled the 2010 Strategic Plan, included less formal feedback
loops than Reed’s second plan, the 2014 Strategic Plan. The first plan was crafted in a short
amount of time by a few of Reed’s closest cabinet members at the time. His first plan drew from
204

feedback that Reed had gathered during his listening and learning entry efforts and utilized very
detailed efforts matched to clear, numeric year-by-year targets.
Reed’s first strategic plan was of paramount importance to his leadership in the Queen
City Public School District as it spanned four of the five years of the superintendent’s tenure.
Much of the initial gains achieved by the district in Reed’s first few years were associated with
efforts included in the 2010 plan. In addition, this first plan would form the foundation for the
second strategic plan crafted by Reed in advance of his departure in 2011. This second plan, the
2014 Strategic Plan, would help carry the district forward in Reed’s absence and spanned the gap
of time between Reed’s departure and the entry of Reed’s successor in 2012.
Strategic planning was found to be an important foundation to the year-after-year
academic gains that QCPSD achieved beginning with Reed’s arrival in 2006. Reed utilized
continual formative and summative feedback loops and meticulous monitoring as key
mechanisms associated with sustained results. Both plans crafted during Reed’s tenure informed
one another and included aligned goals, objectives and tactics. Every related effort had an owner
of sorts that accepted both leadership and accountability for the progress of reform initiatives.
Aside from continuous monitoring, Reed and team also worked to communicate results both
internally and externally. Buy-in across the district was especially high with Reed’s first plan, the
2010 Strategic Plan, as efforts and results were well-communicated.
A sense of momentum originated from Reed’s first plan that carried the district forward
through the financial shortfalls, district-wide reductions and school closings associated with the
later years of the superintendent’s tenure. Even through those significant external challenges,
Reed was able to keep his team and the district focused on student achievement. This focus,
205

related to leadership and quality strategic planning, propelled the district forward and proved to
be a significant and sustainable driver of the district’s year-to-year gains in student achievement.
Assessment
Evidence of Sustainability:
 Implementation of a data-informed culture that matches formal and informal
indicators still exists across the district.
 Internally-supported interim exams still exist and have further developed.
 Value-add measures were adopted in-part by the state and continue to develop.
Keys to Sustainability:
 Transparency: Both Reed and the Board of Education were aligned in their views that
assessment and accountability needed to be concise and simple. Reed’s take,
information should be presented with “Clarity, Context and Candor.”
 Consistent development of a strong assessment platform including a variation and
alignment of formative, interim and summative assessments.
 Board of Education consistency and support as assessment practices develop.
As was evident across several areas of leadership, including efforts related to assessment,
Dr. Reed showed a consistent commitment to communicating information in a timely and
transparent manner. He understood the challenges and disconnections that were formed when
district’s failed to provide parents with quality, user-friendly information. Reed sought to change
that culture during his leadership tenure in QCPSD and employed several efforts to both improve
schools from within and communicate results accordingly.
During his tenure, Reed sought to build a foundation of formative and summative
indicators that provided school and district leaders with a blend of timely qualitative and
206

quantitative information to improve schools accordingly. This foundation was not in place upon
Reed’s entry and, in alignment with the Board of Education, he viewed this areas a critical step
to reform. As Reed noted, “I don’t think we had enough data and accountability systems in place.
While we knew what good teaching was, we didn’t give research back to teachers and principals
for who is doing that good work.” Reed added, “We didn’t use that data to manage.” This
commitment to data-informed leadership across all levels was a key element in the year-to-year
gains in student achievement that the district experienced from 2006 through 2011 and beyond.
While some of the district’s efforts associated with Reed’s tenure have been adopted and further-
developed at the state level, others have continued internally including a mix of interim
assessments that inform teachers and leaders throughout the school year.
Curriculum
Evidence of Sustainability:
 Curricular efforts were tied to year-after-year growth on both local and state exams
across all levels.
 Curricular practices in mathematics and science remain in use and continue to
produce year-to-year gains for the district.
 The district narrowed achievements gaps continuously between 2007 and 2011
especially in the areas of science and mathematics
Keys to Sustainability:
 Define clear targets and sense of urgency for all schools, low-performing, high-
performing, etc.
 Develop and communicate user-friendly sets of system-wide expectations in relation
to teaching and learning.
207

 Align your most significant resources with your most urgent needs.
 Manage the cadence of change by practicing patience with urgency.
Upon entry, Reed inherited a significant amount of work as QCPSD was in the midst of a
transition away from its roots as a managed instruction district. Prior to Reed, teachers and
principals were accustomed to tight curricular expectations including well-defined scripts, pacing
guides and timelines than mandated instructional compliance. Reed and team worked to
implement new curricular initiatives in the areas of math and science that proved to be successful
from a year-to-year student achievement standpoint. Similar efforts in the area of reading showed
only slight gains during that same timeframe but towards the later portion of his tenure, Reed and
team began work to realign the district’s approach to literacy instruction.
Coupled with the content that Reed and team implemented, a set of clearly defined and
communicated targets aided teachers and leaders in their efforts to define improved teaching and
learning. A user-friendly set of system-wide expectations guided leaders in their efforts to
develop site-based curricular and instructional effort that moved intentionally away from
practices associated with managed instruction. These efforts with heightened by the
implementation of the Freedom and Flexibility with Accountability (FF&A) an initiative which
provided high-performing principals with additional autonomy as leaders to make needed
curricular, instructional and structural changes to their schools. Reed helped to aid these efforts
for high-needs and under-performing schools by working to develop resource allocation
practices that were tied to needs-based equity rather than inflexible student enrollment numbers.
However, efforts like the Freedom and Flexibility with Accountability initiative produced only
minimal gains and were not continued beyond Reed’s tenure in QCPSD.

208

Professional Development
Evidence of Sustainability:
 All of the principal development programs created during Reed’s tenure continue
today and have begun producing leaders recognized as district principal of the year.
 Alignment of principal development work continues from training and selection to
evaluation and development.
Keys to Sustainability:
 Align your funding streams to ensure fidelity of professional development plans and
initiatives.
 Provide teachers a vision for the multiple career pathways that exist through
continued professional development.
 Use talent streams, talent pools and talent management strategies to deepen and
preserve leadership bench strength.
 Use external partners to bring targeted programs to scale.
During Reed’s tenure in QCPSD, significant gains were made in terms of how principals
were developed, especially across the first few years of their careers. However, these same gains
in terms of defining a career pathway for teachers were never fully realized under Reed’s
leadership. Reed certainly prioritized professional development and worked to realign the
Professional Development Office shortly after his entry in 2006. He aligned resource allocation
to specific professional development plans and initiatives and created human resource ventures
to better aid the district’s need to continual talent. Efforts in this regard were especially evident
in relation to how principals were developed. This included the development of an internal
professional development pathway for principals that targeted a site-leader’s first few years in a
209

leadership position. Also included were partnerships with external organizations like New
Leaders for New Schools and local universities which joined with QCPSD to provide leadership
preparation and development expertise to rising school leaders.
During Reed’s tenure, efforts to define clear career pathways for teachers did not develop
in the same regard as professional development efforts for principals. This differentiation was
largely due to a difference in scale. Reed’s efforts to map what teachers needed from a
professional development standpoint to what the district offered in terms of targeted
opportunities never came to full fruition. Never-the-less, from a sustainability standpoint,
systems and practices were put in place during Reed’s tenure that allowed the district to more
effectively identify, hire, develop and retain talent. While these efforts were most notable with
regards to principals, efforts like the Summer Institute for Teachers and the Summer Leadership
Conference provided targeted development opportunities to teachers and site-leaders and
continue to be in practice to date.
Human Resource Systems and Human Capital Management
Evidence of Sustainability:
 Strategically staffed schools showed significant year-to-year proficiency gains and
academic growth rates across the life of the SSI initiative.
 Reed’s Strategic Staffing Initiative has been continually revised and was utilized by
his successor to address the needs of under-performing schools.
 Leaders for Tomorrow and New Leaders continue to train and prepare future
principals for leadership positions.
Keys to Sustainability:
 Talent Matters - Define and uphold rigorous selection processes.
210

 Rigorously build equitable practices by ensuring that your most effective employees
are focused on your most urgent needs.
 Widen the Pipeline - Add quality recruitment and development streams to your talent
pool.
 Seek input and expertise from external partners but develop practices and leadership
internally.
As acknowledged by Reed and others throughout interviews associated with this case
study, sustainable results associated with the district’s human resource systems were mixed in
every regard. On one hand, the district continually struggled to identify the right leaders and
services to substantially improve services internal to the Human Resources Office. On the other
hand, Reed and team developed and implemented efforts like the Strategic Staffing Initiative
(SSI) which provided some of the most dramatic gains in student achievement across Reed’s
tenure. Progress in several areas associated with human resource systems was noted and while
some efforts did not continue, efforts like Strategic Staffing would become foundational school-
improvement strategies for the district and state long after Reed’s departure in 2011.
Reed prioritized talent and his efforts in this regard were consistently intense throughout
his five years in QCPSD. As recalled by a key leader at that time, “I can remember Simon saying
over and over again, talent matters.” During his tenure, the district would develop rigorous
selection processes to better source talent and would widen the pipeline of talent flowing into the
district through a mix of external partnerships including Teach for America and the New Teacher
Project. Reed also sought to redefine the district’s practices and culture with regards to the
equitable distribution of resources. Initiatives like the aforementioned Strategic Staffing and the
Achievement Zone, which targeted the district’s most under-performing schools, deliberately
211

challenged the notion that all schools and students require the same support. Reed funneled
enhanced resources to schools and students based disproportionately on need. As a result, these
schools outpaced the district in terms of growth and helped narrow achievement gaps between
2006 and 2011.
Finance and Budget
Evidence of Sustainability:
 Adherence to goals and associated efforts outlined in both the 2010 and 2014
strategic plans remained tight despite unprecedented decreases in funding.
 Funding for key district initiatives including Strategic Staffing were never de-
prioritized and never experienced reductions in funding.
Keys to Sustainability:
 Transparent budgeting and financial processes and decisions allow stakeholder input
and understanding.
 Budget decisions, including reductions, were aligned first to the Strategic Plan and
second to related indicators including impacts on student achievement.
 Budgeting and resource allocation practices are aligned to needs and emphasize
outcomes over inputs
While Reed, nor any leader, may not have foreseen the fiscal challenges coming in 2009,
2010, 2011 and beyond, Reed put in place practices that would help buoy the district when fiscal
shortfalls hit historic marks. These efforts began with the creation of the superintendent’s first
strategic plan in 2006 that helped align resource allocation across the next four years. Reed
mandated fidelity in this regard and specifically crafted budgets that cited specified initiatives
tied to the district’s student achievement rates and strategic plans. In addition, Reed pushed his
212

team to allot resources based on need rather than numbers and time-honored formulas. Strategies
like weighted-student staffing pushed additional resources to schools in need based on factors
including composite free/reduced lunch rates. He challenged the practice of measuring equity as
equal focusing more on a combination of inputs and outputs based on need as opposed to
inflexible practices based on all students needing the same level of support.
Reed also championed transparency in communication efforts spending countless hours
with Board Members, County Commissioners and local leaders discussing his budgets and plans.
This philosophy regarding transparent budgeting practices would serve the district and
superintendent well as funding streams began to dry. Throughout the budget process, Reed and
team sought feedback from both internal and external stakeholders. While delivering the news of
cuts and reductions was difficult, Reed set the stage for understanding through a transparent
process of meetings, public addresses and opportunities with the local media. He utilized phrases
like “more with less” to help the district focus on efficiency and clearly aligned resources to
district plans and associated data.
Communications
Evidence of Sustainability:
 Several key efforts started by Reed including regular media briefings have continued.
 The QCPSD Communications Department have continued efforts to include
principals as key communicators.
 Reed’s current successor continues to embrace the practice of the superintendent as
the district’s central communicator both internally and externally.
Keys to Sustainability:
 Communicate early, often and with a clear focus on public transparency.
213

 Embrace the spotlight of leadership - Reed worked to enjoy his role as the district’s
central communicator.
 Put in the time - Reed dedicated hours, days and weeks to both internal and external
communication and understood that he could not lead from the Office of the
Superintendent.
 Inform and equip school principals as key assets to district-wide communications.
 Leaders need to be aware and track their presence to ensure that they are meeting
with as many parents and employees as possible.
Few areas of reform were more impact by Reed’s leadership than the area of district
communication practices. Reed certainly possessed a skillset that was well-aligned to this need
but as superintendent, Reed was also deliberate in crafting the scope and scale of district
communication efforts. Reed and others were complimentary of the leadership that already
existed in the district’s Communications Office on entry. This combination of Reed’s skillset and
a strong existing team created significant early gains for the superintendent and district.
Like in other areas, Reed stressed consistency and transparency. He embraced the
community’s need for communication and in conjunction with his communications lead, worked
to transition the media’s spotlight to Reed from the dysfunctional relationships that existed
within the Board of Education. The team employed numerous strategies in this regard including
weekly media briefings, varied internal and external communication efforts using numerous
different genres including web, television, and print. Reed spend untold hours at public
functions, churches, and community meetings sharing his vision and listening for feedback.
Perhaps the district’s only shortfall with regards to communications occurred when the
balance between demand and capacity shifted. As budgets tightened and departments began to be
214

impacted by reductions, district communications, both internal and external, began to struggle to
keep pace. The team lost some it its early expertise but had retained several talented leaders with
regards to communications. However, as the public demand for information increased in relation
to the budget, school closings and other QCPSD related matters, the capacity of the
Communications Office had been diminished to the point where the core components of clarity,
transparency and regularity suffered. This invisible balance between demand and capacity had
tipped to the point where Reed and team struggled to proactively communicate in the same
regard as they had years before.
Governance and Board Relations
Evidence of Sustainability:
 Reed successfully replaced the Board of Education as the key communicator for the
district. This change remains in effect today as Board relations continue to improve.
 The Board’s move away from micromanagement to policy and governance has
continued.
 Reform governance policy work has continued to provide the superintendent and
district leadership with general leadership autonomy and avenues for meaningful
reform.
Keys to Sustainability:
 Reed and team meticulously prepared and communicated with the Board of
Education in order to avoid mistakes or surprises at the dais.
 Manage split decisions by the Board of Education with care to avoid a trend
characterized by internal divide.
215

 Reed worked to ensure alignment between the Board’s policy work and reform
initiatives developed and implemented by the district.
Upon entry, Reed inherited a district governance structure that was often more publically
known for inter-Board strife than policy and leadership. The Board had recently worked through
training by the Urban School Leadership Foundation (USLF) and had crafted a mission, vision
and Theory of Action that provided Reed with a foundation from which to begin. Whether by
nature or need, Reed meticulously prepared for and communicated with Board Members.
Weekly meeting opportunities and regular calls were the norm as Reed desired candid, real-time
feedback in effort to avoid surprises. The School Board, especially early, responded to Reed’s
open style of governance and through a distinct communications plan, the superintendent
successfully replaced the Board of Education as the key communicator for the district. This shift
away from public activism towards a more sound foundation of governance produced results in
terms of the public perception of the QCPSD Board. As a Board Member noted, “We were in
that moment between being a Board that wanted to do all of the constituent stuff on its own and
realizing that it really wasn’t a Board that was activist in that sense.” The Board Member added,
“It was a policy Board that hired the superintendent to do the rest.”
In terms of successful and sustainable governance practices, Reed managed the feedback
of Board Members well and used this information as an advantage. He did his work early helping
Board Members better understand exactly what he was asking for and why. The fiscal challenges
of Reed’s later years as superintendent strained relations a bit as there were few good budget
decisions remaining by 2010 and 2011. Never-the-less, an understanding of the context related to
these difficult decisions remained with interviewed Board Members some three years later. In
216

addition, a deep appreciation for Reed’s leadership appeared to remain in place with several
current Board Members citing Reed’s effectiveness as a leader.
Labor Relations and Negotiations
Evidence of Sustainability:
 Collaboration between the superintendent and teacher and principal representative
groups continue to date.
 Compensation reform work has been taken up by the state which has allowed district
leaders to avoid the relational pitfalls of this work.
Keys to Sustainability:
 Ensure teacher and staff input and feedback with regards to strategic planning
initiatives to increase buy-in and reduce reform anxiety.
 Carefully include key teacher and staff representatives on lead teams tasked with
management oversight for significant district reform efforts.
 Avoid taking the hill alone - Consider deliberate speed when working to reform
matters that require labor relations and prepare for conflict.
Across his leadership tenure in the Queen City Public School District, Reed both formed
and challenged meaningful gains with regards to labor relations. As a skilled communicator,
Reed made a significant initial impact on the district’s internal relations. In the same regard as he
reached out externally, Reed also worked to form bonds and develop relationships internally.
Reed visited schools often and in doing so, regularly spent time in classrooms with teachers, in
the cafeterias with Child Nutrition staff and in offices with each school’s support team. Despite
the aggressive reform nature of Reed’s initial 2010 Strategic Plan, change-related anxiety was
217

relatively minimal as Reed actively worked to make a case for change and calm fears through
clear, transparent and regular communication.
Reed utilized well the levers of pressure and support to move the district forward. He
challenged the idea of qualified teachers versus effective teachers and championed efforts to
align pay according to impact. As initiatives advanced in this regard, so too did internal
opposition. This opposition was further complicated by multiple years of performance-based
reductions in force and the school closings of 2011. In reflection, Reed understood that his
relationship with teachers would change as questions of effectiveness advanced. Ultimately, well
after Reed’s departure, the state began to pick-up much of the teacher effectiveness work that
Reed had started in QCPSD. Efforts in this regard are still advancing at the state level to date.
Family and Community Engagement
Evidence of Sustainability:
 The district has continued to use the summit format to engage community partners
including a district-wide Faith Summit during the 2013/2014 school year.
 Partnerships formed in many of the district summits that Reed initiated continue to
produce results for students and schools.
Keys to Sustainability:
 Be Specific - Reed named engagement and customer service in the 2010 Strategic
Plan including goals, objectives and targets.
 Utilize philanthropic organizations as key partners pairing district efforts with the
mission/vision of these established local and national leaders.
 Pair engagement efforts at the district level with empowerment efforts at the school
level.
218

 Move forward in careful consideration of the important context of history as even
well-intended steps can be derailed by the memory and emotion of the past.
 Manage community perceptions and engagement efforts through both quantitative
and qualitative measures.
As noted in relation to both communications and labor relations, Reed and the district
took significant strides forward in the area of family and community engagement. This was
especially true during the first four years of Reed’s tenure prior to school closings and pockets of
public concern over the frequency of assessments. Upon entry, Reed knew well the community’s
discontent with the relational cultural of the district. He immediately targeted family and
community involvement, dedicating an entire goal to these efforts in his first strategic plan.
Learning Community Offices were created and opened in an effort to provide the community
with a regional one-stop-shop for all of their district needs. These offices included regional
superintendents and a combination of internally-facing and externally-facing staff. Quality and
timely customer service became an expected norm including tight monitoring efforts to ensure
that parents and stakeholders were receiving the service level they deserved. In addition, Reed
worked to gauge feedback returns through regular town hall meetings and parent surveys.
Reed also made significant gains in relation to the district’s ability to partner with
influential community foundations and national philanthropic organizations. Across his five-year
tenure, Reed brought in millions in funding to support efforts ranging from teaching practices to
assessment and data utilization. An Office of Strategic Partnerships was created and Reed and
team worked to implement community-building forums including an annual Faith Summit
comprised of local faith-based leaders and churches. In his time in QCPSD, Reed’s efforts in this
regard seemed to culminate in the development of a $55 million initiative to create Project
219

L.I.F.T. (Leadership and Investment for Transportation). Funded entirely by external partners,
this one-of-a-kind effort specifically targeted schools along the city’s western corridor that
comprised of a single feeder pattern for the district’s most in-need high school. Project L.I.F.T.
continues to date and has brought about significant continued gains for the involved schools.
Research Questions 2, 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d
The second research question specifically explored whether any non-House Model levers
that were identified and implemented. Efforts in this regard proved challenging as the HOUSE
Model is fairly comprehensive and includes broad reform categories beyond the ten selected
strategies associated with the first research question. What necessitated the need for these
additional levers? As explored, efforts in this regard as implemented by Reed tended to be cross-
HOUSE including several components of reform into one seamless effort. As illustrated below in
Table 1, many of the most impactful initiatives implemented during Reed’s tenure combined
multiple elements of reform. The multi-dimensional complexity of these efforts ensured support
across multiple district offices and helped ensure sustainable, year-to-year results.
Table 17: Cross-HOUSE Reform Initiatives
Initiative Instructional Alignment Operational Excellence Stakeholder Management
Strategic Staffing
 Political Relations
 Contract Negotiations
 Communications
 Board Relations

 Resource Alignment
 Performance Management
 Finance
 Curriculum and Instruction
 Focus on Lowest
Performers

Weighted Student Staffing
 Communications
 Board Relations
 Resource Alignment
 Finance
 Student Support Services
 Focus on Lowest
Performers

Career Pathway Development
 Contract Negotiations
 Communications
 Board Relations
 Resource Alignment
 Performance Management
 Finance

 Curriculum and Instruction

Assessment Platform
 Family/Community
Engagement
 Contract Negotiations
 Communications
 Board Relations

 Resource Alignment
 Performance Management
 Finance
 Curriculum and Instruction
 Focus on Lowest
Performers

Note: Bold lettering indicates the core purpose of the related initiative.

220

Conclusions
The purpose of this case study was to advance learning in relation to how urban
superintendents lead sustainable reform within their districts. Dr. Simon Reed and the Queen
City Public School District were selected for this study due to their significant year-after-year
gains in student achievement and meaningful reductions in achievement gaps across the tenure of
Dr. Reed’s leadership. In 2011, the district was honored by the Urban School Leadership Prize as
it outperformed other large urban districts for multiple years leading up to the award. Data
collected in relation to this case study yielded clear trends resulting in number of key
characteristics and four specific themes related to sustainable reform. The named characteristics
were particular to Reed as a superintendent and provide context to the gains he was able to lead.
These include 1) time on task, 2) favorable conditions, and 3) an aligned leadership skillset. The
associated themes included 1) aligned strategic planning, 2) balancing needs v. talent, 3)
developing a finite focus on results, and 4) practicing transparency in all aspects of leadership.
With regards to characteristics, time on task refers to the five-year tenure of Reed’s
service as superintendent of the Queen City Public Schools. A five year leadership tenure in a
large, urban public school district is well beyond the average lifespan of district leaders and
certainly aided the continuation and sustainability of district-wide reform efforts. The length of
this tenure also serves as an indicator of Reed’s efficacy as School Boards do not often keep
ineffective leaders in place for extended periods of time.
The characteristic of favorable conditions speaks to the needs of the district and
community when Reed arrived. Prior to Reed’s arrival, a number of key developments occurred
including a well-known community taskforce report that outlined needed changes for the district
and the School Board’s training with the Urban School Leadership Foundation. These
221

developments push the Board to adopt a Theory of Action that mandated change. The stage was
set for the hiring of a superintendent that could both lead and implement strategic planning and
communicate clearly and authentically with the community.
The final characteristic that aided Reed in his success was his well-aligned skillset.
Whether naturally or through practice, Reed’s strengths as a leader included communication,
strategic leadership, courage and confidence. These strengths were well-suited to the needs of
QCPSD at that time. Reed’s confidence and communication skills helped him craft a
collaboratively-held vision and follow-through on plans to bring that vision to fruition. His
authenticity and willingness to communicate both externally and internally were noted assets that
stood in stark contrast to district leaders that preceded him as superintendent. His ability to
connect on a personal level with the community as a whole build needed confidence in
stakeholders regarding the district’s future under Reed’s guidance.
Through the research of this case study, four clear themes developed that, if present,
consistently aided efforts to bring about sustainable reform. If applied correctly and within
context, the below practices leverage systemic change and yield positive year-after-year results.
1. Aligned Strategic Planning: Reed framed nearly every reform effort through the two
strategic plans that he developed during his tenure in QCPSD. Plans included clear
goals, precise targets and well-defined practices that would be initiated as a result of
these plans. These efforts began with targeted nature of the 2010 plan and
transformed into the more sustainable work noted in the 2014 plan. Reed utilized both
internal and external feedback to craft plans but rarely engaged the Board in this
process. Rather, in alignment with intended governance structures, Reed viewed his
role in this regard as acting upon the Board’s intended direction as noted in the
222

Theory of Action. Both plans were meticulously monitored and communicated. Reed
also worked to build in accountability mechanisms both in his evaluation and the
evaluation cycles of key district leaders. These accountability measures ensured that
Reed and others would be evaluated on the progress of the district’s goals as opposed
to other factors that may develop politically on the Board or within the organization.
2. Balancing Needs v. Talent: Reed deliberately worked to alter the culture of the
district in an effort to align needs with talent. He developed several initiatives that
placed high-performing leaders and teachers with the district’s most in-need students
and communities. He mandated that school leaders assign their most impactful
teachers to their students with the most significant needs. He also pushed his
executive staff to develop practices that allocated resources by need as opposed to
blanket student-to-student ratios. Reed clearly felt that the talent existed within the
district to address some of its most glaring needs. In this regard, skill was not in
question but rather will as it would take courageous leadership to challenge the status
quo in this regard. Through efforts like the Strategic Staffing Initiative, Reed did just
that and as a result, underperforming schools became models for reform, achieving
consistent year-after-year gains that in most cases, outpaced the growth of the district.
3. Developing a Finite Focus on Results: Beginning with the detailed targets set forth in
strategic plans, Reed pushed and defined a culture of performance within district that
focused specifically on results. Often times, these results were student achievement
related but Reed also pushed to monitor everything from teacher perceptions to the
quality of customer service. Reed emphasized outcomes over inputs and worked to
alter how the district defined success. He mandated additional attention and resources
223

based on needs and in return, expected enhanced results in this regard. Through his
consistent communication efforts, leaders across the district understood and pushed
these expectations across their departments and schools. Initiatives like raising the
district’s cohort graduation rate to 90% became well-known targets that permeated all
levels of the organization.
4. Practicing Transparency in Leadership: As noted in association with nearly every
reform level, Reed mandated and practiced transparency across every level of the
district. These efforts were designed to build trust between the district and the
community and began early as was evident in Reed’s 2006 entry-related listening and
learning tour. Clear markers existed to illustrate the changing relationship between
stakeholders and QCPSD including a successful 2007 bond campaign that followed a
previously unsuccessful bond in 2005. Reed’s impact in this regard was evident as he
intentionally became the public face of the district. Even in the more challenging
years of 2010 and 2011 when funding shortfalls mandated drastic cuts and reductions,
Reed stressed transparency. While this transparency arguably caused additional
anxiety across the community, Reed wanted stakeholders to understand the challenge
of the matters that the district was facing.
While student achievement gains for across district were significant from 2006 to 2012,
overall, the district was not able to sustain the student achievement results past the 2012-2013
school year. At that time, state exams changed to reflect the Common Core causing drops across
the district and state of some 30% to 40%. However, many of the initiatives and efforts
implemented by Reed during his tenure as superintendent have been sustained to this day.

224

Implications for Practice
While the accountability of aligned content standards and high-stakes state exams have
heightened pressure within public school districts, minimal, short-terms gains rarely produce
meaningful results and often hurt students who are forced to weather various cycles of leadership
and reform. This study specifically examined a uniquely successful single leader within a
nationally-recognized large, urban school district in an effort to identify how efforts and
initiatives developed to produce systemic and sustainable year-after-year results. As a result, the
findings from this case study have implications that may directly interest and impact educational
leaders, community stakeholders, school board members, state and federal policy makers and
university and/or organizationally-based superintendent preparation programs.
Educational Leaders
1. Set the course early: Surprisingly, once the course is set, it is hard for leaders to
initiate change from the intended course. That noted, educational leaders should
consider setting their course early and coupling their efforts with clear, detailed
communication. Communities often demand impactful leadership and desire to know
early the direction that a leader intends to take the organization.
2. Monitor feedback: Through the process of strategic planning, educational leaders
should consider crafting detailed targets that lend themselves to open, transparent
accountability across all levels of an organization. Once clear targets are set,
educational leaders should develop internal monitoring practices that align with
external communication efforts. Monitoring feedback in a public manner will
facilitate both accountability and trust.
225

3. Practice consistency and transparency: Naturally, stakeholders have a desire to know
their leaders and experience their leadership on a regular basis. Practicing consistency
and transparency builds the comfort of predictability and trust. Once established,
these traits ensure support and provide leaders with the prospect of public backing
when challenging matters arise.
4. Engage stakeholders at every turn: Every public occasion provides leaders with
opportunities to engage stakeholders. These relationships build and multiply over
time providing leaders with much needed public support. Stakeholder engagement
should be varied and include both verbal and written communication. A public email
account for example provides stakeholders with the opportunity to reach out as
needed to leaders. A personal, timely response and an effort to resolve a matter in
questions will go a long way in building a base of engaged support.
Community Stakeholders and School Board Members
1. Hire to needs: Community stakeholders and School Board Members should consider
hiring superintendents with strengths that match the needs of their district. This act
requires a sense of humility and honest reflection as public leaders must be honest
and candid about their needs in relation to the skillset required to move a school
district forward.
2. Provide early feedback: Honest feedback from stakeholders and community leaders
plays an invaluable role, especially early, as a superintendent is entering and learning
their new district and community. Initial feedback often informs initial plans and
given the average tenure of superintendents, initial plans often prove to be either a
driver of success or misaligned plans for failure. Feedback in this regard can either set
226

a superintendent up for strategic success of create misunderstanding that will hamper
district efforts to move forward.
3. Practice patience: Stakeholders and Board Members often desire immediate success
especially when faced with a district in need of turnaround. However, pressure for
early results can influence superintendents and district leaders to pursue short-term
gains that may hinder long-term efforts. For example, an emphasis on test-taking
skills and test preparation may produce immediate but limited short-lived gains. Such
practices may negatively influence teaching and learning progress over time.
Stakeholders and Board Members should stress sustainable, year-after-year results
that may take time to develop into fruition.
4. Demand transparency and authenticity: Stakeholders and School Board Members
should hire for and demand transparency from superintendents as opposed to district
leaders who work to make decisions behind closed doors. While the process involved
in making important decisions may not be mistake-free, the authenticity of public
transparency in this regard builds a sense of trust. Confident leaders tend not to shy
away from transparency as they often hold themselves accountable to high standards
and high levels of performance. Stakeholders and Board Members should consider
being wary of district leaders who avoid reporting district progress in a public
manner.
State and Federal Policy Makers
1. Avoid the low bar of short-term results: State and Federal leaders should consider the
authenticity and meaningful results of year-to-year growth over time. Policies that
glorify short-term proficiency gains over long-term growth trends encourage district
227

and school leaders to focus on teaching and learning environments that may not be
rooted in the foundations of research-based practice. In addition, policies that honor
short-term proficiency gains often penalize schools that serve neighborhoods in need.
The elimination of achievement gaps comes only through year-to-year growth gains
that outpace district and state averages. State and Federal policy makers should
consider the need for sustainable, year-after-year growth when crafting guidelines and
mandates associated with high-stakes testing.
2. Practice consistency to get consistency: Students and schools suffer when they are
constantly forced to shift their focus to match the ever-changing policy landscape at
the state and federal level. With dramatic shifts come inevitable gaps in
implementation. These gaps harm schools at the local level and often lead to a roller-
coaster of results. To achieve the consistent gains that state and federal leaders
applaud, leaders at these levels must practice consistency and resist the pull of
reactive policy creation.
Superintendent Preparation Programs
1. Target reflective practitioners: Most preparation programs rely on candidates that
self-select into the application process. While admission processes may be considered
selective, leaders of superintendent preparation programs should be mindful of their
students’ abilities to accurately reflect and assess themselves as potential leaders.
Programs should consider striving to prepare leaders who understand well their
strengths and weaknesses. Superintendents who enter leadership opportunities with
the wrong configuration of strengths to needs, risk harmful misalignment and a
heightened state of misunderstanding during their tenure.
228

2. Equal versus equity: To make meaningful, long-term gains, superintendents must
skillfully challenge the status quo. To do so effectively, these leaders must have a
heightened sense of equity and a strong ethical foundation. Superintendent
preparation programs can assist future leaders in this regard by stressing equity over
equal. Equity calls for disproportionate resources based on need and for leaders, this
can be the road less traveled as critics will abound. Never-the-less, future leaders that
have a strong sense of equity are more likely to move the dial in terms of student
achievement and are better prepared to challenge the rigors of existing and historic
achievement gaps.
Recommendations for Future Research
Throughout and as a result of this case study, recommendations for related future
research were developed. These recommendations specifically call for additional research to be
conducted on the sustainability of large, urban school systems.
1. Seek Other Examples: This case study examined one superintendent and a single
large, urban school district across a period of five years. While these elements
provided the needed elements for a case study analysis of sustainable leadership
practices, additional studies in this regard of similarly successful large urban districts
may result in more concrete findings and a deeper level of understanding especially
if structured as a meta-analysis. In the time since, QCPSD was honored with the
Urban School Leadership Prize as the top performing large, urban school district in
2011, two other large, urban districts have been similarly honored in 2012 and 2013.
A cross-district study in this regard may yield a similar set of best practices in
relation to producing sustainable reform.
229

2. Cross-Leader Study: Similar to the second phase of research associated with this
case study, a cross-leader study that focuses specifically on sustainable reform has
the potential of yielding a more comprehensive set of best practices for district
leaders. Like Reed, other leaders have remained in the same role well past the
statistical average of superintendents in large, urban districts. A cross-leader study in
this regard may provide a composite set of practices, characteristics and traits shared
by successful superintendents who remain in their roles beyond five years. By
comparison to national averages, these leaders have already achieved a sense of
sustainability in their leadership tenures. Therefore, sustainable results associated
with these leader’s actions are more likely to be identified than studies that do not
control for the length of a superintendent’s tenure.

230

REFERENCES

Asp, E. (2000). Assessment in education: Where have we been? Where are we headed?
In Brandt, R. (Eds.), Education in a new era (47-66). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

America’s Promise Alliance (2006). Every Child, Every Promise: Turning Failure into
Action. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from www.americaspromise.org/Resources

Anderson, J. (2010). Urban superintendents program celebrates 20 years. Harvard
Graduate School Website. Retrieved at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-
impact/2010/04/urban-superintendents-program-celebrates-20-years/

Archer, J. (2004). Weighted school funding gains favor. Education Week. November 3,
2004.

Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2010). Driven by data: A practical guide to improve instruction.
San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishers,

Barth, P. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards. American School Board
Journal. 28.

Barth, R. (1990). Improving Schools from Within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Bird, J., Wang, C. & Murray, L. (2009). Building budgets and trust through
superintendent leadership. Journal of Education Finance, 35(2).

Boozer, L. (2011). A superintendent’s entry. In Peterkin, R., Jewell-Sherman, D., Kelley,
L., & Boozer, L. (Eds.). Every child, every classroom, every day: School leaders
who are making equity a reality (1-16). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Boudette, K., City, E., & Murnane, R. (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using
assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press

The Broad Superintendents Academy. (2012). The Broad Superintendents Academy –
Curriculum overview webpage. Accessed April 12, 2012 at
http://www.broadacademy.org/about/services/training.html

Brooks, J. (2010, March 19). TFA’s Kopp speaks on the importance of system-level
leadership. Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-
impact/2010/03/tfas-kopp-speaks-at-kennedy-school/

Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003). Better leaders for America's
schools: A manifesto. Los Angeles: The Broad Foundation.
231

Buffum, A., Mattos, M. & Weber, C. (2012). Simplifying response to intervention: Four
essential guiding principles. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Carr, N. (2006). Media savvy educators: Pushing past “news-lite” reporting. The
Education Digest, 72(1). 48-52.

Carr, N. (2006b). Must public education restore its reputation as the great equalizer? The
Education Digest, 72(4). 29-32.

Campbell, J., Hombo, C., & Mazzeo, J. (2000) NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress:
Three decades of student performance. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2(4). 31-
36.

Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., and Kewal-Ramani, A. (2011). Trends in High School
Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2009 (NCES 2012-
006). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved [date] from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Childress, S., Elmore, R., Grossman, A., & Johnson, S. (2009). The PELP coherence
framework. In Fullan, M. (Eds.). The challenge of change: Start school
improvement now! (179-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban schools.
Harvard Business Review. November, 1-14.

City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., and Teitel, L. (2010). Instructional rounds in
education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Press

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H. & Vigdor, J. (2006). The academic achievement gap in grades 3
to 8. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(2). 398-419.

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., Vigdor, J., & Wheeler, J. (2007). High‐poverty schools and the
distribution of teachers and principals.” North Carolina Law Review 85(5): 1345–
1379

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H. & Vigdor, J. (2011). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and
pay-based policies to level the playing field. CALDER Working Paper No. 44.
Washington, D.C. Retrieved at http://www.urban.org/publications/1001429.html

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., & Mood, A. (1966). Equality of
Educational Opportunity. Washington: U. S. Office of Education.

Council of Great City Schools (2010). Urban school superintendents: Characteristics,
tenure and salary. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from
http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/4/Supt_Survey201
0.pdf
232

Cooper, B. & Liotta, M. (2001). Urban teachers unions face their future: The dilemmas of
organizational maturity. Education and Urban Society, 34(1). P. 101-118.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

Dee, T. & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.

Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year
longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2). 81-112.

Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3).
181-199.

Desimone, L. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta
Kappan, 92(6). 68-71.

Dogan, E., de Mello, V. B., Lewis, S., Simon, C., Uzzell, R., Horwitz, A., & Casserly, M.
(2011). Addendum to Pieces of the Puzzle: Recent Performance Trends of Urban
Districts - A Closer Look at 2009 NAEP Results. Council of the Great City
Schools.

Eisinger, P., & Hula, R. (2004). Gunslinger school administrators: Nontraditional
leadership in urban schools systems in the United States. Urban Education, 39(6).
621-637.

Elmore, R. (1990). Restructuring Schools: The next generation of educational reform.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Elmore, R. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational Researcher,
24(9). 23-26

Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational
Review, 66(1). 1-26.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. [Electronic Version].
Washington DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf

Elmore, R. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10.

233

Elmore, R. (2006). What (so-called) low-performing schools can teach (so-called) high-
performing schools. Journal of Staff Development, 27(2). 43-45

Epstein, J. & Sanders, M. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school,
family and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2). 81-
120.

Fan, W. & Williams, C. (2010). The effects of parental involvement on students’
academic self-efficacy, engagement and intrinsic motivation. Educational
Psychology, 30(1). 53-74.

Feng, L, Figlio, D. & Sass, T. (2011). School accountability and teacher mobility.
CALDER Working Paper No. 57. Washington, D.C. Retrieved at
http://www.caldercenter.org/upload/CALDERWorkPaper_57.pdf

Franciosi, R. (2004). The rise and fall of American public schools: The political economy
of public education in the twentieth century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Fryer, R. & Levitt, S. (2004). Understanding the black-white test score gap in the first
two years of school. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(2). 447-464.

Fuhrman, S. & Elmore, R. (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press, Taylor &
Francis Inc.

Fullen, M. (2007). Education reform as continuous improvement. In Hawley, W. (Eds.),
The keys to effective schools: Educational reform as continuous improvement (1-
12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2009). Large scale reform comes to age. Journal of Educational Change, 10.
101-113

Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E., & Wright, J. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act
working? The reliability of how states track achievement [Electronic Version]
Policy Analysis for California Education. Working Paper 06-1. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED492024.pdf

Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Wagner, A. (2003).
An Impossible Job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair. Paper
presented to the center for Reinventing Public Education. University of
Washington. Seattle, WA.
234

Gamoran, A. (2007). Standards-based reform and the poverty gap: Lessons for No Child
Left Behind. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Garcia, E. (2009). A superintendent’s strategies for systemic reform: A case study.
(Doctoral Dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Gardner, D. (2007). Confronting the achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(7). 542-
546.

Gemberling, K.W., Smith, C.W., & Villani, J.S. (2009). The Key Work of School Boards
Guidebook (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association

Gipps, C . (1998). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment.
Oxfordshire, England: Routeledge-Falmer.

Godwin, K. & Sheard, W. (2001). Education reform and the politics of 2000. Publius,
31(3), 111-129.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.
The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review.
March/April, 78-90.

Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008).
Highlights From TIMSS 2007:Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S.
Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context (NCES 2009–001
Revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf

Hamilton, L., Hamilton, B., Stecher, J., Marsh, J., Robyn, A., Russell J., Naftel, S., &
Barney, H. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind.
RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG589.pdf

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9). 693-
700.

Hargreaves, A & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass and Sons, Inc. 273

Harvard University – Urban Superintendents Program Website (2012). Accessed April
11, 2012 at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/academics/doctorate/edd/usp/index.html
235

Heise, M. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act: The federalization and legalization
of educational policy. Fordham Law Review, 63(2), 345-381.

Henderson, A. & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family
and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.

Herman, J., & Dietel, R. (2008). Important lessons: Teachers adjust their instructional
methods. Connect, 21(3), 10-13.

Hewitt, P. (2007). Bargaining within the school culture. Leadership, 36(5), 26-30.

Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It's not just a job, it's a calling.
The Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428-433.

Huang, G., Reiser, M., Albert, P., Muniec, J., & Salvucci, S. (2003). Institute of
Education science findings from interviews with education policy makers.
Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED480144.pdf

Ingersoll, R. (2009). Why do high-poverty schools have difficulty staffing their
classrooms with qualified teachers? Report issued by Renewing Our Schools,
Securing Our Future - A National Task Force on Public Education. Center for
American Progress and the Institute for America’s Future. Retrieved from
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/ingersoll-final.pdf

Ingram, R. & Snider, B. (2008). An educator’s guide to contract negotiations.
Leadership, 37(4). 30-34

Jackson, K. & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The
importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 1(4). 85-108.

Jacob, B. (2007). The challenge of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. Future
of Children, 17(1), 129-153

Jentz, B. & Murphy, J. (2005). Starting confused: How leaders start when they dont know
where to start. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 736-744. Retrieved at
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218530992?accountid=14749

Jentz, B. & Wofford, J. (2008). Entry: How to begin a leadership position successfully.
Newton, MA. Leadership and Learning, Inc.

236

Jeynes, W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban
elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3). 237-
269.

Jeynes, W. (2011). Parental involvement research: Moving to the next level. The School
Community Journal, 21(1). 9-18.

Johnson, S., Donaldson, M., Munger, M., Papay, J. & Qazilbash, E. (2008). The
challenge of leading two generations within the teachers unions. Project on the
Next generation of Teachers, Harvard Graduate School. Retrieved from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/AERA08.SMJohnson.pdf

Kao, G. & Thompson, J. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational
achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology , 29 (2003), 417-442

Kennedy, E. (2010). Improving literacy achievement in a high-poverty school:
Empowering classroom teachers through professional development. Reading
Research Quarterly, 45(4). 384-387.

Klein, A. (2010). Administration unveils ESEA renewal blueprint. Education Week,
29(25). Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/13/25esea.h29.html?r=268539967

Kohler, A. & Lazarin, M. (2007). Hispanic education in the United States. National
Council of La Raza, Statistical Brief. Retrieved from
http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/file_SB8_HispEd_fnl.pdf

Kowalski, T. (2005). Evolution of the school superintendent position. In Bjork, L., &
Kowalski, T. (Eds.). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and
development (1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kowalski, T., McCord, R., Petersen, G., Young, I. & Ellerson, N. (2011). The American
School Superintendent: The decennial study. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield Education

Krieg, J. (2011). Which Students are left behind? The racial impacts of the No Child Left
Behind Act. Economics of Education Review, 30(2011), 654-664.

Ladd, H. (1996). Holding schools accountable: performance-based reform in education.
Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Ladd, H. (2008). Reflections on equity, adequacy and weighted student funding. Working
Paper SAN08-04. The Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University.
Retrieved from http://www.sanford.duke.edu/research/papers/SAN08-04.pdf

237

Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in
relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research,
72(2). 229-278.

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward
equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.

Leverett, L. (2011). The urban superintendents program leadership framework. In
Peterkin, R., Jewell-Sherman, D., Kelley, L., & Boozer, L. (Eds.). Every child,
every classroom, every day: School leaders who are making equity a reality (1-
16). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2000). Teaching and teacher development: A new synthesis
for a new century. In Brandt, R. (Eds.), Education in a new era (47-66).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., Beteille, T. (2011). Effective schools: Teacher hiring,
assignment, development, and retention. NBER Working Paper No. 17177.
National Bureau of Economic Research

Mapp, K. (2011). Why family and community partnerships are important to district
reform. In Peterkin, R., Jewell-Sherman, D., Kelley, L., & Boozer, L. (Eds.).
Every child, every classroom, every day: School leaders who are making equity a
reality (174-178). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Marsh, D. & Castruita, R. (2008) Preparing successful urban district leaders: An
evaluation of the Broad Superintendents Academy. Report presented to the Broad
Foundation.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McAdams, D. (2006). Urban school boards and their communities. Voices in Urban
Education, 13. 14-21.

Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores
and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of
Education, 79(4). 33-53.

Miles, K. H. & Frank, S. (2008). The strategic school: Making the most of people, time
and money. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Miller, D., & Warren, L. (2011). Comparative Indicators of Education in the United
States and Other G-8 Countries: 2011 (NCES 2012-007). U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S.
238

Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012007.pdf

National Center on Education and the Economy - NCEE (2007). Tough choices or tough
times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce.
Washington, DC: The National Center on Education and the Economy.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics - NCES (2009). The Condition of Education,
2009. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U. S.
Department of Education.

National School Boards Association (2002). CUBE Survey Report: Superintendent
tenure. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from
http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/SuperintendentTenure.pdf

National School Boards Association. (2012). Key work of school boards. Retrieved April
19, 2012, from
http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Governance/KeyWork.aspx

OECD (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Learning Trends: Changes in Student Performance
Since 2000 (Volume V). Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091580-en

OECD (2011). Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - OECD (2011). Lessons from
PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in
Education, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en

Peterkin, R., Jewell-Sherman, D., Kelley, L., & Boozer, L. (2011). Every child, every
classroom, every day: School leaders who are making equity a reality. San
Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Peterson-Veatch, R. (2006). A theory of action: What is sustainable change and how do
CFGs support it? Paper presented at the First Annual NSRF Research
Conference, Denver, Colorado. Retrieved from
http://www.nsrfharmony.org/research.petersonveatch.pdf

Plecki, M., Knapp, M., Castaneda, T., Halverson, T., LaSota, R., & Lochmiller, C.
(2009). How leaders invest staffing resources for learning improvement. Seattle,
239

WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/S3-Resources-10-2009.pdf
Prosise, R. & Himes, L. (2002). The collective bargaining tightrope. The School
Administrator, June 2002.

Quinn, T. (2007). Preparing non-educators for the superintendency. The School
Administrator, 64(7). 22-29.

Quinn, T. & Keith, M. (2011). Within reach: Leadership lessons in school reform from
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. Charlotte, NC: Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools

Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. New York, NY:
Touchstone.
Reardon, S. & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in mathematics
and reading in elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal,
46(3). 853-891.

Reardon, S. (2011). The widening economic achievement gap between the rich and the
poor: New evidence and possible explanations. [Electronic Version]. Russell Sage
Foundation. Retrieved from
http//cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/reardon%20whither%20opportunity%20
-%20chapter%205.pdf

Roach, R. (2006). Education report highlights progress under standards-based reform by
states. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 22(25). 7.

Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., &Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: The challenge
for urban high schools. Future of Children, 19(1). 185-210.

Rothstein, R. (2008). Grading education: getting accountability right. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.

Rothstein, R. (2010). Class and the classroom. In Ryan, K. & Cooper, J. (Eds.)
Kaleidoscope: Contemporary and Classic Readings in Education (283-289)
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Rubenstein, R. Schwartz, A. & Stiefel, L. (2006). Weighting for adequacy. Education
Week. August 9, 2006.

Samuels, C. (2011). Critics target growing army of Broad leaders. Education Week 8
June 2011: 1. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Mar. 2012.

Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., Houang, R., Wang, H., Wiley, D., Cogan, L., & Wolfe, R.
(2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and
learning. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishers.
240

Snow-Renner, R. & Leuer, P., (2005). Standards-based education: Putting research into
practice. McREL Insights. Retrieved from
http://www.mcrel.org/pdf/standards/5051ir_standards_synthesis.pdf

Snyder, T. & Dillow, S. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics 2010 (2011-015),
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 2011.

Srivastava, P. (2009). A Practical Iterative Framework for Qualitative Data Analysis.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 76-84.

Stiefel, L., Schwartz, A., & Ellen, I. (2006). Disentangling the racial test score gap:
Probing the evidence in a large urban school district. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 26(1). 7-30.

Sung-Jun, C. (2010). In ranking, U.S. students trail global leaders. USA Today. Retrieved
from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-12-07-us-students-
international-ranking_N.htm

Symonds, W., Schwartz, R., & Ferguson, R., (2011). Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting
the Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century. Report issued
by the Pathways to Prosperity Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Retrieved from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2011/Pathways_to_Prosperity_
Feb2011.pdf

Symonds, W., Schwartz, R., & Ferguson, R. (2011). Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the
Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century. Report issued by
the Pathways to Prosperity Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Takata, J., Marsh, D., & Castruita, R. (2007). The Broad Superintendents Academy
qualitative project: Final report. Los Angeles: The Broad Foundation.

United States Department of Education - USDOE (2009). A Nation Accountable: Twenty-
five years after A Nation at Risk. United States Department of Education.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/accountable/index.html

United States Department of Education. (2010). A Blueprint for Reform: The
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development.

United States Department of Education – USDOE (2010). Use of Education Data at the
Local Level From Accountability to Instructional Improvement. United States
241

Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Evaluation, and
Policy Development. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED511656.pdf

Waters, J. & Marzano, R. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Midcontinent
Research for Education and Learning.

Weisberg, D., Saxton, S., Mulhern, J. & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our
national failure to acknowledge and Act on differences in teacher effectiveness.
The New Teacher Project, 2009. Retrieved from http://widgeteffect.org/

Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar Students, Different Results:
Why Do Some Schools Do Better? A large-scale survey of California elementary
schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Retrieved
from http://www.edsource.org/assets/files/SimStu05.pdf

Wills, F., & Peterson, K. (1992). External Pressures for reform and strategy formation at
the district level: Superintendents’ interpretations of state demands. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3). 241-260.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4
th
Ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications

242

APPENDIX __A__:
Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 1
Q# Question

1

Please describe the general status of QCPSD when you assumed your position as
superintendent in 2006?
c. At that time, what were the major strengths of the district?
d. In this same regard, what were the most significant needs of the district?

2

Of the named reform strategies, which areas do you believe were most critical to the
success of QCPSD beginning in 2006, leading-up to 2011?
a. How were successes in these areas associated with the long-term sustainability
of improved student achievement outcomes?
b. What key decisions or efforts do you most attribute to sustained improvement
in each named area?
c. What led to these decisions or efforts?
d. Which district leaders were most closely associated with improvements in this
regard?

(Probe: Specific role of superintendent’s use of 10 key change levers “House Model”. Request
documents mentioned).

Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 2

3

Aside from the named reform strategies, what additional levers of reform do you
believe most impacted sustained trends of improved student achievement?
a. What necessitated the need for these additional levers of reform?
b. What key decisions or efforts most significantly benefited the successful
implementation of these additional reform strategies?
c. Which district leaders were most closely associated with improvements in this
regard?

4

Of the named reform strategies, which areas were least improved across your tenure as
the superintendent?
a. Why do you believe sustained success in these named areas was so difficult to
achieve?
b. In retrospect, what decisions would you have made differently that may have
improved outcomes in each of these areas?

243

APPENDIX __B__:

Key Player Interview Guide

Q# Question

1

Please describe the general status of QCPSD when Dr. Simon Reed began as the
superintendent in 2006?
c. At that time, what were the major strengths of the district?
d. In this same regard, what were the most significant needs of the district?

2

Of the named reform strategies, which areas do you believe were most critical to the success of
QCPSD beginning in 2006, leading-up to 2011?
a. How were successes in these areas associated with the long-term sustainability
of improved student achievement outcomes?
b. What key decisions did Dr. Reed make that most impacted improvement in
each named area?
c. In your opinion, what led Dr. Reed to make those decisions?

3

Aside from the named reform strategies, what additional levers of reform do you believe most
impacted sustained trends of improved student achievement?
a. What necessitated the need for these additional levers of reform?
b. What key decisions did Dr. Reed make that most significantly benefited the
successful implementation of these additional reform strategies?

4

Of the named reform strategies, which areas were least improved across Dr. Reed’s tenure as
the superintendent?
a. Why do you believe sustained success in these named areas was so difficult to
achieve?
b. In retrospect, what possible decisions or areas of intervention could have been
included that might have led to different results in these areas?

244

APPENDIX __C__:

Reform Specific Interview Guide

Q# Question

1

How would you describe the development of (reform specific) within QCPSD from 2006 to
2011?
a. In your opinion, would you consider this development significant in relation to
improved student learning outcomes?
b. Which leaders within QCPSD had the most significant impact on efforts to
improve?

2

What key strategies and decisions do you most attribute to this development?

3

What were the most significant challenges that the leadership of QCPSD in developing (reform
specific)?
a. Of these named challenges, which were most significant and why?
b. In your opinion, which key decisions were most significant in aiding QCPSD to
overcome these challenges?

4

If improvement was viewed as significant, what do you believe the keys were to the
sustainability of success in this regard?

5

If improvement was not viewed as significant, what decisions do you believe could have been
made to better sustain success in this regard?

In addition to the above, reform-specific questions, the below questions should be asked of participants
according to their area of expertise.

Questions

Strategic Plan:
1. In your opinion, did the Board of Education align their efforts in support of strategic
plans during Dr. Reed’s tenure? Why or why not.
2. In your opinion, did the awareness of teachers and district staff with regards to the
district’s strategic plan improve, decline or remain the same during Dr. Reed’s
tenure? Please explain.
3. In general, do you believe the public was aware of the district’s strategic plans during
Dr. Reed’s tenure? If yes, were they supportive?
a. If yes, how did the community show their support?
b. If no, why do you think the community chose not to support district efforts in this
regard during Dr. Reed’s tenure?

245

Appendix C, Continued

4. How did strategic planning during Dr. Reed’s tenure help inform subsequent strategic
plans?

Assessment:
1. Describe the effectiveness of formative and summative assessment practices as a
result of efforts during Dr. Reed’s tenure as the superintendent?
2. As a result of efforts during Dr. Reed’s tenure, describe how the views of teachers
and staff changed either positively or negatively with regards to assessment practices.
Why?
3. As a result of efforts during Dr. Reed’s tenure, describe how the views of students
and the community changed either positively or negatively with regards to assessment
practices. Why?

Curriculum:
1. In your opinion, how did the district’s efforts develop during Dr. Reed’s tenure in
relation to providing all students with access to a high-quality learning environment?
2. How were these efforts aligned to assessment, planning and district-wide professional
development practices?
3. What steps did the district take throughout this period of time to review and update
classroom curriculum in relation to changing state and federal expectations?

Profession Development:
1. Describe how the district’s efforts developed in relation to providing professional
development opportunities that were aligned to system-wide efforts to improve
student achievement and improve teacher effectiveness?
2. During Dr. Reed’s tenure, how were resources provided and aligned in relation to
professional development?
3. During this time, how did teacher and staff perceptions change in relation to
professional development?

Human Resource System and Human Capital Management:
1. During Dr. Reed’s tenure as superintendent, how did the selection processes and
criteria for hiring develop or change?
2. During Dr. Reed’s tenure, how did teacher and staff perceptions as related their
retention within the district develop or change?
3. How were incentives used to enhance recruitment and retention efforts?

Finance and Budget:
1. During Dr. Reed’s tenure, how did the priorities of finance and budget align to the
district’s mission and vision?
2. During this time period, how did the input of stakeholders impact district-wide
decisions related to budget and finance?
3. During this period of time, describe how the Superintendent worked with the Board
of Education to align leadership efforts in relation to the district’s budget priorities,
requests and utilization of funds.
246

Appendix C, Continued

Communications:
1. How did the public’s perception of the district’s communication efforts develop and
change throughout Dr. Reed’s tenure?
2. Please describe how the district developed internally in relation to external-facing
customer service.
3. What communication practices developed during this period of time that continues to
benefit the district today?

Governance and Board Relations:
1. Please describe how the Board of Education’s work to amend and align key
policies/regulations developed and changed across Dr. Reed’s tenure.
2. Please describe how Dr. Reed’s leadership impacted the Board of Education’s Theory
of Action.
3. Please describe how these efforts and opportunities changed Superintendent/Board of
Education relations going forward.

Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations:
1. How did the superintendent’s broad relationships with district employees develop and
change across his five year tenure in the district?
2. In your opinion, how did communication, both internal and external, aid or hinder Dr.
Reed in this regard?
3. How did the developments with regards to labor relations during Dr. Reed’s tenure
help shape district relationships going forward?

Family and Community Engagement:
1. How did the district philosophy in relation to parental engagement and empowerment
change across Dr. Reed’s tenure?
2. How did the district’s processes and practices change in relation to utilizing both
qualitative and quantitative data to inform decisions related to family and community
engagement?
3. Please describe how current district practices in relation to governance and parental
engagement are related to efforts made during Dr. Reed’s tenure as Superintendent.

APPENDIX __D__:

Quality Rubric: Strategic Plan

A Strategic plan defines and aligns a system’s mission, vision and goals. The plan outlines significant areas of needs and defines aligned goals that
will directly target each identified area. Goals typically include associated objectives that specify what actions will be taken system-wide in a
collaborative effort to meet each intended target. As a guiding document, a quality Strategic Plan is meant to be dynamic in nature allowing those
responsible the ability to utilize the developed plan in an ongoing manner.

Component High Medium Low
Vision

The district’s vision was well
articulated throughout and/or
across strategic plans and was
clearly demonstrated the
organization’s commitment and
moral convictions.

The district’s vision was well
understood and represented the
personal values of those vested
in the organization.
The district’s vision was
somewhat evident throughout
and/or across strategic plans and
partially demonstrated the
organization’s commitment and
moral convictions.

The district’s vision was only
partially understood and did not
comprehensively represent the
personal values of those vested
in the organization.
The district’s vision was not well
articulated in strategic plans and
did not demonstrate the
organization’s commitment and
moral convictions.

The district’s vision was not well
understood and did not reflect
the personal values of those
vested in the organization.
Mission The district’s mission statement
clearly expressed the
organization’s unique identity,
purpose and direction.

The mission statement clearly
made a bold declaration of what
the district was working to
become in the future.
The district’s mission statement
only partially expressed the
organization’s purpose but was
generally ambiguous and not
understood.

The mission statement partially
alluded to what the organization
was working to become in the
future.
The district’s mission statement
did not express the
organization’s identify or
purpose.

The mission statement made no
declaration of what the district is
working to become in the future.
248

Objectives and Goals The district’s continually
developed ongoing objectives
and goals that committed the
organization to achieving
specific, measurable results for
multiple years.

The district’s objectives were
closely aligned with the mission,
vision and core beliefs.

The district goals were clearly
met as the district accomplished
high levels of year-to-year
growth in terms of student
achievement.
The district’s objectives and
goals changed little across
multiple years.

The district’s objectives were
somewhat aligned with the
mission, vision and core beliefs.

The district goals were partially
met as the district accomplished
some year-to-year growth.
However, results related to
student achievement were not
consistent.
The district failed to develop
ongoing objectives and goals.

The district’s objectives were not
aligned with the mission, vision
and core beliefs.

The district goals were not met
as the district accomplished little
year-to-year growth in terms of
student achievement.
Strategies Strong evidence suggests that the
district continually and fully
committed to the deployment of
any and all resources to execute
their strategies associated with
measured objectives and goals.

Strategies in this regard were
largely accomplished leading to
consistent levels of year-after-
year gains in student
achievement.
Little evidence was found in
relation to the district’s long-
term commitment of resources in
relation to their strategies
associated with measured
objectives and goals.

Strategies in this regard were
inconsistently accomplished
leading to some gains in student
achievement.
No evidence was found that the
district’s targeted to accomplish
strategies associated with
measured objectives and goals.

Strategies in this regard were
largely unaccomplished leading
to no evidence of consistent
levels of year-after-year gains in
student achievement.
249

Action Plan

The district created and fully
implemented a plan of action that
led to consistent gains in student
achievement across multiple
years.

The plan included clear strategies
and objectives that were clearly
listed and well aligned.

The plan of action included
detailed steps, assignments and
responsibilities.

The plan included a clear
timeline.
The district created and partially
implemented a plan of action
that led to inconsistent gains in
student achievement.

The plan included strategies and
objectives but alignment was in
question.

The plan of action included
vague steps, assignments and
responsibilities.

The plan included a somewhat
detailed timeline.
The district did not implement
their plan of action well. Gains in
student achievement were
inconsistent at best and little
evidence could be found that
aligned gains to the district’s
plan.

Theory of Action A clearly defined theory of
action was created, implemented
and consistently utilized by the
Board of Education and district
leadership.

The Theory of Action was well
aligned with the Superintendent's
priorities, values and beliefs.

The Theory of Action informed
the strategic plan creating
alignment between governance
and implemented strategies for
district improvement.
A theory of action was noted but
was inconsistently utilized by
the Board of Education and
district leadership.

The Theory of Action only
marginally aligned with the
Superintendent's priorities,
values and beliefs.

The Theory of Action casually
informed the strategic plan but
alignment between governance
and implemented strategies for
district improvement was
inconsistent.
A theory of action was not
created or utilized by the Board
of Education and district
leadership.
250

Data Dashboard District leadership identified and
consistently utilized several key
indicators to gain the system's
pulse (academically and
culturally) on a regular basis.

Key indicators were well aligned
with the district's strategic plan
and associated key goals.

Consistent, year-after-year gains
were evident in the indicators
that the district chose to monitor.

District inconsistently utilized
several key indicators to gain
the system's pulse (academically
and culturally). However,
alignment, frequency and
utilization varied.

Key indicators were only
partially aligned with the
district's strategic plan and
associated key goals.

Some gains were noted in the
indicators that the district chose
to monitor.

District leadership did not
identify and monitor key internal
indicators. Evidence suggested
that the district largely only
monitored state-level data as
indicators of school and district
improvement.

Quality Rubric: Assessment

Aligned to the goals and objectives of a Strategic Plan, assessment efforts allow a system to monitor progress. In relation to public school districts,
assessment efforts generally monitor the rates of student learning in both a formative and summative manner. Formal and informal assessments are
used depending on the purpose and regularity of need. Formal assessments in particular are regularly scheduled and aligned to expected rates of
learning, standards, pacing guides and other instructionally related tools utilized by teachers and administrators.

Component High Medium Low
251

Summative Assessments

The district created, fully
implemented and consistently
utilized an assessment platform
that included summative exams.

Consistent, year-after-year gains
were evident on summative
exams that illustrated a sustained
rise in student achievement.

The district remained fully
compliant with the state and
federal requirements of Title I
and NCLB.
The district created and partially
implemented an assessment
platform. Internal summative
exams were inconsistently
utilized and alignment to
summative state exams varied.

Inconsistent gains were noted on
summative exams.

The district was partially
compliant with the state and
federal requirements of Title I
and NCLB.
The district utilized few
summative exams outside of
mandated state testing. No
evidence existed with regards to
alignment between exams.

Gains on summative exams were
inconsistent at best and indicated
no sustainment of student
achievement.

Formative Assessments The district utilized aligned,
standards-based formative exams
as part of a system-wide
assessment platform.

Evidence indicated good
alignment between formative and
summative exams.

Pacing guides were aligned to
state standards and fully
implemented.
The district included some
formative exams as part of a
system-wide assessment
platform.

Evidence indicated some
alignment between formative
and summative exams.

Pacing guides were aligned to
state standards but not fully
implemented.
The district did not utilize
formative exams as part of a
system-wide assessment
platform.

Evidence indicated no alignment
between formative and
summative exams.

Pacing guides were not utilized
to inform classroom instruction.
252

Data Monitoring, Information and Reporting
System/Technology
A system-wide (web-based)
infrastructure was fully utilized
for data collection, management
and reporting.

Web-based tools were
comprehensively utilized by
teachers and administrators to
review and analyze data.

Data collection occurred on a
regular basis (every 6 to 8
weeks).

User-friendly reports were easily
accessible.

Associated technology training
and support were readily
available.
A system-wide (web-based)
infrastructure was partially
utilized for data collection,
management and reporting.

Web-based tools were
sporadically utilized by teachers
and administrators to review
and analyze data.

Data collection occurred on an
inconsistent basis.

Data-friendly reports were
accessible but systems were not
considered user-friendly.

Associated technology training
and support was available but
difficult to utilize.
A system-wide (web-based)
infrastructure was not utilized
across the district.

Teachers and administrators did
not consistently utilize a system-
wide data system to review or
analyze assessment results.

Data collection did not occur on
a regular basis

Consistent, user-friendly reports
were not accessible.

Associated technology training
and support was not regularly
available.
Analysis. Interpretation, and Utilization of
Assessment Data
Clear, district-wide processes
and expectations were
established for data analysis,
interpretation and utilization.

Evidence suggested that data was
reviewed district-wide on an
ongoing basis and instructional
decisions were informed by
identified student needs.

A district-wide schedule was
utilized with fidelity for data
analysis.
District-wide processes and
expectations were established
for data analysis, interpretation
and utilization. However,
processes were vague in nature
and only sporadically
implemented.

Data was reviewed
inconsistently across the district
and instructional decisions were
only casually informed by
identified student needs.

A district-wide schedule was
utilized sporadically for data
analysis.
District-wide processes and
expectations were not established
for data analysis, interpretation
and utilization.

Data was not consistently
reviewed across the district.
Little evidence was found of
aligned instructional decisions.

A district-wide schedule was not
utilized for data analysis.
253

Professional Development (PD)

A district-wide plan was created
and fully implemented to ensure
that all district staff received
consistent, targeted and
meaningful professional
development.

Professional development was
well aligned to school and/or
district needs as informed by
student data.

A clear correlation existed
between district professional
development and consistent
gains in student achievement.
A district-wide professional
development plan was created
but only partially implemented.
Evidence suggested that district
staff received some meaningful
professional development.

Professional development was
only partially aligned to school
and/or district needs and was not
well informed by student data.

There was little evidence to
suggest a correlation between
district professional
development and gains in
student achievement.
Little evidence was found of a
district-wide professional
development plan. Professional
development occurred but the
meaningful nature of associated
work was inconsistent at best.

Professional development was
not aligned to school and/or
district needs and was not
informed by student data.

No evidence was found to
suggest a correlation between
district professional development
and gains in student
achievement.
Fiscal Support and Resources District leaders created clear,
ongoing practices to ensure that
fiscal resources were available to
continually develop and support
district-wide assessment and
data-review practices.
Fiscal resources were
inconsistently available to
support district-wide assessment
and data-review practices.
No evidence was found that
district leaders aligned fiscal
resources to support district-wide
assessment and data-review
practices.

Quality Rubric: Curriculum

Curriculum generally refers to the materials and content associated with student learning. Classroom materials in a formal sense often include
guides for learning, textbooks, and aligned student work. While often guided by state and/or district expectations, curriculum is typically dynamic
as defined by teachers or teams of teachers for targeted instruction based on identified areas of student need.

Component High Medium Low
254

Alignment to Learning Standards and
Assessments

The district adopted and fully
implemented a curriculum that
was fully aligned to state content
standards and frameworks.

The district's curriculum was
comprehensive and contained all
of the essential knowledge and
skills that students needed to
master state and district learning
standards.

The district developed and fully
implemented curricular tools
including pacing guides and an
aligned assessment platform.
The district adopted but only
partially implemented a
curriculum aligned to state
content standards and
frameworks.

The district's curriculum was not
considered comprehensive in
relation to the essential
knowledge and skills that
students needed to master state
and district learning standards.

The district inconsistently
developed and implemented
curricular tools including
pacing guides and an aligned
assessment platform.
No evidence was found that the
district intentionally adopted and
implemented a curriculum that
was aligned to state content
standards and frameworks.

The district's curriculum was not
comprehensive and was not
adequate in terms of preparing
students with the knowledge and
skills that students needed to
master state and district learning
standards.

No evidence was found that the
district developed and
implemented curricular tools to
aid teachers in planning and
assessment.
Equal Access to Learning Standards The district's curriculum
optimized all students'
opportunities to access content
and learning standards, including
under-performing students,
students with disabilities and
students learning English as a
second or other language.

Consistent, year-after-year gains
were evident for all students.
The district's curriculum only
partially met the needs of all
students and provided only
sporadic opportunities to access
content and learning standards.

Gains for all students were
noted but were inconsistent in
terms of year-after-year
sustainability.

Clear gaps remained in relation
to under-served subgroups thus
continuing pervasive
achievement gaps.
The district's curriculum largely
did not meet the needs of all
students and provided few
opportunities to access content
and learning standards.

Year-after-year gains in student
achievement were not evident.

Gaps grew in relation to under-
served subgroups and served to
widen achievement gaps.
255

Fidelity in Implementation The district worked to
comprehensively communicate
the required curriculum to all
stakeholders, especially site
administrators, teachers, students
and parents.

The district continually provided
adequate funding to schools to
support the ongoing professional
development needs of teachers in
relation to the curriculum.

The district clearly demonstrated
a long-term, year-after-year
commitment to the sustainable
implementation of the
curriculum.
The district inconsistently
communicated the required
curriculum to stakeholders.

The district inconsistently
funded schools with regards to
the ongoing professional
development needs of teachers
in relation to the curriculum.

Evidence suggested some
inconsistencies with regards to
the district’s commitment to the
sustainable implementation of
the curriculum.
The district generally failed to
communicate the required
curriculum to stakeholders.

The district provided little
funding to schools in support of
the ongoing professional
development needs of teachers in
relation to the curriculum.

Evidence suggested that the
district did little to sustainably
commit to the successful
implementation of the
curriculum.
Sufficiency and Appropriateness of Materials The district consistently provided
quality and sufficient
instructional textbooks and
curricular materials (including
intervention materials) to all
teachers and students.

The district provided all schools
with abundant supplemental
materials to support and enhance
the learning environment in all
subject areas.
The district provided some
quality instructional textbooks
and curricular materials but the
comprehensive nature of the
materials was in question.

The district provided schools
with some supplemental
materials to support and
enhance the learning
environment.
The district provided little
direction and funding to support
the adoption and implementation
of instructional textbooks and
curricular materials.

The district did not provided
schools with supplemental
materials to support and enhance
the learning environment.
256

Clear and Regular Procedures to Review and
Update Curriculum

The district created and utilized a
clearly communicated system to
regularly review the
effectiveness of adopted
materials for core subjects. As
part of these reviews, quality and
access were regularly checked to
ensure full implementation.

The district created and fully
implemented a system that
provided teachers and site
administrators with targeted
supplemental materials based on
needs identified through the
ongoing analysis of assessment
data.
The district created and utilized
some systems to review the
effectiveness of adopted
materials for core subjects.
Consistency and fidelity were in
question.

The district partially
implemented a system that
provided teachers and site
administrators with targeted
supplemental materials based
on needs identified through the
ongoing analysis of assessment
data.
The district did not create or
utilize a system to review the
effectiveness of adopted
materials for core subjects.

The district failed to implement
systems and practices to provide
teachers and site administrators
with targeted supplemental
materials.

Quality Rubric: Professional Development

Aligned to both the curriculum and practices of instruction, professional development is intended to improve the instructional effectiveness of
teachers and other professionals in a school and district. While professional development initiatives are not always aligned to classroom and
student specific needs, best practices suggest a strong level of alignment between a goals and objectives and an individual’s daily areas of
responsibility.

Component High Medium Low
257

Designing Professional Development

The district consistently (across
multiple years) implemented
professional development
opportunities based on research-
based best practices.

Professional development
aligned with and consistently
supported the district's long-term
plans and identified goals.

District plans consistently
targeted professional
development to student needs
(based on assessment results) and
teacher needs (based on
evaluation results).

Fiscal and human resources were
consistently designated and
readily available to support
district-wide and site-based
professional development plans.
Evidence suggested the
implementation of some
professional development
opportunities based on research-
based best practices.

Professional development was
loosely aligned to the district's
long-term plans and identified
goals.

District plans inconsistently
targeted professional
development to student needs
(based on assessment results)
and teacher needs (based on
evaluation results).

Fiscal and human resources
were inconsistently designated
and readily available to support
district-wide and site-based
professional development plans.
The district failed to implement a
district-wide professional
development plan and offered
few opportunities that were
aligned to research-based best
practices.

Professional development was
not aligned with the district's
long-term plans and goals.

Little evidence existed to suggest
that the district aligned
professional development to
student and teacher needs.

Fiscal and human resources were
rarely designated in support
district-wide and site-based
professional development plans.
258

Implementing Professional Development Significant evidence existed to
support the connection between
the district’s long-term
professional development efforts
and year-after-year gains in
student achievement.

Professional development was an
integral part of the district's
culture and helped to promote
and maintain a district-wide
culture of inquiry and growth.

Professional development plans
regularly included coaching and
modeling in an effort to support
instructional staff members.
Some evidence existed to
support the connection between
the district’s long-term
professional development efforts
and gains in student
achievement.

Professional development was
an acknowledged part of the
district's norms but did little to
shape the organizational culture.

Professional development plans
infrequently utilized coaching
and modeling in an effort to
support instructional staff
members.
Little to no evidence existed to
support the connection between
the district’s long-term
professional development efforts
and gains in student
achievement.

Professional development was in
no way connected to district
norms or the culture of the
organization.

Professional development plans
rarely utilized coaching and
modeling as growth=related
practices.
259

Evaluating Professional Development The district designed and
continuously utilized clear
processes for ensuring that
professional development
opportunities were aligned to
assessed student needs and
evaluated teacher needs.

Evaluation findings were
consistently used in creating
professional development plans
that were designed to improve
classroom instruction, student
learning and narrow/close
achievement gaps.

The district fully utilized a
process for monitoring the
alignment of site-based
improvement plans, professional
development plans and
comparable teacher/student
outcomes.
The district inconsistently
implemented processes for
ensuring that professional
development opportunities were
aligned to assessed student
needs and evaluated teacher
needs.

Evaluation findings were
intermittently used to create
professional development plans.

The district utilized a casual
process for monitoring the
alignment of site-based
improvement plans,
professional development plans
and comparable teacher/student
outcomes.
The district had no process for
ensuring that professional
development opportunities were
aligned to assessed student needs
and evaluated teacher needs.

Evaluation findings were rarely
used to create professional
development plans.

The district rarely monitored the
alignment of site-based
improvement plans, professional
development plans and
comparable teacher/student
outcomes.
260

Sharing Professional Development and
Learning
The district created and
consistently utilized a plan to
document professional
development needs (based on
successes and challenges) in an
ongoing effort to provide
relevant opportunities based on
student and teacher needs.

The district’s plan for
professional development was
transparent, public and well-
understood.

Materials were consistently
aligned and readily available
across the district in an effort to
ensure that all employees were
developing in the same direction.
The district minimally
implemented plans to document
professional development needs
in an effort to provide relevant
opportunities based on student
and teacher needs.

The district’s plan for
professional development was
public but not well-understood.

Some materials were aligned and
available across the district in an
effort to ensure that all
employees were developing in
the same direction.
The district did not utilize a
consistent plan to monitor the
professional development needs
of the district.

The district’s plan for
professional development was
not shared internally or
externally.

Materials were not available
across the district. Sharing in this
regard was not a part of the
district's culture.

Quality Rubric: Human Resources Systems and Human Capital Management

Related to the quality and effectiveness of an employee, Human Resource Systems and Human Capital Management efforts specifically target the
hiring, development and retention of quality staff. School districts often seek to hire the most effective, highly-qualified administrators and
teachers. However, while hiring is an often associated responsibility of Human Resources, development and retention are equally important areas
that are prioritized as part of a system’s efforts to continually improve.

Component High Medium Low
261

Recruitment, Selection and Placement of New
Administrators

District programs were created
and implemented to recruit and
hire high-potential teachers as
administrators.

Achievement data,
demographics, staffing and the
culture of each school were
regularly considered in a formal
manner when considering the
placement/hiring of site
principals.

The district consistently worked
to develop an organizational
culture in which the strongest
administrators were hired and
placed at the most in need
schools.
Some formal district efforts were
made to recruit and hire highly
effective, high-potential teachers
as administrators.

Achievement data,
demographics, staffing and the
culture of each school were
minimally considered in a formal
manner when considering the
placement/hiring of site
principals.

The district intermittently
worked to develop an
organizational culture to hire and
place the strongest administrators
in the most in need schools.
District programs were not
implemented to recruit and hire
highly effective, high-potential
teachers as administrators.

Achievement data,
demographics, staffing and the
culture of each school were not
formally considered when
considering the placement/hiring
of site principals.

The district demonstrated no
commitment to place the
strongest administrators in the
most in need schools.
262

Recruitment of Highly Qualified Teachers The district implemented clear
and consistent practices for
publically reporting quarterly (or
more often) the percentages of
classes with highly qualified
teachers (vs. teacher that were
not highly qualified or vacant
positions).

The district utilized clearly
defined compensation incentives
to recruit highly effective
teachers to underperforming
schools.

Recruitment efforts consistently
improved the quality of teaching
and learning as was evident
through consistent, year-after-
year gains in student
achievement.
The district implemented
practices for reporting the
percentages of classes with
highly qualified teachers (vs.
teacher that were not highly
qualified or vacant positions).
However, timeliness was in
question.

The district utilized clearly
defined compensation incentives
to recruit highly effective
teachers. However, placement at
underperforming schools was not
a demonstrated priority.

Recruitment efforts were loosely
related to gains in student
achievement.
The district did not implement
practices for reporting the
percentages of classes with
highly qualified teachers (vs.
teacher that were not highly
qualified or vacant positions).

The district did not utilize
defined compensation incentives
to recruit teachers.

No correlation was found
between recruitment efforts and
any meaningful gains in student
achievement.
263

Teacher Support and Development The district developed and fully
implemented career ladder
opportunities that allowed
teachers to continually develop
professionally while remaining
instructionally involved with
students.

The district created and fully
implemented a new teacher
support program(s) including
high-quality professional
development and teacher-to-
teacher mentoring.

The district consistently
collected data to measure the
effectiveness of professional
development in relation to
improved rates of student
achievement.
The district developed few
formal career ladder
opportunities that allowed
teachers to continually develop
professionally while remaining
instructionally involved with
students.

The district offered support
programs for new teachers but
rarely refined these
opportunities to ensure
effectiveness.

The district intermittently
collected data to measure the
effectiveness of professional
development in relation to
improved rates of student
achievement.
The district had no formal or
informal career ladder
opportunities for teachers.

The district failed to create or
implement a teacher support
programs.

No evidence was found to
suggest that the district collected
data to measure the effectiveness
of professional development.
Salaries, Wages and Benefits The district had a clear track-
record of working
collaboratively with employees
to ensure that salaries, wages and
benefits remained sufficiently
competitive in an effort to attract
and retain high-quality teachers.
The district infrequently worked
with employees to ensure that
salaries, wages and benefits
remained sufficient and
competitive.
The district did not demonstrate
a track-record of working with
employees to ensure that salaries,
wages and benefits remained
sufficient and competitive.
264

Use of Incentives

The district consistently and
formally used compensation
incentives to recruit highly
effective teachers and
administrators to high-needs,
underperforming schools.

Incentives for transfer regularly
included additional
compensation, autonomy from
district mandates, opportunities
for collaboration and other
benefits.
The district inconsistently
utilized compensation
incentives to recruit highly
effective teachers and
administrators to high-needs,
underperforming schools.

Incentives for transfer included
few notable benefits exclusive
to designated high-needs
schools.
The district did not utilize
compensation incentives to
recruit highly effective teachers
and administrators to high-needs,
underperforming schools.

Quality Rubric: Finance and Budget

Aligned with the goals and objectives of a system’s strategic plan, the prioritization and management of fiscal resources make possible a district’s
efforts to deliver a quality learning environment across all schools. While there are several budget practices that a district considers in this regard,
school systems generally work to align the funding of initiatives to related goals and objectives. Additionally, the Board of Education typically has
a significant amount of authority as annual budget often require a Board’s approval.

Component High Medium Low
265

Strategic Budget Planning

The district's strategic plan was
well aligned with the
superintendent's goals and
priorities.

The district's strategic plan served
as a foundational document for
budget planning and included
measurable objectives and
outcomes.

The district's budget was
explicitly tied to and supportive of
instructional goals and priorities.
Changes in district priorities were
reflected in the budget and
communicated in a timely
manner.

The Budget/Finance team
understood the context of
budgeting decisions well
including the district's past,
present fiscal issues, and potential
future challenges.
The district's strategic plan was
somewhat aligned with the
superintendent's goals and
priorities.

The district's strategic plan was
considered during budget
planning but was not
foundational in any regard.
The district's budget was
explicitly tied to and supportive
of instructional goals and
priorities.

Changes in district priorities
were rarely reflected in the
budget and were often not
communicated in a timely
manner.

The Budget/Finance team
understood exhibited some
understanding of important
contextual matters throughout
the budget planning process.
The district's strategic plan was
not reflected in general budget
planning.

The district's budget was not
specifically supportive of
instructional goals and priorities.
Changes in district priorities
were not reflected in the budget
and not communicated to the
community.

The Budget/Finance team
exhibited little knowledge of
important contextual issues while
planning for the budget.
266

Organizational Culture District leaders regularly included
stakeholders throughout the
process of creating budgets for the
coming school year.

District leaders publically and
transparently presented audit
results and associated corrective
actions in a timely manner.

District leaders utilized clear
process to solicit input about the
budget process from employees,
students and families.
District leaders infrequently
included stakeholders throughout
the process of creating budgets
for the coming school year.

District leaders presented audit
results and associated corrective
actions but transparency and
timeliness were inconsistent
considerations.

District leaders infrequently
utilized processes to solicit input
about the budget process from
employees, students and
families.
District leaders rarely included
stakeholders throughout the
budget process.

District leaders did not often
report audit results and
associated corrective actions to
the public.

District leaders rarely utilized
clear process to solicit input
about the budget process from
employees, students and
families.
Operational Procedures District leaders utilized effective
controls to ensure that district
resources were well managed,
including frequent, public
reporting.

The district demonstrated a year-
after-year track-record to targeting
funding resources to well-defined
student needs

Despite funding challenges, the
district remained consistently
focused on key reform
commitments.
District leaders utilized effective
controls to ensure that district
resources were well managed but
rarely reported results aside from
district, state or federal mandates.

The district intermittently
targeted its funding resources to
defined student needs.

Due to funding challenges, the
district compromised its
commitment to some key reform
efforts.
District leaders failed to ensure
that district resources were well
managed and reported.

No evidence was found to suggest
that the district targeted funding
resources to student needs.

When faced with funding
challenges, the district cut fiscal
resources to key areas of reform.

Quality Rubric: Communications

Effective communication connects a school district with the community it serves. Leaders typically prioritize communication which covers the
spectrum of proactive communication to crisis management. Communication is often both internal and external and is designed to provide both
sets of stakeholders with the information they need regarding the district. Increasingly, external facing communication includes technology driven
forms of information sharing including the use of such applications as Facebook and Twitter.
267

Component High Medium Low
Communications Plan

The district's communications
plan was well aligned with the
strategic plan.

The district's communication
plan actively supported and
reflected the mission and vision.

The district's communications
plan consistently reflected the
diversity and needs of its
community.

The district's communications
plan was regularly updated to
reflect the consideration of
community input and needs.
The district's communications
plan was loosely aligned with
the strategic plan.

The district's communication
plan casually reflected the
mission and vision.

The district's communications
plan demonstrated some
consideration of the diversity
and needs of its community.

The district's communications
plan was infrequently updated to
reflect the consideration of
community input and needs.
The district's communications
plan was misaligned with the
strategic plan.

The district's communication
plan was misaligned from the
organization’s mission and
vision.

The district's communications
plan failed to consider the
diversity and needs of its
community.

The district's communications
plan was rarely updated to reflect
the consideration of community
input and needs.
268

Communications Office The district's communications
office served as an integral
partner in organizational
decisions.

The District’s communications
office was well-funded and
resourced in a manner that
allowed the team to accurately
predict the growing
informational demands of the
community.

The district's communications
office consistently maintained
close liaison with the community
it served.

The communication's office
routinely worked with schools to
highlight meaningful stories.
The district's communications
office staff was present for
important organizational decision
but exerted little opinion or
influence.

The District’s communications
office was funded in a manner
that allowed the team to
adequately meet the growing
informational demands of the
community.

The district's communications
office maintained some close
relationships with the community
it served. However, those
relationships did not necessarily
reflect the community as a
whole.

The communication's office
infrequently worked with schools
to highlight meaningful stories.

The district's communications
office was not present in
important organizational
decisions.

The District’s communications
office was minimally funded and
was not resourced to meet the
growing informational demands
of the community.

The district's communications
office did not maintain many
close relationships within the
community it served.

The communication's office rarely
worked with schools to highlight
meaningful stories.
269

Communication of District Vision to the
Community
District leaders regularly met
with community leaders to
discuss the district's vision and
associated efforts.

The district's communications
office utilized a variety of
formats to effectively
communicate and garner support
for the district's vision.

The district's communications
office was proactive in
communicating district matters
in a timely, honest and
transparent manner.
District leaders infrequently met
with community leaders to
discuss the district's vision and
associated efforts.

The district's communications
office utilized only traditional
formats (written, web and local
news) to communicate the
district's vision.

The district's communications
office was largely reactive in
communicating district matters.
The timeliness and transparency
of messaging varied.
District leaders rarely met with
community leaders to discuss the
district's vision and associated
efforts.

The district's communications
office utilized only school/home
communication formats to
communicate the district's vision.

The district's communications
office rarely communicated
district matters in a timely and
transparent manner.
Support Built for District Initiatives Community stakeholders were
regularly involved in helping
district leaders make important
organizational decisions.

District initiatives were well
communicated and generally
understood by the community.
Community stakeholders were
infrequently involved in helping
district leaders make important
organizational decisions.

District initiatives were
communicated but not well
understood by the community.
Community stakeholders were
rarely involved in helping district
leaders make important decisions
and were not generally informed
of those decisions.

District initiatives were not well
communicated and rarely
understood by its community.
270

Two-Way Communications with Community

Parents and community
stakeholders were well engaged
in their schools and district.

Focus groups and town hall
meetings were consistently
utilized to communicate with the
district's community.

District leaders were well
involved with other community
groups and organizations
including leadership positions in
other local organizations.

Information concerning proposed
legislation that impacted schools
was proactively communicated.
Parents and community
stakeholders were mildly
supportive of their schools and
district.

Focus groups and town hall
meetings were infrequently
used to communicate with the
district's community.

District leaders were somewhat
involved with other community
groups and organizations.

Information concerning
proposed legislation that
impacted schools was
communicated but public
understanding and support
remained consistently in
question.
Parents and community
stakeholders were often
disengaged from their schools
and district.

Focus groups and town hall
meetings were rarely used to
communicate with the district's
community.

District leaders were not
involved with other community
groups and organizations.

Information concerning proposed
legislation that impacted schools
was rarely communicated by the
district.

Quality Rubric: Governance and Board Relations

Governance in relation to public school districts often includes a multi-member, community elected group of representatives. However, districts
with single points of governance like mayoral control have become increasingly more utilized models in recent years and currently include some
of the nation’s largest, urban districts. Traditional school boards are often charged with hiring and evaluating the superintendent and setting the
policy direction for their districts. In such traditional governance structures, the superintendent reports to the Board and collectively, they utilize
regular public meetings to consider and communicate information in relation to a external-facing practice for making key decisions.

Component High Medium Low
271

Setting the Direction for the Community ’s
Schools

The District’s vision, mission,
values, and priorities were
clearly associated with consistent
gains in student achievement and
the closure of achievement gaps.

The vision, mission, values, and
priorities were consistently
utilized in district plans and
aligned with goals and
objectives.

District goals were aligned,
measurable, achievable, and
evaluated annually.
The District’s vision, mission,
values, and priorities were
mildly associated with
consistent gains in student
achievement but did not
necessarily result in the closure
of achievement gaps.

The vision, mission, values, and
priorities were inconsistently
utilized in district plans and
aligned with goals and
objectives.

District goals were annually
listed and measure but not
necessarily aligned to key
district goals and structures.
The District’s vision, mission,
values, and priorities did not
result in consistent student
achievement gains.

The vision, mission, values, and
priorities were rarely utilized in
district planning and not
consistently aligned with goals
and objectives.

District goals were not
consistently measured or
evaluated.
Establishing an Effective and Efficient
Structure for the District
The Board collaboratively
established and consistently
utilized an organizational
structure that fully supported the
district’s vision while
empowering the superintendent
and staff.

The Board created policies that
furthered the mission and vision
of the district.

The Board collaboratively
established consistent, timely,
clearly communicated budgeting
priorities that well aligned with
the district's mission, vision and
goals.
The Board established but
inconsistently utilized an
organizational structure that
worked to support the district’s
vision. Their efforts in this
regard did not consistently work
to empower the superintendent
and staff.

The Board infrequently
constructed policies that
furthered the mission and vision
as needs arose.

The Board established
budgeting priorities that were
aligned but not clearly
communicated publically.
The Board minimally established
an organizational structure. This
in-turn provided little support to
the superintendent and staff.

The Board rarely sought to revise
policies in an effort to further the
mission and vision of the district.

The Board failed to provide the
superintendent or staff with clear
budgeting priorities.
272

Providing Support and Resources The Board publically supported
the superintendent and staff and
acted in a professional manner
when addressing multiple views
on important matters.

The Board worked with the
superintendent to align fiscal
resources to student and school
needs. As a result, these actions
has a direct and positive result on
sustainable gains in student
achievement.
The Board demonstrated
intermittent support for the
superintendent and staff. As a
Board, they infrequently
disputed matters publically
causing misalignment.

The Board infrequently worked
with the superintendent to align
fiscal resources to student and
school needs.
The Board showed little public
support for the superintendent
and staff. They often acted in an
unprofessional manner when
addressing multiple views on
important matters.

The Board rarely worked with
the superintendent to align fiscal
resources to student and school
needs.
Ensuring Accountability to the Public The Board collaboratively
established clear systems and
procedures to monitor student
achievement. Information in this
regard was collaboratively
reported publically in a timely
and transparent manner.

The Board evaluated the
superintendent based on
collaboratively agreed-upon
criteria related to teaching and
learning.

The Board monitored program
effectiveness through open and
regular reviews and required
changes to protect important
reform efforts.
The Board independently
established systems and
procedures to monitor student
achievement. Information in this
regard was reported publically
but collaboration, transparency
and timeliness were in question.

The Board evaluated the
superintendent based on clear
criteria but collaboration and
alignment were in question.

The Board infrequently
monitored program
effectiveness but worked to
protect important reform efforts
from fiscal constraints.
The Board did not work to
establish systems and procedures
to monitor student achievement.

The Board evaluated the
superintendent but collaboration
and alignment were not evident
in any regard.

The Board rarely monitored
program effectiveness and in
general, failed protect important
reform efforts from fiscal
constraints.
273

Actions as Community Leaders

The Board consistently involved
the community in appropriate,
meaningful ways to allow for
feedback from stakeholders.

Significant evidence was found
in relation to clear
communication practices to
promote district policies,
educational programs,
achievement progress and
financial conditions.

The Board collaborative worked
with the superintendent to share,
as appropriate, information with
local constituency groups.
The Board infrequently
involved the community in
meaningful ways allowing for
feedback from stakeholders.

Some evidence was found in
relation to clear communication
practices to promote district
policies, educational programs,
achievement progress and
financial conditions.

The Board infrequently
approved of the superintendent
sharing, as appropriate,
information with local
constituency groups.
The Board generally did not
involve the community in
meaningful district-related
discussions and did not readily
accept feedback from the
community.

In general, the Board provided
little communication to the
community. As a practice,
district information could only be
obtained through district schools.

As a group, the Board shared
little information with local
constituency groups.

Quality Rubric: Labor Relations and Negotiations

In many states and public school districts, labor relations and contract negotiations are critical relational practices that impact a system in an
organizational and operational manner. Often an ongoing process, successful negotiations often begin with the long-term relationship between
district leaders and elected or appointed union officials. The content of their collective agreements impact contract language that includes rates of
pay, hours, benefits and other important aspects related to the district’s strategic plan, budget and human resources practices.

Component High Medium Low
274

Relations, Communication and Trust

Significant evidence existed that
pointed to consistent and trusting
relationships between district
leaders and a significant portion
of employees.

The district consistently worked
to provide employees with
opportunities to become
regularly involved in matters
related to pay, benefits and other
related matters.

The district consistently worked
to provide all stakeholders with
regular updates on district
matters pertaining to budget, pay,
benefits and related incentives.
Varied evidence was available
that pointed to consistent and
trusting relationships between
district leaders and a significant
portion of employees.

The district inconsistently
worked to provide employees
with opportunities to become
regularly involved in matters
related to pay, benefits and other
related matters.

The district inconsistently
worked to provide all
stakeholders with regular updates
on district matters pertaining to
budget, pay, benefits and related
incentives.
Little evidence was found related
to consistent and trusting
relationships between district
leaders and a significant portion
of employees.

The district rarely worked to
provide employees with
opportunities to become
regularly involved in matters
related to pay, benefits and other
related matters.

The district rarely worked to
provide all stakeholders with
regular updates on district
matters pertaining to budget, pay,
benefits and related incentives.
Collaborative Decision-Making Principles
and Objectives
The district consistently worked
to ensure that all stakeholders
had established roles and
responsibilities in relation to
decisions connected to pay,
benefits and contractual matters.

District leaders and stakeholders
regularly worked together to
develop key district initiatives in
consideration of the
organization's mission, vision
and core beliefs.
District leaders inconsistently
worked to ensure that all
stakeholders had established
roles and responsibilities in
relation to decisions connected
to pay, benefits and contractual
matters.

District leaders and stakeholders
worked together intermittently
to develop key district
initiatives in consideration of
the organization's mission,
vision and core beliefs.
District leaders rarely worked to
ensure that all stakeholders had
established roles and
responsibilities in relation to
decisions connected to pay,
benefits and contractual matters.

District leaders and stakeholders
rarely worked together to
develop key district initiatives.
275

Collaborative Decision-Making Principles
and Objectives
District leaders consistently
worked with stakeholders to
ensure that decision-making
goals and objectives were
developed in relation to budget,
pay and benefit matters.

District leaders and stakeholders
consistently worked together to
determine an overarching
approach to making important
long-term decisions.

Significant evidence exists to
suggest that stakeholders largely
viewed budget, pay and benefits-
related decisions as being made
in a collaborative, fair and
equitable manner.
District leaders inconsistently
worked with stakeholders to
ensure that decision-making
goals and objectives were
developed in relation to budget,
pay and benefit matters.

District leaders and stakeholders
infrequently worked together to
determine an overarching
approach to making important
long-term decisions.

Evidence suggests that
stakeholders viewed budget, pay
and benefit decisions in a varied
manner.
District leaders rarely worked
with stakeholders to ensure that
decision-making goals and
objectives were developed in
relation to budget, pay and
benefit matters.

District leaders and stakeholders
rarely worked together to
determine an overarching
approach to making important
long-term decisions.

Evidence suggests that
stakeholders skeptically viewed
budget, pay and benefit
decisions.
Fair and Equitable Outcomes Significant evidence suggested
that district leaders consistently
valued employees and believed
that employee morale was
closely tied to student
achievement.

Significant evidence was found
to suggest that stakeholders
believed that consistently fair
and equitable decisions were
made by district leaders in
relation to existing resources.
Some evidence was found to
suggest that district leaders
valued employees and believed
that employee morale was
closely tied to student
achievement.

Varied evidence was found to
suggest that stakeholders
believed that consistently fair
and equitable decisions were
made by district leaders in
relation to existing resources.
Little evidence was found to
suggest that district leaders
valued employees.

Little evidence was found to
suggest that stakeholders
believed that consistently fair
and equitable decisions were
made by district leaders in
relation to existing resources.

Quality Rubric: Family and Community Engagement

Related to communication, family and community engagement specifies the district’s practices in engaging and empowering parents and
community members as valued stakeholders. Involvement is often at the individual school site level but most public school systems utilize the
involvement of parents in making critical, district-wide decisions. The perceptions of parents and the community are typically assessed and
276

monitored to better inform how the public perceives the district leadership, services, and system as a whole. Public levels of support are often
positively correlated to the passage of key funding measures including bonds, tax-rates and other valued elements related to fiscal resources.

Component High Medium Low
Parenting

The district consistently worked
to coordinate trainings at all
levels based on parental needs
within the local context.

The district fully utilized a
system/process to consider
partnerships with family-focused
organizations.

The district consistently worked
to support school leaders in their
efforts to engage and empower
parents.
The district infrequently worked
to coordinate trainings at all
levels based on parental needs
within the local context.

The district intermittently
utilized a system/process to
consider partnerships with
family-focused organizations.

The district inconsistently
worked to support school
leaders in their efforts to engage
and empower parents.
The district rarely worked to
coordinate trainings at all levels
based on parental needs within
the local context.

The district infrequently utilized
a system/process to consider
partnerships with family-focused
organizations.

The district seldom worked to
support school leaders in their
efforts to engage and empower
parents.
Communication The district consistently provided
parents with information in a
language and format that ensured
that their involvement was not
limited by communication-
related factors.

The district created consistent
expectations regarding ongoing,
two-way communication
between schools and their
communities.
The district infrequently
provided parents with
information in a language and
format that ensured that their
involvement was not limited by
communication-related factors.

The district created an informal
system of expectations
regarding communication
between schools and their
communities. However,
communication in this regard
varied significantly by school in
terms of quality and frequency.
The district rarely provided
parents with information in a
language and format that ensured
that their involvement was not
limited by communication-
related factors.

The district did not utilize a
system of expectations regarding
communication between schools
and their communities.
277

Volunteerism The district consistently worked
with schools and families to
create and implement policies
that informed families of their
rights to volunteer and be
regularly involved in their child's
classroom.

The district regularly worked to
create and implement specific
efforts to remove barriers that
may have otherwise limited
volunteerism.
The district worked with
schools and families with some
regularity to create and
implement policies that
informed families of their rights
to volunteer and be regularly
involved in their child's
classroom.

The district infrequently worked
to create and implement specific
efforts to remove barriers that
may have otherwise limited
volunteerism.
The district failed to work with
schools and families to
create/implement policies that
informed families of their rights
to volunteer and be regularly
involved in their child's
classroom.

The district failed to create or
implement specific efforts to
remove barriers that limited
volunteerism.
Learning at Home The district regularly worked to
support schools in providing and
implementing techniques and
strategies to aid parents in
helping their child academically
at home.
The district infrequently worked
to support schools in providing
and implementing techniques
and strategies to aid parents in
helping their child academically
at home.
The district failed to work to
support schools in providing and
implementing techniques and
strategies to aid parents in
helping their child academically
at home.
Decision Making Parents were regularly
encouraged and recruited
district-wide to take on
governance and advisory roles.

Significant evidence existed to
suggest that district leaders
valued the feedback and views of
the community.
Parents were infrequently
encouraged and recruited
district-wide to take on
governance and advisory roles.

Evidence suggested that some
district valued the feedback and
views of the community.
However, as a whole, practices
were inconsistent in this regard.
Parents were not often recruited
district-wide to take on
governance and advisory roles.

Little evidence existed to suggest
that district leaders valued the
feedback and views of the
community.
Collaboration with the Community District leaders consistently
worked to ensure that community
organizations and institutions
were regularly involved in
informing key district decisions.
District leaders infrequently
worked to ensure that
community organizations and
institutions were involved in
informing key district decisions.
District leaders rarely worked to
ensure that community
organizations and institutions
were involved in informing key
district decisions.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to advance learning in relation to how urban superintendents lead sustainable reform within their districts. This study specifically focuses on the background, strategies, actions and reactions of one urban superintendent in his efforts to implement key reform strategies that produced sustainable student achievement gains. This study builds upon several associated studies and serves as a third phase of work specifically related to the Phase II study on the Queen City Public School District (Garcia, 2009). Like the first two phases of associated research, this study specifically examines reform through ten specific strategies as identified through the Urban School Leadership Institute’s HOUSE Model. These elements include strategic planning, assessment, curriculum, professional development, communication, finance/budget, human resource systems/human capital management, labor relations/negotiations, family and community engagement, and governance/school board relations. ❧ In an effort to add contextual understanding regarding sustainable leadership practices, this study also examines reform efforts employed by the superintendent that blended both the traditional reform elements of the HOUSE Model but also ventured beyond through new and innovative initiatives aimed at improving the outcomes of student learning and achievement. Key to both areas of study is the element of sustainable reform as short-term results generally are not the aim of large, urban districts and their leaders. This analytical study incorporated the following two main research questions and the seven related sub questions. Interviews were structured through the use of specified interview guides and collected data was compared against a quality rubric that expressly measured reform efforts for consistency and sustainability. ❧ Results indicated that the superintendent and district at the center of this study were able to sustain student achievement gains across the entire tenure of the superintendent despite the historic funding shortfalls associated with the later years of the recent recession. Specifically, the district leaders were able to sustain their organization's momentum through quality strategic planning and uncompromising budgeting and financial practices. Several clear themes emerged that defined the superintendent's leadership practices including aligned strategic planning, balancing needs and talent, maintaining a finite focus on results and sustaining an ongoing practice of transparent leadership.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents

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

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent

PDF

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

PDF

Secondary school reform and improved math achievement: a case study of site efforts at Mission Valley High School

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Ream, Tyler William (author)

Core Title Sustainable reform: a follow-up case study on one urban superintendent’s efforts to improve student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/29/2014

Defense Date 08/14/2014

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

Tag leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,reform,school district,strategic planning,student achievement,superintendent,sustainable,transformation,Urban

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy Max (committee member), Gorman, Peter C. (committee member)

Creator Email ream@usc.edu,t.ream@cms.k12.nc.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-512044

Unique identifier UC11298381

Identifier etd-ReamTylerW-3043.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-512044 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ReamTylerW-3043.pdf

Dmrecord 512044

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ream, Tyler William

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