University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership

(USC Thesis Other)

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content How Principals Lead Title I Schools to High Academic Achievements: A Case Study of
Transformative Leadership
Samuel Yi
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024

© Copyright by Samuel Yi 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Samuel Yi certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Gregory Franklin
Rudolph Crew
David Cash, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This qualitative case study explored the application of transformative leadership practices
by principals in high-achieving Title I high schools across San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties. The focus was on understanding how these practices create an equitable and inclusive
learning environment for socioeconomically disadvantaged students. By examining the
relationship between effective leadership practices and the eight principles of transformative
leadership theory, the study sought to uncover how school leaders implement such practices and
how teachers perceive these implementation practices. Two research questions guided this study:
To what extent do school principals in Title I high schools employ transformative leadership
practices to increase student achievement? What transformative leadership practices do teachers
in Title I high schools identify in their principals' efforts to increase student achievement? Data
were collected through semi-structured interviews with principals and teachers, allowing for a
detailed comparison and analysis of perspectives. The study’s findings reveal a significant link
between the principals’ leadership practices and transformative leadership principles,
highlighting the strengths and areas for further development. This analysis reinforces the
theoretical underpinnings of transformative leadership. It offers insights into its practical
application, suggesting a pathway toward more aligned and effective educational leadership
centered on equity, inclusion, and social justice.

v
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to those who have been my pillars of strength, inspiration,
and unwavering support throughout this journey.
First and foremost, I dedicate this work to Jesus Christ. It is because of his guidance,
wisdom, and grace that I find strength and perseverance. Through every challenge and triumph,
His presence has been my constant source of comfort and motivation.
To my beloved wife, Claire, your love, patience, and unwavering belief in me have been
the bedrock of my success. I will never be able to thank you enough for the sacrifices you made
throughout my academic journey. Thank you for standing by my side and for your endless
support, understanding, and love.
To my Aedan, Annabel, Aileen, and Allen, you all are my greatest joy and inspiration.
Your boundless energy, curiosity, joy, and love have fueled my determination to strive for
excellence. I hope this accomplishment serves as a reminder that with dedication and hard work,
you, too, can achieve greatness.
To my parents, your sacrifices have shaped the person I am today. Your unwavering
support and encouragement have been my guiding light. Thank you for instilling in me the
importance of education and perseverance.
This dissertation is our dissertation and is a testament to the love, support, and faith that
each of you has shown me. I am forever grateful.

vi
Acknowledgments
I extend my deepest gratitude to Dr. Cash. Your invaluable guidance and unwavering
encouragement have been instrumental in my success. Thank you for making yourself available
during evenings and weekends, ensuring that I stayed on track.
To Dr. Franklin, I am incredibly fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn from the
G.O.A.T. during my doctoral program. Your teachings have shaped me into a leader, one who
leads with grace and humility.
To Dr. Crew, your guidance and insights throughout the dissertation journey have been
profoundly impactful. Your feedback encouraged me to engage in deeper reflection and critical
thinking.
Lastly, Dr. Prado, thank you for embarking on this journey alongside me. I could not
have achieved this without your support. Not only have we earned our degrees, but I am also
grateful to have developed a deep and lasting friendship with you through this process.

vii
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort reflects real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing highly
skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School and the
USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this shared
venture. This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with another doctoral candidate,
Cristina Prado.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................iv
Dedication...................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................vi
Preface......................................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables..............................................................................................................................x
List of Figures............................................................................................................................xi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study...........................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .............................................................................................1
Transformative Leadership Theory..................................................................................4
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................4
Research Questions .........................................................................................................6
The Significance of the Study..........................................................................................7
Limitations......................................................................................................................8
Definition of Terms.........................................................................................................8
Organization of the Study................................................................................................9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature......................................................................................11
Effect of Poverty on SED Students................................................................................11
The History of Laws and Landmark Court Cases That Impacted Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged Students.................................................................................................18
Principal’s Impact on Student Achievements.................................................................24
Transformative Leadership Theory................................................................................30
Chapter Three: Methodology.....................................................................................................36
Purpose of the Study......................................................................................................36
Research Questions .......................................................................................................37

ix
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................37
Design Summary ...........................................................................................................37
Methodology .................................................................................................................38
Qualitative Instrument and Protocols.............................................................................39
Data Collection..............................................................................................................39
Data Analysis................................................................................................................40
Credibility and Trustworthiness.....................................................................................41
Personal Positionality ....................................................................................................42
Summary.......................................................................................................................43
References ................................................................................................................................90
Appendix A: Principal Interview Protocol...............................................................................101
Introduction.................................................................................................................101
Principal Interview Questions (With Transitions).........................................................102
Closing Question .........................................................................................................104
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol.................................................................................105
Introduction.................................................................................................................105
Introduction and Background.......................................................................................106
Closing Question .........................................................................................................108

x
List of Tables
Table 1: The Percentage of SED and Not SED High School Students Who Met or Exceeded
Standards in ELA and Math in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties 2
Table 2: Interview Participants’ Years of Service at the Research Sites 45
Table 3: Comparison of 2022 Achievement Data of the Research Sites and the Counties 46

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Frequencies of Eight Tenets Based on Principal Responses at Three High-Achieving
Title I High Schools 47
Figure 2: Frequencies of Eight Tenets Based on Teacher Responses at Three HighAchieving Title I High Schools 62

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Authors: Cristina Prado, Samuel Yi1
The concept of the American Dream embodies the ideas of opportunity and economic
prosperity. It requires school principals to challenge the status quo and focus on leading critically
about social justice to create equitable learning environments (Shields, 2010). However, for
marginalized groups, the reality of the American Dream has fallen short of its promise. Putnam
(2015) examined the widening gap between the American Dream and the realities that
socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) students experienced in the educational system. Putnam
asserted that these students frequently encounter significant obstacles to academic success
despite the American Dream’s notion that hard work and education lead to economic prosperity.
Education is one of the most powerful tools for promoting social mobility and reducing
inequality (Goldin & Katz, 2007; Heckman & LaFontaine, 2010). Individuals with higher levels
of education are more likely to secure better-paying jobs, accumulate wealth, and enjoy a higher
standard of living. Shafiq (2014) described the relationship between personal and social benefits
and asserted that people who are educated and productive earn higher wages, are healthier, and
are less likely to be incarcerated. Additionally, education can help to level the playing field for
SED students, providing them with the skills, knowledge, and opportunities to achieve social and
economic success (Payne et al., 2017).
Background of the Problem
Despite progress in recent years, SED students still face significant education disparities
and inequities that negatively impact student achievement (Reardon, 2013). The National Center
for Education Statistics reported that the high school graduation rate for SED students in the
1 This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are
listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.

2
United States was 78.4%, compared to 89.6% for higher-income students in 2021. In California,
the graduation rate for all students is 87% and 84.5% for SED students (California Department of
Education, 2021). The inequitable trend between SED student groups and all students is also
visible when comparing San Bernardino and Riverside Counties' reading and math test scores.
According to 2022-23 Riverside County reading and math test data on DataQuest, 43.95% of
Grade 11 SED students met or exceeded English language arts (ELA) standards, compared to
66.39% non-SED students (California Department of Education, 2023). The percentage of Grade
11 SED students meeting or exceeding math standards was even smaller. Only 14.69% of SED
students met or exceeded math standards, compared to 34.46% of non-SED students meeting or
exceeding math standards (See Table 1). San Bernardino County students show a similar pattern
of inequitable outcomes. According to 2022-23 San Bernardino County reading and math test
data on DataQuest (2023), 43.82% of Grade 11 SED students met or exceeded ELA standards,
compared to 62.35% of non-SED students. The percentage of Grade 11 SED students meeting or
exceeding math standards was even smaller. Only 15.59% of SED students met or exceeded
math standards, compared to 32.87% of non-SED students meeting or exceeding math standards
(See Table 1).
Table 1
The Percentage of SED and Non-SED High School Students Who Met or Exceeded Standards in
ELA and Math in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties
County Student population Students met or exceeded
standards in ELA
Students met or exceeded
standards in Math
Riverside Non-SED students 66.39% 34.46%
SED students 43.95% 14.69%
San Bernardino Non-SED students 62.35% 32.87%

3
SED students 43.82% 15.59%
The persistent inequities experienced by SED students underscore the need to examine
the role of school principals in establishing equitable learning environments and increasing
students' academic achievement. Recent research emphasizes the critical impact of school
principals in addressing these challenges and promoting students' academic success (Allensworth
et al., 2018; Rodriguez, 2019). Grissom et al. (2021) further support this notion by confirming
that principals significantly influence student achievement more than individual teachers. Their
review of academic achievement data from six studies involving over 22,000 principals across
four states demonstrates the principal's role as a critical driver of student achievement.
Additionally, the study reveals that effective principals could lead to a substantial increase of up
to 20 percentage points in student achievement, identifying the principal's impact as second only
to teachers' instruction.
While effective principals are crucial in improving student achievement, it is especially
critical for Title I high schools serving SED students (Dutta & Sahney, 2016; Gümüş et al.,
2022). The U.S. Department of Education identifies Title I schools as those where at least 40%
of students come from SED families and require additional federal funding to support the
academic achievement of SED students. These schools grapple with high poverty rates and face
difficulties in attracting and retaining effective principals and teachers, as evidenced by higher
turnover rates in high-poverty, low-achieving schools than in wealthier, high-performing schools
(Brown, 2004; Grissom & Sutcher, 2018). According to a survey by the RAND Corporation,
53% of principals in the bottom 20% of student achievement are in the first 3 years of their
principalship (Grissom & Sutcher, 2018). Furthermore, there is a tendency among educators in
Title 1 schools to hold lower expectations for students, attributing academic struggle to the

4
students or their families rather than recognizing the value of the cultural capital they bring to the
educational setting (Curto et al., 2011; Yosso, 2005). This deficit thinking, described by Shields
(2018), views differences as deficiencies, unfairly placing the blame and responsibility onto the
students, thus hindering academic achievement. Consequently, there is a pressing need for
leaders in Title I schools to disrupt the status quo and foster an inclusive, equitable learning
environment. Transformative leaders must mobilize educational partners to ensure every student
has access to quality education and academic resources, challenging and changing the narrative
for SED students (Quantz et al., 1991).
Transformative Leadership Theory
Title I high school principals have a moral duty to recognize and eliminate institutional
barriers that hinder SED students from reaching their full potential (Quantz et al., 1991). Shields
(2010) examined transformative principals’ beliefs and practices to understand how they produce
equitable outcomes and inclusive approaches in schools with high poverty levels. Transformative
leadership theory questions inequitable practices to ensure opportunity and economic prosperity
for individuals and the greater good of society. This theoretical approach addresses the mindsets
and knowledge frameworks of those contributing to inequity and transforms them into more
equitable perspectives. The theory consists of eight supporting tenets that guide the process of
promoting equity: moral courage; redistributing power; public and private good; democracy,
emancipation, and equity; critique and promise; new knowledge frameworks and mindsets;
interconnectedness, interdependence, and global awareness; and a mandate for change.
Statement of the Problem
In recent decades, the widening academic achievement gap between students from highincome and low-income families has spotlighted the persistent disparity in educational

5
opportunities (Jang & Reardon, 2019). This gap significantly increased, with test scores for
students from less affluent backgrounds born in the early 2000s lagging roughly 40% behind
their wealthy peers than those born in the 1970s (Chmielewski & Reardon, 2016). Such growing
disparities underscore the need to examine effective leadership practices at high-performing Title
I schools, which serve predominantly low-income students and have increased academic
achievement. The challenges of educational disparities and inequities require high school
administrators to adopt transformative leadership practices. Such practices foster equitable and
inclusive learning environments and positively influence student achievement, altering existing
knowledge frameworks that perpetuate deficit thinking (Caldwell et al., 2012; Shields & Hesbol,
2020).
Further research indicates the link between transformative leadership and principal
practices prioritizing equity and inclusion, improving SED students’ academic outcomes
(Caldwell et al., 2012; Shields & Hesbol, 2020). These practices involve school principals
critically addressing social justice issues and challenging the status quo to create equitable and
inclusive educational settings (Grissom et al., 2021; Shields, 2018). Moreover, the emphasis on
leveraging students’ cultural wealth indicates a valuable approach to enriching the learning
environment and promoting intellectual achievement in an educational landscape where all
students can thrive.
Purpose of the Study
This study explored the leadership practices school principals implemented in three highperforming Title I high schools in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. It sought to
understand the impact of effective leadership practices on creating equitable and inclusive
educational environments for SED students. It also sought to investigate the correlation between

6
principal leadership practices and Shields’s (2018) eight core principles of transformative
leadership theory. Through interviews with principals, the research identified the potential
correlations between effective leadership practices and the eight key principles of transformative
leadership theory that foster equitable and inclusive learning environments and positively
influence student achievement by altering knowledge frameworks that perpetuate deficit
thinking. Further research indicates a strong link between transformative leadership and principal
practices prioritizing equity and inclusion (Caldwell et al., 2012; Shields & Hesbol, 2020).
Additionally, interviews with teachers highlighted how closely their principals’ leadership
approaches align with transformative leadership principles. Teachers’ insights further showcase
the effectiveness of principals in fostering academic achievement among SED students,
contributing to both individual success and the greater good of society.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. To what extent do school principals in Title I high schools employ transformative
leadership practices to increase student achievement?
2. What transformative leadership practices do teachers in Title I high schools identify in
their principals’ efforts to increase student achievement?
This study explored the relationship between principals’ practices at high-achieving Title
I high schools and transformative leadership tenets. It examined how transformative leadership
practices significantly impact the academic achievement of SED students. Transformative
leadership, grounded in eight essential practices, is identified as a crucial approach for fostering
an equitable and inclusive educational environment. Evidence suggests that principals who
embody transformative leadership cultivate a school centered on equity and inclusion (Caldwell

7
et al., 2012; Shields & Hesbol, 2020). Moreover, transformative leadership ensures that teachers
provide equitable learning opportunities to all students (Walton-Fisette & Montgomery, 2018).
Researchers found that transformative leadership is associated with challenging and revising
entrenched beliefs and practices that contribute to deficit thinking, thereby enhancing student
academic outcomes (Caldwell et al., 2012; Shields & Hesbol, 2020). A similar study by Shields
(2010) supports that school principals who adopt transformative leadership practices are more
effective in implementing changes in the educational environment (structures, culture,
pedagogical practices) to enhance equity, inclusion, and social justice.
The Significance of the Study
This study highlights the role of transformative leadership in increasing student
achievement in the context of Title I schools serving SED students. Bridging a gap in the
literature, it investigated the alignment between effective leadership practices and the principles
of transformative leadership theory, underscoring their collective impact on educational equity
and student success. Transformative leadership, characterized by its focus on equity, inclusion,
and social justice, empowers leaders to inspire change in knowledge frameworks that perpetuate
deficit thinking and pedagogical practices, fostering a learning environment that promotes
students’ intellectual achievement (Brown, 2004; Shields, 2018). Other studies indicate the
significant influence of principal leadership on student academic outcomes (Grissom et al., 2021;
Shields & Hesbol, 2020), highlighting the necessity for principals to critically evaluate
traditional leadership models and embrace approaches that address the multifaceted, culturally
distinct needs of students and their families.
This study’s findings can guide the development of policies and practices that enable
school principals to promote educational equity, inclusion, and social justice. Moreover, the

8
results can enrich school leaders’ training and professional development programs, emphasizing
the cultivation of equity-focused leaders-focused leadership skills that incorporate social justice.
Additionally, this research could benefit school administrator preparation programs by offering
strategies for embedding transformative leadership practices that support teachers in creating
equitable, inclusive, and social justice learning environments for all students.
Limitations
It is important to note that the correlation between effective principal practices and
transformative leadership practices may vary based on this study’s context. This research took
place in three Title I high schools in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, where more than
60% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Therefore, the sample of leaders,
teachers, and schools included in the study does not represent leaders, teachers, and schools
across the country. The result may not apply to other contexts. Furthermore, the measures used to
assess transformative leadership practices and student achievement also affected the study’s
limitations. The validity and reliability of these measures could have affected the results’
accuracy. Finally, transformative leadership's impact on SED students' outcomes may not be
immediate and may take time to emerge fully. Furthermore, SED students often face significant
barriers and challenges in accessing high-quality education and achieving academic success. For
instance, they frequently lack access to resources and opportunities for academic achievement,
including high-quality schools, supportive educational programs, and extracurricular activities
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2020).
Definition of Terms
Equity: Justice according to natural law or right, specifically freedom from bias or
favoritism (Merriam-Webster, n. d.).

9
The free or reduced-price lunch program is frequently used to indicate poverty. K–12
students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches if their families earn an income level
below the federal poverty line (Rogers et al., 2014).
Inclusion: The practices and policies ensure that all individuals feel welcomed, respected,
and valued. It also emphasizes creating conditions where everyone can participate fully and
authentically.
Socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) is a term often defined by income that falls
below the poverty line, level of education, employment, health, and access to resources (Burney
& Beilke, 2008).
Social justice education “teaches students in a socially just institution, taught about social
(in) justice in the world,” and prepares students to take a stance against injustice (Shields, p. 97,
2018).
Social mobility refers to the ability of individuals to move up or down the socioeconomic
ladder (Putnam, 2015).
Title I is the primary source of federal aid for elementary and secondary education and is
intended to improve the educational opportunities for low-income students. Schoolwide Title I
programs must have 40% or higher low-income students.
Transformative leadership involves systematically analyzing schools and confronting
education inequities to enact social justice (Cooper, 2009).
Organization of the Study
This study sought to determine the extent to which school administrators at three highachieving Title I high schools in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties use transformative
leadership practices to promote an inclusive educational environment for students of poverty. It

10
is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of the study and introduces
data to present the root causes of inequities in the selection process of principals in the San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California, and includes definitions of terms used in this
study. Chapter Two presents a literature review in the following three areas: the effect of poverty
on SED students, landmark court cases and the history of Title I in American public schools,
principals’ impact on student achievement, and transformative leadership theory. Chapter Three
describes the methodology for this study and includes sample and population selection, interview
questions, observation, teacher survey, and data analysis. Chapter Four is a report of the research
findings. Chapter Five summarizes the findings, implications for practice, recommendations, and
conclusion. This study’s conclusion includes references and appendices.

11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Authors: Cristina Prado, Samuel Yi2
The academic outcomes of SED students in K–12 schools underscore the need to
investigate how transformative leaders increase student performance. Over the last century,
views on SED students have evolved from positive perceptions to negative connotations of
underperformance, with deficit perspectives (Massey et al., 2014). This chapter will first explore
how poverty impacts students’ educational outcomes. It will then analyze the landmark court
cases and educational policies aimed at improving these students’ academic achievement.
Additionally, the literature examines the role of school principals in students’ academic
performance. School principals, as leaders, have the power to shape the educational environment
and influence the outcomes of students (Grissom et al., 2021). Furthermore, this chapter will
review the theoretical framework that aligns with transformative leadership theory to promote
equity, inclusion, and social justice. Finally, the literature presents the degree to which school
principals in Title I schools utilize the eight key principles of Shields’ (2010) transformative
leadership theory. The chapter will conclude by summarizing the conceptual framework.
Effect of Poverty on SED Students
Over the past 15 years, there have been signs of improving socioeconomic conditions in
the United States. However, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic significantly reversed many of
these gains (Brighouse et al., 2018). By 2022, the U.S. Census reported that nine million children
were living in poverty, according to supplemental poverty measures. The Official Poverty
Measure, which sets income thresholds adjusted for family size and inflation, remains the most
common method for assessing poverty in the United States. Additionally, the U.S. Census
2 This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are
listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.

12
Bureau and other federal agencies use various indicators such as education, occupation, and
housing to collect comprehensive poverty data. These data map the nation’s socioeconomic
landscape and inform public policy to target resources to those most in need and address
socioeconomic disparities.
Collecting and analyzing poverty data aids in understanding the socioeconomic landscape
of the United States. According to the National Poverty Center (n.d.), there are significant
variations in poverty rates among different racial and ethnic groups. Black and Latino families
face higher rates of poverty compared to their White counterparts, a disparity that exposes these
communities’ economic vulnerabilities (Duncan & Murnane, 2011). The primary cause of this
imbalance is the high representation of Black and Latino workers in low-wage industries, which
are susceptible to fluctuations in the broader economy. Consequently, when the economy is
strong, these industries may experience wage growth, benefiting these workers due to their
substantial presence in such sectors (Berends, 2014). This analysis provides an understanding of
poverty dynamics and the economic forces affecting diverse communities.
A study by Rodems and Pfeffer (2021) highlighted that Black and Latino households
more often experience material hardship compared to their White counterparts. The study
defined material hardship as difficulties in meeting basic needs, such as paying bills or affording
necessities. Specifically, about 40% of Black households and 36% of Latino households
encounter these challenges, in contrast to only 20% of White households. Furthermore, Black
and Latino households are disproportionately affected by hidden hardship and financial
difficulties that do not necessarily meet traditional income-based poverty criteria but cause
significant economic strain. This insight points to the need for a nuanced understanding of
poverty that considers visible and less apparent forms of economic hardship.

13
Income disparities significantly affect educational outcomes for students. A study by
Gottfried and Ream (2014) documented the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on education.
Additionally, economic resources, educational background, and occupational opportunities are
robust predictors of educational outcomes, such as test performance and overall educational
outcomes. Notably, family SES directly correlates with the level of investment in a child’s
education and development. This investment manifests in higher SES families providing
substantial educational resources and engaging in activities that foster learning (Duncan &
Murnane, 2011). Such families often have access to high-quality childcare, regularly read to their
children, and invest in educational materials, enhancing their children’s learning environment
(Kaushal et al., 2011). Moreover, these families benefit from well-informed social networks that
provide crucial information about school policies and educational strategies, further supporting
their children’s educational progress (Duncan & Murnane, 2011). This multifaceted view of
educational inequities provides a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and barriers
that must be addressed to close the achievement gap between high- and low-SES students.
Socioeconomic Context and Educational Outcomes
The correlation between SES and educational outcomes is well-documented and
highlights the significant influence of socioeconomic factors on academic success. Multiple
studies document this relationship, highlighting various influential factors, from the impact of
family income and neighborhood conditions to the effectiveness of school programs,
interventions, and broader societal benefits.
Socioeconomic Influences on Educational Outcomes
Research conducted by Reardon (2013) highlighted a significant increase in the income
achievement gap over recent decades, noting that economic disparities now exceed racial

14
disparities in influencing educational outcomes. This study revealed that the gap in standardized
test scores between SED students and non-SED students had grown by 40% over 25 years.
Despite efforts to close these gaps, substantial disparities persist. For example, in California,
SED students consistently perform nearly a full grade level behind their peers nationally.
Moreover, regarding the challenges disadvantaged groups face in California, Brighouse et al.
(2018) reported that the outcomes on the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBAC) for ELA and
math, which is administered to eleventh graders, were that SED students demonstrated lower
college readiness scores. Specifically, only 15% of Black students and 20% of Latino students
met both ELA and math standards compared to 40% of White students. These figures underscore
the persistent educational challenges and disparities encountered by SED students.
The increasing disparity in educational outcomes between SED and non-SED students is
attributed to the differing resources that high-income families can invest in their children’s
development. According to Duncan and Murnane (2011), the rise in inequality affects families,
neighborhoods, and schools. Families with higher incomes can provide their children with highquality childcare, summer camps, books, and advanced technological tools, all contributing to
educational success. Furthermore, higher-income families’ ability to afford homes in more
affluent neighborhoods perpetuates residential segregation, which leads to disparities in the
quality of schools and childcare facilities available to children from different income brackets.
Duncan et al. (2017) noted that this segregation also limits interactions between families from
diverse economic backgrounds, which can further entrench socioeconomic divides. Research
also indicates that schools in poorer neighborhoods often lack the resources and educational rigor
found in wealthier areas, leading to a clustering of students from similar socioeconomic
backgrounds (Duncan et al., 2017; Reardon, 2013). Such schools typically offer fewer

15
challenging courses, lower overall academic achievement, and less student and teacher
engagement. These factors combine to create substantial differences in educational outcomes,
highlighting the complex interplay of income, community resources, and educational
opportunities (Altonji & Mansfield, 2011)
Neighborhood and community settings also influence educational outcomes. According
to Harding et al. (2010), the neighborhood environment, including factors like local health
conditions, exposure to violence, available resources, and cultural elements, plays a critical role.
Socioeconomically disadvantaged students living in low-income neighborhoods are more likely
to be exposed to stressful environments resulting from higher crime rates and experiencing
instances of abuse and neglect (Nelson & Sheridan, 2011). Students exposed to traumatic stress
are more likely to have an increased risk for anxiety and depression, decreasing school
attendance, and increasing inattentiveness during learning. Hicks et al. (2017) explored the
“sequential neighborhood effects,” demonstrating how long-term exposure to concentrated
disadvantage adversely affects children’s academic performances, particularly in reading and
math (p. 4). These findings underscore the critical role of the environment in shaping educational
outcomes over time.
Differences in SES and the availability of resources contribute to the achievement gap of
SED students, underscoring the complexity of educational disparities. These disparities highlight
the interconnected nature of socioeconomic factors, from parental involvement to neighborhood
characteristics, exacerbating the achievement gap between high and low-income students.
Socioeconomic Influences on Educational Practices
Title I schools encounter several interconnected challenges that impact educational
quality. Curto et al. (2011) and Payne and Ortiz (2017) underscored the inadequacy of current

16
educational frameworks prioritizing academic achievement without fully addressing the
pervasive effects of poverty. These researchers advocate for a holistic educational approach,
emphasizing rigorous instruction, leadership accountability, and equitable resource allocation.
Notably, the concept of intentionality in school practices, from school principal and teacher
selection to curriculum implementation, emerges as a critical factor in enhancing academic
achievement among SED students.
An additional challenge to educational equity is the prevalent deficit thinking among
educators who attribute students’ academic struggles to their backgrounds rather than
recognizing them as stemming from cultural capital (Curto et al., 2011; Shields, 2018; Yosso,
2005). This viewpoint hinders students’ academic achievement by failing to acknowledge the
strengths they bring to school. Using students’ cultural backgrounds and experiences improves
their engagement by making learning relevant and meaningful. Gay (2010) advocated for
culturally responsive teaching, leveraging ethnically diverse students’ cultural characteristics and
experiences to enhance educational effectiveness. Culturally responsive teachers engage with
students’ backgrounds to enrich curriculum planning and implementation, fostering an
environment with high expectations and creative teaching strategies to ensure student success.
Both teacher and school principal preparation programs must develop knowledge and
skills in a culturally responsive teaching setting to support educators’ pedagogy development.
Perrone’s (2022) study indicates a mismatch between teachers and principals and students’ race.
This shift can transform the learning experience for students, promoting higher academic
achievement and personal growth. Research has confirmed that teachers are the most important
school-related factor impacting student achievement (Berends, 2014). However, a cultural gap
exists between SED students and teachers. Studies show that 79% of education teachers are

17
White (Douglas & Nganga, 2015). If teachers are to teach and lead students of color, they must
examine their values and assumptions about diverse students. Moreover, Ingersoll et al.’s (2019)
work examines the challenges of recruiting and retaining minority teachers. They identified the
minority teacher shortage as a critical issue impacting SED students. The presence of highquality teachers, combined with stimulating curricula and adequate resources, is highlighted as
essential for providing equitable educational opportunities.
Like teachers, school principals must also develop equity-focused skills and knowledge
to shift teacher beliefs and assumptions about SED student achievement. However, inadequate
diversity and representation in principalship are also evident, with 80% of principals being
White. Perone’s study found that principals of color impact student outcomes by directly
influencing teachers. Moreover, there is strong evidence that principals of color recruit and retain
teachers of color, leading them to higher levels of job satisfaction.
In addition to the lack of representation of diverse school principals who are culturally
responsive, there is a lack of experienced principals. According to a survey by the RAND
Corporation, 53% of principals in the bottom 20% of student achievement are in the first 3 years
of their principalship (Grissom & Sutcher, 2018). School leaders must learn about leadership and
social theory to support the development of the skills and knowledge frameworks of principals
who lead schools with diverse learners. Jerdborg’s (2022) empirical study explored how novice
principals in Sweden engage in principal training and investigated their identity development.
While principals lead schools, they need to engage in critical and theoretical thinking to
challenge and shift the mindsets of their teachers. The study further confirms that principals
negotiate meaning through a clear sense of responsibility for student outcomes and coordinating
actions. The study found that principal training programs need to engage novice principals in

18
developing their identity through school leader education and professional practice to negotiate
meaning, shape communities of practice, changing school practice to increase student outcomes.
The literature reviewed illustrates the impact of socioeconomic factors on SED students’
educational experiences and outcomes. While the challenges are significant, the research also
points to the potential of targeted educational policies and practices to extenuate these disparities.
Holistic approaches encompass rigorous instruction, equitable resource distribution,
comprehensive support systems, and an emphasis on high-quality teaching and intentional
leadership school practices, which are necessary for improving SED students’s academic
achievement. Addressing the socioeconomic context, including efforts to enhance social
mobility, economic equality, and educational equity, remains a fundamental aspect of this
endeavor.
The History of Laws and Landmark Court Cases That Impacted Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged Students
Throughout history, laws and court cases at the federal and state levels have aimed to
provide greater educational access and equity for SED students. Key federal legislation and court
cases have established legal foundations for serving disadvantaged youth. California has been a
leader in enacting progressive policies to meet the needs of its substantial SED student
population.
Federal Laws and Court Cases
The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision solidified legal obligations to serve
poor and minority youth. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public
schools was unconstitutional (Guinier, 2004). This decision rejected the separate-but-equal
doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), declaring that segregated schooling was

19
inherently unequal. Although not explicitly focused on SED students, this landmark case sparked
several court cases focused on ensuring equal educational opportunities for all students. It
established that all students must receive equal access to facilities, resources, and opportunities
regardless of race, which was an essential foundation for later efforts to promote equity among
SED students.
Efforts to use federal law to promote educational equity began in the 1960s during the
Civil Rights Movement. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based
on race, color, or national origin in federal assistance programs (Rosenbaum & Schmucker,
2017). This landmark legislation established legal accountability for providing equal access to
education for minority students, who were disproportionately from low-income backgrounds due
to historical racism and discrimination. The law empowered the federal government to withhold
funding from programs that continued discriminatory practices. As a result, Title VI compelled
many school districts to finally integrate and provide more equitable facilities, materials, and
opportunities for students of color.
Additional provisions of the Civil Rights Act also expanded educational access. For
instance, Title IV authorized the attorney general to file lawsuits for parents and students facing
discrimination in public schools (Frankenberg & Taylor, 2015). The legislation enabled legal
challenges to school segregation. Overall, the Civil Rights Act created important federal
enforcement mechanisms to ensure that states and districts upheld students’ constitutional rights.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 1965 represented a significant
federal effort to improve education for disadvantaged youth (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.-
b). ESEA provided federal grants to state educational agencies to allocate funding to schools and
districts with high percentages of SED students. Title I of ESEA specifically targeted enhancing

20
educational programs for SED students through funding additional teachers and instructional
materials, establishing remedial programs, and creating full-day kindergarten and preschool
services (Thomas & Brady, 2005). In later reauthorizations, Title I also expanded requirements
for parent involvement and targeted assistance for migrant students. Altogether, the legislation
channeled substantial resources toward addressing SED students’ educational disadvantages.
The original ESEA legislation also funded initiatives like the National Assessment of
Educational Progress to create national metrics for evaluating educational outcomes. Doing so
enabled monitoring of achievement gaps by race and class. This data illuminated ongoing
disadvantages for SED students and students of color despite state efforts at reform (Thomas &
Brady, 2005). The national assessments provided ongoing evidence over subsequent decades that
inequitable disparities persisted, helping inform later policies to enhance equity.
In 1968, the landmark Bilingual Education Act (Title VII of the ESEA amendments)
provided federal funds to support bilingual instruction, recognizing native language maintenance
as an educational right (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). This addressed barriers faced by immigrant
students with limited English proficiency, who were frequently from low-income Hispanic
families. The law helped catalyze the growth of bilingual programs to aid equal participation for
these disadvantaged students.
Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 further reinforced the civil rights of
students of color and those from low-income families. This law prohibited states from denying
equal educational opportunity through intentional segregation or discrimination (H.R.40 - 93rd
Congress, 1973-1974). It also required states to overcome inequitable barriers students faced due
to characteristics such as race, color, sex, or national origin (H.R.40 - 93rd Congress, 1973-
1974). For instance, it obligated school districts to take action to address language barriers that

21
impede the equal participation of English learners in instructional programs. As such, the
legislation specifically aimed to enhance access and inclusion of disadvantaged minorities.
The reauthorization of ESEA as the Improving America’s Schools Act in 1994 increased
accountability for student outcomes and expanded qualifying schools for Title I funds beyond
just the poorest districts (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). This enabled more SED students
to receive supplemental services. The reauthorization also created the Comprehensive School
Reform Demonstration Program, which awarded grants for whole-school reform models with
evidence of raising achievement for disadvantaged students.
In 2001, the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) reshaped the federal role
in education (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). The law increased accountability through
annual testing, academic progress requirements, and consequences for schools failing to meet
growth targets. It also mandated closing achievement gaps between various subgroups. As a
result, NCLB brought forth a spotlight on persistent disparities among SED students, students
with disabilities, and students of color. However, critics argued that it overemphasized
standardized testing and punishments over capacity-building (Nichols & Berliner, 2007).
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) replaced NCLB in 2015, scaling back the
federal prescription while maintaining a focus on equitable opportunities and outcomes (Skinner,
2020). The law grants states more flexibility in accountability systems and school improvement
strategies. However, it preserves requirements to annually assess students, report disaggregated
subgroup data, and implement targeted interventions in the lowest-performing Title I schools.
ESSA also maintains dedicated funding for disadvantaged student groups.
California Laws and Court Cases

22
California has been a pioneer in crafting education finance policy and law specifically
aimed at promoting equity for SED students. A series of progressive court cases and legislation
have deliberately sought to counteract disparities between wealthy and low-income school
districts. The state’s population of diverse students from low-income, immigrant, and languageminority backgrounds has made these efforts particularly pressing and impactful.
The 1971 California Supreme Court case Serrano v. Priest was an early turning point.
This case was filed on behalf of students in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties representing
low-property wealth districts with much lower per-pupil spending compared to affluent Beverly
Hills. Plaintiffs charged that wide discrepancies in school funding based on local property taxes
violated the Equal Protection Clause (Dayton & Dupre, 2006). In its initial ruling, the California
Supreme Court ruled that funding schemes resulting in substantial inter-district spending
disparities were unconstitutional. As a result, the state could no longer rely primarily on local
property tax revenues without accounting for differences in needs and resources across districts.
This landmark Serrano decision compelled California to undertake significant school
finance reforms. The state Legislature subsequently passed the California School Finance
Reform Act of 1972. This legislation established a state school fund to allocate resources to
counties and districts based on pupil population and needs (Dayton & Dupre, 2006). It created a
foundation program to provide a basic level of guaranteed funding per pupil while capping
revenue limits allowed from local property taxes (Dayton & Dupre, 2006). These provisions
significantly reduced spending variances between low-income and high-income districts (Kirst,
2007). While imperfect, the law initiated a more equitable approach to school funding.
A later wave of reform in California came through the Serrano v. Priest case in 1977 and
the implementation of Proposition 98 in 1988. In the second Serrano ruling, the Supreme Court

23
of California reinforced its prior decision, declaring that the California school funding system
continued to be unconstitutionally inequitable (Dayton & Dupre, 2006). In response, Proposition
98 increased the state’s overall education funding levels. It revised the state funding formula to
direct more resources to districts serving large shares of SED students who require extra support.
The law established a complex allocation scheme but channeled billions in new funds to highneeds schools (Timar, 2006)—resources targeted at class-size reduction, instructional materials,
school facilities upgrades, and program improvements in low-income communities.
The Williams v. California lawsuit filed in 2000 highlighted deficiencies in essential
instructional resources at many low-income schools. The suit charged that thousands of students,
the majority SED children of color, were deprived of qualified teachers, books, safe facilities,
and other essential tools for learning (California Department of Education, n.d.). This constituted
a violation of the constitutional right to educational equality. The evidence of stark inequities in
California’s public education system compelled the state to agree to a comprehensive settlement
in 2004. This included commitments for sufficient textbooks and instructional materials, facility
repairs, teacher quality improvements, and accountability tools for ensuring these changes. The
Williams case spotlighted and initiated reforms addressing chronic opportunity gaps
marginalized students experienced.
Most recently, the local control funding formula (LCFF) enacted in 2013 changed
California’s school finance and accountability approach. Championed by Governor Jerry Brown,
the LCFF instituted a weighted student funding formula, allocating a base grant per pupil with
additional funds for SED students, English language learners, foster youth, and other high-needs
populations (Johnson & Tanner, 2018). Districts with high concentrations of disadvantaged
students also receive extra “concentration” grants. The legislation moved beyond inputs to focus

24
on equity in outcomes. The LCFF grants districts flexibility in spending funds on locally
determined services tailored for crucial student groups. The law reflects a paradigm shift
acknowledging that students have differing needs to reach common outcome goals. Early
research indicates that the LCFF has increased funding and narrowed disparities for high-poverty
districts (Johnson & Tanner, 2018).
Federal and California laws and court cases have established legal foundations for
promoting educational access, inclusion, and equity for marginalized students. While historical
disparities persist, legislative and judicial action has affirmed the right of SED students, students
of color, English learners, and other disadvantaged groups to fair school funding, high-quality
facilities, sufficient resources, and equal opportunities. Furthermore, California’s innovative
approaches have provided models that other states across the country can replicate and extend.
Principal’s Impact on Student Achievements
In recent decades, there has been an increased focus on school principals in improving
student academic achievements. Principals play a pivotal role in setting the direction for schools,
shaping the school’s culture, managing resources, and supporting teacher development and
effectiveness (Branch et al., 2013). In fact, a study concluded that the principals’ contributions to
student achievements were nearly as significant as the teachers’ contributions; however,
principals’ effects are more significant in scope, impacting more students than an average teacher
(Grissom et al., 2021). As school leaders, principals directly and indirectly affect various factors
related to teaching and learning that contribute to student achievement.
The Principal’s Role in Shaping School Culture
A significant body of research supports the positive impact of principals in establishing
and sustaining a school culture focused on academic success and continuous improvement

25
(Branch et al., 2013; MacNeil et al., 2009; Valentine & Prater, 2011). Principals shape school
culture by promoting shared values and norms, establishing high expectations for students and
staff, and fostering positive and collaborative working relationships among teachers and other
staff members. A school’s vision is a roadmap, guiding all stakeholders toward a common
purpose and direction. Principals are responsible for articulating this vision and ensuring that it
aligns with the school’s mission, values, and goals, which should be centered on student learning
and well-being (Grissom et al., 2021; Hallinger, 2011). Developing a shared vision is not a
solitary endeavor; effective principals involve teachers, staff, students, families, and community
members. By engaging stakeholders in the visioning process, principals can build a sense of
ownership and commitment to the school’s direction (Grissom et al., 2021).
In a qualitative case study of two schools, MacNeil et al. (2009) found that the principal
strongly influenced the school’s culture and capacity for improvement through communication,
collaboration, and shared leadership. The researchers concluded that principals who focus on
creating a healthy school culture tend to have higher teacher morale, greater teacher
collaboration, and ultimately improved student outcomes. Likewise, Valentine and Prater (2011)
conducted a comparative analysis of school leadership and student achievement. They found that
schools with higher student performance had principals who emphasized academic achievement,
communicated a clear vision, and promoted a school culture of learning and growth. In contrast,
lower-performing schools had principals focusing more on managerial tasks than instructional
leadership.
The Principal’s Role in Teacher Quality and Effectiveness
Research indicates that effective principals improve student achievement by supporting
teachers’ development and shaping the overall quality of teaching staff through ongoing support

26
and guidance (Grissom et al., 2021; Hallinger, 2011; Robinson et al., 2008). Principals influence
teacher quality through hiring practices, new teacher induction and mentoring, professional
development, teacher evaluation, and retention of effective teachers (Branch et al., 2013). In a
study of principal leadership in urban schools, Grissom and Loeb (2011) found that principals’
time spent on teacher coaching, evaluation, and professional development was positively
associated with increased student achievement in math and reading.
Another study found that effective principals use data to inform decision-making and
promote accountability for teacher effectiveness and student learning (Grissom et al., 2021). This
involves regularly collecting and analyzing data on teacher practice and student outcomes and
using this information to identify areas for improvement and support. Robinson et al. (2008)
found that principals with the most potent effect on student outcomes promote and participate in
teacher learning and professional development. Principals also play a key role in facilitating
professional development that aligns with the school’s vision and goals (Hallinger, 2011).
Principals also indirectly influence teacher quality through the kind of work climate and culture
they create. Teachers cited principal support as one of the most influential factors impacting their
job satisfaction, effectiveness, and retention decisions (Tickle et al., 2011). By fostering
collegiality and providing teachers with essential resources and professional growth
opportunities, principals help attract, develop, and retain highly effective educators.
The Principal’s Role in Shaping Instruction
Research has found that principals contribute to student learning by focusing on highquality instruction and continuous instructional improvement. Effective principals align
curriculum, instructional materials, assessment, and professional development to academic
standards and school improvement goals (Horng & Loeb, 2010). This involves communicating

27
high standards for teaching and learning and ensuring that all students have access to a rigorous
and relevant curriculum (Grissom et al., 2021; Hallinger, 2011). By setting the tone for
instruction and focusing on academic excellence, principals can create a culture of high
expectations and continuous improvement.
Effective principals also promote research-based instructional practices that improve
student learning (Robinson et al., 2008). This involves staying up-to-date on the latest research
and best practices in teaching and learning and working to incorporate these practices into
classroom instruction. They also provide instructional guidance by giving targeted feedback to
teachers based on classroom observations. Principals also ensure teachers have access to
instructional coaching and modeling of effective teaching practices. In a 4-year study analyzing
leadership and instructional quality, Sebastian and Allensworth (2012) found that the degree of
principal leadership focused on classroom instruction was a significant predictor of student
academic growth. The researchers concluded that principals who made instructional quality the
top priority and provided guidance to improve teaching had a positive effect on student learning.
The Principal’s Role in Managing the Learning Environment
Beyond instruction, principals make an array of organizational decisions that shape a
school’s conditions for teaching and learning, encompassing factors like school culture, student
behavior, classroom management, and physical facilities. Horng and Loeb (2010) found that
principals contribute to student achievement by strategically managing resources and the school
environment to maximize instructional time and minimize disruptions. This includes human
resources decisions such as teacher placement and student assignment policies that can impact
equity and access to high-quality instruction. Principals also influence the learning environment
through their disciplinary policies and physical management of school facilities. Effective

28
principals address behavioral issues while minimizing the loss of instructional time due to
student discipline (Branch et al., 2013). Effective principals also work to create schoolwide
systems and structures that support positive classroom environments, such as common behavior
expectations and routines. By supporting effective classroom management, principals can help
ensure that all students have access to a learning environment conducive to academic success
(Hallinger, 2011). They also spearhead initiatives to improve safety procedures, upgrade
technology infrastructure, and provide safe, clean, and welcoming facilities conducive to
teaching and learning. By ensuring adequate physical facilities and resources, principals can
create a learning environment that promotes academic success (Grissom et al., 2021).
The Evolving Role of the Principal
The role of the principal has shifted and expanded significantly from the traditional focus
on administrative functions. Principals’ roles have evolved to include more complex, diverse,
and demanding responsibilities that require them to become instructional leaders, coaches,
evaluators, community builders, child advocates, and change agents (Lynch, 2012). Researchers
have highlighted principals building solid partnerships with families, community organizations,
and other stakeholders to support student learning and well-being (Khalifa et al., 2016). This
involves actively engaging with the community to understand its needs and assets and working
collaboratively to develop programs and resources that support student success inside and
outside school. Additionally, as achievement gaps and disparities in educational opportunities
have become more widely recognized, researchers have called for principals to take a more
active role in promoting equity and social justice within their schools (Gümüş et al., 2022;
Khalifa et al., 2016). This involves actively dismantling systemic barriers to student success,
creating inclusive and culturally responsive learning environments, and advocating for the needs

29
of marginalized students and families. Furthermore, the principals have faced increased
accountability pressures for student achievement, partly driven by federal and state policies that
have tied school funding and ratings to student test scores and other metrics (Grissom et al.,
2021).
However, researchers caution that the expanding scope of responsibilities makes it
difficult for principals to be highly effective in all aspects of their roles. To maximize principals’
impact on student outcomes, policymakers have focused on reshaping the role to emphasize
responsibilities directly related to teaching, learning, and school improvement. This includes
reducing administrative workload and leveraging school leadership teams so principals can
devote more time to instructional leadership (Grissom & Loeb, 2011). Ongoing support through
high-quality professional development and mentorship is also essential as principals navigate
their evolving, multifaceted role in leading schools.
Leadership Practices Associated With Improved Student Outcomes
In addition to studies on the principal’s role, research also points to specific leadership
practices and behaviors associated with higher levels of student achievement. Waters et al.
(2003) identified 21 key leadership responsibilities significantly correlated with improved
student achievement. These include fostering shared beliefs, monitoring curriculum and
instruction, supporting teachers, and recognizing student and staff achievement. In a literature
review, Leithwood et al. (2004) concluded that effective principals focus on three core practices:
setting direction, developing people, and redesigning the organization. Setting direction involves
establishing high expectations and a clear vision focused on student learning. Developing people
involves providing support, modeling effective practices, and building capacity. Redesigning the
organization means aligning resources, policies, and processes to the school’s vision and goals.

30
Other leadership practices found to have positive effects on student outcomes include distributive
leadership models, instructional leadership, transformational leadership, and sustained, targeted
efforts to improve teaching and learning (Day et al., 2016). At the same time, research shows that
leadership matters, and context also influences a principal’s ability to implement practices that
drive school improvement.
Transformative Leadership Theory
Transformative leadership theory in education is a dynamic and critical framework that
seeks to fundamentally change educational environments to achieve equity, inclusion, and
justice. Grounded in an extensive body of research, scholars like Shields (2010), Shields and
Hesbol (2020), and van Oord (2013) detail how this leadership style addresses the root causes of
inequality by implementing deep systemic changes. These changes are accomplished through
critical reflection, cultural competence, and a firm commitment to social justice, as outlined by
transformative leadership theorists. Transformative leaders engage in an activist agenda,
leveraging collaborative and critical processes to inspire personal and organizational
transformation toward more democratic and equitable educational practices. Transformative
leaders’ practices emphasize inclusive decision-making and the need to restructure knowledge
frameworks to enhance individual and collective outcomes in diverse educational settings.
Brown (2004) emphasized transformative leadership in promoting social justice and equity,
integrating these principles into everyday pedagogical and administrative practices. This
approach addresses inequalities and seeks to dismantle systemic barriers to success for
marginalized groups within educational institutions.
Shields’s (2018) work on transformative leadership emphasizes its role in creating more
just and equitable social systems. Shields’s work delves into how transformative leaders operate

31
in diverse educational settings, aiming to address the root causes of inequality by fundamentally
altering the conditions that perpetuate injustice and inequity by providing a powerful framework
and guidelines for school principals seeking to create equitable, inclusive, and social justice
education.
Principals of Title I high schools have a moral duty to recognize and eliminate
institutional barriers that hinder SED students from reaching their full potential (Quantz et al.,
1991). Shields (2010) examined the beliefs and practices of transformative principals to
understand how they produce equitable outcomes and inclusive approaches in schools with
diverse students, including high levels of poverty. Transformative leadership theory questions
inequitable practices to ensure opportunity and economic prosperity for individuals and the
greater good of society. This theoretical approach addresses the mindsets and knowledge
frameworks of those contributing to inequity and transforms them into more equitable
perspectives. The theory consists of eight supporting tenets that guide the process of promoting
equity: a mandate for change; challenging knowledge frameworks; redistributing power;
balancing public and private good; focus on emancipation, democracy, equity, and inclusion;
interconnectedness, interdependence, and global awareness; balance critique and promise; and
moral courage. Transformative leadership has eight tenets:
• Mandate for change (effecting deep and equitable change): Shields (2018) explained
that leading with a mandate for change involves leaders who recognize the need for
systemic transformation and actively pursue it, ensuring their actions benefit the
students and the wider school community. This involves the willingness to
experiment with innovative educational structures, like reassigning resources,

32
extending school days, or implementing mentoring programs to ensure equitable
opportunities for every student.
• Challenging knowledge frameworks: Leaders challenge persistent deficit thinking and
assumptions about students from diverse backgrounds, replacing them with a new
paradigm that recognizes and builds upon the capabilities and potential of all
students.
• Redistributing power: Acknowledging power and privilege by recognizing the
dynamics of power and privilege, transformative leaders are prepared to make
unconventional choices that might involve bending the rules to foster equity. Van
Oord (2013) emphasized that this process is not about rejecting existing knowledge
but instead expanding the scope of knowledge recognized as valuable and legitimate.
Additionally, this shift requires educators to critically reflect on the beliefs and biases
that impact their instructional practices.
• Balance public and private good: The concept of balancing the public and private
good in education, as Shields (2018) described, emphasizes that education extends
beyond individual academic achievement and personal accolades. It encompasses
preparing students to contribute actively to society, benefiting everyone. This
approach involves a balance between fostering the community’s collective
development, referred to as “the public good,” and supporting individual academic
and personal success, known as “the private good.”
• Focus on emancipation, democracy, equity, and inclusion: Transformative leadership
changes educational practices to be more inclusive and democratic, ensuring that all
students’ needs are met through equitable instructional approaches. This practice

33
cultivates an environment where barriers are actively dismantled, enabling students to
fully integrate their personal experiences into the school setting. Quantz et al. (1991,
p. 103) articulate that the essence of this tenet is the continuous evolution of equal
relationships within a democratic framework, fostering an environment in which
every individual, staff, or student can excel, contribute, and feel valued and
supported.
• Interconnectedness, interdependence, and global awareness: Shields and Hesbol
(2020) emphasized the critical role of transformative practices in education, including
pedagogical shifts to enhance students’ understanding of the global community.
These shifts underscore the teaching of essential concepts such as interrelationships,
interdependence, and global awareness to cultivate an awareness of the profound
connections and dependencies between individual intellectual development and
collective social awareness.
• Balance critique and promise: Transformative leaders critically assess educational
practices and policies, identifying areas where change is needed and proposing new
approaches that promise better outcomes for all students, especially marginalized
students.
• Moral courage: Leaders are expected to take risks and stand firm, engaging actively
in the struggle for social justice, especially when facing opposition. Shields and
Hesbol (2020) assert that addressing inequity will inevitably encounter resistance,
calling for courageous actions and engagements.
Shields and Hesbol (2020) further explored the leadership practices of three urban school
leaders to assess whether they aligned with transformative leadership theory. This theory

34
advocates for a dual focus in leadership, one that nurtures the private good through fostering an
inclusive, respectful, and equitable learning environment and another that promotes the public
good, extending beyond individual academic achievements to include broader educational
impacts on democracy, civic life, and citizenship. Transformative leadership framework prepares
students to be knowledgeable, active, and caring citizens. Lodewijk van Oord’s (2013) study on
transformative leadership in education further elaborates on the transformative leadership
framework and describes how school leaders can fundamentally alter the educational landscape
through a critical and collaborative process. His research emphasizes the role of leadership in
inspiring and enacting change in the conditions and outcomes of education systems to achieve
social justice, equality, and a democratic society.
The foundational principles of private and public goods are critical to the transformative
leadership framework, setting the stage for applying eight specific tenets that guide leaders in
effecting substantial and meaningful change. Shields and Hesbol’s (2020)research highlights that
effective transformation in schools serving diverse populations requires principals with a clear
and compelling mission and the capability to create a welcoming and inclusive educational
setting. This environment should support the development of personal and communal benefits,
adhering to transformative leadership principles.
Moreover, the study underscores the necessity for school leaders to be well-prepared to
meet students and their families’ evolving and culturally distinct needs, emphasizing an inclusive
approach that transcends differences in background or origin. This preparation is key for leaders
who aim to implement transformative changes that genuinely meet their diverse students’ needs,
ensuring that all students are equipped to thrive both personally and as engaged citizens.

35
Further research indicates the link between transformative leadership and principal
practices prioritizing equity and inclusion to improve students’ academic outcomes (Caldwell et
al., 2012; Shields & Hesbol, 2020). These practices involve school principals critically
addressing social justice issues and challenging the status quo to create equitable and inclusive
educational settings (Grissom et al., 2021; Shields, 2018). Moreover, the emphasis on leveraging
students’ cultural wealth indicates a valuable approach to enriching the learning environment and
promoting intellectual achievement in an educational landscape where all students can thrive.
Cooper (2009) explained that the transformative leadership framework involves significant
cultural work at schools experiencing demographic shifts. Leaders in these environments must
adapt to and respect new languages, customs, and values, ensuring that these cultural shifts
contribute positively to the school community. This involves a high degree of cultural
competence, empathy, and a readiness to learn from and integrate into new cultural contexts.
Key aspects of this approach include building strong relationships with students and families,
fostering a shared sense of ownership, and encouraging collaboration across the school
community.
The challenges of educational disparities and inequities require high school
administrators to adopt transformative leadership practices. Such practices foster equitable and
inclusive learning environments and positively influence student achievement, altering
knowledge frameworks that perpetuate deficit thinking (Caldwell et al., 2012; Shields & Hesbol,
2020).

36
Chapter Three: Methodology
Authors: Cristina Prado, Samuel Yi3
The persistent inequality in the education resources available to students from high- and
low-income families has translated into a widening student achievement gap between the two
populations (Jang & Reardon, 2019). The gap between high- and low-income students’ test
scores is about 40% larger among students born in the early 2000s than those born in the 1970s
(Chmielewski & Reardon, 2016). Such widening gaps demonstrate the need to examine how
principals of high-performing Title I schools lead to an increase in the academic achievement of
students.
Purpose of the Study
Socioeconomically disadvantaged students continue to face significant education
disparities and inequities that hinder their academic achievement. To address these, this study
aimed to determine the extent to which school administrators in Title I high schools in San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties use transformative leadership practices to promote an
inclusive educational environment for all students. This study’s findings can inform the
development of policies and practices for school principals to promote educational equity. The
results can inform school leaders’ training and professional development to develop equityfocused leaders who integrate social justice leadership practices. Furthermore, the findings can
inspire other principals to disrupt the status quo and create an equitable learning environment for
marginalized students.
3 This chapter was jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to this project. The authors are
listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all those listed.

37
Research Questions
1. To what extent do school principals in Title I high schools employ transformative
leadership practices to increase student achievement?
2. What transformative leadership practices do teachers in Title I high schools identify in
their principals’ efforts to increase student achievement?
Sample and Population
I selected principal interviewees through purposeful sampling, in which the researcher
selects individuals based on specific criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Teachers were then
selected through convenience sampling, in which the principals recommended the teachers who
have worked with the principals. Therefore, the sample population consisted of principals and
teachers with high academic achievement employed in three Title I high schools in San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties. High academic achievements for this study are defined as
higher than counties’ averages in graduation rates and students in Grade 11 achieving standards
met or exceeded in the 2021–2022 school year for Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments
for ELA and mathematics. I conducted semi-structured interviews with a principal and three
teachers from three high schools, yielding 12 semi-structured interviews with three principals
and nine teachers. The research sampling techniques were purposeful and convenience since the
principals require unique experiences, and the teachers were chosen based on principals’
recommendations to complete the interview regarding the principals’ leadership in highachieving Title I high schools (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Design Summary
The research design for this study is qualitative. A qualitative case study is an empirical
inquiry that provides an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system (Merriam &

38
Tisdell, 2016; Yin, 2014). This study represents a fixed system by the three Title I high schools
with high student achievement. Specifically, this study is case study research. Case study
research allows researchers to answer how and why research questions and explain or evaluate
why specific organizational initiatives are successful or not (Yin, 2014). I asked participants
questions to understand better the practices that principals used to foster high academic
achievement in Title I schools and to identify correlations with transformative leadership
practices.
Overall, case study qualitative research is best suited to answer this study’s research
questions because it allows for the collection of real-life data necessary to grasp the relationship
between the principal participants’ transformative leadership qualities and high student
achievements in a bounded system of Title I high schools in San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties. Additionally, Yin (2014) asserted that case studies are more effective when focusing
on contemporary issues in real-life situations. This case study consisted of interviews to
understand the real-life experiences of the participants. This study is based on the steps of
Lochmiller and Lester’s (2017) research. In Chapter One, the study presents the research
problem and purpose; Chapter Two reviews the literature related to poverty, Title I, and
transformative leadership theory. Chapter Three discusses the study’s methodology, and
Chapters Four and Five share the analysis and interpretation of the data.
Methodology
The methodology includes qualitative data from interviews with principals and teachers
in Title I high schools in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. When developing the interview
protocol, I employed a semi-structured interview with flexible questions depending on the
participant’s responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition to understanding the principals’

39
transformative leadership practices to promote high student achievement, it was necessary to
interview teachers to gather their experiences with principals’ leadership practices that led to this
achievement. The interview protocol for principals consists of nine questions (Appendix A),
including additional probing questions for Questions 4, 5, 6, and 7. The interview protocol for
teachers consists of 10 questions (Appendix B), with additional probing questions in Questions
4, 5, 6, and 7.
Qualitative Instrument and Protocols
I gathered qualitative data through semi-structured interviews conducted in person or via
Zoom. The first interview protocol targeted principals and aimed to collect examples of
transformative leadership practices to answer the first research question (Appendix A). All
questions in the protocol are open-ended, and Questions 4, 5, 6, and 7 include additional probing
questions. These probing questions were necessary to gather clarifying information, as
recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). The second interview protocol targeted teachers
and was designed to confirm and add to the examples of transformative leadership practices
exhibited by principals to answer the second research question (Appendix B). Similar to the first
protocol, all questions in this protocol are open-ended, and Questions 4, 5, 6, and 7 include
additional probing questions. Both interview protocols have been field-tested with school
principals and teachers to ensure validity.
Data Collection
Purposeful and convenience sampling ensured that the responses addressed the study’s
purpose and provided relevant answers to the research questions. Before completing the
interviews, I identified Title I high schools with high student achievement. As mentioned earlier,
high academic achievements for this study are defined as higher than counties’ averages in

40
graduation rates and students in Grade 11 achieving standards met or exceeded in the 2021–2022
school year for Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments for ELA and mathematics. I
contacted participants several weeks before the interviews to obtain informed consent and
schedule a convenient day, time, and location for the interviews (Appendix C).
Obtaining informed consent was necessary to ensure the confidentiality of participants’
identities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used Zoom videoconferencing to meet with interviewees.
At the beginning of each interview, I shared the purpose of the study and once again explained
the confidential nature of the responses. I recorded the interviews with the participants’
permission to capture their responses accurately. The expected duration of each interview was
approximately 45 minutes. After each interview, I transcribed and reviewed the recordings. I
stored the transcriptions securely on a password-protected device and kept the notes in a locked
cabinet for the duration of the study. After I completed the study, I stored the transcriptions and
notes securely and will save them for 3 years.
Data Analysis
I followed Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) data analysis steps for categorizing the interview
data and field notes, which include (a) constructing categories, (b) sorting categories and data,
and (c) naming the categories. To aid in this process, I utilized the Atlas.ti computer-assisted
software to code, analyze, and store data. Throughout the analysis, I read the transcripts multiple
times to gain familiarity with the interviews and identify relevant data about the research
questions. Appropriate codes were established and assigned by identifying recurring themes,
categories, and subcategories. The subcategories were then linked to one of Shields and Hesbol’s
(2020) eight tenets of transformative leadership theory. After coding the data, I analyzed them
and reported the findings.

41
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Data sources were principal and teacher interviews to determine how school
administrators utilized transformative leadership practices to increase student achievement. To
ensure credible and trustworthy data, the research design addressed validity threats that could
lead to misinterpretation of the data. A few threats to the validity of the research include my
biases about school administrators who use transformative leadership strategies being more
effective at fostering equitable teacher expectations.
To rule out this validity threat, I collected rich data. Maxwell (2013) described rich data
as “detailed and varied enough to provide a full and revealing picture of what is going on” (p.
126). Instead of selecting administrators whom I thought had experience in fostering equitable
teacher expectations, I used the results to gather perspectives on school administrators’
leadership practices. Using anonymous teacher interview data to correlate the administrator’s
practices to Shields and Hesbol’s (2020) eight tenets of transformative leadership theory helped
minimize the teachers’ reactivity. Anonymous interview data can reduce reactivity by providing
a sense of confidentiality and reducing the fear of negative consequences. If the teacher’s name
is unknown, teachers will be more likely to provide honest feedback without the fear of
retribution or the pressure to potentially provide biased responses to make their principals appear
like better leaders.
In addition to using teacher interviews to identify the principal’s transformative practices,
I also interviewed the principals to collect enough detailed data to analyze. According to
Maxwell (2013), compiling various detailed data will help with member checks. Data collection
included recording and verbatim transcripts of the interviews and organizing the data according
to the eight tenets of transformative leadership theory. Once I received feedback about the data, I

42
employed triangulation of the data. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argued that triangulation
increases the creditability of research by comparing and crosschecking data obtained via multiple
data collection methods (p. 245). As a transformative leader, I remained objective and avoided
biases affecting the research findings.
Personal Positionality
As a principal conducting a study on the impact of the transformative leadership of
principals on the academic achievement of students with low socioeconomic backgrounds, I
acknowledge that power dynamics may influence my research, particularly during interviews
with principals and teachers. These dynamics stem from my position as a researcher, as well as
my ethnicity and gender.
Principals may perceive me as a competitor, questioning their effectiveness as school
leaders, which could strain our relationship and lead to dishonest responses during interviews.
They may also worry about their reputation in the education field and produce dishonest
responses during the interview. Additionally, both the principals and the teachers may have
certain biases or assumptions based on my ethnicity and gender and be more or less receptive to
my study because Asian male is often associated with stereotypes such as wealth and academic
success. Given that I am studying schools predominantly composed of Hispanic students in low
socioeconomic communities, participants may perceive me as having a high level of bias or a
lack of understanding of the school's community. If they hold negative stereotypes about Asian
males in power, they may be more skeptical of my motive and research findings or be less
willing to cooperate with me.
Furthermore, my identity as a principal may affect how teachers respond to my survey. If
teachers perceive me as someone who does not understand or value their experiences, they may

43
be less likely to participate genuinely or provide honest feedback. Conversely, they may view me
as a potential future employer, which could consciously or subconsciously skew their responses.
To address these challenges, Milner (2007) suggests that the researcher engage in critical
self-reflection to examine one's own biases and assumptions. It is essential, therefore, to be
aware of how my social, cultural, and racial identities may influence my research, my
interactions with participants, and their perceptions. Moreover, practicing transparency
throughout the research process is essential (Maxwell, 2013). It involves being open about my
own positionality and potential conflicts of interest and providing detailed information about the
research methodology, data collection process, and the confidentiality of the participants.
Finally, ensuring that my research is conducted objectively and without bias is crucial.
Thus, I collected data from two sources, teachers and principals, and used standardized measures
to assess academic achievement. By doing so, I can reduce the effects of power dynamics and
my positionality in my research (Maxwell, 2013).
Summary
This study used a qualitative approach, specifically a case study approach with extensive
interviews. I conducted interviews with principals and teachers at high-achieving Title I high
schools to address both research questions: To what extent do school principals in Title I high
schools employ transformative leadership practices to promote high student achievement, and
what transformative leadership practices, if any, do teachers in Title I high schools identify their
principals employ to promote high student achievement? Chapter Four will present the findings.

44
Chapter Four: Results
Transformative leadership, as conceptualized by Shields and Hesbol (2020), provides a
framework for school principals seeking to create more equitable, inclusive, and academically
successful learning environments, especially for students from SED backgrounds. This study set
out to answer the following research questions:
1. To what extent do school principals in high-achieving Title I high schools employ
transformative leadership practices to increase student achievement?
2. What transformative leadership practices do teachers in high-achieving Title I high
schools identify in their principals’ efforts to increase student achievement?
Through interview responses, this study analyzed principal and teacher perceptions of
leadership through the lens of Shields and Hesbol’s (2020) eight tenets of transformative
leadership: (a) mandate for equitable change, (b) new knowledge frameworks and mindsets, (c)
democracy, emancipation, and equity, (d) redistribute power, (e) public and private good, (f)
interdependence, interconnectedness, and global awareness, (g) critique and promise, and (h)
moral courage. By mapping interview responses to these tenets, this study provided insights into
principals’ daily practices to improve outcomes for SED students and its alignment with the
tenets of transformative leadership.
Participants
To understand the extent to which the principal employed transformative practices, I
conducted interviews with principals and teachers at three Title I high schools in Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties. Under these principals’ leadership, the schools have demonstrated
2022 Smarter Balance ELA and mathematics scores higher than the county averages. At each
school, I interviewed the principal and three teachers (Table 2). The study employed purposeful

45
and convenience sampling, as I selected principals based on the study criteria and teachers based
on principals’ recommendations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I developed semi-structured
interview protocols based on the eight tenets of transformative leadership. I asked principals to
reflect on their leadership beliefs and practices and asked teachers to share their observations and
experiences related to the principal’s leadership. I coded and analyzed interview transcripts to
surface key themes and examples aligned to each transformative leadership.
Table 2
Interview Participants’ Years of Service at the Research Sites
School (pseudonym) Participants (pseudonym) Title Years at the school
Lincoln High School Lee Principal 5
Wright Teacher 14
Miller Teacher 20
Lopez Teacher 7
Washington High School Williams Principal 8
Park Teacher 7
Garcia Teacher 15
Davis Teacher 14
Roosevelt High School Rodriguez Principal 11
Patel Teacher 16
Pierre Teacher 10
Smith Teacher 22

46
The three schools examined in this study, hereafter referred to by the pseudonyms
Lincoln High School, Washington High School, and Roosevelt High School, adhered to the
following criteria: (a) located in Riverside or San Bernardino County, (b) traditional public high
school, (c) higher than county average SBAC ELA score in 2022, (d) higher than county average
SBAC math score in 2022, (e) higher than county average graduation rate, (f) at least 40% of the
students receive free or reduced-price lunch services, and (g) the principal has worked at the
same site for minimum of 3 years (Table 2). In 2022, 49.21% of Grade 11 students in San
Bernardino County met or exceeded standards for ELA, and 20.62% of Grade 11 students met or
exceeded standards for math (see Table 3). Likewise, 50.74% of Grade 11 students in Riverside
County met or exceeded standards for ELA, and 20.22% of Grade 11 students met or exceeded
standards for math (Table 3).
Table 3
Comparison of 2022 Achievement Data of the Research Sites and the Counties
Pseudonyms
Percentage of
students on free or
reduced-price lunch
plan
Percentage of students who
met or exceeded standards Graduation
rate
ELA Math
San Bernardino County – 49.21 20.62 86.60
Lincoln High School 69.0 66.80 24.30 97.10
Riverside County – 50.74 20.22 92.2
Washington High School 58.3 59.20 22.00 97.30
Roosevelt High School 98.5 57.87 21.96 93.00

47
Results Research Question 1
The study’s first research question pertained to principals’ experiences leading highachieving Title I high schools to assess the extent to which they employed transformative
leadership practices. This section focuses on the results of the question, “To what extent do
school principals in Title I high schools employ transformative leadership practices to increase
student achievement?” Although varying degrees of implementation, interview responses to this
question revealed that all three principals employed a minimum of six of eight tenets of
leadership in their work (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Frequencies of Eight Tenets Based on Principal Responses at Three High-Achieving Title I High
Schools

48
Mandate for Change
A mandate for deep and equitable change is the launching point for transformative
leadership, which requires transformative leaders to determine what kind of change is needed to
create an equitable, inclusive, and socially just school (Shields, 2018, p. 29). The principals at
Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt High Schools all demonstrated a strong commitment to
equitable change, recognizing that systemic inequities held back their marginalized students.
They saw their role as changing agents to reimagine and restructure their schools to better serve
marginalized groups, particularly students living in poverty.
At Lincoln High School, Principal Lee recognized that low expectations and deficit
mindsets were limiting opportunities for SED students, and she made it her mission to transform
the school. This commitment manifested in several concrete changes. For example, she worked
with her team to implement open access policies throughout the campus, eliminating the
invisible divider between haves and have-nots in rigorous courses. She shared, “We don’t deny
access to honors and [Advanced Placement] courses here. If they want to challenge themselves,
we allow them, and we provide supports.” Accordingly, the school implemented a robust system
of academic support and interventions, including before- and after-school tutoring, writing
workshops, and summer bridge programs, to ensure that all students could access and succeed in
college-preparatory coursework. The principal stated, “As a school, we have to completely
transform ourselves from top to bottom to become a school that supports all students to meet
high academic standards.”
At Washington High School, Principal Williams framed his mandate for change around
confronting systemic racism. He recognized the correlation between race and socioeconomic
status and its impact on students’ achievement:

49
We have to have the honest conversation about race and how we still have racism in our
country, in our schools, and in our classrooms. It is my job to dismantle the structures and
mindsets that continue to hinder our students.
One key area of focus was the school’s discipline system. Data showed racial disparities in
suspensions and expulsions, with students of color receiving these consequences at much higher
rates than their White peers. To address this, Principal Williams led an overhaul of the school’s
approach to behavior management. The school implemented a restorative justice model, training
staff in de-escalation and conflict resolution. The in-school suspension was replaced with a
multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) room where students could reflect on their choices,
make amends, and receive support. Mr. Williams shared, “These changes decreased our
suspensions way down, especially for students of color who are predominantly the low-income
students at the school.”
At Roosevelt High School, Principal Rodriguez anchored her vision in a commitment to
helping SED students. Recognizing the challenges facing students growing up in poverty, she
saw the school’s mission as equipping every student with the knowledge, skills, and
opportunities needed to break the cycle of poverty:
So many of our students are growing up in poverty, facing challenges I can hardly
imagine. As educators, it is our duty to give them what they need to leave poverty behind
and have new and different opportunities. That’s what I’m here to do: to make sure my
school is a place where every student, rich or poor, can thrive and be successful.
Challenging Knowledge Frameworks
The principals in this study recognized that creating an equitable learning environment
requires more than just technical solutions. It demands a fundamental rethinking of the values,

50
assumptions, and beliefs that shape how schools operate (Shields, 2018). They placed a high
priority on reshaping their thought process and narratives that educators use to make sense of
their work and their students, directly naming and challenging issues like deficit thinking,
racism, classism, and cultural bias.
At Lincoln High School, Principal Lee led her staff through intensive work to shift away
from deficit mindsets. Deficit thinkers defend their ideologies by “citing standardized test scores,
failing to acknowledge the importance of teacher attitudes and expectations, of pedagogy and
indeed the critical role of school leadership, in offering a just, equitable, and democratic
education to all children” (Shields, 2018, p. 8). Mrs. Lee sought to counter the deficit mindset
through book studies, training, and ongoing dialogues to unpack assumptions and biases. Over
time, this work helped move the school culture toward a genuine belief in the potential of every
student and a focus on leveraging students’ strengths. She stated, “We’ve really moved away
from making excuses or blaming kids. Now we’re asking ourselves, what assets do our students
bring, and how can we build on their strength to help them succeed?”
At Washington High School, Principal Williams has sought to implement restorative
justice practices by transforming educators’ understanding of student behavior:
The old way of doing discipline no longer works, and it’s not good for the school culture.
But to change it, we had to change hearts and minds. We had to build empathy for what
many of our students are up against and stop seeing them as troublemakers.
To create this mindset in his staff, he provided professional developments in trauma-informed
practices and the impact of poverty on students, helping the staff see the disconnect between the
educators and the students. As a result, the school lowered the suspension rate for students of
color. When Mr. Williams became principal, the suspension rate among Hispanic students was

51
0.7% higher than among their White peers, and for Black students, it was 5.7% higher than for
their White peers (California Department of Education, 2013). During 2022, Washington High
School’s suspension rate for Hispanic students was 1.6% lower than for their White peers, and,
for Black students, it was 3.0 higher than White students (California Department of Education,
2022), signifying that his transformative approach resulted in progress.
In addition to restorative practices, Principal Rodriguez at Roosevelt High School
implemented a comprehensive college access program focused on supporting first-generation
and SED students. The program included individualized college counseling, campus visits, and
application and financial aid workshops. He expressed why he implemented the program on
campus:
Most of our families don’t know enough about college, and they don’t have the resources
to send their kids to college. There are too many things to learn about going to college.
Which college is best for my kids? How much is the tuition? How do I get financial aid?
If we don’t help them figure this out in high school, my students won’t go to college.
By demystifying the college process and providing hands-on support, the principal aimed to shift
the knowledge frameworks of family and make postsecondary education a reality for students
who may never have seen it as an option.
Redistributing Power
Power imbalances and concentrations of authority can reproduce inequities, even in the
absence of intentionally discriminatory policies (Shields, 2018). Transformative leaders
intentionally redistribute power by shifting decision-making to be more inclusive of historically
marginalized voices (Shields, 2018, p. 59). The three principals explored various avenues to
redistribute power. One common practice between all three principals was to make the school

52
leadership team a centerpiece of the school and share decision-making power. The school
leadership team assumed a variety of roles to take on significant influence in areas like
curriculum design, professional development planning, and school policy. Principal Lee shared,
Principals holding all the power; the traditional power structure no longer works. If we
want to disrupt inequities, we need to disrupt the power structure as well. I try to model
that by being transparent about my decisions, seeking input from teachers, students, and
families, and empowering others to lead whenever possible.
Under her leadership, the school leadership team received significant autonomy and resources to
drive the work of the school and each department.
In addition to redistributing power to the school leadership team, Mr. Williams also
emphasized redistributing power to the students and the parents. He stated,
A lot of our families that come from low-income environments feel like their voices do
not carry the same weight, as if their opinions are not important. I’ve tried to flip that
script by actively reaching out to those families and treating them as experts in their
children’s education. I think my students and parents see themselves as valuable partners
and team members on this journey now.
At Roosevelt High School, Principal Rodriguez echoed the other principals and added
that the student-led conferences played an essential role in the school’s success:
At Roosevelt High School, we believe that the students need to hold the power in their
own education. Every grading period, our students lead the conference meeting with their
ELA teachers. They present portfolios of their work and [discuss] their own growth and
goals, not just for ELA but for all subjects.

53
Through student-led conferences, Mrs. Rodriguez instilled a sense of responsibility in students
and opened up an authentic dialogue about how students and teachers can all work together to
support student success.
Balance Public and Private Good
Transformative leaders look to create schools that benefit individual students by
equipping them with the knowledge and credentials needed for higher education or career and for
strengthening democratic societies by developing citizens with the skills and characters needed
to sustain a vibrant democracy and tackle collective challenges (Shields & Hesbol, 2020). Mrs.
Lee was the only principal who intentionally articulated a commitment to balancing the private
good of individual students and the public good of preparing critically conscious and
community-minded citizens. While acknowledging the need to equip SED students with the
knowledge and skills to access economic opportunity, she was careful not to frame education
solely in terms of individual advancement. Instead, she uplifted the role of schooling in
cultivating the characters and capacities of young people needed to meaningfully contribute to
the collective well-being of their communities and society at large through the lens of social
justice:
I absolutely want every one of our graduates to leave with skills to be successful in
college and be productive citizens in our communities. A big part of equity is making
sure our low-income students have the same opportunities as others. I don’t want our
students to focus only on individual goals. I want them to be leaders in our communities,
fighting for justice and building up our society.

54
Focus on Emancipation, Democracy, Equity, and Inclusion
Transformative leadership is fundamentally about making schools more democratic and
liberating spaces that make marginalized students feel respected and valued and provide them
with the knowledge, skills, and social capita needed to fully participate in their community
(Shields, 2018). Two of the three principals intentionally fostered democratic cultures by
amplifying student voices and engaging families as partners.
At Lincoln High School, Principal Lee started putting more emphasis on critical thinking,
student voice, and real-world application over state test preparation. She worked with teachers to
implement project-based learning, community problem-solving, and social justice themes across
campus. Consequently, students had more choices in their learning and more opportunities to
engage with authentic issues. She explained,
Our communities are changing, and for too long, schools in poor communities like ours
have focused on preparing students for tests to make the numbers look good, but our
students deserve more. I want every student to walk across the graduation stage and be
ready to be productive citizens and great leaders in our communities. That means our
classrooms have to be places where students learn to think critically, speak out against
injustice, and work collaboratively to solve problems and improve our world.
Principal Rodriguez at Roosevelt High has sought to create authentic family engagement
at her school. She shared,
Our parent involvement was very minimal. So, I hired a parent liaison, and I created a
culture of welcoming all parents. Our parent liaison focused on connecting with our
immigrant families that really needed resources and made them feel valued partners. We

55
partnered with an outside agency to offer a parent academy and offer families courses on
supporting learning at home, understanding school data, and advocacy skills.
Her intentionality has paid off and increased parent involvement at her school. She also added,
“The bottom line is that parents’ voices and experiences are key to making our school successful
for their children.” Additionally, Mrs. Rodriguez made students feel valued by hiring more
Latino teachers:
I actively seek out staff members that reflect our student population. This is more
important than you would think because our students need to have good role models that
look like them. People assume things about my kids based on their color, and sometimes,
they learn bad stereotypes from home. So, we need to give them good role models who
look like them to change their mentality.
According to Egalite and Kisida (2018), students demonstrated the highest academic
achievements when they learned from teachers of similar race and ethnicity.
Interdependence, Interconnectedness, and Global Awareness
Shields and Hesbol (2019) emphasized fostering global understanding, curiosity, and
responsibility in our increasingly globalized and interdependent world. Therefore, transformative
leaders provide opportunities for students to engage with the complex ways local and
international issues interact. They seek to cultivate global competencies like cross-cultural
communication, conflict resolution, and systems thinking. (Shields, 2018). This tenet seeks
transformative leaders to promote more meaningful goals by minimizing testing and test scores
and instead focus on SED students about the world and their place in it (Shields, 2018, p. 97). Of
the three school principals interviewed, however, only Mr. Williams spoke of exposing students

56
to diverse perspectives, connecting learning to real-world challenges, and modeling collaborative
problem-solving:
It is our job to prepare students for the global society we live in, and not doing so is a
disservice to our students. They need to practice engaging with big issues like migration,
global warming, and public health. They need to understand how the choices we make in
our backyard impact the lives of people on the other side of the planet.
Balance Critique and Promise
While transformative leadership is critical of the status quo, it balances that critique with
an abiding sense of hope and possibility. Transformative leaders analyze current injustices not to
dwell in despair but to chart a path to something better (Shields, 2018). Throughout the
interviews, all principals shared how they created a space for critique and hope. They spoke
candidly about the many ways in which the education system reproduces inequity and
perpetuates harm, particularly for SED students and students of color. At the same time, they
articulated optimistic visions of what schooling could and should be that could lead to
emancipation, empowerment, and social justice.
Principal Lee of Lincoln High School framed her vision in terms of indictment and
invitation:
It’s very upsetting how our society and education system often short-change our lowincome students and students of color. The disparities in resources, opportunities, and
outcomes are unacceptable. However, I believe we have the power to make the change.
Every day, I see brilliance and resilience in our students. I see teachers going above and
beyond to help marginalized students. I see evidence that we are becoming the school our
students have always deserved. Our students take ownership of their learning, our

57
teachers are innovating and collaborating, and our families are leading alongside us. We
still have much work to do but it’s what keeps me coming back to this work every day.
At Washington High School, the dual commitment to critique and promise is embodied in
the school’s restorative justice and MTSS program, as Mr. Williams explained:
Traditional discipline harms students, especially our Hispanic students. It fractures
relationships, feeds the school-to-prison pipeline, and sends the message that some kids
do not matter as much. Restorative justice flips that script. It says that all people have
inherent worth, that conflict is an opportunity for growth, and that accountability should
be about healing. It provides a vision of what our school can be when we prioritize
student experience first, and it is manifested through the MTSS system in the classrooms
and in the office.
Principal Rodriguez described a similar tension between grief and hope on multiple
occasions throughout the interview. On the one hand, she spoke openly about the historical
harms that the educational system had perpetuated against Black and Brown students and
families: “We have to accept the fact that for many years, our schools were interested in social
hierarchies than educating all students.” At the same time, she was adamant about the school’s
capacity for transformation, rooting her hope in the leadership of students and educators of color:
What gives me hope is watching our young people step into their power as change agents.
They are leading the restorative justice work. They are making the ethnic studies
curriculum come alive. They are going to some of the top schools in the nation, and they
are showing the world what they are capable of. They are working alongside our staff of
color, who have been fighting this fight for years.
Moral Courage

58
For transformative leaders who have fully embraced and internalized the preceding seven
tenets, moral courage serves as a logical next step, and they are ready to embark on substantial
transformation, driven by their commitment to providing a superior and more equitable
educational experience for every student (Shields, 2018). In the schools featured here, principals
demonstrated moral courage by defending inclusive policies, centering marginalized voices, and
sustaining commitments to change, even in the face of pushback.
At Lincoln High School, Principal Lee faced significant resistance when she decided to
implement open access to honors and Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Many teachers,
particularly those who taught high-level courses, were vocal in their opposition, arguing that
open access would water down rigor and hold back advanced students. Some encouraged parents
to complain to the school board and the district that Principal Lee was sacrificing excellence for
misguided ideas. Through it all, Principal Lee held firm to her commitment, grounding her
stance in the research on the damaging impacts of tracking and in her own belief in all students’
potential. She stated,
I met with concerned parents, listened to their fears, and tried to help them see the need. I
also rallied support from teachers, students, and other parents who believed in the vision.
Ultimately, we weathered the storm, and no one argues about it now. But it took real
persistence and thick skin.
Principal Williams remembered having courageous conversations with his superintendent
at the time of hiring. He felt that the superintendent, who was going to retire in a few years, did
not have high expectations for his students and wanted him to just keep the students out of
trouble. Williams shared,

59
I didn’t sign up to be a babysitter. There were a lot of people in the district who really
believed that the minority population was meant to go to trade schools. I think one of my
biggest challenges is changing the mentality of my bosses. It took time, but I was able to
change them slowly.
Principal Rodriguez shared how she was ready to have courageous conversations with her
administrative team when she decided to hire a majority of people of color for openings on her
campus. In a community where the teaching staff had historically been majority White, this
move could have been seen by some as radical and even discriminatory. Her administrative team
questioned if her hiring practices were reverse racism. She educated her team and presented data
on the positive academic and social-emotional impacts of staff diversity, particularly for students
of color. “We have to do what’s right for our students,” said Principal Rodriguez, “sometimes
you are going to make some people unhappy, but we have to do what’s right.” She connected the
decision to the school’s larger equity mission, making the case that recruiting and retaining
educators of color was essential to creating a culturally responsive and inclusive environment.
Discussion: Research Question 1
Through the accounts of principals in three high-achieving Title I high schools in San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, this analysis illuminates how transformative leadership
theory can manifest in the daily work of school principals. Across the eight tenets of
transformative leadership (a mandate for change, challenging knowledge frameworks,
redistributing power, balancing public and private good, focus on emancipation, democracy,
equity, and inclusion, interdependence, interconnectedness, and global awareness, balancing
critique and promise, and moral courage), clear examples emerged of how principals can

60
mobilize school communities to disrupt oppressive systems and create equitable learning
environments that produce high achievements of all students, especially SED students.
Although no principals demonstrated all eight tenets, they all displayed at least six.
Several key themes stood out as common threads across their leadership. First, they employed a
significant number of transformative leadership practices to increase student achievement. The
principals demonstrated a strong commitment to Shields’s (2018) eight tenets of transformative
leadership, recognizing the need for deep, equitable change to better serve their marginalized
student populations.
Second, the principals’ responses indicate they all embodied the mandate for equitable
change, challenging knowledge framework, redistributing power, balancing critique and
promise, and moral courage. Through these tenets, they acknowledged and worked to counter the
systemic inequities holding back their students living in poverty. They took concrete steps to
transform their schools through having ongoing difficult conversations and different school
initiatives such as open access policies, robust support programs, restorative practices, and
college access programs. Additionally, they challenged deficit thinking and worked to shift
educators’ assumptions and biases. At Lincoln High School, the principal led staff through
intensive training and ongoing dialogues to unpack biases and move toward an asset-based view
of students. The principal at Roosevelt High School emphasized understanding the challenges
students face while growing up in poverty and equipping them with the skills and opportunities
to break cycles of disadvantage. By reshaping the staff’s mindset, these principals laid the
groundwork for more equitable and culturally responsive practices.
Third, the three principals show some differences in their specific approaches and areas
of emphasis. One notable area of difference was in their focus on interdependence,

61
interconnectedness, and global awareness tenet. The principal at Washington High School stood
out, explicitly emphasizing preparing students to engage with complex global issues and
developing cross-cultural communication skills. While the other principals may not be ignoring
global concerns, they appear not to approach it intentionally. Another difference emerged in the
principals’ approaches to public and private goods. This tenet focuses on education’s role in
promoting both personal achievement and societal well-being. While the principal at Lincoln
High School recognized the private good of individual students, she insisted that helping the
students see how they could contribute to the community was a more important and effective
motivator for students. The principals at Washington and Roosevelt High Schools seemed to
emphasize individual achievement through testing and test scores above the public good.
Results Research Question 2
The study’s second research question explores the teachers’ experiences with their
principal’s transformative practices in leading high-achieving Title I high schools. This section
focuses on the results of the question, “What transformative leadership practices do teachers in
Title I high schools identify in their principals’ efforts to increase student achievement?” By
centering teacher voice and experience, this analysis offers a ground-level view of how
transformative leadership operates in real school contexts, as well as insights into the impacts of
these leadership approaches on teacher mindsets, practices, and efficacy. Interview responses to
this question revealed that most teachers agreed with the principals’ responses, although there
were a few differences (Figure 2).

62
Figure 2
Frequencies of Eight Tenets Based on Teacher Responses at Three High-Achieving Title I High
Schools
Mandate for Change
Across all three schools, teachers consistently identified their principals’ deep
commitment to equitable change as the driving force behind their transformative efforts. They
described leaders and their practices demonstrating the principal’s commitment to challenging
the systemic barriers and inequitable practices that had long held back students from SED and
historically marginalized communities.
At Lincoln High School, all three teachers shared that Principal Lee displayed remarkable
courage, making it clear that “business as usual” would no longer suffice at their school. They
pointed out that she championed the cause of supporting marginalized students across campus.

63
10th-grade English teacher Mrs. Wright spoke about how Principal Lee’s leadership had sparked
a fundamental shift in the school’s approach to serving all students:
Our principal had us look at our data, our practices, our beliefs with a really critical eye
and had us come to a conclusion that we are not doing right by our most vulnerable
students and that we have to do better.
Mrs. Wright also described specific practices Principal Lee implemented to drive this equity
agenda: “It used to be that only certain kids took AP classes, and they were all White and Asians.
Mrs. Lee pushed us to ask ourselves what message we are sending to our students.” She shared
how, through these conversations, they have entirely overhauled AP enrollment and support
systems that include targeted outreach and mentoring, built-in extra tutoring, and study sessions.
At Washington High School, history teacher Mr. Park echoed this sentiment, describing
Principal Williams as someone who deeply understands the way racism and classism operate. He
stated,
He is not afraid to name inequities and to call out the ways in which Washington has
been doing injustice to our Brown students. There is this sense of urgency like we cannot
afford to kick the can down the road anymore.
Another teacher, Mr. Garcia, stated, “He made us fundamentally change the way we serve our
students and community, even though many of us disagreed at the time.”
Roosevelt High School’s math teacher, Ms. Patel, described a similar dynamic with
Principal Rodriguez, whose mandate for change was rooted in a commitment to educational
equity for SED students:
So many of our students come from families struggling to make ends meet. Mrs.
Rodriguez is someone who really understands what that means. Poverty can limit access

64
and opportunity. She’s made it clear [that] her mission is to ensure that students’
background is never going to determine their educational outcomes.
The other two teachers at Roosevelt High School used similar words to describe their principal’s
commitment. “It wasn’t just talk,” veteran math teacher Smith reflected, “She put systems and
structures in place to back the equity commitment. She was not the first principal to talk about it,
but she may be the first one to really push it.”
Challenging Knowledge Frameworks
Transformative leaders help school communities develop new ways of thinking about
student identity, ability, and potential (Shields, 2010). The teachers in this study consistently
highlighted their principals’ efforts to disrupt deficit mindsets and cultivate asset-based,
culturally responsive mindsets among staff.
At Lincoln High School, this shift was particularly evident in the way educators viewed
their English learners (ELs). For years, there had been a pervasive belief that EL students, who
often came from SED backgrounds, were inherently less capable than their peers in general
education (Valenzuela, 2005). Even well-intentioned teachers found themselves watering down
the curriculum and focusing more on basic skills than higher-order thinking. However, Principal
Lee was determined to challenge these assumptions. She pushed her staff to examine the biases
and beliefs that were limiting their expectations for ELs, especially those with SED backgrounds.
Mrs. Wright recalled, “I remember when Mrs. Lee asked whose vision are we realizing when we
lower our expectation, students’ or our own?” Through ongoing dialogues that continued to
challenge the biases, she helped the teachers begin to see these students in a new light. Teachers
started seeing all students as capable, intelligent learners who simply needed the right support
and opportunities to thrive. Mr. Miller reflected on the impact of this mindset shift in his own

65
practice: “Slowly but surely, I could feel my own mindset shifting. We started setting much
higher expectations and designing more rigorous and critical-thinking lessons. The impact on
student engagement and achievement was remarkable.”
At Washington and Roosevelt High Schools, the focus on mindset shift centered around
the implementation of trauma-informed practices. Recognizing the significant challenges and
adversities many of their students faced, the principals at these schools made it a priority to equip
teachers and staff with the knowledge and skills needed to create safe and supportive learning
environments. Mr. Park at Washington High School recalled, “Mr. Williams reminded us that
zero-tolerance discipline just re-traumatizes the traumatized students. He pushed us to replace
punitive practices with compassion and understanding.” Through ongoing professional
development in trauma-informed practices, Mr. Williams helped teachers understand the
neurological and physiological impacts of trauma and how to respond in culturally sensitive and
developmentally appropriate ways. Science teacher Mrs. Davis stated this training had been
instrumental in shifting the school’s approach to discipline:
Like a lot of schools, we had fallen into really problematic patterns of suspending our
students of color disproportionately. We didn’t know this until Mr. Williams really forced
us to confront those biases head-on. He had us look at our discipline data and we saw the
disparities were right in front of us.
Armed with a deeper understanding of trauma and its manifestations, teachers at Washington
High School began to approach student behavior through a lens of empathy and curiosity rather
than punishment. They learned strategies for de-escalation, relationship-building, and restorative
practices that helped students feel seen, heard, and supported.

66
Trauma-informed practices took on particular urgency in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic, which had exacerbated trauma and inequity for many students and families. As
students returned to in-person learning, educators found themselves grappling with a rise in
behavioral challenges and mental health concerns. Social studies teacher Pierre reflected on how
ill-equipped the staff had felt to support students in the aftermath of the pandemic: “We did not
have tools to deal with the rise in behavior problems, but trauma-informed practices really
helped us shift the culture in the classrooms and the school.” Under Mrs. Rodriguez’s leadership,
the school invested in trauma-informed practices, social-emotional learning, and mental health
support to provide comprehensive support. Teachers received ongoing professional development
to help them implement trauma-informed strategies in their classrooms. “The training opened our
eyes,” another Roosevelt teacher, Ms. Patel, commented. “We realized charging into
confrontations only caused more problems in the classroom. De-escalation through calming
presences is true classroom management.”
Redistributing Power
Transformative leadership recognizes that schools, like all institutions, have complex and
often inequitable power dynamics. According to Shields (2018), transformative school leaders
actively work to redistribute power to those who have historically been marginalized or excluded
from decision-making. They must be intentional in helping SED students access power and
making power and privilege more equitable for all (Shields, 2018, p. 59). Six of nine
interviewees’ responses demonstrated that all three principals redistributed power through the
school leadership team.
At Lincoln High School, Science teacher Ms. Lopez described how Principal Lee’s
commitment to teacher leadership empowered her to drive equity-centered innovations:

67
One of the things I appreciate most about Mrs. Lee is how she trusts teachers to lead.
She’s not just delegating tasks but empowering us to drive change based on our expertise.
A few years ago, I approached her to start a staff equity reading group. She didn’t just
give me permission. She asked me what resources I needed, connected me with likeminded people, and soon after we started doing the book study together. I felt seen and
valued as a teacher.
However, two other teachers at Lincoln High School did not mention anything related to the
principal redistributing powers to staff or families.
Two teachers from Washington High School also shared that their principal redistributes
power through the school leadership team. Additionally, a veteran science teacher, Mrs. Davis,
spoke about how Principal Williams’ efforts to share leadership with students and families had
transformed the culture at Washington High School:
From the very beginning, Principal Williams openly spoke about giving the driver seats
to parents and students. He met with parents often and sometimes stayed until eight or
nine at night. He has a different level of commitment to families.
Mr. Williams also empowered students to take control of their own education as well. Davis
stated, “Mr. Williams connected really well with students. He also started student ambassadors to
meet with them once a month. Student ambassadors were excited to meet with the principal, and
many of them had great ideas.” When asked how Mr. Williams’s practices have impacted her,
Mrs. Davis shared that her classroom power dynamics have changed as well:
I began designing my units around student-led inquiry rather than just lecture. I adopted
the flipped classroom model and put the balls in their court. I was facilitating and
helping, but learning really started happening with students first. … My role shifted from

68
the one who holds the power in the classroom to more of a facilitator and co-learner. It
was probably the biggest change in my teaching career.
Teachers from Roosevelt High School spoke similarly about their principal as well. Mr.
Pierre discussed Principal Rodriguez’s efforts to redistribute power to families, particularly those
from SED and immigrant backgrounds: “Principal Rodriguez talks often about the difference
between family involvement and true family engagement. Involvement is like, ‘Show up to this
event, sign this form.’ Engagement is about authentic partnership and shared decision-making.”
Mr. Pierre continued to share the improvement in parent participation at the school:
Mrs. Rodriguez ensures there is a translator, childcare corner, and even transportation
vouchers to remove any barriers to participation. She’s constantly encouraging teachers
to build relationships with the families and will even pay extra hours for us to join the
meeting.
Balance Public and Private Good
Schools are unique institutions in that they serve both private and public purposes. On
one hand, they provide individual students with the knowledge, skills, and credentials needed for
personal success and social mobility. At the same time, they play a central role in developing the
collective capacities—the shared knowledge, values, and dispositions—necessary for a thriving
democracy and a just society. Transformative school leaders, then, play a pivotal role in
balancing these dual purposes, ensuring that their schools are spaces where all students can
flourish academically while also contributing to the greater social good (Shields, 2018). During
this study, two teachers out of nine have highlighted how their principals navigated this balance.
At Lincoln High School, Intervention teacher Mr. Miller described Principal Lee’s
emphasis on preparing students for productive citizens:

69
Principal Lee is always pushing us to think about how we’re preparing students not just
for college but to be productive citizens. She talks about wanting our graduates to be the
ones leading the charge on issues like social justice, environmental sustainability, and
equity. She asked all of us to teach these things in our classroom. The idea is to connect
academic learning to real-world problems.
At Washington High School, history teacher Park stated that Principal Williams’
commitment to restorative justice had reframed the school’s approach to discipline as a matter of
both individual growth and collective well-being. The discipline at Washington was very
punitive, focusing on punishment that excluded a historically marginalized group of students
from academic settings disproportionately. According to Mr. Park, Mr. Williams completely
flipped the script: “He brought in restorative practices as a way to address student behavior and
rebuild relationships. When students are in trouble, the focus is not on punishment, but on
understanding the impact, taking accountability, and learning from mistakes.” Washington High
School focuses on teaching students to communicate, empathize, and solve problems together.
This allows the school to build more trust and a sense of collective responsibility. In describing
the school culture, Mr. Park shared, “You can feel the difference in the culture in the way people
treat each other.”
Focus on Emancipation, Democracy, Equity, and Inclusion
Another key aspect of transformative leadership is a commitment to making schools more
democratic, liberatory, and equitable spaces. The teachers in this study described numerous ways
in which their principals worked to center student voice, agency, and social justice throughout
the campus.

70
At Lincoln High School, Principal Lee’s vision for a more equity-oriented approach to
schooling changed how teachers thought about and designed their instruction. For Wright, a
veteran English teacher, this shift began with a book study organized by Principal Lee:
Mrs. Lee is always pushing us to think about how we can make our classrooms more
student-centered and equity-oriented. Recently, she had us read this book, Cultivating
Genius, that talked about the importance of grounding ELA instruction in students’
cultural identities and using literature as a tool for critical reflection and social action.
That really resonated with me. I started designing my units around essential questions
that spoke to my students’ lived experiences and our community issues.
At Washington High School, Principal Williams took a different approach to mandating
equity in student leadership. Recognizing that student government was dominated by a small
group of mostly White, affluent, high-achieving students, he made tough decisions in teacher
assignments. Mr. Garcia shared,
I was very surprised when Mr. Williams offered me the ASB advisor position because we
had the same advisor teacher for a long time. But he told me he wanted to take a different
approach, and he made sure I would have equitable representation of our students in
ASB. Today, the majority of my ASB members are students of color.
Mr. Garcia saw a big difference on his campus since ASB member compositions were changed.
The impact of this new structure was that the conversations about everything from school
activities, culture, and campus climate were being driven by a diverse group of student leaders
who reflected the full range of identities and experiences in the school community. “It elevated
voices that have been silenced in our school. Suddenly, you had this incredibly diverse group of

71
student leaders driving conversations around campus. It really changed the culture of the school
for the better.”
Roosevelt High School math teacher Mr. Smith shared sentiments similar to those at two
previous schools. He observed that Principal Rodriguez’s equity approach had made high-level
math and science courses available to historically marginalized students: “Mrs. Rodriguez has
really opened up the doors for our students. We offer many more AP and honors courses than
before. More students sign up for AP courses, and our scores have steadily increased over the
years.” Mr. Smith also added how Mrs. Rodriguez and the math department collaborated to
engage students in community issues. They started using mock school and district budget
allocation to teach mathematics and help students advocate for their education: “Even though it
was a just mock budget, it was close to our school’s real budget. At the end of the unit, students
presented their findings and recommendations to school leadership, advocated for more equitable
resources.”
Interconnectedness, Interdependence, and Global Awareness
In an increasingly globalized and interdependent world, transformative school leaders
understand that authentic education must help students develop the knowledge, skills, and
mindsets to grapple with complex, global challenges. Specifically, transformative leaders create
an equitable learning environment for SED students so that they can know their positionality and
advocate for themselves (Shields, 2018; Shields & Hesbol, 2020). They work to cultivate in
young people a sense of global consciousness and agency, an understanding of how their lives
and fates are bound up with those of people and places far beyond their immediate contexts
(Shields, 2018, p. 97).

72
Mr. Miller and Ms. Lopez spoke about how Principal Lee had made global competence
and social justice centerpieces of the school’s mission and programming. Mrs. Lee pushes her
teachers to infuse global perspectives and social justice across the curriculum to help students see
the world’s diversity as a source of knowledge and insight. Mr. Miller shared, “Mrs. Lee is
committed to preparing our students to be leaders in this global community. She wants our
students to graduate not just multi-lingual but multi-cultural.” Ms. Lopez described a powerful
learning experience that emerged from this global vision:
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to chaperone a group of seniors to Europe as a
part of AP History class. None of them had ever left the country before, and most came
from low-income immigrant families. Mrs. Lee found donors to sponsor this trip for our
students. It was amazing seeing our students enjoy the rich culture while thinking about
colonialism, cultural differences, and their own identity.
Balance Critique and Promise
Transformative leadership encompasses a dual commitment to critique and hope, naming
and dismantling systems of oppression while simultaneously envisioning and building liberating
alternatives (Shields, 2018). The teachers in this study consistently highlighted their principals’
embodiment of this critical and aspirational stance and how it shaped the culture and practices of
their schools.
At Lincoln High School, all three teachers shared how Mrs. Lee is not afraid to name hard
truths about how the school had been complicit in reproducing social injustice. At the same time,
she consistently affirmed her faith in the community’s capacity for growth and change,
celebrating victories and student resilience and brilliance. As the intervention teacher, Mr.

73
Miller, put it, “She has both the critical eye and vision for the future. That makes her a strong
leader. It inspires us to confront hard truths and still have dreams for [a] better future.”
The teachers at Washington High School also pointed out multiple times that Mr.
Willliams did not shy away from the hard truth but articulated his vision with the staff through
data sharing. Mr. Garcia shared,
I remember when Mr. Williams brought data to the staff meeting and showed us how
Washington has fallen short of its ideals. It was a very serious meeting, but we also came
up with a vision of a school where every student would feel seen and valued.
At Roosevelt High, Principal Rodriguez faced the challenge of serving the highest SED
student populations in the surrounding area, facing many barriers related to poverty, housing
insecurity, immigration status, and trauma. Yet, rather than lowering expectations, she
continually pushed her staff to be hopeful and maintain high standards for both academic rigor
and holistic support. When the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated disparities, Principal
Rodriguez rallied her team to secure resources, adapt practices, and deepen community
partnerships to ensure that every student could continue meaningful learning. Math teacher Ms.
Patel shared, “It was a powerful lesson in holding space for the challenges we faced while also
believing that together, as a whole school, we can meet the needs of our students.”
Moral Courage
Perhaps the most challenging element of transformative leadership is the moral courage it
requires. Confronting inequity, redistributing power, and reshaping entrenched systems is
difficult and often controversial. It demands that leaders be willing to take stands, make some
educational partners unhappy, and weather intense resistance for the sake of their convictions.
All nine teachers shared that their principals were not shy about speaking up and welcomed

74
difficult conversations. The teachers saw their principals displaying moral courage. They exhibit
venerability, courage of conviction, staying true to their principles and purpose even when it
means alienating those in power or privilege and, in some cases, district administrators. As one
teacher puts it, “Our principal is transparent. He will let you know his biases and when he makes
mistakes. I trust him because he is honest and venerable.” They also shared that their principals
demonstrated courage through vulnerability, owning their biases and blind spots, and inviting
their school communities into the uncomfortable but necessary work of growth. They modeled
the courage of imagination, daring to envision and enact possibilities that challenge entrenched
norms and interests. As Mr. Pierre stated,
Mrs. Rodrigeuz used her authority to quite literally shield and advocate for our most
vulnerable students. She modeled the kind of leadership we should all be aspiring to, and
it sent such a powerful message that she was willing to stick her neck out and ruffle some
feathers to defend every student, no matter the background.
Discussion Research Question 2
Across all three sites, teachers stated that their principals demonstrated a strong
commitment to equity and social justice. This was evident in the way they observed their
principals challenged systemic barriers and inequitable practices that had historically
marginalized students from SED and minority backgrounds. Teachers shared examples of how
their principals pushed them to critically examine disaggregated student data, confront biases,
and redesign systems to be more inclusive and culturally responsive. “The equity work Mrs.
Rodriguez led us through was uncomfortable because it required brutal honesty about our blind
spots,” said Mr. Smith at Roosevelt High School. “But that discomfort was necessary for
transforming our school.”

75
One prominent theme that surfaced was the principals’ focus on shifting mindsets and
cultivating new knowledge frameworks among staff. Teachers at all three schools stated their
leaders provided targeted professional development, facilitated book studies, or created space for
ongoing dialogue to help them develop asset-based and trauma-informed approaches. They saw
this commitment to capacity-building as integral to actualizing the principals’ visions for a more
equitable learning environment.
Teachers also highlighted the principals’ various efforts to make their schools more
democratic and emancipatory spaces. This included amplifying student voices through channels
like diversified student government, partnering with families as decision-makers, and embedding
social justice and global perspectives into the curriculum. Principals were intentional about
redistributing power to those who had been historically excluded and creating more transparent
and participatory cultures.
Where teachers’ accounts strongly converged was in their characterization of principals’
dual commitment to critique and promise and moral courage. Educators at all three schools
portrayed their leaders as unflinching in their willingness to name and dismantle oppressive
systems while equally unwavering in their belief in the possibility of transformative change.
Principals owned their schools’ shortcomings, shared hard truths about inequities, and invited
school communities to envision and enact bold alternatives. This stance of critical hopefulness
was seen as essential to inspire and sustain the difficult work of school transformation.
Although it was not unanimous, an interesting divergence emerged in teachers’
discussions of how principals balanced the public and private aims of schooling. While some
teachers described their principals’ explicit efforts to link academic learning to real-world
problem-solving and position students as change agents, this theme was less consistently

76
pronounced than those of equity and inclusion. This suggests an opportunity for principals to
further emphasize the civic and societal purposes of education alongside the goal of personal
achievement.
Finally, there were differences in how the three principals approached redistributing
power and interdependence, interconnectedness, and global awareness. While the three teachers
at Roosevelt High School spoke to Principal Rodriguez’s commitment to redistributing power,
the other two high schools’ teachers had varying opinions. At Lincoln High School, only one
teacher described Principal Lee’s efforts to empower them as leaders and decision-makers.
Teachers across three campuses spoke minimally about interdependence,
interconnectedness, and global awareness. The principals demonstrated different levels of
explicit focus on this tenet. At Lincoln High, there was some mention of connecting academic
learning to real-world issues through activities like community service projects. However, this
theme was less prominent than in the other two schools.
Summary
The analysis of the interviews of the principals and the teachers from high-achieving
Title I high schools in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties surfaced several themes that are
related to student success. All three principals had a deep, unwavering commitment to equity and
social justice. Both the principals and the teachers confirmed that the principals had a keen
awareness of the systemic inequities that have long perpetuated the education system. Rather
than accepting these inequities as inevitable, the principals committed to dismantling barriers and
creating a learning environment for all students to succeed. This commitment to equity
manifested through the various school initiatives such as open access to rigorous courses,
restorative practices, and trauma-informed practices. By engaging in ongoing, candid dialogue

77
with staff about issues of race, class, and privilege, these principals worked tirelessly to shift
mindsets away from deficit thinking and toward asset-based and culturally responsive mindsets.
Another theme was the emphasis on empowerment and shared leadership. These
transformative principals recognized that true, lasting change cannot occur through top-down
mandates alone. Instead, they sought opportunities to redistribute power with staff, students, and
parents, amplifying student voices, engaging families, and creating space for teachers to step into
leadership roles and drive equity-centered initiatives. By fostering a more democratic,
participatory school environment, these leaders tapped into the collective wisdom of their
communities and modeled the very principles of social justice, empowerment, and inclusion they
sought to instill in their students.
Finally, the principals carried with them moral courage. They demonstrated a willingness
to take bold, sometimes unpopular stances in the name of equity. Sometimes, they had to face
resistance or pushback from communities or even their superiors in the district. However, by
demonstrating courage against the deep-seated inequities within their schools and the broader
education system, the principals inspired others to join them in the fight for the rights of SED
students.

78
Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter Five summarizes findings as related to the implications for practice, especially
for principals who work with SED students. The chapter discusses key research findings to
inform the practices of current and future principals who seek to create inclusive learning
environments for SED students and high academic achievements. Additionally, this chapter
presents recommendations for future research within the context of this study.
This study focuses on problems associated with significant education disparities and
inequities among SED students (Reardon, 2013). SED students’ underperformance is evident in
CAASPP ELA and math exam scores and graduation rates (California Department of Education,
2021; DataQuest, 2022; National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Principals in these
schools occupy critical roles in addressing challenges SED students face and creating a safe
learning environment for students’ academic success (Allensworth et al., 2018; Rodriguez, 2019;
Grissom et al., 2021). Recent research indicates that principals who practice transformative
leadership prioritize equity and inclusion, and they create equitable outcomes in schools with
high levels of poverty (Caldwell et al., 2012; Shields & Hesbol, 2020). The purpose of this
qualitative study, therefore, was to explore transformative leadership practices by school
administrators in three high-achieving Title I high schools, focusing on creating equitable and
inclusive educational environments. It also seeks to investigate the relationship between these
practices and the eight core tenets of transformative leadership theory. The following research
questions guided this study:
1. To what extent do school principals in high-achieving Title I high schools employ
transformative leadership practices to increase student achievement?

79
2. What transformative leadership practices do teachers in high-achieving Title I high
schools identify in their principals’ efforts to increase student achievement?
Discussion of Findings
This study sought to explore the extent to which principals in Title I high schools employ
transformative leadership practices to increase student achievement. The analysis revealed that
all three principals demonstrated at least six of the eight tenets of transformative leadership
outlined by Shields (2018). It also unsurfaced following key themes brought about by the
principal’s transformative practices.
Motivation and High Expectations
The first major theme that emerged was that the principals created motivation and high
expectations among educational partners, as evident in the high response rate in a mandate for
equitable change and critique and promise by both the principals and teachers. All principals
consistently articulated a deep-seated belief that every student, regardless of background, can
achieve at high levels. They communicated this belief to students, staff, and families, setting high
expectations for all educational partners.
Additionally, the principals challenged deficit thinking and modeled a growth mindset.
They mindfully worked on disrupting deficit-based assumptions or biases among staff and
students about what SED students are capable of through numerous difficult conversations. To
counter deficit thinking, they also modeled and encouraged an asset-based mindset with students
and staff, emphasizing that all students, regardless of background, are capable of success. By
reframing challenges and setbacks as opportunities for growth and resilience, the principals
created high expectations and motivated staff and students to continue to push forward.

80
Finally, the principals recognized that SED students have been systematically excluded
from rigorous academic opportunities, such as AP or honors courses. Because they recognized
that this type of exclusion stems from formal or informal tracking systems that sort students into
different academic pathways based on factors such as test scores, teacher recommendations, or
perceived ability (Burris & Welner, 2005), the principals implemented an open-access policy,
eliminating barriers to advanced coursework, and provided targeted outreach and additional
academic supports. By taking these steps to expand access to rigorous curricula, the principals
helped to create a culture of high motivation and high expectations.
Through consistently communicating belief in students’ potential, challenging deficit
thinking and modeling asset-based mindset, and opening access to higher level courses, the
principals created a powerful culture of high expectations and motivation. They helped teachers
believe in students’ potential, supported their academic growth, and developed the skills and
mindsets needed for them to guide students to achieve high levels.
Commitment to Power Redistribution
The second major theme that emerged was that the principals were committed to
redistributing power and decision-making authority as a key strategy for promoting equity. They
recognized that the traditional hierarchical school system removes the power from SED students
and continues to perpetuate structures and practices that obstruct equitable reform (Shields, 2018,
p. 49). Therefore, the principals explored different avenues to redistribute power with their
educational partners to model an inclusive and collaborative approach that challenged traditional
power hierarchies.
The first avenue was to empower teachers as leaders by creating structures and
opportunities for teachers to take on meaningful leadership roles beyond their classroom. They

81
established decision-making bodies like instructional leadership teams, professional learning
communities, and other committees that gave teachers a voice in shaping school policies and
practices. By treating teachers as experts and partners in school improvement, principals helped
distribute authority and cultivate a shared sense of ownership for equity work.
The principals also amplified student and parent voices. They established student
government structures that were representative of the diverse student body and had a real
influence on school decisions. They also created platforms to give students and parents the
opportunities to share their opinions and advocate for their own needs. Since historically
marginalized students and their families do not feel welcome on school campuses (Noguera,
2003), this was a very important step to create trust and a sense of belonging, ultimately shifting
power dynamics and elevating marginalized voices.
Another way the principals redistributed power was through the implementation of
restorative practices. Research has shown that schools’ traditional discipline systems have
disproportionately punished students of color, a group to which the vast majority of SED
students belong (Grissom et al., 2021). The principals sought to redistribute power by
emphasizing repairing harm, rebuilding relationships, and reintegrating students into the school
community after conflicts or mistakes rather than relying on punitive, exclusionary
consequences. By giving students and staff tools to resolve issues collaboratively and equitably,
restorative practices help shift power away from top-down authority and toward shared
accountability and voice.
By employing these strategies, principals at these high-achieving Title I high schools
modeled an inclusive and collaborative approach to leadership that challenged traditional power
hierarchies. They recognized that achieving true equity requires more than just inviting diverse

82
voices to the table. It requires a fundamental mind shift in who has a voice in making important
school decisions. The principals in these schools saw the redistribution of power as essential to
creating schools where all teachers, students, and parents feel valued, heard, and empowered to
shape their own educational experiences and outcomes.
Inconsistencies with Public Goods and Global Awareness
Transformative leadership, as conceptualized by Shields (2018), argues that private and
public goods are not mutually exclusive but deeply interconnected. Closely related to this notion
of education is cultivating students’ understanding of the interdependent and interconnected
nature of the global community. Therefore, transformative leaders seek to prepare students for
leadership in creating a more equitable, sustainable, and democratic world with a deep
understanding of how local and global issues are linked and a sense of responsibility and agency
in addressing these issues (Shields, 2018). This requires integrating academic learning with
opportunities for critical inquiry, dialogue across differences, and collective action on issues of
social justice and global awareness (Banks, 2008).
The principals in this study shared limited commitment in these two areas of
transformative leadership. Principal Lee articulated a commitment to developing students as
change agents and leaders for social justice, not just as high-achieving individuals. However, this
focus on the public purposes of education was not consistently pronounced across all schools,
suggesting an area for growth in aligning leadership practices with transformative leadership.
Likewise, Principal Williams at Washington High stood out for his focus on infusing global
perspectives and problem-solving across the curriculum. However, this emphasis on global
awareness and engagement was not as consistently evident in the other schools, further
confirming that this is an area for growth in fully realizing transformative leadership.

83
Limitations
Although the study found correlations between transformative leadership and high
performance of SED students as measured in CAASPP ELA and mathematics exam scores and
graduation rate, several limitations exist with the study. One clear limitation is the study’s small
sample. With only three principals and nine teachers participating across three school sites in two
different counties, findings cannot be assumed representative of all Title I high schools. The
small sample means limited perspectives and experiences captured and makes it difficult to make
a definitive generalization of its cause-and-effect relationship between transformative leadership
and high student achievement. The study was also limited by its reliance on self-reported data
from a narrow range of educational partners. Principals and teachers offered their firsthand
accounts of leadership beliefs and practices, but their perspectives are inherently subjective
according to their own beliefs, experiences, and perspectives. As employees of the school, they
may also have their own bias to positively portray their workplace and may not truthfully capture
the realities.
The study also did not include the voices of students, families, or other community
members who could have provided valuable insight into how leadership actions are experienced
and perceived by those directly impacted. The study’s reliance on a single method of data
collection, interviews, is another potential limitation. While interviews yielded rich narrative
data, they are susceptible to various biases where participants may adjust responses to align with
perceived researcher expectations or present themselves in a favorable light. The last limitation is
that the interviews provided a snapshot of principals’ and teachers’ current perceptions and
experiences but did not capture leadership practices over an extended period. Transformative
change is an ongoing, non-linear process, and a longitudinal design tracking shifts in beliefs,

84
practices, and outcomes over multiple years would bring forth reliable data and findings on how
transformative leadership tenets and principal’s practices are aligned. Due to the single-snapshot
nature of the study, it is difficult to establish clear causal links between specific leadership
actions and student achievement outcomes, as many complex factors beyond the scope of this
inquiry contribute to student achievements.
Implications for Practice
This study’s findings offer several key implications for practice for principals, district
administrators, and school administrator preparation programs committed to advancing
educational equity and excellence. By illuminating the beliefs, practices, and impacts of
transformative leadership in high-achieving Title I high schools, this study points to promising
strategies and areas for growth in leveraging leadership to dismantle systemic barriers and create
more equitable learning environments for SED students.
First and foremost, the study’s findings underscore the need for principals’ personal
commitment to equity and social justice as a catalyst for transformative change. Across all three
schools, leaders demonstrated a moral imperative to confront and disrupt historical inequities.
They coupled this critical consciousness with a strong sense of purpose and agency, viewing
themselves not as passive administrators but as active change agents responsible for creating
more just and affirming schools. This suggests that transformative leadership is not simply a set
of technical skills but a shift in mindset grounded in principals’ core values and identities.
Therefore, it is imperative that principals practice ongoing self-reflection to examine biases,
deepen their understanding of systemic oppression, and cultivate an equity lens to guide all
aspects of their work.

85
Additionally, it points to the need for school administrator preparation programs to
prioritize transformative leadership practices and critical self-awareness alongside traditional
management competencies in leadership development. By centering equity as non-negotiable
and equipping leaders with proper tools, one can ensure transformative change is not the work of
a few but is a collective effort across the education field.
The study also points to the power of principals’ intentional efforts to reshape teachers’
underlying beliefs and assumptions about SED students. Across schools, leaders recognized that
any structural or pedagogical shifts toward equity must be grounded in a foundational change in
mindset. For principals, this underscores the importance of prioritizing staff capacity-building
and creating spaces for critical reflection as a key leadership lever. Rather than jumping to quick
technical fixes, transformative leaders must invest time and energy in the slow, deep work of
shifting hearts and minds. This requires skill in facilitating courageous conversations, engaging
resistance, and modeling vulnerability and growth. For principals and district leaders, this
suggests a need to reorient professional learning and accountability systems to prioritize and
resource ongoing, equity-focused professional development for all educators. Rather than one-off
workshops or top-down mandates, we need structures and supports that enable principals to
cultivate transformative mindsets and practices. By making space and support for transformative
learning central to the work of schools, we can accelerate the pace and depth of change.
Another implication of the study is the need for principals to redistribute power and
decision-making to include the voices and perspectives of historically marginalized groups.
Across schools, transformative leaders intentionally created structures and opportunities for
students, families, and staff to co-construct more equitable and responsive learning
environments. They built leadership capacity through avenues like student government, family

86
engagement, and professional learning. They leveraged tools like restorative practices to elevate
and center marginalized experiences. In doing so, they modeled the kind of inclusive,
empowering culture they sought to create schoolwide.
For principals, this highlights the need to move beyond surface-level inclusion toward
authentic partnership and shared ownership with stakeholders. It requires skill in building
relational trust, navigating power differentials, and distributing authority to those closest to the
issues. It also demands a willingness to challenge traditional power hierarchies and experiment
with more collective forms of decision-making authorities. By creating the conditions for all
members of the school community to see themselves as co-leaders and co-learners, principals
can tap into the collective wisdom and capacity needed for transformative change.
For district leaders, this suggests a need to re-examine policies and structures that
concentrate decision-making authority at the top and limit opportunities for meaningful
stakeholder voice. This could include devolving more autonomy and resources to the school
level, creating spaces for student and family leadership in district governance, or redesigning
accountability systems to value and incentivize authentic community engagement. By creating an
enabling environment for democratic school leadership, we can tap into the power of diverse
perspectives that bring true equity to the schools.
Finally, the study highlights the moral courage required of transformative leaders in
navigating resistance and sustaining equity commitments over time. Across contexts, principals
had to weather criticism, confront discomfort, and stay grounded in purpose during the slow
progress of change. Yet they persisted with a deep conviction in the possibility of a more just
future and a willingness to take risks in service of that vision. They modeled for others what it
looks like to lead with integrity, even when it means standing apart from the status quo.

87
For school principals, this underscores the importance of cultivating resilience, self-care,
and networks with like-minded leaders to sustain transformative work for the long haul. It
requires skill in strategic communication, consensus-building, and adaptive leadership to
mobilize others around a shared vision. It also demands a strong ethical compass and conviction
to stay focused on equity in the face of challenges.
For leadership preparation programs, this suggests a need to prioritize ethical
discernment, political skill, and resilience alongside instructional and operational expertise. It
points to the value of coaching, mentoring, and peer networks to provide ongoing guidance and
encouragement. It also notes a need to ground leadership training in a strong foundation of
personal values and transformative tenets that can anchor leaders in times of challenges.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study’s findings and limitations point to several promising avenues for future
research that can deepen and extend an understanding of transformative leadership. One key
direction for future research is to examine transformative leadership practices and impacts in a
wider range of school settings beyond the Title I high schools featured in this study. While these
contexts offer valuable exemplars, they may not fully capture the varied landscape of public
education in the United States and beyond. Conducting comparative case studies, large-scale
surveys, and longitudinal studies of transformative leadership in various school settings,
including elementary or middle schools, could yield more nuanced insight into how principals’
practices translate across schools.
Another important area for future study is the role of district- and state-level leadership in
enabling or constraining transformative change at the school level. While this study focused on
principals as primary change agents, their efforts are inevitably conditioned by the broader

88
systems and policies of the district and the state. Multi-level case studies or policy analyses on
the interplay among school, district, and state leadership could illuminate how factors like
resource allocation, accountability structures, labor-management relations, or political priorities
shape transformative work. By situating principal leadership within a broader ecosystem of
influences, researchers can develop a more holistic understanding of the conditions necessary for
transformative change.
The inclusion of student, family, and community voices is another priority for future
research. While this study centered on principals’ and teachers’ perspectives, it did not directly
capture the experiences and perceptions of those most directly impacted by leadership practices.
Conducting research with diverse stakeholders could provide a more holistic understanding of
how all members of the school community understand and experience transformative leadership.
By inviting students, families, and community partners to co-construct knowledge, researchers
can honor and elevate historically silenced voices while building more democratic and culturally
responsive research.
Conclusion
This study’s findings set out to examine the extent to which principals in high-achieving
Title I high schools employ transformative leadership practices to advance educational equity
and excellence, as well as how teachers perceive and experience these practices in their daily
work. By analyzing principal and teacher interviews through the lens of Shields’ (2018)
transformative leadership framework, the study offered a rich, contextualized picture of how
transformative leadership manifests in the beliefs, actions, and relationships of principals
committed to dismantling systemic barriers and creating more equitable learning environments
for SED students.

89
The findings revealed that principals across all three schools embodied key tenets of
transformative leadership in their approach to change. They demonstrated a fierce commitment
to equity and social justice, grounded in a critical consciousness of the historical and structural
inequities that have shaped their students’ experiences and outcomes. They coupled this
awareness with a deep sense of personal responsibility and moral urgency to disrupt the status
quo and create more just and affirming schools for those most marginalized by the system.
Consequently, the study offers a framework and set of strategies for operationalizing
transformative leadership for other principals. It invites principals to reflect critically on their
own identities, biases, and spheres of influence and to cultivate the self-awareness and moral
courage needed to disrupt inequitable systems and norms. It challenges them to distribute
leadership and create structures for meaningful student, family, and community voice in school
governance and culture-building. It charges them to prioritize equity-centered professional
learning and dialogue as a key lever for shifting beliefs and practices. It also reminds them to
stay grounded in purpose and possibility in the face of resistance, knowing that change is hard
but vital for the students and communities they serve.
Ultimately, this study affirms that transformative leadership is not just a theoretical
framework but a practical approach to educational equity. Historically marginalized students
deserve principals who are willing to disrupt the status quo, embrace discomfort, and forge a new
path grounded in equity and justice for all. The principals and teachers in this study offer
transformative leadership as a possible solution and a call for all of us to join them in the work.

90
References
Allensworth, E., Hart, H., & Gordon, M. F. (2018). How do principals influence student
achievement? UChicago Consortium. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/howdo-principals-influence-student-achievement
Altonji, J. G., & Mansfield, R. K. (2011). The role of family, school, and community
characteristics in inequality in education and labor-market outcomes. In G. J. Duncan &
R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children's life
chances (pp. 339–358). Russell Sage Foundation.
Banks, J. A. (2004). Teaching for Social Justice, Diversity, and Citizenship in a Global
World. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 296–305.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720408984645
Berends, M. (2014). Achievement gap. In D. Brewer & L. O. Picus (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
education economics & finance (Vol. 2, pp. 18–22). SAGE Publications.
Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2013). School leaders matter: Measuring the
impact of effective principals. Education Next, 13(1), 62-.
Brighouse, H., Kurlaender, M., Reardon, S., Doss, C., Reber, S., Kalogrides, D., & Reed, S.
(2018). Outcomes and demographics of California’s schools. Getting Down to Facts II.
https://gettingdowntofacts.com/publications/outcomes-and-demographics-californiasschools
Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative
framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03259147
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

91
Burney, V., & Beilke, J. (2008). The constraints of poverty on high achievement. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 31(3), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-771
Burris, C. C., & Welner, K. G. (2005). Closing the Achievement Gap by Detracking. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(8), 594-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508600808
Caldwell, C., Dixon, R. D., Floyd, L. A., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas, G. (2012).
Transformative leadership: Achieving unparalleled excellence. Journal of Business
Ethics, 109(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1116-2
California Department of Education. (n.d.). The Williams Case - An Explanation - Williams
Case. https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmslawsuit.asp.
California Department of Education. (2013). DataQuest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2021). DataQuest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2022). DataQuest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2023). DataQuest. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Chmielewski, A. K., & Reardon, S. F. (2016). Patterns of cross-national variation in the
association between income and academic achievement. AERA Open, 2(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416649593
Cooper, C. W. (2009). Performing cultural work in demographically changing schools:
Implications for expanding transformative leadership frameworks. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09341639
Curto, V., Fryer, R., & Howard, M. (2011). It may not take a village: Increasing achievement
among the poor. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising
inequality, schools, and children's life chances (pp. 483–505). Russell Sage Foundation.

92
Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How
successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a
difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258.
Dayton, J., & Dupre, A. P. (2006). The spirit of Serrano past, present, and future. Journal of
Education Finance, 32(1), 22–35.
Douglas, T. R., & Nganga, C. (2015). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity,
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. International Journal of Critical
Pedagogy, 6(1).
Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2017). Moving beyond correlations in
assessing the consequences of poverty. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 413–434.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044224
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (Eds.). (2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools,
and children’s life chances (1st ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Dutta, V., & Sahney, S. (2016). School leadership and its impact on student achievement.
International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 941–958.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2014-0170
Egalite, A. J., & Kisida, B. (2018). The Effects of Teacher Match on Students’ Academic
Perceptions and Attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 59-81.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717714056
Frankenberg, E., & Taylor, K. (2015). ESEA and the Civil Rights Act: An Interbranch Approach
to Furthering Desegregation. RSF : Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social
Sciences, 1(3), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2015.1.3.02

93
Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1-2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347320
Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2007). The race between education and technology. Harvard
University Press.
Gottfried, M., & Ream, R. (2014). Socioeconomic status and education. In D. Brewer & L. O.
Picus (Eds.), Encyclopedia of education economics & finance (Vol. 2, pp. 688–691).
SAGE Publications.
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and
schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis
Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of
parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial
skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091–1123.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211402663
Grissom, J. A., & Sutcher, L. (2018). The development and distribution of school leadership in
California. Getting Down to Facts II. https://gettingdowntofacts.com/publications/
development-and-distribution-school-leadership-california
Guinier, L. (2004). From racial liberalism to racial literacy: Brown v. Board of Education and the
interest-divergence dilemma. The Journal of American History, 91(1), 92–118.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3659616.
Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Pietsch, M. (2022). School leadership and achievement gaps based
on socioeconomic status: A search for socially just instructional leadership. Journal of
Educational Administration, 60(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2021-0213

94
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
Harding, D., Gennetian, L., Winship, C., Sanbonmatsu, L., & Kling, J. (2010). Unpacking
Neighborhood Influences on Education Outcomes: Setting the Stage for Future Research.
(NBER Working Paper Series 16055). National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://doi.org/10.3386/w16055
Heckman, J. J., & LaFontaine, P. A. (2010). The American high school graduation rate: Trends
and levels. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 244–262.
Hicks, A. L., Handcock, M. S., Sastry, N., & Pebley, A. R. (2017). Sequential neighborhood
effects: The effect of long-term exposure to concentrated disadvantage on children’s
reading and math test scores. Demography, 55(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-
017-0636-5
Horng, E., & Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(3), 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200319
Ingersoll, R., May, H., & Collins, G. (2019). Recruitment, employment, retention and the
minority teacher shortage. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 37.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3714
Jang, H., & Reardon, S. F. (2019). States as sites of educational (in)equality: State contexts and
the socioeconomic achievement gradient. AERA Open, 5(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419872459

95
Jerdborg, S. (2022). Educating school leaders: Engaging in diverse orientations to leadership
practice. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(2), 287–309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1770867
Johnson, R. C., & Tanner, S. (2018). Money and freedom: The impact of California’s school
finance reform (Research brief). Learning Policy Institute.
Kaushal, N., Magnuson, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). How is family income related to
investments in children's learning?
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Kirst, M. W. (2007). The evolution of California’s state school finance system. Stanford Institute
for Research on Education Policy.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation.
https://wallacefoundation.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/How-Leadership-InfluencesStudent-Learning-Executive-Summary.pdf.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lynch, J. M. (2012). Instructional leadership for middle school students with disabilities in the
general education classroom: The role of the principal (Publication No. 3530316)
[Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
Global.

96
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on
student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120701576241
Massey, K. J., Warrington, A. S., & Holmes, K. (2014). An overview on urban education: A
brief history and contemporary issues. Texas Education Review, 2(2), 179–183.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Equity. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/equity
Milner, H. R., IV. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers
seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). The Condition of Education, 2020.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Home page, a part of the U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/
National Poverty Center. (n.d.). Poverty in the United States: Frequently asked questions.
University of Michigan. https://poverty.umich.edu/research-funding-opportunities/keyissues/poverty-facts
Nelson, C., & Sheridan, M. A. (2011). Lessons from neuroscience research for understanding
causal links between family and neighborhood characteristics and educational outcomes.
In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools,
and children's life chances (pp. 27–46). Russell Sage Foundation.

97
Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts
America’s schools. Harvard Education Press.
Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of environmental
and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban
Education, 38(4), 431–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085903038004005
Payne, B. K., Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., & Hannay, J. W. (2017). Economic inequality increases risk
taking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(18), 4643–4648.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616453114
Payne, C. M., & Ortiz, C. M. (2017). Doing the impossible: The limits of schooling, the power of
poverty. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 673(1),
32–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217719019
Perrone, F. (2022). Why a diverse leadership pipeline matters: The empirical evidence.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(1), 5–18. doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.2022707
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 577 (1896).
Putnam, R. (2015). Our kids: The American Dream in crisis. Simon & Schuster.
Quantz, R. A., Rogers, J., & Dantley, M. (1991). Rethinking transformative leadership: Toward
democratic reform of Schools. Journal of Education, 173(3), 96–118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002205749117300307
Reardon, S. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–
16.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes : an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509

98
Rodems, R., & Pfeffer, F. T. (2021). Avoiding material hardship: The buffer function of wealth.
Journal of European Social Policy, 31(5), 517–532.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287211059043
Rodriguez, A. L. (2019) The the Relationships between the Leadership Styles of Principals
Assigned to Title I Middle Schools, Staff Longevity, School Climate, and Overall School
Achievement. https://doi.org/10.25148/etd.fidc007685
Rogers, J., Mirra, N., Seltzer, M., & Jun, J. (2014). It’s about time: Learning time and
educational opportunity in California high schools. UCLA IDEA.
Rosenbaum, S., & Schmucker, S. (2017). Viewing health equity through a legal lens: Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 42(5), 771–788.
https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-3940423
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom
instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663.
Shafiq, M. (Ed.). (2014). Benefits of primary and secondary education. In D. Brewer & L. O.
Picus (Eds) Encyclopedia of education economics & finance (Vol. 2, pp 72-76 ). SAGE
Publications.
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558–589.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10375609
Shields, C. M. (2018). Transformative leadership in education: Equitable change in an uncertain
and complex world. Routledge.

99
Shields, C. M., & Hesbol, K. A. (2020). Transformative leadership approaches to inclusion,
equity, and Social Justice. Journal of School Leadership, 30(1), 3–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619873343
Skinner, R. (2020). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESSA): A primer. [Library of
Congress public ed.]. Congressional Research Service.
Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The Bilingual Education Act: Twenty years later. The National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE021037/Fall88_6.pdf.
Thomas, W., & Brady, K. (2005). Chapter 3: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at
40: Equity, accountability, and the evolving federal role in public education. Review of
Research in Education, 29(1), 51-67.
Tickle, B. R., Chang, M., & Kim, S. (2011). Administrative support and its mediating effect on
US public school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 342–349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.002
Timar, T. (2006). Financing K-12 education in California: A system overview. Stanford Institute
for Research on Education Policy.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.-a). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). U.S. Department of
Education. https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.-b). Title I - Improving the academic achievement of the
disadvantaged. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2017, March 22). IASA legislation, regulations, and guidance -
OESE. Home. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/legreg.html.

100
U.S. Department of Education. (2021, February 22). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/nclbinfo.html.
Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership
and student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin,
95(1), 5-30.
van Oord, L. (2013). Towards transformative leadership in education. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 16(4), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2013.776116
Walton-Fisette, J. L., & Montgomery, K. (2018). The impact of transformational leadership on
teacher expectations and student achievement. Journal of Educational Leadership in
Action, 6(3), 1–15.
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. Mid-continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

101
Appendix A: Principal Interview Protocol
The following sections present the interview protocol used with principals in this study.
Introduction
Hello__________. How are you doing today? Thank you for taking the time to
participate in the interview. As I mentioned in my email, I am currently a student at USC and
conducting a study on the role of school principals in high-achieving Title I high schools. The
interview should take approximately 45 minutes to an hour. Is today still a good time for us to
meet?
This study aimed to determine the impact of school principal’s leadership practices on
enhancing student achievement for socioeconomically disadvantaged students, also known as
(SED) in Title I schools. The study specifically aims to investigate whether high-performing
Title I schools’ principals employ transformative leadership practices. I want to give you more
information about this study and answer any questions you may have about participating in this
interview. As previously stated in my email, this interview is confidential. Your name will not be
shared with anyone outside the research team, including other administrators or the district
office. The data gathered from this study will be compiled into a report. Although some of your
statements may be used as direct quotes, none of the data will directly link to you. Finally, I will
make every effort to keep any data gathered from you anonymous.
If you are interested, I will provide you with a copy of my final paper. All data will be
stored in a password-protected computer and destroyed after 3 years.
Before we begin, do you have any questions about the study? I have brought a recorder
with me (in-person interview), and I will record this Zoom today to ensure that I capture your
insights accurately. Please note that the recording is for my research purposes only and will not

102
be shared with anyone outside the research team. Is it okay with you if I record our conversation?
Finally, I want to remind you that you are welcome to skip any questions or stop participating
anytime. Ready?
Principal Interview Questions (With Transitions)
Introduction and Background
1. How did you become interested in the field of education? (background)
2. How long have you been the principal of this school?
3. What do you think is the purpose of education?
Topic: Your Leadership Perspective
In the following section, you will be asked to share more about your beliefs about
supporting SED students at your school site. Please respond to the following questions honestly;
your responses will remain anonymous, and your identity will remain confidential.
4. How would you describe your leadership style?
a. Can you describe an example of what it looks like in your practice?
b. How would your staff describe your leadership style?
c. How does your leadership style support the SED students’ academic
achievement?
5. What is your personal mission and vision as a school principal?
a. Why is that important?
b. How specifically does that benefit SED students in a Title I high school?
c. Can you give me an example of what that looks like on your campus?
d. Can you give me an example involving a student?
e. How do you ensure teachers commit to your mission and vision?

103
f. What are your expectations for your teachers?
Topic: Leadership Practices
Part of the school leader role typically requires making important and difficult decisions
for the school site. School leaders will often share the responsibilities of establishing and
supporting schoolwide goals, mentoring and providing constructive feedback to faculty, and
managing available school funds. In the following section, you will be asked to share more about
how you manage these processes as it relates to the needs of SED students.
6. What are some things you have done for students at your campus that you are most
proud of?
a. How were you able to accomplish this through your leadership?
b. Can you give me a specific example involving a student, class, or grade level?
c. How did this impact the school culture?
d. Why was it essential for you to accomplish this?
e. How does it align with your mission and vision as a principal?
f. How specifically does it benefit SED students at your campus?
g. How did it lead to high student achievement?
7. What are the most challenging tasks you have undertaken to promote the academic
success of SED students?
a. Can you give me one or more specific examples?
b. How were you able to accomplish this through your leadership?
c. Why was it essential for you to accomplish this?
8. Can you tell me one or more schoolwide initiatives you have implemented at your
school to support the learning needs of SED students?

104
Closing Question
9. Is there anything else you want to share regarding your leadership practices that increased
SED students’ academic achievement?
If, for some reason, you would like to add to the interview, here is my phone number and
email. Please let me know, and I will include it in my interview.

105
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol
The following sections present the interview protocol used with teachers in this study.
Introduction
Hello__________. How are you doing today? Thank you for taking the time to
participate in the interview. As I mentioned in my email, I am currently a student at USC and
conducting a study on the role of school principals in high-achieving Title I high schools. The
interview should take approximately 45 minutes to an hour. Is today still a good time for us to
meet?
This study aims to determine the impact of school principals’ leadership practices on
enhancing student achievement for socioeconomically disadvantaged students, also known as
(SED) in Title I schools. The study specifically aims to investigate whether high-performing
Title I schools’ principals employ transformative leadership practices. I want to give you more
information about this study and answer any questions you may have about participating in this
interview. As previously stated in my email, this interview is confidential. Your name will not be
shared with anyone outside the research team, including other administrators or the district
office. The data gathered from this study will be compiled into a report. Although some of your
statements may be used as direct quotes, none of the data will directly link to you. Finally, I will
make every effort to keep any data gathered from you anonymous.
If you are interested, I will provide you with a copy of my final paper. All data will be
stored in a password-protected computer and destroyed after 3 years.
Before we begin, do you have any questions about the study? I have brought a recorder
with me (in-person interview), and I am going to record this Zoom today to ensure that I capture
your insights accurately. Please note that the recording is for my research purposes only and will

106
not be shared with anyone outside the research team. Is it okay with you if I record our
conversation? Finally, I want to remind you that you are welcome to skip any questions or stop
participating anytime. Ready?
Introduction and Background
1. How did you become interested in the field of education? (background)
2. How long have you been at this school site, and how long have you worked with
the current principal?
3. What do you think is the purpose of education?
Topic: Your Principal’s Leadership Perspective
In the following section, you will be asked to share more about your principal’s personal
beliefs in relation to supporting SED students at your school site. Please respond to the following
questions honestly; your responses will remain anonymous, and your identity will remain
confidential.
4. How would you describe your principal’s leadership style?
a. Can you describe an example of what it looks like in their practice?
b. How does their leadership style support the SED students’ academic
achievement?
5. What do you think is your principal’s mission and vision as a school principal?
a. Why do you think that is important to them?
b. How specifically does that benefit SED students in your Title I high school?
c. Can you give me an example of what that looks like on your campus?
d. Can you give me an example involving a student?
e. How does s/he ensure the faculty commits to their mission and vision?

107
Topic: Principal’s Practices
Part of the school leader role typically requires making important and difficult decisions
for the school site. School leaders will often share the responsibilities of establishing and
supporting schoolwide goals, mentoring and providing constructive feedback to faculty, and
managing available school funds. In the following section, you will be asked to share more about
how your principal manages these processes as it relates to the needs of SED students.
6. What are some things your principal has done for students that you are most
proud of?
a. How was s/he able to accomplish this through their leadership?
b. Can you give me a specific example involving a student, class, or grade level?
c. How did this impact the school culture?
d. Why do you think it was essential for them to accomplish this?
e. Does this align with the mission and vision of the principal?
f. How specifically does it benefit SED students at your campus?
g. How did it lead to high student achievement?
7. What are the most challenging tasks your principal has undertaken to promote the
academic success of SED students?
a. Can you give me one or more specific examples?
b. How were they able to accomplish this through their leadership practices?
c. Why was it essential for them to accomplish this?
d. How did this affect your expectations?
8. Can you tell me one or more schoolwide initiatives your school principal has
implemented at your school to support the learning needs of SED students?

108
Closing Question
9. Is there anything else you want to share regarding your principals’ leadership
practices that increased SED students’ academic achievement?
If, for some reason, you would like to add to the interview, here is my phone number and
email. Please let me know, and I will include it in my interview.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative case study explored the application of transformative leadership practices by principals in high-achieving Title I high schools across San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The focus was on understanding how these practices create an equitable and inclusive learning environment for socioeconomically disadvantaged students. By examining the relationship between effective leadership practices and the eight principles of transformative leadership theory, the study sought to uncover how school leaders implement such practices and how teachers perceive these implementation practices. Two research questions guided this study: To what extent do school principals in Title I high schools employ transformative leadership practices to increase student achievement? What transformative leadership practices do teachers in Title I high schools identify in their principals' efforts to increase student achievement? Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with principals and teachers, allowing for a detailed comparison and analysis of perspectives. The study’s findings reveal a significant link between the principals’ leadership practices and transformative leadership principles, highlighting the strengths and areas for further development. This analysis reinforces the theoretical underpinnings of transformative leadership. It offers insights into its practical application, suggesting a pathway toward more aligned and effective educational leadership centered on equity, inclusion, and social justice.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities

PDF

Culturally responsive principal leadership and its influence on teachers in urban settings.

PDF

Effective school leadership: practices that promote a culture of high student achievement

PDF

Building leadership capacity from the top: how superintendents empower principals to lead schools

PDF

The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts

PDF

Leading the new generation: principal leadership practices that promote retention of millennial teachers

PDF

Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners

PDF

The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals

PDF

Effective transformational and transactional qualities of 7-8 intermediate school principals who create and sustain change in an urban school setting

PDF

What can districts do to retain their high school principals?

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Building leadership capacity from the top: how superintendents empower principals to lead schools

PDF

A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day

PDF

Belonging matters: exploring the impact of social connectedness on the academic success of immigrant and refugee children in the American school system

PDF

Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Yi, Samuel (author)

Core Title How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 08/05/2024

Defense Date 04/25/2024

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

Tag transformative leadership

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph Franklin (committee member), Franklin, Gregory (committee member)

Creator Email seokhoon.samuel.yi@gmail.com,seokhoon@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113998T53

Unique identifier UC113998T53

Identifier etd-YiSamuel-13334.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-YiSamuel-13334

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Yi, Samuel

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240805-usctheses-batch-1192 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu