University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

1

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERHIP: THE PRACTICES EMPLOYED BY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL PRINCIPALS TO LEAD THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS AND 21
ST

CENTURY LEARNING SKILLS

by

Allyson Mallory

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

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Allyson Michelle Mallory
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

2

Acknowledgements

“When it comes to developing character strength, inner security and unique personal and
interpersonal talents and skills in a child, no institution can or ever will compare with, or
effectively substitute for, the home's potential for positive influence.” – Stephen Covey

At this point in my educational career, I have accomplished one of those bucket list
dreams…earning a doctorate from USC. Every goal achieved throughout my life was
accompanied by the love, support, and guidance from my family. These four people influenced
the person I am, believed in me when my faith in myself faltered, and challenged me to find a
path in which I can make a positive impact.
Mom and Dad, thank you for instilling in me the work ethic that the two of you tirelessly
modeled, for showing me that nothing comes easy, and that countless hours of hard work,
dedication, and sacrifice really does pay off. Thank you for showing me how to accomplish my
goals in life, love, and everything in between and for giving me the strength to expect nothing
less than the very best. Most of all, thank you for telling me what I am capable of, for giving me
the support to build a dream to chase after, and for believing that I have the talent to reach my
goals.
Patrick and Melissa, thank you for being the consummate examples of intelligence,
kindness, and integrity. The two of you continue to impress me with your contributions to our
family, your careers and the impact you make on the lives around you. As the bond we formed
has strengthened over time, I truly cannot imagine completing this journey called life without
either of you.
I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my Superintendent, Vince Ponce, and
Assistant Superintendent, Jean Marie Frey, for their support and belief in me during the past
three years. Their support in my career made it possible for me to further my education and
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

3

become a better administrator for our team and students. Finally, without the guidance and
support of my committee chairs Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Gallagher, and Dr. Mafi, this dissertation would
not have come to fruition.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

4

Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7 - 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Background 12 - 19
Statement of the Problem 19 - 23
Research Questions 23
Theoretical Framework 23 – 24
Limitations 24
Delimitations 24 - 25
Organization of the Study 25
Definition of Terms 26 - 28
Chapter Two: Literature Review 29
History of Education in the United States 29 - 30
The Current School Reform: Common Core State Standards 31 - 32
21st Century Learning Skills 32 - 35
Instructional Leadership 37 - 44
Summary 44
Chapter Three: Methodology 45 - 48
Statement of the Problem 48 - 49
Research Questions 49 - 50
Participants 50 - 54
Instrument 54 - 58
Research Procedure 58 - 60
Data Collection 60
Validity 60
Reliability 60 - 61
Chapter Four: Results 62
Background 62
Statement of the Problem 62 - 63
Research Questions 63 - 64
Data Analysis 64 - 65
Participants 65 - 69
Results: Research Questions One 69 - 76
Theme One: Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment 69 - 71
Theme Two: Professional Development 71
Theme Three: Change Agent 72 - 76
Theme Four: Collaboration 76
Results: Research Questions Two 77 - 89
Theme One: Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment 77 - 79
Theme Two: Professional Development 79 - 86
Theme Three: Change Agent 87
Theme Four: Collaboration 87 - 89
Results: Research Questions Three 89 - 99
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

5

Theme One: Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment 89 - 92
Theme Two: Professional Development 92 - 96
Theme Three: Change Agent 96 - 98
Theme Four: Collaboration 99
Summary of Findings 99
Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings 100
Statement of the Problem 101
Summary of Study 101
Participants 102
Instrument 102
Data Analysis 102 - 103
Research Questions 103
Discussion of Findings 103 - 110
Research Question One 103 - 106
Research Question Two 106 - 107
Research Question Three 107 - 110
Implications 110 - 112
Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 110
Professional Development 110 - 111
Change Agent 111
Collaboration 111 - 112
Limitations 112
Recommendations 112 -114
Conclusions 114 - 115
References 116 - 124
Appendix A: Qualitative Survey Instrument 125 – 127
Appendix B: Demographic Survey Instrument 128 - 129

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

6

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Relationships between 4Cs and CCSS 36
Table 2.2: A Synthesis of Effective Leadership Practices 41
Table 3.1: Alignment between Research Question #1 and Methodology 56
Table 3.2: Alignment between Research Question #2 and Methodology 57
Table 3.3: Alignment between Research Question #3 and Methodology 58
Table 4.1: Principal & Site Demographic Data 66
Table 4.2: Alignment of CCSS & the 4Cs 92
Table 4.3: Site Specific Trainings 93 - 95
Table 4.4: Principals’ Perception of CCSS Transition 97
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

7

List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Education Gap 20
Figure 1.2: Economic Impact 21
Figure 2.1: P21 Century Learning Skills Framework 33
Figure 3.1: Demographic Data: Identified School Programs 51
Figure 3.2: Demographic Data: Site Enrollment 52
Figure 3.3: Demographic Data: 2013 CST API Results 53
Figure 3.4: Principal Years Experience 54
Figure 4.1: Instructional leadership Skills 70
Figure 4.2: Presentation of the Need for CCSS Reform 72
Figure 4.3.1: Impetus of CCSS Change 73
Figure 4.3.2: Participants’ Years Experience 74
Figure 4.3.3: Principals who Addressed the Change Process 75
Figure 4.4: Collaboration to Build CCSS Capacity 76
Figure 4.5: Building principals’ Instructional Capacity 77
Figure 4.6: Environments of PD 78
Figure 4.7: Instructional Leaders of CCSS PD 81
Figure 4.8: Categories of CCSS PD Shared 82
Figure 4.9: Methods Utilized to Share CCSS Research/PD 84
Figure 4.10: PD on the 4Cs 85
Figure 4.11: The Need for Collaboration 88
Figure 4.12: Principal Support: CCSS PD 89
Figure 4.13: Principal Support: 4Cs PD 90
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

8

Figure 4.14: Types of Professional Development 96

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

9

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the instructional leadership practices
elementary school site principals utilized to support the transition to Common Core State
Standards while ensuring students were learning the 21
st
century competencies of the 4Cs:
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, Communication, Collaboration, and Creativity and
Innovation. The rationale of this study was to identify how principals built their own capacity to
lead this change and built the capacity of the teachers at their sites through Bolman and Deal’s
(1992) structural and human resource frames. Addressing the 4Cs was anchored in the research
of the Partnership for 21
st
Century Learning framework. The research on instructional leadership
practices was supported by a variety of researchers discussed throughout this study. A
qualitative approach was employed to analyze: 1) the instructional leadership skills principals
needed to support teacher implementation of the CCSS and the 4Cs, 2) how principals acquired
these necessary skills, and 3) the professional development required to lead the CCSS reform
while embedding the 4Cs for college and career readiness. Ten elementary school principals
participated in a qualitative survey to identify principal perceptions on the leadership practices
the CCSS and 4Cs necessitated. Criteria to contribute to this study included at least one full year
of CCSS implementation led by the site principal at their school and experience with CCSS
professional development. The data were analyzed by comparing survey responses amongst the
respondents to identify specific instructional practices utilized by the principals. The findings of
this study denoted the practices of: 1) Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, 2)
Professional Development, 3) Change Agent, and 4) Collaboration as most applied during the
initial implementation of CCSS.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

10

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The promise of success was at the heart of the American Dream. A dream that assures
with hard work and dedication everyone has the opportunity to obtain their goals in order to be
prosperous (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2004). Education has been seen as the vehicle for
achieving this dream (Gates, 2007). The ability to reach goals and overcome obstacles on the
pathway to success necessitates an adequate level of knowledge in order to navigate through the
information and problem solve. Former President Lyndon B. Johnson was quoted as stating,
“[t]he answer to all our national problems comes down to a single word: education” (1964).
Education provides the catalyst to move past the limitations set forth by the conditions to which
one was born (Dewey, 1916). It seems that the American public continues to believe in the words
of John Dewey as only 1 in 20 people went to college in the 1970s versus the staggering increase
of 1 in 3 people currently attend some level of college (Robinson, 2011).
However, as the United States moved into the twentieth century, critics of public
education believe that it was education, which placed limitations on student success, as graduates
were deemed not ready for college or a career. Whereas, the United States was built upon the
skilled labor force up until around the 1970s, the new knowledge economy of today necessitates
a highly educated professional with an evolved skill set (Wagner et al., 2006). Educational policy
and accountability measures fell under the scrutiny of the nation’s political stage with public
concern over the quality of education students received grew as mediocre and low student
proficiency rates on standards-based testing for American students were reported in all content
areas (CCSS, 2014; Elmore, 2000; OCED, 2012). Change in educational policy was the response
due to a dissatisfaction of student achievement results (Brown & Vargo, 2014). The Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative emerged as the solution to ensure the American education
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

11

system met the challenging demands of the collegiate and global arenas students enter
(California Framework, 2012). The effects of this change movement within education was
depicted by Brown and Vargo (2014):
As a whole system reform Common Core will eventually change every aspect of the
district’s work: curriculum, instruction, assessments, PD, technology systems, teacher
evals, roles, and culture. The pathway to change will look different in every district, but
each district will face the same challenge, which was that neither individuals nor systems
can manage complexity on many dimensions at once (p. 4)

The Common Core State Standards embed the 21st Century Learning Skills of critical thinking
and problem-solving, collaboration, communication, and creativity and innovation; skills
imperative to college-career readiness and to remain competitive in the global markets (P21,
2012). The change of how instruction and learning took place with the Common Core
implementation needs to meet the changing global landscape of 21st Century Learning Skills.
During any change movement, leadership focuses on the action plan of addressing
problems that have never been overcome (Heifetz, 1994). Regardless of the obstacles,
instructional leaders’ primary responsibility was to improve student achievement (Hargreaves,
2003; King, 2002). The Common Core State Standards coupled with 21st Century Learning
Skills have introduced a new frontier to the education system and all its stakeholders.
Educational reform has not only changed the roles of the teachers and students, but the site
principals’ as well. America’s education system, a constantly changing landscape, required the
site principal lead deftly to ensure positive student performance, support effective instruction,
provide a safe and orderly environment, and meets the needs of all stakeholders involved (King,
2002). Years of research illustrated the importance of effective leadership practices that either
directly or indirectly affect student achievement during times of change (Cross & Rice, 2000;
Crum et al., 2008; Daggett & Jones, 2008; Elmore, 2000; Gentilucci & Muto, 2007; Hallinger &
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

12

Heck, 1996; Louis & Robinson, 2012; Marzano et al., 2005; Spanneut et al., 2012). The aim of
this study was to identify how elementary school principals adapted these instructional
leadership practices to meet the change of the Common Core State Standards and the
implementation of 21st Century Learning Skills.
Background
The analysis of the effectiveness of the United States’ education system depicted in the
report, A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983), asserted, “[t]he
educational foundations of our society were presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity
that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” (p. 5). According to the report, the idea
of the American Dream was diminishing due to the nation’s declining educational system. The
National Commission of Educational Excellence discussed deficiencies in the areas of:
technology, college and career readiness, and competition in a global market due to the mediocre
educational experience students were offered (1983). In 1983, the commission began its focus
on providing solutions to the inadequate public school education, which produced noted
deficiencies. The call from the commission to increase student achievement through the adoption
of more rigorous standards became the foundation for standards-based reform. Standards-based
reform materialized as America’s response to solving low student achievement rates (Elmore,
2000). Policy dictated that students learn at high levels of proficiency, however, American
students have not met this expectation as the trend in student performance has remained stagnant
from 1990 through 2009 with an achievement gap between white and non-white students
(Adams, 2010). As the report on America’s education system predicted, the threat of mediocrity
was now a reality. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a
group dedicated to promoting policies geared toward the world-wide economic and social
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

13

advancement of people, reported the United States was slightly below the organization’s average
in reading and science, comparable to Italy, Portugal, and Vietnam, and below average in
mathematics, comparable to Lithuania, the Slovak Republic, and the Russian Federation (OCED,
2012). According to Fowler (2009), there has been a shift from ensuring educational equity
through policy and politics to issues related to excellence and accountability. The level of
excellence the United States aligns itself with was the assurance that students were college and
career prepared in today’s society. To compete in a global economy that surpassed the education
system of this country, it was imperative that educators adapt to and support student learning
through the ever-changing landscape of education. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
have been slated to provide the rigorous learning that has been lacking to ensure students were
able to compete in today’s global market. Thirty years after the report, A Nation at Risk, the
government and experts in the field of education were still focused on creating solutions to the
same educational challenges of raising student achievement (CCSS, 2014).
Creating and implementing innovative solutions to complex educational problems relies
heavily on the leadership during this change process to meet that bottom line (Heifetz et al.,
2009; Waters et. al, 2003). The change to Common Core State Standards was America’s answer
to an education system that was deemed to produce an ineffective product. The innovation and
creation of yesterday have become commonplace practices that do not meet the requirements of
the expectations leaders were mandated to achieve in today’s policy reform (Heifetz et al, 2009).
Students were not being adequately prepared with the skills needed for the jobs of tomorrow. As
the job market radically changes, students must be prepared for three to five various careers, with
some of those careers not in existence today (Embree, 2014; Robinson, 2011). Bill Gates (2007)
insisted that government and companies must influence policy to ensure students were equipped
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

14

with the necessary math, science and problem-solving skills to persevere in the knowledge
economy. The evolution of America’s education system under reform measure necessitates
leaders to create new strategies to tackle this change (Brown & Vargo, 2014). Daggett and Jones
(2008) believe the road to change continues to be an unpredictable journey with roadblocks and
obstacles leaders must navigate while building team consensus and capacity.
The site principal’s responsibility of supporting teachers to increase team capacity and
consensus was crucial for student achievement. Elmore (2000) asserted that leadership focused
on the improvement of instructional practices. Findings on a study of teacher effectiveness
(Wright et al., 1997) showed the teacher as being the second highest influence on student
achievement under the student’s own achievement level. It was vital for students that teachers
have concrete knowledge of these strategies, how to implement them, and how to tie these
practices to the standards taught.
As the scope of instruction and learning evolve under policy analysis and evaluation by all
stakeholder groups, the role of everyone involved in the change of school reform and evolution
of learning skills must also adapt. In addressing change within any organization, it was
important to identify the type of change that was taking place. Small-scale change that can be
easily adapted to was identified as first order change (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Usually, there
were minimal adjustments needed and the change continues to align itself with the value system
of the organization. The more difficult type of change, second order change, required complex
solutions to a process that was at odds with the current value system (Marzano et al., 2005).
Second order change often brings about feelings of uncertainty, stress, and a lack of direction
(Northhouse, 2004). Change brings about chaos and confusion with the unknown; leadership
was key during these times (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Fullan (2002) proclaimed:
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

15

We demand that [leaders] solve, or at least manage, a multitude of interconnected problems
that can develop into crises without warning; we require them to navigate an increasingly
turbulent reality that was, in key aspects, literally incomprehensible to the human mind; we
submerge them in often unhelpful and distracting information; and we force them to decide
and act at an ever faster pace (p. 2).

For one stakeholder group, the site principal, this transition was becoming increasingly
challenging as the paradigm of school leadership ran the gamut of manager/supervisor to
instructional leader (Marzano et al., 2005). The effects of the change in leadership was an
unintended consequence of school reform which stretched across countries as the importance of
the role of a school leader was determined to have an effect on student achievement (Hallinger &
Kantamara, 2000). Leading second order change was not an easy task. Change inevitably brings
about a new level of learning, resistance, and resourcefulness (Bolman & Deal 1992; Heifetz &
Linsky, 2002; Marzano et al., 2005). Researchers have begun to analyze the changing roles,
responsibilities and the effects the instructional leader has on student achievement. According to
Mulford (2008), as the educational environment changes due to policy reform, effective leaders
adapt their practices to meet the new demands of accountability measures. In order to increase
student achievement, schools need to have a leader that possesses the understanding, skill and
reason to help lead positive instructional change (Elmore, 2003). As national standards were
implemented to meet the demands of the global market, site principals were instrumental in
leading this change as instructional leaders (ASCD, 2012).
The evolution of the principalship was ever changing trying to meet the goals of the current
policy with little direction. The Unites States of America, a country that once prospered over all
others, was now challenged with the task of preparing its citizens to reinvent its innovation after
failing to rise to the progress of other nations (Gardner, 1983). At the time of this education
report, the commission asserted:
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

16

School reform was needed to turn around the current declining trend in student
progress, which originated from weakness of purpose, confusion of vision, underuse
of talent, and lack of leadership, than from conditions beyond our control. (p. 177)

California saw a landmark transformation in education reform with the adoption of the
nineteen ninety-seven content standards (CDE, 1997). Prior to this reform, instruction was based
on improving student achievement without any clear and consistent goals on the content that was
to be achieved. It was noted that legislators and educators were concerned that student progress
had become stagnant as computation skills replaced those of critical thinking and application of
knowledge (CCSS, 2014; Gardner, 1983). While other education policies, reports, and research
in the nation’s history discussed the need for increased student achievement and higher standards
for all students, the adoption of these standards within the California framework provided the
first comprehensive focus on what all students were expected to master as they progress through
the grade levels (CDE, 1997). This framework became the foundation for instructional practices
in which teachers, principals, parents, and paraprofessionals operated (CDE, 1997). Problematic
within the United States’ educational structures and operations of the past was the inability to
close the achievement gap for all students, which led standards based reform (Elmore, 2000).
The passing of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation added a new dimension of
accountability which quickly landed schools in unfamiliar territory of government sanctions
when student proficiency rates did not meet the set Academic Performance Index (API) and
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) growth targets.
The premise of the NCLB policy concentrated on the goal of one hundred percent
proficiency by all students in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics standards by the
year two thousand fourteen. As the 2014 date approached and more schools and districts failed
to meet the accountability requirements of NCLB, it became apparent that while the nineteen
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

17

ninety-seven standards were a good start to raising student achievement and setting high
expectations, NCLB was not the solution to ensuring college and career readiness of students in
the United States (Hamilton et al., 2008). However, additional reform measures were needed to
match the higher order cognitive skills imperative to compete in the global market (CCSS, 2014).
The Common Core Standards, a rigorous set of research based expectations designed to address
the imperative skills students need for their future and the future of our nation, were created to
address the rigor gap between skills students currently graduated with and the skills that were
needed for college and career readiness (CDE, 2009).
The escalating demands of the teaching practice were such that the knowledge and skill
required to do the work was beyond the experience and practical knowledge of the people
charged with supervision (City et al., 2008; Mehta, 2013). The implementation of this new
curriculum was supported by a new set of leadership skills to move teacher instruction and
student learning into the school reform of CCSS. In a time where accountability of student
achievement was paramount in the educational field, the reliance on best instructional practices
to perpetuate a solid foundation for student learning was important for all schools, imperative for
the ones deemed failing. Many studies on effective leadership indicated that commitment from
the school leader was of the upmost importance to achieve lasting change (Cross & Rice, 2000).
The role and responsibility of the school principal to provide effective leadership, which
supported student achievement, continued to evolve under reform measures and the quest to find
innovative solutions for the challenges education faces today (Hallinger & Kantamara, 2000).
As societal demand for innovation rises, so did the demand for a new kind of leadership
(Fullan, 2001). Elmore (2000) argued that lawmakers were setting education objectives that
schools were not prepared nor supported in accomplishing. School leaders were being asked to
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

18

take ownership of new and undefined skills to ensure student achievement without direction on
what those skills were and how they support student learning. Principals have been entrusted
with the United States’ most valuable commodity; the education of our future global market
competitors, yet written policy ignores the plan for the role of leadership (Daggett & Jones,
2008; Thomas & Brady, 2005). These were high stake times in education with current
accountability measures affecting school finance and freedom, however, the ones with the most
to lose were the students. Current school leaders were no better equipped than the organizations
they lead to meet the challenges posed by standards-based reform (Elmore, 2000). No Child Left
Behind tried to address the lack of instructional leadership by containing provisions within Title
II for recruiting and training site principals which supported student achievement (CDE, 2002).
While research has found that teachers were the number one factor in raising student
achievement, findings also showed that the impact of the site principal has the second highest
effect on student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004). Creating a learning environment to
influence effective instruction leading to student achievement was a direct result of the school
principal (Senge, 1990).
The evolution of the capacity in which site principals operated mirrored the changes of
large-scale reform of the education policies of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The paradigm shift of the principal as the site
manager to that of the current instructional leader has changed dramatically over the past decade
with the accountability standards based reform and especially NCLB generated (Daggett &
Jones, 2008). The adoption of the Common Core Standards and a focus on 21st Century
Learning Skills to the teaching and learning environments of our nations’ schools required an
evolution of leadership practices. Research has shown during a second order change, such as
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

19

Common Core, the most successful schools were led by academic principals (Crum et al., 2008,
Fullan, 2000; Leithwood, 2006; Waters et al., 2003). Empirical studies on instructional
leadership practices by site principals during second order change from various researchers
identified the roles of: Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, Change Agent,
Optimizer, Intellectual Stimulation and Monitoring and Evaluating as essential to effective
implementation of the new innovation or change that improves student achievement (Cotton,
2003; Crum et al, 2008; Daggett & Jones, 2008; Frey, 2014; Fullan, 2001; Gentilucci & Muto,
2007; Hallinger & Heck, 2007; Marzano et al., 2005; Mitchelll & Castle, 2005; Robinson, 2011;
Smith & Andrews, 1989,).
The change movements of CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills mandated K-6 site
principals to be no longer seen as site managers merely tending to the needs of facilities and
implementing directives passed down from the district and county offices. As student
achievement and accountability became the forefront of state and federal requirements through
the onset of educational policies, such as the ESEA (1965) and NCLB (2002), the role of an
effective site principal evolved from a site manager into one of an instructional leader, especially
in low performing schools. The role of the principal in supervising and engaging teachers in the
development of curriculum and instruction transformed the principalship into instructional
leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 2003). This paradigm shift of the site principal as the manager to
instructional leader was a cultural change that has come about out of necessity due to education
policy. Change became a constant within the field of education; its most important goal was
raising student achievement (Fullan, 2010).
Statement of the Problem
As accountability measures report schools failing to meet the requirements of previous
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

20

legislation, it necessitated change when different results were desired. School districts within the
rural southwestern part of California in Southern California reported failing scores on California
Standards Test in both Language Arts and Math (CDE, 2014). According to O’Donnell (2005),
ensuring effective instructional practices and on-going support for the teacher was paramount to
increase student achievement, therefore, a leading role of the principal. The need for effective
leadership practices to combat low student achievement rates was depicted in Figure 1.1. Figure
1.1 illustrated Southern California’s high school dropout rate and lack of college and career
readiness within the rural southwestern part of California (Ramos, 2012).
Figure 1.1. Education Gap

Adams (2010) contended that academic achievement was imperative to the economic and civic
life. The influence of academic achievement on other faucets of life was viewed as externalities,
which benefit society as a whole (McMahon, 2010). Figure 1.2 illustrates Adams’ and
McMahon’s points as 27,700 students dropped out of school in the rural southwestern part of
California.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

21

Figure 1.2. Economic Impact

As the Figure 1.2 depicts, if half of those students graduated high school, the benefits to society
as a collective good would lead to substantially higher increased income which generates an
investment in the economy creating new jobs and additional revenue (Ramos, 2012). The
benefits of increasing student achievement affect the quality of life in the United States as
increased earnings due to increased education, which propelled the economic cycle of earning
and spending rations (McMahon, 2010). Additionally, McMahon (2010) asserted private
nonmarket benefits such as students with increased knowledge have higher correlations to
increased health, happiness, and cognitive development, and external social benefits such as
lower crime and poverty rates.
According to the previous two figures, students in the rural southwestern part of California
were not meeting student achievement growth targets and therefore were not prepared to
compete in a global market with other learners who have the knowledge and skills to remain
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

22

relevant. The stagnation of academic growth at mediocre levels, was not an isolated concern for
this small part of the United States. The internationally recognized 2012 Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) reported the United States was 30th overall in
mathematics, 20th in reading, and ranked 23rd in science (OECD, 2012). As the United States’
performance remained below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s
(OECD) average for mathematics, reading and science’s averages remained stagnant with other
countries surpassing the U.S. (OECD, 2012).
The Common Core State Standards were slated to mandate rigorous reform within the field
of education and the 21st century has propelled countries into a competitive global market. In
order to prepare students for this new playing field, the Partnership for 21st Century Learning
(P21), a collaboration amongst leaders in the education, business and government, created a
framework geared to propel student learning into the 21st century. P21 advocates an agenda
centered on the learning skills of the 4Cs that will prepare students for the global market: (1)
Critical thinking (2) Communication (3) Collaboration (4) Creativity and innovation. College
and career readiness was not only a focus for CCSS but also a key component for 21st Century
Learning Skills as well. The skills necessary for competing in the job markets of today and
tomorrow were outlined by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills framework (P21). As
Common Core Standards have quickly become the ‘what’ for instruction (CCSS, 2014), 21st
Century Learning Skills were becoming the ‘how’ or the vehicle in which these standards were
achieved (P21, 2014). Twenty-first Century learning outcomes were built upon a foundation of
learning environments, professional development, and curriculum and instruction, which were all
aligned with the Nation’s current standards and assessments (P21, 2014). In addition to a focus
on college and career readiness, other components of 21st Century Learning emphasize the core
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

23

subjects areas: reading, writing, and mathematics, located within the Common Core Standards
and the focus on Information, Media, and Technology skills which were sprinkled throughout the
Common Core’s instructional shift of digital literacy. With the change of the what, CCSS, and
the how, 21st Century Learning Skills, of instruction, it was imperative that teachers receive the
support from the instructional site leaders to effectively implement these two initiatives in the
classrooms.
Research Questions
1.) What instructional leadership skills were needed in order for principals to support teacher
implementation of Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Learning Skills in K - 6
schools in the rural southwestern part of California?
2.) How did principals acquire and implement the necessary skills to perform the role as an
instructional leader during times of change?
3.) What professional development do site principals need to lead the change to CCSS and 21st
Century Learning Skills?
Theoretical Framework
The present landscape of education was immersed in the national standards of the Common
Core framework with an emphasis on 21st Century Learning Skills. In order to determine
leadership responses to these reform initiatives, this study was anchored in the framework of
Bolman and Deal’s structural and human resource frames as it pertains to the instructional
leaders efforts in building capacity within the team to meet the new requirements of change
initiatives (1992). Instructional leadership practices as discussed by Cotton (2003), Hallinger
(2003), Leithwood (1982) and Marzano et al. (2005) among other researchers addressed the
effective leadership practices required to successful support teachers in reform movements. The
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

24

framework for 21st Century Learning Skills was defined by The Partnership for 21st Century
Skills (P21), a national organization who was a proponent for 21st century readiness for all
students. The P21 framework was founded on collaborative efforts by leaders in the fields of
education, business, and government. P21 learning centered on the Four Cs of (1) critical
thinking and problem solving (2) communication (3) collaboration (4) creativity and innovation.
This study took an in depth look at how the Common Core State Standards and 21st Century
Learning Skills necessitated an adaptation of effective instructional leadership practices.
Limitations
The recognition of study limitations was essential to minimize threats to internal validity.
While the qualitative survey provides insight into principal perspectives on instructional
leadership practices, the study may not transfer to other roles school leaders assume. It was also
important to note the subjectivity of the qualitative component of the survey as it can lead to
alternative interpretations. It was possible that another researcher would attribute different
meanings to what was noted in the survey instrument. Data collected from interviews was
limited by the subject’s interpretation of the interview questions. The data were also limited to
those individuals who participate in the study.
Delimitations
The scope and findings of the survey were determined by the delimitations of the study.
One of the delimitations was the research instrument developed for the purposes of uncovering
the effective leadership practices during the CCSS implementation at a school. The study was
also delimited by its population, which includes the ten participants. Principal perceptions of the
leadership practices during CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills implementation was the
focus of this study. The research does not address the student understanding of 21st Century
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

25

Learning Skills programs and practices, therefore, students were not interviewed.
Organization of the Study
The study was organized into five chapters. Chapter one provides the background and
context of the problem, the research questions that guide the study, and the conceptual
framework from which the study was based. Chapter two presents the review of literature which
outlines the goals and challenges within the American education system, Common Core
Standards reform, 21st Century Learning Skills, the process of change and literature on effective
leadership practices were presented. Chapter three profiles the methodology utilized for this
study. The methodology describes the type of research conducted, the participants selected,
procedures of the data collection, and the data analysis process. Chapter four reports the analysis
of the findings organized around the research questions. An overview of the study and
recommendations were explored in chapter five.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

26

Definition of Terms
21st Century Learning: 21st century standards, assessments, curriculum, instruction, professional
development and learning environments must be aligned to produce a supports system that
produces 21st century outcomes for today’s students (P21, 2014)
Academic Performance Index (API): a measure of academic performance and growth of schools
based on the results of California statewide testing (CDE, 2014)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): minimum levels of improvement as measured by standardized
tests chosen by a state. AYP targets must be set for overall achievement and for subgroups of
students, including major ethnic/racial groups, economically disadvantaged students, limited
English speaking (CDE, 2014)
California Standards Test (CST): an assessment that reflects the state’s academic content
standards for the particular grade (CDE, 2014)
Change Agent: a person who acts as catalysts for change (Fullan, 2010)
Collaboration: the process in which people work together and utilize each others’ strengths to
meet an objective (DuFour & DuFour, 206)
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): a set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics
and English language arts/literacy (ELA). These learning goals outline what a student should
know and be able to do at the end of each grade. The standards were created to ensure that all
students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in
college, career, and life, regardless of where they live (CCSS, 2014)
Creativity and Innovation: Creativity was the process of developing original ideas that have
value, and innovation was the process of putting new ideas into practice (Robinson, 2011)
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: taking a new perspective in order to construct solutions
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

27

to problems across disciplines (P21, 2014)
Instructional Leadership: coordinating, supervising, and developing curriculum and instruction in
the school setting (Hallinger, 2003)
Intellectual Stimulation: engaging stakeholders in reflective discussion on current practices and
related research to the organizations focus areas/goals (Marzano et al., 2005)
Leadership: Leadership was viewed as a process where by an individual influences a group of
individuals to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2004)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): federal policy that establishes measurable goals toward
improving student educational outcomes and criteria for receiving federal education funding.
Optimizer: a champion who believes that the actions of the group can effect change (Marzano et
al., 2005)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: a forum of countries committed to
democracy and the market economy (OCED, 2012)
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21): a coalition bringing together the business
community, education leaders, and policymakers to position 21st century readiness at the center
of US K-12 education and to kick-start a national conversation on the importance of 21st century
skills for all students (P21, 2014)
Policy: the dynamic and value laden process through a political system handles a public problem.
(Fowler, 2009)
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA): PISA represents a new commitment by
governments to monitor the outcomes of education systems in terms of student achievement on a
regular basis and within an internationally accepted common framework (OECD, 2012)
Policy: the dynamic and value laden process through a political system handles a public problem
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

28

(Fowler, 2009)
Second Order Change: a type of complex change that challenges the value systems of the
organization (Fullan, 2001)
Site Principal: a person in charge or leader of a school setting; also known as a principal
Standards based reform: academic expectations for students that were aligned to key elements of
the educational system, which were monitored by assessments utilized to hold institutions
accountable for student progress (Hamilton et. al, 2008)

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

29

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of literature delineated the evolution of America’s education system through
various reform movements that have shaped the teaching and learning environments of our
nation’s schools. The road to standards based reform twisted and turned around policy, research
and value systems of all involved. A relatively new reform in regards to implementation, the
Common Core State Standards, was outlined along with 21st century practices that schools must
implement in order to meet the modern learning skills needed to compete in today’s global
society. Ensuring students master the content necessary to infiltrate this internationally
competitive workforce, the site principal must be prepared to support teachers with the
implementation of the CCSS and the 21st Century Learning Skills.
History of Education in the United States
As the world evolves, so do the systems that support progress. One of the first
monumental changes in the United States’ Education system occurred during the Progressive Era
(1820 - 1920) where the school environment expanded from a one room schoolhouse to a
network of district school systems (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2004). The physical environment
was the beginning of the analysis of America’s education market. The evaluation of the quality
of college education students received came shortly after the Progressive Era. In 1933, Ralph
Tyler analyzed the education colleges in the United States provided students. His article,
Prevailing Misconceptions (1933) identified the need for students to move past rote
memorization of factual recall and toward higher cognitive skills of analyzing and evaluating
information in an effort to apply this knowledge. College assessments fell under the scrutiny of
Tyler (1933) as the exams tested the students’ ability to recall information rather than relying on
finding evidence to substantiate reasonable generalizations. The 1960s saw an extension of
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

30

Tyler’s analysis and the beginning of standards-based reform surfaced as an interest in
measuring academic progress came to the forefront (Hamilton et al., 2012). Twenty years later,
the National Commission of Excellence in Education published, A Nation at Risk, a report
evaluating the education system in the United States (Gardner, 1983). This report was
instrumental in the standards-based accountability movement as it depicted deficiencies in the
areas of 1) technology, 2) college and career readiness, and 3) competition in a global market due
to the mediocre education students received in America’s schools (1983). By the end of the
1980s, American schools began to feel the pressures of accountability due to policy activism
(Wohlstetter, 1991). This policy activism contributed to the adoption of state standards and
assessments or Standards-based reform (SBR) by every state in the United States by the early
2000s (Hamilton et al. 2008).
The analysis of concerns reported in A Nation At Risk remains relevant problems in the
analysis of today’s education (CDE, 2013; Finn & Walberg, 1994; OCED, 2012). The legislation
of No Child Left Behind required that states developed grade level standards in which students
demonstrated mastery on assessments in an effort to raise student achievement (Hamilton et al.,
2012). Although NCLB identified academic growth targets for individual schools and student
subgroups, the legislation was unclear as to the site principal’s role in achieving these outcomes.
Louis and Robinson (2012) assert that the unintended effects of NCLB for school leaders were
quite radical and complex in terms of the necessary skills need to lead this change. Principals
contend with the consequences of losing funding for their school, increased accountability
measures, and the possibility of job loss or school closure (Crow, 2006). NCLB’s accountability
measures forced principals to push for higher test scores as instructional leaders while still
balancing the role of the facilities manager (Gentilucci & Muto, 2007).
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

31

The Current School Reform: Common Core State Standards
In response to low proficiency rates in ELA and Mathematics, instructional leaders must be
prepared to lead the new standards-based reform movement of the Common Core State
Standards, which were adopted in 2010. These standards were aligned with the rigorous
expectations needed to become college and career ready which enables American students to
become competitive in the global market (CDE, 2012). The CCSS necessitated a deeper
understanding of the standards in all content areas, include an increased exposure to
informational texts, and require students to apply a higher level of critical thinking and problem-
solving skills to demonstrate mastery on the new assessments (Warren & Murphy, 2014). Both
President Barack Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan contend that CCSS set high
expectations for students to demonstrate mastery while utilizing the 21st Century skills of critical
thinking and problem solving, collaboration, communication, and creativity (Lutton, 2014). In
order to meet the higher expectations of CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills, instructional
leaders confronted a variety of technical challenges from addressing what to focus on initially, in
regard to curriculum design, instruction, an increase in technology, and new assessments (Brown
& Vargo, 2014). With any new initiative’s rollout, structures were constructed to support the
change of the technical challenges to ensure the change extends to every stakeholder (Bolman &
Deal, 1992). Managing this change required support to all stakeholders by the site principal.
Cross & Rice (2000) contend that the principal who serves as an effective instructional leader
must understand and apply the theory of change that underlies the movement to standards based
reform.
Elmore (2000) argued that under the constructs of the current public education system,
school leaders were not able to reform the plan to meet the rigor of standards-based reform.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

32

Moreover, if the response to standards based was founded on the status quo of past reactions to
school reform, failure was eminent (Elmore, 2000). When standards based school reform
provided a curriculum solution, a common mistake in leadership has been the leader’s lack of
knowledge and skill assessment of the implementers (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). If these
knowledge and skill gaps were not filled by professional development, America will continue to
produce learning environments with low level instruction and learning that was disconnected to
the rigor of the standards (City, et. al, 2008). Elmore (2000) asserted, “The way out of this
problem was through the large scale improvement of instruction, something public education has
been unable to do to date, but which was possible with dramatic changes in the way public
schools define and practice leadership” (p. 2). Transforming the Nation’s education system from
“a Progressive Era bureaucracy into a twenty-first-century profession” was imperative as the
increasing demands on schools focus on the production of critical thinkers who can contribute to
America’s global competitiveness (Mehta, 2013).

21st Century Learning Skills
Daggett and Jones (2008) declared, “Change must be revolutionary in spirit and
evolutionary in the time frame” (p. 1). Twenty-first Century Learning Skills were student
focused with outcomes and learning supports built into the framework. This student focused
learning environment shifts the responsibility of content mastery from the teacher to the student.
A problem with the current American education system was the role of the teacher as the
depositor of knowledge into the minds of the students with the students taking little ownership of
their learning (Freire, 1993). As the role of the teacher changes to meet Common Core and 21st
Century Learning Skills, the role of the student must also change (City et al., 2008). The
increase of higher cognitive student outcomes expected for the 21st century forced educators and
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

33

policy makers to bring breadth and depth to the current curriculum in the United States.
For the purposes of this paper, 21st Century Learning were built on the foundational work
of Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which was represented by Figure 2.1. The student
outcomes and support systems were built upon the foundation of learning environments,
professional development and curriculum and instruction which driven by the standards and
assessments. Given the current state of education, the Common Core State Standards were the
foundation for 21st Century Learning Skills. These standards influence the learning
environments, professional development, and curriculum and instruction in which students were
exposed within the 21st Century framework.
Figure 2.1. P21 Century Learning Skills Framework

With the current standards and core subjects being essential to student learning, the
Common Core was an indispensable component to 21st Century Learning Skills. An additional
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

34

connection between these two initiatives, CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills, was P21’s
focus on college and career readiness, which was echoed through the CCSS Framework, which
were aligned with college and work expectations. The student outcome of Information, Media,
and Technology Skills was complimented by the CCSS focus on the additional of increased
expository text through the instructional shift of Balanced Literacy while the Media and
Technology skills were present in the ELA instructional shift of Digital Literacy (CCSS, 2014;
P21, 2014).
There were many aspects of 21st Century Learning Skills that were integrated into the
Common Core State Standards. The Four Cs: (1) critical thinking and problem solving (2)
communication (3) collaboration (4) creativity and innovation represent the 21st Century
Learning student outcome of Learning and Innovation Skills. Organizations in today’s rapidly
changing local and global markets, express an inability to hire communicative, collaborative, and
creative professionals (Robinson, 2011). In order for students to graduate college and career
ready, the 4Cs were essential to content mastery. Critical thinking and problem solving has been
characterized as the ability to address issues in creative methods through relevant criteria
(Facione, 2006; Lipman, 1988; P21, 2014; Wagner et al., 2006). The ability to work as a
cohesive unit on ideas to create, revise and improve upon concepts or practices required knowing
the team and their individual contributions that increase capacity of the whole (DuFour et al.,
2008; Muhammed, 2009). Collaboration was a fundamental strategy to make meaning and
increase ideas of how to obtain a goal or objective. A function of collaboration lies in the
group’s ability to share ideas through a balance of listening and oral communication (Gokhale,
1995; P21, 2014; Wagner, 2006). A collaborative approach to learning offers diverse
perspectives, increases a variety of approaches to problem solving, and promotes critical thinking
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

35

(Atlas, 1995; Gokhale, 1995). A study conducted at Western Illinois University found that
collaborative learning was the catalyst for increased student performance over students who
learned in isolation (1995). Ken Robinson (2011) stated, “ The more complex the world
becomes, the more creative we need to be to meet its challenges” (xiii). The potential for
creativity and innovation lies in the skill development of commmunication, collaboration, and
critical thinking and problem solving (Atlas, 1995). “The future now belongs to societies that
organize themselves for learning…nations that want high incomes and flu employments must
develop policies that emphasize the acquisition of knowledge and skills by everyone, not just a
selected few” (Facione, 2006). In our current education system the knowledge was CCSS and the
skills were the Four Cs. The Four Cs can be found amalgamated throughout the ELA and Math
Common Core State Standards as shown in Table 2.1 (CCSS, 2014; P21, 2014).

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

36

Table 2.1.
Relationships between the 4Cs and CCSS
ELA CCSS P21 Century Learning Skills Math CCSS

Respond to the varying
demands of audience, task,
purpose and discipline

Critical Thinking and
Problem Solving
Make sense of problems and
perseveres in solving them,
reason abstractly and
quantitatively, solve multistep
word problems, assess
reasonableness of answers
Speaking and Listening
standards address the need to
engage effectively in a range
of collaborative discussions
(one on one, in groups, and
teacher-led) with diverse
partners on grade level
specific topics and texts,
building on others’ ideas and
expressing their own clearly.

Collaboration
Many math projects/activities
were conducted in a group
setting; while collaboration
was not explicitly stated it was
implied through the
instructional practices
employed by teachers.
Comprehend as well as
critique
Communication Construct viable arguments
and critique the reasoning o
others, illustrate and explain
Creative writing and
expressions were included in
the CC ELA Standards,
presentations, can be
incorporated as an element in
almost any performance task
Creativity and Innovation Creativity was not address
explicitly in the SMPs and
content standards. There were
however, areas where
creativity was implied. This
was most evident (but was not
limited to) measurement and
data, algebraic thinking,
geometry, statistics, and
probability and modeling.

As the instructional leader and one of the primary supports for teachers, it was imperative that
the elementary school principals of today encompass and model the 4Cs through their leadership
style. If the nation’s students were going to demonstrate critical thinking and problem solving,
collaboration, communication and creativity and innovation, so must the adults leading this
change on school campuses across the country.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

37

Instructional Leadership
Organizations who refuse to evolve under change reforms usually cannot sustain growth
(Fullan, 2001). With Common Core Standards serving as the basis for learning and the 21st
Century Learning Skills of the Four Cs constituting a portion of the skills students will need to
learn and apply in order to be college and career ready, it was essential that principals have a
comprehensive foundational knowledge of curriculum and instruction and how instructional
decisions must be utilized to make informed decisions to support student progress toward content
mastery (Cross & Rice, 2000). DuFour & Marzano (2011) attested, instructional leaders
understand the importance of learning about instructional, curricular and assessment practices
they adopt, implement, and monitor to increase student achievement. To examine the extent to
which a principal demonstrates understanding of the curriculum and its importance, a study
conducted by Gentilucci and Muto (2007) looked at the student perspective centered around two
questions regarding the impact of principal leadership on student achievement and what
characteristics of those leadership skills genuinely influence positive student growth. Across the
student interview responses, a belief emerged that effective principals were knowledgeable and
acted as teacher leaders during classroom visitations when assisting students in the class
(Gentilucci & Muto, 2007). Additionally, results from the O’Donnell study (2005) concerning
teacher perceptions on principal effectiveness, found a high correlation between instructional
leadership and positive academic growth. Instructional leadership revolves around the leader’s
ability to mobilize the staff and focus on the school’s academic program (Crum & Rice, 2000).
A component of this mobilization to focus on the academic program was to fill any knowledge
gaps created by the new reform by training teachers on new content and practices. On going
professional development on effective instructional practices was crucial to a successful change
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

38

process (Dagnett & Jones, 2008). The prime responsibility of all educational leaders was to
sustain learning within the school environment (Fullan, 1998).
The role and responsibilities of the school principal in an elementary public school setting
continue to evolve under educational reform (Hallinger & Kantamara, 2000). The importance of
the impact of the site principal cannot be ignored. International research argued that the success
of a school was determined by the principal as the instructional leader (Crum et al., 2008; Gurr et
al., 2005; Mulford, 2008). The impact of the site principal was determined by Leithwood et al.
(2004) to have the second highest influence on student achievement with classroom instruction
holding the most important contribution to students’ academic success. Cross and Rice (2000)
found a site principal’s ability to instructionally lead contributed to the schools’ success.
Successful school leaders who focused on student achievement supported and sustained practices
that improved instruction and student learning (King, 2002). Inconsistency in instructional
leadership has contributed to schools failing to meet the student achievement requirements set
forth by NCLB. Researchers have begun to analyze the roles, responsibilities and the effects the
instructional leader has on student achievement. In order to increase student achievement,
schools need to have a leader that possesses the understanding, skill and reason to help lead
positive instructional change (Elmore, 2003). Studies examining the role of the principal as an
effective instructional leader revealed behaviors that directly or indirectly affects student
achievement (Gentilucci, 2007; O’Donnell, 2005; Spanneut, 2012; Waters et al., 2003).
The overemphasized results around high stakes testing in America’s current accountability
system deemphasized the attention and support necessary to build capacity within the
organization (Mehta, 2013). As educational practices and policies evolve with legislative
accountability measures and the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, it was
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

39

imperative that educational practices change to address student achievement. Research links a
direct correlation to professional development focused on the improvement of instructional
research-based practices to increased student achievement (Fullan, 1994; Togneri & Anderson,
2003). An imperative component to the success of the standards-based movement was an
alignment with professional development and assessment (Hamilton et al., 2012). Increased
student achievement was directly related to the development of teacher knowledge and skill,
supporting the need for professional development with an administrative team that supports this
training (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, Dufour & Marzano, 2011). MacIver and Farley (2003)
note that along with the continual professional development geared toward improving
instruction, the allocated resources essential for this support must be dedicated to ensure
comprehensiveness of the professional development.
Studies focused on effective leadership conclude commitment from the site leader was
imperative when obtaining sustainable change (Cross & Rice, 2000; Hargreaves, 2003) whether
through aligning resources, providing professional development and the myriad of other
instructional supports. The capacity with which a principal instructionally leads under standards-
based reform continues to increase as the accountability stakes elevate expected student
outcomes (Fullan, 1998). Increases in student achievement were a direct result of the knowledge
and skills a teacher brings into the classroom (City et al., 2008). Kaplan et al. (2005) asserted
that principals were expected to serve as instructional leaders who provide ongoing and
meaningful professional development to teachers, which enhance the knowledge and skills
needed to support student learning. School change occurs when guided by leadership, driven by
data and supported through continuous professional development (Daggett & Jones, 2008).
Effective training focused on improving instructional practices and student learning was site
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

40

based, differentiated to the needs of the school, collaborative and performed by the instructional
leaders (Wagner et al., 2006).
The definition of instructional leadership through educational research tends to be all
encompassing of characteristics and skills necessary to successfully lead an organization in all
situations from a variety of perspectives. Principals were no longer seen as site managers merely
tending to the needs of facilities and implementing directives given to them. With student
achievement at the forefront of the state and federal requirements through the onset of No Child
Left Behind (NCLB), the role of an effective principal has evolved into one of an instructional
leader, especially in low performing schools. Some data collected asserted that principals
identified a lack of understanding of the role of an instructional leader (Mitchell & Castle, 2005).
Peter Druker stated, “Management was doing things right, leadership was doing the right things.”
However, there has been inconsistent direction as to what those “right things” were that
principals should be doing in order to positively affect student learning. NCLB not only set
highly ambitious student achievement targets, but by implication, also set a very particular
leadership agenda without guidance as to how site principals were to transform into instructional
leaders who could support this curriculum change (Louis & Robinson, 2012). Current ideas of
school leadership and its structures were not equipped to meet the demands of the current state of
accountability (Elmore, 2000).
The role of the elementary principal's leadership was focused on creating a strong
foundation for learning (Fullan, 2001). Crum et al. (2008) contended that assurance of effective
implementation of instructional practices based on data were the most important responsibility of
the elementary school principal who often does this without help. The instructional leadership
practices identified in Chapter 1: Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment,
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

41

Change Agent, Optimizer, Intellectual Stimulation, and Monitor/Evaluator have been proven to
either directly or indirectly influence student achievement. Table 2.2 reflects a synthesis of
research conducted over the past two decades identifying the best instructional practices used by
site principals to support student achievement.
Table 2.2.
A Synthesis of Effective Leadership Practices
Leadership Practice Roles & Responsibilities Research
Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment
1. Work individually with
staff members regarding
implementation of the
innovation
2. Attend staff development
opportunities regarding the
implementation
3. Serving as an instructional
leader or resource
4. Delivers formal
professional development
Cotton, 2003; Facione, 2006;
Gentullici & Muto, 2007;
Marzano et al., 2005; Smith &
Andrews, 1989
Change Agent 1. Raise issues around
achievement related to the
innovation
2. Share data related to other
schools that have implemented
the innovation
3. Compare where the school
was and where it needs to be
in terms of implementing the
innovation
4. Demonstrate “tolerance for
ambiguity” regarding the
innovation
5. Influence over a group of
individuals to achieve a
common goal
6. Support the transition to the
change
7. Ability to adapt to the new
environment
Daggett & Jones, 2008; Frey,
2014; Fullan, 2001; Heifetz,
1994; Marzano et al., 2005;
Mitchell & Castle, 2005;
Northouse, 2004; Robinson,
2011
Optimizer 1. Focus on staff strengths and Cotton, 2003; Frey, 2014;
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

42

help arrange work so that
strengths were matched with
the tasks
2. Celebrate Successes
3. Focusing on staff strengths
and celebrating successes
contribute to building a
positive school culture
4. Use data to show progress
toward goals

Marzano et al., 2005; Mitchell
& Castle, 2005; Smith &
Andrews, 1989
Intellectual Stimulation 1. Include research about the
innovations and theory in
conversations
2. Ask questions that cause
teachers to be reflective in
their practices related to the
innovation
3.Lead discussions around
current practices and
philosophies related to the
change

Facione, 2006; Frey, 2014;
Fullan, 2001; Lipman, 1988;
Marzano et al., 2005;

Evaluate/Monitor
1. Look at formative and
summative assessments in
relation to the innovation
2. Conduct classroom walk-
throughs related to the
innovation
Daggett & Jones, 2008;
DuFour et al., 2008; Marzano
et al., 2005

When looking at the first leadership practices recorded in Table 2.2, the ability to support the
instruction of the teachers’ necessitates an understanding of curriculum, instruction and
assessment. The current times call for an instructional leader who will participate with their team
in learning the new skills needed to implement the change and model its implementation through
professional development (Cross & Rice, 2000; Fullan, 2010; Marzano et al., 2005). A study
conducted on the perceptions of elementary school principals working in Canada identified the
instructional leaderships skills of curriculum knowledge, formal delivery of professional
development and the importance place on the process of teaching and learning as being
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

43

imperative for the role of principals (Mitchell & Castle, 2005). Principal perceptions in New
York were analyzed to determine the leadership qualities, which contributed to positive student
achievement. Overwhelmingly, principals in grades Pre-K through twelfth identified
components of the instructional program as being an integral focus for fostering school
improvement (Spanneut et al., 2012). The principals serving students in grade PreK through
eighth recognized the importance on spending time focused on the quality of instruction while
principals in attending the high school population felt that the monitoring and evaluating of the
instructional program was crucial to positive student growth (Spanneut et al., 2012). Research
supports the principals’ perceptions of the importance of the instructional program and the
principal’s ability to support curriculum implementation, instruction and the analysis of
assessment data (Daggett & Jones, 2008; Frey, 2014; Fullan, 2001; Heifetz, 1994; Marzano et
al., 2005; Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Northouse, 2004).
The knowledge of the change was necessary when leading and supporting others in
acquiring new knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. During second order
change, this knowledge was imperative as the principal’s role included change agent (Daggett &
Jones, 2008; Frey, 2014; Fullan, 2001; Heifetz, 1994; Marzano et al., 2005; Mitchell & Castle,
2005; Northouse, 2004; Robinson, 2011). Second order change required the organization to
reject past values and knowledge in order to create an environment in which people can be open
to the new knowledge and direction (Robinson, 2011).
Principals who acted as change agents must set a direction, communicate and support the
innovation and stakeholders involved (Crum et. al, 2008; Daggett & Jones, 2008; Marzano,
2005). Through the use of measurable objectives, the principal with the characteristic of
optimizer motivated and encourage the team by celebrating the successes of the individual and
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

44

the team (Cotton, 2003; Frey, 2014; Marzano et al., 2005; Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Smith &
Andrews, 1989). Building capacity in oneself and the organization to create measurable
objectives required a principal who was current with research based practices and theories and
who will engage the team with this intellectual stimulation (Frey, 2014; Fullan, 2001; Marzano et
al., 2005). The continuous monitoring and evaluation of the research-based practices that
supported the change initiatives of the new reform movement was imperative to the principal’s
role of supporting increased student performance (Marzano et al., 2005).
Summary
As the world market and economy changes, it has necessitated a new set of skills within
the workforce. America’s public education system must transition to reflect the new learning
mandated by the change. The introduction of CCSS and the preparation of students for college
and career readiness through the 4Cs required instructional leadership practices to support
teachers in the implementation of the innovation.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

45

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results reported average
student performance in ELA and below average in math (2012). While other countries made
academic gains, the student progress in the United States either remained stagnant or decreased
(PISA, 2012). The PISA report raised similar concerns over the product of the United States’
education system in relation to the global market, which were raised thirty years ago. The
analysis of the effectiveness of the United States’ education system was depicted in the report of
the National Commission on Excellence in Education titled A Nation at Risk (Gardner, 1983).
The concerns and critique of our Nation’s public education system remain the same as those
identified in this report thirty years ago. The commission discussed deficiencies in the areas of:
1) technology, 2) college and career readiness, and 3) competition in a global market due to the
mediocre educational experience students were offered (Gardner, 1983). The analysis of
California’s 2013 state assessment depicted an average proficiency rate in ELA at 56% and 51%
for Mathematics (CDE, 2012). Students across the country have been left behind according to
the NCLB’s legislation, which aimed at one hundred percent proficiency by the year 2014 (CDE,
2012). Policy makers created Common Core State Standards to combat the lack of academic
progress and preparedness to enter the college and career arenas under the previous policies of
No Child Left Behind (CCSS, 2014).
The Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) created a framework to address the skill
set and framework needed to confront the Unites States’ local and global achievement gaps
(2014). In order to ensure college and career readiness, the P21 framework identified imperative
foundational skills, student outcomes, and support systems needed for successful interaction and
application of the Common Core State Standards: 1) Learning and Innovation skills of the Four
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

46

Cs: Critical Thinking & Problem Solving, Collaboration, Communication, and Creativity &
Innovation, 2) Information, Media and Technology skills, 3) Life and Career Skills, Core
Subjects and 4) 21
st
Century Themes. These 21st Century Learning Skills were emphasized to
meet the demands of the ever-changing global market (P21, 2014). As careers have evolved
with time; so do the competencies required to fulfill the responsibilities of these careers
(Robinson, 2011). For the purpose of this study, the P21 focus on Learning and Innovation skills
were explored, specifically, the Four Cs: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and
creativity and innovation and how these skills were interwoven throughout the CCSS.
California’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was geared to answer
these low proficiency rates and lack of student preparation for college readiness and the ability
needed to compete in the global market. The development of CCSS, according to the Common
Core State Standards Initiative:
The Common Core State Standards were aligned with college and work expectations;
were clear, understandable and consistent; include rigorous content and application of
knowledge through high-order skills; build upon strengths and lessons of current state
standards; were informed by other top performing countries, so that all students were
prepared to succeed in our global economy and society; and were evidence-based.
(2014)

As this Nation’s education system overhauls student learning objectives, all stakeholders were on
varying points of the continuum in terms of understanding what these standards were, how
students will learn and demonstrate this knowledge, what the assessments will ask students to do,
and how all of these components will address the 21st Century Learning Skills. Instructional
leadership on the part of the site principal was going to be instrumental in leading and supporting
others in this reform.
While research on instructional leadership practices shift between the direct or indirect
impact principals have on student achievement, the common theme centers around the leader’s
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

47

ability to influence teachers who were directly involved with student learning (Cotton, 2003;
Crum et al., 2008; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 1990; Marzano et al., 2005).
Student assessment results focus in on a picture of stagnation, which required leadership to
initiate and support a change to progress. The Nation’s Report Card (2013) assessed fourth and
eighth grade student compiling data in the content areas of mathematics and reading. On the
authority of the Nation’s Report Card by the National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP), in 2013, fourth graders across the United States were achieving a 42% proficiency rate
in math comparable to the 40% in 2011. Students in eighth grade saw a two percent increase
from 2011 to 2013, which resulted in a 36% proficiency rate in mathematics (2013). In the area
of reading, NAEP reported that 35% of fourth graders reached proficiency, which was a one
percent increase from 2011. Eighth grade reading results saw the highest increase in proficiency,
36%, a three-percentage point gain from 2011 to 2013 (NAEP, 2013). One consistent finding
persists in studies on high-stakes testing and school and classroom practices: assessment results
were influential in the decision making process for both teachers and principals (Center on
Education Policy, 2006; Hamilton et al., 2007; Stecher et al., 2002).
The slowing of student progress in the United States demonstrated the need for
instructional leadership with the transition to CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills.
Successful implementation of the CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills at the school sites
relied on instructional leadership that was skilled in monitoring student achievement data, in
using that data to identify student needs and in building collective teacher capacity to address
those needs (Louis & Robinson, 2012). Cross and Rice (2000) asserted that in their studies of
successful schools, a key component, was the instructional leadership of the site principal.
Research on effective instructional leadership practices yielded (1) knowledge of curriculum,
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

48

assessment, (2), change agent (3) optimizer, (4) intellectual stimulation, and (5)
monitoring/evaluating as critical to affecting student achievement during second order change
(Cotton, 2003; Fullan, 1994; Leithwood et al., 2006; MacIver & Farley, 2003; Marzano et al.,
2005; Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Waters et al., 2003;). Throughout
the innovation, the principal acts as a learner and a coach supporting the implementation of the
new curriculum in a variety of methods (Fullan, 1994; MacIver & Farley, 2003; Marzano, 2005;
Togneri & Anderson, 2003). An agent of change constituted a person who helps the organization
transition to the new or evolved initiative (Frey, 2014; Marzano, 2005). The role of the
optimizer that the principal fulfills encourages the stakeholders and builds upon the talents of the
individual to distribute the leadership of the change and promote ownership (Frey, 2014; Heifetz,
1994; Northouse, 2004; Robinson, 2011). The encouragement of the optimizer needs to be
rooted in research-based practices that will enable the organization to meet its objective (Frey,
2014; Fullan, 2001; Marzano et al., 2005). How effective these practices were in raising student
achievement and the response to data was determined by the process of monitoring and the
evaluation of the instructional program by the principal (Daggett & Jones, 2008; Marzano et al.,
2005).
Statement of the Problem
This study contributed to the development of instructional leadership practices geared
toward affecting effective implementation of CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills. The
purpose of this study was to identify how principals will need to adapt the instructional
leadership practices of knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, optimizer, change
agent, intellectual stimulation, and monitor/evaluator to twenty-first century learning and the
Common Core State Standards. The CCSS, which embed 21st Century Learning Skills were
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

49

designed to bridge the gap of skills and knowledge that American students graduated without
which precluded opportunities in a global economy (CCSS, 2014). The legislation of No Child
Left Behind brought accountability into the forefront of the educational focus as America’s
students failed to make the progress lawmakers envisioned (Superfine, 2005). As the sanctions
from not meeting the requirements set forth from NCLB trickled down to districts and school
sites, the role of the site principal evolved from a manager to an instructional leader (Gentilucci
& Muto, 2007). Studies analyzing leadership practices and student achievement determined that
certain instructional leadership practices were proven to have a positive correlation to increased
student academic progress.
Research Questions
Understanding how these instructional leadership practices will need to adapt to meet
CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills was imperative to the site principal’s immediate role in
leading the change. Addressing the transition to Common Core State Standards and 21st
Century Learning Skills required an understanding of the types of change to ensure appropriate
responses to the reform. Michael Fullan (1994) asserted that change was the catalyst to progress.
Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Learning Skills have produce an educational
climate that was transforming the profession within the arenas of teaching and learning. Waters
et al. (2007) defined this type of transformation as second change, which “involves dramatic
departures from the expected, both in defining a given problem and in finding a solution” (p. 68).
Existing research identified the instructional leadership themes of: (1) knowledge of curriculum,
assessment, (2) change agent, (3) optimizer, (4) intellectual stimulation, and (5)
monitoring/evaluating (Cotton, 2003; Daggett & Jones, 2008; Fullan, 1994; Leithwood et al.,
2006; MacIver & Farley, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Togneri &
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

50

Anderson, 2003; Waters et al., 2003). The research questions were framed by the
aforementioned instructional practices:
1. What instructional leadership skills were needed in order for principals to support teacher
implementation of Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Learning Skills in
K - 6 schools in the rural southwestern part of California?
2. How did principals acquire and implement the necessary skills to perform the role as an
instructional leader during times of change?
3. What professional development do site principals need to lead the change to CCSS and
21st Century Learning Skills?
Participants
During the transition to Common Core Standards, districts, schools, and site principals
were all at different stages of implementation. The criteria required for participation in this study
was the subjects must be a site principal within the K - 6 setting for at least one year.
Additionally, CCSS implementation must have started by the 2013 - 2014 school year at the
participant’s sites. The analysis of varying levels of experience as an instructional site leader and
exposure to CCSS and 21st century learning may offer insight on how to differentiate support on
instructional leadership practices of principals through this transitional time. The population
sample of ten principals was drawn from Southern California K - 6 public school sites. Due to
the participants’ willingness to cooperate in the study, there was a potential for bias. This
potential for bias presents itself due to the unknown reasons these site principals were willing to
take part in the surveys.
In looking at the participants and components that may affect responses, demographic data
were shared below. Figure 3.1 illustrates the programs, educational emphasis, and infers
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

51

possible required sanctions the school site may operate within based on this demographic data.
Figure 3.1. Demographic Data: Identified School Programs

According to the survey results, 8 of the 10 schools were reported as being Program
Improvement. Six of those eight sites were also listed as Title 1 schools. Two school sites were
Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Math (STEAM) focus and one school was a Science
and Technology Magnet. One school program emphasizes World Languages, which leaves the
other 6 schools as traditional school settings. The following figure depicts the site enrollment of
total student enrollment by site principals.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

52

Figure 3.2. Demographic Data: Site Enrollment

Figure 3.2 illustrates the similarities and differences amongst the site enrollment for the
participants in this survey. The lowest enrollment was found at the site where Principal A works
with an enrollment of 392 students. Principals E and G site enrollments were comparable with
their site enrollments listed as 442 and 436 students. The site enrollments for the two STEM
schools vary greatly with Principal G having a site enrollment of 436, as previously stated, and
Principal C leading a student population of 748 at her STEAM school. The highest enrollment
belongs to Principal B with the Science and Technology Magnet’s, Principal H’s school, total
student population noted at 859. Principal D’s enrollment was reported at 815 while Principal
F’s came in at 800. Principals I and J were reported as 519 and 615 respectively. The information
collected on identified school programs and site enrollment provides additional details into the
2013 California State Test API (Academic Progress Index) of each school site as depicted in
Figure 3.3.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

53

Figure 3.3. Demographic Data: 2013 CST API Results

The data collected revealed that Principal I was challenged with leading the school with the
lowest API at 694, the only school reported in the survey that did not break the 700 mark.
Principal G’s school site, the site principal at one of the STEAM schools and one of the smallest
schools in terms of site population, has the highest recorded API at 943. The second highest API
belongs to the other STEAM school at 896. The population of this STEAM school contains 312
more students than the STEAM where Principal G leads. With an API of 46 points lower than
Principal C’s site, the school site of Principal A reported an API of 850. The schools led by
Principals D, E, H and J were similar with the API results displayed as 792, 793, 799, and 786
respectively. These scores were below the mean API of 800.9 of all survey participants.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

54

Figure 3.4. Demographic Data: Principal Years Experience

The survey results showed the majority of site principals, 7, have somewhere between 0 to
5 years experience. Principals A and F fell into the range of 6 to 10 years experience. With 10
to 15 years experience, Principal J reported the highest level of experience as a site principal.
Instrument
From research on instructional leadership practices, the survey instrument was developed
to identify trends about beliefs and perceptions of what instructional leadership skills or practices
principals need to posses in order to bridge the gap between previous state standards and the new
implementation of the Common Core and 21st Century Learning Skills. The research conducted
was based on a qualitative approach with an open response survey collecting the data. Once
themes were identified from the qualitative instrument, demographic data were captured with the
use of a survey to follow up with any additional information needed. This qualitative approach
helped further communicate trends in a more in depth manner contributing to the research
(Creswell, 2009) on instructional leadership practices within the implementation of CCSS and
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

55

21st Century Learning Skills of the 4Cs.
Demographic data, based on protocols listed in Creswell (2009) and Merriam (2009) were
collected at the beginning of the survey:
1. What was your gender?
2. How many years have you been a site principal? (Include current year)
3. What experience have you had with Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and/or CCSS
trainings have you had/attended to help you facilitate this implementation?
4. Describe the site professional development CCSS trainings you have conducted?
5. What staff developments, trainings or experiences in 21st Century Learning Skills have
you participated in?
6. Describe the site professional development trainings you have conducted related to 21st
century learning?

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

56

Table 3.1.
Alignment between Research Questions and Methodology
Research Question # 1: What instructional leadership skills were needed in order for principals
to support teacher implementation of Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Learning
Skills in K - 6 schools in the rural southwestern part of California?

Instrument Items Research
Survey 1. As the instructional leader,
how have you influenced/lead
the implementation of CCSS?
Identify and describe the
specific steps taken to lead
CCSS reform.

CCSS, 2014; Fullan, 2001;
Leithwood et al., 2006;
Mitchell & Castle, 2005;
Survey 2. How did you facilitate your
team members understanding
the need for this change
(CCSS) and their belief in
their abilities to effectively
implement this change?

DuFour, & Eaker 1998,
Fullan, 1994; Fullan, 2001;
Marzano et al., 2005; Waters
et al., 2003

Survey 3. How have you or do you
plan to integrate/embed the
4Cs of 21st Century learning
(creativity, critical thinking,
collaboration and
communication) within CCSS
PD?

CCSS, 2014; Daggett & Jones,
2008; DuFour & Eaker, 1998;
Fullan; 2001; Gokhale, 1995;
Marzano et al., 2005; P21,
2014; Robinson, 2011

Survey 4. How has the approach taken
to lead the CCSS change been
different than previous
curriculum implementation?
CCSS, 2014; Fullan, 1994;
Fullan; 2001; Marzano et al.,
2005
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

57

Table 3.2.
Alignment between Research Questions and Methodology
Research Question # 2: How did principals acquire and implement the necessary skills to
perform the role as an instructional leader during times of change?

Instrument Items Research
Survey 5. Describe the specific
leadership practices/learning
you experienced that have
been most helpful in
developing professional
development for your team
during implementation of the
Common Core state standards.
List the professional
development you have given
or have been apart of
presenting.
CCSS, 2014; MacIver &
Farley, 2003; Marzano et al.,
2005; Northouse, 2004;
Togneri & Anderson, 2003;

Survey 6. How did you facilitate
sharing of current research and
theory regarding effective
CCSS practices within your
team?

Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl,
2001, Brown & Vargo, 2014;
CCSS, 2014; Cotton, 2003;
Marzano et al., 2005

Survey 7. What current research have
you learned and shared with
your teachers on the 4Cs of
21st Century Learning Skills?
DuFour & Eaker, 1998;
Gokhale, 1995; Marzano et
al., 2005; P21, 2014;
Robinson, 2011
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

58

Table 3.3.
Alignment between Research Questions and Methodology
Research Question # 3: What professional development do site principals need to lead the
change to CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills?

Research Procedure
Empirical studies analyzed the common leadership practices researchers have identified as
having the greatest impact on student achievement. For the purpose of this study, the leadership
roles of optimizer, change agent, intellectual stimulation, and monitor/evaluator (Cotton, 2003;
Fullan, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2006; MacIver & Farely, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Mitchell &
Castle, 2005; Togneri & Anderson, 2003; Waters et al., 2003;) were analyzed in the
implementation of Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Learning Skills. For the
purposes of this study, the desired results were effective implementation of CCSS and 21st
Century Learning Skills. During this transitional time in education, understanding of the change
process was paramount when leading, supporting, and encouraging a transformation. Due to
this, a site principal becomes a change agent, someone who not only leads the change, but
supports others throughout the successes and obstacles (Fullan, 2008; Waters et al., 2003). The
role of the site principal as an optimizer was one who believed that the organization could make
Instrument Items Research
Survey 8. In what specific area(s) of
CCSS, do site principals
identify they need to lead this
change?

CCSS, 2014; MacIver &
Farley, 2003; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003

Survey 9. In what specific 21st
Century skill(s) of the 4Cs, do
site principals identify they
need to lead this change?
Gokhale, 1995; MacIver &
Farley, 2003; P21, 2014;
Robinson, 2011; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003;
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

59

a difference and produced the desired results (Waters et al., 2003). As the challenges of
implementing a new curriculum and addressing learning skills students need to compete in the
global market, the principal instructional leads by intellectual stimulation. Intellectual
stimulation provides the stakeholders involved in the change process with the needed research,
theory, and practical knowledge necessary to support the reform (Marzano et al., 2005).
Throughout the process of a new program implementation, monitoring and evaluating of the
progress was instrumental in producing the desired outcomes (Cross & Rice, 2000). Yet, little
research has been done on how previously identified instructional leadership practices were
adapted to meet the rigor and relevance of the new CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills.
These practices fall under the umbrella of instructional leadership, which constitutes knowledge
and implementation of curriculum, instruction, and learning.
A pilot study was conducted with experts from the education field who were conducting
similar research studies. The pilot determined the validity and reliability of the survey
instrument in relation to the research questions. The analysis of the pilot study data determined
that revisions to the protocol were necessary. Recommendations from the researchers who
participated in the pilot study were solicited and put into practice. Upon completion of the pilot
phase, in the summer of 2014, this researcher randomly contacted principals within the Inland
Valley, a rural area located in Southern California, and explained the purpose of the study. This
initial contact determined whether or not the principals volunteered to take the surveys on
instructional leadership practices during CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills implementation.
Site principals who volunteered for this study were informed of the procedures for the study.
Initial contact was made to ensure the participants had at least one year experience in the role of
the site principal and that the school site begun at least the first year of CCSS implementation.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

60

Access was provided to the participants to take the qualitative survey through Qualtrics.
Participants understood that an analysis of the qualitative data were conducted to extrapolate
common themes on instructional leadership and 21st Century Learning Skills amongst responses
Data Collection
The qualitative survey asked for open-ended responses to questions focused on the
instructional leader’s roles of knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, change
agent, the role of professional development, and collaboration through the lens of CCSS and 21st
Century Learning Skills implementation. Data collection commenced in June of 2014 and was
completed by the beginning of September 2014.
Validity
The credibility of a study, or internal validity, was imperative when assessing a research
instrument or test and the correlation between the test items and obtained information (Robinson-
Kurpius, 2006). As Salkind suggests, a group of content experts were needed to establish
content validity (2011). The content experts who participated in the pilot for this study were all
apart of the Common Core thematic doctoral cohort and were practitioners within the field of
education. Once content validity was established, the researcher then made inferences from the
data in order to draw conclusions on the content studied (Fink, 2013; Salkind, 2011).
Reliability
Reliability within a study provides consistent information (Fink, 2013). The pool of items
generated relate to the concept studied (Robinson-Kurpius, 2006). The pilot group determined if
the questions on the mixed methods survey were strong or weak in addressing what was tested
was actually measured. Through this item analysis by the pilot group, the survey was revised to
ensure reliability. Reliability was also ensured through data collection protocols, which included
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

61

code logs and category tables (Merriam, 2009).

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

62

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Background
“Education was seen as the essential route to social improvement and further economic
opportunity. Education was also vital to generate the conditions for long-term economic
prosperity” (Robinson, 2011). In the past decade many schools have failed in meeting student
academic achievement growth targets under the former educational reform of No Child left
Behind (NCLB) (Hamilton et al., 2008). The highly publicized and scrutinized legislation of
NCLB ensured the America’s educational system’s successes and failures informed the public
about the quality of education that children received. As school district across the nation fell into
Program Improvement, a sanction on not meeting the requirement of NCLB, change was
imminent (Hamilton et al., 2008). Further data that perpetuated public sentiment on the need for
change within America’s educational system was the comparison of student achievement scores
abroad. Students from the United States were seen as less competitive with foreign countries due
to declining or stagnant growth in the areas of language arts, math, and science (OCED, 2012).
With the data reflecting the declining quality of student learning, legislation emerged to rectify
America’s educational problem.
Statement of the Problem
In rural southeastern California, many school districts experienced federal sanctions or
consequences of not meeting academic growth set by NCLB. Additionally, high school dropout
rates contributed to the concern over the ability of America’s education system to produce
students capable to maintain and grow the nation’s economic and civic life (Adams, 2010). The
relatively new legislation that established Common Core State Standards for schools hoped to
solve the low achievement of students in the rural southeastern California and across the United
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

63

States. These standards required effective instructional leadership practices be in place at every
school site in order the CCSS and 4Cs implementation to be effective in ensuring college and
career readiness.
Research Questions
As previously stated, this study explored leadership strategies elementary school principals
implement as their schools adopted the CCSS change initiative. This study explored the
leadership practices needed to lead the Common Core reform to prepare students for college and
career readiness through the 21st Century Learning Skills of the 4Cs: Critical Thinking &
Problem Solving, Communication, Collaboration, and Creativity & Innovation.
Presented in this chapter were the results from surveys of elementary school principals in
which they shared their views of the importance in implementing specific leadership practices
during reform efforts. The changing educational landscape has charged principals with leading
stakeholders during the shift to Common Core State Standards while simultaneously preparing
students for a competitive global market. A qualitative survey was conducted with elementary
school principals to gain their perspectives on instructional leadership practices necessary to
implement CCSS and the 4Cs in their classrooms. The researcher framed the data analysis and
results around the effect of instructional leadership practices on student achievement utilizing the
following research questions:
1.) What instructional leadership skills were needed in order for principals to support teacher
implementation of Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Learning Skills in K - 12
schools in the rural southwestern part of California?
2.) How did principals acquire and implement the necessary skills to perform the role as an
instructional leader during times of change?
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

64

3.) What professional development do site principals need to lead the change to CCSS and 21st
Century Learning Skills?
While there was conflicting evidence of how leadership practices affect student
achievement, researchers agree that there were specific actions site principals can take to either
directly or indirectly support student achievement (Cotton, 2003; Gentullici & Muto, 2007;
Marzano et al., 2005; Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Smith & Andrews, 1989). Prior research
conducted on leadership practices that yield the most influential effects on student achievement,
revealed common practices of instructional leadership, the role of the principals as change
agents, increasing the intellectual stimulation of the principals and teachers, providing
professional development and establishing a collaborative environment (Cotton, 2003; Daggett
& Jones, 2008; Gentullici & Muto, 2007; Frey, 2014; Fullan, 2001; Marzano et al., 2005;
Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Robinson, 2011; Smith & Andrews, 1989). As stated in chapter one,
second order change necessitated leadership to ensure the organization continues to move toward
full implementation of the innovation (Daggett & Jones, 2008; Frey, 2014; Fullan, 2001; Heifetz,
1994; Marzano et al., 2005; Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Northouse, 2004; Robinson, 2011).
Bolman and Deal (1993) asserted that the frames of human resources in order to build human
capital among educators and establishing structures that support student achievement were
imperative to organization leadership. Within these two frames, elementary school principals
navigate the team through the evolution of education.
Data Analysis
This qualitative study was conducted using Qualtrics, a data collection system, through the
University of Southern California. An initial survey consisting of nine questions focused on
instructional leadership practices within the CCSS rollout or initial stages of implementation, and
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

65

how the integration of the 4Cs, Critical Thinking & Problem Solving, Communication,
Collaboration, and Creativity and Innovation, were integrated was sent to ten principals through
Qualtrics. A second survey was sent out to gather demographic data on the school sites.
Participants
The ten principals were purposefully chosen from elementary schools within the rural
southwestern part of California based upon their willingness to participate in the study. All
principals had at least one year of experience and they were involved in the CCSS rollout out at
their school site. By focusing on principals throughout this region, the researcher hoped to gain
insight into how various schools and districts began the implementation of the CCSS change.
Table 4.1 provides the principal and site demographic data of each participant.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

66

Table 4.1.
Principal & Site Demographic Data
Principal
A
Principal
B
Principal
C
Principal
D
Principal
E
Principal
F
Principal
G
Principal
H
Principal
I
Principal
J
Years
Experience
6 - 10 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 6 - 10 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 10 - 15
Site
Enrollment
392 890 748 815 441 800 436 859 519 615
API 850 732 896 792 793 724 943 799 694 786
Title 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Program
Improvement
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Other No No STEAM No No No STEAM Science,
Technoloy
and Math
Magnet
No Model of
Excellence
for World
Language
Hispanic 64% 85% 46% 66.1% 22% 91.9% _____ 89% 90% 78%
White 20% 7% 13% 17.6% 35% _____ 59% 4% _____ 14%
SES 64% 89.9% 76% 97% 61.6% 85.7% _____ 94% 100% ______
EL 32% 64% 39% 32.2% 41.9% 63% _____ 89% 52% 48%
SWD 11% _____ _____ 14.7% _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
African
American
_____ 4.7% 34% 12.5% _____ _____ _____ 5% _____ 4%
Asian _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 23% _____ _____ _____

`Principal A has been a site principal for more than 5 years but less than 10 years. The
school site was a Title 1 elementary school in Program Improvement with a student population
of 392 children. The 2013 Academic Performance Index (API) for this school was 850. The
significant subgroups and percent of the total population were as follows: Hispanic (64%), White
(20%), Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SES) (64%), and English Learners (32%). Principal
A utilized research she acquired through her doctorate program with site teachers.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

67

Principal B’s experience as a site principal was in the range of 0 - 5 years. Currently,
he was responsible for a school with 890 students who attend a Title 1 Program Improvement.
This school’s API was 732 in 2013. The significant subgroups and percent of the total population
were as follows: Hispanic (85%), White (7%), SES (89.9%), English Learners (64%), and
African American (4.7%).
Principal C has been a site principal for less than 5 years. The school site was a Title 1
elementary school with a student population of 748 children. The 2013 Academic Performance
Index (API) for this school was 896. The significant subgroups and percent of the total
population were as follows: Hispanic (46%), White (13%), SES (76%), English Learners (39%),
and African American (34%). A characteristic that sets this school apart from the eight others
within this study was the Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Math (STEAM) focus of
the school. Additionally, a characteristic that sets this principal a part from all others was this
leader’s experience as an educational specialist in the area of curriculum and instruction.
Principal D’s range of experience lands between the range of 0 - 5 years. Currently, she
was responsible for a school with 815 students who attend a Title 1, Program Improvement
elementary school. The latest CST results indicated an API of 792. The significant subgroups
and percent of the total population were as follows: Hispanic (66.1%), SES (97%), English
Learners (32.2%), African American (12.5%), White (17.6%) and Students with Disabilities
(14.7%).
Principal E has been a site principal for less than 5 years. The school site was a Title 1
elementary school in Program Improvement with a total population of 441 students. This
school’s API was 793 in 2013. The significant subgroups and percent of the total population
were as follows: Hispanic (22%), White (35%), EL students (41.9%), and SES students (61.6%).
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

68

With 6 to 10 years of experience, Principal F leads a school with a student population of
800 and an API of 724. The Title 1 program Improvement elementary school’s demographic
data indicates a population consisting of 91.9% Hispanic, 85.7% SES, and 63% EL.
The second STEAM school led by Principal G who has less than 5 years of experience.
She has a student population of 436 students. The Title 1 school scored an API of 943 on the
2013 CST. This was the only school of the ten that does not have a significant Hispanic, SES or
EL subgroup. Principal G reported the significant subgroups as follows: White (59%) and Asian
(23%). This site principal noted that some research that was shared at the school site came from
the doctoral program he attends.
Principal H has been a site principal for less than 5 years. The school site was a Title 1,
program Improvement elementary school with a student population of 859 children. The 2013
Academic Performance Index (API) for this school was 799. The significant subgroups and
percent of the total population were as follows: Hispanic (89%), SES (94%), and English
Learners (89%).
With less than 5 years of experience, Principal I leads a school with a student population of
519 and an API of 694. The Title 1 program Improvement elementary school’s demographic
data indicates a population consisting of 90% Hispanic, 100% SES, and 52% EL.
Finally, Principal J has been a site principal within the range of 10 - 15 years. The school
site was a Title 1 elementary school in Program Improvement with a student population of 615
children. The 2013 Academic Performance Index for this school was 786. The significant
subgroups as reported by the site principal and percent of the total population were as follows:
Hispanic (78%),White (14%), English Learners (48%), and African American (4%).
This chapter was organized based on the data collected from the 10 school site principals
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

69

based on their survey responses. The responses from the qualitative study were coded by the
researcher by gathering the raw data, organizing the survey results for analysis, reading the
results, and hand coding the data into reoccurring themes (Creswell, 2009). Based on the results,
the data were reported through the grouping factors of Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction,
and Assessment, Professional Development, Change Agent, and Collaboration. As site principals
implement the change to CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills, technical, and change
management challenges need to be addressed (Brown & Vargo, 2014). The themes of the survey
data help to understand the various sets of challenges faced by principals and staff throughout the
CCSS implementation. According to Brown & Vargo (2014), the technical challenges site
principals face were connected to how the CCSS implementation affects curriculum and
pedagogical components, such as, instruction, curriculum design, assessment, and the use of
technology. Once the implementation plan was created, the rollout challenges will test the
stakeholders’ resolve in determining the structures needed to address the technical challenges.
As stakeholders transition to CCSS, managing the challenges that accompany this change was
imperative to sustain positive progress with the implementation (Brown & Vargo, 2014).
Results: Research Question One
1.) What instructional leadership skills were needed in order for principals to support teacher
implementation of Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Learning Skills in K - 12
schools in the rural southwestern part of California?
Theme One: Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment was an important leadership
quality when leading systematic school wide reform (Marzano et al., 2005). When defining
instructional leadership, knowledge of the aforementioned areas was critical when working
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

70

individually with team members concerned with the implementation of the innovation. Site
principals were charged with the responsibility of building upon knowledge of the change by
attending staff development opportunities, serving as an instructional leader or resource, and
taking a hands-on approach by delivering formal professional development on the innovation
(Cotton, 2003; Gentullici & Muto, 2007; Marzano et al., 2005; Mitchellll & Castle, 2005; Smith
& Andrews, 1989). The research on leadership practices was reflected in survey responses within
Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1. Instructional Leadership Skills

Figure 4.1 illustrated the need for the leadership practices of Intellectual Stimulation,
Change Agent, providing Professional Development, Collaboration, and Monitoring and
Evaluating the innovation. Ten principals rated Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment, providing Professional Development, and Collaboration as the most important
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

71

practices. Acting as a change agent and monitoring and evaluating the innovation were the
leadership practices with the lowest responses, with 3 out of the 10 principals discussing these
strategies. Principal H expressed the importance of obtaining knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment within CCSS, “I've learned that it has been important for me as a
leader to be well informed and have in depth knowledge of common core expectations and
practices in order to be able to provide effective feedback and recommendations.” The data
revealed that all ten of the site principals surveyed actively participated as an instructional leader
in at least one of the aforementioned activities. The results in the subsequent sections identified
the actions taken by all survey participants in their service as an instructional leader during the
CCSS and 4Cs change initiative.
Theme Two: Professional Development
In order to effectively lead the transformation to CCSS with the 4Cs, it was imperative that
site principals be on the forefront of educational research. The survey results showed a two tier
progression for professional development was imperative to the implementation of the CCSS and
the 4Cs. The first tier included of professional development was the competence of the site
principal as the school’s instructional leader in order to build capacity to knowledgeably lead the
innovation. Fullan (2010) described an effective principal as a “learner”. While the professional
development varied from principal-to-principal, survey results indicated that all ten of the
principals identified the need to educate themselves on the innovation in order to build their own
capacity. The second tier of the professional development focused on building the instructional
capacity of the site teachers and the principals’ involvement in providing this support. The
specific professional development principals attended and presented were outlined later on in this
chapter.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

72

Theme Three: Change Agent

On the importance of addressing change, Specks (1996) asserted:
New and useful perspectives on the difficulties of implementing the change process were
important to understand. It was only by raising our consciousness and insights about the
totality of educational change that we can do something about it. Without discussion of the
change process, people involved in it do not understand the power and problems change
creates. Understanding the dynamics and implications of change becomes a powerful
means for the successful implementation of an educational innovation. Most schools study
the issues surrounding the educational innovation (in this case CCSS) without studying the
change process itself and without understanding what happens to the school learning
community and all of the people involved. (p. 71)

In looking at the data related to the principals’ role in change initiatives, there were some
similarities and differences in how the need for CCSS reform was approached. Figure 4.3
portrayed the results on how the need for CCSS reform was addressed.
Figure 4.2. Presentation of the Need for CCSS Reform

Without leveraging data, six out of ten principals accepted the education reform of CCSS and led
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

73

the change based on the new policy implementation according to Figure 4.2. The focus was on
the content and the how rather than the relevance of the why. While 6 of the principals accepted
the CCSS due to California’s adoption of the content standards, 3 of the principals did share
information on the change process and how that affects content implementation.
Figure 4.3.1. Impetus for CCSS Change

Four principals illustrated the need for the CCSS change through low performance data in
Figure 4.3.1. Principal E gathered data, which led teachers to determine a change of
instructional practices, was a necessity. Principal J collected data at the school site through the
use of learning walks in which teachers observed instructional practices that could be transferred
to the CCSS implementation and “recorded and discussed areas we need to strengthen”.
According to Principal G:
The most effective argument for shifting to the CCSS was comparing U.S. performance on
international assessments to other countries. The U.S. was struggling greatly in comparison
to other countries, particularly in math and science. In the current global economy, it was
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

74

essential the U.S. remain competitive in order to sustain our economy and continue to be a
global leader. To ensure that this happens, we need a more rigorous, coherent set of
standards AND pedagogy in our public schools. When faced with the facts of our current
educational shortcomings, most teachers recognize the need for the shift. (2014)

Moreover, Principal I identified the need to look at data, why the move to CCSS was
necessary, and how to motivate staff to commit to this change. In addressing the need for change
and how site leaders initiated the process, years of experience was analyzed to identify into
which category these data driven principals fell.
Figure 4.3.2. Participants’ Years Experience

According to Figure 4.3.2, of the 4 principals who shared data to lead the CCSS implementation,
3 of those principals have all been in their role as a site principal for five years or less. The
fourth principal, Principal J was the principal with the most experience. Fullan (2010) asserted
that successful principals understand the importance of intentionally connecting practice to
learning outcomes when implementing a change initiative. While only 4 of the principals
utilized data for leverage to transition to CCSS, fewer, 3, created an awareness of the advantages
and challenges associated with change.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

75

Figure 4.3.3. Principals who Addressed the Change Process

Of the 10 principals surveyed, 3 shared research on the process of change as reported in
Figure 4.3.3. Principal C, 1 of the 3 who shared data stated, “to lead change, a leader must have a
clear vision of the expected outcome, but be willing to understand that there were many different
roads to success.” According to Principal A, the staff at that school utilized Mindset by Dweck
(2006) “…to set the stage of how we would approach the change process with CCSS” and the
work by Hattie (2009), Visible Learning for Teachers, “to discuss the areas that make the
greatest impact on student outcomes.” Two of the three principals, Principals C and D, who
cited the need to share research on change identified Kotter’s work on change as being
instrumental (1996). Principal D asserted, “Sometimes transformation efforts fail for site leaders
because they do not have an understanding of the change process and how to facilitate change at
a systemic level. Following the steps of CBAM, or Kotter's 8-step change model can make a big
difference for short-term goals and long-term sustainability. Always, leaders need to have a
clear vision of what the change was really about.” Of the 3 principals who shared research on
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

76

the change process, none of them stated they leveraged data to drive the need for CCSS
implementation.
Theme Four: Collaboration
Research on collaboration dasserted that when people in an organization work as a
collaborative learning community; the outcomes were improved than when one works alone
(DuFour, 2006). The survey results noted all principals cited collaboration as a strategy to build
their site implementation plans of the new innovations, make meaning of the professional
development they attended, and ensured all stakeholders gain the required knowledge for the
innovation.
Figure 4.4. Collaboration to Build CCSS Capacity

The collaborative structures the site principals established during the CCSS rollout were
discussed further along in this chapter in question two. Also addressed in question two were the
opportunities principals had for collaboration amongst other educators while building their own
instructional capacity focused on the Common Core State Standards.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

77

Results Research Question Two
How did principals acquire and implement the necessary skills to perform the role as an
instructional leader during times of change?
Theme One: Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
The survey results indicated several methods the site principals built their instructional
capacity in order to lead the innovation of CCSS. Figure 4.5 highlighted the three approaches
the survey participants took in acquiring CCSS knowledge and understanding.
Figure 4.5. Building Principals’ Instructional Capacity

Figure 4.5 illustrated that 10 of the principals increased their instructional knowledge
through a hands-on approach to CCSS by attending professional development. In addition to
attending professional development, 10 principals researched the standards on their own while 2
of the 10 principals cited collaboration with other admin and professionals in education as being
vital to acquiring CCSS knowledge. While 2 out of 10 specifically stated collaboration amongst
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

78

other educators, the collaborative process embedded in current professional development was
implied. Principals D and G researched the standards on their own with Principal G citing
Calkin’s work of “Pathways to the Common Core” (2012) and completing crosswalks of the old
and CCSS standards to gain understanding of the reform. The survey results clearly indicate the
importance for the site principal to learn about the CCSS reform as all participants have taken
part in some form of learning centered on this topic. Figure 4.6 illustrated the environments in
which this learning took place.
Figure 4.6. Environments of PD

Of the 10 of principals that attended some type of CCSS PD, 7 of the respondents attended
training within the district while 3 principals attended trainings from their districts and sought
trainings outside of their work environment. Principal I attended training alongside teachers
within the district. Principal G, a principal reported as offering staff an extensive amount of PD,
stated that although he received some professional development through the district on CCSS, it
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

79

was not sufficient in preparing him for the CCSS implementation. Principal F’s responses
demonstrated that her CCSS training was incorporated at the district’s principal meetings. One
district provided Principal D with two modules of PD, which the principal cited as preparation
for presenting the standards to the school site’s staff. Two of the ten principals stated the
professional development offered by the district focused more on curriculum design rather than
CCSS depth of understanding. Principal E expressed this sentiment, “[h]onestly, I do not feel
that CCSS professional development has been rich at all. I feel like the focus was on unit design
work, but teachers need more training on "how" to use the standards, shifts, and practices. I do
not believe there was a strong foundation in even understanding the differences between the
standards and "how" teaching and learning has shifted from 1997.” While Principal A stated, “I
believe that as a profession, we have jumped to lesson planning without understanding the
standards and how they differ from past practice. This, I believe, was subject to missing
foundational pieces that we will pay for if they were not clearly defined and established.” Of the
four principals who attended training outside of the district, Principal F attended a CCSS institute
over the summer and a WestEd Depth of Knowledge (DOK) training, Principal A contacted
Pivot Learning for CCSS PD, Principal G attended conferences on CCSS and NGSS.
Theme Two: Professional Development
The 1997 standards and the accountability of NCLB legislation offered teachers a scripted
curriculum in which was to be taught with fidelity (Brown & Vargo, 2014). A stark contrast to
the rigidness of the implementation of NCLB, Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, has
called the Common Core State Standards “a sea-change in education. Not only do they set the
bar high, they give teachers the space and opportunity to go deep, emphasizing problem-solving,
analysis, and critical thinking, as well as creativity and teamwork. They give teachers room to
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

80

innovate.” (as cited in Lutton, 2014). With the onset of CCSS and how students gain mastery
with the content standards through the 4Cs, a different approach to teaching and learning has
been emphasized which differs greatly between the approach of a few years ago. In order to
transition through any change initiative, professional development was essential in order to build
capacity of the stakeholders involved in implementation of the innovation (Bolman & Deal,
1992). Research conducted by Fullan (2010) aligned itself with Bolman and Deal’s human
resource frame, “leadership develops rather than depletes human and material resources (p. 21).
A component of instructional leadership was the ability to deliver professional development on
the change initiative that required support for implementation (Marzano et al., 2005). Principal
C cited the importance of the first step in understanding and implementing CCSS was a deep
understanding of the paradigm shift in education today. Hargreaves and Fink (2003) discussed
the importance of leaders in supporting the growth of leadership in others through sustained
learning. Figure 4.7 illustrates who led the CCSS PD at the school sites.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

81

Figure 4.7. Instructional Leaders of CCSS PD

The results of the qualitative survey revealed 9 of the 10 of principals led PD at their
school sites for CCSS roll out as illustrated in Figure 4.7. The data revealed the one principal
who did not provide the CCSS training at the school site was Principal I. Instead of leading the
site’s P.D., Principal I relied on the school’s academic coach. Principal I contended, “An
academic coach has been instrumental in designing PD that was tailored to staff needs.”
Academic coaches were also utilized to provide CCSS PD through shared leadership with
Principals’ E and F. These results indicated three out of ten principals utilized the academic
coach to provide CCSS PD. Aside from the academic coach, 5 of the survey participants
identified the importance of a shared leadership model, which incorporated teachers as a driving
force with CCSS transition. Principal J stated, “I solicited the talents of the site teachers in
leading the transition into CCSS understanding and implementation.” Four teachers from
Principal F’s site were sent to outside trainings with the intent of building their capacity to
provide professional development to the remaining staff members. Principal D whose district
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

82

supplied training for all grade level leads who in turn trained their peers on the team emphasized
the model of teacher leaders.
Figure 4.8. Categories of CCSS PD Shared

Figure 4.8 denoted that 10 of the principals either directly or indirectly supported the use of
professional development to enhance the instructional capability of the sites’ teachers. Principals
A and E specifically identified the need to build CCSS capacity of the teachers. This belief was
echoed from Principal C who cited the need to build capacity through an ownership model.
Survey data indicated that 3 of the principals discussed the need for a comparative analysis
between the 1997 standards and CCSS. Principals G, K, and J noted the importance of
constructing foundational knowledge of the standards and identifying the similarities and
differences between the sets of standards.
A reoccurring component cited by the principals was the developed curriculum for the
CCSS, often referred to as units of study. Four out of the ten principals discussed the need for
PD in unit design. As CCSS were introduced into the classrooms across the state, districts began
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

83

looking to teachers to construct units or lessons, which correlated to the new grade level
standards. Principal F sent two teachers to in-depth West Ed training on Unit Development using
the Common Core. According to Principal G, professional development was needed to support
teachers in developing integrated CCSS align units. Of the principals who stated there was a
need for a comparative analysis between the old and new standards, 2 also cited unit design
training as being imperative to a successful CCSS rollout.
In addition to CCSS PD, the data revealed 10 out of 10 principals presented training on
instructional delivery/strategies at their school sites. Principal E stated a personal goal, this past
year with my site has been to build their instructional capacity, rather than solely focus on the
unit making work. My belief was that regardless of the standards previously, present, or future;
teachers must build upon their instructional delivery.” As stated by Principal B, the instructional
strategies of Thinking Maps, Sandra Kaplan’s Icons for depth and complexity discussions, and
strategies to improve student understanding of their own thinking were imperative to CCSS
implementation. A more detailed account of the instructional delivery and strategies P.D. each
site received was addressed in research question three further along in this dissertation as training
imperative to CCSS rollout.
One principal, Principal F shared that principals need additional time to collaborate on next
steps for the site PD. The various principals took different approaches to what types of
professional development was offered at the school sites. Additionally, the methods in which
research used to train the staff on CCSS varied from site to site.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

84

Figure 4.9. Methods Utilized to Share CCSS Research/PD

Survey results revealed 10 of the principals share research and provided professional
development on the Common Core State Standards. Figure 4.9 indicated which methods were
utilized. The use of newsletters was utilized by 1 of the principals who identified this method to
disseminate information. Consequently, this was the same and only principal who employed the
academic coach to lead the CCSS reform, Principal I. Also, 1 of the principals surveyed
identified walkthrough feedback as a method in which to provide CCSS PD. Four out of ten
principals, Principals C, D, H, and G tailored the PD to specific grade levels to build CCSS
capacity. Principal C worked individually with each team and assigned them a CCSS focus area
in which they would provide training to the entire staff. Additionally, forty percent of the total
participants specified the need to share CCSS research in order to train their leadership teams.
According to Principal J, the “site leadership team led the cause by providing ideas, insights, and
even areas of concern on behalf of their grade level teams.” Through the collaboration with the
leadership team as reported in Figure 4.9, a transition plan was developed incorporating
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

85

necessary components for change: training and professional development, as well as time for
collaboration. Staff meetings were the highest ranked method of providing collaboration with 6
of the principals identifying this method as useful. Principals C, G and H provided training to
both grade levels and at staff meetings. The data revealed that 3 out of the 6 principals who
utilized a shared leadership model had 6 or more years experience.
Figure 4.10. PD on the 4Cs

As per the survey data, Figure 4.10 illustrated that the majority of principals understand the
importance of the 4Cs aligning with CCSS with 6 out of 10 principals cited a need for PD on the
4Cs: Critical Thinking & Problem Solving, Communication Collaboration, Creativity &
Innovation in conjunction with the CCSS. CCSS PD will model the 4C's throughout the staff
development according to Principal E. Principal C utilized the shared leadership approach to the
4Cs as she did with the CCSS trainings, ”teachers led the discussions and staff development on
twenty first century learning in small chunks.” Principal G asserted:
A great model for the 4Cs was technology integration (1:1 programs) and STEAM
learning. Both of these models incorporate technology, creativity, communication, and
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

86

critical thinking. The surprising results of the 1:1 programs we have implemented were that
they result in MORE collaboration between peers both in the class and in virtual
environments. Creativity was enhanced as students use technology tools to create digital
representations of their learning via platforms such as iMovie, Educreations, and
MineCraft. STEM learning, incorporating the engineering design cycle, gives students real
life, hands-on experiences that actively utilize the 4Cs. (2014)

Additionally, Principal G cited the Partnership for 21st Century Learning Skills as a resource.
Principal E’s site training focused on 21st Century Learning Skills, and Bloom's vs. DOK.
Instead of research on the 4Cs, Principal F took the practitioner’s approach to incorporating these
skills into the classroom specifying, “[c]ritical Thinking has really focused on the DOK levels.
Collaboration and Communication has focused on the student engagement strategies such as
group discussion/projects and structured student responses utilizing sentence frames, complete
sentences, evidence, and critique. Creativity has been emphasized especially in math as there
was more than one way to get an answer or explain an answer.” Training at Principal J’s school
centered on the ideas that “creativity can be learned, collaboration and communication were
close friends, and critical thinking involves asking specific questions.” Principal J noted the
importance of modeling the 4Cs with her staff during trainings at staff meetings. The strategy of
modeling what one expects was reiterated by Principal I, “[t]he 4Cs must be modeled into staff
development and explicitly made known so that teachers can see it in action. PD was
characterized with components that will instill critical thinking, collaboration and
communication in creative ways.” While Principal D did not cite P.D. on the 4Cs as being apart
of the school’s instructional program, she did state that the 4Cs would be present in CCSS
assessments, “21st Century Learning Skills were embedded in the authentic performance tasks
that students must complete to demonstrate mastery of each unit of study.”
The connection between the content of CCSS and the 21st Century Learning Skills of the
4Cs required to meet mastery of the content has not been explicitly addressed by four of the site
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

87

principals. Principal H noted that the research and PD shared at her site focused on CCSS and
implementation expectations. As the principal for the Science and Technology Magnet, the
absence of professional development on the integration of the 4Cs does not align with the
professional development of the STEAM schools that resemble a similar focus represented
within this survey.
Theme Three: Change Agent
Change agents influence a group of individuals to achieve a common goal in order to
support the transition to the change (Daggett & Jones, 2008; Frey, 2014; Fullan, 2001; Robinson,
2011). The ability to set a professional development agenda or schedule to transition to CCSS or
the 4Cs, describes the influence a site principal exhibits over the innovation. With 10 of
principals providing professional development in CCSS, all site principals played a part in
supporting this transition in education reform, regardless if they shared information on the
change process prior to beginning CCSS implementation. As depicted in Figure 4.10, 6 of the 10
principals identified the need to shift to a focus of the 4Cs, thus, becoming a change agent in
moving the school site into 21st Century Learning Skills.
Theme Four: Collaboration
Principal B cited the need for a focus on collaborative structures, “[r]ather than research
specifically targeting CCSS implementation, we have spent time creating structures that will be
effective regardless of the requirements set forth by a set of standards, creating a true learning
community.” These structures were essential when building human capacity (Bolman & Deal,
1992). Figure 4.11 depicts the importance place of the use of collaboration when implementing
the CCSS initiative.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

88

Figure 4.11. The Need for Collaboration

Providing structures for collaboration proved to be an imperative strategy in CCSS
implementation at the school sites as the data revealed 10 out of 10 principals cited the need for
teams to work collaboratively in the CCSS implementation. Principals A, B, F, G, and H
specifically identified time and structures set up for collaborative planning. Teams were provided
with monthly release days to plan unites of study according to Principal F. Principal B explained,
“We have developed a system of collaboration and teacher leadership opportunities in order to
develop strategies, curricular resources, and assessments that align with CCSS rigor and
requirements. As part of these efforts, we have implemented systems by which teacher teams
were given some planning authority with equal accountability for results.” One principal,
Principal C discussed the collaboration with outside educators, such as, Riverside County Office
of Education (RCOE), California Department of Education (CDE) and the University of
California at Riverside (UCR). Principal G and E discussed the need for structures to ensure
teachers were given the opportunity to consistently collaborate on effective practices to
implement CCSS. Principal E utilized a P.E. teacher to create time throughout the instructional
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

89

day for teams to meet and plan while Principal G noted the importance for classroom
observations as well as time to collaborate on aligning the standards with instructional practices.
Results Research Question Three
What professional development do site principals need to lead the change to CCSS and 21st
Century Learning Skills of the 4Cs?
Theme One: Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
The research read and shared by the survey participants varied as did the CCSS and 4Cs
implementation. What did not vary was the principals’ identification for the need for additional
professional development to build their own capacity to support the innovation. Figure 4.12
illustrates the components of CCSS in which principals need additional knowledge for
implementation.
Figure 4.12. Principal Support: CCSS PD

Figure 4.12 revealed that principals specified the call for additional professional
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

90

development related to components of Common Core State Standards was needed to effectively
lead their school sites. Five of the principals requested additional support in the area of
instructional shifts. Principals A and F identified Depth of Knowledge (DOK) as an area in
which additional learning was necessary. Principal H identified the standards as being an area
for further support. Standard Mathematical Practices was a component that Principal E named as
a focus for further training. Finally, Principal I cited assessments as an area for further learning
development in order to lead the CCSS implementation. Additional professional development
was not only need in the area of CCSS components but also with the areas of critical thinking
and problem solving, collaboration, communication, and creativity and innovation. Figure 4.13
denoted the areas of the 4Cs that principals identified as a need.
Figure 4.13. Principal Support: 4Cs PD

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

91

The data on 21st Century Learning Skills of the 4Cs illustrated a need for increased
professional development. The results indicated that 5 of the principals identified a need for
training in more than one area with 4 of those principals citing additional training in all areas of
the 4Cs as represented in Figure 4.13. Principal G reported a need for training in Collaboration
and Critical Thinking with Principals A, B, C, and H citing necessary professional development
of all of the 4Cs. Two principals specified Critical Thinking & Problem Solving, which
correlated with the need for professional development with the CCSS DOK component.
Although these two principals, Principals D and J, identified Critical Thinking and Problem
Solving, they were not the principals who cited DOK as a need. Similarly, Principal F singled
out Collaboration as imperative to the next steps for Professional Development amongst the 4Cs,
however, rated DOK as a need within the components of CCSS PD. This data suggests that some
principals were not seeing the correlation between the content of CCSS and the skills of the 4Cs.
As previously presented in Chapter 2, Table 4.2 illustrated the overlap between CCSS and the
4Cs.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

92

Table 4.2.
Relationships between the 4Cs and CCSS
ELA CCSS P21 Century Learning Skills Math CCSS

Respond to the varying
demands of audience, task,
purpose and discipline

Critical Thinking and
Problem Solving
Make sense of problems and
perseveres in solving them,
reason abstractly and
quantitatively, solve multistep
word problems, assess
reasonableness of answers
Speaking and Listening
standards address the need to
engage effectively in a range
of collaborative discussions
(one on one, in groups, and
teacher-led) with diverse
partners on grade level
specific topics and texts,
building on others’ ideas and
expressing their own clearly.

Collaboration
Many math projects/activities
were conducted in a group
setting; while collaboration
was not explicitly stated it was
implied through the
instructional practices
employed by teachers.
Comprehend as well as
critique
Communication Construct viable arguments
and critique the reasoning o
others, illustrate and explain
Creative writing and
expressions were included in
the CC ELA Standards,
presentations, can be
incorporated as an element in
almost any performance task
Creativity and Innovation Creativity was not address
explicitly in the SMPs and
content standards. There were
however, areas where
creativity was implied. This
was most evident (but was not
limited to) measurement and
data, algebraic thinking,
geometry, statistics, and
probability and modeling.

As noted by Table 4.2, the 4Cs of Critical Thinking & Problem Solving, Collaboration,
Communication, and Creativity & Innovation were either directly or indirectly woven into the
CCSS ELA and Math Standards (P21, 2014).
Theme Two: Professional Development
Elmore (2003) describe a central role of the site principal as the “broker professional
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

93

development consistent with school improvement strategy”. Per Figures 4.12 and 4.13, while 10
principals shared research through some method of professional development, the professional
development was not systematic within school sites or districts. Table 4.3 denoted the various
trainings each site utilized to facilitate the CCSS reform with trainings on the 21st century skills
of the 4Cs.
Table 4.3.
Site Specific Trainings
Principal Types of PD
A Comparing the '97 standards to the new CCSS
Mindset by Dweck
Visible Learning for Teachers by Hattie
Research from O’Day (2002)
B Depth of Knowledge (DOK)
Understanding CCSS Rigor and Language
Units of Study Planning
Lexia
Symphony Math
Project Based Learning
iPad Training
Thinking Maps
Sandra Kaplan’s Icons
C What was 21st century learning?
Technology and media skills for teachers and students
Introduction to the Common Core State Standards
Deconstructing the CCSS
Overview of Understanding by Design
Planning Units of Study
Learning by Doing in a Project-Based Format
The Eight Essential Elements of PBL
Understanding and Scaffolding Depth of Knowledge
Next Generation Assessments and Smarter Balanced
Overview
Close Reading and Close Writing (Text Analysis)
STEAM in the Elementary Grades
Inquiry- Based Learning
Accelerating Literacy Through Scientific Discovery
Mathematical Practices
Scientific and Engineering Practices
Learning Through the Perspective of the National Core
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

94

Arts Standards
Managing a 21st Century Classroom
D Rigorous Curriculum Design by Larry Ainsworth
CDE’s Professional Learning Module Series
E Direct Instruction
Inquiry based learning
McTighe Understanding by Design
21st Century Learning Skills
Bloom's vs. DOK
F DOK (Critical Thinking)
CCSS
CCSS Unit Development
CSSS & EL strategies
G CCSS
Next generation Science Standards (NGSS)
Close Reading
4Cs
Text Complexity
A Balanced CCSS math program incorporating Fluency,
Problem Solving, and Real World Problems
Inquiry-Based Science
Technology Integration
STEM learning
Depth and Complexity
Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR)
Evidence-Based Questioning
Math Conferencing
H Key Components of CCSS: Instructional Shifts, SMPs,
and Engagement Strategies for Common Core
Common Core Overview
Universal Design
I Rigor and Relevance Framework
CCSS lesson planning organizers
Writing Objectives with bundled standards
Alan November: Teaching students to manage
information
Quadrant D Moments
Cooperative Learning: Johnson & Johnson
Marzano: Classroom Instruction that Works
Singapore Math
NEA guide to 4Cs for Educators
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

95

J Comparing old '97 standards to the new CCSS
DOK levels
Rigor & Relevance
Understanding by Design
Curriculum Design

As previously noted, 10 of the site principals ensure professional development was
provided to their staff through the new implementation of the change initiative of CCSS. Of the
site principals surveyed, 10 of site principals, according to Table 4.3 trained on the new
standards of CCSS. All of those principals also cited the need for professional development of
instructional design practices in order to deliver the CCSS instruction. Three authors woven
within this dissertation, Marzano, DuFour and Fullan, were identified by Principal B as
applicable to the work at the site within CCSS reform but were not reflected in his survey
responses for site PD. Six principals, principals C, E, F, G. H. Principals I and J ensured the 4Cs
were a component of the trainings offered at their sites. Additionally, 4 of the 10 principals,
Principals B, C, F, and G noted that professional development on technology was a
complimentary training imperative to the CCSS and 4Cs.
In looking at the professional development offered by each principal, Figure 4.14
illustrated a synthesis of the types of professional development offered by all of the participants.
The types of professional development offered are inclusive of discussion of research, such as
the research shared by Principal A on O’Day, activity based training, such as the creation of units
of study, and informative professional development which looks at learning about CCSS and
instructional practices.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

96

Figure 4.14. Total Types of Professional Development

According to Figure 4.14, the majority of professional development offered was informative with
50 trainings offered in this manner. Additionally, the respondents provided 13 training in which
the teachers were engaged in a hands-on approach in which lessons or units were created. There
were 9 site trainings which focused on setting a research based foundation to instruction.
Theme Three: Change Agent
In leading the CCSS reform, a principal must be aware of how the change affects the
stakeholders in order to respond appropriately, whether the response was through professional
development or additional supports necessary for implementation. Table 4.4 depicts the
principal’s perception between the current change reform of CCSS to that of No Child Left
Behind.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

97

Table 4.4.
Principals’ Perception of CCSS Transition
Positive Transition Did Not State Either Way Challenging Transition
Principal E Principal I Principal F
Principal A Principal D Principal G
Principal C Principal H
Principal B Principal J

According to the survey responses, Principal E believed the transition from 1997 standards
to CCSS has been long, but that time was imperative to proper implementation. She noted a
positive change with the introduction of CCSS when she stated, “1997 standards brought
disgruntled teachers and I feel like my staff has been positive and was motivated for the
transition.”
Principal A stated with the positive sentiment, “I have to say that teachers were so happy to be
out from under NCLB that it really has not been difficult to implement. They were happy to not
be completely trained on strategies meant only to increase points on a test. It also helps that they
were in the mix of decision making at the site and district level.” In her 8 years of experience as
a curriculum specialist, Principal C asserted:
The ‘approach’ to lead the CCSS change has not been different, just more exciting.
Sometimes transformation efforts fail for site leaders because they do not have an
understanding of the change process and how to facilitate change at a systemic level.
Following the steps of CBAM, or Kotter's 8-step change model can make a big difference
for short-term goals and long-term sustainability. Always, leaders need to have a clear
vision of what the change was really about. It was not about CCSS, but rather, creating a
twenty-first century learning environment within our schools that will give kids the
learning experiences they need to be competitive in an ever-challenging world. The CCSS
were just one component of this overall vision to college and career readiness. (2014)

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

98

The response from Principal I was neither positive nor challenging when insisting that the
shift has provided teachers the opportunity to utilize resources outside of the current curriculum
the program improvement school she works at adopted years ago which was taught to fidelity
through NCLB guidelines. Principal D agreed with Principal C in that the transition hasn't
differed much, “Any time a major initiative was implemented, it was important for teams to
work through the process. HUSD has used Kotter's change theory to better help teachers adjust
to the change.” Both Principals C and D identified Kotter’s work on change as imperative for
the transition. Principal H agreed with Principal E in that the transition has been more gradual.
Principals E, B, F, and G discussed the rollout of CCSS as being less specific. While Principal B
stated the guidance of the transition was less about what to do, he also asserted the transition
focused more on the how and why of CCSS. Principal J stated, “The biggest difference was
depth of knowledge and designing their own curriculum and relying on their expertise instead of
that of a publisher.” Principal F discussed the challenges in her survey response, “It has been
difficult to lead teachers when little concrete training has been provided to the leaders. Change
was always difficult, but no one seems to be sure what common core will look like in a
classroom and what we ‘think’ it may look like has the potential to change and evolve next year.
Other implementations have been much more concrete and we know what implementation
should look like to achieve the targeted results.” Principal G echoed the response of Principal F:
I think that was has been less focused. Typically, a curriculum has been definable and
we’ve able to hold it in our hands (and in our heads). CCSS doesn’t have a ‘curriculum’. In
fact, many districts/schools were scrambling to make their old ones fit with ‘patches’. The
changes in CCSS were mainly pedagogical and large in scale. This has resulted in broad
range of solutions being implemented at many different levels and at different times. The
bottom line was that CCSS feels nebulous to a certain extent. We know what it was (per
the standards) but it was challenging to know how to get there since it really means
changing the way we teach – going deeper with less. This has proved challenging. I would
guess that no two schools/districts were making the shift the same way. (2014)

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

99

Theme Four: Collaboration
As previously mentioned in research question number two, collaboration was imperative
throughout the professional development at the 10 school sites.
Summary of Findings
Four themes emerged from the findings of the qualitative survey which addressed the
research questions surrounding instructional leadership practices site principals utilized to lead
the implementation of Common Core and the 4Cs instruction. The instructional leadership
practices of have a foundational knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment, attending
and providing professional development, utilizing collaboration, and acting as a change agent
were identified by the study participants as best practice to implement the innovation. The
content within Chapter 5 centered on the four themes, their implications and recommendations.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

100

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

With the evolution of the educational and global landscape requiring new and more
sophisticated skills than American schools have offered, policy makers responded with CCSS
legislation and a focus on college and career readiness through 21st Century Learning Skills in
order to prepare students for the new workforce (Embree, 2014). Manely and Hawkins (2013)
declared that the quality of the nation’s public schools would have the greatest impact on the
economic future. Proponents of CCSS have understood the CCSS and 21st Century Learning
Skills as the vehicle in which American students’ education will transform to meet the demands
required by the needed skills of the global market, which will enhance the nation’s economic
future (CCSS, 2014; P21, 2014). Conversely, the Common Core Standards were created to
satisfy the interests of special interest groups such as curriculum publishers and education reform
foundations, such as the Gates and Broad Foundations than better preparing students for college
and career (Lutton, 2014; Strauss, 2014). Currently, 43 states were implementing the new
standards with a focus on increasing critical thinking and problem solving, communication,
collaboration, and creativity and innovation. Robinson (2011) highlights the importance of
embedding 21st Century Learning Skills into America’s public education system stating:
The world was changing faster than ever and there were major problems facing all
organizations in recruiting and retaining people with the creative abilities they need to
engage with these changes. Despite the growing skills gap, the war for talented and the
extraordinary pace of change on every front, many policymakers and others continue to
chant the mantra about the need to raise traditional academic standards and scores on
standardized tests. (p. 78)

The changing educational landscape called for a new style of leadership rooted in past research
based practices (Elmore, 2000). Previous research concluded the importance of strong
administrative leadership to support positive student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996;
Leithwood et al., 2004).
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

101

Statement of the Problem
The low student achievement scores of the NCLB era (2001 - 2014) in English Language
Arts and Mathematics across the United States have engaged the American public in a discussion
regarding the quality of education students receive in the public school system (Superfine, 2005).
Robinson (2011) asserted that the current education system was failing millions people even by
its own standards. In the United States an average of 30% of students who enter the 9th grade in
school will drop out before the 12th grade and not graduate from high school. In some areas, the
proportion was as high as a 50 % dropout rate. King asserted (2002), in order to combat these
low achievement scores, stakeholders turn to the leaders of the current education reform,
The current climate of reform has changed the role of education leaders. Today’s
instructional leaders function in a constantly changing environment and serve students with
greater and more diverse needs than ever before. Yet, they were expected to lead their
schools to show marked improvements more quickly and with fewer resources as their
disposal. They were expected to improve the quality of teacher; maintain safe schools; and
turn staffs, parent groups, and business partners into communities of learners. Under the
watchful eyes of their parent and business communities, these leaders were challenged to
lead and to learn simultaneously. (p. 62)

As various stakeholders turn toward principals for leadership, it was imperative that action taken
by site leadership support those involved in the implementation process of CCSS.
Summary of Study
This study was designed to investigate the leadership practices elementary school
principals employed during the implementation of CCSS and foster the necessary skills of the
4Cs: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, Collaboration, Communication, and Creativity and
Innovation applied to learning the standards. Implications for elementary school principals in
relation to CCSS and the cultivation of the 4Cs were embedded through the reporting of the
findings within each research question. The chapter will conclude with recommendations for
future study.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

102

Participants
Ten site principals participated in this qualitative research study. All respondents had at
least one year assignment as a site principal, some training with Common Core State Standards
and their school sites were in the initial stages of CCSS implementation. The principals were all
based in the rural southwestern part of California, a rural section of southern California.
Participation in this study was on a voluntary basis. However, there was a variance within the
schools demographics, API schools and total student population and specialized programs
offered at specific sites.
Instrument
The data for the qualitative survey were collected online through USC’s Qualtrics system.
A pilot survey was developed to gauge the content validity of the questions in relation to
addressing the research question of the study. From this pilot, the survey was revised with input
from the participants in the pilot group. The final survey instrument consisted of seven questions
identifying demographic data. The nine open-ended survey questions addressed the research
questions of this study.
Data Analysis
The data were coded by the researcher to identify the themes present in the survey
responses. The responses from the qualitative study were coded by gathering the raw data,
organizing the survey results for analysis, reading the results, and hand coding the data into
reoccurring themes (Creswell, 2009). The data collected from the respondents identified
instructional practices principals utilized to lead the transition to CCSS and to embed the 4Cs to
prepare students for college and career readiness. The four themes that emerged from the data
were 1) Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, 2) Professional Development,
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

103

3) Change Agent, and 4) Collaboration. The data figures represent either no response, some
response, or multiple responses to questions.
Research Questions
In order to learn about how site principals implemented the educational reforms that
currently exist, research questions organized the focus on instructional leadership practices
principals utilized for this study were as follows:
1.) What instructional leadership skills were needed in order for principals to support teacher
implementation of Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Learning Skills in K - 12
schools in the rural southwestern part of California?
2.) How did principals acquire and implement the necessary skills to perform the role as an
instructional leader during times of change?
3.) What professional development do site principals need to lead the change to CCSS and 21st
Century Learning Skills?
Discussion of Findings
Research Question 1
1.) What instructional leadership skills were needed in order for principals to support teacher
implementation of Common Core State Standards and 21st Century Learning Skills in K - 12
schools in the rural southwestern part of California?
The first finding was the identification of specific leadership practices utilized to support
teacher implementation of CCSS and the 4Cs and the inconsistency in which these practices
were employed. Principals recognized: 1) Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment, 2) Professional Development, 3) Change Agent, and 4) Collaboration as practices
utilized to lead the CCSS innovation. Ten out of ten principals identified three of the four
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

104

themes as being imperative to lead the CCSS reform. These three themes all principals
recognized were 1) Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, 2) Professional
Development and 3) Collaboration. Of the ten principals three respondents identified the need to
educate their staffs on the change process. The lack of responses related to change was
significant in that the shift from NCLB to CCSS was a significant educational reform, which
required preparation of the change process. While the respondents identified these leadership
practices, the level to which the principals comprehensively implemented each varied. This
suggested a mixed level and type of support that was provided to the teachers. Survey results
revealed that all 10 principals were directly involved in increasing their Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment with the CCSS. All of the respondents attended
professional development either within or outside of their school districts or a combination of
both methods. According to King (2002) principals needed to understand the necessity of
developing a broad knowledge base in curriculum, instruction and assessment, and seek ongoing
professional development activities that achieve that goal. Fullan (1998) asserted that effective
leaders act as change agents who were involved in the learning of the innovation during reform
efforts. The principals in this qualitative survey understood the importance of developing their
knowledge in order to lead their sites. In addition to developing their own capacity, the ten site
principals surveyed provided professional development to all of the teachers implementing the
new innovation. Nine of the ten principals utilized the knowledge gained from building their
own capacity to deliver training to their site teachers, while one principal relied on the site’s
academic coach.
The ability to lead organizations in today’s economic climate required a multitude of skills.
“Principals who were deft at leadership were able to provide individualized support to their staff;
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

105

provide intellectually stimulating activities, work, and professional development; and serve as a
model educator within the workplace” (Leithwood et al., 2006). The focus and attention of a
principal can readily determine the success and outcome of an organization (Mulford, 2008).
Researchers have found that principals need continuous opportunities to upgrade their
knowledge and skills in order to effectively lead (Marzano et al., 2005; Salazar, 2006). With this
new knowledge, the leadership was expected under the current list of responsibilities a site
principal holds to support all components of the school’s instructional program. This research
coincides with the respondents’ survey results from this qualitative study. The survey results
indicated that all site principals identified similar leadership practices were critical to lead in
times of change. The survey results illustrated the principals’ understanding of building their
own instructional capacity as all ten respondents participated in professional development to gain
knowledge of the new curriculum, instruction and assessments. Seven of the ten principals
attended trainings through their own districts while three of the principals attend professional
development within their districts and sought additional training from a third party. The current
education reform of CCSS with an emphasis on 21st Century Learning Skills qualifies as a
significant transition in the field of public education. Teacher support during a transition of
significant change was imperative to a successful implementation (Fullan, 1998). New
environments required new strategies and skills as well as leadership to mobilize them (Heifetz
et al., 2009). Instructional leaders maintained and modeled a focus on improving teaching and
learning by helping teachers improve their instructional practices and by making student
achievement the highest priority (King, 2002).
With only three principals engaging their staffs in understanding the change process,
foundational knowledge of what to expect during times of reform to ensure students progressed
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

106

academically was left unaddressed. Hallinger and Kantamara (2000) asserted that currently
educators know more about change than ever before, however, gaps in training and
implementation continue to be challenging. With the majority of change initiatives failing
(Brown & Vargo, 2014), stakeholders needed to understand that failure was apart of refinement
and future success.
Working towards implementing the change required a commitment to not only the reform,
but to the team in terms of collaboration. DuFour et al. (2006) defined collaboration as a
“commitment to continuous improvement”. The survey data highlighted the importance placed
on collaboration. The principals universally dedicated time and allocated resources to ensure
teams were working together. The responses focused more on unit design of CCSS and
planning. The reflection on current CCSS practices or how the teachers engaged students in the
4Cs was not evident from the survey responses. The focus on instructional planning with
minimal conversation about responses to instructional improvement may be a result of the initial
phases of the CCSS implementation rather than a disregard to the reflection component to
continuous improvement.
Research Question 2
2. How did principals acquire and implement the necessary skills to perform the role as an
instructional leader during times of change?
Principals reported three primary ways in which the knowledge of the new curriculum,
instruction, and assessments were learned: research conducted on their own, professional
development within their district and professional development from a third party outside the
district. Acquiring the knowledge of CCSS reform and learning about 21st Century Learning
Skills of the 4Cs came about in several methods according the respondents. Building a
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

107

principal’s capacity aligned with Cross and Rice’s (2000) conclusion that the common
denominator of successful schools was a principal who was an academic leader. While the need
to acquire knowledge of the new standards was imperative, the training that occurred within all
three methods was not prepared for the principal monitoring and leading the change. The
trainings principals participated in were the same trainings the teachers attended.
Research Question 3
3. What professional development do site principals need to lead the change to CCSS and 21st
Century Learning Skills?
The findings from this research question revealed a disjointed initial implementation effort
of the same content across the diverse districts. According to the survey results, the data
revealed a lack of continuity in what types of training were offered to the site principals and thus
the teachers. Through the survey responses, no two principals received nor gave the same type
of trainings. There was disparity among sites in terms of the professional development offered.
For example, one principal provided 4 trainings for the staff while another provided 17 trainings
for their teachers. All ten principals ensured their teachers received CCSS training. However,
the actually trainings differed from comparing the content of 1997 standards to CCSS, analyzing
the rigor and language of the new standards to unit development. In addition to looking at the
content of the standards, principals offered PD on how to engage students through the 4Cs with
text complexity, technology, and project based learning. While the needs of a site vary, during
the implementation of a new innovation, systematic training should be offered. The professional
development offered from school site to school site within and outside of districts was extremely
varied which was a reflection of the PD the principals received.
The unrealized goals of the NCLB legislation that anticipated 100 percent of students
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

108

would be proficient in ELA and Mathematics across American public schools have required a
new approach for educators (Rentner, 2005). In order to provide instruction on a new set of
standards with a 21
st
Century focus, necessary skills must be fostered through professional
development. As the site leader, principals were expected to present continuous and purposeful
professional development to meet the changing demands of the evolving educational
environment while addressing the unique needs of the students in which they serve (Crum &
Sherman, 2010).
A finding from the qualitative study highlighted a lack of responses related to monitoring and
evaluating the instructional program in place at the school site from the majority of the
principals. Improving instructional practices was a result of implementing the innovation,
followed by reflection and revisions of the practice (DuFour et al., 2006). Research has shown
that a characteristic of an effective school principal was the ability to make decisions based on
data (King, 2002; Leithwood, 2006; Marzano, 2005). During the initial rollout of the CCSS and
attention to the skills of the 4Cs, the majority of principals in the study did not report out on how
they monitored and evaluated the implementation of the professional development or effect of
the collaboration at their respective school sites. The lack of data based decision making to drive
instructional practices reflected a lack of vision as to what the expectations were in the CCSS roll
out. The absence of monitoring and evaluating to improve instructional efforts implied a
continued effort on identifying the practices, curriculum, and strategies needed to fully
implement CCSS with the rigor of the 4Cs. This lack of clarity further highlighted the lack of
vision for the implementation, which convoluted the actions taken by both the site principals and
teachers.
Research was consistent in the steps needed for leading in times of change in order for the
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

109

principals’ decisions to support the clearly articulated vision. Two of the key components in
change leadership were data based decision making and understanding the change process itself
(Daggett & Jones, 2008; Fullan, 2009). In analyzing how the survey respondents answered
questions on how the implementation of CCSS was communicated to the stakeholders, the
variance in change was not taken into account by seven of the ten principals. The onset of
building consensus for the need to instruct CCSS within the classrooms was not a data driven
decision for 6 of the 10 principals. The lack of preparation before the innovation may negatively
affect the implementation of CCSS. Principal C, a principal who addressed the change process to
ensure stakeholders knew what challenges lie ahead and utilized data to support the reform,
noted in one of her survey responses:
Sometimes transformation efforts fail for site leaders because they do not have an
understanding of the change process and how to facilitate change at a systemic level.
Following the steps of CBAM, or Kotter's 8-step change model can make a big difference
for short-term goals and long-term sustainability. Always, leaders need to have a clear
vision of what the change was really about. (2014)

An analysis of the survey participants and the preparation that was taken in order to prepare
themselves to lead, Principals C and G stand out as not only attending the majority of the
trainings, but additionally in presenting the most professional development to their staffs with a
balance of training on both CCSS and the 4Cs. Both of these principals have additional expertise
in the field of instructional practices with Principal C’s background of an instructional content
specialist within Riverside County Office of Education and Principal G completing his
dissertation at USC in the field of K -12 Urban Leadership. Due to the amount of support
teachers have been offered during this educational reform movement at these two sites, a
hypothesis was formed that these two schools will excel in a more effective CCSS and 4Cs
implementation compared to the other sites principals from this study with a lesser amount of
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

110

training.
Implications
Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
The understanding of the importance to build instructional knowledge of curriculum,
instruction and assessment as pertinent to the job of an elementary school principal was evident
by the responses of all participants. Even though the principals identified building capacity
through knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, the knowledge gained in these
areas varied based on the professional development attended. The implication of the various
levels of understanding of curriculum, instruction, and assessment affected how principals led
the implementation and prepared their staffs to provide instruction on CCSS and the 4Cs.
Professional Development
The findings from this research question indicated that there was no systematic professional
development given to site leaders to support the change reform of CCSS with the emphasis of the
4Cs. The information and messages principals were receiving varied from school to school and
district to district across the country. Adopting CCSS across the United States was intended to
bring continuity to America’s public education system (CCSS, 2014). If principals attended a
variety of trainings with multitude areas of focus, the implication was the implementation at the
sites was dependent on the information the principal received. Therefore, the continuity the
standards were supposed to bring, remained unachievable. The disjointed approach to building
capacity with CCSS implementation and 21
st
Century Learning Skills will have an impact on the
consistency of the implementation as well as how to offer future support, thus creating a larger
body of work for district and county offices.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

111

Due to the variance of foundational knowledge on the part of the site leader, teachers were
given site professional development based on the degree to which the principal understood the
change, could articulate the change and monitor the implementation of CCSS and the 4Cs.
However, the trainings for principals covered the same content that teachers received.
Professional development for principals did not address how the site leader was to neither
monitor nor evaluate the new instructional program. As the implementation continues in the
future, refinement of instructional practices centered around the CCSS and the 4Cs, will be
affected by the support of the site principal and the monitoring and evaluation of the instructional
program.
Change Agent
Developing the new skills needed for the implementation of CCSS and embedding the 4Cs
into instruction and learning required change leadership. Research on change leadership
identified the need for leaders to communicate the purpose behind change as a fundamental
component (Fullan, 1998; Heifetz et al., 2002). Stakeholders must understand the reasoning
behind this change in order to take ownership of the innovation. While this theme emerged in
the survey results, it was not significant compared to that of Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment, Professional Development and Collaboration as previous asserted.
The lack of communication on the part of the principals to the site teachers concerning change
efforts may lead to compliance on behalf of the teachers versus a commitment to the change.
Collaboration
All site principals designated resources to collaborate on either planning CCSS, the
embedding of the 4Cs or both. Regardless of the professional development offered between the
different school sites, consistent collaboration ensured the grade level teams and school
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

112

implemented the same instructional focus areas or practices. However, the collaboration was
limited to the knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment of the site principal as well as
the amount of professional development offered.
Limitations
The qualitative survey of this research provided insight into principal perspectives on
instructional leadership practices. While specific themes emerged, these perspectives may not
transfer to other responsibilities of the site principal. The subjectivity of qualitative studies may
lead to a variance in interpretations of the open-ended responses (Merriam, 2009). It was
possible that another researcher would attribute different meanings to what was noted in the
survey instrument. Data collected from interviews were limited by the subject’s interpretation of
the interview questions. The data gathered were limited to the ten survey participants and may
not be representative of all principals leading the CCSS reform. The data collected from this
survey were solely reported information with no verification from teachers whether the
instructional leadership practices were in fact utilized and to what degree connections were made
from the trainings to the CCSS and 4Cs implementations. Additionally, while the theme of
change agent emerged, the process of change is a developmental process, which takes place over
time. The effects of the principals’ role as a change agent remained undetermined.
Recommendations
This study provided a look into the leadership practices employed during the initial
implementation of CCSS and preparing students for college and career readiness through the
4Cs. The findings of this qualitative study suggest the need for further research and action steps
to ensure successful implementation of education reform movements with five
recommendations. First, recognizing the variety of professional development principals
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

113

attended, a recommendation for a longitudinal study of these principals would predict what type
of trainings best prepared them to lead the CCSS change. Second, a similar study could be
conducted with the teachers who received the various professional development that the
principals offered. Teacher perceptions as well as state assessment data could be collected to
judge the effectiveness of instruction on student achievement and how the professional
development they received during the initial rollout assisted in preparing them for the CCSS
change.
Third, a recommendation for further study into the districts’ role in preparing the principals
and how the vision was communicated would add to this body of research. The rollout of CCSS
and the focus of the 4Cs as a method in which to master the rigor of CCSS at its initial stages
were piecemealed based on the responses of the principals. The variance in which key
components of change were communicated and the topics of professional development offered
suggests the ideal of continuity of content taught in public schools across the United States will
not take place across a district or even part of a state. With seven of the ten principals reporting
less than five years of experience and the possibility that these leaders have not led a change
initiative, a fourth recommendation of a systematic principal preparation professional
development series was a necessity to ensure that principals set a sold foundation for research
based first steps in initiating and communicating change. Professional development for
principals needs to focus on the content the teachers receive, but additionally, professional
development through the lens of monitoring and evaluating the change. The McKinsey Report, a
report focus on the field of education, examined the characteristics of the ‘top performing
systems’ in the world (Braun, 2008). One of the four factors the report found as imperative to
school change was “cultivating, selecting, and developing instructionally oriented leaders
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

114

(especially principals, but also others at the district and state levels)” in order to successfully lead
the school reform. Developing site principals in the CCSS change would answer the challenges
to the survey results, which revealed an uncertainty and lack of clarity of what CCSS and the 4Cs
actually look like in the classroom. A clearly articulated vision was imperative to any school
reform (Crum, 2010; Leithwood, 2006; Marzano et al., 2005). The vision of what the CCSS was
in terms of content and the how of implementation through the 4Cs needs to be communicated at
the onset of the implementation with leaders having a clear idea of the key steps in attaining that
vision with revisions of that path as necessary.
Lastly, to ensure continuity with the CCSS and clarity of vision, the recommendation that
curriculum developers at the state level include universal foundational pieces of professional
development that accompany the new standards was vital for a systematic rollout. Consistent
implementation of any educational reform required common messages sent to all involved.
While many school districts have already begun CCSS implementation, the elaboration of
professional development by curriculum writers at the state level could fill in gaps created by the
inconsistent training provided from school to school. For future reform efforts, the inclusion of
professional development should be a key component, especially when the change initiative was
intended to bring continuity across districts, states, and the nation.
Conclusion
Instructional leadership by the site principal was essential when implementing new
educational reform. The changing landscape of the current public education system required a
leader who understands the CCSS as well as the 21
st
century competencies of the 4Cs to ensure
students were college and career ready. This study added to the existing body of research
relevant to the importance of instructional leadership practices in times of educational reform
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

115

within the American public school system. It further aimed to identify specific practices
employed by site principals necessary for CCSS implementation while simultaneously
addressing the 21st Century Learning Skills of the 4Cs. The research and data collected offered
an insight into the instructional leadership practices, which were consistent amongst site
principals who led the CCSS implementation. This study demonstrated that the common
instructional leadership practices of survey participants were 1) Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment, 2) Professional Development, 3) Change Agent, and 4)
Collaboration. The lack of uniformity in instructional leadership practices implemented to
support teachers in the CCSS transition while preparing students with the skills of the 4Cs
indicates a lack of preparedness or development on the part of the principal. This lack of
preparedness to effectively lead during current and future educational climate may influence the
degree to which educational reforms are implemented and the success America’s public schools.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

116

References
Adams, J.E. (2010). Introduction: Smart Money and America’s Schools. Introduction in
Adams. pp. 1-26.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing:
A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Pearson College
Division, pp. 29 – 109.
ASCD (2012). Fulfilling the Promise of the Common Core: Moving from Adoption, to
Implementation, to Sustainability. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (ASCD), 1703 N. Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311.
Atlas, D. (1995). Critical Thinking As Problem Solving. USA: Department of Education,
Montana State University- Bozeman.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1992). Reframing organizations (Vol. 130). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10),
1069.
Brown, B. & Vargo, M. (2014). Designing, Leading, and Managing the Transition to Common
Core: A Strategy Guidebook for Leaders. Graduate School of Education, Policy Analysis
for California Education Stanford University, Stanford, CA 1 – 14.
Braun, H. (2008). Review of McKinsey report: How the world’s best performing school systems
come out on top. Journal of Educational Change, 9(3), 317-320.
California Department of Education. (1997) Content Standards for California Public Schools.
Retrieved on April 20, 2014 from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pdf.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

117

Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the common core: Accelerating
achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cross, C. T., & Rice, R. C. (2000). The role of the principal as instructional leader in a standards-
driven system. NASSP bulletin, 84(620), 61-65. Retrieved on February 11, 2014 from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216036855?accountid=14749
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014). Retrieved on February 12, 2014 from http://
www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), 1703 N. Beauregard Street,
Alexandria, VA 22311.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches.

Crum, K. S., Sherman, W. H., & Myran, S. (2010). Best practices of successful elementary

school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 48-63.

Daggett, R. & Jones, D. (2008). The process of change – why change, what to do, and how to do
it. International Center for Leadership in Education.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House LLC.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. National Educational Service, 1252 Loesch Road,
Bloomington, IN 47404-9107.
DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2006). The power of professional learning communities. In National
Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 2-5).
Northwestern State University of Louisiana, College of Education and Behavioral
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

118

Sciences.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership (pp. 1-46). Washington,

DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F. (2007). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Embree, M. (2014). Students must prepare for tomorrow's jobs that do not exist today. Retrieved
on June 6, 2014 from http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20140325/
WDH0402/303250017/Students-must-prepare-tomorrow-s-jobs-do-not-exist-today.
Facione, P. A. (1998). Critical thinking: What it was and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: California
Academic Press. Retrieved April, 1, 2004.
Fink, A. G. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Sage Publications.
Fowler, F. (2009). Policy: What was it and where it comes from. In Policy Studies for
Educational Leaders (pp.1-20). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. ed.). New York: Continuum, 1970.
Freidman, T. (2005). The world was flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Finn Jr, C. E., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). Radical Education Reforms. The Series on
Contemporary Educational Issues. McCutchan Publishing Corporation, PO Box 774, 2940
San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94702.
Frey, T. (2014). 162 Future Jobs: Preparing for Jobs that Don’t Yet Exist. Retreived on July 6,
2014 from http//www.futuristspeaker.com/2014/03/162-future-jobs-preparing-for-jobs-
that-dont-yet-exist/.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform (Vol. 10).
Psychology Press.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

119

Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21st Century: Breaking the Bonds of Dependency.
Reshaping School Leadership. 55 (7).
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3),
101-113.
Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: The National Commission on
Excellence in Education, US Department of Education.
Gates, B. (2007) How to Keep America Competitive Opinion Editorial Washington Post
retrieved on June 6, 2014 at http://www.choosetocompete.org/downloads
Article_Washington_Post_070225.pdf.
Gentilucci, J. L., & Muto, C. C. (2007). Principals' influence on academic achievement: The
student perspective. NASSP bulletin, 91(3), 219-236.
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking.
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.
Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2000). Educational change in Thailand: Opening a window onto
leadership as a cultural process. School Leadership & Management, 20(2), 189-205.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/219069450?accountid=14749.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of education, 33(3), 329-352.Hamilton,
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J., & Barney, H.
(2007). Implementing standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind:
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

120

Responses of superintendents, principals, and teachers in three states. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States:
History, research, and future directions (No. RP-1384). RAND EDUCATION SANTA
MONICA CA.
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2012). Standards-Based Accountability in the
United States: Lessons Learned and Future Directions 1. Education Inquiry, 3(2).
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational
leadership, 61(7), 8-13.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: what was the research evidence? (p. 4).
Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Routledge.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers
of leading (Vol. 465). Harvard Business Press.
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools
and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Hochschild, J. L., Scovronick, N., & Scovronick, N. B. (2004). The American dream and the
public schools. Oxford University Press.
Karen, S. L., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School
leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629-665.
Retrieved from doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249853.
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Beyond Instructional Leadership, 59 (8),

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

121

pp. 61-63.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business Press.

Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. J. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in
program improvement. Review of Educational research, 52(3), 309-339.
Leithwood, K. (2006). Successful school leadership: What it was and how it influences pupil
learning. Department for Education and Skills.
Lipman, M. (1988). Critical Thinking--What Can It Be?. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38-43.
Lutton, L. (2014). Chicago Teachers Union votes to oppose Common Core.
Mac Iver, M. A., & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the District Back in: The Role of the Central
Office in Improving Instruction and Student Achievement.
Manely, R. & Hawkins, R. (2013). Making the Common Core Standards Work: Using
Professional Development to Build World Class Schools.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1703
North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714.
McMahon, W.W. (2010). The External Benefits of Education. In Brewer & McEwan, p.68-80.
Mehta, J. (2013). From Bureaucracy to Profession: Remaking the Educational Sector for the
Twenty-First Century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463-488. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1434423566?accountid=14749.
Merriam, S., B. (2009) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mitchell, C. & Castle, J. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school principals.
Canadian Journal of Education, 28 (3).
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

122

National Assessment of Educational Progress (2013). A first look: 2013 mathematics and
reading. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2013/pdf/2014451.pdf.
Act, N. C. L. B. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. US, Department of Education. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). Programme for International
Student Assessment. Retrieved April 2, 2014 from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning Skills (2014). Retrieved March 22, 2014 from
http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning Skills (2014). P21 Common Core Toolkit: A Guide to
Aligning the Common Core State Standards with the Framework for 21st Century Skills.
Retrieved April 30, 2014 from http://www.p21.org/our-work/resources/for-educators/1005-
p21-common-core-toolkit.
Ramos, C. (2012). Alliance for School Excellence
Rentner, D. S., Scott, C., Kober, N., Chudowsky, N., Chudowsky, V., Joftus, S., & Zabala, D.
(2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Robinson-Kurpius, S. E. R. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly guide. Sage.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. John Wiley & Sons.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

123

Salkind, N. J. (2011). Study Guide to Accompany Neil J. Salkind's Statistics for People Who
(Think They) Hate Statistics. Sage.
Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on
student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of personnel evaluation
in education, 11(1), 57-67.
Senge, P. M., & Suzuki, J. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization (p. 14). New York: Currency Doubleday.
Smith, M.S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S.H. Furhman & B. malen (Eds.)
The Politics of Curriculum and testing: The 1990 Yearbook of the Politics of Eduation
Association. New York, NY: The Falmer Press.
Speck, M. (1996). The change process in a school learning community. School Community
Journal, 6, 69-80.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard educational review, 67(1), 1-41.
Stecher, B. M. (2002). Consequences of large-scale, high-stakes testing on school and classroom
practice. Making sense of test-based accountability in education, 79-100. Superfine, B. M.
(2005). The politics of accountability: The rise and fall of Goals 2000. American Journal of
Education, 112(1), 10-43.
Thomas, J. Y., & Brady, K. P. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40:
Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of
Research in Education, 51-67.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond Islands of Excellence: What Districts Can Do
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

124

To Improve Instruction and Achievement in All Schools. A Project of the Learning First
Alliance [and] A Leadership Brief. Tyler, R. W. (1933). Prevailing misconceptions. The
Journal of Higher Education, 4(6), 286- 289.
Tyler, R. W. (1933). Prevailing misconceptions. The Journal of Higher Education, 4(6), 286-
289.
Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L. L., Lemons, R. W., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., & Rasmussen, H.
T. (2010). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our schools. John Wiley
& Sons.
Warren, P. & Murphy, P. (2014). Implementing the Common Core State Standards in California.
Retrieved on August 24, 2014 from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?
i=1093. Public Policy Institute of California.
Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The Balanced Leadership Framework: Connecting Vision
with Action. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (pp. 1-19). Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

125

Appendix A: Qualitative Survey Instrument

University of Southern California

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Instructional Practices: Common Core Implementation & 21st Century Learning Skills

You were invited to participate in a research study conducted by Allyson Mallory, a
doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California, because you were a principal
within the K-12 setting. This research study was being conducted for the purposes of a
research study. Your participation was voluntary. You should read the information below,
and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also
decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you
will be asked to sign this form. You given a copy of this form. These research findings will
be published in the researcher's dissertation.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will examine effective instructional leadership practices and how these practices
will adapt to meet the implementation of the CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to take a survey to answer 16
questions related to instructional leadership practices with CCSS and 21st Century
Learning Skills. This survey will only be administered to each participant one time.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There were no potential risks and discomforts as the results of this study will not be
published.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There were no potential benefits to participants and/or to society as the results of this study
will not be published.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However,
if we were required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you.
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.

The data were be stored with the Qualtrics database. This survey was anonymous and no
personal information will be collected other than gender. The data collected will be stored
until May 2015 and will be erased thereafter. Only the research personnel will have access
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

126

to the survey results. The data were be coded appropriately using the Qualtrics
instrument.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation was voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or
loss of benefits to which you were otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at
any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You were not waiving any legal
claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATORS’ CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact our
Research Personnel, Principal Investigator: Ms. Allyson Mallory at amallor@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. By clicking Agree, I understand that I agree
to participate in this study. By clicking Disagree, I am choosing to not participate in this
study and will exit the survey. Please print a copy and save for your records.
- Disagree
- Agree

Gender
- Male
- Female
In what school setting do you work?

Elementary School
Middle School
High School

How many years have you been a principal?
0 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
10 - 15 years
16 - 20 years
20+ years

As the instructional leader, how have you influenced/lead the implementation of CCSS?
Identify and describe the specific steps taken to lead CCSS reform.

How did you facilitate your team members understanding the need for this change (CCSS)
and their belief in their abilities to effectively implement this change?

How have you or do you plan to integrate/embed the 4Cs of 21st Century learning
(creativity, critical thinking, collaboration and communication) within CCSS PD?
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

127

Describe the specific leadership practices/learning you experienced that have been most
helpful in developing professional development for your team during implementation of the
Common Core state standards. List the professional development you have given or have
been apart of presenting.

How has the approach taken to lead the CCSS change been different than previous
curriculum implementation?

How did you facilitate sharing of current research and theory regarding effective CCSS
practices within your team?

What current research have you learned and shared with your teachers on the 4Cs of 21st
Century Learning Skills?

In what specific area(s) of CCSS, do site principals identify they need to lead this change?
- Standards
- Instructional Shifts
- Mathematical Practices
- Assessments
- Depth of Knowledge

In what specific 21st Century skill(s) of the 4Cs, do site principals identify they need to lead
this change?

Would you be willing to participate in a short follow up survey (no more than 5 minutes)
that would rank the specific themes identified in this survey?
Yes
No

Would you be willing to be interviewed to clarify any responses?
Yes
No

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

128

Appendix B: Demographic Survey Instrument

University of Southern California
EDUC 536: Inquiry II Research Project

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

PILOT: Instructional Practices: Common Core Implementation & 21st Century Learning
Skills

You were invited to participate in a research study conducted by Allyson Mallory, a
doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California, because you were a principal
within the K-12 setting. This research study was being conducted for the purposes of a
research study. Your participation was voluntary. You should read the information below,
and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also
decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you
will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form. These research
findings will be published in the researcher's dissertation.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will examine effective instructional leadership practices and how these practices
will adapt to meet the implementation of the CCSS and 21st Century Learning Skills.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to take a survey to answer 16
questions related to instructional leadership practices with CCSS and 21st Century
Learning Skills. This survey will only be administered to each participant one time.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There were no potential risks and discomforts as the results of this study will not be
published.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There were no potential benefits to participants and/or to society as the results of this study
will not be published.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However,
if we were required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you.
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.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

129

The data were be stored with the Qualtrics data base. This survey was anonymous and no
personal information will be collected other than gender. The data collected will be stored
until May 2015 and will be erased thereafter. Only the research personnel will have access
to the survey results. The data were be coded appropriately using the Qualtrics
instrument.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation was voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or
loss of benefits to which you were otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at
any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You were not waiving any legal
claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATORS’ CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact our
Research Personnel, Principal Investigator: Ms. Allyson Mallory at amallor@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. By clicking Agree, I understand that I agree
to participate in this study. By clicking Disagree, I am choosing to not participate in this
study and will exit the survey. Please print a copy and save for your records.

- Disagree
- Agree

What was the current enrollment at your school site?

Identify and list the percentages of all significant subgroups (as defined by NCLB
guidelines) for your school wide student population.

Please select all that apply. Our school has been identified as:
- Title 1
- Program Improvement
- Other

Our school's API for 2013 was...

____________

For
additional
resources
-‐
http://dissertationedd.usc.edu/

DSC
contact
information
–
rsoedsc@rossier.usc.edu
or
(213)740-‐8099

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the instructional leadership practices elementary school site principals utilized to support the transition to Common Core State Standards while ensuring students were learning the 21st century competencies of the 4Cs: Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, Communication, Collaboration, and Creativity and Innovation. The rationale of this study was to identify how principals built their own capacity to lead this change and built the capacity of the teachers at their sites through Bolman and Deal’s (1992) structural and human resource frames. Addressing the 4Cs was anchored in the research of the Partnership for 21st Century Learning framework. The research on instructional leadership practices was supported by a variety of researchers discussed throughout this study. A qualitative approach was employed to analyze: 1) the instructional leadership skills principals needed to support teacher implementation of the CCSS and the 4Cs, 2) how principals acquired these necessary skills, and 3) the professional development required to lead the CCSS reform while embedding the 4Cs for college and career readiness. Ten elementary school principals participated in a qualitative survey to identify principal perceptions on the leadership practices the CCSS and 4Cs necessitated. Criteria to contribute to this study included at least one full year of CCSS implementation led by the site principal at their school and experience with CCSS professional development. The data were analyzed by comparing survey responses amongst the respondents to identify specific instructional practices utilized by the principals. The findings of this study denoted the practices of: 1) Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment, 2) Professional Development, 3) Change Agent, and 4) Collaboration as most applied during the initial implementation of CCSS.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

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

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

Providing parents the necessary resources to comprehend the common core state standards: a guide for schools

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

PDF

The key essentials for learning in the 21st century: programs and practices

PDF

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

PDF

21st century teaching and learning with technology integration at an innovative high school: a case study

PDF

A case study of 21st century skills programs and practices

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

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

PDF

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

PDF

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

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

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

PDF

Evaluating the implementation of 21st century skills and learning

PDF

Principals’ leadership influence on teachers’ capacity to enact 21st-century skills curriculum

PDF

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

PDF

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

PDF

Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Mallory, Allyson Michelle (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/22/2015

Defense Date 05/15/2015

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

Tag 21st century learning skills,Common Core State Standards,instructional leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Gallagher, Raymond John (committee member), Mafi, Gabriela (committee member)

Creator Email ammallor@usc.edu,Mallory27inspires@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-557565

Unique identifier UC11301271

Identifier etd-MalloryAll-3371.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-557565 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MalloryAll-3371.pdf

Dmrecord 557565

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mallory, Allyson Michelle

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