University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 1
LET’S HEAR IT FROM THE PRINCIPALS: A STUDY OF FOUR TITLE ONE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP PRACTICES ON STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT

by

Danny C. Dixon

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

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Danny C. Dixon
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 2
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation, first and foremost, to my beloved mother who
always encouraged me to accomplish anything that I wanted to do. Although she is no longer
with us in body, she will always be with me in spirit. She was always there for me educationally
and personally. She built me up and never tore me down. Her kindness, understanding, and
candidness helped me to become the person I am.
I also dedicate this dissertation to my dad, who was a solemn, hard-working man who
was very proud of his son and supported me in all of my educational endeavors. If I needed a
hundred bucks for books, he would give it to me, even though I knew he didn’t always have it.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my supportive sister and family who encouraged me
along the way in my educational journey. My sister always wanted a status report on my studies.
I can’t say enough about my two lovely daughters who gave me joy when times were rough and
motivated me to persevere.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Pedro Garcia, for
keeping me on track and pushing me to the finish line. He believed in me and knew I had it in
me. His diverse experiences in education have helped to widen my horizons about the needs of
various school systems in our nation.
I would also like to acknowledge my second and third chairs, Dr. Castruita and Dr. Larry
Hausner. Dr. Castruita provided me with words of wisdom about the Superintendency, that I
will hopefully never forget. I want to thank Dr. Larry Hausner for being a mentor to me as well
as supporting me through this process. His guidance and advice is greatly appreciated.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge all of the individuals in my cohort who encouraged
me along the way and made our “dinner breaks” enjoyable.

A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 13
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 14
Limitations 15
Definitions of Terms 15
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Review of Literature 18
School Effectiveness 18
The Role of the Principal 22
Foundations of Leadership 25
Types of Leadership 29
Distributed Perspective 29
Transformational Leadership 31
Instructional Leadership 34
Servant Leadership 36
Theoretical Framework 37
Student Achievement 38
Summary 41
Chapter Three: Methodology 43
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 43
Design of the Study 44
Sample and Population 45
Instrumentation 45
Data Collection 47
Data Analysis 48
Summary 50
Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion 51
Purpose 51
Participant Demographics 52
School Demographics 53
Theoretical Framework 57
Findings to Research Question One 57
Coral Reef Elementary 59
Rosewood Elementary 63
Sunset Elementary 67
Wellington 72
Summary 74
Findings to Research Question Two 76
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 5
Findings to Research Question Three 86
Findings to Research Question Four 91
Summary 95
Chapter Five: Summary and Recommendations 100
Statement of the Problem 100
Purpose of the Study 101
Research Questions 102
Methodology 102
Summary of Findings 102
Vision 103
Leadership 103
Professional Development 104
Student Support 104
Learning Goals 105
Limitations 107
Recommendations for Future Research 107
Conclusion 107
References 109
Appendix Principal Leadership Survey 116

A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Principal Demographics 52
Table 2: Rosewood Elementary Ethnic Composition 54
Table 3: Rosewood Elementary English Language Learners 54
Table 4: Coral Reef Elementary Ethnic Composition 55
Table 5: Coral Reef Elementary English Language Learners 55
Table 6: Sunset Elementary Ethnic Composition 55
Table 7: Sunset Elementary English Language Learners 56
Table 8: Wellington Elementary Ethnic Composition 56
Table 9: Wellington Elementary English Language Learners 56
Table 10: Academic Performance Index (API) Scores 58
Table 11: Adequate Yearly Progress* 76
Table 12: Underserved Student Proficiency Rates for the 2010 School Year 77
Table 13: Underserved Student Proficiency Rates for the 2011 School Year 79
Table 14: Underserved Student Proficiency Rates for the 2012 School Year 81
Table 15: Underserved Student Proficiency Rates for the 2013 School Year 83
Table 16: Principal Rankings of Importance of Instructional Leadership Practices 86
Table 17: Comparison of Survey Rankings and CST – API Four-Year Averages 89
Table 18: Principals’ Perceptions of the Frequency of Instructional Leadership Practices 91

A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 7
Abstract
The main purpose of this mixed-methods study was to identify leadership practices that
selected Tile I principals attribute to student achievement and to discover which leadership
practices have a greater impact on student achievement as measured by CST/AYP scores. In
addition, the following were addressed: (1) principals’ perceptions of the frequency with which
they engage in instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement and (2)
principals’ perceptions of leadership practices and their relative importance in facilitating student
achievement.
Quantitative data was collected through an in-person brief survey given to the selected
Title I principals directly after the interview. Title I school principals ranked the frequency with
which they engaged in leadership practices and the importance of leadership practices on student
achievement. Qualitative data was collected from interviews.
The data indicated that principals’ perceptions of the most important leadership practices
to student achievement were communicating high standards for student academic achievement,
establishing and communicating school goals, and protecting instructional time.
In addition, data indicated that two instructional leadership practices were ranked as
frequently or almost always by all four selected principal respondents. The leadership practices
were support and foster collaboration among teachers and respond to staff, parent, and student
concerns.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The beginning of the reform/accountability movement was publicized in, The Coleman
Report (Coleman et al., 1966) and A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983), which inundated the general public and educators with information describing
the dismal status of public schools in terms of their academic and overall effectiveness,
especially when compared to competitive foreign countries. This sparked our nation’s schools
and leaders to begin to examine the effectiveness of schools, which led to school reform efforts.
In the United States of America, members of society want a piece of the “American
Dream.” Education is held as an essential component to success and the quality of life for citizen
and non-citizen (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). As a nation, we have an obligation to ensure
that children in public schools are learning and achieving academically and socially. The United
States’ public education system is sought after by people from all over the world and produced
some of the best minds (Lee, 2008). With that said, it remains under the microscope and has
withstood praise and criticisms, while experiencing restructuring and accountability measures.
The discussion of education is evident amongst citizens, school board members, and
governmental officials. All stakeholders have and want a say in what they think education
should be (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).
Historically, the school principal’s job was about being an effective disciplinarian,
keeping the campus clean and orderly, being visible, and dealing with parents (Waters et al.,
2003). This was more of a managerial approach to the position, which was appropriate at the
time (Quinn, 2002). However, today’s principal is still expected to do all of those managerial and
operational tasks and, most importantly, provide leadership to increase student achievement
(Waters et al., 2003). This represents a shift in the principalship from managerial to
instructional. With increased school accountability and community expectations of equity and
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 9
increased student achievement, the role of school leadership is critical in ensuring that all
students achieve at acceptable rates (Quinn, 2002). Principal leadership needs to build the
capacity of teachers while keeping abreast of the latest effective instructional practices (Hoerr,
2007).
Harris (2001) states that capacity building is concerned with creating the conditions,
opportunities and experiences for collaboration and mutual learning, thus embracing the notion
of professional community where teachers and other key leaders are involved in the decision-
making process. Being involved in the decision-making process could encompass making
decisions about instruction, resources, and programs. The main focus of building capacity in
teachers is to improve student achievement. One of the most important conditions of capacity
building at the school level is teacher collaboration (Harris, 2001).
King and Bouchard (2011) suggest that proposals for reform skirt the issue of inequalities
in academic achievement across student groups. In addition, the events of high-stakes
accountability, charter and voucher schools, and similar attempts at privatization do not engage
directly with the critical tasks of building organizational capacity in low performing schools.
Increasing the knowledge and practice of teachers through professional development activities
and collaborative meetings builds the organization’s coherence, thus ensuring coordinated
student and staff programs (King & Bouchard, 2011).
Reform efforts, along with accountability measures such as NCLB, increased public
expectations and shifted the roles of educators, particularly the leadership role of the principal
(Sanzo, Sherman, & Clayton, 2011). The job of a principal ultimately had to focus on instruction
and student achievement. The leadership practices of principals, superintendents, and other
educational leadership positions evolved during the past decade, focusing on teaching and
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 10
learning, professional development, data, and accountability (Quinn, 2002). Because of a shift
from managerial to instructional accountability, the leadership practices and behaviors of
principals are crucial in meeting the academic needs of children attending Title I public schools.
Background of the Problem
Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes
federal aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children
(U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Title I-A grants provide educational and related services
to low-achieving and other pupils attending pre-K–12 schools with relatively high concentrations
of pupils from low-income families (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). The basic purpose of
Title I-A is to supplement state and local funding in these schools sufficiently to enable students
who attend them to meet state achievement standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). It is
the largest federal program of aid to elementary and secondary education funding over 14 billion
dollars in 2011 (U. S. Department of Education, 2014).
Principals of schools receiving the federal government’s Title I program funding serve
economically disadvantaged children (Gordon, 2004). In addition, approximately one-third of
the United States Department of Education’s elementary and secondary budget supports Title I
(Gordon, 2004). The purpose of Title I funding is to close the achievement gap between
advantaged and disadvantaged children, thus guaranteeing that all children have an equitable and
fair opportunity to secure a quality education and reach proficiency on rigorous state academic
standards and state academic assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Title I funding
provides non-matching grants to school districts, and, in turn, schools based on their number of
poor children and mandates that the grants be used so educationally disadvantaged children
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 11
receive compensatory education in the form of small group instruction outside of the classroom
(Gordon, 2001).
During the last three decades, urban educational policy and research has systematically
made attempts to correct the statistical differences between the learning outcomes of
disadvantaged and advantaged children through the creation of reform models like the effective
schools movement, school choice, and school restructuring (Balfanz, 2000). Many early studies
on school effectiveness support the fact that leadership, particularly principal leadership, is one
of the most important attributes of a successful school. However, the way in which the principal
leads and supports teachers in improving practice is critical (Waters et al., 2003). Lockheed and
Levin (2012) indicate that principals must have high expectations of student and teacher
performance and should assess student learning and progress on a frequent basis.
As a result of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), in the United States, K-12 schools
entered the new century with increasing accountability on school principals to raise student
achievement under fierce public scrutiny (Mitchell & Castle, 2005). The school became the
vehicle for improvement, and the principal of the school was, ultimately, the one responsible for
improving student achievement outcomes (Mitchell & Castle, 2005). Policy makers are
pressured to reduce the persistent disparities in educational achievement between races and
ethnicities, and their contention is that school leaders play an important role in doing so
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development, 2001). A school leader’s impact on
student outcomes will depend on the specific leadership practices in which they engage
(Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). This leads one to ask if the same leadership practices apply
to all students in the improvement of achievement. If so, then why does an achievement gap
exist between advantaged and disadvantaged students? Because elementary principals at Title I
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 12
schools face the addressing of the academic and social needs of disadvantaged students, it is
necessary to explore leadership practices which are specifically conducive to improving student
achievement. There are many variables that affect student achievement that are beyond the
control of school administrators, such as socioeconomic status and race (O’Donnell & White,
2005). However, factors which do have an impact on student achievement that are in the realm of
control of the principal must be implemented and executed in schools focusing on improvement
efforts.
Statement of the Problem
Researchers have tried to determine what leadership practices have a positive impact on
student achievement. Elmore (2005) states that the demands placed on leaders have inherently
changed the face of modern-day school leadership. With increased accountability under NCLB
principals are held responsible for the achievement of all students. Effective leadership practices
have been identified that will increase the overall achievement of students, as measured by the
Academic Performance Index (API). However, the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
specifically measures the achievement of subgroups on achievement tests. Student achievement
can be increased, but how do Title I principals, specifically at the elementary level, increase the
achievement of disadvantaged students? With this responsibility comes the need to close the
achievement gap between economically disadvantaged students and their counterparts. This
needs to take place as early as possible in a child’s education. Therefore, it is imperative to
examine leadership behaviors and practices of elementary principals at Title I schools which
serve disadvantaged students.
The implementation of policies, such as NCLB, attempted to make a difference in the
performance of all students at best. However, these policies do not adequately address the
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 13
educational challenges that disadvantaged students face (Ladd, 2012). Research studies indicate
that disadvantaged children perform at a lower rate than do advantaged students (Ladd, 2012),
but, we do not know enough about which leadership practices and behaviors Title I elementary
principals engage in to specifically improve disadvantaged students’ outcomes.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify leadership practices that selected Tile I
principals attribute to student achievement and to discover which leadership practices have a
greater impact on student achievement as measured by California Standards Tests (CST) and
AYP scores. In addition, the following were addressed: (1) principals’ perceptions of the
frequency with which they engage in instructional leadership practices to promote student
achievement and (2) principals’ perceptions of leadership practices and their relative importance
in facilitating student achievement.
Research Questions
The following research questions were developed to examine the impact of Title I
elementary school principal leadership practices on student achievement:
1. What leadership practices do selected Title I principals attribute to student
achievement as measured by CST scores?
2. What principal leadership practices have a greater impact on student achievement as
measured by AYP proficiency rates?
3. What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the relative importance of
leadership practices on student achievement?
4. What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the frequency with which
they engage in instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement?
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 14
Significance of the Study
The results of this study will contribute to the body of knowledge regarding instructional
leadership practices of elementary principals and their impact on achievement of students
attending Title I schools. School principals serving disadvantaged populations can benefit from
understanding instructional leadership behaviors and practices that can improve and sustain
student outcomes for disadvantaged students (Jacobson, 2011). The results will have
implications for instructional leadership training and professional development for principals
serving disadvantaged students.
Leadership practices can affect a number of factors in school environments and are
widely accepted as a significant change agent in school effectiveness and school improvement
(Bruggencate, Luyten, Scheerens, & Sleegers, 2012). Lynch and Moran (2006) suggest that
principals need to be extremely aware of their significant leadership role in addressing the
achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. It is imperative to ensure that
all students are prepared for the future and that they are prepared for the workforce or college. In
a competitive world of globalization, it is incumbent upon us to close an on-going achievement
gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Disadvantaged students in urban schools
tend to be low-income and from minority groups such as African American and Latino;
therefore, it is important to investigate the leadership behaviors and practices of elementary
principals assigned to Title I schools. California students are more disadvantaged than are their
peers in other states and slightly more than one in ten students in the United States are English
Learners (EL); in California, nearly one out of every four students is an EL (United States
Department of Education, 2011). More than half (53 percent) of all students in California are
eligible for free or reduced-price meals; this share is higher than the national average of 45
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 15
percent (United States Department of Education, 2011). It is important to identify effective
leadership practices at the elementary level. Early interventions are critical in providing a solid
foundation for acquiring the necessary skills to succeed.
Limitations
The following represent the limitations of the study:
1. This study was limited to four Title I elementary schools.
2. This study examined the perceptions of Title I elementary principals and their
leadership practices.
3. Surveys were distributed to the participants being interviewed for this study,
contributing to a small sample size. The results of this study are reflective of the perceptions of
selected elementary Title I principals interviewed and surveyed.
Definitions of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): The API is a single number, ranging from a low of 200 to a
high of 1000, which reflects a school's, a Local Education Agency’s (LEA), or a student group's
performance level, based on the results of statewide testing. Its purpose is to measure the
academic performance and growth of schools. A score of 800 denotes “proficiency” (California
Department of Education, 2013).
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): Under California’s criteria for the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), schools and LEAs are required to meet or exceed requirements within
each of the following four areas in order to make AYP annually:
• Requirement 1: Participation Rate
• Requirement 2: Percent Proficient—Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
• Requirement 3: API as an Additional Indicator
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 16
• Requirement 4: Graduation Rate- high schools only (California Department of
Education, 2013)
Instructional Leader: This term is defined as an educator who guides others in their
implementation of curriculum and instruction. In an elementary school, this term refers to
principals. The instructional leader facilitates staff development and guides the school in meeting
academic goals. Through knowledge of best practices for content and methodology, the
instructional leader provides reliable supervision and valid evaluations of programs and staff
(Zepeda, 2003).
CST: The California Standards Tests are criterion-referenced tests that assess the California
content standards in English Language Arts (ELA), mathematics, science, and history-social
science (California Department of Education, 2013).
Title I: Title I, Part A (Title I) of the ESEA provides financial assistance to LEAs and schools
with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that
all children meet challenging state academic standards (California Department of Education,
2013).
ESEA: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965 as a part of the “War
on Poverty.” ESEA emphasizes equal access to education and establishes high standards and
accountability. The law authorizes federally-funded education programs that are administered by
the states. In 2002, Congress amended ESEA and reauthorized it as the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB).
Disadvantaged: “Socioeconomically Disadvantaged” students are defined as students where both
parents have not received a high school diploma or students who are eligible for the free or
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 17
reduced-price lunch program, also known as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
(California Department of Education, 2013).
Performance levels: Five performance levels are used for reporting the results for all assessments
in the STAR Program: advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic. The state
target is for all students to score at the proficient level or above (advanced). The percentage of
students scoring at each performance level is reported by grade level and subject for all students
and for student subgroups (California Department of Education, 2013).
Safe Harbor: An alternate method of meeting Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) by moving
students scoring below proficiency to proficient or above levels (California Department of
Education, 2011).
Socioeconomic Status (SES): Socioeconomic status is the social standing or class of an
individual or group. If factors in level of education, income, and occupation. Examinations of
socioeconomic status often reveal inequities in access to resources, plus issues related to
privilege, power and control (American Psychological Association, 2014).
Organization of the Study
This study has five chapters. Chapter One is an introduction, which includes a brief
overview and history of the leadership of a principal and how it has changed from a managerial
perspective to that of an instructional leader. Chapter Two is a review of the literature relative to
principal leadership as it relates to school effectiveness, types of leadership and student
achievement. Chapter Three describes the statistical methodology for analyzing the data.
Chapter Four presents an analysis of the data and findings related to the research questions.
Chapter Five includes recommendations and implications for future study based on the findings
in Chapter Four.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this research study was to examine the leadership practices Title I school
principals attribute to student achievement and those that are more effective regarding student
achievement as measured by test data as well as to determine the relative importance and
frequency of leadership practices as they relate to student achievement.
Literature on school effectiveness challenges the assumption that differences among
schools have little to do with student outcomes (Purkey & Smith, 1983). The review of literature
examines research on school effectiveness and the role of the principal along with the foundation
of leadership, including a theoretical framework. This is followed by the types of school
leadership and leadership practices that increase student achievement.
School Effectiveness
The effectiveness of a school has, in the past two decades, been primarily defined by the
academic outcomes of students on standardized tests (Blair, 2002). The effective schools
movement roots started in the late sixties with the work of James Coleman (1966) who published
Equality of Educational Opportunity. Many of the findings in the document were controversial
and widely debated (Lezotte, 1993). Coleman (1966) suggests that a child’s background and
social upbringing have a greater influence on his or her achievement than school does. In
addition, he asserts that equality of educational opportunity infers that schools are independent of
a child’s social environment and that, in fact, schools are not independent from a child’s social
environment.
The discouraging finding of the Coleman (1966) report and follow-up research on student
outcomes is primarily based on the students’ socioeconomic background, which sparked an
interest in qualitative researchers who sought to determine the effectiveness of schools in
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 19
increasing student achievement (Addonizio, 2009). If a students’ socioeconomic background
weighed so heavily on student achievement, then what would be the point of even trying to
educate them? This prompted researchers of the “effective schools” movement to identify a
small number of urban city schools with a large low-income minority population who scored
higher on standardized test than anticipated based upon their socioeconomic status, thus
attributing student achievement to certain school components (Addonizio, 2009).
Another definition of an effective school is one that incorporates quality (high levels of
achievement) and equity (no differences in achievement among sub-groups) throughout the
school on a consistent basis (Lezotte, 1993). There are schools in our country that are able to
achieve outstanding results. Lezotte (1993) points out that, since there are schools that can
produce these incredible results, then the effective schools debate should not be a conversation
about theory but one about commitment and political conviction.
School effectiveness has been researched by many educational scholars who tried to
reduce very dissimilar literature into simple recipes for school improvement (Purkey & Smith,
1983). However, some of the most significant work has been offered by Ron Edmonds (1979)
who identified five crucial components to an effective school:
1. Strong Administrative Leadership
2. High Expectations for Student Achievement
3. An Orderly Atmosphere Conducive to Learning
4. An Emphasis on Basic-Skill Acquisition
5. Frequent Monitoring of Pupil Progress
Edmonds (1979) suggests that school effectiveness requires that schools, specifically
public schools, are equitable in teaching disadvantaged children what their parents want them to
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 20
know and also teaching them just as well as middle-class children are taught. The notion of
school effectiveness came about because of the disparity in learning of children, and the inequity
in American education stems from our failure to meet the educational needs of poor and
disadvantaged children (Edmonds, 1979). Children need to acquire the basic academic skills to
assure success and access to the next school level (Edmonds, 1979). Providing access to
education is one thing, but providing a solid academic foundation to give disadvantaged students
an opportunity to have success in their lives is another.
Prior to Edmonds (1979), a study by Weber (1971), a significant pioneer of the effective
schools movement, focused on the qualities of four inner city schools where the reading
achievement of poor children was steadily increasing. His findings were similar to those of
Edmond (1979) in that all four schools had the following:
1. Principal leadership in instruction, school climate, and organizing school resources.
2. Every school had “high expectations” for their students.
3. Schools had an orderly, safe, and pleasant environment.
4. Schools targeted reading skills and frequently evaluated student progress.
Both Weber’s (1971) and Edmonds’ (1979) research clearly emphasizes the importance of
principal leadership as it relates to school effectiveness and other areas that contribute to school
effectiveness, such as high expectations, an orderly environment, monitoring of student progress,
and basic skill acquisition. Unlike Coleman (1966), Weber (1971) and Edmonds (1979) suggest
that there are certain characteristics that effective schools exude, and socially disadvantaged
students attending these schools can achieve despite their social context.
Lezotte (1993) offers nine strategic assumptions about the future of education and how
they relate to school effectiveness. He argues that:
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 21
1. The effective schools movement requires schools to commit to learning for all as their
primary goal.
2. Schools will be held accountable for measurable results or outcomes.
3. Educational equity will receive increasing emphasis, as the number of poor and
minority children continues to increase.
4. Decision making will be more decentralized as the individual school will become the
production center and the strategic unit for planned changed.
5. Collaboration and staff empowerment must increase if site level staff is going to
meaningfully participate in the planning, problem solving, and evaluation of their schools’
programs.
6. School empowerment processes must use research and best practices to inform school
change.
7. Technology must be utilized to provide information about instructional progress in a
timely manner to teachers and administrators.
8. School leaders will be expected to demonstrate the skills of an efficient manager and
an effective visionary leader.
9. A focus on student achievement will decrease some of the day to day challenges and
processes that will lead to fundamental school restructuring. (p. 6)
The literature around school effectiveness incorporates many of the characteristics
identified by the research by Edmonds (1979) and Weber (1971). However, the major criticisms
of school effectiveness research are that small samples are limited to urban elementary schools;
miscalculations in the identification of effective schools; incompatible comparisons or none at
all; student achievement aggregated at the school level; and the use of subjective criteria in
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 22
measuring school success (Gray, 1981; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Rowan, Bossert, & Dwyer,
1983). In addition, Fullan (1985) argues that effective schools research addresses the
improvement of basic skills, usually in reading and mathematics, but it does not mean that
critical thinking and social development goals can be achieved and that effective schools
research takes a very complex idea and tries to over simplify it.
Effective schools research does not state that schools are not complex institutions with an
array of intricacies nor does it dismiss the uniqueness of schools, but it does indicate that, if a
school possesses specific characteristics relative to an effective school, achievement will increase
(Downer, 1991). These specific characteristics will not occur without leadership because
principals have a significant impact upon the success of schools (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). The
role of the principal is an important part in creating, cultivating, and implementing the goals
which lead to student achievement (Downer, 1991).
The Role of the Principal
School effectiveness is determined by the impact of the school principals’ leadership
which is only second to classroom instruction in improving student achievement (Leithwood,
Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Act of 2001
increased expectations for student achievement and broadened the role of the school principal
(Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2009). As the role of principals becomes more encompassing,
principals find a plethora of tasks which compete for their time (Crum, Sherman, & Myran,
2009). The focus should be on instruction and the use of data in making instructionally sound
decisions to improve student outcomes; however, elementary principals are expected to complete
these tasks without administrative support. At times, instructional leadership becomes secondary
as principals struggle to keep up with administrative tasks and reports (Mitchell & Castle, 2005).
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 23
In many cases, elementary school principals are the sole leaders at their school sites (Crum,
Sherman, & Myran, 2010). Elementary school is the foundation for children to acquire the
necessary skills to be able to read, write, and compute. The elementary principal’s leadership is
essential to change and a critical aspect to establishing new learning for young children (Fullan,
2002).
Principals must establish goals and expectations for the school community. Leithwood
and Montgomery (1982) suggest that the goals of the effective principal can be identified in
terms of basic orientations; orientations towards students, teachers, and the district. Effective
school principals place student achievement and their well-being at the top of their list of
educational priorities. Over the past two decades, other factors such as educational policies and
political structures have made it difficult for many principals to give their attention to
instructional goals (Mitchell & Castle, 2005).
This challenge of being able to focus on instruction becomes a high priority for school
principals. It is precisely this educational work that separates school principals from other types
of leaders (Mitchell & Castle, 2005). The leadership behaviors and practices of principals are
critical in addressing low student achievement, reducing disparities in the resources available,
and responding to the increasing pressures of high-stakes accountability mandated by federal and
state officials (Jacobson, Johnson, Ylimaki, & Giles, 2005). A study by Jacobson et al., (2005),
which identifies three core leadership practices identified by Leithwood and Riehl (2003), offers
the following core practices for school success:
1. Setting directions by helping develop a set of shared goals that encourage a sense of
common purpose. In order to set a clear direction, a leader must be able to articulate a common
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 24
vision, create high performance expectations and communicate the vision and expectations
effectively.
2. Developing people by influencing behavior towards the achievement of shared goals
through the provision of intellectual stimulation, individual and collective support. Leaders must
use their own practice to model desired behaviors.
3. Redesigning the organization by facilitating the work of the school community in
achieving shared goals, which may require a leader to reshape a school’s culture and structure to
match its objectives. (p. 611)
Jacobson et al. (2005) found that all of the principals in their study utilized the three core
practices to a greater or lesser extent. However, the mere demonstration of these core practices
was not sufficient to fully explain what transpired in the process of changing their respective
schools (Jacobson et al., 2005). It was discovered that the ways in which these practices
surfaced and how they interrelated over time was neither linear nor formulaic and that each
respective principal, in his or her fashion, had to continually adjust the contextual conditions the
school faced and then adapt his or her core practices to create the climate necessary to foster
school improvement (Jacobson et al., 2005).
Blair (2002) examined effective schools to identify what type of leadership is necessary
to ensure the inclusion of students from diverse ethnic backgrounds. It was found that effective
school leadership must be about academic achievement but with the understanding that, for
minority ethnic groups to perform well academically, the conditions in which the environment is
based on must recognize diversity and the issues and concerns of different communities (Blair,
2002). This makes leadership complex and requires that a school embrace diversity. School
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 25
leaders in high-need challenging communities need to be committed to a very serious task at
hand, which involves building a sense of caring into their practice (Jacobson et al., 2005).
Bruggencate, Luyten, Scheerens, and Sleegers (2012) examined the manner in which
principals achieve an impact on student achievement. It was found that principals play an
important role in school effectiveness and that school leader behavior affected student outcomes
both indirectly and directly. Leaders of schools with a poor academic record are under more
pressure to take action than are leaders of schools with a good academic record. Bruggencate et
al. (2012) suggest that leaders at schools with a good academic record are less inclined to
develop and set goals, take innovative reform initiatives, and experiment to improve their school.
Foundations of Leadership
Leadership is a concept that is defined in many different ways, and it can mean different
things to many people (Northouse, 2007). It is complex and can be identified through traits or
characteristics that people possess. Hogan and Kaiser (2005) suggest that leadership is one of
the most significant topics in the human sciences and, historically, one of the most
misunderstood. It is important for two reasons: first, leadership solves the problem of how to
organize collective effort, which is the key to organizational effectiveness (Hogan & Kaiser,
2005). It perplexed the early Greek philosophers, and it still can be difficult to define, even
though we know it is important to the success of schools. Leadership is considered to be vital to
the successful functioning of many components of a school (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,
2005).
Northouse (2007) identified four common themes for an understanding of leadership: (1)
leadership is a process; (2) leadership involves influence; (3) leadership occurs in a group
context; and (4) leadership involves goal attainment. In the context of the four themes,
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 26
leadership is defined as a process of an individual influencing a group of people to achieve a
common goal (Northouse, 2007). The identification of leadership as a process and not a trait or
characteristic means it is an interactive event that happens between the leader and followers,
which makes it accessible to everyone (Northouse, 2007). By being accessible, it allows
followers to assume leadership roles in pursuit of goals.
Hogan and Kaiser (2005) define leadership as the ability to build and maintain a group of
people who perform well relative to their competition. This is more of a business viewpoint of
leadership; however, like Northouse (2007), it emphasizes the group and not the individual.
Individuals are naturally selfish and inclined to pursue their short-term self-interest, in which
case leadership persuades individuals to temporarily set aside their selfish pursuits and work in
support of the common goal (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).
Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2008) identify seven claims about leadership:
1. School leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on student
achievement.
2. The majority of successful leaders use the same repertoire of the basic leadership skills
and practices.
3. The ways in which leaders utilize these basic leadership practices – not the practices
themselves – demonstrate responsiveness to, rather by dictation by, the context in which they
work.
4. School leaders improve teaching and learning indirectly and most powerfully through
their influence on staff motivation, commitment and work environment.
5. School leadership has a more significant influence on schools and students when it is
widely distributed.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 27
6. Some patterns of distribution tend to be more effective than others.
7. A small representation of personal traits explains a high proportion of the variation in
leadership effectiveness. (pp. 27-28)
Leithwood et al. (2008) state that the first claim may be controversial and assert that
leadership has a significant effect on learning. However, the manner in which the first claim is
phrased captures the comparative amount of influence exerted by successful school leaders.
When leadership is compared to teaching, teaching has a greater influence on student learning
than leadership. Nonetheless, this illustrates the significance of leadership on student learning
when it is compared to the powerful impact that teaching has on learning.
The second leadership claim is based upon two assumptions and dimensions: (a) the
purpose of leadership is to help improve employee performance and (b) such performance is a
function of employees’ beliefs, values, motivations, skills, and knowledge and of the
circumstances in which they work (Leithwood et al., 2008). Leithwood et al., (2008) suggest
that successful school leadership will include practices helpful in addressing these assumptions
relative to the inner and observable dimensions of performance – especially in relation to
teachers, whose performance is central to what is learned in the classroom.
Claim three refers to successful leaders’ being sensitive to the contexts in which they
work. Leithwood et al. (2008) assert that leaders do not use substantially different practices in
every different context, but that they apply contextually sensitive combinations of the basic core
leadership practices of building a vision and setting a vision, understanding and developing
people, redesigning the organization, and managing the teaching and learning programs.
Leithwood et al.’s (2008) fourth claim indicates that the more principals enacted the core
leadership practices the greater was their influence on teachers’ capacities, motivation and
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 28
beliefs regarding the supportiveness of their working environment. This influence on teachers’
capacities, motivations, and beliefs had a profound effect on classroom practices; however, the
effect on student achievement seemed to be unrelated (Leithwood et al., 2008).
The fifth claim that school leadership has a greater influence on schools and pupils when
it is widely distributed refers to the “total leadership” or combined leadership from all sources,
such as significant relationships between total leadership and the three dimensions of staff
performance (capacity, motivation, and working environment); relationship with teachers’
perceived working conditions, motivation, and commitment; the relationship among total
leadership and teachers’ capacity and principal leadership alone and teachers’ capacity
(Leithwood et al., 2008). Leithwood et al., (2008) found that the strongest relationship between
total leadership was with the teachers’ perceived working environment and the weakest with
teacher motivation and commitment. In addition, it was found that the relationship between total
leadership and teachers’ capacity was much stronger than the principal’s leadership alone and
teachers’ capacity.
Leithwood et al. (2008) state that claim six comes from evidence about the superiority, in
many cases but not all contexts, of distributed rather than focused (single-person) leadership. It
was found that schools with the highest level of student achievement attributed this to relatively
high levels of influence from all sources of leadership, and schools with the lowest level of
student achievement attributed this to low levels of influence from all sources of leadership
(Leithwood et al., 2008). The claim suggests that some patterns of distribution are more
effective than others, and that is all that can be inferred. More research needs to be conducted in
this area to specifically identify leadership distribution patterns that are most effective.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 29
Leadership (effective or ineffective) that is distributed can influence and have an effect on the
entire school environment.
Personality traits, as claim seven alludes to, explains a high proportion of the variation in
leadership effectiveness. Leithwood et al. (2008) pose two questions: (1) Why are some leaders
more effective than others? (2) Why do some people acquire and develop leadership capacities to
higher levels and more rapidly than others? These questions help to frame what is known about
successful leaders with regard to personality traits, disposition, personality traits and the like
(Leadwood et al., 2008). Research in the private sector relative to leadership traits is
comprehensive, however within schools it less comprehensive (Leithwood et al., 2008).
Types of Leadership
There are many types of leadership models which incorporate different processes that can
be used to lead groups of people and organizations. This section identifies and describes the
following types of leadership: distributed, transformational, instructional, and situational.
Distributed Perspective
Distributed leadership is about leadership practice rather than about leaders or their roles
(Spillane, 2005). Hallinger and Heck (2009) state that distributed leadership, or the expansion of
leadership roles in schools beyond those in formal administrative positions, represent one of the
most influential concepts to emerge in the field of educational leadership in the past decade.
Spillane (2005) states that leadership practice is a product of a leader’s knowledge and skill
whereas the distributed perspective is an interaction between people and their situations.
Distributed leadership identifies leadership as an emergent property of a group or
network of interacting individuals. This contrasts with leadership as a phenomenon which arises
from the individual. What is most distinctive about the notion of distributed leadership is
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 30
summed up in the second of the meanings identified by Gronn (2002), namely concerted action.
Where people work together in such a way that they pool their initiative and expertise, the
outcome is a product or energy which is greater than the sum of their individual actions.
A distributed leadership perspective suggests openness of the boundaries of leadership.
This means that it is predisposed to widen the conventional net of leaders, thus, in turn, raising
the question of which individuals and groups are to be brought into leadership or seen as
contributors to it. Of itself, the notion of distributed leadership does not suggest how wide that
boundary should be set. However, equally, there are no limits built into the concept.
This openness is not limited merely to the extent to which the conventional net is
widened within a particular community. It also raises the question of the boundaries of the
community within which leadership is distributed. Much of the literature examined the concept
of distributed leadership in relation to the teachers in the school. However, there are other
members of the school community whose roles need to be considered. In particular, what is the
role of the pupil or student body in relation to distributed leadership?
A basic premise of distributed leadership assumes that varieties of expertise are
distributed across the many, not the few. Related to openness of the boundaries of leadership is
the idea that numerous, distinct, germane perspectives and capabilities can be found in
individuals spread through the group or organization. If these are brought together, it is possible
to forge a concerted dynamic which represents more than the sum of the individual contributors.
Initiatives may be brought forth by those with relevant skills in a particular context, but others
will then adopt, adapt and improve them within a mutually trusting and supportive culture.
A distributed leadership perspective inherently suggests a changed role for principals and
represents a fundamental change in their understanding of leadership and in the ways they
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 31
function in their leadership roles (Harris, 2011). Spillane (2005) indicates that a distributed
perspective can be stretched over leaders in a school and that it is not necessarily democratic.
Northouse (2007) identifies a team leadership model that provides a mental road map to help the
leader (or any team member providing leadership) to problem solve and correct problems. The
team works as a group with leadership guidance. Spillane (2005) suggests that a team leadership
approach does not necessarily include subscribing to a distributed perspective in which
leadership practice is viewed as the interaction of leaders, followers, and situation. From a
distributed perspective, interactions are an important variable of leadership practice (Harris,
2011).
The perspective of distributed leadership is a conceptual tool for thinking about school
leadership and is not a blueprint for effective leadership nor is it a prescription indicating how
school leadership should be practiced (Spillane, 2005). Spillane (2005) suggests that the lack of
empirical evidence on the effectiveness of distributed leadership in promoting instructional
improvement and increasing student learning is a weakness of the distributed perspective.
Leading by a distributed perspective does not necessarily mean one will get results; however the
way in which leadership is distributed explains much of its subsequent effect on the organization
(Harris, 2011).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership has its origins in research by Burns (1978) who focused on
the relationship between the leader and the “followers.” It is based on the premise of a focused
relationship in a continuous pursuit of higher purposes in which change for the better occurs both
in the purposes and the resources of those involved and in the relationship itself (Marks & Printy,
2003).
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 32
According to Northouse (2007), transformational leadership is the process that a person is
involved in with others and which establishes a connection that raises the level of motivation and
morality in both the leader and the follower. This particular type of leader is responsive to the
needs and motives of followers and tries to assist followers reach their highest potential
(Northouse, 2007). Transformational leaders motivate followers by raising their consciousness
about the significance of organizational goals and by inspiring them to transcend their own self-
interest for the sake of the organization. In their interactive relationships with others,
transformational leaders exhibit at least one of these leadership factors: idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Marks &
Printy 2003).
Northouse (2007) elaborates on the four transformational leadership factors identified
above and offers the following details for the factors as outlined:
1. Idealized influence describes leaders who act as strong role models for followers;
followers identify with these leaders and have the desire to emulate them. These leaders usually
have very high standards of moral and ethical conduct and are dependable. They are usually
very respected by followers, who place a great deal of trust in them. They give followers a
vision and a sense of purpose. They are often known to have charisma or at least exhibit those
qualities of being charismatic.
2. Inspirational motivation describes leaders who communicate high expectations to
followers by motivating them to become committed to the shared vision of the organization.
They often use symbols and emotional appeal to focus the group’s efforts to achieve more than
they would by themselves. Team spirit it enhanced by this type of leadership.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 33
3. Intellectual stimulation includes leadership that stimulates followers to be creative and
take risks and to challenge their own beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and the
organization. This type of leadership supports followers as they try new approaches and develop
innovative methods of handling organizational concerns.
4. Individualized consideration is representative of leaders who provide a supportive
climate in which they are sensitive to the needs of followers. Leaders act as coaches and
advisors while trying to help followers in becoming fully actualized in their roles. For some
employees the leader may give strong affiliation and for others the leader may give specific
directives with a high degree of structure. (pp. 181-183)
Furthermore, Northouse (2007) identified Kouzes and Posner’s (1991) model of
leadership that consists of five fundamental practices that empower leaders to get extraordinary
things accomplished: (a) model the way – leaders need to clear about their own values and
philosophy setting an example for others by their own behaviors, (b) inspire a shared vision –
effective leaders create compelling visions that can guide the behavior and inspire others to reach
their own dreams, (c) challenge the process – challenge the status quo and take risks to make
things better, (d) enable others to act – collaborate with others to create a sense of community
respecting and supporting different perspectives and choices, (e) encourage the heart – reward
others for their contributions and accomplishments to the organization through praise and
authentic celebrations.
Leithwood and Jantzi (1990) identified three main functional areas of transformational
leadership as those that are (a) mission centered, thus developing a shared vision for the school,
building consensus about goals and priorities, (b) performance centered, thus holding high
performance expectations, providing individualized support, supplying intellectual stimulation,
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 34
and (c) culture centered through modeling organizational values, strengthening productive school
culture, building collaborative cultures and creating structures for participation in school
decisions. When principals who are transformational leaders accept their instructional role and
collaborate with teachers, they are involved in an integrated form of leadership (Marks & Printy,
2003).
Marks and Printy (2003) suggest that, even though the importance transformational
leadership places on vision building can create a fundamental and lasting sense of purpose in the
organization, the model lacks an explicit focus on teaching and learning. Robinson, Lloyd, and
Rowe (2008) indicate that survey instruments have been used in published empirical studies of
transformational leadership in education, though few have investigated the impact of this type of
leadership on student achievement. Shared instructional leadership, emphasizing the technical
core of instruction, curriculum, assessment, provides direction and affects the day-to-day
activities of teachers and students in the school, thus propelling a school staff forward to
accomplish each goal and, in doing so, to enact the vision (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership is contingent upon the strong leadership of the school principal.
Leithwood (1994) suggests that instructional leadership is a series of behaviors designed to affect
classroom instruction. When the notion of instructional leadership first emerged, principals were
thought to be effective if they led a school by establishing clear expectations, maintaining strict
discipline, and implementing high standards (Quinn, 2002). With increased school
accountability and the importance of increasing student outcome, the instructional leadership of
principals must always focus on Active Teaching and supplying teachers with resources and
incentives to keep their focus on students (Quinn, 2002).
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 35
Andrews and Soder (1987) described the effective instructional leader as a principal
performing at high levels in four areas:
1. As resource provider, the principal takes action to coordinate personnel and resources
within the building, district, and community to achieve the school’s vision and goals. These
resources may be seen as materials, information, or opportunities, with the principal acting as a
broker.
2. As instructional resource, the principal sets expectations for continual improvement of
the instruction of the instructional program and actively engages in staff development. Through
this involvement, the principal participates in the improvement of classroom circumstances that
enhance Active Teaching.
3. As communicator, the principal models commitment to school goals, articulates a
vision toward instructional goals and the means for integrating instructional planning and goal
attainment, and sets and adheres to clear performance standards for instruction and teacher
behavior.
4. As visible presence, the principal is out and around in the school, visiting classrooms,
attending departmental or grade level, meetings, walking the hallways, and holding spontaneous
conversations with staff and students. (p. 9)
Furthermore, Andrew and Soder (1987) found that student achievement data revealed test scores
of students in strong-leader schools were significantly higher in both reading and mathematics as
compared to students in schools with average or weak leadership. However, there is some
confusion in the literature about instructional leadership in the work structure and its effects on
student achievement. Principals do not affect the academic achievement of individual students in
the same manner that teachers do, which is through direct classroom instruction (Heck, Larsen,
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 36
& Marcoulides, 1990). However, Heck et al. (1990) infer that principals may have an impact on
teaching and classroom practices through such school decisions as formulation of school goals,
setting and communicating high achievement expectations, organizing classrooms for
instruction, allocating necessary resources, supervising teachers’ performance, monitoring
student progress, and promoting a positive nurturing orderly learning environment.
Hallinger (2003) suggests that there is very little evidence to support the perspective that,
on a broad scale at either the elementary or secondary school level, principals have become more
engaged in hands-on direct supervision of teaching and learning in classrooms. However, if we
broadly define instructional leadership to focus on Defining a School Mission and Creating a
Positive School Environment, then principals are beginning to integrate these dimensions into
their practice (Hallinger, 2003).
Servant Leadership
Servant Leadership occurs when leaders assume the position of servant in their
relationships with fellow workers (Russell & Stone, 2002). This perspective is very different
than the other types of leadership previously identified. Instead of occupying a position at the
top of the hierarchy, the servant leader is situated at the center of the organization (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Servant leaders focus on the needs of followers and help them to
become more knowledgeable, more autonomous, and more like servants themselves by enriching
others by their presence (Northouse, 2007).
Northouse (2007) states that the servant leader has a social duty to be concerned with the
haves and have-nots and to recognize them as equal stakeholders in the life of the organization.
In addition, a servant leader uses less institutional authority and less control while shifting
authority to those who are being led and by valuing everyone’s involvement in community life
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 37
because it is within a community that one fully experiences respect, trust, and individual strength
(Northouse, 2007).
Marzano, Waters, McNulty (2005) suggest that the central dynamic of servant leadership
is nurturing those within the organization by:
1. Understanding the personal needs of those in the organization
2. Healing wounds caused by conflict within the organization
3. Being a steward of resources of the organization
4. Developing the skills of those within the organization
5. Being a good listener
Russell and Stone (2002) state that the literature surrounding servant leadership is rather
uncertain, somewhat ambiguous, and mostly anecdotal. Although servant leadership is not
typically thought of as a comprehensive theory of leadership as are some other theories, it has
become a key component of the thinking of many leadership theorists (Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005). One critical element of servant leadership that influenced the minds of many
scholars has been the ethical principle of “caring”, which can foster growth and development in
an organization (Northouse, 2007). Russell and Stone contend that, if countless individuals
transform into servant leaders, infinitely more people would benefit.
Theoretical Framework
The research for this study was framed around the theoretical work of Leithwood and
Jantzi (2000) which describes transformational leadership behaviors as having six dimensions:
(1) building school vision and goals, (2) providing intellectual stimulation, (3) offering
individual support, (4) symbolizing professional practices and values, (5) demonstrating high
performance expectations, and (6) developing structures to foster participation in school
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 38
decisions. This framework of leadership was utilized to assist in understanding the effective
leadership practices and behaviors of Title I principals and their effect on student achievement.
School contextual variables (e.g., school size, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity) and mediating
variables (e.g., teacher quality, teacher efficacy, and curriculum) were beyond the scope of the
study.
Student Achievement
Increasing student achievement is one of the most important issues facing government
and educational leaders. The following studies are examples of research-based practices that
support student achievement primarily for disadvantaged students.
Gandara and Bial (2001) identified five strategies that will have a significant impact on
students’ academic achievement if they are all implemented with fidelity, simultaneously, and if
students are exposed to them over several years: (1) close monitoring of students’ personal and
academic growth, (2) access to a high quality curriculum, (3) providing appropriate scaffolding
to promote academic success, (4) providing academic supportive peer groups, and (5) providing
opportunities for social-emotional development.
Calderón, Slavin, and Sanchez (2011) indicate that schools that serve socio-economically
disadvantaged students, particularly English learners and other language-minority children, have
the opportunity to provide children with economic security. Schools serving disadvantaged
children cannot leave anything up to chance, and they must be organized to capitalize on all of
their assets, including students’ and parents’ aspirations, staff professionalism and care, and
other intangible as well as financial and physical assets (Calderon et al., 2011).
Calderon et al. (2011) argue that there are four structural elements that effective programs
contain that improve student achievement: (a) constant collection and use of ongoing formative
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 39
data on learning, teaching, attendance – school staff must always be cognizant of which students
are succeeding and failing and why, behavior, and other critical intermediate outcomes, (b) a
strong focus on professional development for all staff members, including administrators – staff
development must be intensive and consistent, with many opportunities for both peer and expert
coaching and information exchange occurring in professional discussions in school or with
professionals from different schools, (c) standards of behavior and effective strategies for
classroom and school management, and (d) leadership focused on building a “high reliability
organization” that shares information widely, monitors the quality of teaching and learning
carefully, and holds the staff accountable for progress towards common goals (pp. 109-110).
Another perspective on increasing student achievement, recommended by Pressley,
Raphael, Gallagher, and DiBella (2004) that contributes to the effectiveness of Providence-St.
Mel School (PSM) in promoting student achievement involves the following:
1. High accountability – the administration and teacher’s carefully monitoring student
progress and formally consulting with the parent four times a year at mandatory conferences. In
addition, the principal has many informal conversations with students whose grades are slipping,
as well as positive comments with students who had good grades.
2. Academic time – offering after-school-tutoring, which is required for students below a
2.0 grade point average or who have failed to complete homework is a practice utilized at PSM.
Students who have committed a behavioral violation significant enough to merit detention are
required to serve an hour of detention in a room where they are required to do nothing and sit
quietly.
3. School facilities – regardless of the challenging location of the school, the school
building needs to be in good repair on the outside and safe and clean on the inside. Having an
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 40
attractive library with a large collection of books, magazines, newspapers, and access to
computers is important.
4. Intentional efforts to motivate students – classrooms have positive expectations for
students with teachers telling them that they could accomplish their academic goals. Teachers
and administrators were caring and responsive to student academic and social needs. Students
received praise for participating in class. The overall school and classrooms were positive and
friendly, always encouraging students.
5. Instruction supporting high and meaningful academic achievement – Academic
demands were high and there were many supports to promote student achievement. All students
utilize agendas (i.e., planning books) to keep track of homework assignments and other pertinent
information. Teachers provide a lot of information about what will be on the tests and often
administered quizzes before tests. There is much written feedback on homework and quizzes
and much discussion on what was missed and how errors can be corrected. There is careful
thinking and planning throughout the school about what is essential content.
6. Talented people who make it work – leadership of a strong principal who knows their
teachers strengths and weaknesses. The principal is willing to assist teachers in developing
classroom management strategies and ensures that the curriculum is carried out as intended.
Standards of discipline are reinforced by the principal. Teachers have to be dedicated and
accountable to students. Most teachers were available before, during, and after school to provide
students with academic guidance and support. The principal and teachers knew their students
and families well. Donations from external sources and active successful alumni are welcomed
and an integral part of student achievement. (pp. 220-225)
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 41
Similar to the study involving Providence-St. Mel School, Stringfield, Millsap, and
Herman (1997) studied four high poverty schools with a free and reduced-price lunch rate of 82
percent or higher that successfully replicated school improvement models in high-poverty
racial/ethnic minority community settings. The study revealed that early childhood/preschool
programs, parent training programs, pullout remedial and enrichment instruction, computer
laboratories, summer programs, college preparatory programs, academic climate, instructional
coordination and guidance, and strong administrative leadership played an important part in
educating disadvantaged students (Stringfield, Millsap, & Herman, 1997).
In contrast, Tajalli and Opheim (2005) found that the relationship between achievement
and socioeconomic status was substantially weaker in smaller schools than in larger schools.
That is, students living in impoverished communities are much more likely to reap the benefits of
a smaller school. The effects of class size on achievement vary and are somewhat inconclusive,
with some researchers like Hanushek (1999) concluding that there is no significant relationship
between smaller class sizes and higher student achievement.
Summary
Elementary school Principals, specifically at Title I schools must utilize leadership
practices that will lead to increased academic achievement of disadvantaged students who are
predominantly low-income and from minority groups. Competent and strong leadership is
needed for Title I schools because of the population they serve and the importance of closing the
“achievement gap” between Whites and minority students.
There are many types of leadership theories that identify ideas and/or perspectives of
leadership. These theories can assist principals in developing their leadership abilities and
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 42
practice. Is one leadership theory better than another? Should a principal borrow a little bit from
each theory and use whatever works?
Research literature on leadership in schools is plentiful; however, what is considered
“effective” for one school population may not be effective for another school. There is a need
for research to be conducted on what specific elementary principal leadership practices are
effective in significantly increasing the academic achievement of disadvantaged students.

A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Researchers have tried to determine what leadership practices have a positive impact on
student achievement. Elmore (2005) states that the demands placed on leaders inherently
changed the face of modern day school leadership. With increased accountability, under NCLB,
principals are held responsible for the achievement of all students. Reform efforts along with
accountability measures, such as NCLB, increased public expectations and shifted the roles of
educators, particularly the leadership role of the principal (Sanzo et al., 2010).
The job of a principal ultimately had to focus on instruction and student achievement.
The leadership practices of principals, superintendents, and other educational leadership
positions have evolved during the past decade, focusing on teaching and learning, professional
development, data, and accountability (Quinn, 2002). Because of a shift from managerial to
instructional accountability, the leadership practices and behaviors of principals are crucial in
meeting the academic needs of children attending Title I public schools.
Many early studies on school effectiveness support the fact that leadership, primarily
instructional leadership, is one of the most important attributes of a successful school (Waters et
al., 2003). Instructional leadership is the foundation of an effective school; however the way in
which the principal leads and supports teachers in improving practice is critical (Quinn, 2002).
This chapter includes the purpose of the study and research questions to be addressed, the
design of the study, the sample and population, instrumentation, and methods of data collection
and analysis used in the study.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to identify leadership practices that selected Tile I
principals attribute to student achievement and to discover which leadership practices have a
greater impact on student achievement as measured by CST/AYP scores. In addition, the
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 44
following were addressed: (1) principals’ perceptions of the frequency with which they engage in
instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement and (2) principals’ perceptions
of leadership practices and their relative importance in facilitating student achievement.
The following research questions were addressed in this study:
1. What leadership practices do selected Title I principals attribute to student
achievement?
2. What principal leadership practices have a greater impact on student achievement as
measured by AYP proficiency rates?
3. What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the relative importance of
leadership practices on student achievement?
4. What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the frequency in which
they engage in instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement?
Design of the Study
This study was designed using mixed methods. Creswell (2009) states that the traditional
mixed-methods model is advantageous because it is familiar to most researchers and can result in
well-validated and substantiated findings. Consideration was given to the weight or priority of
the qualitative and quantitative methods used in the study, thus giving more weight to the
qualitative nature of the study. Creswell (2009) indicates that some studies may have equal
weights of quantitative and qualitative methods while other studies might emphasize one type
over the other.
The intent of this qualitative research is to present a case study examining leadership
practices of four Title I elementary principals and what they attribute to student achievement. A
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 45
case study is a detailed description and analysis of a single phenomenon (Merriam, 2009). The
study was supported by interviews, CST data, and surveys.
Sample and Population
Respondents were identified by the nature of the study. Purposive sampling was used to
select respondents for this particular study because of the specific knowledge and practices
needed to respond to interview and survey protocols. The study identified and focused on
principals who were at Title I elementary schools. Title I schools selected were schools that
were able to meet or surpass the 800 Academic Performance Index target goal set by NCLB. In
addition to meeting the API target, the following criteria were used in the selection process:
1. The school must have had the same principal for at least three years.
2. The school must have Title I status.
3. The school must have scored at least an API of 800 twice in a four year span from
2010 to 2013.
Pseudonyms were used for names of participants, the school district, and the school sites
in order to honor requests for confidentiality and anonymity.
Instrumentation
This study used a semi-structured interview protocol as a method to collect data.
According to Merriam (2009), semi-structured interviews are flexible and allow the investigator
to follow the lead of respondents while still being guided by a list of questions to be explored.
Even though predetermined questions were identified to support research questions, there was
flexibility for additional probing questions if needed. A draft of the pilot interview protocol was
shared with colleagues who provided some feedback. Testing questions prior to the interview is
critical (Maxwell, 2013). The following 10 questions were included in the interview protocol to
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 46
determine leadership behaviors and practices that cultivate a culture of instruction and student
achievement:
1. What is the vision you have for this school?
2. How have you communicated this vision to staff?
3. What opportunities do you provide for staff to engage in school improvement?
4. How are teachers involved in making decisions that affect student achievement?
5. What are the key learning goals (expectations for teachers and students) in your school?
6. How are the learning goals articulated to the school community?
7. How is professional development linked to the key learning goals?
8. How do you define instructional leadership?
9. How does the school district support you in your role as a principal?
10. During our conversation, is there anything I didn’t ask you that you think would be
particularly important for me to know about your school community or the way your school
is organized?
A cross-sectional survey design was included out of the need for an instrument that was
somewhat standardized and compared one factor to another. Respondents have to be in the
position of making comparisons to ensure the most accurate information (Fink, 2012). Based
upon the population, respondents would have the skill to be able to make comparisons and
assign ranks. Additional data about principal instructional leadership, which might not be
discussed during the interview, was sought by reducing the variation in questioning and the
influence over answers that could happen when interviewing. Surveys contribute to reliability
by promoting greater consistency (Merriman, 2009). The principal survey focused on
addressing research questions three and four.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 47
Data Collection
Prior to data collection activities, an application was submitted by the researcher to the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) to obtain approval under the provisions of the University of
Southern California, thus protecting human subjects participating in the study.
The strategies employed to capture data involved note taking, tape recording, and the
survey. Interviews were recorded and professionally transcribed. The first couple of minutes
were spent talking about the job of principals, as it is critical to build a relationship through
positive interaction (Maxwell, 2013). Principals were informed that they could stop the
interview at any time if needed. The interview process took approximately 60 minutes. After
the interview, principals were given a brief survey to complete, which took about 5 minutes. The
advantage of giving the survey after the interview was to ensure that it was returned.
Initial consent was obtained by telephoning and briefly meeting with study participants.
It is very important to obtain consent because it assists in establishing rapport and a foundational
relationship to work with (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). During the initial meeting, the interview
release form was discussed and explained. All of the items were covered on the form and
questions they had regarding the process were answered. This was done to ensure that
participants were willing to be interviewed based upon the terms on the interview release form.
A survey introduction letter was also provided and was explained to participants. This provided
respondents with information in writing about the survey. It required a little more time to meet
with them; however, it helped to make the participants feel comfortable about the process, which
gives rise to a productive interview and survey.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 48
Data Analysis
The analysis of data began during the beginning stages of the process of collecting data.
Merriam (2009) states that one individual can undermine an entire project if one waits until all of
the data are collected before beginning analysis. After the first interview, information was read
and reread, and notes were written in the margins relative to data responses as suggested by
Merriam (2009). Interviews were analyzed, compared and contrasted. This initial data analysis
captured reflections, tentative themes, and ideas to try to make sense of statements before they
were forgotten or misinterpreted in written form. Merriam (2009) states that this initial data
analysis can be in the form of a written memo to oneself.
After completing the interviews, interview transcripts were collected and organized to
construct more in depth meaning of the data relative to principal leadership behaviors and
practices on student achievement. The process of data analysis involves making sense out of text
and preparing data for analysis (Creswell, 2009). Each interview transcript was read and notes
were taken by jotting down, in the margins, information that seemed significant in addressing
research questions. Engaging in this process of taking notes, while keeping the research
questions in mind, describes what Merriam (2009) identifies as open coding. Open coding is
used primarily during the beginning of the analysis process, in which the researcher can be as
expansive as needed in identifying any segment of data that might assist in developing possible
categories (Merriam, 2009).
Data was examined and analyzed for significant meanings in notes or codes and grouped
according to their significance or meaning. Corbin and Strauss (2007) identify this process of
grouping open codes (as cited in Merriam, 2009, p.180) as axial coding or analytical coding.
These steps were repeated for all elementary principal interviews. The next step in analyzing the
data included the development of an exhaustive list of each of the groupings that emanated from
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 49
axial coding (analytical coding) and compared them to one another to develop a master list of
concepts derived from each set of data. Through the coding process, the following initial
categories were identified: student achievement, instruction, communication, and leadership.
After further examination and classification of the concepts, they guided by leadership
dimensions identified by the theoretical work of Leithwood and Jantzi (2000), which describes
transformational leadership behaviors as having six dimensions: (1) building school vision and
goals, (2) providing intellectual stimulation, (3) offering individual support, (4) symbolizing
professional practices and values, (5) demonstrating high performance expectations, and (6)
developing structures to foster participation in school decisions. Every study, as Merriam (2009)
indicates, has some theoretical framework that is situated in some body of literature that gives
you the tools to develop a purpose statement and research questions. Using leadership categories
and re-analyzing data allows for placing each unit of data into a mutually exclusive category or
theme. According to Creswell (2009), the coding process can be used to generate a description
of themes for analyses and examination.
Data from the CST, retrieved from the California Department of Education, was used to
examine Title I principals’ student achievement in relation to leadership practices. The API,
AYP, and student sub-group proficiency levels/rates were specifically utilized to present student
achievement progress at each of the respective principals schools.
In addition, a survey was included for the principal respondents to complete relative to
their perceived level of involvement in instructional leadership behaviors and practices.
Quantitative data gathered from the surveys were tallied. The survey data was also used in the
development of themes. The survey used the following scale:

A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 50
5= Almost Always
4= Frequently
3= Sometimes
2= Seldom
1= Almost Never
This provided additional data to assist in answering research questions as well as to be
used in the process of triangulation to increase validity and reliability of results. If themes are
established based on converging several sources of data or perspectives from participants, then
this process can be deemed to add to the validity of the study (Creswell, 2009).
Summary
This chapter briefly reviewed the literature that gave rise to the current study which
aimed to answer several research questions. This study incorporated both qualitative and
quantitative data. Invariably, by using a mixed-methods approach, construct validity and
reliability were enhanced (Merriam, 2009). Triangulation reduces the risk of chance associations
and systematic biases due to a specific method and allows a better assessment of the generality of
the conclusions that one develops (Maxwell, 2013). The purpose of the study, research
questions, research design, sample population, and methods of data collection and analysis were
discussed. Chapter Four includes a summary of the findings. Chapter Five provides a
conclusion including implications and future research needed in the area of principal leadership
practices and disadvantaged student achievement outcomes.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 51
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents an analysis of data obtained using a mixed-methods study
examining leadership practices of four experienced Title I principals in the Mission City Unified
School District and their perceptions of what they attribute to increase student achievement at
each of their respective schools. Principal leadership comes in all different forms, however with
increased accountability, under NCLB; principals are ultimately responsible for student
achievement at their school sites.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to identify leadership practices that selected Tile I
principals attribute to student achievement and to determine which leadership practices have a
greater impact on student achievement as measured by CST/AYP scores. In addition, the
following were addressed: (1) principals’ perceptions of the frequency with which they engage in
instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement and (2) principals’ perceptions
of leadership practices and their relative importance in facilitating student achievement.
Quantitative data was collected through an in-person brief survey given to the selected
Title I principals directly after the interview. Title I school principals ranked the frequency in
which they engaged in leadership practices and the importance of leadership practices on student
achievement. Qualitative data was collected from interviews. Interviewees were informed that
their responses would be kept confidential and anonymous. This agreement was maintained
through the use of pseudonyms instead of real names of principals and school sites. This chapter
presents the demographic information and findings from the data in order to address the
following research questions:
1. What leadership practices do selected Title I principals attribute to student achievement as
measured by CST scores?
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 52
2. What principal leadership practices have a greater impact on student achievement as
measured by AYP proficiency rates?
3. What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the relative importance of
leadership practices on student achievement?
4. What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the frequency in which they
engage in instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement?
Participant Demographics
The participants were all elementary principals in California Title I schools located in the
Mission City School District. Three of the four participants were female and one was a male. Of
the four principals, two held doctorate degrees in education and the other two held master’s
degrees. The ages of the principals were 56, 60, 62, and 63. All of the principals have been
principals for at least 10 years. Three of them served their entire principal tenure at one school
site while one served for five years at a different site.
Table 1 reports the age, race, number of years served at each respective principal’s school
site, and highest educational degree s/he obtained.
Table 1
Principal Demographics
Name Age Race Years at school site Education
Lisa 62 White 11 Doctorate
Alex 61 White 6 Master’s
Marissa 56 Hispanic 13 Master’s
Rhonda 63 African American 12 Doctorate

All of the principals served in Title I schools that were located within a large urban
school district in California. The Mission City School District serves over 700,000 students, and
has nearly 50,000 teachers and over 38,000 other employees. The total school district operating
budget for the 2012–2013 term was $6.78 billion. In enrollment breakdown by ethnic group, 72.3
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 53
percent of its students were Hispanic and 10.1 percent were White American. In addition, 9.6
percent of students were African American, while Asian American students made up 4 percent;
students of Filipino origin formed 2.1 percent of the student population and Native Americans
and Pacific Islanders, together, accounted for less than 1 percent.
The schools identified in the study are all located in a semi-suburban area named San
Rosales Valley in the Mission City Unified School District. As of 2012, the population of the
San Rosales Valley was 1.77 million. Of the population, 41.0 percent were non-Hispanic white,
41.8 percent were Hispanic or Latino, 4.6 percent were African Americans and 12.7 percent were
Asian. The San Rosales Valley has a significant population who live below the poverty level.
About 30 percent of Valley households in 2009 earned less than $35,000 a year, including 10
percent who made less than $15,000 a year. The Pacific district, once considered the hub of
suburban blight and of having the highest poverty rate, is no longer such. Other San Rosales
Valley neighborhoods now have poverty rates which are higher.
School Demographics
Four principals were identified at Title I schools located in the San Rosales Valley
region. The schools are identified as Coral Reef, Rosewood, Sunset, and Wellington.
Rosewood Elementary is on a traditional calendar configuration and serves students in
Transitional Kinder through fifth grade. The racial and ethnic composition of the school is 84
percent Hispanic, 7.6 percent Asian, 3.7 percent White, 2.5 percent African American, and 2.2
percent Filipino. The majority of its English Language Learners (ELLs) speaks Spanish as the
primary language.
Table 2 shows the most significant ethnic makeup of Rosewood elementary school
students.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 54
Table 2
Rosewood Elementary Ethnic Composition
Ethnicity Asian Filipino African American Hispanic White
Percentage 7.6 2.2 2.5 84.0 3.7
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Table 3 shows the significant numbers of ELLs at Rosewood.
Table 3
Rosewood Elementary English Language Learners
Language Tagalog Spanish Vietnamese Other Total
Number 2 194 8 8 212
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Rosewood is led by Principal Marissa, who has served as the principal for 13 years. She
is a 56-year-old Hispanic female and has been an elementary principal for 14 years, with one
year serving as an interim principal at a different school site. In her 31 years in education, she
has served in the positions of teacher, coordinator, assistant principal, and principal.
Coral Reef Elementary is on a traditional calendar configuration and serves students in
Transitional Kinder through fifth grade. The most recent ethnic composition of the school is
47.2 percent Hispanic, 12.9 percent Asian, 21.1 percent White, 10.4 percent African American,
and 6.4 percent Filipino. The majority, 44 out of its 77, ELLs speaks Spanish as the primary
language.
Table 4 shows the significant ethnic makeup of Coral Reef elementary school.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 55
Table 4
Coral Reef Elementary Ethnic Composition
Ethnicity Asian Filipino African American Hispanic White
Percentage 12.9 6.4 10.4 47.2 21.1
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)

Table 5 shows the significant numbers of ELLs.
Table 5
Coral Reef Elementary English Language Learners
Language Armenian Tagalog Russian Spanish Vietnamese Other Total
Number 2 5 3 47 2 18 77
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Coral Reef is led by Principal Lisa, who has served as the principal for 11 years. She is a
62-year-old White female and has been an elementary principal for 11 years. Prior to that, she
was a middle school principal for 3 years in an affluent school district. In her 38 years in
education, she has served in the positions of teacher, coach, assistant principal, and principal.
Sunset Elementary is on a traditional calendar configuration and serves students in pre-
kindergarten through fifth grade. The most recent ethnic composition of the school is 80.8
percent Hispanic, 2.4 percent Asian, 8.0 percent White, 1.3 percent African American, and 6.9
percent Filipino. The majority of Sunset’s ELLs speaks Spanish, which represents 180 Spanish-
speaking ELs out of 212 total ELs.
Table 6 shows the significant ethnic makeup of Sunset elementary school.
Table 6
Sunset Elementary Ethnic Composition
Ethnicity Asian Filipino African American Hispanic White
Percentage 2.7 6.9 1.3 80.8 8.3
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 56
Table 7 shows the significant numbers of ELLs for Sunset elementary school.
Table 7
Sunset Elementary English Language Learners
Language Armenian Tagalog Spanish Other Total
Number 15 10 180 7 212
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Principal Alex is at the helm of Sunset, in which he has been principal for six years. He
is a 61 year old White male and has been in education for 35 years. Prior to his principalship at
Sunset, he served as an elementary principal at an affluent school, an assistant principal,
elementary teacher, and an adult school ESL instructor.
Wellington Elementary is a traditional calendar school and serves students in
Kindergarten through fifth grade. The schools racial and ethnic composition is 48.1 percent
Hispanic, 4.9 percent Asian, 26.6 percent White, 15.2 percent African American, and 3.0 percent
Filipino. In total, 83 out of the 142 ELLs speak Spanish as their home language.
Table 8 shows the significant ethnic makeup of Wellington elementary school.
Table 8
Wellington Elementary Ethnic Composition
Ethnicity Asian Filipino African American Hispanic White
Percentage 4.9 3.2 15.8 49.5 26.6
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Table 9 shows the significant numbers of ELLs for Wellington elementary school.
Table 9
Wellington Elementary English Language Learners
Language Armenian Farsi Tagalog Russian Spanish Other Total
Number 3 10 7 5 83 34 142
Source: Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 57
Principal Rhonda

has been the principal at Wellington for 12 years. She is a 63-year-old
African American female and has been in education for 37 years. In that time, she has worked in
public and private schools. She has served as a teacher, coordinator, junior high assistant
principal, Catholic private school principal, and elementary principal.
In this chapter, the theoretical framework, the coding process of interviews, and results of
the data analysis are presented. The data were collected and then processed in response to the
four research questions presented in Chapter One of this dissertation. Four fundamental goals
drove the collection of the data and the subsequent data analysis: (1) to examine which
leadership practices Title I elementary school principals attribute to student achievement, (2) to
identify leadership practices that have a greater impact on student achievement as measured by
CST/AYP proficiency rates, (3) to examine principal’s perceptions of the frequency with which
they engage in leadership practices and student achievement CST scores, and (4) to examine
principals’ perceptions of the relative importance of instructional leadership practices on student
achievement.
Theoretical Framework
The foundational lens used was based on the theoretical work of Leithwood and Jantzi
(2000), which describes transformational leadership behaviors as having six dimensions: (1)
building school vision and goals, (2) providing intellectual stimulation, (3) offering individual
support, (4) symbolizing professional practices and values, (5) demonstrating high performance
expectations, and (6) developing structures to foster participation in school decisions.
Findings to Research Question One
What leadership practices do selected Title I principals attribute to student achievement
as measured by CST scores?
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 58
The leadership practices of principals can have an influence on student achievement in
positive or negative ways. Although teacher quality has the greatest influence on student
motivation and achievement, the quality of leadership matters in determining the motivation of
teachers and the quality of their teaching, which subsequently affect student performance
(Fullan, 2001; Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005; Sergiovanni, 2001). Although
classroom instruction has the greatest school level impact on student achievement, leadership has
the second greatest effect (Leithwood et al., 2004). Researchers agree that a principal must be a
strong instructional leader, even though they cannot agree on the specific characteristics that
embody instructional leadership (Quinn, 2002).
Student API achievement data of the four schools is presented to provide a brief overall
academic history of student achievement scores and is followed by each principal’s perceptions
of leadership practices they attribute to student achievement.
Table 10 depicts the API scores of the four Title I elementary schools from 2010 to 2013.
This represents a span of four years, so an average is also provided.
Table 10
Academic Performance Index (API) Scores
2010 2011 2012 2013 4-year average
District 709 729 744 750 733
Rosewood 819 832 829 819 825
Sunset 795 806 807 808 804
Coral Reef 826 841 862 830 840
Wellington 812 815 792 795 804
Source: California Department of Education
Coral Reef had the highest 4-year average at 840, followed by Rosewood at 825, Sunset
and Wellington at 804, and the District overall at 733. The District has shown steady growth
from 2010 to 2013, with year-to-year increases of +20, +15, and +6. Rosewood has shown
fluctuating scores with year-to-year increases and decreases of, +13, -3, and -10. Sunset showed
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 59
steady growth scores with year-to-year increases and decreases of, +11, +1, and +1. Coral
Reef’s year-to-year scores were +15, +21, and -32. Wellington’s year-to-year scores were +3, -
23, and +3. An examination of API scores indicated that the Title I schools have significantly
higher scores that does the District.
Coral Reef Elementary
An assumption can be made that schools simply get the scores they get and leadership is
irrelevant, but, before that assumption is made, an examination of information provided through
an interview follows. The principal of Coral Reef, Lisa, was interviewed, and here responses
were examined to address research question one: What leadership practices do Title I principals
attribute to student achievement? From a qualitative analysis of her responses, the researcher
classified the responses into eight categories:
1. Vision
2. Connectedness and structure
3. Communication
4. Teachers /Staff involvement
5. Leadership
6. Student support
7. Instruction
8. District support (personal communication, August 7, 2014)
Lisa’s vision is based on kids’ being excited about school and learning while being
engaged in the learning process. She stated that her school is more like a summer camp. The
school should be inviting with clean and up-to-date facilities. She shared her idea of
connectedness and structure. The school has an assembly every Monday morning to touch base
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 60
with all of the students, teachers, and parents. They sing patriotic songs, recognize students for
doing things well, and often invite community members share information with the entire school.
Lisa stated that the Monday morning assembly creates a sense of belonging and a sense of
community, thus “connecting” students to school. Students wear blue on Mondays to show their
school spirit. They are also expected to keep their campus clean, follow rules, and pick up after
themselves every day.
Communication involved talking about the vision all the time in day-to-day
conversations, often one-legged chats throughout the day (personal communication, August 7,
2014). The use of newsletters, flyers, and parent meetings also helped in getting the vision out to
stakeholders. A lot of discussions took place in small groups, on the telephone, and during
meetings.
Lisa’s leadership is characterized by the distributed leadership approach. She states that
she enjoys allowing teachers to take the lead and she does not mind stepping back and being
more of a facilitator. She stated, “I’m not the only expert around here, in fact sometimes I feel
like they know more than I do, so I tap into it” (personal communication, August 7, 2014). She
is very flexible with staff, and, when a staff member asks to try a new program, she usually gives
them approval. Lisa states that delegation is very important to her, not only because it takes
some responsibilities and work off of her, but also because it actually helps develop leadership
skills in teachers. When problems arise, she frames the problem and presents it to staff, but she
allows them to brainstorm and come up with possible solutions. She said, “Running a school in
this day and age is nothing but chaos; however, it’s how you manage the chaos that makes the
difference in getting things accomplished versus things falling apart” (personal communication,
August 7, 2014). She embraces the notion of “buy-in” and generally likes to get it from staff,
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 61
parents, and students, especially when introducing something new to the school community. The
principal had to learn the hard way, she states, when a group of principals came into her office,
after being on the job for just a couple of weeks, to let her know that her leadership style, which
was more authoritative, was not going to work out. She mentioned, “I’ve changed, but there are
times when a more direct approach is needed or when a decision has to be made on the spot, and
you have to ready to take charge, because there is no time for input or consensus” (personal
communication, August 7, 2014).
Lisa explains that, at Coral Reef, the teachers are dedicated to the students, and they work
long hours and on the weekends. Lisa states that she lets the teachers keep their room keys and
provides them with a gate key, so they can have access to the campus whenever needed. She
treats them with respect and expects them to behave and act like professionals each and every
day. She mentioned, “I walk the talk and I expect them to do the same with students, parents,
and each other” (personal communication, August 7, 2014).
Teachers are involved with running the school on a daily basis and the principal does not
mind at all. She stated, “I tend to take care of the operational components, such as reports,
safety, district requests, parent complaints, and facilities” (personal communication, August 7,
2014). The curriculum, learning, and instruction all take place in the classrooms. Lisa states that
her job is to make sure all of those operational issues do not interfere with what they are trying to
accomplish, which is teach kids. Teachers participate on the School Site Council, which is the
advisory group that makes decisions primarily about the budget and how it should be allocated.
Instructional decisions are made at leadership team meetings, which include all of the grade level
chairs, kindergarten through fifth grade, and the categorical coordinator. Lisa said, “We don’t
meet as often as we should, but we try to meet at least twice a month” (personal communication,
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 62
August 7, 2014). Lisa states that they used to meet on a weekly basis, but too many district
initiatives required them to spend most of their Tuesday professional development time on
district items. Many teachers still have informal meetings, especially at lunch, where they discuss
lessons.
Student support at Coral Reef is characterized by providing academic or social support if
needed. Lisa mentioned, “We don’t go around trying to identify problem children, instead we
find out if there is a concern and we fix it the best way we know how” (personal communication,
August 7, 2014). She added,
We find out in many ways. However, you might be surprised that we usually find out
from them. I think that students naturally want to be successful, and they want to please
adults. I find that kids that have problems, academically or socially, have something
going on in their life that is making them unhappy. That’s why I try to make our learning
environment fun like a camp (personal communication, August 7, 2014).
The principal stated that they hired a retired principal whose grandchildren attend Coral
Reef to provide intervention for students in English Language Arts (ELA). In addition to the
ELA intervention, another individual, who has a grandson who attends the school, provides
English Language Development support for English Language Learners (ELLs).
Instruction is based upon the learning goals of the school, which hinged upon CST test
results. The school has two main learning goals: reading comprehension and writing. The
school uses the district-provided materials and follows the standards. However, they also use
Accelerated Reader and Books and Beyond to help students. Lisa stated, “There was a big push
to develop the fluency in which students read, but who cares about how fast a child can read, if
they don’t understand a word their reading” (personal communication, August 7, 2014).
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 63
Coral Reef believes that district support should be on-call and only as needed. The
principal states that she does not agree with the top-down hierarchy of administration. The
school previously had a director who only stepped in when she was needed and mostly for
operational concerns. Now, the school has a director who is micro-managing instruction and the
organization of school functions.
Rosewood Elementary
The responses of Rosewood principal Marissa addressed research question one and were
analyzed from a qualitative perspective. Analyses of data revealed the following key
components:
1. Vision
2. Clear expectations
3. Leadership
4. Collaboration
5. Learning goals
6. Students
The vision at Rosewood was developed collectively by the principal, teachers, and other
staff. The vision of the school is “where students grow in knowledge, compassion, and
confidence.” Marissa stated, “I like to keep it simple because, if you have a vision that is too
long, nobody remembers it and it doesn’t really get accomplished” (personal communication,
August 1, 2014). Building confidence in children is very important to Rosewood. Their practice
is that, for every negative, you have to find three positives in order to create a change in a
student.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 64
Communication of the vision is done by modeling the expected behavior, such as in
saying “please” and “thank you.” In addition, the vision is communicated at staff meetings,
professional development sessions and through the use of newsletters, Connect Ed (an automated
calling system), email, and large colorful banners hung from the fence.
Students are expected to follow directions and participate in the learning process. The
principal is very clear about her expectations of students and teachers. Students are expected to
know what they are learning and why they are learning it. The principal expected teachers to
have a positive attitude, be kid friendly in their interactions with students, and to understand that
kids can learn. She stated, “When I first came to Rosewood, I would hear statements from
teachers that did not go over well with me, such as ‘these kids can’t learn’ or ‘their parents don’t
care’” (personal communication, August 1, 2014).
The leadership of the principal at Rosewood is based on supporting teachers in meeting
the academic and social needs of the students. Knowing the curriculum and how it should be
delivered is part of that support. Teachers are provided with the necessary materials they need to
carry out instruction in the classroom. The principal states that the best thing that she can do for
teachers is to be there for them, which involve providing them with what they need, offering
suggestions and providing feedback.
Marissa stated that she always tries to establish a collaborative teaching and learning
environment by having productive grade level meetings in which teachers plan lessons around
the academic needs of students. Teachers are held accountable for the curricular agreements that
they make in those meetings, and they keep minutes of the meeting, which are then reviewed by
the principal. The principal makes every effort to “pop in” to every grade level meeting to
ensure that collaborative groups are on task and on target with respect to academic goals. The
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 65
categorical coordinator is assigned to attend primary grade level meetings to assist in meeting the
needs of students with English language needs. The principal stated that she has to carefully
monitor grade level meetings to ensure that teachers are using their time wisely by focusing on
student learning and achievement versus talking about field trips or other operational items.
The principal explained that grade level meetings were designed for teachers to examine
student work, interpret assessment results, focus on academic standards, and share best practices.
She said, “One strategy that has been helpful to teachers and students is backwards planning,
because it focuses on the end result first, which actually makes sense” (personal communication,
August 1, 2014). District assessment results are used to assist teachers in figuring out what
instruction needs to take place to ensure student mastery.
The key learning goals of Rosewood focused on the teacher-student relationship. They
established that they want teachers to learn to become better facilitators of learning, as compared
to telling students the information. Marissa mentioned, “We want to have less teacher talk and
more student talk, which is hard for many teachers to do” (personal communication, August 1,
2014). Another goal was to allow students the opportunity to construct their own knowledge by
making sense of concepts and connecting them to what they do know. The goal of students’
working in groups is identified as a foundational piece to fostering intellectual and social
understanding of learning objectives. Learning goals were articulated by the principal to the
entire school community, which included students, parents, teachers, paraprofessionals,
custodians, and after school coaches.
Rosewood elementary school considered the challenging situations that students might
have experienced at home. Marissa stated that student accommodations were made to assist
students who may not have or do their homework for whatever reason:
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 66
We can’t go home with our students or change their home lives, but we can do the best
we can here at school to make them accountable and productive. Students are not
“dinged” for not doing their homework. Students can do their homework before school,
during recess or lunch, and after school. The whole idea of homework is to give the
student an opportunity to review what they’ve learned in school for that day (personal
communication, August 1, 2014).
Principal Marissa stated that she has visited homes of students where there was just one
big room, a small kitchenette, and eight to ten people living inside. She added, “But, as
educators, we tell students to do their homework every day in a quiet place” (personal
communication, August 1, 2014).
Teachers at Rosewood are expected to treat students with respect and fairness. Marissa
stated that there was little tolerance for teachers who had attitudes and who talked to kids in a
sarcastic manner:
One of the biggest lessons I have learned about kids is to listen to them. Kids are telling
you something even without speaking. If there is something going on and you don’t
listen to them, they will not give you the respect that you think you deserve as a teacher
(personal communication, August 1, 2014).
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 67
Sunset Elementary
The principal of Sunset, Alex, provided responses that addressed research question
number one, and these were analyzed from a qualitative perspective. Analysis of data revealed
the following key components:
1. Vision
2. Planning
3. Parental involvement
4. Professional development
5. Instruction
6. Learning goals
7. School climate (personal communication, August 4, 2014)
The principal of Sunset elementary school was proud of the vision of the school, which
focused on high expectations and full access for all students. This included ELLs, special
education, gifted, and all subgroups. The principal stated that the curriculum must be rigorous
and they must believe in the potential of each and every child on campus. He mentioned, “We
have preschool program and the vision starts there and transcends all the way through fifth
grade” (personal communication, August 4, 2014).
Alex stated that students are taught at an early age to come to school prepared, be ready
to learn, and know how to behave appropriately in and out of the classroom.
Planning on a regular and consistent basis involves having grade level meetings and
leadership team meetings on a weekly basis. On Wednesdays, grade levels have common
planning time and meet to discuss pertinent information relative to standards-based instruction.
This common planning time is possible because the school created additional time other than the
district banked day Tuesdays. They called this time “psychomotor development.” During this
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 68
time, students were engaged in physical activity, played organized games and were supervised
by teacher aides and the categorical coordinator of the school. Alex mentioned,
Some people thought psychomotor development was a waste of time for children. We
had to be creative to make time for teachers to have professional conversations around
instructional strategies and the delivery of standards. Teachers analyzed data from district
assessments and chapter tests which provided teachers with results that were used to
inform their instructional practice (personal communication, August 4, 2014).
The leadership team met every Monday to discuss school wide learning objectives and
how they were implemented at school. The leadership team comprised the principal, categorical
coordinator, grade level chairs, a parent, and one teacher’s aide. The team planned professional
development for teachers, analyzed school wide data, and planned the afterschool intervention
program. Alex stated, “This group is the “think tank” of the school and all of our instructional
ideas and decisions are made in a collaborative manner” (personal communication, August 4,
2014).
Sunset provided opportunities for parents to participate in school activities. The school
had an active Parent Teacher’s Association (PTA), School Site Council (SSC), and English
Language Advisory Committee (ELAC). The school had an active Parent Center, which housed
the PTA, parent volunteers, and community representatives. All parent-related groups had
meetings in the parent center, and they worked closely with the coordinator and the principal.
Alex stated that the PTA networked with parents and teachers and identified ways that their
organization could help the school meet the educational, social, and emotional needs of students.
The delivery of professional development took place on a weekly basis and was primarily
for teachers. Teachers learned about the standards and how they should be taught. The principal
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 69
stated that teachers sometimes became bored of professional development every week, but they
continued to stick to the standards. Topics such as classroom management, disruptive behavior,
ELD, mathematics, and language arts were addressed in professional development meetings.
The school had approximately 212 EL students, which represented about 40 percent of
the student population. The instruction at Sunset is based upon the academic needs of students.
Alex stated,
Even though we focus on the standards, I have to say that we also wholeheartedly infuse
our students with the basics in reading, writing, and mathematics. Many students at
Sunset need the basics and trying to just teach the standards is going to create more of a
gap in their learning and understanding. You can’t build a house without a good
foundation (personal communication, August 4, 2014).
The principal monitored and supervised the instruction and teaching practices of his staff
on a daily basis. Alex stated that Sunset has been focusing on differentiation of instruction in
order to try to meet the needs of all of their subgroups. Feedback is given whenever the principal
observes a classroom teacher, and it is described as “actionable feedback”. He mentioned, “I
want to provide them with feedback and recommendations that are specific and something that
they can actually implement in the classroom in the near future” (personal communication,
August 4, 2014).
Alex explained that it is important for teachers to use rubrics, provide timely student
feedback, state the goals of the objective, and have students revise or redo assignments, if
needed. The principal expected all students to exhibit appropriate behavior, and teachers are
held accountable for establishing classroom rules and expectations, reinforcing them, and giving
students consequences. He said, “You can’t teach children, if you don’t have good classroom
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 70
management” (personal communication, August 4, 2014). The principal stated that his school,
in fact, had some teachers who struggled in this area and it really showed.
Sunset has five overall key learning goals:
1. Promoting positive attitudes and perceptions about learning.
2. Learn and know the standards.
3. Apply reading, writing, and speaking skills to communicate effectively.
4. Understand and apply mathematical ideas.
5. Develop habits of self-control and respect others.
The principal of Sunset stated the following:
Many of our students are ELs, and many of their parents are immigrants and they
sometimes feel uncomfortable at school for an array of reasons, however we want our
students to feel accepted in class and have a positive attitude towards work. Without
these positive attitudes and perceptions, children have little chance of learning
proficiently (personal communication, August 4, 2014).
The principal encouraged all students to come to school every day on time and to actively
participate in their own education. In addition, students were recognized and rewarded in school
wide assemblies for academic achievement, perfect attendance, and positive behavior.
Students are expected to know and learn the standards, which involve developing
reading, writing, and oral language, along with the understanding of mathematical concepts. The
principal stated that learning the standards required solid instruction in the classroom on a
regular basis along with the maximization of instructional time. Alex stated, “It’s wonderful to
have all of these enrichment activities, which are absolutely terrific and fun, but you’re taking
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 71
away from the vital mathematics and reading language skills, and without those skills you’re
going absolutely nowhere” (personal communication, August 4, 2014).
The principal stressed the importance of communication with the entire school
community. He wanted all students to be able to communicate effectively and he realizes that
this ability is needed if they intend to go to college. He said, “I think they’re all interconnected.
Reading improves your writing. Writing improves your oral language, writing improves your
reading, and reading improves your oral language” (personal communication, August 4, 2014).
The learning goal of understanding and applying mathematical ideas is a goal that Sunset
wanted to excel in because it is an area that does not require a lot of language. Alex said,
“Students can do well in math because they don’t have as many language obstacles as they do in
other subject areas” (personal communication, August 4, 2014).
The principal asserted that self-control and respect for others is a message that is
communicated to the entire school community on a regular basis. Alex said, “Students are
expected to be good citizens and follow school and classroom rules, making our school
environment physically and emotionally safe for everybody” (personal communication, August
4, 2014).
Key learning goals are communicated through the school newsletter and at parent
meetings. The principal stressed the importance of consistent parent involvement with parents
on a daily basis and offered the following statement:
I’m always trying to get parents involved in their child’s education, and, many times,
they come up with excuses like, “I have to work” or “I don’t have the time”. I let them
know that parent involvement does not always have to take place at school and that
involvement most certainly take place at home. They can help their children with
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 72
homework, projects, and with behavior. Our students cannot be successful if their
parents are not involved (personal communication, August 4, 2014).
Teachers share the key learning goals with parents at parent conferences and other meetings.
Sunset’s school climate is established by the idea that everybody is an integral part of the
school. Administrators, teachers, support staff, parents, students, cafeteria workers, custodial
staff, and community members all create the school climate. The principal states that everybody
understands the expectations and goals of the school, which provides a frame of reference for
interactions amongst students, teachers, and parents (personal communication, August 4, 2014).
Wellington
The principal of Wellington, Rhonda, was interviewed, and her responses addressed
research question number one and were analyzed from a qualitative perspective. Analysis of
data revealed the following key components:
1. Vision
2. Grade level meetings
3. Key learning goals
4. Instructional leadership
5. Building capacity
The vision of Wellington is based upon the premise that all children can learn and that the
school’s job is to maximize the potential of each child on their campus. The principal
communicates the vision to staff in many ways, so they can address the needs that students might
have and can fully access the curriculum and do the best they can do. Rhonda stated that she
communicated the vision through the use of staff meetings, professional development, and grade
level meetings.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 73
The principal stated that her school had grade level meetings on a weekly basis for about
an hour during their professional development banked time on Tuesdays. At these meetings,
teachers are given the opportunity to share ideas, plan lessons, and collaborate. The principal
explained that teachers embrace all of the children at that particular grade level and every
member is responsible for all of the students in their grade level:
If “Johnny” is not doing well academically or socially, then the responsibility doesn’t just
fall on his classroom teacher, but it falls on all of the grade level teachers. This goes back
to our vision, if we honestly believe that all children can learn and we want to maximize
their potential, then we as educators need to assist our colleagues with their assigned
students and vice versa (personal communication, August 5, 2014).
At Wellington, the principal stated that the learning goals are dictated by the district and
that there is not much autonomy when it comes to making your own learning goals. The
researcher further probed to determine what the school wanted students to learn. Rhonda
answered, “I want kids to be able to read and do math well” (personal communication, August 5,
2014).
The principal at Wellington stated that she oversaw instruction. She offered the
following statement:
The principal is the main teacher. That’s what a principal is. The principal is your “pal”.
I think that a principal should be a role model to the teachers and to all the people on their
school site. You have to know the academic part of instruction, and you better know how
to teach, but it also involves being ethical. We are like a little village here where we all
help run the village (personal communication, August 5, 2014).
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 74
Rhonda stated that building capacity at Wellington was done through recognizing and
mentoring others. In addition, she stated that the district did not really support them. They just
told them what to do. She added, “That’s not support, we support one another by reflecting on
our successes and failures, and we work together towards whatever we’re trying to do” (personal
communication, August 5, 2014). The principal shared that she is grooming the coordinator by
building his capacity to become an administrator one day.
Summary
Interview data indicated that the four Title I elementary principals’ perceptions of
leadership that increases student achievement were attributed to the following main leadership
practices:
1. Vision – Coral Reef’s principal was adamant about students’ being excited about
school and learning, creating a connected and structured environment sort of like a “summer
camp”. She believes that school spirit is important to build a sense of community. Rosewood’s
principal mentioned a belief that vision for the school should be simple and should build
confidence in children. Sunset’s principal expressed the importance of high expectations and full
access for all students. Wellington’s principal’s vision was that all children can learn and that it
is the school’s job to maximize the potential of each child on campus.
2. Leadership – Coral Reef’s principal allowed teachers to take the lead and did not mind
delegating tasks to staff. Rosewood’s principal supported teachers in meeting the academic
needs of students in a collaborative learning environment. Sunset’s principal monitored and
supervised instruction and teaching practices of staff on a daily basis. Wellington’s principal’s
leadership was based on being a role model for teachers, being ethical, and being knowledgeable
about instruction.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 75
3. Professional Development – Coral Reef’s principal stated that many Tuesday
professional development days were devoted to district initiatives. Teachers had informal
meetings, especially during lunch, when they discussed lessons. Rosewood’s principal
conducted grade level meetings to examine student work and data to inform instruction.
Sunset’s principal’s professional development took place once a week and focused on learning
standards and how to teach them. Wellington’s principal focused on grade level meetings and
collaboration.
4. Student Support – Coral Reef’s principal stressed providing academic and social
support for students. Rosewood’s principal expected all staff to treat students with respect and
fairness. Sunset’s principal requires solid instruction in the classroom on a regular basis and
believes in limiting “enrichment” activities. Wellington’s principal did not specifically address
student support.
5. Learning Goals – Coral Reef’s principal’s learning goals were related to the CST
assessment results. The school had two main learning goals: reading comprehension and writing.
Rosewood’s principal’s learning goals were focused around the teacher-student relationship.
Their learning goal was to allow the students the opportunity to construct their own knowledge
by making sense of concepts and connecting them to what they do know. Sunset’s principal’s
learning goals were promoting positive attitudes and perceptions about learning, learn and know
the standards, apply reading, writing, and speaking skills to communicate effectively, understand
and apply mathematical ideas, and develop habits of self-control and respect others.
Wellington’s principal’s stated that she wanted students to be able to read and do math well.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 76
Findings to Research Question Two
What principal leadership practices have a greater impact on student achievement as
measured by AYP proficiency rates?
Presentation of data in Table 11 reviewed the AYP scores for each of the four schools,
which is followed by a discussion of what selected principal leadership practices are effective in
promoting student achievement, specifically of underserved students.
Table 11
Adequate Yearly Progress*
2010
AYP
2011
AYP
2012
AYP
2013
AYP

Rosewood No No No No
Sunset Yes No No No
Coral Reef No No No No
Wellington No No No No
AYP criteria met or not
Source: California Department of Education
The schools did not meet all AYP sub-group criteria for the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013
school years. The only exception is Sunset, which met all AYP subgroup criteria for the 2010
school year.
AYP measures the growth of significant sub-groups that have taken the CST. The API
provides more of an overall picture of student academic achievement. The above table also
shows whether or not schools met their AYP targets. All of the schools did not meet their AYP,
specifically their AMO’s, with the exception of Sunset for the 2010 year. That year, sunset met
AYP criteria for all of its AMO’s.
The percent of AYP proficiency rates for underserved students in ELA and Mathematics
for the identified schools in this study for the 2010 school year are represented in Table 12.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 77
Table 12
Underserved Student Proficiency Rates for the 2010 School Year
African American Hispanic SED English Learners
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Rosewood NS NS 54.9 67.8 55.6 69.2 45.7 62.2
Sunset NS NS 46.9* 60.4 49.5* 64.8* 36.5* 56.4*
Coral Reef 50.0 51.2 45.9 60.9 46.1 57.3* 29.5 47.5
Wellington 51.9 59.6 47.7 51.0 53.1 58.5 50.4 55.0*
Source: California Department of Education (2010)
SED = socioeconomically disadvantaged
NS= not numerically significant
*met proficiency by alternate method (safe harbor)

The student proficiency target rate for the 2010 school year in ELA was 56.8 percent, and
the Mathematics target rate was 58.0 percent. This proficiency rate increased every year to reach
the goal of 100 percent proficiency (California Department of Education, 2011).
The table above shows the percentages of students’ level of proficiency on the 2010 CST.
Rosewood and Sunset did not have enough African American students enrolled to make those
scores numerically significant. The African American populations at Coral Reef and Wellington
were large enough to generate proficiency scores. Coral Reef’s proficiency scores were 50
percent in ELA and 51.2 percent in Mathematics. Wellington’s scores were 51.9 percent in ELA
and 59.6 percent in Mathematics. Proficiency rates indicate that Coral Reef’s African American
population did not meet proficiency in ELA and Math. Wellington’s African American
population did not meet proficiency in ELA; however, it did meet proficiency in Math.
For the Hispanic student population, Rosewood’s proficiency scores are 54.9 percent in
ELA and 67.8 percent in Mathematics. Sunset’s proficiency scores were 46.9 percent for ELA
and 60.4 percent for Mathematics. Coral Reef’s scores were 45.9 percent in ELA and 60.9
percent in Mathematics. Wellington’s scores were 47.7 percent in ELA and 51.0 percent in
Mathematics. Proficiency rates indicated that Rosewood’s Hispanic population did not meet
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 78
proficiency in ELA; however, they met proficiency in Math. Sunset’s population met
proficiency in ELA and Math for all subgroups, under the provision of safe harbor. Coral Reef’s
scores indicated that the Hispanic population did not meet proficiency in ELA; however,
proficiency was met in Math. Wellington did not meet proficiency in ELA and Math. Based
upon the data, Sunset’s principal was the only school to meet AYP proficiency rates for the
Hispanic population in both ELA and Math.
The Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED) population proficiency rates for Rosewood
were 55.6 percent in ELA and 69.2 percent in Mathematics. Scores for Sunset were 49.5 percent
in ELA and 64.8 percent in Mathematics. Coral Reef’s scores were 46.1 percent in ELA and
57.3 percent in Mathematics. Proficiency scores for Wellington were 53.1 percent in ELA and
58.5 percent in Mathematics. These proficiency scores indicated that Rosewood’s SED
population met proficiency in Math, but not in ELA. Sunset’s proficiency scores for SED
students indicated proficiency in Math and ELA under safe harbor. Coral Reef did not meet
proficiency in ELA and Math. Wellington met proficiency in Math, but not in ELA. None of the
schools met proficiency in ELA for this particular sub-group. Three out of the four schools met
proficiency in Math.
ELL proficiency scores at Rosewood were 45.7 percent in ELA and 62.2 percent in
Mathematics. Sunset’s scores in ELA were 36.5 percent and 56.4 percent in Mathematics. Coral
Reef’s scores for ELA were 29.9 percent and 47.5 percent in Mathematics. Wellington’s scores
are 50.4 percent in ELA and 55.0 percent in Mathematics. Proficiency scores for ELL students
revealed that Rosewood met proficiency in Math, but not in ELA. Sunset and Coral Reef did not
meet proficiency in ELA and Math. Wellington met proficiency under safe harbor in Math, but
not in ELA.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 79
The underserved student proficiency rates in ELA and Mathematics for the identified
schools in this study for the 2011 school year are represented in Table 13.
Table 13
Underserved Student Proficiency Rates for the 2011 School Year
African American Hispanic SED English Learners
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Rosewood NS NS 52.2 70.7 54.3 71.0 47.1 67.0
Sunset NS NS 47.8 72.1 50.5 72.7 43.2 69.3
Coral Reef 59.2 69.4 56.6* 73.7 49.5* 67.3* 41.8* 61.2*
Wellington 48.9 51.1 49.6* 59.9* 52.9 60.4* 44.2 61.2*
Source: California Department of Education
SED = socioeconomically disadvantaged
NS= not numerically significant
*met proficiency by alternate method (safe harbor)

The student proficiency target rate for the 2011 school year in ELA is 67.6 percent and
the Mathematics target rate is 68.5 percent. This represents an increase of 10.8 percent from the
previous year (2010) to 2011 in ELA. In mathematics, there was a year-to-year increase of 10.5
percent.
The table above shows the percentage of students who performed at a proficient rate on
the 2011 CST. Rosewood and Sunset did not have enough African American students enrolled to
make their results numerically significant. The African American populations at Coral Reef and
Wellington were not numerically significant enough to generate scores. Coral Reef’s proficiency
scores were 59.2 percent in ELA and 69.4 percent in Mathematics. Wellington’s scores were
48.9 percent in ELA and 51.1 percent in Mathematics. Student proficiency rates for African
American students indicated that Coral Reef met proficiency in Math, but not in ELA.
Wellington did not meet proficiency in ELA and Math.
For the Hispanic student population, Rosewood’s proficiency scores were 52.2 percent in
ELA and 70.7 percent in Mathematics. Sunset’s proficiency scores were 47.8 percent for ELA
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 80
and 72.1 percent for Mathematics. Coral Reefs’ scores were 56.6 percent in ELA and 73.7
percent in Mathematics. Wellington’s scores were 49.6 percent in ELA and 59.9 percent in
Mathematics. Proficiency rates indicated that Hispanic students at Rosewood were proficient in
Math, but not in ELA. Sunset students were proficient in Math, but not in ELA. Coral Reef’s
students were proficient under safe harbor in ELA and proficient in Math. Wellington was
proficient in ELA and Math under provisions of safe harbor.
The proficiency rates for the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged population at Rosewood
were 54.3 percent in ELA and 71.0 percent in Mathematics. Scores for Sunset were 50.5 percent
in ELA and 72.7 percent in Mathematics. Coral Reef’s scores were 49.5 percent in ELA and
67.3 in Mathematics. Proficiency scores for Wellington were 52.9 percent in ELA and 60.4
percent in Mathematics. Scores indicated that Rosewood and Sunset’s disadvantaged students
were proficient in Math, but not in ELA. Coral Reef met proficiency in both ELA and Math
under safe harbor. Wellington students did not meet proficiency in ELA; however, proficiency
in Math was met under the provisions of safe harbor.
ELL proficiency scores at Rosewood were 47.1 percent in ELA and 67.0 percent in
Mathematics. Sunset’s scores in ELA were 43.2 percent and, in Mathematics, were 69.3 percent.
Coral Reefs scores for ELA were 41.8 percent and 61.2 percent in Mathematics. Wellington’s
scores were 44.2 percent in ELA and 61.2 percent in Mathematics. Student proficiency rates
indicated that Rosewood did not meet proficiency criteria in ELA and Math. Sunset met
proficiency in Math, but not in ELA. Coral Reef made proficiency in both ELA and Math.
Wellington made proficiency in Math under safe harbor, but did not meet proficiency in ELA.
Underserved students’ proficiency rates in ELA and Mathematics for the identified
schools in this study for the 2012 school year are represented in Table 14.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 81
Table 14
Underserved Student Proficiency Rates for the 2012 School Year
African American Hispanic SED English Learners
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Rosewood
NS NS 54.7* 67.1 58.6* 67.5 52.5 66.9
Sunset
NS NS 52.0* 63.1 54.3* 65.1 46.6* 61.3
Coral Reef
71.1 60.5 61.8* 68.2 62.5* 65.2 49.2* 55.9
Wellington
40.9 38.6 48.3 49.7 49.0 51.0 44.9 48.8
Source: California Department of Education
SED = socioeconomically disadvantaged
NS= not numerically significant
*met proficiency by alternate method (safe harbor)
The student proficiency target rate for the 2012 school year in ELA was 78.4 percent, and
the Mathematics target rate was 79.0 percent. This represented an increase of 10.8 percent from
the previous year (2010) to 2011 in ELA. In mathematics, there was a year-to-year increase of
10.5 percent.
The table above shows the percentage of students who performed at a proficient rate on
the 2012 CST. Rosewood’s and Sunset’s African American population were not large enough to
make their scores numerically significant. The African American population at Coral Reef and
Wellington were not numerically significant enough to generate scores. Coral Reef’s proficiency
scores were 71.1 percent in ELA and 60.5 percent in Mathematics. Wellington’s scores were
40.9 percent in ELA and 38.6 percent in Mathematics. Proficiency scores for African American
students indicated that Coral Reef and Wellington did not meet proficiency in ELA and Math.
For the Hispanic student population, Rosewood’s proficiency scores were 54.7 percent in
ELA and 67.1 percent in Mathematics. Sunset’s proficiency scores were 52.0 percent for ELA
and 73.1 percent for Mathematics. Coral Reef’s scores were 61.8 percent in ELA and 68.2
percent in Mathematics. Wellington’s scores were 48.3 percent in ELA and 49.7 percent in
Mathematics. Proficiency rates indicated that the Hispanic population at Rosewood, Sunset, and
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 82
Coral Reef made proficiency in ELA under safe harbor. Wellington did not make proficiency in
ELA. None of the schools made the proficiency rate in Math for the Hispanic population.
The proficiency rates for the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged population for Rosewood
were 58.6 percent in ELA and 67.5 percent in Mathematics. Scores for Sunset were 54.3 percent
in ELA and 65.1 percent in Mathematics. Coral Reef’s scores were 62.5 percent in ELA and
65.2 in Mathematics. Proficiency scores for Wellington were 49.0 percent in ELA and 51.0
percent in Mathematics. Proficiency rates indicated that the SED population at Rosewood,
Sunset, and Coral Reef met proficiency in ELA under the provisions of safe harbor. Wellington
did not meet proficiency in ELA. None of the schools met proficiency in Math.
ELL proficiency scores at Rosewood were 52.5 percent in ELA and 66.9 percent in
Mathematics. Sunset’s scores in ELA were 46.6 percent and, in Mathematics, were 61.3 percent.
Coral Reef’s scores for ELA were 49.2 percent and 55.9 percent in Mathematics. Wellington’s
scores were 44.9 percent in ELA and 48.8 percent in Mathematics. Proficiency rates indicated
that the ELL population at Sunset and Coral Reef met proficiency in ELA under safe harbor.
Rosewood and Wellington did not meet proficiency criteria in ELA. None of the schools met
proficiency in Math.
The SED student proficiency rates in ELA and Mathematics for the identified schools in
this study for the 2013 school year are represented in Table 15.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 83
Table 15
Underserved Student Proficiency Rates for the 2013 School Year
African American Hispanic SED English Learners
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Rosewood
NS NS 48.4 65.4 51.6 67.8 43.0 62.8
Sunset
NS NS 49.0 64.5* 51.1 66.8* 38.1 64.4
Coral Reef
58.1 58.1 56.0 71.0* 60.3 71.2* 35.6 58.3
Wellington
36.6 36.6 44.9 51.4* 46.6 51.5 42.7 54.0*
Source: California Department of Education
SED = socioeconomically disadvantaged
NS= not numerically significant
*met proficiency by alternate method (safe harbor)

The student proficiency target rate for the 2013 school year ELA was 89.2 percent, and
the Mathematics target rate was 89.5 percent. This represented an increase of 10.8 percent from
the previous year (2010) to 2011 in ELA. In mathematics, there was a year-to-year increase of
10.5 percent.
The table above shows the percentage of students who performed at a proficient rate on
the 2013 CST. Rosewood’s and Sunset’s African American population were not numerically
significant enough to generate scores, but the African American populations at Coral Reef and
Wellington did generate scores. Coral Reef’s African American proficiency scores were 58.1
percent in ELA and Math. Wellington’s scores were 36.6 percent in ELA and Math. Proficiency
scores indicated that both Coral Reef and Wellington did not meet the proficiency rate for the
African American population.
Regarding the Hispanic population, proficiency scores showed that Rosewood scored
48.4 percent in ELA and 65.4 percent in Math. Sunset scored 49.0 percent in ELA and 64.5
percent in Math. Coral Reef scored 56.0 in ELA and 71.0 percent in Math. Wellington scored
44.9 percent in ELA and 51.4 percent in Math. Proficiency rates indicated that the Hispanic
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 84
population at Sunset, Coral Reef, and Wellington met proficiency in Math under safe harbor.
Rosewood did not meet proficiency in Math. None of the schools met proficiency in ELA.
The proficiency scores for the SED population for Rosewood were 51.6 percent in ELA
and 67.8 percent in Math. Sunset’s scores were 51.1 percent in ELA and 66.8 in Math. Coral
Reef’s scores were 60.3 percent in ELA and 71.2 in Math. Wellington’s scores were 46.6
percent in ELA and 51.5 percent in Math. Proficiency rates indicated that both Sunset and Coral
Reef met proficiency in Math under safe harbor. Rosewood and Wellington did not meet the
proficiency rate in Math. None of the schools met the proficiency rate in ELA.
ELLs’ proficiency scores for Rosewood were 43.0 percent in ELA and 62.8 percent in
Math. Sunset’s scores were 38.1 percent in ELA and 64.4 percent in Math. Coral Reef’s scores
were 35.6 percent in ELA and 58.3 percent in Math. Wellington’s scores, 42.7 percent in ELA
and 54.0 percent in Math. Proficiency rates indicated that Wellington was the only school who
met proficiency under safe harbor in the area of Math for ELL’s. None of the schools met
proficiency in ELA.
Principal’s proficiency rate results indicated that the selected principal’s had success with
various sub-groups, in different academic areas (ELA or Math), and in various years. However,
proficiency rate data indicated that the principals of Coral Reef and Sunset had a greater impact
on student achievement of underserved students than the other two principals.
Based upon an interview, leadership practices of Coral Reef’s principal were classified
into the following categories:
1. Vision
2. Connectedness and structure
3. Communication
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 85
4. Teachers /Staff involvement
5. Leadership
6. Student support
7. Instruction
8. District support
Based upon an interview, Leadership practices of Sunset’s principal were classified into
the following categories:
1. Vision
2. Planning
3. Parental involvement
4. Professional development
5. Instruction
6. Learning goals
7. School climate
The categories suggest that there are commonalities in the principal’s leadership
practices, such as vision and instruction. Some categories had different names, but had
similarities in terms of practice. For example, “professional development” incorporates
“teachers and staff involvement”. However, the categories also indicated that the categories of
connectedness and structure and parental involvement were different between Coral Reef’s
principal and Sunset’s principal. These differences between the two principal practices, when
combined, suggests that “connectedness and structure” and “parental involvement” both had an
impact on student achievement. In addition, these two leadership practices were not specifically
identified by the principals of Rosewood and Wellington.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 86
Findings to Research Question Three
What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the relative importance of
leadership practices on student achievement?
This research question was addressed by the four selected principals’ responding to a
brief individual survey at the conclusion of the interview. Principals ranked the importance of
six predetermined instructional leadership practices in facilitating overall student achievement.
The key here is that they had to be ranked, even though principals may have perceived them to
be equally important.
This forced ranking process was utilized to determine what selected principals deemed as
“most important”. The ranking was such that one meant “extremely important”, two meant
“very important”, three meant “fairly important”, four meant “important”, five meant “slightly
important”, and six meant “not important.”
Table 16 represents the selected four principals’ rankings based on their perceptions of
the relative importance of predetermined instructional leadership practices on student
achievement.
Table 16
Principal Rankings of Importance of Instructional Leadership Practices
Establishing
and
Communica-
ting School
Goals
Using Data
When
Making
Curricular
Decisions
Coordinating,
Supervising,
and
Evaluating
Curriculum
Promoting
the
Professional
Development
of Teachers
Communicat
ing High
Standards
for Student
Academic
Achievement
Protecting
Instructional
Time
Rosewood 1 4 6 5 2 3
Sunset 2 3 6 4 5 1
Coral Reef 2 5 4 3 1 6
Wellington 6 2 3 4 5 1
Total 11 14 19 16 13 11
Average 2.75 3.5 4.75 4.0 3.25 2.75

A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 87
Under the leadership category of establishing and communicating school goals,
Rosewood’s principal ranked it as number 1, Sunset’s principal ranked it 2, Coral Reef ranked it
2, and Wellington ranked it 6. There is a significant difference between the ranking of
Wellington and the other schools. Wellington’s principal indicated that this area was not
important, whereas Rosewood’s principal ranked it as extremely important. Coral Reef and
Sunset principals ranked it as very important.
The leadership practice of using data when making curricular decisions rankings were as
follows: Rosewood’s principal ranked it 4, Sunset’s principal ranked it 3, Coral Reef’s principal
ranked it 5, and Wellington’s principal ranked it 2. Wellington’s principal ranked this area “very
important” as compared to the other principals. Coral Reef’s principal ranked this area as
“slightly important” as compared to the other principals. Sunset’s principal ranked it as “fairly
important” and Rosewood’s, principal ranked it as “important.” As compared to the other
principals, Coral Reef’s principal indicated that this leadership practice was slightly important.
The area of coordinating, supervising, and evaluating curriculum was ranked as follows:
Rosewood’s principal ranked it 6, Sunset’s principal ranked it 6, Coral Reef’s principal ranked it
4, and Wellington’s principal ranked it 3. Rosewood’s and Sunset’s principals ranked this area
as “not important”, whereas Coral Reef’s and Wellington’s principals ranked it as “important”
and “fairly important”, respectively. Of the four principals, Wellington’s principal ranked it the
highest as compared to the other principals.
In the area of promoting the professional development of teachers, the principal of
Rosewood ranked it as a 5 or “slightly important”, Sunset’s principal ranked it 4 or “important”,
Coral Reef’s principal ranked it 3 or “fairly important”, and Wellington’s principal ranked it as
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 88
“important”. The principal of Rosewood ranked promoting professional development of teachers
the least important as compared to the other principals.
Communicating high standards for student academic achievement was ranked as follows:
Rosewood’s principal ranked it 2 or “very important”, Sunset’s principal ranked it 5 or “slightly
important”, Coral Reef’s principal ranked it 1 or “extremely important”, and Wellington’s
principal ranked it 5 or “slightly important”. Both Sunset’s and Wellington’s principals ranked
this area as slightly important as compared to Rosewood’s and Coral Reef’s principals whose
rankings were very important and extremely important respectively.
The leadership practice of protecting instructional time was ranked by the principals as
follows: Rosewood’s principal ranked it 3 or “fairly important”, Sunset’s principal ranked it 1or
“extremely important”, Coral Reef’s principal ranked it 6 or “not important”, and Wellington’s
principal ranked it 1or “extremely important”. Three of the school principals ranked protecting
instructional time as fairly important to extremely important, as compared to Coral Reef’s
principal who ranked it as not important.
The mean averages for each instructional leadership category varied. That of
“establishing and communicating school goals” was = 2.75. “Using data when making
curricular decisions” had a mean average of = 3.5, while that of “coordinating, supervising,
and evaluating curriculum” was = 4.74, and that of “promoting the professional development
of teachers” was = 4.0. The mean average of “communicating high standards for student
academic achievement” was = 3.25, and that of “protecting instructional time” was = 2.75.
The lower the average, the higher level of importance. The higher the average, the lower level of
importance.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 89
Principal rankings indicated the most important leadership functions in facilitating
student achievement were “establishing and communicating school goals” and “protecting
instructional time”. These two instructional practices had the same mean of 2.75, followed by
“communicating high standards for student academic achievement”, “using data when making
curricular decisions”, “promoting the professional development of teachers”, and “coordinating,
supervising, and evaluating curriculum”.
Table 17 shows a comparison of survey rankings and student achievement CST – API
four-year average scores for the four selected principals.
Table 17
Comparison of Survey Rankings and CST – API Four-Year Averages
Leadership Practices Rosewood Sunset Coral Reef Wellington
Establishing and Communicating School
Goals
1 2 2 6
Using Data When Making Curricular
Decisions
4 3 5 2
Coordinating, Supervising, and Evaluating
Curriculum
6 6 4 3
Promoting the Professional Development of
Teachers
5 4 3 4
Communicating High Standards for Student
Academic Achievement
2 5 1 5
Protecting Instructional Time 3 1 6 1
4-year API average 825 804 840 804

Looking at the 4-year API averages and focusing only the highest and lowest level of
importance of selected principal rankings the following was indicated:
Corals Reef’s principal’s four-year API average was 840, which is the highest average.
Coral Reef’s principal’s highest-ranked leadership practice was “communicating high standards
for student academic achievement”, which was ranked as extremely important and the lowest-
ranked was “protecting instructional time”, which was ranked as not important.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 90
Rosewood’s principal’s 4-year API average was 825. Her highest-ranked leadership
practice was “establishing and communicating school goals”, which was ranked as extremely
important and the lowest-ranked practice was and “coordinating, supervising, and evaluating
curriculum”, which was ranked as not important.
Both Sunset and Wellington’s principals’ 4-year API average was 804. Sunset’s
principal’s highest-ranked perception of leadership practice was “protecting instructional time”
as extremely important and the lowest-ranked was “coordinating, supervising, and evaluating
curriculum”, which was ranked as not important. Wellington’s principal’s highest-ranked
leadership practice was “protecting instructional time”, which was ranked as extremely
important, and the lowest-ranked was “establishing and communicating school goals”, which
was ranked as not important.
Coral Reef’s and Rosewood’s principal’s schools had the two highest 4-year API average
scores of 840 and 825, respectively. Their highest and lowest ranked leadership practices and
their relative importance were not same, however. There is similarity in the area of
“communicating high standards for student academic achievement”, which Coral Reef’s
principal ranked as extremely important and Rosewood’s principal’s ranked as very important.
Sunset’ and Wellington’s principals’ ranking in this area was slightly important.
Data indicated the principals’ with highest student achievement test scores perceived the
most important leadership practice was “Communicating high standards for student academic
achievement.”
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 91
Findings to Research Question Four
What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the frequency in which they
engage in instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement?
The selected principals’ perceptions of the frequency with which they engage in six
instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement was examined. Table 18
shows selected principals’ perceptions of the frequency with which they engaged in ten
predetermined instructional practices and each school’s four-year API averages. The following
Likert scale was used: 5 represented “almost always”, 4 represented “frequently”, 3 represented
“sometimes”, 2 represented “seldom”, 1 represented “almost never”.
Table 18
Principal s’ Perceptions of the Frequency of Instructional Leadership Practices
Rosewood Sunset Coral Reef Wellington
Conduct formal classroom observations 3 3 2 3
Conference with teachers and provide feedback 2 4 3 3
Maintain visibility 3 5 3 3
Discuss instructional strategies with teachers 4 4 4 2
Act as an instructional resource for teachers 3 2 2 3
Monitor student progress 3 3 4 3
Support and foster collaboration among teachers 4 4 4 4
Responds to staff, parent, and student concerns 5 5 5 4
Establishes activities that communicate the value and
meaning of learning to students
3 2 4 2
Engages in direct teaching in the classroom 1 2 2 1
4-year API average 825 804 840 804

The principals’ perceptions of the frequency of engagement in conducting formal
classroom observations were as follows. Rosewood’s principal selected 3 or “sometimes”,
Sunset’s principal selected 3 or “sometimes”, Coral Reef’s principal selected 2 or “seldom”, and
Wellington’s principal selected 3 or “sometimes”. Three of the four school principals’
perceptions of engagement in conducting formal classroom observations were “sometimes”, and
Coral Reef’s principal’s perception of said engagement was “seldom”.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 92
In the area of how often the principals’ perceived they were conferencing with teachers
and providing feedback, Rosewood’s principal selected 2 or seldom, Sunset’s principal selected
4 or “frequently”, Coral Reef’s principal selected 3 or “sometimes”, and Wellington’s principal
selected 3 or “sometimes”. Sunset’s principal’s perception is that he frequently conferences with
and provides feedback to teachers, as compared to Rosewood’s principal who seldom does.
The leadership practice of maintaining visibility was perceived by selected principals as
follows. Rosewood’s principal selected 3 or “sometimes”, Sunset’s principal selected 5 or
“almost always”, Coral Reef’s principal selected 3 or “sometimes”, Wellington’s principal
selected 3 or “sometimes”. Maintaining visibility was perceived as being a leadership practice
that the principal of Sunset engages in frequent, as indicated by the “almost always” ranking.
The principals’ perceptions for the practice of discussing instructional strategies with
teachers were as follows. Rosewood’s principal selected 4 or “frequently”, Sunset’s principal
selected 4 or “frequently”, Coral Reef’s principal selected 4 or “frequently”, and Wellington’s
principal selected 2 or “seldom”. Three out of the four school principals’ perceived that the
frequency with which they engage in discussing instructional strategies with teachers was
frequently, as compared to Wellington’s principal, who perceived her frequency of engaging in
the practice as seldom.
Principals’ perceptions of their frequency of engagement with respect to the practice of
acting as an instructional resource for teachers were as follows. Rosewood’s principal selected 3
or “sometimes”, Sunset’s principal selected 2 or “seldom”, Coral Reef’s principal selected 2 or
“seldom”, and Wellington’s principal selected 3 or “sometimes”. Both Rosewood’s and
Wellington’s principals ranked acting as an instructional resource for teachers as a practice they
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 93
sometimes engage in whereas Coral Reef’s and Sunset’s principals perceived their engagement in
this practice as seldom.
The leadership practice of monitoring student progress was ranked by selected principals
as follows. Rosewood’s principal selected 3 or “sometimes”, Sunset’s principal selected 3 or
“sometimes”, Coral Reef’s principal selected 4 or “frequently”, and Wellington’s principal
selected 3 or “sometimes”. Three out of the four principals ranked monitoring student progress
as a practice they sometimes engage in as compared to Coral Reef’s principals, who perceived
engaging in the practice frequently.
In the area of supporting and fostering collaboration among teachers, principals’
perceptions of frequency are as follows. Rosewood’s principal selected 4 or “frequently”,
Sunset’s principal selected 4 or “frequently”, Coral Reef’s principal selected 4 or “frequently”,
and Wellington’s principal selected – 4 or frequently. All four of the selected principals
perceived they frequently engaged in supporting and fostering collaboration among teachers as
frequently.
The frequency in which principals perceive their engagement in responding to staff,
parent, and student concerns is: Rosewood’s principal selected or “almost always”, Sunset’s
principal selected 5 or “almost always”, Coral Reef’s principal selected 5 or “almost always”,
and Wellington’s principal selected 4 or “frequently”. Three out of four principals perceived
they engaged in the practice of responding to staff, parent, and student concerns as almost
always. Wellington’s principal perceived she engaged in the practice frequently.
The principals’ perceptions of how frequently they engage in establishing activities that
communicate the value and meaning of learning to students were as follows. Rosewood’s
principal selected 3 or “sometimes”, Sunset’s principal selected 2 or “seldom”, Coral Reef’s
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 94
principal selected 4 or “frequently”, and Wellington’s principal selected 2 or “seldom”. Two out
the four principals perceived their engagement in the practice as seldom.
The principals’ perceptions of the frequency with which they engage in direct teaching in
the classroom were as follows. Rosewood’s principal selected 1 or “almost never”, Sunset’s
principal selected 2 or “seldom”, Coral Reef’s principal selected 2 or “seldom”, and
Wellington’s principal selected 1 or “almost never”. Sunset’s and Coral Reef’s principals
perceived their engagement in direct teaching in the classroom as seldom. Rosewood and
Wellington principal’s perceptions were almost never.
Looking at 4-year API averages and focusing only the almost always and frequently
categories of frequency of selected principals’ rankings indicate the following:
Coral Reef’s four year API average was 840. Coral Reef’s principal’s perceptions of the
frequency with which she engages in instructional leadership practices indicated that responding
to staff, parent, and student concerns was almost always, followed equally by discussing
instructional strategies with teachers, monitoring student progress, support and foster
collaboration among teachers, and establishing activities that communicate the value and
meaning of learning to students, all ranked as frequently.
The principal of Rosewood had a four year API average of 825. Rosewood’s perceptions
of the frequency with which she engages in instructional leadership practices indicated that
responding to staff, parent, and student concerns was something she did almost always, followed
equally by discussing instructional strategies with teachers, and supporting and fostering
collaboration among teachers.
Wellington’s principal’s four year API average was 804. Wellington’s perceptions of the
frequency with which she engages in instructional leadership practices indicated that both
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 95
supporting and fostering collaboration among teachers and responding to staff, parent, and
student concerns were equally ranked as frequently.
The principal of Sunset had a four year API average of 804. Sunset’s perceptions of the
frequency with which he engages in instructional leadership practices indicated that responding
to staff, parent, and student concerns and maintaining visibility were ranked almost always. The
following were equally ranked as frequently: conferencing with teachers and providing
feedback, discussing instructional strategies with teachers, and supporting and fostering
collaboration among teachers.
Two instructional leadership practices were ranked as frequently or almost always by all
four selected principal respondents: support and foster collaboration among teachers and
responds to staff, parent, and student concerns
All of the principals ranked support and foster collaboration among teachers as
frequently. Three out of the four principals ranked responds to staff, parent, and student
concerns as almost always, except for Wellington who ranked it as frequently.
Summary
This chapter presented a thorough examination of four interviews of elementary school
Title I principals conducted over 45 minutes to one hour and which took place at each principal’s
school site. The survey questionnaire was completed by each of the four elementary Title I
principals immediately after the interview. The survey/questionnaire consisted of closed-ended
questions based on a Likert scale. The qualitative and quantitative data collected was presented
in this chapter in narrative and table form and suggested several findings.
The qualitative interview data indicated that that the four selected Title I elementary
principals’ perceptions of leadership practices that increase student achievement was attributed
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 96
to the themes of vision, leadership, professional development, student support, and learning
goals. The perceptions of the principals in regards to what leadership practices they attribute to
student achievement were linked to the theoretical framework of Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) of
transformational leadership, which is based on the following practices:
 building school vision and goals
 providing intellectual stimulation
 offering individual support
 symbolizing professional practices and values
 demonstrating high expectations
 developing structures to foster participation in school decisions
The data suggested that selected Title I principals indicated that establishing and having a
vision was attributed to student achievement. Principal’s perceptions of the attributes that have
an impact on student achievement indicated that vision encompassed the practices of creating
opportunities for students to be connected to school in a structured learning environment,
believing that all children can learn, maximizing the potential in every child, school spirit,
building confidence in students, finding the positives in students, and students exhibiting
appropriate behavior. The notion of building school vision has been documented in literature;
however selected principals provided concrete examples of what they perceived was needed in
building a vision.
Leadership was identified by principals as contributing to student achievement. The
literature and research support the fact that leadership comes in many forms and has many styles
and attributes. However, selected principals indicated, based on their perceptions, which specific
leadership practices they attributed to student achievement: (a) flexibility, (b) delegation, (c)
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 97
ability to manage chaos, (d) support teachers in meeting student needs, (e) communication, and
(f) collaboration.
Principals attributed professional development to students’ achieving. It was found that
specific professional development took place in the form of informal meetings, grade level
meetings, and Banked Day Tuesdays. Professional development included the activities of
instructional/lesson planning, analyzing data, and learning language arts and math standards. It
was also found that principals did not always have a choice and were often limited in terms of
what topics or activities were presented during professional development time. Principals also
indicated that many of the professional development activities were dictated by the district.
Selected principals indicated that student support was important to student achievement
at their schools. Student support was indicated by the principals as providing academic
intervention and social assistance to students, allowing for student accommodations to achieve,
being fair and respectful, and providing incentives for school attendance and academic
achievement.
Establishing learning goals was attributed to student achievement by the selected
principals. Learning goals focused on the teacher-student relationship, the practice of less
teacher talk and more student talk, student groupings for learning, promoting positive attitudes
about learning, learning and mastering standards, using language arts to communicate
effectively, understanding mathematical concepts, and developing habits of self-control.
Principal’s AYP proficiency rate data indicated that all of the selected principals had
success with various sub-groups, in different academic areas (ELA or Math), and in various
years. However, AYP proficiency rate data clearly indicated that the principals of Coral Reef
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 98
and Sunset had a greater impact on student achievement of underserved students than the other
two principals.
The data suggested that there were similarities between principal’s leadership practices.
Some categories have different names, but have similarities in terms of practice. For example,
“professional development” incorporates “teachers and staff involvement”. Leithwood, Harris,
and Hopkins (2008) identified seven claims about leadership and claim number two stated that,
“the majority of successful leaders use the same repertoire of the basic leadership skills and
practices.” However, the data indicated that the practices of “connectedness and structure” and
“parental involvement” were different between Coral Reef’s principal and Sunset’s principal.
These differences between the two principal practices when combined suggests that
“connectedness and structure” and “parental involvement” both have an impact on student
achievement, although parent involvement was not perceived as a strong attribute by three out of
the four selected principals in the study.
The quantitative data indicated that principals ranked perceptions of the most important
leadership practices to student achievement were communicating high standards for student
academic achievement, establishing and communicating school goals, and protecting
instructional time.
These findings are linked to the framework of Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) in several
ways. The first practice of communicating high standards for student achievement is similar to
demonstrating high expectations. The second practice of establishing and communicating
schools goals is similar to building school vision and goals, and the third practice of protecting
instructional time can be classified under the category of symbolizing professional practices and
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 99
values. However, the practice of protecting instructional time was not specifically indicated as
an attribute by principal’s qualitative interview data.
In addition, data indicated that two instructional leadership practices were ranked as
frequently or almost always by all four selected principal respondents. The leadership practices
that selected Title I principals most frequently engaged in were supporting and fostering
collaboration among teachers and responding to staff, parent, and student concerns
Based upon the framework of Leithwood and Jantzi (2000), the practice of supporting
and fostering collaboration among teachers relates to developing structures to foster participation
in school decisions. The second practice of responds to staff, parent, and student outcomes
relates to symbolizing professional practices and values.
Further analysis of the data, a summary of the research, as well as recommendations for
future research are presented in Chapter Five.

A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 100
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Principals of Title I public schools are charged with the task of improving student
achievement. However, due to the fact that Title I schools are comprised of student populations
who are disadvantaged, underserved, and minority, it is important to explore leadership practices
that are conducive to improving student achievement to overcome the challenges of poverty.
Principal leadership practices come in all different forms. However, with increased
accountability, under NCLB, principals are ultimately responsible for student achievement at
their school sites.
This chapter provides summary of the study, which examined leadership practices of
Title I elementary principals and encompass the following: statement of the problem, purpose of
the study, research questions, methodology, and findings. In addition, limitations to the study
and recommendations for future research are discussed.
Statement of the Problem
Researchers tried to determine what leadership practices have had a positive impact on
student achievement. Elmore (2005) states that the demands placed on leaders inherently
changed the face of modern day school leadership. With increased accountability, under NCLB,
principals are held responsible for the achievement of all students. Effective leadership practices
have been identified that will increase the overall achievement of students, as the API measures.
However, the AYP specifically measures the achievement of subgroups on achievement tests.
Student achievement can be increased, but how do Title I principals, specifically at the
elementary level, increase student achievement of disadvantaged students? With this
responsibility, the need to close the achievement gap between economically disadvantaged
students and their counterparts is evident, and this needs to take place as early as possible in a
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 101
child’s education. Therefore, it is imperative to examine leadership behaviors and practices of
elementary principals at Title I schools, which serve disadvantaged students.
The implementations of policies, such as NCLB, attempted to make a difference in the
performance of all students at best. However, these policies do not adequately address the
educational challenges that disadvantaged students face (Ladd, 2012). Research studies have
indicated that disadvantaged children perform at a lower rate than do advantaged students (Ladd,
2012). However, we do not know enough about which specific leadership practices and
behaviors Title I elementary principals engage in to specifically improve disadvantaged student
outcomes.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify leadership practices that selected Tile I
principals attribute to student achievement and to discover which leadership practices have a
greater impact on student achievement as measured by CST/AYP scores. In addition, the
following were addressed: (1) principals’ perceptions of the frequency with which they engage in
instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement and (2) principals’ perceptions
of leadership practices and their relative importance in facilitating student achievement.
Quantitative data was collected through an in person brief survey given to the selected
Title I principals directly after the interview. The intent of the survey was to obtain data from
the four selected principals. Title I school principals ranked the frequency in which they engaged
in leadership practices and the importance of leadership practices on student achievement.
Qualitative data was collected from interviews. They were informed that their responses
would be kept confidential and anonymous. This agreement was maintained through the use of
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 102
pseudonyms instead of real names of principals and school sites. This chapter presents
conclusions from that address four research questions.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided study:
1. What leadership practices do selected Title I principals attribute to student
achievement as measured by CST scores?
2. What principal leadership practices have a greater impact on student achievement as
measured by AYP proficiency rates?
3. What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the relative importance of
leadership practices on student achievement?
4. What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals about the frequency in which
they engage in instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement?
Methodology
Qualitative data was collected from interviews. Respondents were informed that their
responses would be kept confidential and anonymous. This agreement was maintained through
the use of pseudonyms instead of real names of principals and school sites.
Quantitative data was collected through an in person brief survey given to the selected
Title I principals directly after the interview. Title I school principals ranked the frequency with
which they engaged in leadership practices and the importance of leadership practices on student
achievement.
Summary of Findings
Research question number one asked, “What leadership practices do selected Title I
principals attribute to student achievement as measured by CST scores?” The four Title I
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 103
elementary principals’ perceptions of leadership practices that increase student achievement were
attributed to vision, leadership, professional development, student support, and learning goals.
Vision
All of the principals believed that having a vision was important. Coral Reef’s principal
was adamant about students’ being excited about school and learning, creating a connected and
structured environment sort of like a “summer camp.” She stressed that school spirit is important
to build a sense of community. Rosewood’s principal believed that vision for the school should
be simple and should build confidence in children. Sunset’s principal expressed the importance
of high expectations and full access for all students. Wellington’s principal vision was that all
children can learn and that it is the school’s job to maximize the potential of each child on
campus.
Leadership
Coral Reef’s principal allowed teachers to take the lead and did not mind delegating tasks
to staff. Rosewood’s principal supported teachers in meeting the academic needs of students in a
collaborative learning environment. The principal of Sunset monitored and supervised
instruction and teaching practices of staff on a daily basis to ensure the continuity of instruction.
Wellington’s principal’s leadership was based on being a role model for teachers, being ethical,
and being knowledgeable about instruction. Principals indicated that a leaders had to be flexible
in making decisions and when dealing with staff.
The practice of delegating tasks to other staff members was also reported by principals.
One principal, Lisa at Coral Reef, stated that she did not know it all and did not mind sharing the
responsibility of running a school. In addition, the principal’s ability to manage chaos was
reported by the same principal who had the highest student achievement test scores, who
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 104
reported that running a school was the ability to manage chaos and that being able to manage and
make sense of chaos makes you a leader.
The practice of supporting teachers in meeting student needs was reported by principals
as being an integral attribute to increasing student achievement. The principal at Rosewood,
Marissa, ensured that teachers had the materials and knowledge they needed to meet student
needs. The leadership practices of communication and collaboration were reported as
components to increase student achievement. Communication involved talking to teachers about
the goals of the school and about what instructional strategies were needed to improve student
achievement. Principals reported that the process of communication took place in collaborative
grade level meetings, informal meetings, and leadership team meetings.
Professional Development
Coral Reef’s principal stated that many Tuesday professional development days are
devoted to district initiatives. Teachers often have informal meetings, especially at lunch where
they discuss lessons. Rosewood’s principal conducted grade level meetings to examine student
work and data to inform instruction. Sunset’s principal’s professional development took place
once a week and focused on learning standards and how to teach them. Wellington’s principal
focused on grade level meetings and collaboration with teachers.
Student Support
Coral Reef’s principal stresses providing academic and social support for students.
Rosewood’s principal expects all staff to treat students with respect and fairness. Sunset’s
principal requires solid instruction in the classroom on a regular basis and believes in limiting
“enrichment” activities. Wellington’s principal did not specifically address student support.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 105
Learning Goals
Coral Reef’s principal’s learning goals are related to the CST assessment results. The
school has two main learning goals: reading comprehension and writing. Rosewood’s
principal’s learning goals focus on the teacher-student relationship. Their learning goal is to
allow students the opportunity to construct their own knowledge by making sense of concepts
and relating them to what they do know. Sunset’s principal’s learning goals were to promote
positive attitudes and perceptions about learning, learn and know the standards, apply reading,
writing, and speaking skills to communicate effectively, understand and apply mathematical
ideas, and develop habits of self-control and respect others. Wellington’s principal stated that
she wanted students to be able to read and do math well.
Research question two asked, “What principal leadership practices have a greater impact
on student achievement as measured by AYP proficiency rates?” Principals’ proficiency rate
results indicate that all of the selected principals had success with various sub-groups, in
different academic areas (ELA or Math) and in various years. However, proficiency rate data
indicated that the principals of Coral Reef and Sunset had a greater impact on the achievement of
underserved students than did the other two principals.
The categories suggested that there were commonalities among the principals’ leadership
practices, such as vision and instruction. Some categories had different names but had
similarities in terms of practice. However, the categories also indicated that the categories of
connectedness and structure and parental involvement were different between Coral Reef’s
principal and Sunset’s principal. These differences between the two principals’ practices, when
combined, suggest that “connectedness and structure” and “parental involvement” both had an
impact on student achievement. In addition, these two leadership practices were not specifically
identified by the principals of Rosewood and Wellington.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 106
Research question three asked, “What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals
about the relative importance of leadership practices on student achievement?” The principals’
perceptions of the most important leadership practices, based upon their relative importance to
student achievement were establishing and communicating school goals and protecting
instructional time. These two instructional practices were equally important, followed by
communicating high standards for student academic achievement, using data when making
curricular decisions, promoting the professional development of teachers, and coordinating,
supervising, and evaluating curriculum. Data indicated that two of the four principals with the
highest four year API average perceived the leadership practice of communicating high standards
for student academic achievement as the most important leadership practice to increase student
achievement.
Research question four asked, “What are the perceptions of selected Title I principals
about the frequency in which they engage in instructional leadership practices to promote student
achievement?” Two instructional leadership practices were ranked as frequently or almost
always by all four selected principal respondents: support and foster collaboration among
teachers and responds to staff, parent, and student concerns
All of the principals ranked support and foster collaboration among teachers as
frequently. Three out of the four principals ranked responds to staff, parent, and student
concerns as almost always, except for the principal of Wellington who ranked it as frequently.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 107
Limitations
This study focused on perceptions of selected elementary Title I principals. Surveys were
distributed to the participants interviewed for this study, contributing to a small sample size. The
results of this study are reflective of the selected elementary Title I principals interviewed and
surveyed.
Recommendations for Future Research
There is a need to continue further research in the area of leadership practices and
student achievement. The following are suggestions for future research:
1. This study could be extended to include a larger participant pool of elementary Title I
principals in California or across the United States.
2. The study’s focus could be applied to middle school and high school Title I principals.
3. Future study is necessary on ways to identify leadership practices that increase student
achievement.
4. Another area to consider for future research might focus on how leadership practices
are implemented and monitored in Title I schools.
Conclusion
The research on the effects of leadership practices on student achievement is plentiful.
Due to the fact that it is well established, study in this area needs to continue, and it is necessary
until all students, regardless of background, achieve academically. This study is only a small
contribution to an area that is socially and economically significant to the educational
community and to our nation as a whole. Elementary principals may find the results of this study
useful in identifying and reflecting on their own leadership practice and how it affects student
achievement at their respective school sites.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 108
The specific leadership practices that principals in this study attribute to student
achievement are vision, leadership, professional development, student support, and learning
goals. Their responses suggest that “connectedness and structure” and “parental involvement”
both have an impact on student achievement. The most important leadership practices, as
indicated by principals, were establishing and communicating school goals and protecting
instructional time. The most frequent leadership practices that elementary principals engaged in
were supporting and fostering collaboration among teachers and responding to staff, parent, and
student concerns.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 109
References
Addonizio, M. F. (2009). X-efficiency and effective schools: A new look at old theories. Journal
of Education Finance, 35(1), 1-25.
Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence
synthesis. Ministry of Education, New Zealand: Education Counts.
Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement. Educational
Leadership, 44(6), 9-11.
Balfanz, R. (2000). Why do so many urban public school students demonstrate so little?
Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor
and minority adolescents, 37.
Blair, M. (2002). Effective school leadership: The multi-ethnic context. British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 23(2), 179-191.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories and
methods. New York, NY: Pearson.
Bruggencate, G., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Modeling the Influence of
School Leaders on Student Achievement How Can School Leaders Make a Difference?
Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 699-732.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row
Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.
California Department of Education (2013). Testing and accountability. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/

A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 110
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., & York, R.
(1966). The Coleman Report. Equality of Educational Opportunity. CITY, ST: Publisher.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crum, K. S., Sherman, W. H., & Myran, S. (2010). Best practices of successful elementary
school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 48-63.
Downer, D. F. (1991). Review of research on effective schools. McGill Journal of
Education/Revue des sciences de L'Éducation de McGill, 26(003).
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.
Elmore, R. F. (2005, June). Accountable leadership. In The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-142.
Fink, A. G. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Fullan, M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The Elementary School
Journal, 391-421.
Fullan, M. (2002). Principals as leaders in a culture of change. Educational Leadership, 59(8),
16-21.
Gandara, P., & Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to higher education: K-12 interventions for
underrepresented students. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: The National Commission on
Excellence in Education, US Department of Education.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 111
Gordon, N. (2004). Do Federal Funds Boost School Spending? Evidence from Title I. Journal of
Public Economics, 88(9-10):1771-1792.
Gray, J. (1981). Towards effective schools: Problems and progress in British research. British
Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 59-69.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The leadership quarterly, 13(4),
423-451.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of education, 33(3), 329-352.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980 ‐1995 ∗. School effectiveness and school improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2009). Distributed leadership in schools: Does system policy make
a difference? Netherlands: Springer
Hanushek, E. A. (1999). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee
STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 143-163.
Harris, A. (2001). Building the capacity for school improvement. School Leadership &
Management, 21(3), 261-270.
Hargreaves, D. H. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. British
Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 487-503.
Harris, A. (2011). Distributed leadership: implications for the role of the principal. Journal of
Management Development, 31(1), 7-17.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 112
Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school
achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2),
94-125.
Hochschild, J., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American Dream and the Public Schools. New
York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoerr, T. R. (2007). What is instructional leadership? Educational Leadership, 65(4), 84.
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of general
psychology, 9(2),169.
Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success.
The International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33-44. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541111100107
Jacobson, S. L., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., & Giles, C. (2005). Successful leadership in
challenging US schools: enabling principles, enabling schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 43(6), 607-618.
King, M. B., & Bouchard, K. (2011). The capacity to build organizational capacity in schools.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 653-669.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1991). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary
things done in organizations // review. Canadian Public Administration, 34(2), 376-377.
Ladd, H. F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 31(2), 203-227.
Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in
program improvement. Review of Educational research, 52(3), 309-339.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help
reform school cultures. School effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4), 249-280.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 113
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration,
38(2), 112-129.
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.
Levin, H., & Lockheed, M. E. (Eds.). (2012). Effective schools in developing countries (Vol. 8).
London and New York, Routledge.
Lezotte, L. W. (1993). Creating effective schools today and tomorrow. The Journal for Quality
and Participation, 16(1), 22.
Lynch, K., & Moran, M. (2006). Markets, schools and the convertibility of economic capital: the
complex dynamics of class choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(02),
221-235.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1703
North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 114
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach: An Interactive
Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: Revised and
expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell, C., & Castle, J. B. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school principals.
Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de L'education, 409-433.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
O'Donnell, R. J., & White, G. P. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals' instructional
leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP bulletin, 89(645), 56-71.
Pressley, M., Raphael, L., Gallagher, J. D., & DiBella, J. (2004). Providence-St. Mel School:
How a school that works for African American students works. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96(2), 216.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School
Journal, 427-452.
Quinn, D. M. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice and
student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 447-467.
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Rowan, B., Bossert, S. T., & Dwyer, D. C. (1983). Research on effective schools: A cautionary
note. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 24-31.
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 115
Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a
practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145-157.
Sanzo, K. L., Sherman, W. H., & Clayton, J. (2011). Leadership practices of successful middle
school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 31-45.
Spillane, J. P. (2005, June). Distributed leadership. In The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.
Stringfield, S., Millsap, M., & Herman, R. (1997). Special strategies for educating
disadvantaged children: Results and policy implications. Washington, DC: US
Department of Education.
Tajalli, H., & Opheim, C. (2005). Strategies for closing the gap: Predicting student performance
in economically disadvantaged schools. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(4), 44-54.
United States Census Bureau (2012). http://www.census.gov/
United States Department of Education (2013). Title I – Improving the academic achievement of
the disadvantaged. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg.1.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-
continent Research for Education and Learning.
Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools.
Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
Zepeda, S. J. (2004, June). Leadership to build learning communities. The Educational Forum,
68(2), 144-151.

A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 116
Appendix

Principal Leadership Survey

Years of Principal experience: 0-5 years ___ 5-15 years___ 15 or more___
Classroom/Teaching experience: 0-5 years___ 5-15 years___ 15 or more___
Were you the principal of this school during the 2012-2013 school year?
Yes___ No___
How long have you been the principal at this school?
___
Below is a list of instructional leadership behaviors deemed important in recent literature. Please
indicate your perception of the frequency with which you engage in each instructional leadership
behavior using the following scale:
5= Almost Always
4= Frequently
3= Sometimes
2= Seldom
1= Almost Never
1. Conduct formal classroom observations 5 4 3 2 1
2. Conference with teachers and provide feedback 5 4 3 2 1
3. Maintain visibility 5 4 3 2 1
4. Discuss instructional strategies with teachers 5 4 3 2 1
5. Act as an instructional resource for teachers 5 4 3 2 1
6. Monitor student progress 5 4 3 2 1
7. Support and Foster collaboration among teachers 5 4 3 2 1
8. Responds to staff, parent, and student concerns 5 4 3 2 1
9. Establishes activities that communicate the value
and meaning of learning to students 5 4 3 2 1
10. Engages in direct teaching in the classroom 5 4 3 2 1
A STUDY OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 117
Below is a list of six instructional leadership functions, all of which have been identified as being
important in recent literature. Please rank each in terms of your perception of the relative
importance in facilitating student achievement using the following scale:
1= most important
6= least important
Ranking 1-6
 _____Establishing and communicating school goals
 _____Using data when making curricular decisions
 _____Coordinating, supervising, and evaluating curriculum
 _____Promoting the professional development of teachers
 _____Communicating high standards for student academic achievement
 _____Protecting instructional time

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The main purpose of this mixed-methods study was to identify leadership practices that selected Title I principals attribute to student achievement and to discover which leadership practices have a greater impact on student achievement as measured by CST/AYP scores. In addition, the following were addressed: (1) principals’ perceptions of the frequency with which they engage in instructional leadership practices to promote student achievement and (2) principals’ perceptions of leadership practices and their relative importance in facilitating student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The path to math: leadership matters: effective practices of principals that improve student achievement in secondary mathematics

PDF

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

PDF

An examination of successful leadership behaviors exhibited by middle school principals in stimulating and sustaining African-American students' achievement on the California Standards Test in ma...

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success

PDF

The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Senior-level student affairs' administrators' self-reported leadership practices, behaviors, and strategies

PDF

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

PDF

Secondary school counselor-principal relationships: impact on counselor accountability

Asset Metadata

Creator Dixon, Danny C. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/18/2015

Defense Date 01/22/2015

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

Tag elementary school principals,OAI-PMH Harvest,school leadership,student achievement

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy Max (committee member), Hausner, Larry (committee member)

Creator Email dannydix@usc.edu,dydixon@verizon.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-533966

Unique identifier UC11297816

Identifier etd-DixonDanny-3194.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-533966 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DixonDanny-3194.pdf

Dmrecord 533966

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Dixon, Danny C.

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