University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE i

EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES USED BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRINCIPALS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE

by

Melissa Kistler

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

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As I come to the end of this incredible journey, I know that I have many to thank for
traveling with me. I would like to thank the brilliant and talented instructors at the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. You challenged and inspired me to
become a more mindful educator and further ignited my passion for educating our children.
Thank you, Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation committee chair, and two other committee
members, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Michael Escalante. Each time I met with you in class and as
part of this writing process, I felt honored to work with you. Over and over again, your words of
wisdom rung true and have led me through this program and my principalship. Thank you, Dr.
Castruita, for keeping me focused on this task by asking me the hard questions that expanded my
thoughts and my work. Your guidance has impacted me more than you know.
Many superintendents, principals and friends also stepped up to support this work. Thank
you to the superintendents who valued our work and provided access to principals at critical
junctures. Thank you to the principals who took time out of their ridiculously busy and
challenging schedules to sit down and give honest and sincere feedback. Thank you, Terry
Dutton, for coaching me through my beginnings as a principal and continuing as a friend and
collaborator in the work of Common Core. You have shown me that perseverance, honesty, and
integrity are bedrocks in the principalship. Thank you, Joann Merrick, for your enthusiasm for
our topic and your help in making critical connections for us so that we could complete the
study. This study would be incomplete without the help and dedication of Kimberley Clark, our
editor who saw to every detail, large and small, and pulled the parts into an organized whole.
I waited 20 years to come back to USC to start the doctoral program. I was fortunate to
be in the Thursday Night Cohort of people who rocked my academic world. There were so many
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE iii

talented minds from various educational backgrounds in that small group of people. I thank all of
them for their perspectives and humor as we rode this rollercoaster of learning together. You
made it fun! It is also where I met my writing partner, Kristen Shultz. Kristen is a talented and
amazing educator with great intellect and work ethic! We share similarities in our love for our
work yet share different strengths that supported our work together. Thank you, my friend, for
lending your brilliant perspectives to our collaboration. Your acumen and focus on details saved
me from being overwhelmed by this monumental process. Personally, I can’t wait to watch your
career bud and grow. You have so much to offer us all.
I could not have done any of this without the support of my sisters, the Kennedy Sisters,
LaJuana, Christine, Karen, Carolyn, Elizabeth, and Marcia. All six of your voices have played in
my mind and have encouraged me throughout this process. I thank my parents, who are no
longer with me but believed education was the path to personal and professional success. Thank
you “Mama Sheri” Welles for your unshakable faith in me. Thank you to my husband, Blaze
Kistler. You always told me I could do this. You listened to me rant yet always encouraged and
supported me. Thank you for reading papers you didn’t want to read, especially at ungodly hours
in the morning or when I cut in on Dodger, Laker, or USC football games. I love you more than
anything or anyone in this world. You are my favorite person ever!
Once again, thank you to everyone who helped guide me through this process! Fight On!

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
Preface ix
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 3
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 6
Importance of the Study 7
Methodology 8
Assumptions 8
Limitations 8
Delimitations 9
Chapter 2: Review of Literature 10
Introduction 10
Leadership in Theory and Practice 11
A Historic Perspective of the Principalship 12
Organizations and the Change Process 17
Establishing a Sense of Urgency 21
Creating the Guiding Coalition 22
Developing a Vision and Strategy 23
Communicating the Change Vision 25
Empowering Broad-Based Action 26
Generating Short-Term Wins 27
Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change 28
Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture 29
Building Internal Capacity 30
Common Core State Standards Initiative 35
Conclusion 39
Chapter 3: Methodology 40
Introduction 40
Purpose of the Study 41
Research Questions 41
Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design 42
Use of Quantitative Methods 42
Use of Qualitative Methods 42
Research Design 43
Sample and Population 44
Instrumentation 45
Quantitative Instrumentation 46
Qualitative Instrumentation 47
Pilot Study 47
Data Collection 48
Quantitative Data Collection 48
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE v

Qualitative Data Collection 48
Data Analysis 49
Quantitative Data Analysis 49
Qualitative Data Analysis 50
Conclusion 52
Chapter 4: Results 53
Introduction 53
Purpose of the Study 53
Participants 54
Demographic Data 55
Research Question 1 58
Preplanning 59
Site Specific Plans 64
Teacher Planning and Collaboration 65
Discussion 65
Research Question 2 67
Leadership Practices 67
Direct Leadership Practices 68
Observation 70
Leadership Teams 71
Indirect Leadership Practices 71
Discussion 72
Research Question 3 73
Crafted Coherence 75
Time 75
Technology 77
Discussion 79
Summary 79
Research Question 1 80
Research Question 2 80
Research Question 3 81
Chapter 5: Conclusions 82
Introduction 82
Statement of the Problem 82
Purpose of the Study 82
Research Questions 83
Literature Review 83
Methodology 85
Findings 86
Implications 88
Recommendations for Further Research 89
Conclusion 89

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE vi

References 92
Appendices 103
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter 103
Appendix B: Study Information/Fact Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical
Research 104
Appendix C: Survey Instrument 106
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 110
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE vii

List of Tables
Table 1: Methods Choices for Each Research Question Page 44
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Length of Time in the Principalship Page 55
Table 3 Quantitative Survey: Length of Time Implementing CCSS Page 56
Table 4: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of the Principals and Sites Page 57
Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Knowledge Development in Two Years of CCSS Page 60
Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Principal Training for CCSS Page 61

Table 7: Quantitative Survey: Creation and Adoption of a School-Wide
Plan for CCSS Implementation and Communication Page 63

Table 8: Quantitative Survey: Elementary Principal Rating of CCSS
Teacher Training Page 68

Table 9: Quantitative Survey: Barriers to Implementation of CCSS Page 73

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to examine elementary principal leadership during change
by analyzing various strategies used by the principals to create change systems within the context
of Common Core State Standards. More specifically the study set out to explore: 1) what
planning and program design do elementary principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards, 2) what context-specific leadership practices are necessary for
the implementation of instructional changes, and 3) what are the organizational barriers
principals encounter when implementing Common Core State Standards. Mixed methods were
used to collect and analyze data. Surveys, interviews and documents were reviewed to
triangulate the data for validity and reliability. Forty-one elementary principals in Southern
California were surveyed and five from the group were selected for interviews. Documents from
each school were reviewed as part of the analysis. Through coding, themes emerged. Study
results indicate that planning and programming for Common Core implementation involved high
levels of professional development. Elementary principals used collaboration in various forms as
a strategy to continue the momentum of implementation of the standards. Principals supported
implementation with direct and indirect approaches to leadership. Direct approaches influenced
instruction while indirect strategies supported an environment in which change can occur. Lastly,
elementary principals highlighted barriers to change and transitions from old to new standards.
Those barriers included technology and minimum cohesion between district offices and
elementary site principals. Overall, the study provides insight into strategies that elementary
principals use to launch and protect new systems that involve deep levels of change.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE ix

PREFACE

Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly coauthored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practitioners. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with two doctoral candidates—Melissa
Kistler and Kristen Shultz. We met at USC’s Rossier School of Education doctoral program,
working together in various classes. We decided that, given our shared interests as researchers
and practitioners, we would investigate the leadership practices principals used for the
implementation of instructional change at the school site. After completing chapters 1-3 together,
each of us ventured on to examine our own site level of interest—elementary school and middle
school. Kristen’s background as a teacher and consultant in middle schools lends a cogent voice
to middle school perspectives, hence her focus on that area of education. I have over 20 years of
experience teaching elementary school and administering diverse elementary sites. Therefore,
my background and passion lend themselves to elementary settings. When combined, the two
dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively address the change process for K-8
schools (see Shultz, 2014).
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 1

CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Authors: Melissa Kistler and Kristen Shultz
1

Introduction
The process of creating change from within any organization can be difficult and may be
hampered by both internal and external forces or directives within the accountability systems that
shape and influence education (Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012). Federal or state standards-based
reform efforts such as the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act - No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) and, more recently, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) seek
to bring performance- and assessment-based accountability to K-12 schools. With CCSS, the
standards move away from the individual state sets to a shared set of “higher and deeper”
standards rooted in inquiry and critical thinking (Kirst, 2013, p.1). However, the shift to a
common set of standards from individual state standards requires alignment across federal, state
and local agencies responsible for implementation. Enacting change from top-down directives
and policies requires organizational capacity building and sustainment, funding, and guidance
from leadership (Fullan, 2012; Kirst, 2013).
Under NCLB and CCSS, instructional quality is aligned with student performance on
annual measurements therefore underscoring the critical nature of the principal as instructional
leader (Kirst, 2013; NCLB, 2001). In an assessment-driven educational culture, there has been a
history of teaching to the test rather than teaching for learning; high-stakes accountability tied to
student performance has increased pressure on principals and other site leaders to create effective

1
Chapters 1, 2 and 3 were jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The
authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 2

instructional change based on those top-down directives (Causey-Bush, 2005; Linn, 2005).
Educational change often generates a push and pull between teachers and administrators who
both seek an improvement in student achievement yet disagree as to the methods or strategies
used to implement such change (Fullan, 2012). Thus a cycle of stymied change is established,
hampering both teacher learning and instructional change. Consequently, instructional and
curricular changes speak not only to leadership but also to the idea of organizational change and
a cultural shift; effectively, a “reculturation” must occur in order for significant change to take
root (Dowd, 2005; Fullan, 2012; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008, p. 46; Gallucci, 2008;
Ramaley, 2002). The role of a leader, in this case the principal, is to mobilize others and create a
convergence of values so as to allow others to accept the change that is to occur in order for the
reculturation to take hold (Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache, & Alexander, 2010).
Research suggests that the impetus is on school leadership to promote a continued effort
toward teacher education and implementation of instructional strategies that lend themselves to
improved student learning and student achievement under federal and state policies such as
NCLB and CCSS (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003; Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Smit & Humpert,
2012). Site administrators—notably principals at all levels in K-12 education—must develop and
support reculturation as well as build the capacity of all teachers in order to implement curricular
and instructional changes presented through federal, state and local policies. Sergiovanni (2009)
and Youngs and King (2002) argue that since principals represent the instructional leaders at
school sites, they are increasingly more accountable for the practices that improve student
achievement. Moreover, as performance standards have increased under NCLB and will continue
increasing under CCSS, schools have faced—and will continue to face—a variety of
consequences should they fail to meet their goals or identified annual accountability measures
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 3

such as Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) (Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005; NCLB, 2001). These
“corrective action” measures include Program Improvement (PI), in which schools and districts
identified as Title I have failed to meet their AYP for two years in a row in the same content area
and therefore must implement various interventions in order to improve student learning and
increase test scores (CDE, 2012). PI—and the pressure to avoid the consequences meted out to
PI schools—has placed increased pressure on school leaders to build such internal capacity and
improve student achievement (CDE, 2012; Elmore, 2002; Linn, 2005).
Furthermore, leadership has the potential to cultivate increased student achievement
through an involvement with curriculum and assessment, intellectual stimulation of a school’s
faculty, and a commitment to school culture (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). These
qualities speak to a strong internal system dedicated to building internal capacity (Dowd, 2005;
Elmore, 2002; Norton Grubb & Badway, 2005). Thus, as principals focus on practices to bring
about successful and enduring change through developing the instructional practices, skills, and
knowledge of teachers, a cultural shift and a commitment to the ideals of CCSS will be brought
to fruition (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Dowd, 2005;
Elmore, 2002; Marzano et al., 2005). Consequently, CCSS represents both an opportunity for
schools and districts to improve instruction, yet the lack of practical guidance and policy
alignments also present a plethora of potential challenges for leadership.
Background of the Problem
With CCSS, the demands and parameters of student achievement will shift from the
curriculum under NCLB. Marzano, Yanoski, Hoegh, and Simms (2013) report that under NCLB,
content was too thin and could not be effectively integrated or implemented in K-12 education.
A concrete example of this point is found in Kendall and Marzano (2000) wherein they identified
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 4

200 standards in 14 content areas in districts across the nation. It proves impossible to align
efforts nationally or to teach effectively with so many standards and variations among them.
Further, multiple dimensions of learning were often mixed within one single standard forcing
assessment of knowledge or skills that were nebulous or difficult for the teacher to ascertain
(Marzano et al., 2013). The standards and their related instruction and assessments led to
unwieldy implementation and a lack of deep and meaningful learning structures that impact a
wide swath of learning or reach an equally wide range of learners (Marzano et al., 2013).
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) express concern over the “decontextualization” and
oversimplification of teaching and learning under NCLB. A vast amount of teachers were trained
as required under NCLB and lack the depth of teaching practices and learning pedagogy that
consider the day-to-day complexities inherent in teaching deep structures in various cultural
contexts and communities (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p. 22; NCLB, 2001).
In addition to teachers being trained and acculturated under NCLB, many principals
focused instruction and curriculum only on the requirements measured by NCLB, leading to
narrow perspectives on instruction in order to avoiding negative outcomes—such as Program
Improvement (PI)—with prescriptive simplified solutions that manipulate a narrow band of
variables to improve scores (Linn, 2005; NCLB, 2001; Ravitch, 2010). These same principals
may be further hampered because they may not have had the adequate time within the classroom
as teachers themselves before becoming the instructional leader at the site. Therefore, their
ability to provide adequate leadership and feedback to teachers may have limitations (Ravitch,
2010).
Currently, education is facing large-scale changes as part of CCSS and the instruction
based on them. A significant number of teachers and administrators have been acculturated and
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 5

conditioned under NCLB and are required to shift into CCSS which focuses more closely on a
differentiated curriculum that seeks to teach higher levels of skills and knowledge in order to
ensure the success of future generations (CDE, 2010; Hochschild & Scovronik, 2003; Kirst,
2013; Linn, 2005). Since these standards focus on analytical thinking and justifying reasoning,
teaching practices and the leadership oversight of them will require significant overhaul (Causey-
Bush, 2005; Dee & Jacob, 2011; Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005). As California transitions to CCSS,
many schools have and will institute curricular and instructional changes in order to prepare
teachers for these new demands. Research on the effectiveness of both the content standards and
leadership practices that lend themselves to success within Common Core will shed light on the
path toward not only academic proficiency but also instructional best practices. Focus on not
simply “the what” of curriculum but also on the “the how” will assist instructional leaders in
providing effective training in instructional techniques that lend themselves to success for all
students (Causey-Bush, 2005).
Site principals are in a unique role to support the transition through thoughtful
implementation of CCSS and the knowledge and skills required to support teaching and learning
within the K-12 continuum of education. Policy and accountability are inherent in education and
the implementation of them is expected at all levels—federal, state, district, and local school site.
The danger, however, is the assumption that effective implementation will successfully occur to
affect instructional and curricular change at the site level by the local site leadership—the
principal (Fowler, 2009). It is essential that the concern of implementing this new policy at the
site level be addressed.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 6

Statement of the Problem
The process of implementing successful change from within an organization can be difficult for
leaders and is affected by a variety of internal and external forces (Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
While research on school reform under policies such as NCLB as it relates to student
achievement is widespread, there is little research on how CCSS has and will influence school
leadership implementation of the instructional changes required under CCSS. Funding, learning
opportunities, and professional development have been provided to schools for the transition to
CCSS, but how that change is to be implemented remains unclear and unknown within the
research and practitioner community (Kirst, 2013; Tienken, 2011).
Current research and documentation on CCSS focuses on the standards themselves and
their alignment to current standards and the purpose of education (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013;
Kirst, 2013; Tienken, 2011). Like NCLB before it—or any instructional and curricular policy
change—CCSS will influence accountability systems, leadership, school culture, and teacher
learning, yet has not been fully studied as CCSS is in its nascent implementation phase (Jenkins
& Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005; Tienken, 2011). An examination of the successful
strategies of principals in the K-12 continuum is needed as education sits at the crossroads of
change between the policy requirements of NCLB and the standards presented by CCSS.
Therefore, the discussion concerning how to plan, implement, and sustain the site-level changes
brought about by CCSS has been cursory at best.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify strategies principals in the K-12 continuum
have found to be effective while implementing curricular changes set forth by district, state and
federal policies such as NCLB and CCSS. Using CCSS as the vehicle to illustrate and ground a
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 7

discussion on instructional change in education, this study examined how change is implemented
at the site level and the leadership necessary for successful planning, implementation and
sustainment of that change. By examining the processes for implementing successful change, this
study illuminated the choices and beliefs regarding the strategies used by school leaders as they
deal with internal and external factors brought about by curricular change.
The following research questions were explored for this study:
(1) What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
(2) What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
(3) What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?

Importance of the Study
This study will contribute to the growing body of literature on the implementation of
instructional change. By critically examining the perspectives and choices made by principals in
the implementation of instructional change, this study will guide and inform the practices of
principals—as instructional leaders—toward successful organizational change. Therefore, this
study has the potential to inform the practices of principals in the K-12 continuum at local school
sites and influence the practices of instructional leaders elsewhere. Finally, in a more widespread
context, this study can link the lessons learned from instructional and curricular policies such as
NCLB with the transition to CCSS as well as contribute to the standardization of change
implementation. As educational reform continues to prescribe instructional and curricular
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 8

changes, the lessons learned in implementation can support leaders and teachers through any
transition, not just the transition from NCLB to CCSS.
Methodology

Mixed methods were used for this study. Quantitative measures such as surveys were
coupled with qualitative measures including semi-structured interviews and document analysis
demonstrating the practices of leaders as they implemented change. Triangulated with the
supporting literature, all methods and measures support one another in order to provide a greater
understanding to the issue of implementing change as it pertains to instruction and curriculum.
Methods are furthered discussed in Chapter 3 of the study.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
(1) The principal acts as instructional leader.
(2) Principals will be able to identify and communicate practices used to implement
instructional change.
(3) The information gathered will sufficiently address the research questions.
Limitations
The limitations of the study were:
(1) The validity of the data is based on the choice of instrumentation.
(2) The ability and/or willingness of participants to provide accurate responses.
(3) The ability and/or willingness of school leaders to participate fully and grant access
to instances in which curricular change is communicated such as Professional
Development.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 9

(4) Challenges in identifying and narrowing the practices used during the
implementation of policies such as CCSS.
Delimitations
The delimitations of the study were:
(1) Data collection was limited to urban elementary and middle school principals of
California schools who are in the process of planning and implementing CCSS.
(2) Interviews were limited to five principals who have been in their position for at
least a year.
(3) The principals had some training (formal and/or informal) in preparation for CCSS.
(4) Training for principals, teachers and staff had occurred in preparation for CCSS.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 10

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Authors: Melissa Kistler and Kristen Shultz
Introduction
The literature review for this study will begin with leadership theories in relation to
education. It will then address a history of the principalship, the role and requirements ascribed
to the modern principal, the impact of site leadership on innovations and student achievement,
and effective skills and strategies employed while implementing those innovations.
Implementation of such innovation is inextricably tied to organizational change and the change
process. Using John Kotter’s (2012) change model as a framework, prominent themes emerged
from the literature review relating to the processes and barriers faced during organizational
change in educational settings. The eight steps of successful change contend with not only
implementation but also the maintenance of such change over time, including the change to that
culture and context (Kotter, 2012). Equally important to the implementation of change is the role
of internal capacity, as a method to sustain that change. Finally, the change process and
leadership will be situated in the specific context of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS),
one of the most sweeping and significant federal changes to today’s education system (Kirst,
2013; Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Marzano et
al., 2013; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010a; Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). Research as it relates to the
implementation of CCSS in school sites has been limited, yet the change process has been well
documented; therefore, this literature review seeks to connect what is known about leadership
and change in education with what is suggested or implied by CCSS.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 11

Leadership in Theory and Practice
Leadership is an idea that has existed since ancient times and various theories of practice
have been ascribed to it throughout the years (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan, 2013; Marzano et
al., 2005). Leadership is an idea that is not tangible but exists through the relationships,
imaginations, and perceptions of the parties involved (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Key themes in the
literature regarding the role of the leader are to persuade and inspire others and to work
cooperatively to pursue goals that reach beyond self-interests (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Leaders
should have vision, think in systems, influence beyond their current bounds, and have the
political skill and wherewithal to cope with the intricacies of conflicting and competing agencies
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan, 2013; Senge, 1997). Various theories of leadership have been
identified in and are used as foundational constructs to guide practices in business and
educational settings. Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008) found utility in analyzing the impact of
different types of leadership as opposed to leadership in general in educational settings. Although
most theories were established in business settings they have become influential in education
because they address leadership for similar systems (Marzano et al., 2005; Senge, 1997). Within
the myriad of theories and variations thereof, two tend to be favored in educational settings—
transformational leadership and instructional leadership (Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al.,
2008).
Transformational leadership is a modern theory propagated in the latter half of the last
century. This style of leadership is focused on change through setting organizational vision,
establishing goals and desired outcomes while working in collaboration to accomplish the goals
and reach the vision (Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008). Instructional leadership theory
gained popularity in the 1980s during the school improvement movements (Marks & Printy,
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 12

2003; Marzano et al., 2005). In this structure, the principal is central to student outcome success
(Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Marzano et al., 2005). Instructional leadership theory has
four identifiable dimensions – instructional leader, resource provider, communicator, and the
visible leader (Leithwood et al., 1999). In addition to the four areas described, principals are also
called to provide specific feedback and actively support instruction through daily practices,
modeling and professional development (Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson
et al., 2008).
In a comparison of transformational leadership, instructional leadership, and other
leadership theories, indicators pointed to instructional leadership theory as influencing student
outcomes and transformational leadership supporting social outcomes (Robinson et al., 2008).
This suggests that both are of import. Educational leadership involves building collegial cohesive
staffs that share a vision for schools all while keeping a trained focus on student achievement and
teacher development and practice to ensure those outcomes (Bendikson, Robinson, & Hattie,
2012; Marks & Printy, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008).
Therefore, research about leadership and its impact on the principalship has emerged in
the last three decades due to the emphasis on student outcomes and policies designed to support
student achievement. However information about leadership, the principalship, and their impact
on change and student outcomes has been scant.
A Historic Perspective of the Principalship
Hallinger and Heck (1996) identified 40 studies within a 15-year time span that
addressed school leadership and school achievement. This was done in a time of high public
scrutiny of public schools. The publication of “A Nation at Risk” generated negative feedback
about the preparation of students in the United States (Bell, 1993). It would seem that such
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 13

intense focus on education and student achievement would lead to and produce research about
the instructional leader at a school: the principal. That was not the case. It has been theorized that
this lack of research into the role of the principal exists for three distinct reasons. Historians have
researched the broader category of school administration with more of a focus on the central
office administrators. Scholars who write about educational administration are not historians, and
the works are limited in their focus to historical perspectives for training and guidance of school
leaders. Writers also may make the role of the principal diminutive because of personal
experience: the perception of the principal as a distant individual who is responsible for
administering discipline (Kafka, 2009; Rousmaniere, 2007).
The principalship is a newer phenomenon within the broader historical context of public
education (Kafka, 2009; Rousmaniere, 2007). Many shifts in public education and its
organization have taken place in the last century. The principalship was one of those innovations
that had significant impact. As organizational structures and accountability increased, the
principal became the hinge between the school and the district (Rousmaniere, 2007). Schools
expanded from one-room elementary schools to ones with multiple rooms and differing functions
(Cubberley, 1923). They became large enough to need supervision by the head teacher or
principal (Pierce, 1935). In the late 1800s, the “principal teacher” provided clerical and
administrative duties to keep the school functioning. By the early twentieth century, industry,
urbanization, migration and immigration grew and populations shifted from rural to more
densely populated areas. Schools needed to provide compulsory education for these growing
numbers of families with school-aged children. Once again, this led to schools becoming larger
and more complex organizations. Area superintendents needed to relinquish some responsibility
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 14

to local site principals in order to manage the increasing populations (Kafka, 2009). This was a
variance in the “principal teacher” role.
More changes in the role and principal power became evident in the early decades of the
twentieth century. The idea of the school principal in authority over other adults in the building
was novel (Kafka, 2009). Principals became teachers of teachers. They took on the responsibility
of training, supervising and evaluating teacher performance and the performance of their
students (Pierce, 1935). In the 1930s and 1940s principals were viewed as democratic leaders
taking into account the views of different community stakeholders to work on a cause. This idea
of democratic leadership, a form of shared leadership developed due to the social contexts of the
wars that embroiled most of the world because it extolled “The American Way” (Kafka, 2009).
This meant that they became community leaders taking more power and authority and the idea of
collaborative leadership began to emerge.
By the 1960s and 1970s principals still maintained many of these roles yet were now
encumbered by the management of federal policy that required detailed accountability for
systems under the ESEA. It has been argued that the principalship began to look more like
management than leadership (Rousmaniere, 2007). The 1980s ushered in more market driven
perspectives of education (Burke, 2004; Fuhrman, 2004). The nation as a whole began to look at
the state of schools and our ability to compete in the world based on foundations established
through education. With the impact of effective school research (Hallinger & Heck, 1996) and
the publication of “A Nation At Risk,” the principal, once again, was positioned to be the
instructional leader on a school site in support of instructional change that resulted in higher
student performance (Murphy & Hallinger, 1992). The 1980s were also witness to the emergence
of the application of leadership theories in K-12 educational settings. This aligned with the ideas
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 15

from writings of the time where the principal was seen as the most pivotal for student
achievement and success (Cuban, 1984; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Jantzi, &
Steinbach, 1999; Marzano et al., 2005).
Transformational and instructional leadership theories appealed to educators and were
applied in practice producing learning about improving teaching and creating conditions for
teaching and learning (Bendikson et al., 2012). These practices have been identified as direct and
indirect leadership (Bendikson et al., 2012; Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; O’Day,
2002; Robinson et al., 2008). Direct leadership practices can be described as practices that focus
on improving teaching such as goal setting, quality teacher selection and development, and
continued teacher learning. Indirect applications create safe and orderly environments where
learning can occur and resources are strategically prioritized to support preferred outcomes
(Bendikson et al., 2012). The use of both strategies is part of the modern principal’s repertoire.
Quality instruction, key within instructional theory and direct leadership practices, is concerned
with student improvement. However, indirect approaches undergird successful schools and are a
necessity for schools that rely on departmental organizational structures. In these cases,
principals create the supports and the environments for departments that have more direct
influence on student achievement (Bendikson et al., 2012; Marks & Printy, 2003; Robinson et
al., 2008).
During this time, another significant shift occurred in educational accountability.
Principals were asked to engage in innovations and change to support student achievement that
directly impacts their future ability in the workforce (Fullan, 2013; Marzano et al., 2005). The
new image of the workforce was one of global economies and competition. This brought the
principal into different accountability structures, such as market models that had not been part of
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 16

the purview in the past (Burke, 2004; O’Day, 2002). Accountability includes the proper use of
power, working to achieve the priority of the organization while maintaining efficient, effective
quality programs that are transparent to the public (Burke, 2004; Hentschke & Wohlstetter,
2004). Once again education took a page from business: schools were now asked to focus on the
bottom line results. Accountability attended to school-level performance and allowed for
consequences when performance indicators were not met (Fuhrman, 2004; Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004). The performance indicators came in the form of summative state tests that
measured grade-level learning. This became more defined with the introduction of state
standards and NCLB and is a significant part of the dialogue with CCSS (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a; NGA &
CCSSO, 2010b; NCLB, 2001).
It can be seen from this historical perspective that instructional leadership has always
been a part of the principalship to some degree in American education. The modern principalship
requires the knowledge and use of a myriad of complex skills. The principal needs to be
strategic, instructional, organizational, political, and a community leader in order to garner
success. Principals are viewed from all these lenses. They are pivotal and accountable in efforts
to improve schools and bring about educational change (Kafka, 2009). Since the 1980s,
instructional innovations and implementation have risen in importance with strong accountability
measures in place to determine target achievement and success. The newest iteration of these
innovations are CCSS, and they are currently in the initial implementation phase and are a shift
and change in how schools will attend to the business of instruction and student achievement.
Although seen as the conduit of educational change and policy implementation, principals are
faced with barriers to change and its implementation (Fowler, 2009).
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 17

Organizations and the Change Process
The historic perspective of change suggests that it is difficult and uncertain.
Organizational change can proceed from hopeful beginnings, to a turbulent middle, and a
discouraging ending if mindful change implementation is not considered (Bolman & Deal,
2003). However, successful change that is truly transformational draws upon strong leadership, a
change in behavior, and a complete commitment to a new way of thinking and doing. Coupled
with the theories and frameworks of instructional and transformational leadership,
transformational change is both the impetus for and hindrance of organizational success (Gilley,
Gilley, & McMillan, 2009b; Gilley, McMillan, & Gilley, 2009a; Robinson et al., 2008). That
success can be determined not simply by outcomes and products but by the reculturation of an
organization as it both creates and sustains that change; in education, that change is often
manifested through the implementation of directives, policies, and a variety of external forces
(Elmore, 2002; Flett & Wallace, 2005; Fullan, 2012; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008). Thus,
while many transformational change efforts fail, this failure may not simply be attributed to the
directives or policies themselves but the implementation of them by leadership.
In order for that transformational change to take hold as part of a new culture and to be
successful over time, it must be part of second-order change or “deep change” (Fullan, 2012;
Gilley et al., 2009a; Marzano et al., 2005, p. 66). Differentiation of change—and the magnitude
of change—has been conceptualized by change theory in a variety of ways but can be articulated
most succinctly for education by the two orders of change proposed by Marzano et al. (2005).
First-order change is that which is incremental and related to the daily life of a school. In
contrast, second-order change relates to a specific issue that requires a total overhaul of a system
or systems in place (Gilley et al., 2009a; Marzano et al., 2005). This second order change is
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 18

aligned with transformational change as it represents a complete break with a former way of
learning and doing; it is often “dramatic” in its revisioning of an organization and is fraught with
difficulties (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 66). Beyond managing daily issues, it requires a leader to
serve as a change agent, a visionary, an innovator, a team builder, and a guide for all aspects of
change (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al., 2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kouzes &
Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005). More importantly, second-order change requires a change
agent mentality or brand of transformational leadership that can drive an organization forward
while simultaneously reculturing it (Fullan, 2012; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008; Gilley et al.,
2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Marzano et al., 2005).
Organizational change theory recognizes that change does not occur in a vacuum nor in a
linear fashion. It is complicated by human behavior and human needs. Moreover, it is by those
same people that transformational change is made possible, as implementing change is entirely a
human endeavor (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et
al., 2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2011;
Marzano et al., 2005; Senge, 1990). Thus, by viewing change through the context of human
behavior—notably leaders—it is possible to understand how change is both successful and
challenging. Leaders are the change agents who have the ability to mobilize, implement and
sustain change (Battilana et al., 2010; Calabrese, 2002; Gilley et al., 2009a; Kotter, 2012; Kouzes
& Posner, 2011). The study of leadership behaviors with respect to organizational change and
educational reform has been studied and analyzed thoroughly, and a cumulative literature on
organizational change in education exists in full, yet its application to current or specific
curricular and instructional policy has yet to be explored (Battilana et al., 2010; Bendikson et al.,
2012; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fink & Resnick, 2001; Flett & Wallace, 2005;
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 19

Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al., 2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012; Kotter &
Cohen, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008; Senge, 1990;
Youngs & King, 2002).
Understanding how organizations operate is a critical component in implementing
change. Because today’s world is increasingly more “turbulent” and complex, it is essential that
leaders use multiple perspectives and the four frames to determine what’s wrong, how to fix it,
and defend against complacency and stagnation. Bolman and Deal (2003) conceptualize how to
move organizations forward with four frames through which one may define and understand the
roles of leaders and leadership through change and progress. The four frames—structural,
political symbolic, and human resources—serve as a mental model to navigate the ins and outs of
organizations from the perspective of the leader (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Moreover, if leaders
view situations through multiple frames, they may see other ways to solve problems with more
“artistry” (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Together they attend to the dynamics, people, environments,
conflicts, rituals, beliefs, values and tasks carried out within an organization and speak to the
potential an organization has in improving and maintaining success.
Coupled with the framework for organizational change proposed by Bolman and Deal
(2003) are the models of change that support organizations in their endeavors of progress.
Models of change serve as a way to guide leaders in their decisions and actions. Many are
conceptualized for the workplace—applicable to businesses experiencing both incremental first
order change and more dramatic second-order change. How-to books, theoretical frameworks,
research studies, and professional development or trainings are offered in abundance in order to
support organizations embarking on a change journey. Each takes into account the magnitude of
change, the human context, as well as the possibilities for maintenance and sustainment of that
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 20

change (Battilana et al., 2010; Bendikson et al., 2012; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002;
Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2001; Gilley et al. 2009a; Gilley et al, 2009b; Kouzes & Posner, 2011;
Marzano et al., 2005). One model of transformational change encompasses many of the ideas
presented by earlier organizational change models and incorporates the role of the leader as well
as those carrying out the change—speaking to the need for a complete reculturation; Kotter’s
(2012) eight stages of change draws upon many of the previous organizational change theories
including Lewin (1951), Schein (1990 and 1994), and Ulrich (1998) as well as organizational
leadership theory (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gallimore & Goldenberg;
2008; Gilley et al., 2009a; Kouzes & Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005; Senge, 1990). Through
studying successful change initiatives, Kotter (2012) found eight stages for change:
(1) Establishing a sense of urgency
(2) Creating the guiding coalition
(3) Developing a vision and strategy
(4) Communicating the change vision
(5) Empowering broad-based action
(6) Generating short-term wins
(7) Consolidating gains and producing more change
(8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture
These eight stages seek to mobilize people and change their behavior in such a way that a
new culture committed to the specific change is created (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter, 2012;
Kotter & Cohen, 2008). Each step plays a critical role in working toward reculturation and
successful second-order change; furthermore, each role can be tied not only to organizational
change but to leadership practices that are applicable to the educational setting.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 21

1. Establishing a Sense of Urgency
To establish a sense of urgency is to prepare for change, to bring a sense of relevance for
that change, and to begin the process of mobilizing people and resources to enact change. This
requires change to be understood as a difficult process but one that is necessary and natural
(Calabrese, 2002). In this pre-implementation stage, finding and developing the competencies of
the leaders and the supporters who will carry out the message of change and the change itself
allows for momentum to build and a direction to be created. In order to avoid what Kotter (2012)
refers to as complacency—that sense of low urgency in which people are unmotivated to change
because they do not believe that the change will create benefits. Researchers and studies in
addition to Kotter support that it is critical to motivate, communicate with, and educate
stakeholders regarding the change—both mobilizing and making relevant what the change is,
how it will affect all stakeholders, and the plans and processes for enacting change (Battilana et
al., 2010; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al.,
2009a; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005). All
must understand the motives for the change, the appropriateness of that change, and how that
change is envisioned to affect the organization at all levels.
In the context of education, that sense of urgency is often created by external forces such
as policies and directives. As schools are held accountable for student knowledge through
student performance on standardized tests, mandates such as federal policies require schools to
take action and implement change not only at the district or school level but also in each
classroom (Burke, 2004; Flett & Wallace, 2005; O’Day, 2002). Change is occurring two-fold at
the site level: at the schools as a whole and in each individual classroom managed by an
individual teacher. This twice-occurring change lends to both issues of urgency as teachers
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 22

harbor their own beliefs and values regarding educational reform as well as a whole school sense
of urgency with the principal at the center of any tensions toward change at the district level and
those maintained by teachers (Brighton, 2003; Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Flett & Wallace,
2005).
Accountability is a practice of continuous improvement, and research suggests that the
impetus for such change is on school leadership to promote a continued effort toward the
education of teachers who must also implement change (Elmore, 2002; Flett & Wallace, 2005;
Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Norton Grubb & Badway, 2005; Smit & Humpert, 2012). This
heightens the sense of urgency as change is understood to be a responsibility for more than just
leaders. Furthermore, failure to respond to policy changes affects more than the educators
involved; it affects a school’s ability to receive funding, demonstrate student achievement, and
maintain autonomy (Flett & Wallace, 2005). Many policies such as No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) include consequences requiring corrective action should a school fail to carry out
change successfully (Fuhrman, 2004; NCLB, 2001). This, Kotter (2012) describes, is often the
impetus behind change: understanding the realities and potential crises for not implementing
change or for remaining complacent.
2. Creating the Guiding Coalition
Fowler (2009) believes that the pre-implementation phase requires significant
mobilization of resources and materials—especially resources such as the participants supporting
the change process. Who, he asks, will participate and to what capacity? With change
conceptualized as a human and interpersonal endeavor, those who resist or do not value it
complicate the process; therefore, it is critical that organizations enlist a network of champions
and a collaborative team who have the ability to clarify the values, model the behaviors, and
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 23

provide the credibility for guiding the change process (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002;
Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al., 2009a; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012; Kotter &
Cohen, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005; Senge, 1990; Senge, 1997).
Bolman and Deal (2003) and Kotter (2012) write of establishing a guiding team—a
coalition—with the credibility, skills, connections, reputations, and formal authority or
leadership to prepare, motivate, and provide the knowledge and skills in order for the change
process to take hold. The team, in essence, becomes change experts who provide the awareness,
learning, and stability for change (Calabrese, 2002). These are the leaders who provide the
opportunities for support and learning, who build the capacity of others, and who, in the face of
challenges, maintain forward progress. Moreover, these leaders are still understood to be learners
who are willing to take risks in their actions and challenge the process in order to bring about
successful change (Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). They are the driving forces behind
planning and implementing change.
3. Developing a Vision and Strategy
While the coalition or team are the actors working toward implementing change, before
that process can begin or the actors play their roles, a vision for change—the plans, procedures,
and strategies—must be established. Often created by a leader or a leader with the support of the
coalition, the vision for change is a shared ideal for how that change will be manifested in
practice as well as how it will affect an organization in both the short- and long-term range
(Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). Anchored in symbolism, shared values, and goals, a
vision seeks to clarify, direct, and inspire all stakeholders to understand the necessity for change
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). In essence, it creates buy-in for
the change process.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 24

It motivates people to think beyond their individual interests and to look forward to the
benefits of change; thus it is a shared vision nurtured by a leader’s creation of a picture of the
future (Kotter, 2012). Additionally, it refers back to the organization’s history and demonstrates
how the change will support progress, innovation and success (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter,
2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). Kotter believes than an effective change vision is one that is
imaginable, desirable, feasible, focused, flexible, and communicable. Calabrese (2002) supports
this idea, arguing that a strong vision consist of awareness, learning, and stability for an
organization, its people, and its culture. Finally, vision is the foundation for the implementation
process and must exist prior to action.
Vision lends itself to strategy and plans by bringing focus and logic to the change
process. Yet more than a simple outline of a plan for action, the strategies, programs, and
procedures require leaders to act as learners. This allows the development of a coalition
committed to the change process unique to the context implementing the change (Battilana et al.,
2010; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Robinson et al., 2008). These strategies take
the form of both direct and indirect behaviors and actions on the part of the leaders; in other
words, they consist of the direct actions as well as the environmental conditions that support the
change vision (Bendikson et al., 2012). Moreover, strategies—perhaps more than the vision—are
a response to and integration of the external factors that both encourage and hinder change
(Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012). They are, as Kotter argued, designed to be feasible
and flexible. Here is where the action may commence: in the guidance and support provided by
the strategies, programs, and procedures clearly delineated and influenced by the vision
statement. Yet the vision cannot exist in isolation of the change process; there must be buy-in
created through effective communication.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 25

4. Communicating the Change Vision
The leader’s ability to communicate the change vision is a tool for change agents to lead
by example and model the way for change. More than just talk, communication refers to the
actions, the deeds and the message in support of change and of change implementation (Gilley et
al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012). Kotter (2012) and Gilley et al. (2009b) continue in their belief that in
order for a great vision to take hold, it must be communicated often and effectively through
multiple and varied forms. Communication serves to motivate, troubleshoot, lead by example,
and provides a continued understanding regarding the critical nature of change (Battilana et al.,
2010; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012; Kouzes & Posner, 2011;
Marzano et al., 2005). Communication, moreover, begins in the pre-implementation phase of
change and continues well beyond implementation, as it relates to the plans, procedures, and
strategies set in place to bring about change and sustain change over time.
Organizations are cultures made up of people with shared artifacts, values, and
assumptions (Schein, 1990). These cultures are manifested and communicated through various
symbols, words, and actions (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Kotter (2012) continues that
communication consists of deeds more than words, and that those deeds take on both strategic
and symbolic underpinnings. However, Bolman and Deal (2003) contend that communication
can be carried out effectively through acts, rituals, metaphors, and the various symbols of the
organizations themselves. These symbols communicate the values, beliefs and visions of an
organization and function as the “narrative” of that organization’s purpose, plan and history
(Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 251). During the change process, this narrative may alter and thus
require communication to bring clarity, resolve, and direction for change (Battilana et al., 2010;
Bolman & Deal, 2003; Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter, 2012). As a result, unspoken
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 26

communication—symbolic communication—is as valued as spoken communication during the
change process as it threads itself throughout all aspects of an organization’s culture.
5. Empowering Broad-Based Action
To empower broad-based action is to be in the midst of the implementation process. It is
the moment in which plans, procedures and strategies are set in place through shared leadership
and the empowerment of employees and other stakeholders (Darling-Hammond, 1990; Fullan,
2012; Kotter, 2012; Marzano et al., 2005; Senge, 1990). Kotter believes that the key to taking
action is to provide people opportunities to remove any barriers that will hinder the
implementation process. He continues that barriers typically take the form of structures, skills,
systems and supervisors (Kotter, 2012). He cautions of fragmented visions and communication
patterns as well as lack of power given to those who are inextricably bound and undoubtedly
affected by the change. Consequently, he views the solution as one of “tapping” into an
organization’s source of power—its people (Kotter, 2012, p. 106). Through communication,
collaboration, alignment, training, and maintaining focus, people will be empowered through
their knowledge, skills and motivation gained via involvement (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan,
2012; Kotter, 2012; Senge, 1990).
In prior educational reform efforts regarding instruction and curriculum, action has taken
the form of teacher learning and collaboration opportunities in order to increase knowledge of
practice and create a sense of shared leadership (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-
Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002; Marzano et al., 2000; Senge, 1990). In order for action to be
effective and reflective of the goals and vision set forth by leadership, such teacher learning and
collaborative efforts to strengthen knowledge and practice must be focused on the specific
change occurring (Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000). In recent years, that collaboration in education
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 27

has occurred through Professional Development, training, and collaborative leadership (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Eilers & Camacho, 2007; Elmore, 2002;
Guskey, 2000; Fowler, 2009). This is a strategy used often by principals who are responding to
top-down directives by reaching for support from outside resources as well those within the
school site (Eilers & Camacho, 2007). Collaboration empowers as knowledge is shared,
problems are reasoned through logically, and professional capacity is built. Others are enabled to
act as part of the team, and all are working toward a shared vision or goal brought about by
change (Kouzes & Poser, 2011; Senge, 1990).
6. Generating Short-Term Wins
Throughout the change process it is critical to generate and celebrate short-term victories.
These wins are visible, unambiguous and directly related to the goals and vision of change
(Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012). Kotter maintains that these wins prove that the change is worth it,
help refine the vision, keep stakeholders involved and supportive, and build momentum. With
short-term wins, evidence of the work put forth during the pre-implementation stage is made
clear. Taking the time to support and appreciate those who have supported change not only
empowers them to take action but also to motivate them to continue working toward progress
(Kouzes & Posner, 2011).
The evidence of victory, based on occurrences rather than simply data, informs decisions
made during the implementation process (Dowd, 2005; Eilers & Camacho, 2007; Fullan, 2012).
It also is a moment in time for the change process to be evaluated, amended and restructured as
necessary based on the evidence (Battilana et al., 2010; Kotter, 2012). Dowd (2005) believes that
making decisions based on evidence rather than data has the ability to transform an
organization’s view toward change by supporting the creation of a culture of inquiry rather than
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 28

simply a culture reliant on data. By reflecting inward, there is the hope that the “locus of change”
will begin within an organization as stakeholders make data-based decisions for improvement
and reform (Dowd, 2005, p. 2). Thus change—and wins—become the norm for creating progress
rather than the exception.
7. Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change
Change is a long process that is fraught with difficulties and complexities that may not
have been apparent from the onset of the process. Therefore, Kotter believes that it is necessary
to celebrate wins in order to avoid complacency and maintain momentum, but celebrations that
do not produce further change or that create resistance can be “lethal” to the process (Kotter,
2012, p. 138). However, with the credibility brought forth by the short-term wins, more change is
possible (Kotter, 2012). Moreover, those who bring about that credibility through their actions
and support of change have made that change their own responsibility and part of their identity
as a member of that organization (Calabrese, 2002). Organizational change can be deeply
personal despite many working toward a shared goal; it is also a deeply human endeavor that can
lead to significant tensions between those who support the cause and those who resist it (Bolman
& Deal, 2003; Calabrese, 2002; Fowler, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Senge, 1990).
In consolidating gains and maintaining forward momentum, a certain resilience occurs
that has the ability to transcend resistance (Fowler, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Senge, 1990). Mobilizing
for sustainment and monitoring for progress also occur through the consolidation of wins,
allowing for continuous effort toward continuous improvement (Elmore, 2002; Fowler, 2009).
Yet it takes a leader to recognize, consolidate, and use those wins to garner further change and
anchor them within the emergent culture (Kotter, 2012; Marzano et al., 2005). Leaders, as
change agents, maintain the vision and direct all actions toward that vision of change.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 29

8. Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture
Schein (1990) defines the three levels of culture that exist within a particular organization
or context: artifacts, values, and assumptions. He contends that learning and change cannot occur
without a commitment to and an understanding of an organization’s structure, beliefs, and those
values that exist at the unconscious level, internalized by all who belong to the organization
(Schein, 1990). Cultural models—the shared schema of how the world works—influence the
setting and therefore shape the culture through often “inimical” ways that can be
counterproductive to school reform and change (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008, p. 51). That is,
it is the cultural setting of an organization such as a school, as information and policy flow from
top to bottom and bottom to top, that impedes progress and causes conflict yet also allows for
successful change to take root. Moreover, it is the culture of the school that must be changed in
order to mitigate competing values and beliefs that are hampering the change process. This
reculturation affects all aspects of the school’s culture—from the beliefs and policies to the
behaviors and expectations for all individuals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008).
Fullan (2012) believes that change can only be maintained if there is a reculturation—one
that is beyond merely a leader “adopting innovations” (p. 44). This is tied to second order change
and is rooted in new ways of thinking, believing, acting and leading (Marzano et al., 2005). It is
more than a reculturation of the organizational structures and tasks; it is a reculturation of the
people and stakeholders, too. These new ways of being require support and a commitment to
continued learning as well as personal and organizational growth (Calabrese, 2002; Darling-
Hammond, 1990; Eilers & Camacho, 2007; Elmore, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2011). Therefore,
in sustaining change an organization must focus on developing the capacities of its leaders and
its key members. At school sites, this would be the principals and teachers who are, as previously
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 30

described, responsible for building that shared knowledge, motivating, supporting, and
implementing change (Marzano et al., 2005). Building internal capacity—the knowledge of skills
of those carrying out change—supports a reculturation dedicated to continued learning and
progress.
Building Internal Capacity

As educational directives, policies, and initiatives from the top trickle down into districts
and individual school sites and the change process is initiated, it is often hampered during the
implementation phase by various external and internal pressures, demands, and a lack of
communication or vision (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002;
Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 1991; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005). Yet
successful change implementation, as previously described, is possible when the right decisions,
resources, and people are made, mobilized, and supported. In Kotter’s eight change stages, he
describes the critical nature of incorporating a vision with key people to developing a new
culture (Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008). The development of internal capacity—building,
identifying, and harnessing an individual or a group’s value, expertise, and assets in order to
accomplish goals—is an integral component of successful change implementation as it allows for
the maintenance of that new culture (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 1991;
Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005).
In the context of education, Elmore (2002) argues, capacity building is rooted in
instruction and involves interaction amongst teachers, students, and content. Teachers—in
addition to administration—are critical players or team members in the implementation of
curricular and instructional change. Moreover, these top-down decisions have bottom-up
solutions as developing internal capacity leads away from “power over” and moves to “power
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 31

with” (Elmore, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p. 14). Hargreaves
& Fullan (2012) write that internal capacity is rooted in professional capacity developed through
the integration of human, social, and decision capital. By identifying and mobilizing the
individual and shared knowledge, skills, talents and relations, not only will professional learning
occur, but change is better facilitated within the “power with” rather than “power over” model
(p. 9).
Strong leadership has the potential to cultivate increased student achievement through an
involvement with curriculum and assessment, intellectual stimulation of a school’s faculty, and a
commitment to school culture (Marzano et al., 2005). These qualities speak to a strong internal
system dedicated to building internal capacity (Dowd, 2005; Elmore, 2002; Norton Grubb &
Badway, 2005). Thus, as administration focuses on the teaching and learning of teachers as well
as the teaching and learning of students, change and student achievement can occur (Childress et
al., 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Dowd, 2005; Elmore, 2002; Marzano et al., 2005).
These qualities also align themselves with the goals of effective Professional Development (PD):
an investment in knowledge and skills in order to achieve a particular end, including improving
student learning and achievement (Childress et al., 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Elmore,
2002; Good et al., 2004).
Professional Development (PD) is a key example used by schools to build and maintain
internal capacity. While it has been referred to and researched as staff development or in-service
training in the past, PD is the name given to the teacher learning activities designed to increase
internal capacity (Elmore, 2002; Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985). Often characterized as after
school meetings or trainings mandated by administration, PD has come under fire in recent years
as being ineffective, unproductive, a waste of time and not tied to student learning or teacher
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 32

practices while others cite a lack of time to commit to a full understanding and integration of PD
strategies into practice (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000). However, research has
also pointed to the qualities of effective PD, arguing that effective PD must be: ongoing;
inclusive of training, practice, and feedback; collaborative; rooted in student learning; anchored
in a specific content area; focused; related to a clear vision or mission; research-based; involving
the participation of teachers and administrators; a practice that is intentional or “consciously
designed”; systemic; and continuous (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; Childress et al., 2006; Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 1999; Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000, p. 17; Good et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005). It
is, above all, connected to particular issues of content and pedagogy that are tied to student
learning and achievement (Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000). By viewing PD as ongoing, focused,
and a part of the institutional and instructional structure of the school, the barriers that often
hamper the implementation of effective PD are lessened.
Successful implementation of policy and directives, therefore, requires teacher skills,
knowledge and action. Internal capacity speaks to the ability of teachers to transform into change
agents acting as “conduits for instructional policy” (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Darling-Hammond,
1990, p. 345; Elmore, 2002). Yet this change is not occurring in isolation or in a single action; it
is ongoing, rooted in improvement, focused on student needs and student learning, collaborative,
and builds on teacher expertise (Good, Miller, & Gassenheimer, 2004). In the context of
education, such capacity building has been researched and discussed under the labels of training,
staff development, in-service training, action research, inquiry, and PD (Childress et al., 2006;
Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Elmore, 2002; Fenstermacher &
Berliner, 1985; Good et al., 2004; Guskey, 2000; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Helsing, Howell,
Keegan, & Lahey, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005). They speak to the activities for ongoing learning
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 33

as well as the development of skills and knowledge to “respond to the external demands” and
“engage in the improvement of practice and performance” (Elmore, 2002, p. 13). In essence,
capacity building mobilizes the change agents at a particular site by developing practitioner
knowledge and skills in the face of radical policy change.
Research has shown that teacher quality and leadership affect student achievement
(Darling-Hammond, 2000; Good et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005, Wenglinsky, 2000). If PD is
tied to student learning and student achievement, then PD can be used as a tool to increase
teacher quality at the school site in order to implement successful change initiatives (Good et al.,
2004). Effective leaders sustain human and professional capacity by building in systems that
support teacher learning and knowledge building in order to transform external directives into
internal instructional and curricular models. By building the shared knowledge base for teachers
through PD, principals, as instructional leaders, can not only build internal capacity but also
develop shared leadership in which teachers have the ability to grow as professionals and experts
in their field (Cardno, 2005; Elmore, 2002; Good et al, 2004; Youngs & King, 2002). Thus
change is driven by both internal and external factors—the capacity and expertise of the teachers
and leaders as well as policy and reform dictates—with the principal or leader as the key figure
for developing a professional learning culture (Cardno, 2005; Youngs & King, 2002).
PD and other internal capacity building activities have been used as a way in which local
contexts respond to external demands such as policy and the various accountability systems at
play. Accountability in K-12 public education has a long history that has affected all levels of
government, public perception, the economy, and social realms of our society. Defined as the
“contractual” or obligational relationship between a provider of a service and a director,
accountability manifests itself in education as the practice of “holding educational systems
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 34

responsible for the quality of their products—students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviors”
(Hentschke & Wohlsetter, 2004, p. 17; Stecher & Kirby, 2004, p. 1). In recent years, this practice
of holding schools accountable for student knowledge is maintained through student
performance on standardized tests and the evaluation of teachers based on those tests. Thus, in
the era of results-driven accountability systems, teaching and learning have been greatly
impacted as schools act and react in response to the accountability models that bring about the
various policies, directives and initiatives. The impetus for change has relied on school leaders
and teachers to “focus the resources and capacities” of schools in order to meet the requirements
of such policies (Elmore, 2002, p. 23). Elmore (2002) continues that if PD is being used as a
response to the pressures created under accountability, then schools must undergo a reculturation
in which PD is an institutional structure anchored in continuous improvement.
Consequently, PD and capacity building must be sustained and woven into the fabric of a
school’s identity. This maintenance and sustainability of change and improvement can be
integrated into a school’s identity through the reculturing of teacher learning as a learning culture
(Elmore, 2002; Fenstermacher & Berliner, 1985; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2008). It requires a
change in behaviors and beliefs as well as a commitment to continuous improvement (Elmore,
2002; Helsing et al., 2008). Moreover, schools become environments for continuous,
collaborative and productive professional learning that are focused on student achievement
(Elmore, 2002; Good et al., 2004; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Kotter’s last stage of change
requires new cultures to support new ways; a commitment to effective PD can build internal
capacity as well as transform and support culture (Kotter & Cohen, 2008). In turn, that new
culture can support and integrate further organizational changes that impact student learning and
achievement.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 35

Common Core State Standards Initiative

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS), developed in 2009 and released in
2010 by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO), is a state-led effort to create a national curriculum. Consisting of English
Language Arts and Mathematics standards, the curriculum seeks to bring focus and depth to
teaching and learning under a unified set of standards adopted by 43 states, the District of
Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity, as of this writing
(Kirst, 2013; Porter et al., 2011; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices &
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b). The standards were
conceived as a way to better prepare all students for college and the workforce, to bring about
academic equity and to place the United States back at the apex of economic and intellectual
productivity. They are a research-based, internationally benchmarked, and rigorous set of content
standards rooted in 21
st
century skills that will improve the ability of all students—from
kindergarten through twelfth grade—to be college and career ready (Kirst, 2013; NGA &
CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter et al., 2011).
The standards-based reform movement in education is not a new discussion. Previous
standards and curricular reforms such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have created high-stakes
accountability systems rooted in standardized testing and measurable student progress in order to
close the achievement gap (Dee & Jacob, 2011; NCLB, 2001). Under the federal policy of the
NCLB all students are to meet a level of proficiency by 2014; this proficiency is reported
through performance indicators such as annual tests, a school’s Academic Performance Index
(API), and through a school’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) mandates (NCLB, 2001). While
NCLB sought to provide academic equity for all students and effectively close the achievement
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 36

gap, critics of NCLB have argued that it has, in fact, limited a child’s education to that which is
tested on annual standardized tests (Causey-Bush, 2005; Dee & Jacob, 2011). Focus,
consequently, has been on breadth not depth of content knowledge. Moreover, as performance
standards increased, schools have faced a variety of consequences should they fail to meet their
AYP (California Department of Education, 2010; Kirst, 2013; Linn, 2005; NCLB, 2001).
However, not all states faced the same consequences as states implemented their own content
standards and determined their own proficiency levels (Dee & Jacob, 2011; Linn, 2005). By
contrast, CCSS represents a comprehensive set of national standards to be used by all states that
have adopted them with individual state standards to supplement and reflect context (NGA &
CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter et al., 2011). The hope is that CCSS will provide
an equitable education and equally rigorous standards for all students—effectively promoting
“fewer, clearer, and higher standards” that will prepare students for college and the workforce
(Marzano et al., 2013, p. 6; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter et al.,
2011).
Unlike previous iterations of state standards or federal policy, this emphasis on higher
cognitive demands represents a significant change not only to what content will be taught but
also what levels of learning will occur (NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b; Porter
et al., 2011). However among the criticism against CCSS is the argument that the initiative does
not articulate how teachers should teach these content standards (Jenkins & Agamba, 2013;
Porter et al., 2011; Tienken, 2011). CCSS represents a move away from the “one size fits all
curriculum” created under the federal policy of No Child Left Behind toward a more
differentiated curriculum as the standards include multiple strands based on varying levels of
academic readiness (California Department of Education, 2010; Kirst, 2013; Porter et al., 2011).
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 37

Since the standards release in 2010 and the adoption by the majority of the states, the
focus of NGA and CCSSO—as well as school districts—has been on implementation. If
implemented “effectively,” NGA believes that the standards have the “potential” to narrow the
achievement gap by preparing all students for college and the workforce (Grossman, Reyna, &
Shipton, 2011, p. 3). However, it is noted that the change will be significant and challenging, and
will require change in instruction, curriculum, teacher preparation, resources and accountability
measures (Grossman et al., 2011; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Sawchuk, 2012).
Moreover, these challenges have raised the concerns of teachers, principals and other educational
leaders as many question not the rigor or intentions of the standards but the implementation
process (Grossman et al., 2011; Sawchuk, 2012; Tienken, 2011). Teacher education will be at the
forefront of the debate as teachers are changing the way in which they teach and assess (Jenkins
& Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Tienken,
2011). Research from the creators of CCSS as well as other sources have pointed to the
importance of Professional Development (PD) and organizational change strategies as leaders
are tasked with implementing the vision, goals and changes created under CCSS all the while
indicating that implementation of such strategies will not be without challenges (Grossman et al.,
2011; Jenkins & Agamba, 2013; Kirst, 2013; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a; NGA & CCSSO, 2010b;
Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Porter et al., 2011,
Sawchuk, 2012). Yet the works of Kober and Rentner (2011a; 2011b; 2012) and the Center on
Educational Policy (CEP) also point to state and district progress with the implementation of
CCSS despite the fact that significant change will and must occur. Their work suggests that
states and districts are hopeful with regard to the effectiveness of CCSS in improving students’
knowledge and skills.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 38

Effective change requires more than policy and belief in the initiative. Successful
implementation following adoption of CCSS has been ongoing and involves a variety of
educational stakeholders outside of the school site. The NGA suggests that governors, since they
have political authority over education and can mobilize resources and funds for schools, can
play an integral role in the implementation process (Grossman et al., 2011). They have the ability
to communicate a vision for reform; identify performance goals and measure progress; engage
key leaders from education, business, and philanthropy; build educator capacity; lead transitions
in state assessments and accountability policy; support local development and acquisition of new
curricula and materials; and maximize resources and share costs (Grossman et al., 2011). Their
suggestions echo the process of leading effective change outlined by Kotter and Cohen (2008) as
well as Bolman and Deal (2003), as previously described. Additionally, these imperatives for
successful implementation reflect the needs states and districts have indicated in the surveys and
studies completed by the CEP (Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober &
Rentner, 2012).
Thus initial research about CCSS has pointed into two divergent arenas: the potential
effectiveness of the standards and the change process. While little research has been done on
how best to implement the standards at the site level, research through the CEP has listed
possible routes for implementation at the state level that are echoed by organizational change
literature (Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober & Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Rentner,
2013). Among the state challenges in implementing the change process the CEP has listed
teacher preparation, funding and resources, and assessments (Kober & Rentner, 2011a; Kober &
Rentner, 2011b; Kober & Rentner, 2012; Rentner, 2013). Therefore, a global analysis has been
initiated by national sources such as the NGA and the CEP, but the discussion remains on the
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 39

context of states and districts rather than what is occurring at individual school sites and with
individual leaders.
Conclusion
The role of the principal is seen as significant in terms of change at the site level. The
understanding and amalgamation of theories and organizational frameworks found in the
literature support the idea of change as a process and provide strategies the effective principal
can utilize when instigating instructional change. These theories and frameworks play an
important role as schools begin teaching CCSS. How will principals, as educational leaders,
implement changes derived from CCSS at the site level that promulgate the demands of
academic rigor and equity while preparing students for college and the 21
st
century workplace?
This study examined practices employed by principals in elementary and middle school settings
to determine the skills and strategies the principal leader uses while transforming practices to
elicit the outcomes sought under CCSS.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 40

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Authors: Melissa Kistler and Kristen Shultz

Introduction

Organizational change theory recognizes that change does not occur in a vacuum or in a
linear fashion. It is complicated by human behavior and human needs. Moreover, it is by those
same people that transformational change is made possible, as implementing change is entirely a
human endeavor (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fowler, 2009; Fullan, 2012; Kotter, 2012; Kotter &
Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005). Thus by viewing change through the context of human
behavior—notably leaders—it is possible to understand how change is both successful and yet
challenging. In essence, leaders are the change agents who have the ability to mobilize,
implement, and sustain change (Gilley et al., 2009a). The study of leadership behaviors with
respect to organizational change—and organizational change within education—has been
analyzed thoroughly, yet its application to current curricular and instructional policy has not been
explored (Battilana et al., 2010; Bendikson et al., 2012; Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fowler, 2009;
Fullan, 2012; Gilley et al., 2009a; Kotter, 2012; Kotter & Cohen, 2008; Marzano et al., 2005;
Youngs & King, 2002).
As principals occupy an instructional leadership role rather than simply a managerial
role, it is their responsibility to plan and implement curricular and instructional change brought
about by external and internal factors, policies and directives. Chief among these policies are the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a sweeping educational policy that will affect not only
what students learn but also how they learn. In turn, it will undoubtedly impact teaching
practices within all classrooms. Thus principals face a plethora of challenges and decisions in
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 41

order to successfully implement the changes, increase student achievement, and reculture their
school sites to meet the demands and requirements of CCSS.
The preceding chapters provided an overview of the study and a review of the literature
that is relevant to the topic. This chapter provides an outline of the study and the methodology. It
specifically includes the purpose of the study, research design, sample population, data collection
protocols, and data analysis process used.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to identify strategies principals in the K-12 continuum
have found to be effective while implementing curricular and instructional change brought on by
policies and directives such as CCSS. In framing the discussion around accountability as well as
teacher learning, the theoretical lens has been one of organizational change and school culture
and climate. By examining the processes for implementing successful change, this study
illuminated the choices and beliefs regarding the strategies used by school leaders as they deal
with internal and external factors brought about by curricular change.

Research Questions

The following research questions were explored for this study:
(1) What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
(2) What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
(3) What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 42

Rationale for Mixed-Methods Study Design
Use of Quantitative Methods

The study began with a quantitative survey. Surveys are often used to provide
descriptions of feelings, perceptions, values, habits and personal background or demographic
characteristics and are used in conjunction with other forms of information sources (Fink, 2013).
In order to gauge both the habits and characteristics of principals during the planning and
program design for implementing CCSS, a survey was deemed the appropriate and most efficient
tool to measure specific and individual responses across a sizeable sample population. Closed-
ended questions and a Likert-style response scale provided concrete and specific responses
across the sample population, consequently noting trends through an analysis of frequency and
central tendency such as mean and mode.
The self-administered online survey was used to gather cursory and foundational
information regarding various principals’ choices, knowledge, and attitudes toward
organizational change, CCSS, and the intersection of the these ideas. This survey then informed
the qualitative methods protocol and instrumentation design used as well as determined the
selection criteria for the principals interviewed.
Use of Qualitative Methods

With qualitative research, the data collection process allows the researcher to be the
instrument of data collection and to construct meaning, patterns and themes out of the
experiences and people interviewed, observed and analyzed (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009).
Interviews, like other qualitative methods, function as a firsthand experience or way in which to
immerse oneself into the natural setting where the phenomenon of interest occurs (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Guided by the research questions and the context,
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 43

interviews help to further define that context and the experiences as they relate to the research
questions; in other words, they provide a framework to the phenomenon that may not be
understood through other research methods such as surveys and data analysis.
The nature of this study was to understand a phenomenon—that of implementing change,
and qualitative methods are the most appropriate ways to interpret that experience and
understand all facets of organizational change. Merriam (2009) argues that the nature of
qualitative research is to understand not just the events that occur but how people interpret that
experience. Therefore, the study of humans as their behavior, choices, and actions interact with
change requires qualitative research as many facets of change were explored.
Interviews were the chief source of qualitative data collection for this study since
implementation of CCSS has already begun, and interviews and surveys allow for participants to
reflect on the entire arc of the change process. Merriam (2009) believes that interviews work best
for that which cannot be observed or recreated. Interviews are used to provide clarity of practices
and to allow leaders to reflect on some of the non-observable phenomenon such as perceived
barriers or other factors that impact leaders’ decisions. The information provided in the
interviews were further grounded and validated in supporting documents made available by
districts and school sites. These documents provide tangible evidence of the planning, programs
and decisions made regarding implementation of CCSS. Table 1 outlines each research question
with the quantitative and qualitative methods selected.
Research Design
Identifying and understanding the strategies that successful principals employ in
implementing change is a complex process that requires significant time and resources. In order
to address the research questions fully, a mixed-methods study design was necessary. The study
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 44

began with a quantitative survey of several principals. Following the quantitative survey, select
principals and school sites engaged in qualitative interviews and document analysis. Document
review was utilized to support and seek out more specific data based upon the results of the other
instruments identified.

Table 1
Methods Choices for Each Research Question
Research Question Survey Interview
Document
Analysis
What planning and program
strategies and features do principals
use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards
(CCSS)?
X X X
What context-specific leadership
practices are necessary for the
implementation of instructional
changes?
X X
What are the organizational barriers
that principals encounter when
implementing Common Core State
Standards (CCSS)?
X X

Sample and Population
Every aspect of a study is systematic and follows logical plans (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). With this in mind purposive or purposeful sampling with
specific criteria was used to select participants and sites (Merriam, 2009). Purposeful and
criterion sampling focuses the researcher in identifying and ultimately choosing participants and
sites that best help to answer the research questions at hand. The sites and population sampled
must possess the attributes that best match a list of identified characteristics developed for the
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 45

research (Fink, 2013; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009; Weiss, 1994). The following
characteristics were deemed necessary to the research when selecting participants and sites for
the study:
(1) The district was seen as a leader in the implementation of CCSS.
(2) The school and the district had begun the planning process for implementing CCSS.
(3) There was documentation of a plan at the site level.
(4) The principal had been a principal for at least a year in order to have the requisite
understanding of accountability under student achievement systems.
(5) The principal had some training (formal and/or informal) in preparation for CCSS.
(6) The principal had qualities of transformational leadership (Robinson et al, 2008)
(7) The principal had oversight of resources needed to implement CCSS.
The internet-based survey was sent to 95 participants informed by the sampling criteria described
above via an email containing a recruitment letter and the link to the survey (Appendix A).
However, the survey was not limited to principals who have at least two years of experience, as
it was difficult to confirm via a recruitment letter and cursory check of the credentials of the
principal. A target was set to obtain a minimum of 57 participants’ responses—a response rate of
at least 60% within the timeframe set by the researchers. Five principals were selected based on
the sampling criteria to be interviewed in depth based on their responses to the survey as well as
the sampling criteria.
Instrumentation
Data collection choices and methods stemmed from the problem of practice addressed in
this study. The driving purpose behind the study, the data and its analysis was to identify
strategies principals in the K-12 continuum have found to be effective while implementing
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 46

curricular changes set forth by district, state and federal policy such as NCLB and CCSS using
Kotter’s organization change structure (2012) and Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames as the
theoretical framework for the study (Bolman & Deal, 2003). This mixed-methods study relied on
surveys, interviews and document reviews.
Table 1 details the coordination and articulation of the research questions and the forms
of instrumentation utilized for this study. The particular data collection methods were selected to
gather, verify and triangulate the data through concurrent embedded design with the survey as
the primary form of data collection (Creswell, 2009). Data triangulation relies on the use of
multiple sources of data that have different strengths and limitations in order to corroborate or
disconfirm the validity and reliability of findings and conclusions in order to develop our
understanding about different aspects of the phenomena (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009). Concurrent embedded design allows for simultaneous collection of quantitative
and qualitative data in support of the research with the specific selection of one type of data as
the primary source and the other sources as reliability and validity checks (Creswell, 2009).
Quantitative Instrumentation
The use of the concurrent embedded data gathering and analysis strategy relies primarily
on the use of a self-administered web-based quota, Likert-style survey for this study (Creswell,
2009). The initial cluster of questions involved demographic information including the level of
K-12 leadership held, years in the principalship, and education. The next group of questions
probed the knowledge base as well as planning and programming used in the implementation of
CCSS. These were followed by questions related to contextual and procedural experiences, as
well as barriers encountered during implementation. Respondents were also asked about their
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 47

attitudes toward implementation, those of their staff, and changes in climate due to the impact of
CCSS.
Qualitative Instrumentation
Two forms of qualitative instrumentation were used as a part of this study: interview and
document review. Within the context of the concurrent embedded strategy the survey acted as
the initial method that guided the data collection process. The qualitative instruments provide
both primary and supportive roles in the research and in efforts of triangulation for reliability and
validity (Creswell, 2009). The semi-structured interview was selected as an effective method of
data collection due to its flexibility in wording and the ability to probe and mine for specific
information based on the participant’s responses (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; Weiss, 1994).
The interview questions were constructed to determine what, if any, considerations make a
difference at each phase of change implementation (Fowler, 2009; Kotter, 2012). Five principals
were selected from the survey sample based on an indication of willingness to participate in the
interview portion of the study as well as the sampling criteria described previously. The second
qualitative measure enlisted for the study was document review. Document review was ancillary
and probative based on the other forms of data gathering.
Pilot Study
Each instrument used was piloted as part of the study. The pilot provided the opportunity
to further develop and clarify the research questions and from them choose and design
appropriate data collecting tools to address those questions. The pilot afforded structured
guidance to explore the methodologies while working with populations similar to that in the
actual study, to review worked samples, and to reflect on the use of interviews with the goal of
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 48

refining strategies and techniques (Fink, 2013). The ability to distill the information through this
process supports the improvement of reliability and validity in the process.
Data Collection
Data collection consisted of two phases. Both phases were voluntary for all participants
and no participant received any incentive to participate in the study. The first phase included
closed and open responses from a quantitative survey given to principals based on the
aforementioned criteria. The second phase encompassed qualitative interviews and document
analysis with principals selected based on their willingness to participate and their alignment to
the criteria. All participants were notified of their rights to privacy and anonymity during the
research process, in accordance with the Institutional Review Board at the University of
Southern California.
Quantitative Data Collection
Quantitative data were collected through a web-based survey given to principals who met
the standards of the sampling criteria. In total, 41 elementary school principals participated in the
survey sent via the software tool Qualtrics. An email was sent to each potential participant. The
email included a cover letter, the study’s implications for CCSS and organizational change in
education, and the purpose of the survey (Appendix A). An information fact sheet regarding the
study (Appendix B) and a link to the survey itself (survey items can be found in Appendix C)
were also included. Those who participated followed the link and completed the web-based
survey. The researcher phoned and sent an email to those who did not respond within 10
business days.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 49

Qualitative Data Collection
Interviews functioned as the chief source of qualitative data. Interviews were conducted
with five principals who affirmed their willingness to participate and be interviewed for this
study and also matched the sampling criteria established by the researchers. Those who
expressed their willingness to participate and who were eligible under the established criteria met
for about a one-hour, one-on-one interview conducted by the researcher and using an interview
protocol (Appendix C). At the onset of the interview, each participant was asked to confirm his
or her consent to participate and was informed of his or her right to privacy and anonymity.
Furthermore, the participants provided consent to have his or her interview audio taped. This was
accomplished through the use of a consent form signed by the researcher and the participant
(Appendix C). A copy of the letter was provided to each participant. The interviews were
transcribed using a professional transcription service.
Protocols for the interviews were constructed by the researcher and informed by the
related literature and the research questions.
Data Analysis
In order to answer the research questions posed at the onset of this study, it was decided
to analyze the data collected throughout the process using strategies, programs and the research
literature as points of reference in order to triangulate and validate any and all findings.
Moreover, the content of the findings was also compared to the body of literature related to the
subject as a method of validation.
Quantitative Data Analysis
Analysis of the survey data collected consisted of matching the survey responses with the
research questions and the assertions made based on the literature. The mean was calculated
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 50

using Microsoft Excel. The mean measures the central tendency, in this case the mathematical
average of all scores in the data collected. However, while the mean establishes central tendency,
it was important to understand the range of responses in the Likert-style survey as well as any
variance away from the mean. This dispersion allowed the researcher to see the variability and
note any trends in dispersion.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis was guided by the Creswell (2009) model, which begins during
the data collection process. Analysis methods were applied to all transcribed interviews and
accompanying notes from all interviews and documents. The model consists of six steps that
help the researcher to manage the data and make sense of the emergent themes that allow for
analysis:
(1) Organize and prepare the data for analysis
(2) Read through all the data
(3) Code the data
(4) Generate description
(5) Create narrative
(6) Interpret the data
The model guides the researcher through the analysis process from the very broad to the
very specific, from managing the volume of data and completing a cursory read-through to
generating specific themes (Creswell, 2009). Since qualitative research is an ongoing process, it
is important to organize the data for analysis throughout the collection process—making the data
accessible and easily referenced, essentially creating an inventory of data (Creswell, 2009;
Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) believes that it can be easy to overlook this first step as the
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 51

researcher is immersed in the data collection process and not taking the time to manage the
“identifying characteristics” of the participants and sites (Merriam, 2009, p. 173). It helps the
researcher to keep track of his or her thoughts and ideas prior to actually analyzing the data
(Merriam, 2009). Second, the researcher becomes familiar with the general sense of the data by
reading through it to look at the overarching ideas, the tone, and the impression of the depth,
credibility and usefulness of that data (Creswell, 2009). General ideas are noted in field journals
or reflections throughout the data collection process; they are the notations and comments the
researcher makes on the documents and transcripts themselves referencing relevant or interesting
information (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). Third, the researcher “chunks or segments” the
text before bringing meaning to the information (Creswell, 2009, p. 186). This coding allows the
researcher to categorize information based on emerging patterns and topics that may become
themes (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). This “category construction” or coding takes multiple
readings or iterations to generate those categories or patterns that cut across the data sources
acting as thematic umbrellas under which the data is grouped (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009, p.
178). From this, themes and specific descriptions can be defined and categorized, hopefully
working toward answering the research questions.
In the fourth step, the researcher develops categories and themes for analysis. Themes are
ones that run throughout each of the documents used for analysis, including the interviews and
the data samples; these themes would be used for different headings in the findings section
(Creswell, 2009). Moreover, the descriptions and themes point to an interconnected, rich picture
of the setting, people, and situations. While some of the themes stand alone as their own distinct
ideas, many of the themes were generated out of interrelated ideas concerning how data is used
and perceived by the respondents (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). These descriptions form a
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 52

narrative or emerging theory that conveys the findings of the analysis. The narrative is detailed in
that it creates a story that speaks to multiple perspectives, uses direct quotations, and creates a
visual image of phenomenon studied (Creswell, 2009). The narrative also interprets the data—
the final step—drawing conclusions and implications about the data and the themes or theory
that emerged. This interpretation links themes and subthemes, and it makes connections across
the multiple data sources to build a grounded theory (Merriam, 2009). It also points to potential
areas of further research and the unanswered questions that linger following data analysis
(Creswell, 2009).
Conclusion
The focus of this chapter is to describe, in detail, the purpose of the study and the
research questions derived from that purpose. In order to answer the questions with mindful
consideration, protocols and standards were developed for appropriate data collection including
research design, sample populations selected, data collection, and analysis procedures and
processes. Based on the intent of the study, a mixed-methods approach using surveys, interviews
and document reviews was chosen to extract and explicate information in support of principal
leadership during times of change. The next chapter provides the details of the data collection
and the findings that flowed from that analysis.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 53

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
This study set forth to determine the processes used by site principals when implementing
change structures within Common Core at the elementary school level. The Common Core, just
like its predecessor NCLB, created the dynamic for change in instruction at the site level. Since
the adoption of CCSS by California (CDE, 2014), these changes have had immediate impact on
teaching and learning. NCLB and its measures were cast aside as educators sought to understand
and implement strategies and structures that align with the instructional delivery needed to create
success under these new standards. Principals, as site leaders, were charged with the task of
implementing instructional program changes on behalf of school districts. The principal’s work
plays a pivotal ground level role in the initiation and sustainability of change (Marzano et al.,
2005). This study was a collaborative effort of two researchers who had similar interests in the
topic but wanted to study unique aspects of middle or elementary school settings. The findings
presented here are based on the information gleaned about elementary schools.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to identify effective strategies used by elementary school
principals during transitions and times of change. Change has been contextualized within the
bounds of CCSS implementation at the site level. It is hypothesized that successful principals
will employ certain structures and strategies that bring about positive results during change
processes. This study used the framework identified by Kotter (2012) in an eight-stage change
process that helps identify unique characteristics along a continuum of change that were
employed during the implementation of Common Core at the elementary site level. They are: (1)
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 54

Establishing a sense of urgency (2); Creating the guiding coalition; (3) Developing a vision and
strategy; (4) Communicating the change vision; (5) Empowering broad-based action; (6)
Generating short-term wins; (7) Consolidating gains and producing more change; and (8)
Anchoring new approaches in the culture. Data viewed in light of the framework was collected
through surveys, interviews and document reviews. This framework helps provide structure but
as evidenced in practice, it does not always follow linear progressions. This data provided
themes to generate findings in support of the study’s assertions.
This chapter presents the findings of the mixed methods research designed to align with
and then address the following research questions:
1. What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
2. What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
3. What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
Participants
Ten districts in Southern California were contacted to find principals to participate in the
research. The districts were located in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Indio Counties.
All of the districts were urban or suburban districts that were demographically diverse. The
selection of the districts and principals was purposeful in that the intent was to capture inputs
from a wide variety of participants with different backgrounds. All of the elements mentioned
were considered to add to the body of knowledge about leadership and change.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 55

Demographic Data
The study used a mixed methods approach to seek out structures and text to answer the
guiding questions driving the research about elementary principals. Elementary schools may
include pre-kindergarten (PreK), Transitional Kindergarten (TK), Junior Kindergarten (JK), and
grades 1-6 if the sixth grade is associated with grades 1-5 and not grades 7-8. Principals reported
serving in different setting configurations. In total, 41 elementary principals responded to the
survey. Of those responding, 63% of the principals were female and 37% were male. Table 2
identifies the length of time in the role.
Table 2
Quantitative Survey: Length of Time in the Principalship
________________________________________________________________________
Years Response Rate Percentage
________________________________________________________________________
0-1 2 5%
2-4 13 32%
5-7 5 12%
8-10 5 12%
11+ 16 39%
________________________________________________________________________
Total 41 100%
Mean Length of Time 5-10 Years
________________________________________________________________________

Career and stage theory regarding the principalship suggests that principals move through
identifiable periods within the position (Earley and Weindling, 2007; Mulford et al., 2009).
Novices, within the first year, may still be adapting to the job and its responsibilities, which can
evoke a lack of confidence in one’s abilities and competencies. Once established in the career,
principals have a stronger grasp on the technical details of the job and the social aspects of the
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 56

role (Fullan, 2005) that can support them as they implement and move through the stages of
change.
The elementary principals were asked to indicate the length of time they have been
implementing CCSS at their site. Table 3 presents the survey findings for this question. Since
CCSS was adopted in 2012 (CDE, 2014), implementation beyond two years is not likely.
Table 3
Quantitative Survey: Length of Time Implementing CCSS
________________________________________________________________________
Months Response Rate Percentage
________________________________________________________________________
0-4 0 0%
4-6 5 12%
7-9 9 22%
10-12 8 20%
12+ 19 46%
________________________________________________________________________
Total 41 100%
Mean Length of Time 10-12 months
________________________________________________________________________

Based on their survey responses, five elementary principals were chosen for further
qualitative semi-structured interviews. The five selected provided rich information during the
survey process and communicated their willingness to further participate in the study. Each
interview was conducted in the office of the respondent by the researcher. The researcher used
interview questions that had been previously piloted for effectiveness for this particular research
project. In order to establish consistency, each interview was recorded on audiotape for
transcription.
Table 4 provides a description of the specific profiles of the five participants selected for
the qualitative portion of the study. District and school characteristics are described to provide a
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 57

contextual lens to each participant’s responses. School characteristics were obtained from the
survey data, interview transcripts, and information about the school from the California
Department of Education (CDE, 2014) since diversity in experience and settings were of
importance to the study.
Table 4
Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of the Principals and Sites
________________________________________________________________________
Principal A
Gender: Male Principal Years: 2-4 Site Years: 2-3 CCSS Implementation: 4-6 months
Significant Student Population Data
Black 42.1% White .1%
American Indian/Alaskan .7% Two or more races 30.0%
Asian 1.0% SES 86.6%
Filipino .3% English Learners 35.0%
Hispanic 55.5% Special Needs 1.8%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.0%
Met AYP No
Title I Yes
Principal B
Gender: Female Principal Years: >10 Site Years: 4-6 CCSS Implementation: >12 months
Significant Student Population Data
Black 1.8% White 58.9%
American Indian/Alaskan .7% Two or more races .4%
Asian .4% SES 51.6%
Filipino .1% English Learners 11.5%
Hispanic 37.4% Special Needs 8.9%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1
Met AYP No
Title I No
Principal C
Gender: Female Principal Years: >10 Site Years: >10 CCSS Implementation: >12
months Significant Student Population Data
Black .3% White .7%
American Indian/Alaskan 0.0% Two or more races .1%
Asian 4.6% SES 99.8%
Filipino .1% English Learners 84.4%
Hispanic 94.1% Special Needs 8.3%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.1%
Met AYP No
Title I Yes
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 58

Principal D
Gender: Female Principal Years: 2-4 Site Years: 2-3 CCSS Implementation: 7-9 months
Significant Student Population Data
Black .2% White 14.0%
American Indian/Alaskan .7% Two or more races .0%
Asian 71.0% SES 19.0%
Filipino .0% English Learners 15.0%
Hispanic 13.0% Special Needs .8%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.0%
Met AYP No
Title I No

Principal E
Gender: Female Principal Years: 1 Site Years: 1 CCSS Implementation: 4-6 months
Significant Student Population Data
Black .0% White 1.8%
American Indian/Alaskan .2% Two or more races .4%
Asian .0% SES 99.8%
Filipino .8% English Learners 84.9%
Hispanic 96.9% Special Needs 16.0%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.0%
Met AYP No
Title I Yes
______________________________________________________________________________

Participants for this study were selected on the basis of differing levels of experience and
service in communities with different demographic populations within Southern California to
determine if similar success strategies were used across these diverse settings. The findings will
then be captured and added to the body of knowledge about principal leadership and change. The
information from surveys and interviews are arranged around the research questions posed for
this study.
Research Question 1

What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of Common
Core State Standards (CCSS)?
The intent of this question was to determine if routine structures through planning and
programming would lead to successful change practices at the elementary site level. Planning
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 59

assumes forethought prior to the implementation of actions. A plan helps organize the right work
at a school as a set of coordinated actions that a leader uses to enhance student achievement
(Marzano, 2005, p.98). In educational organizations, plans should be clear, specific,
communicable, linked to action and internalized by the majority (Fullan, 2011; Fullan, 2014).
Kotter (2012) urges preparation for transformational challenges. Planning and programming are
critical and closely connected to ensure successful change.
Preplanning
The initial phase introduced in the eight-stage change framework (Kotter, 2012) is
developing a sense of urgency. Urgency focuses the organization on the problem and inspires
feelings of action (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). Individuals begin to realize that something must be
done and the organization needs to shift from complacency, fear and anger through coordinated
action. In the case of CCSS, pressure or the sense of urgency came from state mandates (Fowler,
2009; Fullan, 2012) or more specifically the adoption of the standards and their accountability
timelines (CDE, 2014). Within three years of that adoption, schools are required to meet the new
standards of accountability or face consequences for less than adequate results. The timeline was
critical in that it also applied pressure to change instructional delivery under the standards to
ensure successful outcomes. From the perceived urgency, districts and principals began to learn
about CCSS, its impacts and instructional delivery. Survey data shows the trajectory of principal
learning around the Common Core. Table 5 depicts the change in knowledge about CCSS within
the two years since adoption.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 60

Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Knowledge Development in Two Years of CCSS

Element
Very
Little
Some
Quite a
Bit
A Great
Deal
N/A
Response
Mean
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Level of CCSS
Knowledge 2
Years Ago
21 15 3 2 0 1.65 41
Level of CCSS
Knowledge 1
Year Ago
3 20 14 4 0 2.95 41
District
Principal
Training for
CCSS
3 11 17 10 0 2.83 41

The state of California formally adopted CCSS two years ago. The data gathered from two years
ago serves as a baseline since it marks the adoption of CCSS by the state. At that time, 89% of
principals indicated that they had very little to some knowledge of the Common Core. As time
progressed so did their understanding of CCSS. A year later responses shifted and elementary
principals felt they had more knowledge. Table 6 shows the change in knowledge between year 1
and year 2. During this time, principals received training on the CCSS. The data shows a wider
array of responses from “some” to “a great deal.” The average response tended toward “quite a
bit” at 2.83 on the Likert-like scale. Elementary principals also indicated the type of training
received during that time and this information is also shown in Table 6

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 61

Table 6
Quantitative Survey: Principal Training for CCSS
Element Response %
On-site training 39 95%
Off-site training district or county office 33 80%
Off-site training conference or workshop 32 78%
Total
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
41
1
3

Survey data shows that elementary principals availed themselves of more than one type of
training to learn about CCSS to prepare for implementation.
In addition to CCSS training, principals discussed independent learning through research
and collaboration with colleagues to understand instructional delivery and their role in the
process. Principal D’s statement is a reflection of that commitment in the initial phase of
planning. Based on the discussion of building knowledge around CCSS, Principal D said, “Oh,
boy. I better learn about this. [I] spent a lot of time looking at some stuff that David Coleman has
written and some of his videos, and spent a lot of time just getting familiar with what does
Common Core really mean, and looking at the different shifts that happen with the Common
Core.” All principals surveyed reported collaborating with district colleagues to develop
common themes for addressing instruction and delivery of the new standards. Principal D stated,
“We are doing a lot of planning. I think that seems to be the talk of every single meeting we
have.” Principal C had similar views. She states, “There’s this synergy that the district has finally
acknowledged. They go to the principals in Area 2, because they know that it will get done,
whatever things they need, because we work well together.” Principal D described the practice:
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 62

Every Friday, we all send out a memo to our staff, too. Usually, we share clips between
each other, or little tidbits between each other. Like, “Hey, this is what I’m sending out in
my Friday memo to address close reading. I hope you guys like it. Use it if you want.”
Somebody else will share—we’ve been doing a lot of that, where every Friday, we’re
sending out a tidbit to teachers.

Principal B’s practice was similar:

When you look at them, what you will see is consistent messaging over and over again.
The bulletin goes to all staff members, including classified, and it’s also distributed to
cabinet members and every principal at all the schools in the school district. So, with that
being said, what I’ve found, because we look at each other’s bulletins and ideas and I
started putting things in my bulletin and then I started noticing it’s being lifted and people
put it in all their other bulletins. So I lift some things from other people, but it seems like
everyone lifts off of my bulletin for Common Core and depth of knowledge.

The principal groups functioned as a guiding team and network for principals themselves to
develop similar visions and create consistent messages to the schools within the district so that
teachers and district leadership would know that principals were on the same page moving
forward in the change process.
The data in Table 5 shows that districts and principals understood the need to develop
knowledge and build capacity themselves in order to move from the former standards to the new
Common Core Standards and the deeper levels of instruction needed to guide students to success
under them. Elementary principals utilized district provided training and individual research to
tailor and deliver the overall instructional program of introducing CCSS at the site level.
Principals took the element of urgency introduced by the looming accountability tied to CCSS
and looked to one another to build a type of guiding coalition to build internal capacity in order
to set the stage at the site level.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 63

Site Specific Plans
As part of the initial survey, a Likert-like scale was developed to determine if principals
had created a school-wide plan for CCSS implementation and if the plan had been communicated
to school stakeholders. The results of the survey are detailed in Table 7.
Table 7
Quantitative Survey: Creation and Adoption of a School-Wide Plan for CCSS Implementation
and Communication

Element
Very
Little
Some
Quite a
Bit
A Great
Deal
N/A
Response
Mean
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
A school-wide
plan has been
created and
adopted for CCSS
implementation
3 10 19 9 0 2.83 41
As principal, you
communicated the
plan to school
stakeholders
0 5 21 14 1 3.27 41

Based on the survey data, all of the principals indicated the presence of a school-wide plan, but
to varying degrees. The average mean response indicates a range of “some” to “quite a bit” of
planning for Common Core implementation. In a review of the School Accountability Report
Cards (SARC) (CDE, 2014) two of the five principals describe CCSS as part of the school’s
professional development for the school year. During interviews, none of the respondents
provided a formal plan for document review. When asked about site-based plans, principal
responses varied. Principal A stated, “It hasn’t been articulated in writing, other than my
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 64

notes….” Two principals described a higher level of documentation in the form of weekly
newsletters to address CCSS instructional strategies. Principal B produced a weekly newsletter
for staff that had a section titled “Common Core Corner” that offered information on research,
teaching strategies and testing. Suggestions for implementation were provided within those
newsletters. There were also references to pacing for instruction using strategies aligned with
Common Core.
Principal responses indicate that plans were developed at the district office level in
collaboration with teachers. Planning reflected building teacher knowledge and capacity through
training. Teachers were selected or self-selected to plan for Common Core with district-level
leadership. They then facilitated training of other teachers on site. Principal D stated:
“They [the district] started at ground zero, and they pulled the teachers together, and
teachers volunteered to be on this committee, and really kind of surveyed them. What do
you need to know to help move this forward? And so, I think a lot of that digging came
from that group.

Principal C had similar experiences. “The class teacher (was) heavily involved, and she had more
of the vision from the district than we did because she would receive weekly full days of
training. So it was the class teacher.” Principal E’s information fell in line with these discussions
of plans:
They take these grade level leaders from around the district and they create the
curriculum, these lessons. We have a wiki that has all of them on there. I think under the
guidance, I mean, RCD—I really haven’t studied it, but I will go and peek and see what
they’re doing, but they’ve aligned the standard to the texts and to what questions need to
be asked.

Information garnered from interviews suggests that site level plans were informal or initiated at
the district level with input from district administration with the support of teachers who then
facilitated professional development and instruction at the site level.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 65

Teacher Planning and Collaboration
All of the principals interviewed for the study defined an element of planning as the
opportunity for teacher training and collaboration. Principal E described one system as follows,
“I budgeted to have release days for planning, so they can plan together, so I can be part of the
planning–looking at data, and looking at that as a protocol, and really supporting the idea of
differentiation.” Principal C approached teacher planning based on the needs of individual
teachers with support through a coaching model:
Sometimes teachers are struggling, especially at the beginning with Common Core and
they’d requested a sub day. To the extent possible—even if it’s just half-day subs—we
release them for that, for collaboration. Either the class teacher is in on those meetings, or
the TOSA--which is our Teacher on Special Assignment--my Assistant Principal or
myself, we sit in on those meetings and we broke down the data as far as the benchmark
is concerned. We would take half days to look at the data to see where we’re going and
what we need to do.
Principal A developed a model of cross-site grade level collaboration that did not come to fruition:
The idea was, if we were using the same guidelines and standards for the creation of
those units, we’re helping one another. And then we were going to get the staffs together
so they could work collaboratively with teachers from another school, but in the same
grade level, so they can share ideas, and then they have twice as many units. And next
year we could start the year with at least two or three thematic units to get us through the
first half of the year, with the understanding that we’re still working on ones that would
be able to fill in for the remainder of the year.

These statements support the concept that principals perceive teacher collaboration to plan and
develop lessons as important to the implementation of CCSS.
Discussion
Action oriented specific plans support change processes and build the capacity for
success within the organization (Fullan, 2011; Kotter & Cohen, 2002, p. 47). Kirtman (2014) and
Fullan (2014) support collaboration and teams when creating formal plans as part of the change
process. The quantitative data indicated the development of site level plans. The probative nature
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 66

of the interview process indicated site level plans were developed based on urgency prompted
from the adoption of CCSS at the state level. Principals then received training or researched
Common Core to gain familiarity with changes in instruction and the implications of
implementation at the site level. Principals collaborated with one another within the same district
to avail themselves of consistent strategies to create similar messaging and communication to
teachers within the district as to pacing and delivery of CCSS instruction based on district plans.
Planning at the site level was defined more along the lines of teacher professional development,
collaboration, and lesson planning time. Direct communication of the plan was found in
newsletters developed by principals for the teachers to support CCSS implementation.
The planning and programming identified by principals aligns with the research about
effective professional development wherein the training is focused, intent on the vision, and
developed by teachers and administration; it is intentional in its design and is connected to
content and pedagogy (Abdal-Haqq, 1996; Childress et al., 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999;
Elmore, 2002; Guskey, 2000, p. 17; Good et al., 2004; Marzano et al., 2005). The planning and
programming process converge with Kotter’s (2012) conceptual framework of change in that
guiding teams were developed with district administration and teachers to “roll out” CCSS
instruction at the site level. This called for the collaborating teams to create strategies or vision to
move CCSS from the conceptual stage to one of action. Action at this stage was centered on
identifying gaps between former instructional practices and those required with Common Core.
Teachers were trained using various models but all of those models centered on empowering
teachers to work with one another to foment actions and build momentum through short-term
successes in the change process.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 67

Research Question 2
What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
Leadership is a powerful concept that can inspire productive individuals and teams to
achieve the aspirations of the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). With the shift to CCSS, the
principal is tasked with overseeing the school level implementation. In stages five and six of the
Kotter (2012) framework, leaders work on empowering action and creating short-term wins to
support large-scale elements of change from past practice and behavior. Principals possess various
tools and strategies to effect these changes required for standards progress at the site level.
Leadership Practices
The instructional leader is the visible leader on site. They provide resources and support
instruction through feedback, modeling and professional development (Leithwood et al., 1999;
Marks & Printy, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2008). The instructional leader
wields different effective strategies and tactics to encourage the instructional change demanded
by CCSS. Strategies can be divided into two broad categories: direct and indirect leadership.
Direct leadership includes teacher selection, observation, evaluation, instruction and continuing
professional development. Indirect styles are concerned with establishing environments
conducive to change and productivity and prioritizing the use of resources for the achievement of
educational goals (Bendikson et al., 2012). Principals were asked to describe their duties as a site
leader as they pertained to instructional leadership. These comments were reviewed to determine
the types of leadership wielded by elementary principals to impact change.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 68

Direct Leadership Practices
Professional development and continued learning is a major element of direct leadership.
Changes in student achievement can occur when administration focuses on teaching and teacher
learning (Childress et al., 2006; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Dowd, 2005; Elmore, 2002;
Marzano et al., 2005). As indicated in the first research question, principals created some form of
a plan for professional development to lay the groundwork for action and winning outcomes as
the path towards the sustainability of change. Principals were asked to indicate the level and type
of teacher training for CCSS. Table 8 provides a summary of survey responses.
Table 8
Quantitative Survey: Elementary Principal Rating of CCSS Teacher Training
Element
Very
Little
Some
Quite a
Bit
A Great
Deal
N/A
Response
Mean
Total
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Your district
provided teacher
training for CCSS
1 10 15 14 1 41 3.15
District training had
direct benefit for
your staff in
implementing
CCSS
1 7 23 10 0 41 3.02
You have trained
your staff in order
to implement
CCSS.
0 9 21 10 1 41 3.07
You have used
trainers or
consultants from
outside the district
to train teachers and
staff in CCSS.
18 9 9 3 2 41 2.07

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 69

Survey responses indicate that more than two-thirds of elementary principals felt that
districts had provided a significant amount of training for teachers with CCSS implementation
and 80% of them believed that teacher training was beneficial. Survey indicators show “very
little” to “some” outside vendors were used for teacher training.
Principals reported that districts had trained key teachers—teachers on special assignment
or volunteer teachers—for CCSS. Principals then used those teachers to facilitate CCSS
development on site. Principal C summed up the practice:
A huge part, again, was the class teacher that the district supported and paid for. She was
brought in here. Friday she was trained. She’d come here on Mondays and
Wednesdays—our staff days are when she would present a portion of it.

A common vehicle for disseminating professional development was in the faculty meeting.
Principal D noted that she reconfigured the traditional staff meeting to address CCSS and teacher
learning opportunities. She states, “I changed my staff meetings to only half of it being
informational, the other half, professional development.”
Closely connected to training for achieving student success is the need for practice and
feedback. Objective feedback provides a mechanism for staff to learn from their practice to solve
student-centered learning problems (Fowler-Finn, 2013). Hattie (2012) found the significant
effects on student learning happen when teachers become learners of their own teaching.
Principals reported that teachers were selected to provide instruction through modeling and
demonstration lessons. They were also used to coach classroom teachers for Common Core.
Principal C indicated this as part of the progression of teacher development:
The first year we came along and we concentrated on ELA standards, and “how to.” She
gave a lot of demos. Last year was more with the math. She has a sign-up sheet. Teachers
sign up for her. She would go into the classrooms and she would model and demo, she is
a coach. She’s a coach with the teachers.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 70

Coaching from other teachers is one way for teachers to view strong CCSS lessons to improve
their instructional practice. However, principal classroom observations were another tool used by
the instructional leader to directly impact learning.
Observation
All of the principals indicated the use of observations in their practice. Observations can
be part of a practice used by principals wherein they observe a lesson and then provide feedback
based on some post-lesson conference format (Fullan, 2014). This type of observation is usually
tied to some evaluation process. Observations linked to evaluations are the purview of
administrators who are authorized to evaluate teachers formally. The other type of observation
practice involves teachers becoming involved in the observation and analyzing of others
(Fowler-Finn, 2013; Fullan, 2014, p.74). This latter practice has been termed a “walkthrough” or
“instructional round.” Principal B described her practice and observing in the classroom.
I concentrated on the DOK only, so that’s what I did. They know DOK in and out and
when you walk through classrooms, they know what DOK 1234 looks like. They can
explain it to you. The kids are doing DOK journals. They own what that is. I had
posters made in all the classrooms. I had large posters, small posters, all kinds of
posters made, and academic vocabulary posters. When I go into the classroom, they’re
teaching the kids and referring to these. I have a DOK question stem poster that I had
made that I took from the Internet and had blown up at reprographics.

Principals C and D spoke about more collaborative forms of walkthroughs. Principal C—who
has an assistant principal on site—stated, “We share the responsibilities when we have to walk
the classrooms, and we kind of check in and make sure that the instruction is being followed.”
Principal D used learning walks with teachers to build capacity:
They were starting to see the best of each other. And so, some of those preconceived
ideas that they had, or some of those, I guess, like stereotypes that they had about their
colleagues, those walls started to come down where they could really go, wow, I would
love to see that in action. We did learning walks. That was another thing that has
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 71

broken down some of those barriers where I told them I am paying for you guys to get
out and get into classrooms. I want you in people’s classrooms this year.

Leadership Teams
Principal impact and effectiveness comes from developing leadership teams that focus on
instruction (Fullan, 2014). Guiding coalitions (Kotter, 2012) at the elementary level appear in the
form of leadership teams whose aim is to breathe action into instructional plans. All principals
indicated that they had leadership teams comprised of teachers. One principal relied on teacher
leaders being a part of the School Site Council, a group of parents and classified and certificated
staff. Teacher participation on all leadership teams was voluntary. However, principals tried to
place key teachers in that position. Principal C noted, “The teachers decide who they want to
represent their team and I made sure that it was people that I can work with that really have the
same common goals.”
Leadership teams were used to review student achievement data, determine professional
programs and move the instructional programs forward through their efforts and communicate
with other staff and important stakeholders the deeds, actions, and messages that support the
process of change (Gilley et al., 2009b; Kotter 2012). Principal B described the use of leadership
team as follows:
They’re focused on developing the agenda and for instruction. Common Core is a big
part of that but so is RTI because response to intervention is a very well developed and
very raw best program. Especially at our school, there’s a lot of ownership. I’ve seen
there’s a great deal of ownership.

Indirect Leadership Practices

In order to create environments for consistent instruction, principals are conscious about
practicing indirect skills that support for learning (Bendikson et al., 2012). Elementary principals
interviewed discussed the practice of establishing environments that supported taking risks while
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 72

implementing Common Core. Principal A stated, “I have been communicating just a desire for
students or for teachers to use this as a year to experiment, and try different things, and break out
of your comfort zone, and there’s no pressure.” The elementary principals noted that these
indirect supports were needed in times of change. Principal A summarized this point. He said,
“Positivity, motivation, encouragement, leading by example; those have been really important in
times of flux and change and anxiety.”
There was an understanding by all of the principals interviewed that indirect leadership
practices had direct bearing on instruction. Principal D stated, “But our belief is that this is about
changing instruction. This is about making some paradigm shifts in learning, and in order to do
that, we’re really going to have to go slow and understand it.” Principal D further iterated,
I believe in making sure we have a healthy organization—that the climate here is a
healthy climate, and that when it’s not healthy, it’s my job to work on getting that
healthy. So, sometimes that means not doing fun stuff. But I would say, for the most
part, it’s again, empowering. My job is to empower people to be the best leaders they
can be, and to come along the side of them when they need help.

Discussion
Principals participating in the study used different styles of leadership to accomplish the
instructional changes needed. Direct leadership came in the form of teacher training; the use of
coaching models, observations both evaluative and collaborative, and the use of leadership teams
to move plans forward. Indirect practices were focused on maintaining momentum for CCSS and
supporting risk-taking for teachers when implementing new strategies. The idea of teacher
empowerment and refocusing teachers on professional accountability squares with generating
short-term wins within the Kotter (2012) framework.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 73

Research Question 3
What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing Common
Core State Standards?
The question was posed to see if there was commonality in barriers across diverse settings
when implementing instructional change within Common Core. If understood, insights might help
principals overcome and plan to address those concerns as they arise within the change framework
leading to smoother transitions between old and new practices.
Encountering and overcoming obstacles for individuals who begin to act upon the vision are
a part of the problem-solving continuum within the change process (Kotter & Cohen, 2002, p. 91).
More knowledgeable and mindful principals anticipate obstacles and seek solutions to overcome
real or potential concerns as action and momentum build. Less adroit leaders do not foresee issues
and when confronted with them, view them as impediments to the educational program (Fullan,
2013). In the initial survey, principals addressed materials and funding for CCSS implementation.
The results of the Likert-like responses from all principals are recorded in Table 9.
Table 9
Quantitative Survey: Barriers to Implementation of CCSS
Element
Very
Little
Some
Quite a
Bit
A Great
Deal
N/A Total
Response
Mean
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

You have been given
sufficient materials to
implement CCSS at
your site.
4 36 33 32 0 41 2.56
You have been provided
sufficient funds to
implement CCSS at
your site.
5 7 20 7 2 41 2.85

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 74

During interviews, principals did not raise a concern about resources as a barrier. Four of
the five principals indicated that the district had created lessons and provided resources for
teachers to use for CCSS instruction. Principal A indicated, “We’re in odd adoption years for the
curriculum. (That) does not help at all.” Principal D saw resources as a barrier but not because
of a lack of resources. During the interview, Principal D related the use of the pacing guides and
the lessons developed as barriers because they did not allow for meaningful concept
development.
I’m held accountable to those and those pacing charts. Where I can see, for example, two-
dimensional math lessons, knowing that I come from a very hands-on, integrated program
that served the same kind of community? Yet I don’t have the capacity to focus on
teaching my teachers on how to think beyond two-dimensional math lessons. Who’s
going to win? The complacent teacher who just has to follow the pacing chart in this.
Who’s going to lose? The kids, who need to feel, touch, breathe, see math alive, and love
it. I think that’s been the biggest one. I have a multitude of experiences and connections
but it’s—you’ve got to do what you have to do. So, how do I get creative with dabbling
in it on the side and not talking about it [laughter]?

Funding was another potential barrier to implementation based on the data seen in Table
9. During interviews, the principals, for the most part, did not raise it as a barrier or area of
concern. Principal D commented:
I don’t feel like money has been a barrier this year. And I don’t know if it’s because the
economy is getting healthy again. That hasn’t been an issue for me. I’ve had money to
send teachers on training. I’ve had money to—we have our Common Core coach.
Because money was given for Common Core, we were able to invest in coaches this year.

Principal A thought that new funding formulas would benefit the school directly:
Things are changing. The way that we receive money, and with the new local control
funding, we’re told we’re going to be getting a lot more money. The state trustee is really
flipping things around; where, in the past, the district kept $7 out of every $10 it received.
It’s going to reverse next year; they’ll keep $3 out of $10, and the schools will have a lot
more leeway, in terms of how their dollars are spent.

As part of the interview process, elementary principals brought forth other barriers that they have
encountered or anticipate while implementing the new standards of instruction. Those responses
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 75

to the questions posed as barriers to change pointed to the crafted coherence with the district
office, lack of time, and technology.
Crafted Coherence
Central office services vary in each district since services are dependent on the context
and the stakeholders served. Traditionally, district offices have been charged with carrying out a
limited range of regulatory and basic business concerns (Honig, 2012). Recent trends suggest a
movement toward crafted coherence between district and site level leaders. Crafted coherence
describes the connected work between central offices and sites to bridge external accountability
factors and site leaders’ goals for achievement (Louis & Robinson, 2012). In four out of the five
interviews with elementary school principals, the comments indicated that the district office
collaborated directly with the teachers. Principal B summarized what the interview transcripts
show when stating, “So that’s my biggest thing and I really do believe that principals are being
left out of the dialogue.” Principal D offered an apologist point of view:
It’s not by anyone’s fault; it’s just a lot of people involved in trying to roll this monster
out. [laughter] But it’s all good. I think what we’re going through is very healthy. It’s an
opportunity to really look at what we’ve always done.

Time
Elmore (2002, p. 10) makes a cogent argument for the wise use of time and money to
improve schools and school systems through professional development. To improve learning in
the long run, teachers need time during the instructional day to address problems of practice
through collaboration and learning together (Elmore, 2002, p. 17). All principals describe the
need for time to collaborate and plan. The words of Principal D relay this overriding concern
about collaborative time:
Time has been a huge, huge barrier. I think also the idea that this is a freight train
running, and it’s going, and we’ve got to change everything on it to turn it into some
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 76

luxury cruise liner, it’s just crazy trying to do that in the middle of going 60 miles an
hour. And so, there’s no time to jump off and just stop everything and relearn. Learning
is constant and it’s constantly going and it’s constantly—people learn at different rates,
and their capacity to understand and grapple with it and move forward with it.

Principal D explained:
There’s just not enough time for them to be together and plan together. So, it was really
important for me to figure out how do I give them more time. Because that’s the biggest
thing that if you ask them what do you need, they’re going to say time. So, trying to find
creative ways to give them more time together, to plan together, and give them specific
tasks to work on to move the implementation.

Principals found time for teachers to collaborate at staff meetings. Principals also paid for
substitute teachers to release full-time teachers to plan during a school day. Principal C describes
the practice. “Sometimes teachers are struggling, especially at the beginning with Common Core
and they’d requested a sub day. To the extent possible—even if it’s just half-day subs—we
release them for that, for collaboration.”
In addition to finding time for training and development for themselves or their teachers,
elementary school principals were bogged down in the logistics of the school, which took them
away from more focused time and attention on instructional practices. Only one of the
elementary principals surveyed had additional administrative support at the site level. Three of
the five principals spoke of working on issues of student discipline as part of the workday.
Principal A provided mental health support services on site based on realizing the connection
between counseling and improved academic outcomes.
I saw there was a significant need for mental health services for our students, but in our
district there are no counselors until you get to the middle school areas. We have so many
kids with such significant mental health issues, and even more basic issues like conflict
resolution skills, and anger management is a huge one, but those, or the lack of those skills,
really negatively impact students at school, and the issue is on such a large scale that it
needed to be addressed. So I was able to just this year, successfully get a pilot program here
at the school that involves a non-profit led by a clinical psychologist who uses interns from
the local universities to come in and provide counseling services for students, lead groups,
and conflict resolution and anger management, things like that. So, that just started this
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 77

year and I’m hoping that will have some long-term benefits, considering it’s certainly a
need.

Although laudable, the development of such programs takes time and manpower, which are both
in short supply, at the elementary level.
Technology
Technology is an inextricable part of Common Core. It is embedded in all content areas
of the Common Core standards to address 21
st
century learning skills (Marzano, 2013). Formal
assessments designed by two consortia will provide timely data to support and inform instruction
and provide a measure of skills and knowledge against the standards in order to assess
instruction and learning on a grand scale (K-12 Center at ETS, 2012, p. 15; Marzano, 2013). In
interviews, principals saw the use of technology as a barrier to change. They compartmentalized
the barriers into broad categories; they were lack of infrastructure, lack of teacher knowledge and
skills, and a lack of student knowledge and skills.
Three of the five principals interviewed discuss technology infrastructure as a barrier to
change within the context of Common Core. Principal C relates dealing with technology logistics
at the school site in preparation for Common Core:
The infrastructure wasn’t invented so there was a lot of scrambling going on at the
beginning of the year… I think what we learned is that we need to begin preparing our
kids more in technology skills than we have been. And with so much to teach, that kind
of gets pushed by the wayside.

Principal A spoke of the lack of technology coordination in preparation for formal assessments:
(The) district was not equipped facilities-wise or technology-wise to accommodate the
testing. Literally, the last three months, my staff meetings have been hijacked by the need
to do the training of teachers. The day before testing, we got a cart of Google Chrome
books. The district is operating the same way. I’m a microcosm of what’s going on in the
school district. It’s really just flying by the seat of our pants type of knee-jerk reaction.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 78

Elementary principals also described teacher-based technology barriers. These issues
align to teacher beliefs and attitudes about the use of technology for the classroom. Principal C
stated:
… I’m struggling now with technology. I still have a couple of teachers that don’t have
cell phones. I had two teachers retire when we went into the computer system for report
cards, because they couldn’t use the computer—they didn’t know how to type. I have
teachers who barely use the Elmo and I am not computer savvy. I’m far, far from
computer savvy.

Teachers are also enabled by administration in maintaining a lack of technology skills.
Principal C told of a conversation with a district office assistant deputy superintendent about
teachers and technology:
I have teachers that just are refusing. So he came and we met and he said, “You know—
don’t worry about the teachers that don’t incorporate technology.” …So this kid’s going
to go through his elementary [years] having just minimum technology, because it just so
happened that, for whatever, he went into those teachers. I even said, ‘Dr. H., what would
you do if I told you (because he’s high on technology) that I don’t like technology, and
I’m not going to use it in my school because I’m not comfortable with it? What would
you do to me as a principal if I told you that?

In addition to infrastructure and teacher knowledge and skills barriers, teachers at low
socioeconomic schools assumed that parents and students do not have access to technology. The
lack of access could create disparities and gaps in instruction. Principal E describes her
interactions with teachers about this issue. “Parents don’t have access to technology. There are so
many assumptions. Then why do you see them all out there holding their iPads up, and their
smart phones? That’s all they need. That’s all they need.” Principal C discussed the use of
technology as the leveling of the playing field for the economically disadvantaged.
My grandkids know more than I do on iPad’s and things. Like I told our Assistant Deputy
Superintendent who came down to talk about technology, because that’s my next—that’s
what I want to get the school into because a lot of kids don’t have access to computers at
home. And so I need to make sure that if, “Hey, if my son in third grade was doing
PowerPoint, these kids better be doing PowerPoint as well in third grade.” And it’s trying
to, again level the playing field.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 79

Elementary principals also noted that students do not have the skills needed to manipulate
computers to access the functions required for computer-based assessments. They surmise that
understanding content will be lost because students do not understand the interface and how to
manipulate the technology to address the components of CCSS being assessed. Principal B said,
“It’s the logistics and the procedural part of having to take it (the assessment) on a computer or a
tablet.” Principal B also viewed computer-based assessment as a detriment to the true outcomes
of CCSS.
But the assessment part of it needs to be revised, because the assessment part is not
assessing them on the way that they are currently being taught. They’re being taught to
work in groups. They’re being taught to revise our answers. They’re being taught to do
oral presentations in the classroom. But they’re being assessed on a machine.

Discussion
Through surveys and interviews, principals detailed perceived barriers to the
implementation of CCSS. The survey indicated materials and funding as potential barriers.
During the interview process, a significant barrier revolved around cohesion between the district
office and the sites. Principals also described the need for planning instruction through
professional development and collaboration about instructions. Another factor evidenced in the
interviews was a concern about the technological capabilities needed to successfully implement
Common Core. Three technology focal points were infrastructure, teacher knowledge and skills,
and student knowledge and skills.
Summary
Interviews and surveys show that principals used different strategies to impact change at
the site level. After consideration of the data from different sources, certain findings emerged
with relevance based on the three research questions considered for this study.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 80

Research Question 1
What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of Common
Core State Standards?
A preplanning phase to gain basic knowledge for principals prior to implementation was
evident. Principals received some training at the district level and researched best practices to
determine approaches to implementation. They collaborated with one another to gain consistency
in planning and messaging across the district. More formal plans were developed at the district
level and carried out at the site. Planning included professional development of teachers,
collaboration and planning time for teachers, and the communication of the plan as evidenced
through newsletters.
Research Question 2
What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of
instructional changes?
Elementary principals relied on direct and indirect leadership skills to move
implementation plans forward. Those direct skills included training, which was done at both the
district and site levels. Principals provided opportunities for coaching and modeling of CCSS
lessons so that teachers could understand the changes in instruction. Observation also played a
key role in context-specific practices. Observations of teachers could be part of an evaluative
process but was also used as a collaborative teaching tool. Indirect supports for teachers were
designed to create encouraging environments for change. All principals reported a model of
instructional risk-taking so that teachers would engage in new practices without the sting of
negative consequences for failures. Principals were keen to empower teachers to develop and
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 81

nurture new skills that lend themselves to teacher professional accountability and internalized
learning of best practices.
Research Question 3
What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing Common
Core State Standards?
Barriers reported by elementary principals seemed to indicate the need for stronger
cohesion between the district office and the sites. Principals felt left out of the discussion but
were then asked to support and implement plans they did not create. They also saw the lack of
cohesive and coordinated principal planning for CCSS as an impediment to their work. They
sought more collaboration with colleagues to coordinate the work of CCSS. Technology was also
of deep concern. It stemmed from lack of infrastructure to prepare students for new ways of
thinking and accountability systems, staff misconceptions about the parents and students’ ability
to access newer technologies, and the lack of teacher and student skills and knowledge of the use
of technology in academic settings.
Leadership through change within the context of Common Core has been at the forefront
of this study. Elementary principals have provided input for the research questions based on
surveys and interviews. This chapter delineated themes that emerged from the collection of the
findings during the research process. Chapter 5 provides a summary of the complete study,
including conclusions and implications for practice and further research.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 82

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The adoption of Common Core State Standards caused an onslaught of change in K-12
education. Once passed at the state level, the shift to CCSS instructional delivery became the
work of school districts, which in turn fell to principals who were charged to champion these
changes on site. This chapter provides a summary of the study of elementary principals
implementing CCSS and the leadership practices they employed to enact change. The previous
chapter drew important conclusions elicited from a thorough review of the data. This chapter
discusses the implications of the actions of elementary principals found in the previous chapter
and provides recommendations for future research.
Statement of the Problem
Change and its processes can be challenging for organizations due to a host of variables
both internal and external. Common Core State Standards are the most recent example of change
in educational settings that test the skills of those tasked with implementing instruction. At the
site level, this is the principal. Principals act on behalf of the school district and therefore
experience the constant tug of internal and external accountability for supporting CCSS. The
actions necessary to create change are not easy for any leader of an organization. At this
juncture, little research exists about CCSS and the influence school leaders have upon its
implementation and instruction within this new context, hence the need for this study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify strategies elementary principals used to
implement the curricular and instructional changes brought to bear with the introduction of
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 83

Common Core State Standards. In this study, change is viewed from constructs of accountability,
teacher learning, and theories of change. A focused and intense look at the CCSS changes and
the processes used by elementary principals hopes to shed light on practices successful principals
use to negotiate the pressures of change and the internal and external pressures that influence the
chosen strategies and decision-making processes that they use to effect that change.
Research Questions
Research questions were created to address the purpose and design of the study. They are
as follows:
1. What planning and program design do principals use during the implementation of
instructional change?
2. What leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of instructional changes?
3. What are the organizational barriers that principals encounter when implementing
instructional change?
Literature Review
The literature included in this study was examined to determine the current body of
knowledge regarding leadership and change within educational settings. The literature provides
context and background for comparisons and contrasts based on the new knowledge gained by
the research addressed in this study. After an exhaustive review of the literature and the data
gleaned from this study, clear themes emerged. The first emerging theme was elementary
principals used planning to build knowledge and capacity for themselves and for teachers. Part of
this included collaboration for research and shared knowledge that would transfer to improving
instructional skills that align with CCSS. The second emerging theme was that they use a
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 84

plethora of strategies that fall under direct or indirect leadership practices to coax change at the
site level.
The principal is seen as a key factor in improving student outcomes and performance
(Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Marzano et al, 2005). In today’s society, they have been
chosen to engage with educational innovations and best practices and support delivery at school
sites. In so doing, they evoke change in instruction at the site that will have impact on the
workforce and a global economy in the not too distant future (Fullan, 2013; Marzano et al.,
2005). Change in school practices and cultures can be fraught with difficulties and uncertainties.
However change agents can proceed with confidence through all stages of change if mindful of
the change process (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Kotter 2012). It falls to the principal, as the change
agent, to prepare the course for those changes at the site level (Marzano et al., 2005).
In the study, there was concerted effort by principals to provide professional development
and training to achieve appropriate levels of knowledge that would be the fulcrum for
instructional change. With the requirement of improving innovations in practice, principals
provided specific training and then time to collaborate and process the new learning (Elmore,
2002). PD and training are direct forms of leadership known to influence change. Principals also
used other forms of direct leadership in implementing CCSS.
Two direct influencers, which stood out in addition to training and PD, were observation
and the use of leadership teams. Elementary principals used evaluation tools for this but they also
used a process whereby teachers observed peers and provided analysis of the instructional
approach (Fowler-Finn, 2013; Fullan, 2014, p. 74). The third direct leadership tool employed at
elementary sites was the use of leadership teams to stimulate change (Kotter, 2012). These teams
reviewed student achievement and helped coordinate instructional programs. The teams were
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 85

also instrumental in developing the message and communicating it through formal and informal
channels.
Principals also used indirect strategies to propel innovations forward. The general focus
was the creation of supportive environments to promulgate change. Elementary principals
worked to reduce teacher anxiety about changing instructional design. They promoted risk-taking
in teaching and instruction. Principals gave permission to teachers to try innovations aligned with
CCSS even if they resulted in failure because it was seen as a learning experience and within the
change framework it encouraged developing broad-based actions that further the change vision.
Methodology
Mixed methods were used in this study to provide information both quantitative and
qualitative that would inform the body of knowledge. For quantitative data collection, an online
survey, consisting of closed-end and Likert-like responses, was developed and utilized to group
detailed responses from individuals across an appropriate sample population in order to gain
descriptions of feelings and perceptions, values, habits and personal background or demographic
characteristics (Fink, 2009). Ten districts in Southern California were contacted to find willing
and qualified participants. From that query, 41 elementary principals participated in an on-line
survey constructed to determine background information and their work with Common Core
State Standards.
In addition to the quantitative survey, data was collected through interviews in order to
construct meaning, patterns and themes out of principals’ experiences and to immerse the
researcher into the natural setting of the phenomenon (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Creswell, 2009;
Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Five elementary principals were selected from the survey for
semi-structured interviews to delve further into experiences and behaviors and their perceptions
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 86

of those experiences (Merriam, 2009) as related to CCSS implementation. The five selected fit
the criteria for the study and showed a willingness to participate in interviews at this level.
The information provided in the interviews was further grounded and validated with
supporting documents made available by districts and schools sites. These documents provide
additional evidence of the leadership planning, programs and decisions while implementing
CCSS and negotiating changes incurred due to that implementation.
Findings
Research Question 1 asked, What planning and program design do principals use during
the implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
Principal planning and program design consisted of a preplanning phase, an initial
implementation phase and programming design. In preplanning, elementary principals set about
learning and gaining knowledge about the Common Core State Standards through research,
training and collaboration with other principals. Upon implementation at the site level,
elementary principals provided professional development for teachers to ensure knowledge and
the use of innovations in learning. They offered teachers time to plan and collaborate to build
capacity with CCSS and its instruction. Elementary principals also delivered the instructional
plans and were mindful of sending consistent messages to their staff about the plan. Missing in
the research was the elementary site principal’s use of a formal documented plan to promote the
accountability plan for the district while shaping it to the nuances and culture of the specific site.
The inclusion of thoughtful, context-specific plans for change could be a predictor of success.
Part of careful planning considers obstacles—both real and perceived—to implementation as
principals navigate the transitions and changes that are part of initiating CCSS at the site level. It
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 87

may also address issues of the lack of collaborative cohesion between district offices and school
sites.
Research Question 2 asked, What context-specific leadership practices are necessary for
the implementation of instructional changes?
Instructional change requires an understanding of the type and magnitude of the change
being implemented. In the case of Common Core Standards, a second-order magnitude of change
exists wherein a total overhaul of current systems is required to achieve results (Marzano et al.,
2005). In order to achieve those sweeping changes principals used direct and indirect leadership
skills to impact change. Professional development, coaching, modeling, and observations were
skills used by elementary principals to directly influence instruction. Elementary principals were
also aware and purposeful to create positive environments to nurture the implementation, success
and maturation of innovative instructional practices. This indirect support coupled with a
mindset for risk-taking for the sake of innovation were consistent threads used to achieve change
for teachers and were designed to create supportive environments for change while increasing
teacher professional internal accountability.
Research Question 3 asked, What are the organizational barriers that principals
encounter when implementing Common Core State Standards? (CCSS)
As leaders implement change within organizations, it is common to confront barriers to
those changes. Elementary principals embarking on CCSS changes encountered barriers to
implementation. Principals felt left out of the planning for CCSS even though they are seen as
the overseer of these changes. They were also concerned about the lack of infrastructure with
technology since CCSS has to do with 21
st
century skills and the fact that new accountability
assessments are to be delivered with technology. Infrastructure deficiencies were defined as a
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 88

lack of hardware and software, the lack of teacher knowledge and use of technology in
instruction, and the lack of student accessibility to technology instruction and instructional tools.
An expected element that was not seen in the data was teacher resistance to changes in
instruction. Principals reported training efforts but there was no indication of teacher
dissatisfaction with working with new Common Core State Standards.
Implications
This study was designed to determine successful leadership strategies used by elementary
principals when implementing change. Common Core State Standards are a significant shift from
past practices under NCLB and were therefore used as the context for this study. The results
obtained contribute to the growing body of literature about elementary school leadership and the
choices and perspectives of principals while in the midst of implementation, and therefore can be
utilized to influence and inform practice of elementary school leaders and more specifically
elementary principals.
Principals are responsible for implementing instructional programs such as CCSS and the
instruction that supports them. They also have the opportunity to influence the outcomes at the
specific site. Successful models suggest the development of a thoughtful plan to roll out change
process. The plan considered and utilized the role of professional development and ongoing
training to develop the skills required to cement best practices. They directly influenced
instruction through the use of collaborative models relying on coaching and observation while
manipulating indirect structures to create environments that reward risk-taking when changing
instructional practices.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 89

Recommendations for Further Research
The topic of school leadership and implementing change processes can embrace a wider
scope of work to be explored by the research community. Future research topics derived from the
development of this work might include:
1. A longitudinal study of these principals and the sites throughout the complete change
process. Common Core and its practices are new and all stages of the change framework
were not explored due to the infancy of CCSS programs.
2. The changing role of the principal and the district office while implementing instructional
practices. Principals in this study indicated a lack of cohesion between their work and
processes at the district level.
3. A comparative study addressing and identifying what successful principals do to effect
change and the practices of those who are not successful.
4. A study about principal beliefs about teacher efficacy, technology and the Common Core.
Conclusion
The adoption of Common Core Standards and the changes they bring will have
substantial and continued impact on teaching and learning. The perception of the principal at
large is that they play an integral role in guiding instruction and developing the mechanisms on
site that will, in the end, lead to practices that will sustain the impetus for the adoption of the
Common Core State Standards: 21
st
century learning for college and career readiness. However,
the literature is sparse with regard to the principal and the practices used to meet instructional
demands. Hence this research was undertaken to enrich the literature about principals and their
leadership practices evoked by CCSS.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 90

In order to have impact at the site level, principals will be involved in deep systems
changes. Although not every aspect of the change process was evidenced through interviews and
surveys, certain aspects stood out in the repertoire of principals leading during change.
Successful principals accomplish change processes for CCSS by supporting an
environment conducive to risk. Risk taking and working outside of the norm are part of
empowering teachers to take action. Principals used this strategy to move teachers away from
teaching practices that had worked in the past under shallow state standards in order to build the
muscle and stamina for teaching to the depth and rigor built into the design of CCSS. Risk taking
also laid the groundwork for producing small successes that would build confidence in the
process and teachers’ ability to achieve while paving the way for further inroads towards the
change principals were cultivating. Principals identified a first step toward empowerment and
that was through the development of their understanding as well as that of their teaching staff.
Data pointed to principals providing opportunities for learning which would build the factual and
conceptual knowledge needed to encourage understanding and attempts at new instructional
strategies, thus moving teachers along the continuum of change. Principals also were consistent
with the desire to maintain learning and the instructional actions derived from it through the use
of coaching, modeling and observing. Coaching, modeling and observing all shared the common
component of collaboration and the ability to see peers within their natural instructional settings
teaching students and then reflecting on the information gathered from that experience.
The data for this study was based on mixed methods and relied on a small sample
population. As a result the learning derived from the study cannot be generalized to the larger
population of elementary principals. However, when combined with and viewed in light of the
literature regarding teacher professional development and theoretical frameworks of change, the
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 91

strategies appear to have usefulness and impact on program change at the elementary level.
Therefore these findings have relevance and a place within the discourse and discussion on
Common Core, its implementation, and change.

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 92

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1996). Making time for teacher professional development. ERIC Digest.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Alexander, J. (2010). Leadership
competencies for implementing planned organizational change. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(2010), 422-438.
Bell, T. H. (1993). Reflections one decade after “A Nation at Risk." Phi Delta Kappan, 74(8),
592-97.
Bendikson, L., Robinson, V., & Hattie, J. (2012). Principal instructional leadership and
secondary school performance. Set: Research Information for Teachers, (1), 2-8.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Fifth Edition. Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman L. & Deal, T. (2003). Third Edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brighton, C. (2003). The effects of middle school teachers’ beliefs on classroom practices.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2-3), p. 177.
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, 1-24. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Calabrese, R. L. (2002). The school leader’s imperative: Leading change. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 16(7), 326-332.
California Department of Education. (2010). K-12 common core standards for mathematics.
Retrieved August 7, 2012 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 93

California Department of Education. (2012). Program improvement. Retrieved August 7, 2012
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp.
California Department of Education (2014). Common Core State Standards Systems
Implemantation Plan for California. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
California Department of Education (2013). Find a SARC. Retrieved from
http://www.sarconline.org/Home/Search.
Cardno, C. (2005). Leadership and professional development: The quiet revolution. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 19(4), 292-306.
Causey-Bush, T. (2005). Keep your eye on Texas and California: A look at testing, school
reform, no child left behind, and implications for students of color. The Journal of Negro
Education, 74(4), 332-343.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Cochran-Smith, M. and Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-304.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Cooney, T. J. (1994). Research and teacher education: In search of common ground. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 608-636.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy, and
practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-152.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 94

Cubberley, E. P. (1923). The principal and the principalship. The Elementary School Journal,
23(5), 342-352
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: “The power of the bottom over
the top.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 339-347.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Arizona State University: Education Policy Analysis Archives.
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.
Datnow, A. & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How beliefs,
experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(3), 775-799.
Dee, T. S. & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
Dowd, A. C., (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
assess community college performance. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts,
Lumina Foundation for Education.
Doyle, K. (2012). Powerful alignment: Building consensus around the common core state
standards. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 22, 7-23.
Early, P. & Weindling, D. (2007). Do school leaders have a shelf life?: Career stages and
headteacher performance. Education Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1).
73-88.
Eilers, A. M. & Camacho, A. (2007). School culture change in the making: Leadership factors
that matter. Urban Education, 42(6), 616-637.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 95

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Fenstermacher, G.D. & Berliner, D.C. (1985). Determining the value of staff development. The
Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 281-314.
Fink, A. (2013). Fifth Edition. How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82(8), 598-606.
Flett, J. D., & Wallace, J. (2005). Change dilemmas for curriculum leaders: Dealing with
mandated change in schools. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(3), 188-213.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy strategies for educational leaders. Boston, MA: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Fuhrman, S. H. (2004). Introduction. In Fuhrman, S. H. & Elmore, R. J. (Eds.), Redesigning
accountability systems for education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Fullan, M. (2012). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2013). Third Edition. Introduction. In Grogan, M. (Ed.) The Jossey-Bass reader on
educational leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2014). The principalship:Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 96

Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2008). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link
professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114(4),
p. 541-581.
Gardiner, M. E., Canfield-Davis, K, & Anderson, K. L. (2009). Urban school principals and the
‘No Child Left Behind’ act. The Urban Review, 41(2), 141-160.
Gilley, A., McMillan, H. S. & Gilley, J.W. (2009a). Organizational change and characteristics of
leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16(4), 38-47.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., McMillan, H. S. (2009b). Organizational change: Motivation,
communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
21(4), 75-93.
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. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Good, J., Miller, V. & Gassenheimer, C. (2004). Reforming professional development at the
school site: New standards and new practices. Journal of Educational Research and
Policy Studies, 4(1), 27-45.
Grossman, T., Reyna, R. & Shipton, S. (2011). Realizing the potential: How governors can lead
effective implementation of the common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGA
Center for Best Practices.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 97

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),
5-44.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every
school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Harpell, J. V., & Andrews, J. J. W. (2010). Administrative leadership in the age of inclusion:
Promoting best practices and teacher empowerment. The Journal of Educational
Thought, 44(2), 189-210.
Helsing, D., Howell, A., Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2008). Putting the “professional” in
professional development: Understanding and overturning educational leaders’
immunities to change. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 437-465.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USCUrban ed:
The magazine of the USC Rossier School of Education, Spring/Summer, 17-19.
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. B. (2003). The American dream and the public schools.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Honig, M. I. (2012). District Central Office Leadership as Teaching How Central Office
Administrators Support Principals’ Development as Instructional Leaders. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733-774.
Hoyle, J. R., English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (1998). Skills for successful 21
st
century school
leaders: Standards for peak performers. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 98

Jacobson, S. (2010). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success.
International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33-44.
Jenkins, S. & Agamba, J. J. (2013). The missing link in the CCSS initiative: Professional
development for implementation. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(2),
69-79.
Kafka, J. (2009). The principalship in historical perspective. Peabody Journal of Education,
84(3), 318-330.
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (2000). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and
benchmarks for K-12 education. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Kirst, M.W. (2013). The common core meets state policy: This changes almost everything.
Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Kirtman, L. (2013). Leadership and Teams: The Missing Piece of the Educational Reform
Puzzle. Pearson Higher Ed.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2011a). Common Core State Standards: Progress and challenges in
school districts’ implementation. Washington, DC: Center on Educational Policy.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2011b). States’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center
on Educational Policy.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. S. (2012). Year two of implementing the Common Core State
Standards: States’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center on Educational
Policy.
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2008). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change
their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 99

Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2011). The five practices of exemplary leadership. San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.
Changing Education Series. Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis Group.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Linn, R. L., (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, J. T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Yanoski, D. C., Hoegh, J. K., & Simms, J.A. (2013). Using common core
standards to enhance classroom instruction and assessment. Bloomington, IN: Marzano
Research Laboratory.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mulford B. & Silins, H. (2011). Revised models and conceptualizations of successful
principalships for improved student outcomes. International Journal of Education, 25(1),
61-82.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 100

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of
Educational Administration, 30(3), 77-89.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC:
Authors.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2012). Trends in state implementation of the Common Core State Standards:
Educator effectiveness. Washington, DC: Authors.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, §115, Stat. 1425–2094 (2001).
Norton Grubb, W., & Badway, N. (2005). From compliance to improvement: Accountability and
assessment in California community colleges. Higher Education Evaluation and Research
Group.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational
Review, 72, 293-329.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Third Edition. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pierce, P. R. (1935). The origin and development of the public school principalship. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J, & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: the new U.S.
intended curriculum. Educational Researcher 40(3), 103-116.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 101

Ramaley, J. (2002). Moving mountains: Institutional culture and transformational change. In
Diamond, R. (ed). Field guide to academic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rentner, D. S. (2013). Year 3 of implementing the common core state standards: States prepare
for common core assessments. Retrieved from: http://www.cep-dc.org/.
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
Rousmaniere, K. (2007). Presidential address go to the principal’s office: Toward a social history
of the school principal in North America. History of Education Quarterly, 47(1), 1-22.
Sawchuk, S. (2012). Many teachers not ready for common core. Education Week, 31(April 25,
2012), 16-22.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.
Schein, E. H. (1994). Organizational and managerial culture as a facilitator or inhibitor of
organizational learning. MIT: Society for organizational learning. Retrieved November
22, 2013 from www.sol-ne.org/res/wp/10004.html.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (1997). The fifth discipline. Measuring business excellence, 1(3), 46-51.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2009). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 102

Shultz K. (2014). Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the
implementation of instructional change. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Smit, R. & Humpert W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(2012), 1152-1162.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 1-7).
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved November 14, 2005 from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Tienken, C. H. (2011). Common core standards: The emperor has no clothes, or evidence. Kappa
Delta Pi, 47(2), 58-62.
Toll, C., Neirstheimer, S., Lenski, S. & Kolloff, P. (2004). Washing our students clean: Internal
conflicts in response to teacher’s beliefs and practices. Journal of Teacher Education,
55(2), 164-176.
Ulrich, D. (1998). Champions of change: How CEOs and their companies are mastering the
skills of radical change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of quantitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of
teacher quality. Princeton, N.J.: Education Testing Service.
http://www.ets.org/research/pic
Youngs, P. & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build
school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 103

Appendix A: Recruitment Letter
[Date]
Dear [Principal Name],
We are doctoral students at USC, and we are working on a dissertation about principal leadership
during the change process. We are conducting a research study about effective leadership
practices used by elementary and middle school principals in the implementation of instructional
change especially, at this time with the initial implementation of Common Core State Standards
(CCSS).

Our committee members have extensive knowledge and experience working with leaders such as
you at the local, state, and national level. Each is a USC professor who works with principals and
superintendents as well as doctoral candidates. They are: Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Michael
Escalante, and Dr. Pedro Garcia. Under their guidance and with their support, we wish to
examine the leadership practices at the site level as schools sit at this important crossroad of
instructional and curricular change.

The purpose of this study is to identify strategies principals in elementary and middle school
settings have found to be effective while implementing curricular and instructional change based
on directives such as CCSS. By examining the processes for implementing successful change,
we are hoping to identify those traits and trends that are indicators of success along with best
practices so that we can share our knowledge with elementary and middle school practitioners.

The study procedures include a survey; depending upon your answers in the survey, you may be
invited to also participate in an interview. Participation is voluntary and responses will be
confidential. To be eligible to participate in the follow-up interview, you must meet the
following criteria:

1. The school and the district has begun the planning process for implementing CCSS.
2. There has been documentation of a plan at the site level.
3. The principal has been a principal for at least two years and understands accountability
under student achievement systems.
If you have questions, comments, or concerns, please email either Kristen Shultz or Melissa
Kistler at kshultz@usc.edu and mkistler@usc.edu. Your information will remain confidential
and pseudonyms will be used in the study.
Thank you for your time; your prompt response is appreciated. To participate in the survey
please click on the following link: https://usc.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8JnwV0N0DG65Rjf
Sincerely,
Kristen Shultz and Melissa Kistler
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 104

Appendix B: Information/Facts Sheet for Exempt Non-Medical Research

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

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

The Effective Leadership Practices Used by Elementary and Middle School Principals in
the Implementation of Instructional Change

You are invited to participate in a research study for a Doctorate of Education dissertation.
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 if you are a K-8 principal in a public school setting
and meet the following criteria:

1. The district is seen as a leader in the implementation of the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS).
2. The school and the district have begun the planning process for implementing CCSS.
3. There has been documentation of a plan at the site level.
4. The principal has been a principal for at least two years to understand accountability under
student achievement systems.
5. The principal has some training (formal and/or informal) in preparation for CCSS.
6. The principal has qualities of transformational leadership.
7. The principal has oversight of resources needed to implement CCSS.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this research study is to understand the leadership practices used by principals in
implementing the Common Core State Standards. More generally, we are looking at how
organizational change is implemented and sustained at the school site. We are asking you to
participate because you have been identified as a key leader.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey that is
anticipated to take about 15 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want
to, click “next” or “N/A” in the survey to move to the next question.

Following the survey, you may be asked to participate in a one face-to-face interview at the
location of your choice. The interview should take about one hour and will be audiotaped with
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 105

your permission, to make sure that our conversation is recorded accurately. You may still
participate in the research even if you decide not to be taped.

The discussion topics include leadership practices, Common Core, planning and programs, as
well as organizational barriers due to the changes brought about by Common Core. We will also
discuss school culture, Professional Development, and other site-specific issues and programs
surrounding Common Core.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate in this study; your relationship with your employer or USC
will not be affected, whether or not you participate.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audio-tapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed; identifiable information will be
destroyed upon completion of the research study.

Data will be stored on a password protected computer in the researcher’s office. The de-
identified data and transcripts will be stored indefinitely and may be used in future research
studies. If you do not want your data 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.

If the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions about this research, including questions about the scheduling of the
interview or your participation, you can contact us via email or phone at kshultz@usc.edu or
(310) 748-2344, mkistler@usc.edu or (818) 825-9254 or the dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy
Castruita at rcastrui@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.
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 106

Appendix C: Survey Instrument

Q1. What is your gender?
☐ Male
☐ Female

Q2. What degrees do you hold? Select all that apply.
☐ B.A. or B.S.
☐ Master’s Degree
☐ Ed.D.
☐ Ph.D.

Q3. Please provide information regarding your educational background such as your major or
emphasis as well as any institutions you attended.

Q4. What is your background primarily in?
☐ Elementary education
☐ Secondary education
☐ Business
☐ Other (please specify)

Q5. What credential(s) have you earned. Select all that apply.
☐ Multiple Subject
☐ Single Subject. Please specify subject(s) below:

☐ Administrative
☐ Special Education

Q6. Prior to becoming an administrator, what was your most recent position in education?
☐ Teacher, PreK/TK/K-5
☐ Teacher, 6-8
☐ Teacher, 9-12
☐ Teacher on Special Assignment
☐ Special Education Teacher
☐ School Counselor
☐ Athletic Coach
☐ Other (please specify)

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 107

Q7. What grade levels does you site serve?
☐ Elementary (PreK/TK/K-5 or PreK/TK/K-6
☐ Middle School (6-8 or 7-8)
☐ K-8
☐ Other configuration. Please specify:

Q8. What is the total number of students at your school site?
☐ Fewer than 100 students
☐ 100-200 students
☐ 200-300 students
☐ 300-400 students
☐ 400-500 students
☐ 500-600 students
☐ 700-800 students
☐ 800-900 students
☐ More than 900 students

Q9. How many years have you been a principal?
☐ 0-1
☐ 2-4
☐ 5-7
☐ 8-10
☐ More than 10 years

Q10. How many years have you served in your current position (please include this year)?
☐ 2-3
☐ 4-6
☐ 7-10
☐ More than 10 years

Q11. How did you gain knowledge about the Common Core State Standards? Select all that apply.
☐ District Office trainings, meetings or workshops
☐ Research
☐ Peers and/or colleagues
☐ Media

Q12. How long have you been implementing CCSS at your site?
☐ 0-3 months
☐ 4-6 months
☐ 7-9 months
☐ 10-12 months
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 108

☐ More than 12 months

Q13. What does training consist of? Select all that apply.
☐ On-site training for principals, teachers and/or staff
☐ Off-site district office or county trainings for principals, teachers and/or staff
☐ Off-site conferences or workshops for principals, teachers and/or staff

Q14. Please describe the type of training at your site based on your response to item 13.
☐ On-site training:

☐ Off-site district office or county training:

☐ On-site conferences or workshops:

Q15. For the following items, please select the number or statement below that best represents
how you feel about your knowledge and preparation of CCSS as well the receptiveness to CCSS
at your site.

Question Very
Little
Some Quite
a bit
A Great
Deal
Not
Applicable
(N/A)
What level of knowledge about CCSS did you
possess a year ago?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
What level of knowledge about CCSS did you
possess two years ago?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Your district provided principal training for
CCSS

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Your district provided teacher training for CCSS

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
The training had direct benefit for your staff in
implementing CCSS

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
You have trained your teachers and staff in
order to implement CCSS.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
You have used trainers or consultants from
outside of the district in order to train teachers
and staff in CCSS.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
You have been given sufficient materials to
implement CCSS at your site.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
You have been provided sufficient funds to
implement CCSS at your site.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 109

A school-wide plan has been created and
adopted for CCSS implementation.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As principal, you communicated the plan to
school stakeholders.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As principal, you have observed teachers
implementing CCSS in their classrooms.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Have you looked for CCSS instructional
resources?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
How much have you impacted the decisions that
are made regarding implementation of CCSS at
your site?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As principal, you have the ability to freely offer
your views on CCSS implementation to district
office personnel.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
As principal, you have the ability to freely offer
your views on CCSS implementation to your
teachers and staff.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
How ready are you to implement CCSS in
English Language Arts?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
How ready are you to implement CCSS in
mathematics

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Q16. How will your implementation plan and/or programs change the most in the next six
months to one year?

Q17. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. You may add any additional
comments that you think may be relevant to the study in the space below.

Q18. Would you be willing to be contacted for a follow-up interview related to this topic?
☐ Yes. If yes, please provide your email or preferred contact information below.
Remember, your information will remain confidential; all names and other identifiers will
be replaced with pseudonyms for this study.

☐ No

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 110

Appendix D: Interview Protocol

Principal Leadership and Implementation of Instructional Change

Interviewer:______________________ Date:_____________

Job Title:_____________________ Phone: _________________

Start Time:____________ End Time: _____________

Introduction:
During this conversation, we are hoping to learn more about the leadership practices used during
implementation of instructional change such as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). We
will be discussing topics ranging from Common Core to leadership. We will also be discussing
some of the barriers you may have faced due to the change process. However, the focus is on the
leadership practices you have used.

I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. We will not identify you or
your organization by name. I would like to tape-record this interview in order to have an accurate
record of our conversation. Would that be okay?

The interview should take approximately 60 minutes. Do you have any questions before we
begin?

I. Background
Before we ask you specific questions about the specific leadership practices during instructional
change, we would like to start by asking you some background questions about your role as
principal.
- How long have you been in your position? What is your prior experience and training?
Possible probes
Tell me about your school site (demographics, mission statement etc.)

- To get a sense of your role as principal, can you describe your duties as site leader as it pertains
to instruction?
Possible probes
Talk a little bit about day-to-day jobs
Talk a little bit about implementing directives/district vision etc.
Who are other key site leaders?
Who else makes and implements decisions regarding instruction at this site?

3. What do you know about the Common Core State Standards?
Possible probes
History?
Content?
Assessment & accountability?
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 111

II. Planning & Program Design
- Can you describe to me/walk me through the process you used in implementing the switch from
NCLB to CCSS at your site?
Possible probes
Year one of implementation or when you first head of the standards?
Year two? Year three?
Now?

- How did you prepare as an instructional leader for the change?
Possible probes
Year one? Year two? Year three?
Now?

- How were those decisions made?
Possible probes
Vision?
Relation to directives?
Who influenced you/who was involved?
What has been the role of the district office? Other directives?
Whom did you consult?
What resources were accessed?

- What planning was necessary?
Possible probes
Who was involved?
Can you describe any models that were set in place?
How did you get the necessary information?

- What kinds of programs have you implemented during the process?
Possible probes
Ask about: Professional Development, leadership teams, CCSS teams
Can you describe how those functions in the school site to bring about instructional
change?

- What role do you take during implementation of these programs?
Possible probes
Facilitator? Director? Colleague?

III. Leadership Practices
Leadership is often the catalyst for effective change. I would like to turn now to the leadership
practices you have used during this change process. We can begin discussing leadership in the
context of planning and program design and then move into other areas of leadership. But first, I
would like to ask you:
Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 112

- Can you describe to me your idea of leadership?
Possible probes
Is there an underlying theory you subscribe to?
Who has influenced you and how?

- What did you do to prepare your school site for CCSS?
Possible probe
How has leadership played a role in the planning and program design for instructional
change?

- What leadership strategies have you found to be necessary in implementing such change here at
your site?

- Can you tell me about a time in which you have used your leadership skills during the
instructional change process to CCSS?
Possible probe
How has that shaped your practice and decision making skills?

IV. Organizational Barriers
- Can you describe some of the organizational barriers you have encountered during the change
to CCSS?
Possible probes
Stakeholders: teachers, other admin, district, parents etc.
Resources: curriculum, funds etc.

- Can you describe a specific barrier(s) and how that has influenced you as an instructional
leader?
Possible probes
Have you had to make adaptations? Adapted process and planning? Adapted leadership?
How has this affected you decision making process?

- Looking ahead, based on the barriers you have faced surrounding CCSS, what do you perceive
to continue to be an influencing barrier or conflict?
Possible probes
Why?
How will this affect your leadership?
How will this affect your school site?

How does this impact school culture?
Possible probes
How do you measure school culture or school climate?
How do you define it?
Who impacts school culture and how?
Probes: Role of stakeholders?

Running Head: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 113

V. Reflections
- What do you think will be some of the lessons learned from implementing CCSS that are
perhaps a bit more unique?

- What measures will you use to gauge the success of the implementation?
Possible probe
How does this differ from past gauges?

- How do you think CCSS will shape leadership practices in the future?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to examine elementary principal leadership during change by analyzing various strategies used by the principals to create change systems within the context of Common Core State Standards. More specifically the study set out to explore: 1) what planning and program design do elementary principals use during the implementation of Common Core State Standards, 2) what context-specific leadership practices are necessary for the implementation of instructional changes, and 3) what are the organizational barriers principals encounter when implementing Common Core State Standards. Mixed methods were used to collect and analyze data. Surveys, interviews and documents were reviewed to triangulate the data for validity and reliability. Forty-one elementary principals in Southern California were surveyed and five from the group were selected for interviews. Documents from each school were reviewed as part of the analysis. Through coding, themes emerged. Study results indicate that planning and programming for Common Core implementation involved high levels of professional development. Elementary principals used collaboration in various forms as a strategy to continue the momentum of implementation of the standards. Principals supported implementation with direct and indirect approaches to leadership. Direct approaches influenced instruction while indirect strategies supported an environment in which change can occur. Lastly, elementary principals highlighted barriers to change and transitions from old to new standards. Those barriers included technology and minimum cohesion between district offices and elementary site principals. Overall, the study provides insight into strategies that elementary principals use to launch and protect new systems that involve deep levels of change.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of the instructional leader's role in leading change: preparing for the implementation of Common Core State Standards in elementary schools

PDF

Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts

PDF

Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

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

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

PDF

An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The successful implementation of STEM initiatives in lower income schools

PDF

Secondary school counselor-principal relationships: impact on counselor accountability

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

Asset Metadata

Creator Kistler, Melissa M. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/18/2015

Defense Date 10/28/2014

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

Tag Common Core State Standards,direct and indirect leadership,effective leadership,elementary principals,instructional change,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member)

Creator Email assilemkistler@gmail.com,mkistler@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-534333

Unique identifier UC11297653

Identifier etd-KistlerMel-3198.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-534333 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KistlerMel-3198.pdf

Dmrecord 534333

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kistler, Melissa M.

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