University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS i

AN EXAMINATION OF AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP
IN LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PILOT SCHOOLS
by

Anthony Taranto

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

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My sincerest thanks and appreciation go to the many individuals without whom this
dissertation would not have been possible. I am extremely grateful for the support and
encouragement that I received over the last three years as I pursued my Doctor of Education
degree.

First, to my wife Shayla for her constant understanding of the long hours I spent at coffee
shops, library, and in class. Thank you for your love and encouragement and for giving me the
confidence to take on this endeavor. To our son Dominic, who will hopefully read this one day
and be as proud of his father as his father is of him. To my parents, Donald and Marianna
Palimino, thank for always believing in and motivating me to pursue an education.

To Dr. Damon Hines and Dr. Blake Silvers, my esteemed Ed.D. friends with whom I
have bonded with for life, I am appreciative of the journey we embarked upon together.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee members – Chairperson
Dr. Pedro Garcia, Dr. Rudy Castruita, and Dr. Maria Ott – for their time, wisdom, and assistance
along the way. It was an honor to have such an exemplary group of scholars providing me with
guidance during the dissertation phase of the Ed.D program.

Anthony Taranto
Los Angeles, California

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS iii
ABSTRACT
In 2009 the Los Angeles Unified School District passed the Public School Choice
Initiative, which aimed to give students in the lowest performing schools educational options.
LA Pilot Schools are one option students and their families have when choosing a school in
LAUSD. These schools boast small size, autonomy, greater accountability, collaboration and
equity as they look to fulfill the mission of the large urban district: to support the students in
becoming college and career ready. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness
of the autonomies granted to LA Pilot Schools and the leadership strategies used by school
leaders. Specifically, the study aimed to determine: (a) the nature of the autonomies at LA Pilot
Schools; (b) the leadership strategies employed by pilot school leaders to assist in the
implementation of the autonomies; and (c) the key factors contributing to successful pilot school
administration. The researchers used a qualitative approach utilizing semi-structured interviews
with 16 pilot school leaders across six pilot high school campuses. By and large the results
indicated that the autonomies are bounded by district, state and federal mandates, thus creating
what the researchers coined “pseudo-autonomies.” An investigation of leadership from the lens
of Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) found that decision making is collaborative and
distributive, which gave a sense of ownership to those certificated employees working at the
school sites. The research also suggests that a small school setting, with approximately 400−600
students, provides an important tool to promote effective teaching and learning. Lastly, the Elect
to Work Agreement (EWA) provides a platform for pilot schools to deviate from the UTLA
Collective Bargaining Agreement in terms of duties and hours. The EWA, which is designed by
a team of teachers and signed by all certificated staff members at each site, delineates the extra
duty assignments and hours required by teachers working at each pilot school site. Overall, the
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS iv
pilot school model is still in its infancy and little research has been done thus far. Perhaps, the
newness of the model in part contributes to the “boundedness” of the autonomies and further
development will take place. In addition, the research suggests that productive leadership
strategies and effective use of available tools might help promote success in teaching and
learning for LA Pilot High Schools.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS v
PREFACE
The dissertation An Examination of Autonomy and Leadership in Los Angeles Unified
School District Pilot Schools commenced at the request of former Superintendent Dr. John
Deasy. Dr. Deasy solicited doctoral candidates to study the effectiveness of the Los Angeles
Pilot School model and asked Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Rudy Castruita to select willing and able
students to conduct the study. Throughout the process of research, the Intensive Support and
Innovation Center (ISIC) helped mold the dissertation by guiding the research towards the area
they felt in need of inquiry—the granted autonomies over budget, staffing, curriculum and
assessment, calendar, and governance. Thus, this dissertation was born out of Los Angeles
Unified School District’s own desire to assess the pilot school initiative and to receive
information from the lens of an unbiased researcher in the doctoral program at the University of
Southern California. Therefore, the following manuscript is a complete dissertation, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degree.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS vi

Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iii

PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ix

Chapter 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Background of the Problem ......................................................................................................... 3

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 5

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................... 8

Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 9

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................. 9

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 10

Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 11

Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 11

Delimitations ......................................................................................................................... 12

Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................... 12

Organization of the Study ...................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................................................... 14

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 14

Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) ............................................................................... 15

LA Pilot School Element: Autonomy ........................................................................................ 18

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS vii
LA Pilot School Element: Accountability ................................................................................. 24

LA Pilot School Element: Small School Size ........................................................................... 29

Reform ................................................................................................................................... 29

Research ................................................................................................................................. 31

Small School Size and Student Outcomes ............................................................................. 31

Math Achievement and Dropout Rates ................................................................................. 34

LA Pilot School Element: Collaboration ................................................................................... 35

Collaboration vs. Specialization ............................................................................................ 36

Collective Responsibility ....................................................................................................... 37

LA Pilot School Element: Equity .............................................................................................. 40

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 44

Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions ..................................................... 44

Design Summary ....................................................................................................................... 45

Participants and Setting ............................................................................................................. 46

Instrumentation and Protocols ................................................................................................... 46

Data Collection Protocols .......................................................................................................... 48

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 48

Validity Concerns ...................................................................................................................... 50

Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................... 51

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 52

Chapter 4: THE FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 53

Purpose Restated ....................................................................................................................... 54

Qualitative Demographic Data .................................................................................................. 55

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS viii
Research Question 1 .................................................................................................................. 59

Research Question 2 .................................................................................................................. 65

Research Question 3 .................................................................................................................. 70

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 76

Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................................. 79

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 79

Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 80

Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 81

Review of Current Literature ..................................................................................................... 81

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 85

Results and Findings ................................................................................................................. 85

Implications ............................................................................................................................... 87

Recommendations for Future Study .......................................................................................... 88

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 89

References ..................................................................................................................................... 91

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 100

Appendix A: LA Pilot School Leader Interview Questions .................................................... 100

Appendix B: Information Sheet ............................................................................................... 102

Appendix C: LAUSD IRB Approval Letter ............................................................................ 105

Appendix D: Recruitment Letter ............................................................................................. 106

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Methods Choices for Each Research Question Page 49
Figure 2: Quantitative Survey: Length of Time in the Principalship Pages 55−56
Figure 3 Quantitative Survey: Length of Time Implementing CCSS Pages 57−58

Running head: AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 1

Chapter 1:
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Authors: Damon Hines, Blake Silvers, and Anthony Taranto
1

Introduction
The fundamental purpose of public education in the United States has been a hotly debated
topic over the past two decades. At the center of the conversation are the strategies and policies
established for improving the performance of teachers and leaders, so they achieve the standards
for which they are held accountable—most recently in the form of high stakes, end-of-year (EOY)
test scores (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). The term accountability has many meanings, but in
education it refers to the practice of holding public school systems responsible for “the quality of
their products – students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviors” (Stecher & Kirby, 2004, p. 1). If we
are to accept the definition of accountability put forth by Stecher and Kirby (2004), then providing
each student a high-quality education ought to be the goal of every public school system in the
United States (Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006; Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
The primary focus for decades in public K-12 education has been to improve student
performance in core academic subjects (Adams, 2010). Systems of accountability have been
established to set standards of performance, methods to measure value and adherence, and

1
Chapter 1 was developed as part of a collaborative research team. Each team member contributed to different
sections of the chapter under the direction of their dissertation advisor, Dr. Pedro Garcia. While all three coauthors
spearheaded specific sections of the chapter, ultimately all three authors contributed to all sections via Google docs
and face to face meetings to ensure consistency in language. Damon Hines constructed the significance of the study,
methodology and assumptions. Blake Silvers wrote the statement of the problem and purpose of the study. Anthony
Taranto wrote the introduction, background of the problem, limitations, delimitations and definition of terms.
Hines, Silvers and Taranto, with guidance from Dr. Pedro Garcia and administrators from LAUSD, constructed the
research questions. All team members read, reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of the chapter. Finally, all
three authors completed an additional proofreading before the chapter was passed on to an external editor.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 2
mechanisms for reporting and providing feedback on performance (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003).
Fuhrman (2004) illustrates there are technical, political and educational challenges posed by
accountability systems that evaluate school level performance and apply consequences for that
performance.
In the United States, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is predominantly the
educational system of accountability for public schools. Prior to 2014 in the state of California,
public school students in grades two through 11 take the California Standards Test (CST), and
Standards Testing and Reporting (STAR). The STAR program examines how well schools and
students are doing in the core subjects of English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, Science
and History.
The following study will examine Los Angeles (LA) Pilot Schools, an alternative
approach the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) embarked upon in 2007 to address
subpar student performance, school overcrowding and other variables disrupting the learning
environment (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). This study will review literature
pertaining to the core elements of LA Pilot Schools including: (a) small school size, (b) greater
accountability, (c) greater school site autonomy, (d) equity, and (e) collaboration (Los Angeles
Unified School District, 2013a). Furthermore, this study will be grounded in leadership theory,
specifically the framework provided by leader-member exchange theory, which will allow
researchers to identify the impact of leadership on the establishment and maintenance of the
selected LA Pilot Schools.
The review of literature, research methodology, data collection, and subsequent findings
might ascertain salient information as to the extent to which the autonomous pilot school model
improves teaching and learning. The literature review will focus on the five essential elements
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 3
associated with LA Pilot Schools, however, the data analysis will center on the autonomies
provided to LA Pilot Schools and how these autonomies affect teaching and learning. Ultimately,
school autonomy is the cornerstone of this dissertation and a cogent aspect of the potential
success of the autonomous pilot school model.
Background of the Problem
In 2013, the California Department of Education reported that close to 40% of 12th grade
Latino and African American students in the Los Angeles Unified School District did not
graduate from high school and more than 20% of Latino and African American students dropped
out of school. Evidence shows that only 35% of 11th grade Latino and African American
students perform at proficient or advanced levels on the CST English-Language Arts test
(California Department of Education, 2013). According to Adams (2010) greater academic
achievement in core subjects and performance accountability by student subgroups is viewed as
contributory to accomplishing the larger purpose of education: preparing students to be
responsible citizens ready to compete in a global economy.
LAUSD is the largest school district in the state of California and the second largest in
the nation with respect to student population (California Department of Education, 2013). Each
passing year, school campuses in LAUSD are stressed with increases in student population and
are becoming increasingly overcrowded. Since the late 19th century, urban educators in LAUSD
have struggled with overcrowded schools caused by a steady migration of Latino families to the
central city (Fuller et al. 2009). Kerchner, Menefee-Libey, Mulfinger, and Clayton (2008) found
that since the 1960s, the student population of LAUSD has increased by roughly 250,000 and
shifted dramatically from predominately white, middle class to Latino, African American, and
Asian families typically living in low-income neighborhoods. As a result of overcrowded schools
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 4
and classrooms, less attention is given to individual students in learning environments that are
largely populated with students that come from historically underrepresented backgrounds.
The landscape of LAUSD is in constant flux, as the population continues to change both
in number and in the demographics of the students (Fuller et al., 2009). The dynamic of this
ever-changing population poses a challenge to student achievement with increasing numbers of
English Language Learners (ELLs), higher concentrations of low-SES students, and an
increasing Special Education population. Traditional public schools continue to operate in the
way they have done for decades while trying to be responsive to the emergent needs of their
changing student body (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Ort, 2002).
In an effort to close the achievement gap that exists for Latino and African American
students in overcrowded schools, LAUSD began experimentation with a new model of educating
its students, currently known as Pilot Schools (LA Pilot School Manual, 2013). Pilot Schools
were envisioned as a fundamental shift away from traditional urban public education. Each
school is a full member of LAUSD, yet these schools have greater autonomy over budgeting,
calendaring, staffing, governance, curriculum, instruction and assessment. In exchange for
increased self-governance or autonomy, Pilot Schools have increased accountability to
demonstrate higher achievement on statewide assessments, graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates. Additionally, they must follow all state and federal guidelines (Los Angeles
Unified School District, 2013a).
LA Pilot Schools are part of the Public School Choice (PSC) initiative, an approach the
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) embarked upon in 2007 in Local District 4 to
address subpar student performance, school overcrowding, and variables including delinquent
student behavior disrupting the learning environment (Los Angeles Unified School District,
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 5
2013a). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between LAUSD and the United Teachers
Los Angeles (UTLA) was ratified to create and implement 10 smaller learning autonomous
campuses called Belmont Pilot Schools within LAUSD Local District 4. This was all part of the
collaborative work between Local District 4 and the Belmont Education Collaborative. In
September 2009, after some success with the first pilot school models, the Los Angeles Pilot
School Network was created which led to a rapid growth of Pilot Schools across eight Local
Districts, all of which have been assigned to an Education Service Center receiving extra support
from the LAUSD Superintendent’s Intensive Support and Innovation Center (ISIC). Since then,
several MOUs have been agreed upon for the creation of additional Pilot Schools within
LAUSD. Prior to the 2013 school year, LAUSD established 10 more Pilot High Schools. These
schools intended to further propagate an alternative and flexible approach to teaching and
learning (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a; Los Angeles Unified School District,
2013b). With the inception of the new pilot high schools, LA Pilot Schools reached a grand total
of 36 high schools (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013b).
Statement of the Problem
Public education in California, and the United States as a whole, has an established
mission to prepare all students to achieve the goals they set and to find their place in the
American Dream (Hochschild, Scovronick, & Scovronick, 2003). The 2007 establishment of LA
Pilot Schools supported this mission in an attempt to make a similar impact on the large urban
school district, LAUSD, in which they reside. Further, LAUSD’s Pilot School initiative aimed to
address the lowest performing schools, in the most urban areas, challenged by overcrowding,
poverty, and addressing a vastly large minority population (Los Angeles Unified School District,
2013a). Initial research and the mission of LA Pilot Schools suggest that their creation was an
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 6
attempt to provide a marginalized population of students with a more effective educational
experience: a chance to be college and career ready.
The mission of LA Pilot Schools is to provide a unique educational experience for its
students by creating smaller learning communities, increased accountability, collaboration,
equity and, most relevant for the following study, autonomy (Los Angeles Unified School
District, 2013a). The literature review will help provide a frame for the elements associated with
LA Pilot Schools by determining in the greater educational body of literature the value of the
five tenets that sit at the pinnacle of this alternative educational model. Specifically, how might
the implementation of this type of learning environment result in improved student achievement?
On a micro-level, a relationship can then be drawn to LA Pilot Schools and their commitment to
the prescribed tenets that are outlined in their mission with an emphasis placed on the importance
of the granted autonomies to this end.
A recent release by the California Department of Education (2013) depicted a climbing
state cohort graduation rate that reached just over 78% at the end of the 2013 school year.
However, the LAUSD cohort graduation rate hovers just below 70% with less than 40% of the
student body prepared for college based on completion of the necessary courses to meet the A-G
requirements. Whereas, the state average is only slightly above the LAUSD average in college
preparedness, the purpose of LA Pilot Schools continues to hinge on meeting and surpassing
district and state averages in both cohort graduation rates and A-G completion rates (Los
Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). The data suggests that the verdict is still out on the
effectiveness of LA Pilot Schools in reaching their goals. Although some of the designated LA
Pilot Schools have shown growth since their designation as such, some still lag significantly
behind both state and district averages, creating a mixed set of results.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 7
LAUSD designed their LA Pilot School model after one undertaken by Boston Public
Schools in 1995. The autonomies are congruent with Boston Pilot Schools, but the data from
LAUSD suggests that more attention ought to be given to their implementation to ensure they
achieve the mission envisioned by their establishment. Many of the LA Pilot Schools still
progress at a level behind the state graduation rate and A-G requirement achievement rate and a
majority have not surpassed the LAUSD average as well (California Department of Education,
2013). Fundamentally, this reality is not in alignment with the purpose of the schools, which is to
create learning environments that provide for more successful students and more successful
schools. Hence, the problem lies in the data; the schools have adopted specific autonomies that
are not inherent in traditional LAUSD high schools with the specific target of raising student
achievement by a multi-measure metric. Despite the assumed autonomies, some of the LA Pilot
Schools are not improving student performance and are not making gains in the achievement gap
(California Department of Education, 2013). At the same time, however, some are making
progress and boast of higher graduation rates and A-G requirement rates than prior to their LA
Pilot School status. These schools ought to serve as models since they achieved increased
performance and might provide insight into identifying the use of autonomies and how their use
relates to improved school performance and student achievement, thus providing a clearer
picture of how and what autonomies are most utilized and successful.
In conclusion, gauging the success of LA Pilot Schools is complicated. The lack of
research on the schools, partly due to their relative newness, means there is insufficient data to
determine their overall effectiveness. The five essential elements that outline the LA Pilot School
initiative include autonomy, accountability, small school size, collaboration, and equity—with
the underlying hope that the leaders of LA Pilot Schools have the ability to promote positive
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 8
change within the schools (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). This idea closely
mirrors Eisenhardt’s (1989) description of the principal-agent model—agency theory—the
“ubiquitous agency relationship, in which one party (the principal) delegates work to another (the
agent) who performs that work” (p. 58). The theory asserts that the closer the principal is to the
agent, the more likely the tasks will be followed through upon correctly and effectively. Thus,
greater autonomy in LA Pilot Schools should bring the challenge of decision-making and
accountability to a more local level to these schools suggesting success is more likely if applied
in relationship with the agency theory. The mixed bag of results contributes to the complexity of
studying LA Pilot Schools and proving that their design can be successful. Foundationally,
however, the schools are not largely surpassing district and state averages.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the following study is to evaluate leadership in relation to the autonomies
granted to the pilot schools: (a) staffing, (b) budget, (c) curriculum and assessment, (d)
professional development, (e) governance, and (f) scheduling for staff and students. There is
little research that directly studies or provides in-depth insight into the LA Pilot School model.
Furthermore, no research has been conducted with the aim of understanding how LA Pilot
School leaders have implemented the autonomies to improve school performance.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of LA Pilot School
leadership in utilizing the autonomies they are afforded in a manner that promotes student
achievement. Essentially, this study will delve into the realm of LA Pilot School autonomies to
garner information as to which autonomies are utilized, underutilized, and/or might pose other
challenges to the success of this alternative schooling model. Fundamentally, the study seeks to
determine the effectiveness of the implementation of autonomies at LA Pilot Schools in
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 9
achieving what they were intended to achieve, including above-district achievement rates,
college readiness, and improved school culture (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a).
The variance in achievement data suggests that for LA Pilot Schools the answer is not as
simple as yes or no when analyzing their effectiveness. Rather, the answer requires a complex
investigation as to the integrity of the program; are they truly implementing the autonomies
available? The fact that some LA Pilot Schools succeed while others don’t suggests some
schools might be employing design plans that are more effective than their peer schools. This
frames the purpose of the study by providing an impetus to study the mechanisms of LA Pilot
School autonomies and the fidelity with which they are implemented. The research that is
lacking in this area encourages a study that can ascertain why and how LA Pilot Schools have
varied results in terms of student and school performance and how LA Pilot Schools might better
utilize the cogent autonomies granted to them.
Research Questions
Referencing the above stated purpose, the following research questions guided inquiry for
this study:
RQ 1 – What is the nature of autonomy in the LAUSD pilot schools?
RQ 2 – What leadership strategies are employed by campus leaders to assist implementation
of the autonomies?
RQ 3 – According to pilot school leaders, what are the key factors contributing to successful
Pilot School administration?
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is grounded in the contributions that will be made to the
growing body of literature on pilot school programs. In addition, the thorough investigation of
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 10
leadership’s impact on the implementation of the autonomies granted to pilot schools might
provide specific guidance for incorporating innovations into traditional LAUSD schools.
Furthermore, the qualitative data collected for this study might inform LAUSD of emergent
leadership strategies necessary for the development of school leaders. Finally, this study seeks to
determine the extent to which the pilot school autonomies improve the educational learning
environment, and thus student achievement, through the lens of the pilot school leader.
A detailed executive summary and copy of this dissertation in its entirety will be
disseminated to the LAUSD Superintendent and ISIC personnel, as requested. This research
team will work collaboratively with LAUSD administrators to determine how to proceed with
the final report, including what further actions should be taken to publicize our findings.
Methodology
A qualitative approach will be used for this study. An interview protocol will be designed
with the understanding that research questions will be best answered by collecting first-hand
information from administrators, lead teachers, and department chairs currently leading a Pilot
School within LAUSD. Qualitative data provides information that allows the researcher to
understand the elements and strategies that lead to successful site leaders (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009). Thus, qualitative data will provide a platform to determine the extent to which
the autonomous pilot school model improves the educational learning environment, and thus
student achievement.
A complete explanation of methodology, the selection process, procedures and protocols
will be reviewed in Chapter 3.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 11
Assumptions
The following assumptions are tacitly embedded in this study:
1. All participants were open and forthright in their responses to the survey and interview
questions.
2. The autonomous model is a shared characteristic across all LAUSD Pilot School
campuses.
3. Leadership style will vary between Pilot Schools, principals, lead teachers and
department chairs.
4. Teachers will have varying degrees of flexibility in Pilot School classrooms.
5. Effective leadership practices have a positive influence on student achievement and the
learning environment.
6. The vision and mission of each Pilot School will vary based on their design.
7. Pilot Schools have student populations smaller than traditional LAUSD schools.
8. All Pilot Schools privilege Professional Learning Communities, and shared decision-
making.
9. Pilot Schools have increased self-governance in the parameters of school vision, budget
approval, principal selection and evaluation, policies, staffing, curriculum and
assessment.
Limitations
The limitations of this study are the following:
1. The validity of data being reliant on the measurement instrument;
2. The ability and availability of school site leaders to provide accurate responses;
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 12
3. The ability to have access to a multitude of school site lead teachers and department
chairs; and
4. The mobility rate of principals, site lead teachers and department chairs at Pilot School
sites.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study are the following:
1. Interviews limited to Pilot High School principals and other members of the Pilot School
design team including lead teacher and department chair;
2. The availability and selection of interviewees from each Pilot High School; and
3. The geographic location and sampling.
Definition of Terms
The following list contains definitions of terms that will be used throughout this study:
1. A – G Requirements: A minimum set of requirements for graduation from California
high schools.
2. Academic Performance Index (API): Measures the academic performance and growth
of schools and districts.
3. Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): A statewide accountability system set forth by the No
Child Left Behind Act, which requires schools and districts to show annual
improvement towards the federal goal of making all students proficient in 2014.
4. California Standards Test (CST): Measures students’ academic progress towards
achieving California’s state adopted academic content standards. A multiple choice
assessment test that is administered to students in grades two through 11 covering
various subjects.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 13
5. Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): The contractual agreement between an
employer and the Labor Union that represents the employee.
6. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The accountability system by which states, districts,
and schools are measured to meet quantifiable goals for student achievement for all
subgroups.
7. Pilot Schools: LAUSD Pilot Schools are a network of schools that operate with
autonomy over budget, staffing, governance, curriculum and assessment, and school
calendar.
8. School District: A local educational agency that provided students in a designated
area with school services.
9. Standards Testing and Reporting (STAR): The STAR program measures student
performance on the California Standards Test.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of how
accountability has impacted local school districts. It also includes the statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the study, limitations of the study,
delimitations of the study, definitions of terms, and overview of the entire of entire dissertations.
Chapter 2 presents a literature review of current research on the essential features of Pilot
Schools. Chapter 3 contains the methodology, instruments used, sample, and data reporting.
Chapter 4 reports the findings of the data as they relate to the research questions guiding this
study. Chapter 5 contains the final summary including conclusions, future implications and
recommendations as they relate to current practice and future research.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 14
Chapter 2:
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Authors: Damon Hines, Blake Silvers, and Anthony Taranto
2

Introduction
The premise of LA Pilot Schools is to provide greater autonomy to school sites in
LAUSD by providing school leadership with the flexibility to control staffing, budget,
curriculum and other issues that deal with school operations (Los Angeles Unified School
District, 2013a). Essentially, the initiative is driven by the supposition that those closest to the
students, those individuals who directly impact the day-to-day operations of a school, have a
clearer understanding of what is needed for the site(s) to be successful. Jensen, Weidmann, and
Farmer (2013) support this belief with a quote from the 1973 Karmel Report: “Responsibility
will be most effectively discharged where the people entrusted with making decisions are also
the people responsible for carrying them out, with an obligation to justify them, and in a position
to profit from their experience” (p. 23). Five main elements outline the LA Pilot School initiative
including autonomy, accountability, small school size, collaboration and equity—with the
underlying principle that the leaders of LA Pilot Schools have the ability to promote positive
change within the schools (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). Along with reviewing
the impact of the five elements listed above in the greater educational scholarship, the

2
Chapter 2 was developed as part of a collaborative research team. Each team member contributed to different
sections of the chapter under the direction of the dissertation advisor, Dr. Pedro Garcia. While all three coauthors
spearheaded specific sections of the chapter, ultimately all three authors contributed to all sections via Google docs
and face to face meetings to ensure consistency in language. Damon Hines constructed the section on leader-
member exchange theory and equity. Blake Silvers wrote the introduction and the sections on autonomy and
accountability. Anthony Taranto presented the sections on small school size collaboration. All team members read,
reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of the chapter. Finally, all three authors completed an additional
proofreading before the chapter was passed on to an external editor.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 15
researchers in this study will explore leadership as a foundation for effectively employing the
five guiding elements.
Leadership in the realm of successful pilot school implementation should take into
account outcomes such as: (a) member satisfaction; (b) loyalty; (c) self-effort; (d) motivation;
and (e) higher performance, all of which are key components of the Leader-Member Exchange
Theory (LMX) (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Myers, 2006; Schriesheim et al., 1999). Therefore, the
following literature review will analyze the LMX framework as the guiding theory for successful
leadership in the LA Pilot School setting. Further, the review will analyze the literature as it
relates to the five components of LA Pilot Schools—autonomy, accountability, small school size,
collaboration and equity. Effective leadership strategies, specifically LMX, will ground the study
of LA Pilot Schools as this study examines their effectiveness.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)
The genesis of Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) is rooted in Exchange Theory,
referred to as Vertical Dyad Linkage theory
3
(VDL) in early research publications. One of the
distinguishing assumptions of VDL is leaders do not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to
leadership. Indeed, VDL asserts leaders form vertical linkages with individual members of their
group. In essence, leaders vary their behaviors and assign different relational values towards
specific members of their work group or team (Dienesch & Linden, 1986; Gerstner & Day, 1997;
Northhouse, 2006; Van Breukelen, Schyns, & Le Blanc, 2006). Moreover, VDL claims that
scarce resources, such as time and effort, prompt leaders to form linkages with individual
members to accomplish a host of work-related tasks (Dienesch & Linden, 1986). The final VDL
assumption resides in the relational aspect of vertical linkages. VDL posits that members

3

Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory (Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen, 1973).
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 16
exchange valuable resources, such as self-effort and loyalty, in exchange for greater support
from a given leader (Dienesch & Linden, 1986; Maslyn & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Myers, 2006). The
notion of variable linkages and the impetus to form symbiotic relationships between leaders and
members served as the foundation of what was to later be termed Leader-Member Exchange
Theory.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory emerged from VDL in the early 1980’s, focusing
attention on leader-member dyadic relationships. Early researchers in LMX theory classified
leader-member exchanges into three categories: (a) in-group relationships; (b) middle-group
relationships; and (c) out-group relationships (Dienesch, & Linden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien
1995; Myers, 2006). According to Myers (2006) in-group relationships are marked by high-
quality exchanges between leaders and members, and result in the greatest degree of trust,
loyalty and support. In contrast, Myers (2006) states out-group exchanges are characterized by
low-quality exchanges between leaders and members, and result in low self-effort, lack of
loyalty and member dissatisfaction. Middle-group relationships are distinguished by moderate-
quality exchange between leaders and members, resulting in moderate self-effort and limited
loyalty (Myers, 2006; Van Breukelen et al., 2006).
According to Schriesheim et al. (1999), LMX evolved through four stages during
theoretical development. Stage one research identified variable relationships between leaders and
members, which situated LMX theory at odds with the predominant notion that leaders
demonstrate a consistent level of relationship with all members in a group. Stage two research
heightened focus on the dyadic relationships leaders and members form and articulation of LMX
theory constructs. Stage three research shifted focus away from solely examining the
differentiated dyadic relationships leaders and members form, which had been conceptualized as
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 17
a linear activity from leader to subordinate, to understanding how LMX theory could be seen as a
transactional partnership between leaders and members. The final stage of theoretical
development situated LMX research outside of the narrow dyadic relationship focus, to include
larger groups and organizational contexts (Schriesheim et al., 1999). The theory suggests the
evolution of the four stages could provide an effective working climate between leaders and their
subordinates.
With well over 30 years of evaluation and research, Leader-Member Exchange theory has
developed into one of the most widely utilized approaches for the study of leadership
(Northhouse, 2006). Researchers have consistently found that LMX theory is positively
correlated with performance-related and attitudinal variables. For instance, Gerstner and Day
(1997) found that LMX theory was positively correlated with in-group member variables such
as: (a) performance ratings scoring higher; (b) better objective performance; (c) elevated job
satisfaction; (d) increased satisfaction with superiors; (e) greater degree of loyalty to
organization; (f) turnover interventions; and (g) more optimistic view of role within the
organization or group. Likewise, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) and Schriesheim et al. (1999) found
LMX to be positively correlated with work-related outcomes such as: (a) subordinate
satisfaction; (b) higher employee performance; (c) more optimistic career outlook; (d) decreased
likelihood of quitting; (e) improved job climate; (f) adherence to organizational norms; and (g)
in-group member empowerment. These findings justify claims made by early LMX theory
researchers, which noted that relational linkages and high-quality exchanges foster positive
outcomes for both the leader and member.
Leader-Member Exchange theory can be classified as both descriptive and prescriptive
(Northhouse, 2006). Strong descriptive theories are powerful explanatory tools for how specific
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 18
phenomena work, how phenomena are constructed, and how theory components interrelate.
LMX theory is successful as a descriptive theory in the explanation of how leader and members
construct, negotiate and maintain dyadic linkages (Northhouse, 2006). Furthermore, research
grounded in LMX theory has produced a significant base of empirical literature that describes the
process of how leaders and members exchange resources such as self-effort, loyalty, access and
time (Dienesch & Linden, 1986; Myers, 2006; Schriesheim et al., 1999; Van Breukelen et al.,
2006).
In addition to the descriptive nature, LMX theory has produced prescriptive strategies for
promoting high-quality exchanges, in-group networks, and communication competence for
leaders and members. Van Breukelen et al. (2006) found that specialized trainings for
management grounded in LMX theory has been proven to be effective in assisting leaders in the
formation of high-quality relationships. Likewise, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) identified that
training grounded in LMX theory assists leaders in acquiring the skills necessary to
accommodate the differing needs of members and maximize work output from group members.
Overall, the utility of Leader-Member Exchange theory has been justified by an extensive
examination over time. It will serve as the leadership framework that drives the current research
and will provide the context from which to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of
LA Pilot Schools and the leadership practices therein.
LA Pilot School Element: Autonomy
LA Pilot schools were established in 2009 to provide a new and innovative approach to
public school education in LAUSD. A central aspect of the Pilot School movement is the
provision of certain autonomies that provide more control over the daily functioning by school
staff (LAUSD, 2013a). The autonomies in the areas of budget, staffing, curriculum, governance
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 19
and scheduling exempt the LA Pilot Schools from some of the district constraints, thus
producing a system of schools that are decentralized from the mega district from which they
originate. The following section will review pertinent research on school autonomy in general
and what the studies show in regard to school and student performance when they are a part of a
less centralized system. For the purpose of this literature review, autonomies and decentralization
will be used synonymously as defined by “a school’s ability to hire staff, direct teacher/staff
compensation, make curricular decisions, determine the logistics of a school day/year, and
student policies (Clark, 2009; Gunnarsson, Orazem, Sanchez, & Verdisco, 2009; Jensen et al.,
2013; Schütz, West, & Wöbmann, 2007).
Autonomy worldwide. Research indicates that the decentralization of education has
been a prominent topic in educational settings. The study of greater autonomy is not relegated to
United States public schools, but rather has become a salient topic worldwide (Clark, 2009;
Hanushek, Link, & Woessmann, 2013; Jensen et al., 2013; Schütz et al., 2007). In 2000, the first
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) was conducted to measure the
cognitive achievement of 15 year olds and since the initial implementation, the PISA has been
administered three more times (Hanushek et al., 2013; Micklewright, Schnepf, & Silva, 2012).
Generally speaking, autonomy alone has not demonstrated increased performance in teaching
and learning in the United States or in other countries (Clark, 2009; Hanushek et al., 2013;
Jensen et al., 2013; Schütz et al., 2007). Gunnarsson et al., 2009 studied countries in Latin
America and results confirmed little to no significant increase in student achievement for
students in decentralized schools. The findings are consistent with others, suggesting that levers
must be in place with autonomy for a positive relationship to exist between autonomy and
student achievement. These levers include parental and community involvements at the local
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 20
level to ensure the schools are equipped with the resources needed to provide an effective
learning environment (Gunnarsson et al., 2009; Hanushek et al., 2013). Autonomy alone, as a
means to improve education, is not a universal answer to improved teaching and learning.
Analysis of PISA data has demonstrated the complexity of studying student achievement
as it relates to autonomy due to inconsistent results— some schools achieve at a higher rate and
some do not. For example, data gathered by Hanushek et al. (2013) for their study on school
autonomy included 1,042,995 students across 42 countries with varying economic status. The
dataset only included countries that participated in at least three of the four PISA intervals. On a
global scale, the findings were inconsistent when studying school autonomy, a metric they
assessed using student demographics, SES and student achievement data from the PISA. The
results suggest that autonomous schools in developed countries perform better and show
consistent achievement increases as measured by the PISA. However, the opposite effect is seen
in developing countries where the more centralized systems of education produced better results
on the PISA (Hanushek, et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2013). This supports the findings of
Gunnarsson et al. (2009) that other elements must be in place for the decentralization of school
systems to work. Countries that are geographically isolated, and have minimal parental and
community involvement might have more success when a centralized system is in place to
ensure all institutions of learning are provided the resources necessary for teaching and learning
(Gunnarsson et al., 2009; Hanushek, et al., 2013). However, despite inconsistent results in
autonomy and student achievement, the fact that some autonomous systems work and some do
not prompt further investigation.
The definition of autonomy is multifaceted, involving flexibilities in staffing, budget,
student policies and curricular decision-making (for example Jensen et al., 2013). The depth and
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 21
breadth of the term might be the cause for some of the varied results. For example, Schütz et al.
(2007) used PISA results and found that only one category of autonomy directly related to
improved teaching and learning—staffing decisions, although the improvement was not
statistically significant. In fact, all other components of autonomy, including budgetary
flexibility and curriculum, had a negative and static effect on student achievement respectively.
This furthers the prospect that autonomy alone will not lead to improved teaching and learning
without a mindfulness of other variables. The economic status at the county and district level,
and how staffing, budget and other elements of autonomy are implemented play a significant role
in the effectiveness of autonomous schools (Hanushek, et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2013; Schütz et
al., 2007). Thus, the research does not yield generalizable results drawing a positive relationship
between autonomy and increased performance in the areas of teaching and learning.
Autonomy in the United States: Charter and pilot schools. Despite the inability to
generalize results of autonomy across countries, the United States falls into the category of a
developed nation. Thus, based on the research by Hanushek et al. (2013), the United States
should boast higher student achievement when schools are granted greater autonomy.
Abdulkadiroğlu, Angrist, Dynarski, Kane, and Pathak (2011) study two models of school
autonomy that have emerged in the United States over the past couple of decades—charter
schools and pilot schools in Boston Public Schools (BPS), a leader in school autonomy
implementation. On the spectrum of autonomy, charter schools are to the extreme side of
autonomy and are granted a large percent of control over their operations. Pilot schools are
granted some autonomy, but still remain constrained by collective bargaining agreements (CBA)
and other district mandates. These pilot schools, therefore, fall more towards the middle of the
autonomy spectrum, as they are not bound by all of the restrictions placed upon traditional public
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 22
schools (Abdulkadiroğlu et al., 2011). The study highlights the charter and pilot school
movement in Boston Public Schools (BPS) that began in 1993 and studied the effects of the
autonomies granted to each of these alternative public school models. Abdulkadiroğlu et al.
(2011) found that Boston charter schools boasted higher student achievement than the pilot
schools. However, there were significant obstacles and differences between the achievements of
the two models.
Charter schools enrolled students who were already performing above average
academically, a factor not evident in the pilot schools. Further, although the pilot schools also
exhibit greater levels of autonomy, their adherence to the CBA and other state mandates constrict
their program implementation. Whereas charters have lower teacher-to-student ratios and a
longer school day and year, the prospect of including these levers in pilot schools imposes a
heavy financial burden. This is due primarily to the CBA, thus the implementation of longer
work hours and more workdays would be too expensive for the pilot schools. Conversely, the
charter schools operate without a CBA and are not bound by the salary and wage requirements
therein. Additionally, the charter schools had more autonomy over staffing and gains in student
achievement; in particular, the closing of the achievement gap is purportedly due to the fact that
teacher hiring and retention is largely based on their instructional effectiveness rather than
simply their seniority designation (Abdulkadiroğlu et al., 2011; Zimmer & Buddin, 2009).
Zimmer and Budding (2009) studied charter schools in California and found that they boasted
higher student achievement, but the system only affected 2% of the population of students and
did not translate to an improvement in traditional public schools (TPS) due to charter
competition. In summation, it should be considered that autonomy has been successful in the
United States when the flexibilities granted involve the right circumstances and implementation.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 23
Autonomy in the United Kingdom (UK): Grant-Managed Schools (GM). Although
research has depicted a mixed bag of results in relationship to autonomy and student
achievement, Clark (2009) discovered positive outcomes in an alternative educational initiative
in the United Kingdom (UK) known as Grant Management (GM) schools. These schools are
funded by grants from the government and heads of school are afforded the leeway to allocate
resources, manage staff decisions, and other curricular autonomies (i.e. instructional resources).
The findings from the GM initiative are similar to the Boston charter school movement
pinpointing more effective teaching and learning in a more autonomous educational system
(Abdulkadiroğlu, 2011). Researchers describe a market-based educational system that promotes
competition between schools so that those that are successful flourish and those that do not fail
and suffer from consequent sanctions like declining enrollment (Clark, 2009; Jensen et al, 2013;
Zimmer & Buddin, 2009). Overall, research suggests that the autonomies granted to both Boston
charter schools and to the United Kingdom’s GM Schools have successfully resulted in
significant increases in student achievement and more effectual closing of the pervasive
achievement gap between students of different demographics (Abdulkadiroğlu, 2011; Clark,
2009).
School autonomy is a salient topic in educational corners worldwide. However, the
research suggests that the results of decentralization of public schools have produced varied
results (Clark, 2009; Hanushek et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2013; Schütz et al, 2007). Consistent
across many studies is the pinnacle of successful public school autonomy, which hinges heavily
on the integrity in which the autonomies are carried out (Clark, 2009; Hanushek et al., 2013;
Jensen et al., 2013; Schütz et al., 2007). For example, when autonomies are implemented with
other necessary elements (i.e. parental involvement, rigorous staffing decisions, accounting for
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 24
SES) the more successful a decentralization effort can be (Clark, 2009; Gunnarsson et al., 2009;
Jensen et al., 2013). Thus, autonomy alone is not the answer, but an ingredient that, mixed with
other components, can support academic growth. Conversely, however, schools that do not have
other levers in place to assist with advancing autonomies, find themselves no better off with the
increased flexibilities (Abdulkadiroğlu et al., 2011; Gunnarsson et al., 2009; Jensen et al., 2013;
Zimmer & Buddin, 2009). Ultimately, data suggests that from both a local and global
perspective, only schools that have the necessary ingredients (i.e. training) to operate
autonomously ought to do so or risk the misappropriation of the resources allocated (Jensen et
al., 2013). The rest benefit more from a centralized government where certain tangible resources
(i.e. instructional materials, money) are managed and mandated accordingly (Gunnarsson et al.,
2009).
LA Pilot School Element: Accountability
The LA Pilot School Manual describes its schools as innovative and progressive where
the autonomies granted to the school staff provide a framework for improved teaching and
learning (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). However, the implementation of greater
autonomy also necessitates greater accountability, as the flexibilities are only as good as the
integrity in which they are utilized (Clark, 2009; Gunnarsson et al., 2009; Jensen et al., 2013).
The following section will briefly describe current accountability measures in California and the
extent to which a changing model might affect teaching and learning.
An examination of accountability, contextualized for LAUSD and other California public
schools, calls for a review of the various definitions put forth by scholars on the topic.
Accountability involves themes such as responsibility, relationships, ethical dimensions and
power—specifically to enforce consequences when set goals are not met (Burke, 2004;
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 25
Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; Murphy & Datnow, 2003; Stecher & Kirby, 2004). In their
examination of accountability in education, Stecher and Kirby (2004) put forth the most cogent
definition stating accountability refers to the practice of holding an educational system
responsponsible for the outcomes of their products, specifically knowledge, skills and behaviors.
Stecher and Kirby (2004) further their analysis by asserting accountability has three major
components: 1) Goals, which must clearly state the desired performance; 2) A means of
assessment for measuring if goals were in fact met; and 3) Consequences for success and failure
of attaining goals. In an extended view of accountability, Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004)
summarize accountability as a contractual relationship between a director and provider. Within
this relationship, the agendas are clear. The director establishes goals and policies, while the
provider implements said goals and policies (Hentchke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Furthermore,
power is latently present in the relationship as the director has the ability to enforce punishment
and give rewards. An important note regarding Hentchke and Wohlstetter’s (2004) view of an
accountability relationship is that an individual or organization often assumes the role of both
director and provider. For example, a vast majority of schools in the United States are driven by
bureaucratic accountability. Current accountability is largely initiated as a top-down, external,
hierarchical model associated with the bureaucracy (Burke, 2004; Fuhrman, 2004; Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004; O’Day, 2002). California is driven by high stakes, end-of-year (EOY)
assessments known as the California Standards Tests (CSTs), from which a calculation is made
and an Annual Performance Index (API) score is determined for each school at the state level
(EdSource, 2009) and an Annual Yearly Performance designation at the federal level (McEachin
& Polikoff, 2012). In this scenario the federal government and state serve as directors to the local
educational agencies (LEAs)/districts that serve a dual function as both directors to the school
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 26
sites themselves and as providers for the state mandates. Ultimately, the school sites provide the
services (i.e. instruction) and are held accountable for the result of their efforts. Sanctions await
those schools that do not achieve an adequate API score or AYP designation (McEachin &
Polikoff, 2012).
Although past practice in California public schools has relied heavily on bureaucratic
accountability to increase student achievement, LAUSD embarked on a more market-based
accountability system in their development of LA Pilot Schools. In August of 2009, the LAUSD
Board of Education adopted a Public School Choice (PSC) resolution which provided an
opportunity for students in low-performing schools to attend an alternative setting to their
regional, boundary-defined school placement option (Los Angeles Unified School District,
2013a). This PSC initiative intended to increase competition between schools with the goal of
creating a more market-based educational model. In this scenario, schools were responsible for
effectively educating their students and, when failing to do so, would be forced to release
students to other schools (i.e. Pilot Schools), thus jeopardizing their enrollment.
The PSC resolution set the foundation for a market-based accountability model. Market
accounatabilty ues the interplay between consumers (students and parents) and providers
(neighborhood and/or schools of choice) to control practice and ensure quality (Stecher & Kirby,
2004). In this view of accountability the institution is ultimately accountable to the consumers
for ensuring academic standards and a host of student-related variables, with consequences for
failure (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Utilizing the model of market and professional accountabilty as
a framework, LAUSD schools are responsible for providing curricular, co-curricular and extra-
curriculuar opportunities for the students in an effort to maximize their resources and ensure a
positive and effective learning environment. Building off the market model, LAUSD is
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 27
accountable to parents and to the students who attend the schools for academic excellence and
student achievement—creating a contractual-like agreement. The consequences for failure to
fullfill this contractual relationship mirror those observed in the business sector. Cosequences
might include lower student enrollment, loss of revenue and overall institutional failure (Stecher
& Kirby, 2004).
The LA Pilot School Manual (2013) clearly articulates the need for greater accountability
for schools that are granted greater autonomy. The document states that the new and more
rigorous accountability has different metrics, including a focus on high levels of teaching and
learning, a positive school climate/culture, and leadership practices that support this type of
productive learning environment (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). The multi-
faceted approach depicted in the LA Pilot School Manual (2013) suggests a shift from the
current focus on one-time EOY assessments as the principal metric in measuring school
effectiveness that currently exists in California and other states’ public schools (Burke, 2004;
Fuhrman, 2004; Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004; O’Day, 2002; Plank & Condlifee, 2013). The
new multi-measure approach to accountability deters teachers and schools/districts as a whole
from teaching to the EOY assessment thus watering down the curriculum by only minimally
promoting valuable higher-level thinking skills (Plank & Condlifee, 2013). Essentially, the
problem with focusing on a test represents a shift away from the one variable that has been
shown to have the most impact on student learning—the classroom instructional environment
and curriculum where the emphasis is placed on the quality and process of learning the content
(Jensen et al., 2013; Plank & Condlifee, 2013).
Black and Wiliam (1998) describe a more formative approach to school accountability in
their description of the “black box.” Inputs are placed in the figurative black box and the results
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 28
are outputs. These outputs are measured and weighted heavily when discussing a school and/or
student’s success academically. Black and Wiliam (1998) promote a different approach that
focuses on the elements and actions that occur inside the black box, the formative assessments
and practices that promote higher level thinking, knowledge development, and academic rigor
(Black & Wiliam, 1998). Plank and Condlifee (2013) further state that the competitive nature of
high stakes testing does not necessarily achieve its intention of effectively measuring student
achievement. Rather, it evokes feelings of fear and anxiety in teachers and students due to the
implications (i.e. sanctions) that are by-products of poor performance. The research leans
towards a more comprehensive view of accountability, one that examines student achievement
from a multifaceted angle.
The landscape of accountability appears to be on the brink of change. Specific to
California, eight districts applied for federal waivers from having to adhere to the tenets of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability system (Fensterwald, 2013). The premise was that
these districts would adopt another system of accountability. This coalition of districts, titled
CORE, look to effect change within their districts in meaningful ways, with the goal of
augmenting student achievement without the hurdles of NCLB’s federal mandates. The districts
are allowed to escape the current accountability policies and replace them with policies that they
determine are of greater benefit to schools (Fensterwald, 2013). The new index used as a metric
for school/student performance consists of 60% on EOY assessments, 20% on achievement of
significant subgroups (i.e. Special Education students, English Language Learners (ELLs)), and
20% on social and emotional aspects of the school environment, including suspension rates and
attendance (Fensterwald, 2013). LAUSD is one of the districts granted the waiver flexibility
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 29
(Fensterwald, 2013) and LA Pilot Schools are ahead of the game in their incorporation of a new
and more exhaustive accountability system (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a).
Whereas California is still largely mired in the NCLB accountability system, the CORE
districts’ separation from the NCLB accountability constraints sets the stage for what could
potentially be a new wave in public education accountability policy. Fensterwald (2013)
describes a system that brings accountability measures from the federal and state level to a local
level with schools having more direction over how to monitor student and school progress.
LAUSD, as a part of the CORE waiver, will provide a solid example as to how a new
accountability system could work in practice. The 2009 decision by the LAUSD Board of
Education to pass the PSC resolution furthers the accountability system in the large urban district
by allowing for students in low-performing schools to attend an institution that is performing
better outside of the neighborhood district boundaries (Los Angeles Unified School District,
2013a). The PSC resolution combined with the CORE district waiver promotes an accountability
system that looks at school performance from different angles (i.e. social/emotional) and
promotes a market based accountability structure where schools are held accountable to their
stakeholders for the job which they were intended to do—promote teaching and learning
(Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Ultimately, if schools cannot effectively do so, they will not survive the
resulting sanctions.
LA Pilot School Element: Small School Size
Reform
The achievement of students in urban public high schools is a subject of great trepidation
for parents, students, educators and policy makers. Beset with low levels of student engagement,
low achievement levels and high dropout rates, large public urban districts are seeking more
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 30
resourceful alternatives to the traditional comprehensive high school model in American public
education. The argument for small school size has been one of the various school reform
initiatives to gain policy momentum with educators, parents and teacher unions due to large
comprehensive high schools being seen as “factories” that are impersonal and unable to respond
appropriately to student needs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). At-risk or underserved students
in urban public school districts are an important target population of the school reform
movement (Fine, 2005).
According to the National Educational Association (NEA), small schools is the phrase
used for a concept for restructuring schools, particularly high schools, and the human
relationships inside them. Small school size is an essential feature of Pilot Schools that
potentially acts as an agent for social equity in the face of achievement for urban high school
students (Huguley, 2008). In LAUSD, Pilot Schools can range from preschool aged to
kindergarten through twelfth grade with the key requirement being they must remain small. Most
frequently cited research on small school size (Lee & Smith, 1997) defined small schools as
schools with an enrollment that ranged between 600−900 students. Reformers argue that small
school size closes the achievement gap for underrepresented students, reduces dropout rates,
increase student and parental involvement due to students feeling better connected with aspects
of their schooling. Research over the last two decades indicates that small schools are often
associated with positive outcomes, including greater student engagement (Weiss et al., 2009) and
gains in student achievement (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Lee & Smith, 1997) and they
provide a better academic environment for students (Supovitz & Christman, 2003). However,
some studies suggest that small schools still deal with the same level of bureaucracy as larger
schools (Raywid et al., 2003).
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 31
Research
Various researchers have analyzed data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002
(ELS: 2002). Sponsored by the United States Department of Education’s National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES), this national study monitored the progress of over 16,000 high
school students in 750 high schools during their sophomore year in 2002 (base-year) and senior
year (first follow-up) in 2004 (Carolan, 2012; Weiss et al., 2009; Werblow & Duesbery, 2009).
ELS: 2002 is a “longitudinal, multilevel study that followed a nationally representative cohort of
students from the time they were high school sophomores through the rest of their high school
careers” (Carolan, 2012, p. 586). ELS: 2002 used a stratified sampling method to establish a
national representative sample of high schools.
Small School Size and Student Outcomes
According to theory, one key to small schools’ effectiveness is an increased level of
student engagement (Weiss et al., 2009). Small schools seek to improve the educational
experience and outcomes for students and parents alike by creating a better learning and teaching
environment as well as a more caring learning community in which students feel engaged (Lee,
Özgün-Koca, & Cristol, 2011). According to the LAUSD Pilot School Manual (2013), smaller
school size allows for a personalized learning environment that fosters closer relationships
between students and their teachers and school staff. As a result, students feel a stronger sense of
connectedness and engagement with their schooling.
Using the ELS: 2002 data, Weiss et al. (2009) tested the relationship between high school
size and student engagement and achievement. ELS: 2002 provided an array of information that
gave a comprehensive picture of how the home, school, and community environments influence
students’ engagement at school (Weiss et al., 2009). One measure was created from items on the
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 32
questionnaire for base-year students, parents and teachers. Several composite measures were
created by Weiss et al. (2009) to provide comprehensive information on specific facets of school
to establish their measure of school engagement. The following seven variables were included in
their composite measure of student engagement: teacher experience; delinquent behavior;
academic friend; educational motivation; teacher’s belief about ability; school preparedness; and
parental involvement. A set of student-level controls was also used in their model due to their
ability to affect school-based outcomes. They included students’ sex, race, and previous grade
retention taken from a student questionnaire as well as information obtained during parent
interviews on parent education and economic status (Weiss et al., 2009).
In their sample, 46% of the students were male and 18% of the students had been retained
at some point. Additionally, close to 67% of the parents in the sample held a bachelor’s degree or
better. Close to 25% of the sample population was African-American. Utilizing a multiple
regression analysis of engagement with demographic characteristics, Weiss et al. (2009) found
that students who had been retained or who are Latino have lower levels of engagement whereas
female students who are African-American and whose mothers have more than two years of
college and are from a higher socioeconomic status (SES) have higher levels of engagement.
These results were consistent with the prior work of Shernoff and Schmidt (2007) who found in
their national longitudinal study using data from the Sloan Study of Youth and Social
Development (SSYSD) that African-American students and students from higher SES had higher
engagement and intrinsic motivation. Weiss et al. (2009) further found that female students have
a higher level of engagement than males in a small school, yet they do worse in math
achievement. It should be noted that there was no significant difference in engagement between
African-American and White students.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 33
Lee and Smith’s study of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88)
provides one of the strongest cases of the positive influences of small school sizes on student
learning. Lee and Smith (1997) examined cognitive data such as test scores and survey data from
students, their parents, their teachers, and their schools to measure achievement growth over
time. The item response theory (IRT) was used to scale NELS: 88 test scores. They conducted a
series of two-level hierarchical linear models (HLM) that found high schools with an enrollment
between 600-900 yielded greater achievement gains for low as well as high SES students and for
schools with low and high minority concentrations. Additionally, learning is more equitable in
smaller schools. Their findings indicate that academic gains are less in smaller schools with less
than 300 students and in larger schools with more than 2,100 students. Werblow and Duesbery’s
(2009) study indicates that math achievement was greater for students in the smallest (< 673
students) and largest (> 2,700 students) schools. Conversely, Lee and Loeb (2000) using HLM
found that small schools are not substantially better than the largest schools. Small high schools
in general appear to be more “optimal” for student learning. Optimal as defined by Lee and
Smith (1997) in terms of “student learning over the course of high school in reading
comprehension and mathematics” (p. 216). Lee and Smith’s (1997) findings suggest that
secondary students of color and from low SES tend to be concentrated in large, urban public
schools. Lee and Smith (1997) reported that school size had stronger positive outcomes for
students who are both in the lower SES and enrolled in high minority schools. School size
matters not only on learning but equity; small high schools are better learning environments (Lee
& Smith, 1996). Therefore, the subject of school size appears to matter more to at-risk and
underserved students enrolled in large urban, public high schools.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 34
Additionally, Lee & Loeb (2000) argue that further research should take place to explore
how teachers are influenced by school size. Teacher matters such as teacher control and job
satisfaction do not directly impact student achievement, but they do influence teachers’ attitudes
towards students and beliefs about students, which in turn influences student achievement.
Math Achievement and Dropout Rates
Werblow and Duesbery (2009) used the analytic method, hierarchical liner modeling
(HLM) on the ELS: 2002 data to gain a better understanding of how small school size affects
student dropout rates and math achievement. To determine math achievement, students’ base
year (2002) score was subtracted from their senior year (2004) math score. Dropout was
constructed by recoding ELS: 2002 variable follow-up year student status. Control variables
included race/ethnicity, gender, parents’ SES, percent of students receiving free or reduced
lunch, percent of students identified as limited English proficient (LEP), and urbanicity. Their
findings showed that students’ SES was the strongest predictor of math gain; specifically,
students with average SES gained almost 2.00 points higher than students from low SES
families. The data also showed that race is a factor in math gains. Asian students outperform
African-American, Latino, and White students. Weiss et al. (2009) found parent education level
highly indicative of math performance, with high SES students scoring significantly higher than
lower SES students. Werblow and Duesbery’s (2009) study indicates that the dropout rate is
associated with student level differences in race/ethnicity, gender, or SES. Their findings
indicate that female students were close to one-third less likely to dropout than boys, while
African-American and Latino students are over one-and-a-half times more likely to dropout than
White students. With regard to school size specifically, dropout rates increase as school size
increases. Werblow and Deusbery (2009) found the relationship between school size and dropout
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 35
to be linear. There was a 12% increase in average dropout rate when school size increased by a
quintile. In summation, Werblow and Duesbery’s (2009) findings suggest that small schools
have a greater impact on dropout rates than math achievement. The results indicate that large
schools may be more harmful and increase a students’ chance of dropping out of school.
Small schools are often associated with positive student outcomes, including student
engagement, academic achievement, and lower dropout rates (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002;
Lee & Smith, 1997; Wasley, Fine, Gladden, Holland, King, Mosak, & Powell et al., 2000;
Werblow & Duesbery, 2009). Although the body of research on school engagement suggests it is
as an essential student-level characteristic and a predictor of student success, school size alone is
not sufficient in itself to reduce behavior problems, increase school attendance, or increase
achievement levels, but it is an essential ingredient in creating a productive learning environment
where students can flourish (Wasley et al., 2000).
LA Pilot School Element: Collaboration
Most school studies focus on student outcomes, which makes sense since student learning
is the business of schools, but teachers are a fundamental part of that business (Lee & Loeb,
2000). Over the last 20 years there has been a shift in the professional development of teachers to
go beyond supporting the acquisition of new knowledge and skills and move to integrating
teacher learning into communities of practice with the goal of meeting the needs of students
through collaboration (Vescio et al., 2008). Collaboration wherein teachers share best practices
with their colleagues and work in teams is an essential feature of Pilot Schools. According to the
LAUSD Pilot Schools Manual (2013), school staff engages in purposeful collaboration with an
emphasis on shared decision-making and responsibility for student achievement. They are
provided ample time for professional learning in an effort to create a cycle of inquiry and
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 36
continuous learning from within. Collaboration is an essential feature of LAUSD’s Pilot Schools
approach to transforming urban public education.
Collaboration vs. Specialization
Meeting the needs of traditionally at-risk or underserved students will require many
teachers to adopt new roles and ways of learning or conducting business (Levine & Marcus,
2007; Vescio et al., 2008). A common finding amongst secondary school instruction shows
teachers being cast into the role of content knowledge experts due to the division of knowledge
into separate components or departments (Lee & Smith, 1996). In this capacity, teachers’ work
in isolation—a situation that reduces teacher effectiveness (DuFour, 2004), generally avoid
seeking opportunities to share, and value the autonomy they have in their own classroom.
Despite evidence to support collaboration as a best teaching practice, many teachers still work in
isolation. However, teachers working in collaboration share ideas, instructional strategies,
information and advice on teaching while creating a shared sense of collective responsibility for
student achievement. Rosenholtz’s (1989) study of 78 elementary schools in Tennessee found
evidence of shared purpose and goals and problem solving in schools where teachers worked in
collaboration with one another. Research by Little (1990) shows collaboration leads to increases
in student achievement, increased confidence in staff, more support for new teachers, and an
expanded pool of resources, materials and methods. Furthermore, professional organizations in
education such as the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of
Teachers have endorsed collaboration between educators (DuFour, 2011). Lee and Smith (1996)
found that when teachers have a collective responsibility for students, learning may be more
equitably distributed across the school. They also found that students learn more in schools
characterized by high levels of collaboration.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 37
Collective Responsibility
The work of teachers is pivotal for the success of students, particularly underserved
populations. Many of the reform movements center on involving teachers in the decision-making
process, the amount of collegial and supportive interactions teachers have with one another, and
the effects of teacher control or influence over their work. Collective responsibility includes:
teacher’s internalizing responsibility for student learning rather than attributing student failure to
their background; a fundamental belief that all students can be taught; willingness to adapt to
student needs; and feelings of efficacy in teaching (Lee & Smith, 1996). Using NELS: 88 data,
Lee & Smith (1996) created a teacher sample by discipline that included data from 820 United
States high schools and 9,904 high school teachers of whom 31% taught mathematics as their
primary subject, 32% taught English, 15% taught social studies, and 22% taught science.
The results of this longitudinal study showed schools with high levels of collective
responsibility have higher mean achievement gains than schools with average levels of collective
responsibility and schools with low responsibility. Students in high-responsibility schools are of
higher SES than students in schools with low levels of collective responsibility. Furthermore,
low-responsibility schools have fewer minority students than schools with average levels of
collective responsibility. This suggests creating a school culture of collective responsibility can
increase the achievement of lower SES students in schools with average levels of collective
responsibility. It is also worth noting that collective responsibility is greater in small schools due
to the ability to have more intimate and personal relationships between teachers and students
(Lee & Loeb, 2000). Although it is possible to create a culture of collaboration and collective
responsibility in large urban high schools, researchers argue that the real communities of teachers
develop more easily naturally in small schools. One model that has emerged as a way to support
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 38
collaboration and collective responsibility is the notion of professional learning communities
(PLCs).
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Ever since the arrival of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), policymakers have called for school reform initiatives that improve the
instructional practice of teachers and professionals for the purpose of increasing student
achievement (NCLB, 2002; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs) are one such reform movement. PLCs provide teachers with the opportunity to
collaborate on a regular basis for the purpose of sharing and observing instructional best
practices. Teachers work in collaboration rather than in isolation in a PLC model. Bolam,
McMahon, Stoll, Thomas, and Wallace (2005) define a PLC as: “an effective professional
learning community [that] has the capacity to promote and sustain the learning of all
professionals in the school community with the collective purpose of enhancing pupil learning”
(p.145).
The LAUSD Pilot School Manual (2013) indicates staff working collaboratively in teams
to share best practices as a key factor for student success. A stronger sense of accountability is
established when staff works collaboratively as a team to look at instructional strategies, teaching
practices and assessment data for the purpose of improvement. The collaborative team has been
called the central element of a learning organization and the link between a collaborative culture
and improving schools (DuFour, 2004).
Put simply, education “revolves around the work of teachers” (Lee & Smith, 1996, p.
104.) The concept of PLC rests on the idea of improving student learning by refining teaching
performance. DuFour (2004) recommends educators continually reflect on the ways they are
working to embed a culture of student learning and teacher collaboration into the schools. PLCs
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 39
facilitate a school culture for teachers of continuous learning based on shared values and norms,
clear and consistent focus on student learning, de-privatizing practice, collective responsibility,
and collaboration. Research findings by Cordingley, Bell, Rundell, and Evans, (2003) report
positive aspects of teachers working in a PLC to include greater confidence; enhanced belief that
they can make difference in students’ learning; enthusiasm for collaborative work; and greater
commitment to change their instructional practice and try new things. The positive benefits on
students included enhanced motivation and improvement in academic performance (Cordingley
et al., 2003). Bolam et al (2005) examined survey data from 393 schools from early childhood to
secondary schools as well as interview-based data from 16 school sites. Both the survey and case
study data revealed collective responsibility for student learning and creating conditions for
students to feel confident to learn as the highest reported mean level of teacher involvement. The
data suggests participation in collaborative activities positively impacts teaching practice and
morale.
In 1998, Louis and Marks focused on 24 schools ranging from elementary to high school.
Using a quantitative/qualitative design, they examined the pedagogy and social structure of the
classrooms. Through interview and observation Louis and Marks (1998) concluded that PLCs
contribute to higher levels of social support and academic pedagogy for achievement.
Collaboration is a means to an end that alone will not improve a school (DuFour, 2011).
Collaboration will not work in a toxic school culture, either. In this type of environment, time
will be spent discussing ways to punish students and not on improving student achievement.
Time devoted to collaboration must be focused on the right work. Time in a PLC should be spent
ensuring that all students have access to the curriculum, gathering and then analyzing student
assessments for the purpose of improving instructional practice and student learning. Structured
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 40
professional collaboration time will benefit teachers and students alike. Through collaboration
and participation in a PLC, the teaching practice is positively impacted as teachers become more
student-centered. As a result of increased collaboration and a continuous cycle of learning by the
teachers, students benefit as well with the implementation of PLCs (Vescio et al., 2008).
LA Pilot School Element: Equity
The struggle for a unified definition of equity is well documented in education literature.
Groen (2006) suggests that continued legislation, coupled with social paradigmatic shifts have
shaped the contemporary definition of equity. The year 1880 marks the first instance in which
legislation focused on promoting equity can be traced (Groen, 2006). In the above-mentioned
year, California passed into law legislation that prohibited the segregation of Black children. The
aim of this California School Law was to grant Black students access to a higher quality of
education. In addition, subsequent legislation such as Mendez v. Westminster School District of
Orange County (1946) and Brown v. The Board of Education (1954) rejected the notion of
separate but equal (Groen, 2006). Furthermore, the legal decision rendered in Crawford v. Board
of Education of Los Angeles (1976) defined equity as numerical equality, thus racial balance
became integral for how equity was framed.
LA Pilot Schools have added emphasis to issues of access and opportunity, by grounding
equity as one of the five essential features framing the Pilot School model (Hampton, 2008; Los
Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). The definition of equity put forth by Pilot Schools
focuses on: (a) examination of patterns of achievement across racial/ethnic groups, gender,
language, and socioeconomic demographics; (b) building inclusive communities of learning for
all Pilot School students; and (c) high levels of academic achievement and readiness for
collegiate and career contexts (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). While the definition
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 41
of equity posited by Pilot Schools achieves a great degree of focus, little guidance is offered as to
how equity is to be achieved or measured.
Researchers Bensimon, Hao, and Bustillos (2007) offer a nuanced definition of equity,
defining equity as both opportunity and results. In the article Measuring the State of Equity in
Public Higher education (2007), Bensimon et al. develop the notion of equity further by linking
it to accountability, and suggesting that the marriage of accountability and equity is in the
public’s interest. Enrollment, graduation rates and retention rates for African American and
Latino students are but a few of the dimensions connecting equity and accountability.
To assist in tracking equity indicators, Bensimon et al. (2007) offer the equity scorecard.
The rationale for the creation and use of the “Equity Scorecard” is to establish a mechanism that
detects latent inequities for underrepresented students, so that they may be exposed (Bensimon et
al., 2007). The scorecard consists of four perspectives on institutional performance in relation to
equitable outcomes for minority students. Access, retention, institutional receptiveness, and
excellence constitute the four perspectives of the equity scorecard, and allow for institutions to
be informed as to how underrepresented students are performing with respect to each perspective
(Bensimon et al., 2007). In addition, the value of the equity scorecard resides in the quantifiable
information produced that is ethnic specific, which will allow for comparison and benchmarking
against other groups that are achieving equity (Bensimon et al., 2007).
In addition to defining equity as opportunity and results, Bensimon (2004) suggests an
equity index can be used as quantifiable data to compare against other ethnic groups and
institutions. Resulting from analysis of data collected, Bensimon (2004) asserts an academic
equity index can be assigned to the graduation/achievement rates of historically underrepresented
students. The index score is achieved by dividing the graduation/achievement rate of a specific
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 42
ethnic student population by the total population figure. Bensimon et al. (2007) suggests an index
score of 1 represents equity, while scores falling below 1 demonstrate that equity is not being
met.
The “Diversity Scorecard” (Bensimon, 2004) is yet another instrument created to
establish whether equity is being achieved. Designed as a tool for institutional self-assessment,
the diversity scorecard is grounded in Kaplan and Norton’s balanced scorecard, and the academic
scorecard for higher education (Bensimon et al., 2007). Bensimon (2004) suggests that in order
to facilitate change, key actors within any given institution must become aware of educational
inequities, then interpret specific data for latent causes, and finally be moved to action. The
framework of the diversity scorecard is well suited for Pilot Schools, as it provides four
perspectives on institutional performance with regard to equitable educational outcomes:
(a) access; (b) retention; (c) receptivity; and (d) excellence (Bensimon, 2004). An explanation of
each perspective will follow.
The access perspective would allow for Pilot School leaders to be more informed
regarding the access historically underrepresented students have to programs and resources on
campus (Bensimon, 2004). Through the lens of the diversity scorecard, access is crucial in
establishing the foundation for student success at Pilot Schools. The retention perspective
provides insights in various aspects affecting student persistence, specifically degree completion
and completion of courses in the sciences and math (Bensimon, 2004). The retention perspective
is valuable as it grants school sites specific information on the success rates of underrepresented
students in what Bensimon (2004) terms “hot” programs. The institutional receptivity
perspective focuses on the various support mechanism present on campus that factor into student
satisfaction and comfort. Bensimon et al. (2007) asserts that the onus is on the institution to
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 43
create a campus that is responsive and accommodating to the needs of underrepresented students.
Students thrive when conditions are ripe for learning; however, culture shock is a well-
documented issue facing many underrepresented students. Thus institutional receptivity plays a
vital role in student success. The final perspective is excellence. Information such as student
GPA, completion rates for underrepresented students in highly competitive programs, and the
number of underrepresented students that are qualified for graduate study constitutes information
gathered through the lens of the excellence perspective.
The five elements researched in the above literature review construct a foundation for a
better understanding of the Pilot School model. The five elements described in the review are
essential to maintain the integrity of the LA Pilot School model’s purpose. The scholarly
literature was studied to understand the full scope of the five elements; however, for the
following research study the focus will explicitly revolve around the element of autonomy. As
such, the study will seek to uncover how autonomies are being utilized and what role leadership
plays in their implementation at the selected school sites.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 44
Chapter 3:
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Authors: Damon Hines, Blake Silvers, and Anthony Taranto
4

Chapter 3 commences with a restatement of the problem, purpose, and research questions
posited in Chapter 1. A summary of the methodological design, participants and settings, data
collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations will follow. Chapter 3 concludes with a
review of information encompassed in this chapter and an internal preview of Chapters 4 and 5.
Restatement of Problem, Purpose, and Research Questions
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is a large urban school district that serves
a diverse population of students. In an effort to combat high school overcrowding and the
achievement gap that was pervasive in the school district, reformers made a plea with various
stakeholders to change the dynamics of certain schools in the district. By filling out an
application and holding to a more rigorous and ambitious schedule and curriculum, certain
schools have been granted “Pilot School” status since the program’s inception in 2007 (Los
Angeles Unified School District, 2013).
The review of literature revealed limited empirical research on pilot schools. However, a
multi-purposed framework for this study emerged based on literature grounded in the five areas
that serve as a foundation for the creation of pilot schools: (a) small size, (b) accountability,

4
Chapter 3 was developed as part of a collaborative research team. Each team member contributed to different
sections of the chapter under the direction of the dissertation advisor, Dr. Pedro Garcia. While all three coauthors
spearheaded specific sections of the chapter, ultimately all three authors contributed to all sections via Google docs
and face to face meetings to ensure consistency in language. Damon Hines constructed the design summary,
participants and setting, and validity concerns. Blake Silvers wrote the instrumentation and protocols, data collection
protocols, ethical considerations and the summary. Anthony Taranto wrote the restatement of the problem, purpose
and research questions, and data analysis. All team members read, reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of the
chapter. Finally, all three authors completed an additional proofreading before the chapter was passed on to an
external editor.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 45
(c) collaboration, and (d) equity, (e) autonomy. The authors of this study agreed that the most
pressing purpose of this study was to understand how leadership affects the implementation of
the autonomies granted to LA Pilot Schools: (a) staffing, (b) budget, (c) curriculum and
assessment, (d) professional development, (e) governance, and (f) scheduling for staff and
students. To meet this end, the following research questions framed inquiry for this study:
RQ 1 – What is the nature of autonomy in the LAUSD pilot schools?
RQ 2 – What leadership strategies are employed by campus leaders to assist implementation
of the autonomies?
RQ 3 – According to pilot school leaders, what are the key factors contributing to successful
Pilot School administration?
Design Summary
Creswell (2009) identifies six explicit steps in conducting a research study: (a)
identification of a research problem; (b) review of the current literature; (c) having a purpose for
research; (d) the collection of data; (e) analysis of the data; and finally (f) reporting the
evaluation of the research. The proposed study will be framed around these six steps.
A qualitative approach will be employed for this study. The interview protocol will be
designed with the understanding that research questions will be best answered by collecting first-
hand information from administrators and other school leaders currently working at a Pilot
School within LAUSD. Qualitative data provides rich information that allows the researcher to
understand the elements and strategies that lead to successful site leaders (Maxwell, 2005;
Merriam 2009). Thus, qualitative data will provide a platform for defining the effective
leadership practices of site leaders at Pilot Schools. This approach should allow participants to
share their reality, as constructed by their experiences and leadership skills as they relate to the
granted autonomies.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 46
Participants and Setting
The unit of analysis in this study is high school administrators, lead teachers, department
chairs, school counselors or other members of the Pilot School Design Team at Pilot High
Schools within the Los Angeles Unified School District. Purposeful criterion sampling will be
used to identify school sites for qualitative inquiry. Purposeful sampling allows the researcher to
select school sites that have implemented the essential features of Pilot Schools as defined by the
LAUSD Pilot Schools Manual. Qualitative sampling criteria will be used to determine which
school sites will participate. The criteria will be Pilot High Schools that (a) have a school
population of 400−600 students in grades 10 through 12; (b) are in an urban setting; (c) follow
the LAUSD Pilot Schools Manual; and (d) are at a school in which the administrator has been in
place for two or more consecutive years.
Maxwell (2012) stated that there are certain goals for the purposeful selection of
participants, with one goal being to deliberately select individuals who are critical for testing
theories in relation to the researcher’s studies. Selecting respondents is dependent on what they
can contribute to the research and the researcher’s understanding of what is being studied. The
participants in the specific interview protocol for this study will be high school administrators
working in small, urban schools that are following the LAUSD Pilot School Manual.
Instrumentation and Protocols
The predominant method that will be used to gather data for this study will be in-depth
interviews with leaders at Pilot High Schools. In all forms of research —in particular, qualitative
research—most if not all of the research data are collected through interviewing (Merriam,
2009). The most common type of interview is an exchange of dialogue through the use of
questions in the form of a person-to-person exchange. Merriam (2009) stated that in designing an
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 47
interview protocol, the researcher must determine the amount of structure that is required. For
the interview protocol used in the proposed study, the researchers have decided that the best
structure would be somewhere between a structured and unstructured-informal interview, as this
method will allow for open-ended questioning and more of a conversational feel. In designing
the interview protocol, it is important to phrase questions in ways that the interviewer can extract
the information desired from the interviewee (Merriam, 2009). The researchers designed the
interview protocol for leaders on Pilot High School campuses (i.e. principals, assistant principals,
counselors, lead teachers, department chairs, or members of the school’s design team) who have
been at their school site for two or more years and participated in LAUSD provided professional
development on leadership. The interview protocol will consist of open-ended questions with
room for probing. According to Merriam (2009), it is impossible to design probes ahead of time,
as they are dependent on how the interviewee answers.
Maxwell (2012) noted that in order for interviewing to be useful in research, there needs
to be specific questions about events and actions rather than “posing questions that elicit only
generalizations or abstract opinions” (p. 103). In developing the interview protocol, the aim of
the researchers was to obtain answers to the questions being studied in the dissertation process
and centered on leadership strategies.
In developing interview questions, the researchers will review and revise questions based
on the data needs. Merriam (2009) stated that a “ruthless review of your questions to weed out
poor ones before you actually conduct an interview is highly recommended” (p. 100). According
to Merriam, the best way to capture interview data is to tape record the interview. While some
interviewees have a feeling of anxiety while being recorded, most will forget their distress if the
interviewer has done well in ensuring their anonymity, has developed a feeling of ease during the
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 48
interview, and has developed a rapport with the respondent that leads the interview to be more
like a conversation. For the purpose of coding and analysis, in-depth interviews will be
transcribed to Microsoft Word® documents.
Three former administrators from LAUSD with working knowledge of Pilot Schools
piloted the interview questions. Investigator triangulation will be used to establish credibility in
this study. The use of in-depth interviews and an analysis of relevant documents and literature
will be used to complete this study.
Data Collection Protocols
The process of data collection has three states: entry to the site, data collection, and exit
from the site (Merriam, 2009). It is important to get permission from all participants, not just the
school principal, by being humble and supportive (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). It is important to put
the participants at ease by thinking ahead of what the role of the interviewer will be, how
disruptive the interview may be to the setting, and why this particular site has been selected for
study (Merriam, 2009). Equally important is the action of informing participants of how the
findings will be used (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The first interview should be set up ahead of
time, allowing those in charge to introduce the interviewer to the participants.
Data Analysis
The design in this study will be a qualitative approach. This approach will focus on
involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the subject being studied. Studying the actions
of Pilot School leaders in their natural settings and attempting to interpret these actions will
require the use of multiple instruments: in-depth interviews and the review documents.
Qualitative research is grounded in an “interpretivist” philosophy and aims to produce rounded
understandings on the basis of rich, contextual and detailed data (Merriam, 2009).
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 49
For the purpose of this study the researchers will use open coding, allowing for the
flexibility for themes to emerge organically. Researchers will use what Maxwell (2013)
describes as a similarity and a contiguity approach to categorizing. The researchers will identify
how various data were similar and different across the diverse sample of sites and respondents
(similarity). Finally, researchers used contiguity relationships. This process involved identifying
how the coded data, based on the a priori codes, connected data to the answering of the research
question.
At the conclusion of analyzing data collected via qualitative means, the researchers will
construct reports, and a process of triangulation will be implemented which will include the
triangulating findings from the literature review (see Figure 1). Figure 1 illustrates the
triangulation of methods between the quantitative, qualitative, and literature review. The utility
of triangulating the data is identifying points of convergence and divergence between data sets
and data sources (Patton, 2001).

Figure 1. Triangulation of findings.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 50
Validity Concerns
Merriam (2009) describes the importance of internal validity and credibility as to how the
research findings effectively describe what is truly happening. In short, a credible or valid set of
findings accurately describes the phenomenon, event, or interaction being researched and the
conclusions drawn can be supported by the researcher and be credible to those that interpret and
analyze the study. In this study of LA Pilot Schools, interviews were chosen as primary sources
of data collection and the data collected were openly coded (Creswell, 2009). The research team
used Merriam’s (2009) description of ensuring validity through the use of triangulation, a
method of checking results from more than one avenue to ensure credibility. Specifically,
researchers used multiple sources of data in the form of 16 interviews, conducted by the
researchers using the same interview protocol. This allowed for what Merriam (2009) calls
“investigator triangulation” of data—not only due to the multiple respondents and sites used by
the investigators, but also due to the fact that each researcher reviewed the raw data from all
interviews (p. 216). The findings from each of the researchers will be analyzed and discussed in
weekly meetings and calibrated through a collaborative process. Any disagreement and/or
inconsistent findings between the researchers will be openly stated and described in the findings.
The process helped ensure that the raw data were categorized into the a priori codes deemed
appropriate by multiple researchers. In addition, reflexivity was also an important component to
ensure validity of the LA Pilot School study. As Merriam (2009) describes, all researchers in a
qualitative analysis have an inherent bias, which informs the method, data collection and
presentation of the research results. Reflecting critically and stating one's biases is essential to
valid qualitative research results.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 51
External validity is an important component to a research project. Specifically, the
researchers must collect data and present it using thick descriptions, as described by Merriam
(2009), to allow for the possibility of practitioners studying the research results and using them
in their own setting. Using a maximum variation sampling—a diverse and purposeful group of
respondents or subjects across diverse settings—also promotes the acquisition of data that can be
transferable and/or credible to researchers and practitioners.
Ethical Considerations
An ethical approach to research is described as one in which the researcher is sensitive to the
participants in the study and rigorous with the process of ensuring valid and reliable research
findings. Merriam (2009) identifies 10 items that ought to be considered to ensure an ethical
study as presented by Patton (2001). For this pilot study the researchers adhere to the following:
1. Clearly explaining the purpose of the inquiry and the methods to be used.
2. Risk assessment – ensuring no undue risk to those being studied (IRB).
3. Confidentiality of the respondents and sites.
4. Informed consent via a signed waiver.
5. Expert advice from the dissertation chair.
Although there are other elements identified by Merriam (2009), for the purpose of this
initial pilot exercise, the five mentioned above will carry the most weight and will ensure a
methodical and systematic approach to ethical and appropriate data collection and result
dissemination. All five elements listed above enhance the relationship between the investigators
and the subjects to allow for rapport building and trust.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 52
Acknowledging this study will involve human participants, Institutional Review Board
(IRB) guidelines and procedures set forth by the University of Southern California and the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) will be adhered to at all times. In order to obtain the
university’s authorization as well as LAUSD’s permission to conduct the study, information was
submitted to IRB for approval prior to contacting participants for the study. All participants were
assured of confidentiality in results reporting. Pseudonyms are used in place of individual
participants’ names and high schools names are not specifically identified in any findings.
Summary
This study was designed utilizing qualitative data gathered via face-to-face, in-depth
interviews of pilot school principals, lead teachers, department chairs, school counselors or other
members of the Pilot School Design Team. Emergent findings from these sources, along with
those from a review of literature and the review of documents, were triangulated in order to
provide an increased depth of understanding in relation to the research questions that guided
inquiry for this study. The results of the analysis of data are presented in Chapter 4, and
recommendations for further research are posited in Chapter 5.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 53
Chapter 4:
THE FINDINGS
Authors: Damon Hines, Blake Silvers, and Anthony Taranto
5

This chapter provides an analysis of data from the current study, which is aimed at
evaluating leadership in relation to the autonomies granted to LA Pilot Schools: (a) staffing, (b)
budget, (c) curriculum and assessment, (d) professional development, (e) governance, and (f)
scheduling for staff and students. The qualitative data was collected from interviewing
administrators, lead teachers, department chairs, school counselors, or other members of the Pilot
School Design Team. Qualified participants selected for the interview process met the following
criteria: (a) have a school population from 400–600 students in grades 10 through 12, (b) are in an
urban setting, (c) follow the LAUSD Pilot Schools Manual, and (d) are at a school in which the
administrator has been in place for two or more consecutive years. Specific information regarding
the LA Pilot High School sites and interview participants is provided in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
The qualitative data were collected during 16 in-depth interviews conducted across eight
LA Pilot High School campuses. Interviews were centered on the implementation and application
of the LA Pilot School autonomies, through the lens of LA Pilot School leaders. The unit of
analysis consisted of seven (7) principals, three (3) school counselors, and six (6) lead teachers.

5
Chapter 4 was developed as part of a collaborative research team. Each team member contributed to different
sections of the chapter under the direction of the dissertation advisor, Dr. Pedro Garcia. While all three coauthors
spearheaded specific sections of the chapter, ultimately all three authors contributed to all sections via Google docs
and face to face meetings to ensure consistency in language. Damon Hines constructed the introduction of chapter 4.
Blake Silvers wrote the purpose restated. Anthony Taranto presented the qualitative demographic data. The data was
collected as follows: Damon Hines collected data at school site A and interviewed site leaders A, B, C and D. Blake
Silvers collected data at school site B, C and D and conducted interviews with site leaders E, F, G, H, I and J.
Anthony Taranto collected data at school sites E, F and G and interviewed leaders K, L, M, N and O. All raw data
was reviewed and coded individually by each author. Damon Hines facilitated research question 1. Blake Silvers
facilitated research question 2. Anthony Taranto facilitated research question 3. All three candidates coauthored the
summary as it relates to the research question facilitated by each member. All team members read, reviewed and
provided feedback on drafts of the chapter. Finally, all three authors completed an additional proofreading before the
chapter was passed on to an external editor.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 54
The qualitative data provided an insight into the various leadership strategies employed by LA
Pilot School leaders in implementing the six (6) previously stated autonomies. Face-to-face
interviews allowed for researchers to collect rich descriptive data, which was later transcribed and
coded to identify emergent themes. Data analysis and researcher triangulation identified the
following emergent themes: (a) bounded autonomies, (b) barriers to implementation, (c)
Distributive Leadership, (d) hiring practices, (e) stakeholder advocacy, (f) small school size, (g)
constructive collaboration, and (h) how the Elect to Work Agreement (EWA) contributes to Pilot
School success.
This chapter presents the findings from a qualitative method study comprised of
interviews completed at eight (8) LA Pilot High Schools to answer the research questions of the
study. Findings are reported in order by the following research questions:
RQ 1 – What is the nature of autonomy in the LAUSD pilot schools?
RQ 2 – What leadership strategies are employed by campus leaders to assist implementation
of the autonomies?
RQ 3 – According to pilot school leaders, what are the key factors contributing to successful
Pilot School administration?

Purpose Restated
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of LA Pilot School leadership in
utilizing the autonomies they are afforded in a manner that promotes student achievement.
Fundamentally, the study seeks to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of
autonomies at LA Pilot Schools in achieving that which they were intended to achieve, including
above district achievement rates, college readiness, and improved school culture (Los Angeles
Unified School District, 2013a).
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 55
Qualitative Demographic Data
The demographic data for each of the high schools selected for this study are represented in
Figure 2. The school site profile consists of LA Pilot High Schools that are part of LAUSD, and
include information on enrollment, student achievement, school theme, staffing, and student
body ethnicity.

School Site Profile
A
Enrollment: 647
Academic Performance Index (API): 641
Number of Administrators: 1
Number of Teachers: 20
Student Body Ethnicity:
● Latino - 98.7%
● African American - .0%
● Asian - .2%
● White - .2%
● Other - .9%
B
Enrollment: 412
Academic Performance Index (API): 705
Number of Administrators: 1
Number of Teachers: 18
Student Body Ethnicity:
● Latino - 90.0%
● African American - 2.0%
● Asian - 6.0%
● White - 0.0%
● Other - 2.0%
C
Enrollment: 322
Academic Performance Index (API): 653
Number of Administrators: 1
Number of Teachers: 20
Student Body Ethnicity:
● Latino - 99.0%
● African American - 0.0%
● Asian - 0.0%
● White - 1.0%
● Other
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 56
D
Enrollment: 351
Academic Performance Index (API): 708
Number of Administrators: 1
Number of Teachers: 22
Student Body Ethnicity:
● Latino: 95.0%
● African American: 3.0%
● Asian: 0.0%
● White: 0.0%
● Other: 2.0%
E
Enrollment: 470
Academic Performance Index (API): 801
Number of Administrators: 1
Number of Teachers:
Student Body Ethnicity:
● Latino - 91%
● African American - 8%
● Asian - .2%
● White - .5%
● Other - .2%
F
Enrollment: 532
Academic Performance Index (API):
Number of Administrators:1
Number of Teachers: 17
Student Body Ethnicity:
● Latino - 48%
● African American - 11%
● Asian - 3%
● White - 2%
● Other - 36%
G
Enrollment: 460
Academic Performance Index (API): N/A
Number of Administrators:1
Number of Teachers: 14
Student Body Ethnicity:
● Latino - 94.7%
● African American - 3%
● Asian - .2%
● White - 1.1%
● Other - 1.0%

Figure 2. Data summary of participating LA Pilot High Schools.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 57
Figure 3 details the demographic profile of each school leader who participated in a qualitative
interview. Interview participants were purposefully selected in order to provide a depth of
understanding on the research questions. In addition, the selection process identified LA Pilot
School leaders from various sites.
Pilot School
Leader
Profile
A
Title: Principal Site : A
Gender: Male Years at Site: 5
Ethnicity: Latino
Age: 50−55
B
Title: Teacher/Design Team Leader Site: A
Gender: Male Years at Site: 4
Ethnicity: Latino
Age: 30−35
C
Title: Teacher/Special Education Site: A
Gender: Female Years at Site: 5
Ethnicity: Latino
Age: 46−50
D
Title: Teacher/Mathematics Site: A
Gender: Female Years at Site: 5
Ethnicity: Caucasian
Age: 28−35
E
Title: Teacher/Coordinator Site: B
Gender: Female Years at Site: 3
Ethnicity: Asian
Age: 35−40
F
Title: Principal Site: B
Gender: Female Years at Site: 6
Ethnicity: Caucasian
Age: 46−50
G
Title: Teacher/Design Team Site: B
Gender: Female Years at Site: 11
Ethnicity: Latino
Age: 30−35
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 58
H
Title: Principal Site: C
Gender: Male Years at Site: 3
Ethnicity: Latino
Age: 35−45
I
Title: Lead Teacher/Design Team Site: C
Gender: Male Years at Site: 7
Ethnicity: White
Age: 55−65
J
Title: Principal Site: D
Gender: Male Years at Site: 5
Ethnicity: Latino
Age: 35−45
K
Title: School Counselor Site: E
Gender: Male Years at Site: 2
Ethnicity: Asian
Age: 30−40
L
Title: Principal Site: E
Gender: Male Years at Site: 4
Ethnicity: Latino
Age: 45−55
M
Title: School Counselor Site: F
Gender: Male Years at Site: 3
Ethnicity: Latino
Age: 30−40
N
Title: Principal Site: F
Gender: Female Years at Site: 3
Ethnicity: African American
Age: 40−50
O
Title: Principal Site: G
Gender: Male Years at Site:2
Ethnicity: Caucasian
Age: 35−45

Figure 3. Qualitative data: School leader profiles.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 59
Research Question 1
RQ 1 – What is the nature of autonomy in the LAUSD pilot schools?
When it came to identifying the nature of autonomy within the eight (8) LA Pilot High
Schools included in this study, two salient themes emerged as a result of all interviews
conducted. The first theme to emerge was the notion of bounded autonomies. Researchers have
selected bounded autonomies as the language used to denote the restrictions placed upon the full
and complete implementation of the autonomies granted. As envisioned the autonomies would
allow for school leaders to have full control of staffing, budget, curriculum and assessment,
professional development, governance, and scheduling. However, analysis of the interview data
revealed that the autonomies, as outlined in the initial LA Pilot School Manual (2013), are not
being implemented with the fidelity with which they were intended. Interviewee E stated:

So you say why do you work at a pilot school? It’s not because of the autonomies,
because the autonomies have become so bounded that they are actually not autonomies
anymore because of the federal and district mandates.

Interviewee A echoed the frustrations posited by Interviewee E in relation to the nature of
autonomies being bounded. During the interview, the following description was elicited by
interview questions:

Selecting teachers is somewhat of an autonomy, but there are things that prevent us from
full autonomy, such as collective bargaining. So, if there’s a group of teachers that are
RIF, and they have a right to placement, we still have to go through that list. We may not
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 60
select them, but we have to go through it. It’s really not a full autonomy. The district has
limits to hiring as an autonomy.

The bounded nature of autonomy was identified as a pervasive phenomenon experienced
by all LA Pilot School leaders and a tangible challenge that impacts the eight (8) pilot schools
that were included in this study. Interviewee E added:

So my understanding of the autonomies has changed as the autonomies have changed.
But I honestly feel that the teachers who started with us at the beginning do not
understand how bounded the autonomies have become. Even the teachers who started at
the beginning do not know administratively what we have to fight against so that we can
maintain our sense of independence and freedom.

Interviewee F shares her concerns regarding the changing dynamics of the autonomies
over the years and the disconnect that exists between the teaching staff and the pilot school
leadership related to the implementation of the autonomies. However, while bounded autonomies
emerged as a dominant theme problematizing the full implementation of the freedoms granted
LA Pilot Schools, a few respondents suggested that the autonomies as implemented at their
school site, albeit with limitations, are showing signs of progress. Respondent J stated:

As a Pilot School the fact that we have autonomies, we are always trying to push and
exploit our autonomies. The autonomies provide us the intellectual license, the
permission to expand, to think, to push the limits. Things that are autonomies you face
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 61
and it is like trying to move a monolith like LAUSD and [former Superintendent] Deasy
himself told us, “You guys are a pain in the ass. The system is not meant to be
challenged, a bureaucracy by its design is meant to create order and you are disrupting
that. Continue to do that.” The autonomies are more of a platform for thinking. Some you
exercise more than others. It’s hard to exercise some of the autonomies because it is very
difficult when the EWA only deals with one union.

Respondent Q specifically shares the obstacles that face the pilot school autonomies due to the
sheer size of the large district. But, Respondent Q also provides some hope that a creative and
innovative approach to implementing the autonomies and improving teaching and learning is
key. Likewise, respondent L commented:

We are still under certain LAUSD guidelines— many LAUSD guidelines—but our
school is able to make more localized decisions that are based off of the needs of the
students, the needs of the school.

The interviewees shared a common thread that despite the nature of bounded autonomies,
there are positive implications, by virtue of the fact that the autonomies are even “thinly
granted.” Thus, the researchers identified a positive outlook on the limited nature of autonomies
as a sub-theme. Respondent E underscores the positive perspective on autonomies, while
acknowledging the boundedness of the freedoms:

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 62
The autonomies are all so important because everything is interconnected. If I can’t hire
teachers that are like-minded and principals that are like-minded then we cannot make
instructional decisions that will help our students move forward. Then we can’t create a
curriculum that will be best for the students. Then, if we don’t have governance and
autonomy of finance, we can’t spend money that will best fit our vision. Also, there is
scheduling, where we have to be creative in thinking that 54 minutes a period is difficult
to teach in. So, how do we become creative and articulate with the community college to
tweak our schedule and make it happen?” This cycle truly reflects the importance of our
autonomies at School B.

The budget as an autonomous element emerged as one of the most cited examples of the
problematic nature of the bounded freedoms. Several interviewees suggested that the budget
operated as a barrier due to district and federal mandates. Respondent A illustrates how the
budget, specifically as one of the autonomies, serves as a challenge to LA Pilot School leaders:

Budgeting is one autonomy that’s not fully realized for pilot schools. For example, when
we get our norm funding, which is per pupil funding, everything that we get—let’s say
we get $1.8 million for the norm funding. Much of it is already line-itemed. You’re to
buy this, you’re to buy that, you’re to buy this. For example, they’ll give me money to
use for the athletic director to work during the summer. I can’t move that money out of
that line. Even though the monies are unrestricted, the district tells me, “You’re going to
put this money here.” That’s another issue that the whole pilot school organization has
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 63
had to wrangle with, because there’s really not much budget autonomy. Budget autonomy
and staffing are probably issues.

Moreover, respondent F further confirmed the challenges spoken to by Respondent A
regarding the budget, and the constraints placed upon LA Pilot School leadership, in the
following quote extrapolated from data collected via face-to-face interviews:

Budgeting, you have autonomy over that, but that is not entirely true either. It used to be
that way because we were per pupil funded and had a lot more flexibility. They gave us a
lot more general fund money that we could use with flexibility. But now, funding is about
the same for all the schools. We get a little more, about $37 dollars vs. $32 per pupil,
which amounts to more money, but we only have 400 students. We are expected to carry
out most of the programs, including Breakfast in the Classroom, which costs money.”

Finally, several LA Pilot School Leaders cited curriculum as the one autonomy that came
closest to being fully realized, as initially outlined in the LA Pilot School Manual (2013). In the
traditional public school arena, curriculum is handed down as a mandate from district office
personnel; however, the Pilot School model provides an innovative approach for school leaders
to maintain the vision intended by their established pathway through curriculum and instruction.
Respondent C’s response validates the conclusion identified by researchers, regarding
curriculum as the most fully realized of the autonomies:

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 64
Curriculum design, we’re fully free to design our curriculum, our pacing, scope and
sequence, our formative assessments. We’re still required to do all the state exams. In the
past, it’s been the California Standards Test. Of course, we still have to do the High
School Exit Exam and other things. And now, it’s Smarter Balanced with the new
Common Core. But we can design our own formatives, periodic assessments for content
areas—Math, Science, Social Studies, English—which is good. It gives us freedom. We
can bring in different books; we can choose textbooks that are not on the state adopted
list. That’s good. You get the most freedom there.

Likewise, Respondent M stated:

There was never an option prior in the past as far as selection of curriculum for
intervention or just curriculum in general or structures for the way we taught classes.
We’re a little more different than speaking of traditional schools. We’re able to think a
little more outside the box when it comes to the pilot school, as long as we can justify it
with data, and with results—that's important. It’s not just things moving different, but
being able to prove what you’re doing is actually relevant.

Moreover, Respondent P reinforces the importance of curriculum autonomy. Respondent P
claims:

We’re able to be creative and innovative with our lessons. We want to be project-based.
We don’t have to play by the rules of the district.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 65

Also, Respondent F describes the freedoms in the area of curriculum and assessment by adding:

The district comes up with periodic assessments and they want us to use their periodic
assessments. But, we can create our own. And, as long as we show we are using periodic
assessments it is okay. Just to be real clear, we are still following the mandate to assess
our students, but we are using our own. And that is the same for everything. We are
trying to do the same thing, what they [the District] want, but it’s the how it is done that
we change by utilizing our autonomies. We have the flexibility to be innovative.

In summary, the “boundedness” of the autonomies was identified as the emergent theme
in relation to RQ1, which sought to understand the nature of autonomy in LA Pilot Schools.
Furthermore, researchers found that district and federal mandates operate to restrict the full
implementation of the autonomies, thus the autonomies of staffing, budget, curriculum and
assessment, professional development, governance, and calendar remain unrealized and are best
framed as “pseudo-autonomies.”
Research Question 2
RQ 2 – What leadership strategies are employed by campus leaders to assist implementation of
the autonomies?
Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) was employed as the theoretical lens through
which data was analyzed for Research Question 2. The data was coded based on the five (5)
underlying assumptions that are posited in LMX: (a) Leaders do not adopt a one-size-fits-all
approach to leadership; (b) Leaders form vertical linkages with individual members of their
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 66
groups; (c) Leaders vary their behavior and assign different relational values to different
members of their workgroup or team; (d) Scarce resources, such as time and effort, prompt
leaders to form linkages with individual members to accomplish work-related tasks; and (e)
Leaders and members exchange valuable resources, such as self-effort and loyalty, in exchange
for greater support from a given leader.
Distributive leadership emerged as a dominant theme in many of the interviews
conducted at the LA Pilot High Schools that participated in the study. The construct of
distributive leadership, which is a dynamic approach to collective leadership and stakeholder
voice in decision-making, falls seamlessly within LMX theory. As such, leaders must rely on
innovative and collaborative approaches to spur change. These same leaders must form a tight-
knit relationship with their employees and build capacity within the ranks of teachers to put the
right people in the right positions to be successful. In fact, Van Breukelen et al. (2006) found that
LMX theory has been proven to be effective in assisting leaders in the formation of high-quality
relationships. Teamwork is quintessential to the process where effective implementation is
contingent upon the leader finding effective and efficient ways to bypass any obstacles (i.e. lack
of time) to ensure the vision and mission of the school sites are being carried out. Lastly,
distributive leadership provides a solid platform for leaders and members—administrators and
teachers—to create a symbiotic relationship that utilizes the efforts of all involved (i.e. hard
work, effort) to reach the desired goal—a constructive learning environment. The following
statement (Interviewee F) illustrates distributive leadership as enacted on an LA Pilot School
campus:

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 67
It is a model that encourages shared leadership and collaboration among staff members,
which are my values. I seek to get input and make decisions collectively because it is
embedded in the structure of the school and the governing board. People need to learn
how to take on leadership roles, which takes training, too. It is one thing to lead students,
but another thing to lead your peers and it is a maturation process.

Respondent I agrees that distributive decision-making and planning is an integral part of the Pilot
School model by adding the following:

Being a pilot high school principal they are the only admin at the site. So, the idea that
this is my word and everyone will listen to what I have to say is a little harder to pull off
here. In order to really make things happen here, the administrator knows that you first
need buy-in from the staff. If you say this is my way or the highway—you are going to
have big problems if you take that approach. So the best admin is one who listens and
uses his staff and colleagues as collaborators. You have to do a lot of listening to the
whole staff and not try to impose your own vision. You have to divorce yourself and your
ego from things to make positive changes at the school.

Continuing with the notion of distributive leadership as an emergent theme through the
lens of LMX, analysis of data suggests distributive leadership was positively correlated with
increased performance, elevated job satisfaction, increased satisfaction with superiors, greater
degree of loyalty to the organization, and a more optimistic view of their role within the school.
The following excerpt from interviewee E echoes these findings:
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 68

I have never had a better relationship with my principal. Because of teacher voice we are
able to hire our own principal and we can hire one that really sees our vision and our
direction. She is essential to understanding us. There is not that teacher versus
administration feeling here. That was a prevalent feeling in my other schools. I feel like
our teachers work very well together for a common purpose. We have the ability to talk
about our issues and make decisions together.

Likewise, interviewee P commented:

There’s a sense of community here. Teachers here have a voice. They are, in part,
responsible for working and doing tasks outside the classroom. The culture itself—the
structures that we build—is designed for teachers to work very intimately with one
another and that requires a lot of trust, communication and team building.

LMX asserts that positive linkages between leaders-and-members serve as a predictor of
institutional success. For the purpose of this analysis, the researchers identified administrators as
leaders, and the teaching cadre as the members. Analysis of interviews reveals a sub-theme,
which supported the relationship between high-level linkages among administrators and teachers
in the development of a productive academic setting for students. Interviewee A clearly
corroborated the findings of researchers with the following statement:

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 69
Being a good listener. Being open to ideas. Being grounded in building relationships.
That’s the most important thing for me. And then, as a principal, you should have no ego
to bruise, because if your ego gets in the way, it’s going to hurt your school. Lincoln
wrote, “Most people can stand adversity. But to test a person’s character, give him
power.” When it changes you, that’s not a good thing. You need to step back as a
principal and you need to say, “What do I need to do to help my staff help kids?” And
you have to be a good listener. And then, you really have to not take things personal.
When your staff comes to you and says, “Hey, I don’t like what’s happening here. I don't
like what you did. Can you try doing this differently? Can you try saying that
differently?” I have to listen to that. For any principal—you don’t have to be a pilot
school principal—you have to start with building relationships and being open to
criticism.

The pinnacle of the relationships created at a school site ought to be framed around
building the capacity of all those who work at the school. The building of capacity provides
positive linkages between the administrators and the teachers while also ensuring the
sustainability of the mission of the school. Thus, the building of capacity emerged as a theme in
this research study. This is evident in the response from Interviewee J who states:

I think building people’s capacity around me is something I bring to the job. I do not
want to be anyone’s hero. Again, I learned that in the Peace Corps and growing up in
East L.A., the idea of the patron. People always want a patron and resisting that, resisting
being someone’s hero or being someone’s savior, but making them be their own savior is
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 70
key. And, it’s tough because it is rewarding to solve someone’s problems. It makes you
feel good. But, it doesn’t build capacity and isn’t sustainable.

In summary, RQ2 sought to identify the leadership strategies implemented by campus
leaders. Distributive leadership and the formation of positive linkages between leaders-and-
members emerged as themes throughout the analysis of data. Interviewee responses were
consistent with the findings of past research on LMX and Distributive Leadership, which suggest
that high-level exchanges between leader-and-members are predictors of school site success.
Research Question 3
RQ 3 – According to pilot school leaders, what are the key factors contributing to successful
Pilot School administration?
As described in the literature review, small school size is an important element in
successful school reform. The researchers in this study found consistent data that the inherent
small size (between 400−600 students) of the Pilot Schools studied is a key ingredient to their
success, thus small school size emerged as a significant theme. The data collected suggests a
small school setting contributes to a school culture or climate that enhances the teachers’ ability
to instruct at a high level, and for administrators to effectively facilitate teaching and learning on
the campuses as well as establish relationships with students and their families.

According to respondent O:

Because of our size, the climate and the culture is more intimate as far as knowing the
students and actually getting to know my teachers more, because we’re all right here. We
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 71
see each other all day every day, so that creates a more family-like climate. Not saying
that we always get along, as families don’t. But I think it gives the students a real sense of
belonging.

Data reviewed for Interviewee H supports small school size as an emergent theme in relation to
RQ 3:

It is smaller and that means we can approach from a more personalized perspective. I’m
able to know all of the kids and their families and we can target resources and support as
needed to fill in gaps or challenge areas. Although the jury is still out on the effectiveness
of Pilot Schools, it is still a young model that needs some maturation.

From the responses collected and illustrated above, personalization emerged as a
dominant sub-theme in relation to small school size as a key factor to changing the school culture
and climate at LA Pilot Schools. Interviewee N highlighted personalization stating:

The beauty is that you get to know everyone. I know all my kids. I know everyone on my
staff. We all know what we do, and that’s what makes it so unique. The purpose of a pilot
school is to create that personalization to know who your players are. At a huge school, I
doubt that students have as much face time with the principal as I do. Every kid here
knows my name and actually knows me.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 72
The small school feel creates a sense of family and a shared purpose between staff and students,
which is further echoed by Interviewee A:
If you read our WASC report, you’ll see that one of the major commendations that were
received … at the end of the report it indicates a strong culture of support and family.
I’ve never seen in a visiting committee report the word “family” in relation to the school
culture. I was surprised that they saw our school that way. If you were to visit our school,
you and your team, and just talk to our students, you’d find that they really like being
here. It’s nothing that you’re going to find in a book. It’s the staff here that’s gone out of
their way to build relationships with kids.

Respondent A continues:
In the small school setting, what’s happened here at [Site A] is that the kids are finding
that there’s somebody there for them. There’s somebody they can talk to. There’s
somebody that they can trust to talk to. We've built this culture that's personalized. It's
respectful.”

In addition to small school size being identified as an essential component for LA Pilot
School success, the Elect-to-Work-Agreement (EWA) stands as another important tool for pilot
school leaders in their implementation of the autonomies and their leadership practices. The
EWA is signed by all certificated staff members at each site annually, and contains language that
affords LA Pilot Schools the privilege to deviate from Article 9 of the UTLA Collective
Bargaining Agreement. This deviation is teacher generated at each school site and deals with
items including extra duty assignments and hours of work, thus requiring pilot school teachers to
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 73
work beyond the traditional 8:00am − 3:00pm model. The EWA and its impact on pilot school
teachers are described by Interviewee H:

At traditional schools it really is an 8:00 to 3:00 day. But, here, we have the ability to ask
teachers to go above and beyond the traditional rules. They just have to do a little bit
more every day. Teachers have more of a voice, more say, and more ownership than at a
traditional school. It [EWA] is unique to pilot schools and outlines all the requirements
the teachers have to follow. In the previous year, teachers had to work 100 extra hours.
This year it was modified, but the idea is the same, they do more. The caveat, though, is
that teachers have a say in the agreement, we have a series of meetings to discuss all of
the parts and it ends up being teacher created.

The teacher created EWA is a tool used by administrators in their school leadership, which
supports Interviewee H’s comment above. It is confirmed by Interviewee J who states:

Our ETW gives us leverage as leaders because the teachers write their agreements into
the contract. I hold teachers accountable, then, to their own words. It isn’t my will; I am
just executing their will.

At Site F interviewee L further commented:

The EWA on the surface I think sounds harsh; it sounds undesirable. But the function of
it is to recruit and retain the most dedicated. That sounds like a shot against everybody
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 74
else. But it’s those who are dedicated to the school—I’ll say that—dedicated to the
school. There is a clause or a bullet point in there that mandates an eight-hour day.

Moreover, the EWA was highlighted as an important ingredient contributing to Pilot School
success in Interviewee B’s following response:

The original one had 36 items I think, I don’t know, maybe we’re just asking too much.
But it has things that—we put items in there that we expect from a quality teacher. You
know, for example, that a quality teacher will end up spending two to three hours a week
beyond the school schedule here on campus. That’s one of the requirements because
sometimes teachers will just clock in, clock out, they’re gone. We were avoiding those
situations. One of the other things that we have on there is that if we have summer
professional development (PD) that it’s a requirement that people show up for PD. That’s
the only way we can move as a unit, is if people show up.

While the EWA is clearly defined in the above quotes, a nuanced challenge to the
implementation of the EWA is stated by Interviewee I:

I sometimes feel people sign the Election to Work Agreement without reading the fine
print and knowing what they are signing up for. The challenge is that you have people
that want to sign up just to be teachers and that is good. But, at a PS, ours specifically,
you have to wear more hats than just be a teacher so to speak.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 75
Notwithstanding the above statement, the overall tenor unearthed in the data was found to be
overwhelmingly positive as it relates to the establishment and implementation of an EWA.
Therefore, Interviewee M concludes:

The EWA ensures that we’re all on the same page and we all protect our autonomies at
our school site. If that’s something that you think you can’t do, it’s understandable. Pilot
schools aren’t for everyone. Most of them read them and go, “I do this anyway. This is
easy. I do this in a regular day.” It was created by my school governing council. So it’s
created by teachers, not by me. Teachers set the bar for the colleagues they want to work
with. That’s what makes it so powerful. And it evolves; it’s changed a couple of times.
Some things have changed on what we want to see.

In summation, the Elect to Work Agreement stands as the lone autonomy, and therefore
most unique tool, that functions for the establishment of a sound foundation for LA Pilot
Schools; which aids in their quest to improve teaching and learning in a large urban school
district. School leaders have varied approaches to creating, updating and implementing the
EWA; however, the bottom line remains the same—the EWA provides a platform for pilot
school certificated employees to venture outside the bounds of the UTLA Collective Bargaining
Agreement. Thus, allowing teachers to have a collaborative voice to work more and do more for
the students at their school.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 76
Summary
Data was collected via in-depth interviews, with fifteen (15) interviewees, across six (6)
LA Pilot High School sites. The analysis of data, in relation to the three research questions,
grounded the findings for this study:

1. For research question #1, regarding the nature of autonomies in LA Pilot Schools,
the researchers found that the current autonomies granted to LA Pilot Schools are
bounded. District, state and federal mandates constrict the flexibility that pilot
school leaders have in implementing and truly changing the face of public school
education. The bounded nature of the autonomies, however, provides a platform
from which to elicit some of the flexibilities necessary to specifically address
student achievement. The most noteworthy examples found in this study dealt
with budget and curriculum. The budget, for instance, is flexible, up to the point
that school leaders do not jeopardize state and federal mandates (i.e. Breakfast in
the Classroom). On the more positive side of the autonomy spectrum fall
curriculum and assessment where school leaders found a wealth of opportunity to
exercise their autonomy. Textbooks and benchmark assessments, class offerings,
and enrichment courses were largely left untouched by the large urban district and
school leaders found solace in the fact that, at the site level, teachers could
collaborate to make the most effective curriculum and assessment choices for
their students.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 77
2. For Research Question #2, which sought the leadership strategies utilized by LA
Pilot School leaders to assist with the implementation of the autonomies, Leader-
Member Exchange Theory (LMX) was utilized as tool for analysis. Analysis of
data through the lens of LMX theory resulted in researchers identifying
Distributive Leadership as the dominant theme. Furthermore, interview data
revealed findings consistent with positive benefits associated with previous
studies conducted on LMX Theory such as increased job satisfaction, higher
employee productivity, and loyalty to the organization or institution. Finally,
relationship formation as a result of positive high-level linkages emerged as a
salient sub-theme in regard to research question 2.

3. For Research Question #3, regarding the factors that contribute to the success of
LA Pilot Schools leaders, the qualitative data gathered found small school size
(400−600 students) as an essential element and the EWA as a unique component
to the success of pilot schools. Interviewees’ responses indicated that small school
size allows for a more personalized approach that engages more students in the
learning process. It also creates a family-like culture between the students and
staff as well as among staff. The EWA has attracted and retained staff members
who are committed to working beyond the traditional school day for the
betterment of their students and for increased collaboration with their colleagues.
The EWA has created a sense of accountability and given teachers a voice on
decisions that are being made at the school site.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 78
In Chapter 5, implications of these findings as well as limitations of the research and
suggestions for further research are presented.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 79
Chapter 5:
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Authors: Damon Hines, Blake Silvers, and Anthony Taranto
6

Introduction
In the United States, education is seen as a pathway and gatekeeper to future success and an
individual’s ability to live the American Dream. Student success has been measured over the past
two decades largely based on one-time, high stakes, end-of-year assessments. Goldberg and
Morrison (2003) add that the system of accountability, in general, sets performance expectations
and provides a way to measure adherence to the standards, a way to report results, and a method
for providing feedback on performance. Prior to 2014, the United States system of education was
held accountable to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. The Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program provided the accountability tool for schools to measure and report
their progress.
When looking at the data from the Los Angeles Unified School District, the numbers
suggest a failing system. Nearly 60% of minority students in the district do not graduate from
high school and over 20% of students in the same demographic category drop out. Adams (2010)
found that higher performance in core classes and greater achievement in performance

6
Chapter 5 was developed as part of a collaborative research team. Each team member contributed to different
sections of the chapter under the direction of the dissertation advisor, Dr. Pedro Garcia. While all three coauthors
spearheaded specific sections of the chapter, ultimately all three authors contributed to all sections via Google docs
and face to face meetings to ensure consistency in language. Damon Hines wrote the Review of Current Literature
and Implications. Blake Silvers wrote the Statement of the Problem and the Conclusion. Anthony Taranto wrote the
Introduction and the Recommendations for Future Study. Hines, Silvers, and Taranto coauthored the sections titled
Methodology, Results and Findings. Damon Hines constructed the initial draft of the References. Blake Silvers
constructed Appendix A and B. Anthony Taranto constructed Appendix C and D. The entire dissertation was
coauthored at Carrie Estelle Doheny Foundation Faculty Commons at Loyola Marymount University. The authors
met biweekly for the greater part of a year to complete the dissertation. Finally, all three authors completed an
additional proofreading before the chapter was passed on to an external editor.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 80
accountability by sub-groups leads to students who are more prepared to compete in a global
economy. However, the changing landscape of the LAUSD student population and school and
classroom overcrowding results in a learning environment that is not optimal to close the
achievement gaps or to realistically achieve the competitive standards of student performance
accountability (Kerchner et al., 2008).
Responding to calls for increased accountability to close the achievement gap that exists
for Latino and African American students, LAUSD experimented with Pilot Schools. Pilot
Schools represent a fundamentally different approach to traditional urban public education, with
greater autonomy over budgeting, staffing, governance and curriculum. In exchange for more
autonomy, Pilot Schools have increased accountability, yet still must adhere to all state and
federal mandates (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a).
Pilot Schools were established in 2007 to address overcrowding and subpar academic
performance. The original Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between LAUSD and the
United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) approved ten (10) Pilot Schools within LAUSD Local
District 4. Since then, several MOUs have been agreed upon, with the total number of Pilot
Schools as of 2014 closing in on 50.
Statement of the Problem
The establishment of LA Pilot Schools sought to make an impact on the LAUSD school
district in which they are all situated. The Pilot School initiative aimed to address the lowest
performing schools that are confronted with overcrowding, poverty, and a large minority
population (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). Moreover, they offer a unique
educational experience for the students by creating small learning communities, increased
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 81
accountability, autonomy, collaboration, and equity (Los Angeles Unified School District,
2013a).
Scant research has been directed at studying the Pilot School model. Furthermore, no
research has been conducted with the aim of understanding how LA Pilot School leaders have
implemented the granted autonomies to improve teaching and learning. Thus, the purpose of the
following study is to evaluate leadership in relation to the autonomies granted to the pilot
schools: (a) staffing, (b) budget, (c) curriculum and assessment, (d) professional development,
(e) governance, and (f) scheduling for staff and students.
Research Questions
The aim of the stated research questions was to gain clarity on the nature of autonomies
at Pilot Schools, the leadership practices involved, and cogent tools used by leaders to attain an
effective academic environment. Therefore, to better understand the impact of leadership on
autonomies—(a) staffing, (b) budget, (c) curriculum and assessment, (d) professional
development, (e) governance, and (f) scheduling for staff and students—the following questions
were used to guide inquiry for this study:
RQ 1 – What is the nature of autonomy in the LAUSD pilot schools?
RQ 2 – What leadership strategies are employed by campus leaders to assist implementation
of the autonomies?
RQ 3 – According to pilot school leaders, what are the key factors contributing to successful
Pilot School administration?
Review of Current Literature
The concept of LA Pilot Schools is to provide greater autonomy to school sites in
LAUSD by providing school leadership with the flexibility to control staffing, budget,
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 82
curriculum and other issues that deal with school operations (Los Angeles Unified School
District, 2013a). Furthermore, the initiative is driven by the supposition that those closest to the
students, those that directly impact the day-to-day operations of a school, have a clearer
understanding of what is needed for the site(s) to be successful (Jensen et al., 2013). In an effort
to frame how the granted autonomies function, the five elements of LA Pilot Schools were
researched as well as Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX Theory).
School autonomy is a salient topic in educational corners worldwide. Consistent across
many studies is the cornerstone of successful public school autonomy, hinging heavily on the
integrity in which the autonomies are carried out (Clark, 2009; Hanushek et al., 2013; Jensen et
al., 2013; Schütz et al., 2007). Autonomy stands as only one ingredient that, mixed with other
components, can support academic growth. Schools that do not have other levers in place to
assist with advancing autonomies, find themselves no better off with the increased flexibilities
(Abdulkadiroğlu et al., 2011; Gunnarsson et al., 2009; Jensen et al., 2013; Zimmer & Buddin,
2009).
Accountability serves as an important element in the establishment and continuance of
LA Pilot Schools. It involves schools setting goals and measuring the extent to which the goals
were met in order to enforce consequences when they fall short (Burke, 2004; Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004; Murphy & Datnow, 2003; Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Stecher and Kirby (2004)
put forth the most cogent definition of accountability, referring to the practice of holding an
educational system responsible for the outcomes of their products—specifically knowledge,
skills, and behaviors. California has been driven by high stakes, end-of-year (EOY) assessments
known as the California Standards Tests (CSTs), from which a calculation is made and an
Annual Performance Index (API) score is determined for each school at the state level
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 83
(EdSource, 2009) and an Annual Yearly Performance designation at the federal level (McEachin
& Polikoff, 2012).
Learning is at the heart of education. As such, teachers are fundamental to the learning
process (Lee & Loeb, 2000). Collaboration is viewed as an essential feature of LAUSD’s Pilot
Schools approach to transforming urban public education. According to the LAUSD Pilot School
Manual (2013) staff working collaboratively in teams to share best practices is viewed as a key
factor for student success. Additionally, a stronger sense of accountability is established when
staff works collaboratively as a team to look at instructional strategies, teaching practices and
assessment data for the purpose of improvement.
The call for smaller school size has gained momentum with educators, parents, and
teacher unions. This momentum is due in large part to comprehensive high schools being seen as
factories that are impersonal and unable to respond appropriately to student needs (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2002). According to the National Educational Association (NEA), small
schools is the language used to denote restructuring schools, particularly high schools, and the
human relationships inside them. Thus, small school size is an essential feature of Pilot Schools
that potentially act as an agent for social equity in the face of achievement for urban high school
students (Huguley, 2008).
LA Pilot Schools have added emphasis to issues of access and opportunity, by grounding
equity as one of the five essential features framing the Pilot School model (Hampton, 2008; Los
Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). The definition of equity put forth by Pilot Schools
focuses on: (a) examination of patterns of achievement across racial/ethnic groups, gender,
language, and socioeconomic demographics; (b) building inclusive communities of learning for
all Pilot School students; and (c) high levels of academic achievement and readiness for
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 84
collegiate and career contexts (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a). While the definition
of equity posited by Pilot Schools achieves a great degree of focus, little guidance is offered as to
how equity is to be achieved or measured. Bensimon et al. (2007) develop the notion of equity as
needing both opportunity and results, thus linking the construct to accountability. Bensimon et al.
(2007) identify four perspectives including access, retention, institutional receptiveness, and
excellence as the backbone for measuring equity in their “Equity Scorecard.” The scorecard
informs institutions as to how underrepresented students are performing with respect to each
perspective. Ultimately, this allows for an institution to obtain quantifiable information that is
ethnic specific, thus allowing for comparison and benchmarking across ethnicities.
Leader-Membership Exchange Theory provided the lens through which data was
analyzed for leadership elements. LMX Theory is rooted in Exchange Theory, initially referred
to as Vertical Dyad Linkage theory (VDL). One of the major assumptions of VDL is leaders do
not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to leadership. Moreover, VDL Theory asserts leaders vary
their behaviors and assign different relational values towards specific members of their work
group or team (Dienesch & Linden, 1986; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Northhouse, 2006; Van
Breukelen et al., 2006). Finally, VDL claims that scarce resources, such as time and effort,
prompt leaders to form linkages with individual members to accomplish a host of work-related
tasks (Dienesch & Linden, 1986).
Leader-Member Exchange Theory emerged from VDL in the early 1980’s, focusing
attention on leader-member relationships. Early researchers in LMX theory classified leader-
member exchanges into three categories: (a) in-group relationships, (b) middle-group
relationships, and (c) out-group relationships (Dienesch & Linden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien
1995; Myers, 2006).
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 85
With well over 30 years of evaluation and research, LMX Theory has developed into one
of the most widely utilized approaches for the study of leadership (Northhouse, 2006). In
addition, LMX theory has produced prescriptive strategies for promoting high-quality exchanges,
in-group networks, and communication competence for leaders and members. Thus, the utility
and parsimonious nature of LMX Theory has been proven over time.
Methodology
A qualitative approach will be used for this study. An interview protocol will be designed
with the understanding that research questions will be best answered by collecting first-hand
information from administrators, lead teachers, and department chairs currently leading a Pilot
School within LAUSD. Qualitative data provides information that allows the researcher to
understand the elements and strategies that lead to successful site leaders (Maxwell, 2005;
Merriam 2009). Thus, qualitative data will provide a platform to determine the extent to which
the autonomous pilot school model improves the educational learning environment and thus
student achievement.
Results and Findings
1. Research question #1 asks, What is the nature of autonomy in the LAUSD pilot
schools? In regard to the nature of autonomies in LA Pilot Schools, the
researchers found that the current autonomies granted to LA Pilot Schools are
bounded. District, state and federal mandates constrict the flexibility that pilot
school leaders have in implementing and truly changing the face of public school
education. The bounded nature of the autonomies, however, provides a platform
from which to elicit some of the flexibilities necessary to specifically address
student achievement. The most noteworthy examples found in this study dealt
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 86
with budget and curriculum. The budget, for instance, is flexible, up to the point
that school leaders do not jeopardize state and federal mandates (i.e. Breakfast in
the Classroom). On the more positive side of the autonomy spectrum fall
curriculum and assessment where school leaders found a wealth of opportunity to
exercise their autonomy. Textbooks and benchmark assessments, class offerings,
and enrichment courses were largely left untouched by the large urban district and
school leaders found solace in the fact that, at the site level, teachers could
collaborate to make the most effective curriculum and assessment choices for
their students.
2. Research Question #2 asks, What leadership strategies are employed by campus
leaders to assist implementation of the autonomies? Research in this study sought
to learn the leadership strategies utilized by LA Pilot School leaders to assist with
the implementation of the autonomies, and Leader-Member Exchange Theory
(LMX) was utilized as a tool for analysis. Analysis of data through the lens of
LMX theory resulted in researchers identifying Distributive Leadership as the
dominant theme. Furthermore, interview data revealed findings consistent with
positive benefits associated with previous studies conducted on LMX Theory
such as increased job satisfaction, higher employee productivity, and loyalty to
the organization or institution. Finally, relationship formation as a result of
positive high-level linkages emerged as a salient sub-theme in regard to research
question 2.
3. Research Question #3 asks, According to pilot school leaders, what are the key
factors contributing to successful Pilot School administration? The qualitative
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 87
data gathered found small school size (400−600 students) to be an essential
element and the EWA to be a unique component to the success of pilot schools.
Interviewee’s responses indicated that small school size allows for a more
personalized approach that engages more students in the learning process. It also
creates a family-like culture between the students and staff as well as among staff.
The EWA has attracted and retained staff members who are committed to
working beyond the traditional school day for the betterment of their students and
for increased collaboration with their colleagues. The EWA has created a sense of
accountability and given teachers a voice on decisions that are being made at the
school site.
Implications
The findings of this study contribute to the sparse body of scholarly literature on the LA
Pilot School Model, including the utility of the autonomies granted to LA Pilot Schools.
Utilizing researcher triangulation and open coding for the analysis of interview data, the major
findings illuminate a clearer picture of how staffing, budget, curriculum and assessment,
professional development, governance, and scheduling function as autonomous features of the
LA Pilot School Model. In addition, the findings resulting from the research conducted by Hines,
Silvers, and Taranto (2014) serve to inform LAUSD and school districts across the United States
contemplating the Pilot School model by providing deep and robust qualitative data useful to
further support the Pilot School model.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) was purposely employed as a theoretical lens
to identify leadership strategies utilized by school site leaders. Findings, which emerged through
the application of LMX, can be useful to LAUSD by highlighting the significance of forming
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 88
meaningful relationships among staff and of promoting high-level exchanges at the school site.
In addition, the thorough investigation of leadership’s impact on the implementation of the
autonomies might provide specific guidance for incorporating autonomous innovations across all
LA Pilot Schools.
Recommendations for Future Study
The data collected during this study provided a solid platform for the continuation of
study on the performance of LA Pilot Schools, as related to the autonomies and leadership.
Therefore, this study only serves as a springboard to a host of other potential investigations that
could add clarity to the pilot school model. Additionally, the model is still in its infancy and full
graduation cohorts—those students who started 9th grade and graduated from a pilot school—are
low in number. Only a few schools have full cohorts from which to extrapolate data. Thus, the
researchers recommend future studies on LA Pilot Schools focus on the following areas:

1. School achievement based solely on students who started 9th grade and graduated from
an LA Pilot High School.
2. A comparative study of school climate between pilot schools and larger comprehensive
high schools that are co-located.
3. Interviews conducted of a larger sample of school leaders in order to provide a more in-
depth set of data for analysis.
4. Future research sample should include: (a) Elementary Pilot Schools and (b) Middle
School Pilot Schools.
5. Non-participant observations to observe leaders implementing the granted autonomies.
Observations should occur at: (a) scheduling meetings, (b) professional development, (c)
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 89
staff meetings, (d) instructional leadership team (ILT) meetings, and (e) employment
interviews.
6. Investigation of union (UTLA) barriers that inhibit the full implementation of the granted
autonomies.
7. An investigation of the relationship between the Intensive Support and Innovation Center
(ISIC) and the Pilot School Network (PSN) and the impact these organizations have on
the implementation of the pilot school model.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of LA Pilot School leaders in
utilizing the autonomies they are afforded in a manner that promotes student achievement.
Fundamentally, the study sought to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of
autonomies at LA Pilot Schools in achieving above district achievement rates, college readiness,
and improved school culture (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a).
With little research done on the effectiveness of the LA Pilot School model, a significant
burden was placed on the researchers, thus limiting the construction of this study. Outlined
below are the limitations experienced:
1. LAUSD IRB approval delayed due to the excessive changes required by LAUSD
administration, which affected: research questions, research methodology, and purpose of
the study.
2. LAUSD IRB staff’s purposeful selection of school sites and administrators to be
participants in the study.
3. Lack of response and access to willing participants/interviewees for the study.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 90
4. Restricted access to available LA Pilot School sites. Researchers were only able to visit
six of the 17 school sites.
5. LAUSD IRB altered the initial research methodology from mixed methods to qualitative
interviews only, as a prerequisite for approval.
In summary, the findings of this study suggest that the autonomies are bounded in nature
and have yet to be fully realized. The autonomies are restricted by district, state, and federal
mandates, thus limiting LA Pilot School leaders from fully utilizing the autonomies outlined in
the LA Pilot School Manual (2013). While the interviewees who participated in the study were
aware of the potential impact the autonomies might offer, the overall consensus of the freedoms
granted in the LA Pilot School Manual (2013) is that they actually functioned as “pseudo-
autonomies.” Additionally, LA Pilot School leaders, despite the bounded autonomies, continue
forward with collaborative leadership practices, which are grounded in the “spirit of
autonomies.” In the future, school districts will be well served when school leaders are able to
fully implement these autonomies so that they may fulfill their original intent.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 91

References
Abdulkadiroğlu, A., Angrist, J. D., Dynarski, S. M., Kane, T. J., & Pathak, P. A. (2011).
Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and
pilots. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2), 699−748.
Adams, J. E. (2010). Smart money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious goals.
Chapter 1: Ambitious learning goals require a new approach to educational resources
(pp. 29−54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
Bensimon, E. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change, 36(1), 45−52.
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2007). Leveraging promise and expanding
opportunity in higher education. Albany: SUNY Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. London, England: Granada Learning.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining
professional learning communities. Research Report Number 637. London, England:
General Teaching Council for England, Department for Education and Skills.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1−24).
San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 92
Carolan, B. (2012). An examination of the relationship among high school size, social capital,
and adolescents’ mathematics achievement. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(3),
583−595.
Clark, D. (2009). The performance and competitive effects of school autonomy. Journal of
Political Economy, 117(4), 745−783.
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Rundell, B. & Evans, D. (2003). The impact of collaborative CPD on
classroom teaching and learning. In: Research evidence in education library. Version
1.1. London. England: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of
Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as
complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover
among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2), 184-200.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Wichterle Ort, S. (2002). Reinventing high school:
Outcomes of the Coalition Campus Schools Project. American Educational Research
Journal, 39(3), 639−673.
Dienesch, R. M., & Linden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A
critique and future development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618−634.
DuFour, R. (2011). Work together but only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 9−13.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2004). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 93
EdSource. (2009). Algebra policy in California: Great expectations and serious challenges.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource Report, May 2009.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management
Review, 14(1), 57−74.
Fensterwald, J. (2013). Eight California Districts Receive Historic NCLB Waiver. Author
retrieved November 22, 2013 from https://edsource.org/today/2013/duncan-grants-nclb-
waiver-to-eight-california-districts/36918#.UpUqq5SidvY
Fine, M. (2005). Not in our name. Rethinking Schools, 19(4), 11−14.
Fuhrman, S. H. (2004). Introduction. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (eds.), Redesigning
accountability systems for education (pp. 3-14). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Fuller, B., Dauter, L., Hosek, A., Kirschenbaum, G., McKoy, D., Rigby, J., & Vincent,
J. M. (2009). Building schools, rethinking quality? Early lessons from Los Angeles.
Journal of Educational Administration, 47, 336−349
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827−844.
Goldberg, B. & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect; Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57−82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory
of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The
Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 219−247.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 94
Groen, M. (2006). From classroom to courtroom: A continuing quest for a definition of
educational equity. American Educational Historical Journal, 33(2), 27−33.
Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., and Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A
review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2),
173−208.
Gunnarsson, V., Orazem, P. F., Sánchez, M. A., & Verdisco, A. (2009). Does local school
control raise student outcomes? Evidence on the roles of school autonomy and parental
participation. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58(1), 25−52.
Hampton, P. (2008). Pilot school partnership with LAUSD aims to enhance education equity,
access. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from http://search.proquest.com.
libproxy.usc.edu/docview/469327396
Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make sense
everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics,104,
212−232.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USC Urban Ed.
Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California: Rossier School of Education.
http://www.edsource.org/pub_new-fed-policies.html
Hochschild, J. L., Scovronick, N., & Scovronick, N. B. (2004). The American dream and the
public schools. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Huguley, J. (2008). Small schools and urban youth: Using the power of school culture to engage
students. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 410−422.
Jensen, Ben, B. Weidmann, and J. Farmer. (2013). The myth of markets in school
education. Victoria, Australia: Grattan Institute.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 95
Kerchner, C. T., Menefee-Libey, D. J., Mulfinger, L. S., & Clayton, S. E. (2008). Learning from
L.A.: Instructional change in American public education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Lee, H., Özgün-Koca, S., & Cristol, D. (2011). An analysis of high school transformation effort
from an outcome perspective. Current Issues in Education, 14(1), ISSN 1099-839X.
Lee, V.E., & Smith, J.B. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 205−227.
Lee, V.E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools; Effects on teachers’
attitudes and students’ achievements. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1),
3−31.
Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher
collaboration: facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 19(1), 116−138.
Little, J. (1990). Teachers as colleagues. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative
cultures: Creating the future now. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Los Angles Pilot School Manual. (2013). Los Angeles Unified School District. Retrieved
September 10, 2013 from
http://pilotschools.lausd.net/Tools/Pilot%20School%20Manual%202013-
14_draftv8_1_8_7_13.pdf
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2013a). Los Angles Pilot School Manual. Retrieved
September 10, 2013 from
http://pilotschools.lausd.net/Tools/Pilot%20School%20Manual%202013-
14_draftv8_1_8_7_13.pdf
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 96
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2013b). Los Angeles Unified School District 2013−2014
List of Pilot Schools. Retrieved September 10, 2013 from
http://pilotschools.lausd.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=190037&type=d&pREC_ID
=393573
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional learning community affect the
classroom? Teacher’s work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American
Journal of Education, 106(4), 532−575.
Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of
self-effort and others’ effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(4), 697−708.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McEachin, A., & Polikoff, M. S. (2012). We are the 5%: Which schools would be held
accountable under a proposed revision of the elementary and secondary education
act? Educational Researcher, 41(7), 243−251.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Micklewright, J., Schnepf, S. V., & Silva, P. N. (2012). Peer effects and measurement error: The
impact of sampling variation in school survey data (evidence from PISA). Economics of
education review, 31(6), 1136−1142.
Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). In J. Murphy & A. Datnow, Leadership lessons from
comprehensive school reforms (pp. 57−82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 97
Myers, S. A. (2006). Using leader-member exchange theory to explain students’ motives to
communicate. Communication Quarterly, 54(3), 293−304.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (1995). National Education Longitudinal
Study of 1988. Psychometric report for the NELS:88 base year through second follow-up
(NCES-95-382). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
Northhouse, P.G. (2006). Leadership theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational
Review, 72, 293−329.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Plank, S. B., & Condliffe, B. F. (2013). Pressures of the season: An examination of classroom
quality and high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5),
1152−1182.
Raywid, M. A., Schmerler, G., Phillips, S. E., & Smith, G. A. (2003). Not so easy going: The
policy environments of small urban schools and schools within schools. Charleston, WV:
AEL.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment:
Implication for teacher induction programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89(4),
421−439.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 98
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX)
research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices.
Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63−113.
Schütz, G., West, M., & Wöbmann, L. (2007). School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the
equity of student achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003 (vol. 14). Paris,
France: OECD.
Schyns, B. (2006). Are group consensus in leader-member exchange (LMX) and shared work
values related to organizational outcomes? Small Group Research, 37(1), 20−35.
Shernoff, D.J., & Schmidt, J.A. (2007). Further evidence of an engagement-achievement paradox
among U.S. high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 37(5).
DOI:10.1007/s10964-007-9241-z.
Stecher, B. & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: lessons for
education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Supovitz, J., & Christman, J. (2003.) Developing communities of instructional practice: Lessons
from Cincinnati and Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.
Van Breukelen, W., Schyns, B., & Le Blanc, P. (2006). Leader-member exchange theory and
research: Accomplishments and future challenges. Leadership, 2(3), 295−316.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education. 24. 80−91.
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 99
Waldron, N. L., & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture through
comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,
20, 58−74.
Wasley, P. A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N. E., King, S. P., Mosak, E., & Powell, L. C.
(2000). Small schools: Great strides as study of new small schools in Chicago. New
York, NY: The Bank Street College of Education.
Weiss, C. C., Carolan, B., & Baker-Smith, E. C. (2009). Big school, small school: (Re)testing
assumptions about high school size, school engagement and mathematics achievement.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 163−176.
Werblow, J., & Duesbery, L. (2009). The impact of high school size on math achievement and
dropout rate. The High School Journal. 92. 14−23.
Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2009). Is charter school competition in California improving the
performance of traditional public schools? Public Administration Review, 69(5),
831−845.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 100
Appendices
Appendix A: LA Pilot School Leader Interview Questions
1. What is your current position with the school?
2. How long have you been in this position?
3. How were you selected for your position?
4. Have you ever worked at a traditional LAUSD school or other traditional school setting?
a. Probe (If no): What do you assume to be the difference between a Pilot School
and a traditional school?
b. Probe (If yes): Are you finding working at a Pilot School a different from your
past experience?
i. Follow-up: How?
5. How do you feel about the Pilot School model?
6. What do you like most about your school?
7. Please tell us about your pilot school plan?
a. Probe: How is it working in the real world?
8. Which autonomy do you find most important?
a. Follow up: Why?
b. Follow up: I noticed you mention (these) autonomies, why not the others?
9. How has your use of autonomy evolved during your time as a school leader?
10. Specifically, how do you exercise autonomy at your school?
11. What LAUSD mandates have you not implemented because of your schools autonomy?
a. Probe: What supports and impedes the implementation of the flexibilities?
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 101
12. What are some innovative programs you offer at (XYZ) School as a result of the
autonomies?
a. Probe: Are these programs different from programs offered at a traditional
LAUSD school? (look for themes based on this probe)
13. What are the specific leadership qualities necessary for being a pilot school principal?
a. Follow-Up: How have you seen these strategies unfold at your school site?
14. What challenges are Pilot School administrators faced with?
15. Tell me about your elect to work agreement?
16. Probe: How is this presented or explained to new teachers?
17. How does the elect to work agreement affect school business such as hiring or teacher
satisfaction?
a. Follow up: How about teacher engagement at the school?
18. In your opinion, how have Pilot Schools transformed public education in a large urban
school district?
19. Any final comments or thoughts?
(Source: Prepared by Damon Hines, Blake Silvers, & Anthony Taranto)

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 102
Appendix B: Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS
SHEET
FOR
EXEMPT
NON-‐MEDICAL
RESEARCH

Autonomies at LA Pilot Schools
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

You are eligible to participate in this study because you are an LA Pilot High School principal or
other Los Angeles Unified School District administrator familiar or integral in the functioning of
said schools. Your participation is voluntary. Your relationship with your employer will not be
affected, whether or not you participate in this study.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the following study is to evaluate leadership in relation to the autonomies granted
to the pilot schools: (a) staffing, (b) budget, (c) curriculum and assessment, (d) professional
development, (e) governance, and (f) scheduling for staff and students. There is little research
that directly studies or provides in-depth insight into the LA Pilot School model. Furthermore, no
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 103
research has been conducted with the aim of understanding how LA Pilot School leaders have
implemented the autonomies to improve school performance.

Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of LA Pilot School leadership in
utilizing the autonomies they are afforded in a manner that promotes student achievement.
Essentially, this study will delve into the realm of LA Pilot School autonomies to garner
information as to which are utilized, underutilized, and/or might pose other challenges to the
success of this alternative schooling model. Fundamentally, the study seeks to determine the
effectiveness of the implementation of autonomies at LA Pilot Schools in achieving that which
they were intended to achieve, including above district achievement rates, college readiness, and
improved school culture (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013a).

The variance in achievement data suggests that for LA Pilot Schools the answer is not as simple
as yes or no when analyzing their effectiveness. Rather, the answer requires a complex
investigation as to the integrity of the program; are they truly implementing the autonomies
available. The fact that some LA Pilot Schools succeed while others don’t suggests some schools
might be employing design plan that are more effective than their peer schools. This frames the
purpose of the study by providing an impetus to study the mechanisms of LA Pilot School
autonomies and the fidelity with which they are implemented. The research that is lacking in this
area encourages a study that can ascertain why and how LA Pilot Schools have varied results in
terms of student and school performance and how LA Pilot Schools might better utilize the
cogent autonomies granted to them.

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 104
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in a 45-60 minute open-
ended interview. The interview may be audio-taped with your permission. You do not have to
answer any questions you don’t want to.

CONFIDENTIALITY

There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address or other identifiable information will not be linked to your responses.
The data will be stored on a password protected computer in a locked office indefinitely and may
be used in future research studies. If you do not want your responses used in future studies, you
should not participate in this study.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Blake Silvers – 310-422-2222 – brsilver@usc.edu
Damon Hines – 310-498-1947 – dhines@usc.edu
Anthony Taranto – 310-694-7486 – taranto@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 105
Appendix C: LAUSD IRB Approval Letter

AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 106
Appendix D: Recruitment Letter
Date:
Dear [Name of LA Pilot School Principal or LAUSD Administrator]:
We are doctoral students at the University of Southern California (USC) and are working on the
dissertation An Examination of Autonomy and Leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District
Pilot Schools (Hines, Silvers, & Taranto, 2014). We are conducting a research study to
understand the impact of leadership on the implementation of the autonomies that serve as an
integral part of pilot schools: (a) budget, (b) staffing, (c) curriculum, (d) governance, and (e)
calendar.

There is little research that directly studies or provides in-depth insight into the LA Pilot School
model as it relates to the autonomies. Furthermore, no research has been conducted with the aim
of understanding how LA Pilot School leaders have implemented the autonomies with the aim of
improving achievement. Thus, the purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of LA
Pilot School leadership in the realm of the specified autonomies.

Our research team is composed of three USC doctoral candidates, Damon Hines, Blake Silvers,
and Anthony Taranto. The research study is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Pedro
Garcia, professor of Clinical Research and our dissertation chair. Our dissertation committee also
includes: Dr. Rudy Castruita and Dr. Maria Ott, both former public school Superintendents.

As a Pilot School leader, we believe that your participation as an interviewee might provide
valuable data for this research study. If you agree to participate, you will be invited to partake in
AUTONOMY AND LEADERSHIP IN LAUSD PILOT SCHOOLS 107
a 45-minute to one-hour face-to-face interview. Please note, your information will remain
confidential and pseudonyms will be used in the study, however our findings will be shared with
LAUSD personnel. This research is being conducted at the request of LAUSD ISIC
administration.

To be eligible to participate, you must: (1) be a Principal of a Los Angeles Pilot School, or (2) be
a Lead Teacher, or (3) be a Department Chair or other type of Teacher Leader at an LA Pilot
School.

If you have any questions or concerns please contact Damon Hines, Blake Silvers, or Anthony
Taranto at: dhines@usc.edu, blakesilvers@gmail.com, taranto@usc.edu. We will follow up with
an email; however attached you will also find the letter of approval from LAUSD.

Thank you for your time, and we look forward to including you in this research study.

Sincerely,
Damon Hines, Blake Silvers, and Anthony Taranto

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In 2009 the Los Angeles Unified School District passed the Public School Choice Initiative, which aimed to give students in the lowest performing schools educational options. LA Pilot Schools are one option students and their families have when choosing a school in LAUSD. These schools boast small size, autonomy, greater accountability, collaboration and equity as they look to fulfill the mission of the large urban district: to support the students in becoming college and career ready. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the autonomies granted to LA Pilot Schools and the leadership strategies used by school leaders. Specifically, the study aimed to determine: (a) the nature of the autonomies at LA Pilot Schools

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

PDF

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st -century skills

PDF

What factors play a role in making the District of choice program fit a school district's educational mission?

PDF

Strategies utilized by superintendents and mathematics district personnel that impact minority student outcomes in algebra

PDF

The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools

PDF

An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals

PDF

Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement

PDF

Should it say or should it go: how successful superintendents build, shift, and transform district culture in an age of increasing accountability

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

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

PDF

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

PDF

Traits, skills, and competencies contributing to superintendent longevity

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Taranto, Anthony J. (author)

Core Title An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 01/29/2015

Defense Date 11/04/2014

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

Tag accountability,Autonomy,collaboration,distributive leadership,elect to work agreement-,equity,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,pilot school,small school size

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy Max (committee member), Ott, Maria G. (committee member)

Creator Email mrajtaranto@gmail.com,taranto@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-526912

Unique identifier UC11297738

Identifier etd-TarantoAnt-3144.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-526912 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TarantoAnt-3144.pdf

Dmrecord 526912

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Taranto, Anthony J.

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