University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A framework for the future: co-constructing a learner-centered grammar of schooling

(USC Thesis Other)

A framework for the future: co-constructing a learner-centered grammar of schooling

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A Framework for the Future: Co-constructing a Learner-Centered Grammar of Schooling
J. César Morales
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
May 2024

© Copyright by J. César Morales 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for J. César Morales certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Cathy Krop
Devin Vodicka
Ekaterina Moore, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study applies collective efficacy theory to investigate the influence that creating a
Framework for the Future has on district and school leaders from a Southern California PK–8
school district. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to better understand how district and
school leaders rated and described their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm after creating a framework for the future. A framework for the future consists
of traditional guiding statements, such as mission, vision, values, and strategic plan, but also
incorporates a learner profile and learning model. Using an explanatory sequential mixedmethods design, Phase 1 consisted of gathering data using closed-ended and open-ended survey
items. Phase 2 incorporated semi-structured focus group interviews using a question script. The
sample population was composed of district and school leaders who served in leadership roles
the year before and the year after the district’s framework for the future was co-constructed. The
findings underscore insights that co-creating a framework for the future using a guiding coalition
intentionally made up of diverse education partners, coupled with the design thinking protocol,
positively influenced how district and school leaders rated and described their sense of collective
efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. District and school leaders seeking to shift
from a school-centered architecture to a learner-centered grammar of schooling, where
developing learner agency, creativity, and self-awareness are at the center, can leverage a
framework for the future as a pivotal tool and process to elevate levels of collective efficacy and
stoke innovation across the educational ecosystem.

v
Dedication
To Julianna and Lucas, whose curiosity, joy, and genuine spirit inspire me daily.

vi
Acknowledgments
It is with great gratitude that I thank my dissertation committee: Dr. Moore, Dr. Krop,
and Dr. Vodicka. Your inspiration, feedback, and high standards throughout the dissertation
journey provided me with the guidance and courage to push my thinking and more thoughtfully
construct this manuscript. A special thank you to Dr. Vodicka, who has served as an influential
mentor, friend, and colleague beyond the doctoral program.
I extend a special appreciation to the SPUSD district and school leaders for supporting
me in carrying out this dissertation study. Your commitment to engaging the SPUSD community
and co-constructing a new vision for learners was inspiring to witness and exciting to study.
Thank you for the courageous conversations and generosity with your time.
I want to thank my family and friends for their support. Above all, I want to thank my
wife, Claudina, and children, Julianna and Lucas. Without their love, encouragement, and
understanding, I could never have completed this study. I am extremely grateful to them for the
sacrifices they made over the past three years.
Lastly, a heartfelt thank you to my classmates, my Monday night study team (Yolanda
and Sabbie), members of the Trojan family, and my Learner-Centered Collaborative colleagues.
Your camaraderie, thought partnership, and insights have been a beacon of motivation
throughout this incredible trek.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study...........................................................................................1
Context of the Study ............................................................................................................2
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.....................................................................7
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................8
Methodology........................................................................................................................9
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................9
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................13
The Industrial-Era Education System Design in the 21st Century ....................................13
Why the Time Is Now to Transform the U.S. Public School System Architecture...........23
Disparities in Academic Achievement and Outcomes.......................................................23
Toward a Learner-Centered Grammar of Schooling .........................................................31
Leading Transformational Change With a Framework for the Future ..............................38
Theoretical Framework......................................................................................................54
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................60
Summary............................................................................................................................63
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................64

viii
Research Questions............................................................................................................65
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................65
Participants.........................................................................................................................66
Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale ..................................................................66
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................67
Reliability, Validity, Credibility, and Trustworthiness......................................................70
Credibility and Trustworthiness.........................................................................................71
Ethics..................................................................................................................................72
Reflexivity Statement.........................................................................................................73
Chapter Four: Results and Findings...............................................................................................76
Data Collection Instruments ..............................................................................................78
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................78
Results for Research Question 1........................................................................................81
Findings for Research Question 2....................................................................................104
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion........................................................................122
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..............................................................................122
Results and Findings Summary .......................................................................................123
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................133
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................136
Recommendations for Future Research...........................................................................137
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................138
References....................................................................................................................................139
Appendix A: Survey Recruitment Communication to SPUSD Leaders......................................148
Survey Details..................................................................................................................149
Participation Criteria........................................................................................................149

ix
How to Participate............................................................................................................149
Deadline ...........................................................................................................................149
Appendix B: Research Study Questions and Details...................................................................151
Appendix C: Focus Group Recruitment Communication to SPUSD Leaders ............................153
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................153
Focus Group Details ........................................................................................................153
Participation Criteria........................................................................................................153
Focus Group Sign-Up ......................................................................................................154
Appendix D: Focus Group Recording Consent Form..................................................................155
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................155
Procedures........................................................................................................................155
Contact Information.........................................................................................................156
Consent ............................................................................................................................156
Appendix E: Focus Group and Question Script...........................................................................157
Welcome ..........................................................................................................................157
Purpose.............................................................................................................................157
Two Reference Documents..............................................................................................157
Introductions....................................................................................................................157
Warm-Up Questions ........................................................................................................158
Core Questions.................................................................................................................158
Closing Question..............................................................................................................159
Closing Comments...........................................................................................................159
Appendix F: The SPUSD Detailed Learning Model ...................................................................160

x
List of Tables
Table: 1 2018–19 California English Language Arts/Literacy Smarter Balanced Summative
Assessments: Percentage Meeting or Exceeding Standard 26
Table 2: 2018–19 California Mathematics Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments:
Percentage Meeting or Exceeding Standard 27
Table 3: The APA Learner-Centered Psychological Principles 32
Table 4: Key Structural Shifts From Today’s School-Centered to a Learner-Centered
Paradigm 37
Table 5: Key Pedagogical Shifts Toward Learner-Centered Teaching and Learning 50
Table 6: Hattie’s Top Five Influencing Variables on Student Achievement 58
Table 7: Data Sources 64
Table 8: Survey Respondents 79
Table 9: Survey Participant Pseudonyms 80
Table 10: Focus Group Participants 81
Table 11: Sense of Collective Efficacy Likert-Scale Scores by Construct 83
Table 12: Sense of Collective Capability Ratings: Confidence in One Another That the
Organizational Goal(s) Can Be Accomplished 86
Table 13: Sense of Collective Purpose Ratings: The Clarity in Understanding Where the
Organization Is Going 87
Table 14: Sense of Collective Resilience Ratings: Confidence in the Organization’s Ability
to Stay the Course 89
Appendix B: Research Study Questions and Details 151

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Satisfaction With U.S. K–12 Education: Percentage Completely or Somewhat
Satisfied 30
Figure 2: Frequency Each Major Theme Was Cited Across the 421 Mission Statement
Sample 44
Figure 3: Sample Learner Profile and Learning Model Illustration 46
Figure 4: America Succeeds’ Most In-Demand Durable Skills Categorized Into 10 Major
Competencies 49
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework 61
Figure 6: District and School Leaders’ Sense of Collective Efficacy by Construct 90
Figure 7: District and School Leaders’ Sense of Collective Efficacy by Construct and Survey
Items 91
Figure 8: The SPUSD Learner Profile 93
Figure 9: SPUSD Learner Profile Influence on District and School Leaders’ Sense of
Collective Efficacy in Shifting to a Learner-Centered Paradigm 95
Figure 10: The SPUSD Learning Model 97
Figure 11: SPUSD Learning Model Influence on District and School Leaders’ Sense of
Collective Efficacy in Shifting to a Learner-Centered Paradigm 98
Figure 12: The SPUSD Big Moves 101
Figure 13: SPUSD Big Moves Influence on District and School Leaders’ Sense of Collective
Efficacy in Shifting to a Learner-Centered Paradigm 102
Figure F1: Personalized 161
Figure F2: Authentic 162
Figure F3: Competency-Based 163
Figure F4: Inclusive and Equitable 164

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Today’s K–12 public school leaders are tasked and challenged to prepare students for
success in the 21st century in an outdated education system. In the quest to reimagine the
learning experiences offered to students, leaders need to undo school systems’ structures,
policies, and practices designed to maximize efficiency and standardization, divest students from
their home cultural identities, produce a labor force prepared for the rote and monotonous tasks
of factory work, and combat a school culture focused on testing and accountability. Instead, as
Mehta (2022) stated, the time is now for a more learner-centered “grammar of schooling” to
depart from the antiquated, industrial-age school system that “serves as a means of reproducing
social inequalities from one generation to the next” (para. 3). Tyack and Tobin (1994) defined
the “grammar of schooling” as “the regular structures and rules that organize the work of
instruction” (p. 454). This study sought to better understand how co-constructing a framework
for the future affords district and school leaders a process and tool to redefine the purpose of
education and positively impact their sense of collective efficacy.
Vodicka (2020b) offered the framework for the future as a strategy for education
ecosystems to redesign aspirations for learners and define the learning experiences they commit
to students. Going beyond the traditional guiding statements that define an organization’s “why,”
which includes the mission, vision, core values, and organizational success metrics, the
framework also includes a learner profile and learning model, which help operationalize the
mission and vision. The learner profile defines priority skills, knowledge, and dispositions for
learners and catalyzes the organization’s systems, processes, and structures to support new
metrics for learner success. In short, the learner profile is a shortlist of interdisciplinary learner

2
outcomes, such as effective communicator, accompanied by associated competencies to ensure
everyone in the ecosystem grasps the priority skills, knowledge, and dispositions.
Supporting the development of the priority whole-learner outcomes named in the learner
profile and found in the framework for the future is a methodically crafted learning model that is,
similarly to the learner profile, co-constructed by an ecosystem’s education partners. The
learning model shapes the path for the learning experiences needed to achieve the priority skills,
knowledge, and dispositions. As the learner profile shapes the organization’s systems, processes,
and structures, the learning model serves as an organizational GPS and framework for
pedagogical change that guides educators to support students in developing and demonstrating
the learner profile outcomes.
Context of the Study
San Paulo Unified School District (SPUSD, a pseudonym) is a medium-sized TK–8
California school district with approximately 14,000 students, nearly 2,000 employees, and just
over 20 schools. It serves an ethnically and economically diverse community. The district’s
2022–23 local control and accountability plan (LCAP) highlights an operating budget of
approximately $280 million, of which $40 million comes from the 80% or so district students
classified as English learners, eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, or foster youth. The nearly
14,000-student population in grades kindergarten through Grade 8 consists primarily of Hispanic
or Latino learners, with White students comprising less than 15% of the total population. During
the same school year, SPUSD’s enrollment by English language acquisition status (ELAS)
consisted of over 30% English learners, roughly 10% reclassified fluent English proficient, and
55% English only (California Department of Education, 2023).

3
The district’s vision and mission statements speak to the aspiration to ensure learners
actualize their full potential and engage in quality learning experiences. The vision statement
underscores students being engaged and empowered, as well as the district’s commitment to
equity and ensuring each learner has access to the support they need to reach their full potential.
The mission statement focuses on SPUSD’s commitment, alongside its education partners, to
ensure quality learning experiences for all students that lead to support them becoming
productive and positive community members. Additionally, SPUSD pledges its commitment to
continuous student achievement, active student engagement, developing the whole child, and
providing all learners with meaningful learning experiences, as evident in the district’s 2023–24
LCAP goals.
To support efforts to accomplish the stated goals and reimagine metrics to define student
success, SPUSD engaged in the co-construction of its framework for the future during the
summer of 2022. The aspirations district leaders set forth when ideating on the motivation for
designing the framework included a desire to bring coherence among school leaders, develop a
common commitment to bring teaching and learning to the forefront, and design systemic, local
benchmarks for learner experiences, expectations, and supports. Additionally, district leaders
wanted to create financial and resource alignment to ensure students command the skills,
knowledge, and dispositions that are of the highest priority to the SPUSD community and
necessary to compete in the 21st-century labor economy.
I, along with two colleagues, used the human-centered design thinking protocol described
by the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (2023) to facilitate SPUSD’s co-authoring
of its framework for the future. The process initiated with the empathize stage, which
encompassed listening to those at the center of any education system: the students. We hosted

4
nine student forums and leveraged the Continue-Start-Stop protocol to guide students through a
discovery conversation, allowing them to reflect on their personal academic experiences and
work collaboratively to summarize their collective ones. After recording students’ voices, we
presented the findings to the SPUSD design team, a 70-member cross-functional team composed
of school and district leaders, teachers, parents, central office leaders, and labor partners. Over
the 2022–23 school year, design team members identified successes to celebrate and scale and
opportunities to improve and refine. The next phase challenged the team to ideate as many
solutions as possible that respond to the learners’ needs. They included innovative ideas in the
use of time, space, and events, as well as reimagining rituals, incentives, and/or the use of
finances. Continuing in a collaborative effort, the design team concluded the interactive design
effort by prototyping and testing the SPUSD learner profile and learning model and creating a
strategic plan in the Spring of 2023.
Background of the Problem
There are clear indicators of the need to transition from a school-centered to a learnercentered grammar of schooling, and public school leaders need a strategy and high collective
efficacy to enact the transformation. The current, industrial-era, public school system design
prevents school leaders from providing students with the learning experiences they need to
succeed in the 21st century (Cole et al., 2021; Education Reimagined, 2020; Graham, 2005;
Martin, 2021; Mehta, 2022). Today’s school-centered architecture has deeply ingrained
structures, policies, and practices that have shaped it since its initial blueprint of the early 1900s.
Most prevalent and constraining to school leaders are the system’s signature factory-model
priorities that place a premium on the uniformity of people, curriculum, and learning experiences
rather than developing students’ agency, creativity, and curiosity.

5
The data demonstrate that the school-centered design has peaked its performance and is
now underserving students, particularly students of color. Cross (2014) and Murnane and
Hoffman (2013) highlighted the plateau in the system’s achievement when it comes to the
number of high school graduates it produces. In 1900, “only 6.4% of 17-year-olds were
graduating from high school. A century later, it was 80%” (Cross, 2014, p. 6), and according to
Murnane and Hoffman (2013), the 80% graduation figure has stayed relatively consistent since
1970. However, graduation rates among students of color, students with special needs, English
language learners, and students from low-income families are lower than their counterparts, and
these students demonstrate lower performance trends on standardized tests (California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, n.d.; California Department of Education,
2020; National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Conversely, students of color exhibit
greater chronic absenteeism and tally more discipline infractions than their White classmates
(California Department of Education, n.d.-a, n.d.-b).
A learner-centered education is an alternative grammar of schooling to increase students’
engagement and better prepare them for the demands of the 21st century (Education Reimagined,
2020). Unlike the industrial era’s signature instructional practices, where compliance,
standardization, and efficiency were paramount, a learner-centered education places the students
at the center and embraces their interests, life experiences, cultural and linguistic assets, and
fosters student agency (APA Task Force on Psychology in Education, 1993; Martin, 2021;
Mehta, 2022; Vodicka, 2020b). Education Reimagined (2020) outlines key benefits school
leaders afford students when they shift to a learner-centered grammar of schooling: teachers
engage students as co-creators of their learning instead of vessels to be filled with information,
learning becomes personalized instead of governed by a linear curriculum divided into subjects,

6
and resources are integrated to support the development of the whole child not just learning
experiences that help performance on standardized tests.
Vodicka (2020b) offered a framework for the future as a tool and process to support
school leaders in transitioning their ecosystem toward a learner-centered paradigm. The
framework consists of traditional guiding statements, such as mission, vision, core values, and
goals statements, but it also incorporates a learner profile and learning model to support the
transformation. It creates organizational coherence and informs decision-making and
prioritization. Furthermore, Vodicka (2020b) underscored that the framework serves as a
communication tool that demonstrates the ecosystem’s direction to internal and external
education partners. While the framework is an end product, leveraging a guiding coalition to coconstruct it is paramount, according to Vodicka (2020b). Kotter (2012) described a guiding
coalition as a cross-section of diverse members of an organization that bring forth diverse
perspectives in terms of roles, work experience, world views, and cultural backgrounds. Kotter
added that a balance of credible members with good reputations, middle managers to enact the
change management, and leadership to drive the change process is important for the work and
efforts of the guiding coalition to have an impact.
There is a clear call to action for school leaders to change how the public school system
serves students, and it is imperative that they possess the collective efficacy to face the
challenge. Bandura (2000) highlighted collective efficacy, underscoring how it affects a team’s
willingness to embark on a social transformation:
People’s shared beliefs in their collective efficacy influence the types of futures they seek
to achieve through collective action, how well they use their resources, how much effort
they put into their group endeavor, their staying power when collective efforts fail to

7
produce quick results or meet forcible opposition, and their vulnerability to the
discouragement that can beset people taking on tough social problems. (p. 76)
Ensuring district and school leaders have high levels of collective efficacy is imperative if they
are to redefine the purpose of public education and better prepare students for the demands of the
21st century. The industrial era’s practices are deeply entrenched in today’s public education
system design, and school leaders need a firm belief that they have the resilience and collective
capacity to enact change.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to better understand how SPUSD district and school
leaders in the role of superintendent, deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent, director,
and school principal rate and describe their sense of collective efficacy after creating their
framework for the future. In addition, this study also aimed to fill a void in empirical research to
shed light on how guiding statements, coupled with a learner profile and learning model,
influence collective efficacy. The following two research questions guided this study:
1. What levels of collective efficacy do SPUSD district and school leaders report after
creating the framework for the future?
2. How do district and school leaders describe their sense of collective efficacy in
shifting to a learner-centered paradigm after creating the SPUSD framework for the
future?
Importance of the Study
Redesigning today’s public education system is imperative and requires that district and
school leaders have a strategy and high collective efficacy to enact the transformation. School
leaders can use the co-construction process of creating a framework for the future to redefine

8
how they measure success for students in their communities, as well as detail the priority
learning experiences students need to succeed in their ecosystem. The consequences of
maintaining the status quo and not delivering students the learning experiences required to
succeed in the 21st century will continue to harm students, particularly students of color. School
leaders can stop contributing to what Ladson-Billings (2006) referred to as the education debt, in
which the current iteration of the education system creates disproportionate academic outcomes
for marginalized students by design and, instead, implement a learner-centered grammar of
schooling. By transforming toward a learner-centered paradigm, school leaders will foster
student agency, collaboration, and real-world problem-solving and help them develop essential
skills, knowledge, and dispositions.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study used Bandura’s (1997) collective efficacy framework to address the research
questions. Bandura asserted that collective efficacy “affects the sense of mission and purpose of
a system, the strength of common commitment to what it seeks to achieve, how well its members
work together to produce results, and the group’s resiliency in the face of difficulties” (p. 469).
Group members gain collective efficacy when they act on a shared belief or purpose in which
their shared beliefs influence the future they seek, how well the collective manages resources,
their effort and output, and the group’s resilience when facing adversity. The research on teacher
collective efficacy describes the importance and impact of collective efficacy in schools.
Goddard et al. (2000) described teacher collective efficacy as the perceptions a group of
teachers teaching at the same school have that their collective efforts will positively affect
students. Further, teacher collective efficacy is fortified when teachers effectively collaborate to
enact change, exchange ideas, and learn from one another, and receive praise, encouragement,

9
and resources from the administration to support change efforts, and when teacher teams persist
together through obstacles (Goddard et al., 2000). Adding to collective efficacy’s positive impact
on school settings, Hattie’s (2023) Barometer of Influence Infographic, a tool used to illustrate
the effect size of more than 250 influences on student achievement, rates teacher collective
efficacy as having among the most influence on student achievement, surpassing direct
instruction, feedback, response to intervention, formative teacher evaluation, and among other
variables, teacher credibility.
In short, perceived collective efficacy is instrumental in whether groups enact change and
innovate because “unless people believe that they can produce desired effects and forestall
undesired ones by their actions, they have little incentive to act” (Bandura, 2000, p. 75).
Methodology
This study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Lochmiller and Lester
(2017) described an explanatory sequential design as a process that “begins by collecting
quantitative data and then concludes by collecting and analyzing qualitative data” (p. 218). I used
this non-experimental design to leverage quantitative data to formulate an understanding of the
research problem and further explore how school and central office leaders rated their sense of
collective efficacy after creating the SPUSD framework for the future. The study leveraged
Bohn’s (2010) validated organizational efficacy scale to interpret reported levels of collective
efficacy. Then, based on the interpretation of the quantitative data gathered, I explored crosscutting perspectives regarding district and school leaders’ sense of collective efficacy via focus
group interviews.
Definition of Terms
Agency: An individual’s or group’s power to pursue goals and produce desired outcomes.

10
Collective efficacy: The shared belief among team members that their group, team, or
organization has a sense of purpose and the strength to work effectively and efficiently through
demands, challenges, and stressors to produce desired results and mitigate undesired outcomes.
District leaders: For this study, district leaders are those who serve in the capacity of
director level and above, including the role of director, assistant superintendent, deputy
superintendent, and superintendent.
District mission: A statement that defines the school district’s purpose for existence,
identifies how it serves those in the educational ecosystem, and elaborates on the core business
of the school district.
District vision: A statement that details the future state of the organization with details of
the aspirations and what it seeks to achieve for students.
Educational partners: Refers to teachers, principals, administrators, other school
personnel, local bargaining units of the local education agency, parents, and students. The
California State Board of Education adopted the term “educational partners” as a replacement for
the term “stakeholder.”
Framework for the future: A document co-constructed with educational partners and
contains the school’s or school district’s mission, vision, core values, learner profile, and
learning model.
Guiding statements: Guiding statements are an organization’s mission, vision, values,
success metrics, or philosophy.
Learning model: A learning model serves as a framework for pedagogical change by
identifying the learning experiences needed to support students in developing and demonstrating
the learner profile outcomes.

11
Learner profile: A learner profile (i.e., a portrait of a graduate or graduate profile) is a
visual representation that defines the priority skills, knowledge, and dispositions. It is a short list
of interdisciplinary learner outcomes, such as effective communicator, accompanied by
succinctly stated associated competencies to ensure everyone in the ecosystem grasps with
clarity how student success is defined.
School leaders: For this study, school leaders are those who serve in the position of the
school principal.
Sense of collective capability: Confidence in one another that organizational goals can be
accomplished.
Sense of mission, future, or purpose: The clarity in understanding where the organization
is going.
Sense of resilience: Confidence in the organization’s ability to stay the course.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation examined the need to evolve from a school-centered to a learnercentered grammar of schooling and how a framework for the future offers school leaders a tool
and process to facilitate the transformation. The study was driven by the imperative that
education leaders need the belief and confidence in their ability to enact change to best prepare
students for the demands of the 21st century. Chapter 1 introduces the background of the
problem and provides the study’s context, research questions, theoretical framework,
methodology, and significance. Chapter 2 provides a literature review of the major industrial-era
design elements still in place in today’s grammar of schooling and elevates the need to shift from
a school-centered to a learner-centered paradigm. Additionally, the literature highlights how a
framework for the future, coupled with transformational leadership practices, can support district

12
and school leaders’ efforts in transforming their school systems while maintaining high levels of
collective efficacy. Chapter 3 highlights the methodology used to collect and analyze data and
the instruments used to collect how district and school leaders describe and rate their sense of
collective efficacy. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data and
answers this study’s research questions. Chapter 5 synthesizes the results, describes the
implications, and provides recommendations for district and school leaders who seek to
transition their education ecosystems toward a learner-centered grammar of schooling while
maintaining a high sense of collective efficacy.

13
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Co-constructing and adopting a framework for the future is a strategy to redefine the
purpose of education and influence district and school leaders’ sense of collective efficacy. This
chapter consists of two parts to present the literature examining this study’s two research
questions. Part 1 encompasses the origins and impact of the industrial-era education system still
in place and surfaces why it is imperative for a new grammar of schooling. Next, it brings forth
the literature on the origins and benefits of learner-centered education alongside the constructs of
a framework for the future, a strategy used to engage transformational leadership toward a
learner-centered grammar of schooling. Part 2 reveals Bandura’s (1986, 1997) collective efficacy
theoretical framework and this study’s conceptual framework, both used to detail how district
and school leaders rate and describe their sense of collective efficacy after creating SPUSD’s
framework for the future.
The Industrial-Era Education System Design in the 21st Century
Today’s public education system architecture maintains its signature tenets from its early
20th-century design principles. To support the Industrial Age’s economic and labor demands, the
education system was based on a standardized factory model, emphasizing uniformity and
efficiency rather than individual agency, creativity, and curiosity. Education Reimagined (2020)
described the schooling experience students receive in today’s classrooms, which the majority of
learners arguably experienced over much of the 20th century. In this experience, the curriculum
is standardized, students are clustered by age, and teachers are unable to adapt and personalize
the learner’s experience based on their needs, strengths, interests, or demonstration of learning.
Instead, learners are confined to prescriptive learning experiences that maximize efficiencies and
restrict learning to something that happens to them and within a classroom.

14
Graham (2005) identified four distinct periods that influenced the purpose and design of
today’s education system: the Assimilation Era (1900–1920), the Adjustment Era (1920–1954),
the Access Era (1954–1983), and the Achievement Era (1983–2000). While each era enhances
the learning experiences benefitted by students according to the economic and social priorities of
the time, the same signature elements carried forward have deeply imposed the grammar of
schooling we have today. These entrenched structures make evolving the purpose and design of
the American public education system a daunting task for district and school leaders. Whether it
is the organizational design that splinters knowledge into academic disciplines, divides time and
space to maximize efficiencies, or the student achievement data that reveals students of color are
consistently outperformed by their White peers, today’s leaders work within a dated public
education system that no longer affords learners the experiences they need to prepare for the
demands of the 21st century.
Two desired outcomes drove the Assimilation Era (1900–1920). First was the ambition to
engage in what Valenzuela (1999) defined as subtractive schooling, “a deliberate way of
subtracting students’ culture and language, which is consequential to their achievement and
orientations toward school” (p. 336). This approach seeks to ultimately foster national cohesion
and assimilate immigrant children into North American prevalent values and norms. The
curricular focus was teaching American history, citizenship, and English to accomplish the
cultural cleansing and fortify a national identity. A second signature of the Assimilation Era was
the adoption of Frederick W. Taylor’s scientific management principles by public education
leaders. Scientific management was developed to assess factory operations and focused on
“distilling work into discrete, quantifiable tasks; measuring observable outputs; exercising heavy
managerial control over workers; and minimizing costs by appealing to workers’ economic self-

15
interests, as well as by engaging in systematically derived best practices and planning” (Trujillo,
2014, p. 208). As a result of immersing students in a school system driven by standardization and
efficiencies, education systems could, in turn, produce a labor force conditioned to follow
instructions, effectively accomplish rote tasks, and seamlessly transition into the factory jobs of
the era (Graham, 2005).
Implementing the 1906 Carnegie unit was another strategy to standardize time in schools
and continues to serve as a key design element in today’s grammar of schooling. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching developed the Carnegie unit, representing 120
hours of classroom study, when the standardization of a high school diploma and college
entrance requirements were being engineered (Silva, 2013). The standardization of seat time
required to earn credit for a course, coupled with the prerequisite to take 14 courses in subjects
like English, mathematics, history, science, and foreign languages to earn a high school diploma,
created the blueprint for today’s secondary school settings. “Thus they [the Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching] standardized not only time and credits but gave pride of place
to traditional academic subjects that were increasingly being organized into high school
departments—another key element in the grammar of secondary schooling” (Tyack & Tobin,
1994, p. 461).
The Adjustment Era (1920–1954) shifted the focus of public education from assimilating
students to preparing students for a new North American society. In addition, the era called for
transforming how schooling was delivered in response to the rise of urbanization,
industrialization, and mass media (Graham, 2005). Whereas the curriculum canon was focused
on heritage cleansing during the Assimilation Era, teaching and learning shifted to learning
experiences that emphasized vocational education and life skills during the Adjustment Era. The

16
Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 was significant legislation toward improving vocational education in
the United States and was the first legislation in which the federal government provided direct
support to schools (Cross, 2014). The Smith-Hughes Act passed in response to several major
societal needs and shifts that impacted the demands on school systems: the enrollment of 14- to
17-year-old students had grown from 7% to nearly 30% in less than 30 years, the military
discovered that 25% of inductees were illiterate during World War I and that many were unable
to speak English, and schools were interested in creating an educational program that was not
tailored to the elite class (Cross, 2014).
The school system structure also endured a shift during the Adjustment Era. It went from
a single schoolhouse that served the local needs of an agrarian society to school systems that
prepared a workforce for the economy’s changing demands. In agrarian societies, schools were
small, single-room learning environments in which local communities or religious institutions
designed the curriculum to teach basic skills such as writing, reading, and arithmetic. The
schoolhouse schedule was flexible, and students of different ages learned together and often from
one another (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). The overarching goal of the schoolhouse model was to
teach practical knowledge that would be useful for farm life, given the limited resources and
opportunities available to agrarian communities.
Access became the next imperative for public education from 1954 to 1983 (Graham,
2005). The Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954 declared a new stance
for the public education system in promoting desegregation. Bell (1980) highlighted that “Brown
transformed blacks from beggars pleading for decent treatment to citizens demanding equal
treatment under the law as their constitutionally recognized right” (p. 518). During this era,
schools transitioned to more diverse settings, and what students learned realized a distinct

17
evolution. Cross (2014) highlighted that public education during this period “was characterized
by pressures from groups on the left and the right who sought special programs or a special
curriculum ranging from bilingual education to women’s studies, to African American studies, to
prayer in the classroom” (p. 9). Further reshaping the structures that mitigated access to public
education, the federal government ruled its stance regarding educational rights for children with
disabilities when Congress passed the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, better
known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA), providing “disabled children the
right to receive a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment”
(Hochschild & Scovronick, 2004, p. 138).
Two additional phenomena during the Access Era influenced the purpose of public
education and still maintain a palpable presence in defining the purpose of education. The first
was the 1957 launch of Sputnik 1, a Russian satellite that was the first manmade object to orbit
Earth. This event had a profound impact on public education in the United States and led to a
national sense of urgency to bolster a labor force equipped with scientific and technological
competencies (Wirt & Kirst, 2009). To accomplish this outcome, the federal government
increased funding to train math and science teachers, as well as provided additional financial
support for the development of new curricula that focused on science and technology for the
economic purposes of maintaining a superpower dominance over other countries (Horsford et al.,
2019). The second phenomenon took place in 1965 when President Lyndon Baines Johnson
signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) into law with the belief “that ‘full
educational opportunity’ should be ‘our first national goal’” (U.S. Department of Education,
2023, para. 10). The ESEA was nestled among other reforms aimed at yielding greater equity to
those typically at the margins of society and unable to fulfill the American Dream, such as the

18
Civil Rights of 1964, Voting Rights Acts of 1965, the War on Poverty, and the expansion of the
Social Security Program, and was “was passed at a time of great optimism about the ability of
government to improve the lives of the poor” (Gamson et al., 2015, p. 3).
A focus on academic achievement and excellence characterized the Achievement Era
(1983-2000). Under President Reagan’s administration, the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk
shifted the purpose of public education from serving students’ needs to serving the country’s
needs to be well-equipped to compete with other industrialized nations (Diem & Welton, 2021).
Spellings (2014) highlights how the report catalyzed the reshaping of public education’s purpose
in this era:
In 1983, the national report, A Nation at Risk, delivered a wake up call for our education
system. It described stark realities like a significant number of functionally illiterate high
school students, plummeting student performance, and international competitors
breathing down our necks. It was a warning, a reproach, and a call to arms. (para. 1)
The report documented various student achievement data points on the decline in academic
achievement to redefine the vision and purpose of public education. At the time of the report, it
underscored the following risk indicators: 23 million American adults were functionally
illiterate, of which 13% of 17-year-olds were functionally illiterate when compared to other
industrialized nations such as Japan and Germany, North American students did not rank first or
second on academic tests over the decade leading up to the report, there was an unbroken decline
on the College Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) from 1963 to 1980, and among other
notable findings, remedial mathematics courses in public 4-year colleges increased by 72%
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).

19
In short, the report’s findings declared the imperative for excellence in public education
that would influence the Achievement Era. Excellence was defined using three interrelated
constructs. The first was at the individual learner and focused on “performing on the boundary of
individual ability in ways that test and push back limits, in school and in the workplace”
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 117). The second anchored on
challenging schools and colleges to set high expectations and goals for learners and
simultaneously be exhaustive in how they support students to achieve them. The third element
called for a society “that has adopted these policies, for it will then be prepared through the
education and skill of its people to respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing world”
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 117).
Schwartz and Robinson (2000) reported on the shifts that took place shortly after the
release of the report:
Fourteen months after the release of A Nation at Risk, the Education Commission of the
States issued a report on new state legislation and policy aimed at education renewal.
Action in the States identified 44 states that had raised graduation requirements; 30 states
that had developed new regulations governing learning outcomes, curriculum content,
and frameworks; 45 states that had strengthened teacher certification and evaluation
requirements; and 27 states that had implemented initiatives to provide more instructional
time. More than 250 task forces were helping 46 states develop comprehensive state
action plans to improve educational outcomes of students. (p. 175)
Graham’s (2005) Achievement Era (1983–2000) initiates with the A Nation at Risk report
and concludes with President Bill Clinton’s Goals 2000: Educate America Act legislation, both
of which play a critical role in defining the purpose of education for today’s learners. The

20
sunsetting of the 20th century carried forward a time where “standards, testing, accountability,
and school choice took center stage, based on the notion that all students can learn at much
higher levels and that adults must be held accountable for what students learn” (Cross, 2014, p.
9). Goals 2000 engineered a focus and urgency to achieve the following goals by the year 2000:
(a) all children will start school ready to learn; (b) the high school graduation rate will be
at least 90%; (c) students will master a challenging curriculum at grades 4, 8, and 12; (d)
teachers will have access to professional development opportunities; (e) U.S. students
will be first in the world in science and math achievement; (f) all adults will be literate;
(g) schools will be free of drugs, violence, and firearms; and (h) every school will
promote parental involvement in education” (Stedman & Riddle, 1998, p. 4).
Much like his Republican predecessors, President Clinton’s presidency can be best described as
one that “embraced the values of efficiency, excellence, and choice in education while asserting
that national standards, testing, and choice could serve as vehicles to promote those values in
public schools” (Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2014, p. 194)
Goals 2000 laid the foundation for three education reforms that would, each in their own
way, reshape the purpose of education: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002, the Common
Core Standards (CCSS) in 2009, and Race to the Top (RTTP) in 2010. President George W.
Bush’s NCLB legislation continued the theme of higher standards and accountability:
President George W. Bush sought systemically to improve education by opening up the
public education system (through expanded public school choice and contracting out
educational services), making it more transparent (school report cards, a form of public
accountability), incentivizing public employees (merit pay and performance bonuses),
and closely monitoring quality inputs (the mandate for highly qualified teachers) and

21
outcomes (performance reporting by student subgroup). (Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2014, p.
194)
NCLB asserted the federal government’s role in local public education by exacting a 95%
participation rate on annual state testing and 100% proficiency in English and Mathematics by all
students by 2014 (Davidson et al., 2015). The high-stakes testing environment, coupled with
public school report cards, reduced the purpose of education to that of teaching to the tests and
failing schools under NCLB to cast blame on low-income families and students of color for their
school’s underperformance (Diem & Welton, 2021).
President Barack Obama’s administration oversaw three national initiatives that would
once again refine the purpose of public education: the adoption of the CCSS, the Race to the Top
(RTTT) program, and the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act. The adoption of the 2009 CCSS
served as a strategy to adopt a federal guiding framework for states to design curricula and
realign high-stakes standardized testing. Fusarelli and Fusarelli (2014) highlighted that the CCSS
served as “an effort to standardize what students are learning and when, as well as to bring states
to the same level of standards” (p. 198). Beyond serving as a baseline for states to define what
students should learn and be able to do and by when, the CCSS aspired to innovate learning
experiences for students, going from rote and standardized instructional practices to learning
experiences that engaged deeper learning, critical thinking, and the application of knowledge
(Fullan & Quinn, 2016). The aspiration for the CCSS was to provide students with learning
experiences that would better prepare them for college and careers.
While NCLB created the conditions for high-stakes tests, some believe that the RTTT
program placed the primary focus of public education on standards, testing, and accountability
(Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2014). The program entailed a competitive grant that states could receive

22
if they met the 19 criteria, which included removing any caps on the expansion of charter
schools, instituting the use of student achievement in the evaluation of teachers and school
leaders, and requiring states to adopt the CCSS. The U.S. Department of Education described the
purpose of RTTT as a program that, through a more personalized approach, would support “bold,
locally directed improvements in learning and teaching that will directly improve student
achievement” (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, para. 5). While RTTT underscored the
importance of implementing the CCSS and utilizing student test data to evaluate teacher and
school administrator performance, it also exacted a focus on the quality of relationships between
educators and students. The U.S. Department of Education (2017) stated,
LEAs [Local Education Agencies] are making equity and access a priority and aim to
prepare each student to master the content and skills required for college- and careerreadiness, provide each student the opportunity to pursue a rigorous course of study, and
accelerate and deepen students’ learning through attention to their individual needs.
(para. 5)
The 2015 ESSA released the federal government’s grip and provided states more control
over how they define the purpose of education and student success metrics. Specifically, NCLB
focused on accountability through standardized testing, while the ESSA granted states the
flexibility to design accountability provisions, including the use of school climate, student
engagement, and student growth, along with academic performance indicators (Klein, 2016). The
ESSA also challenged states to adopt challenging academic standards but expressly avoided
dictating that they be the CCSS or any other set of standards. While academic testing
requirements remained and were carried forward from NCLB, ESSA shifted the focus of public

23
schooling and was promoted to be “a better law that focused on the clear goal of fully preparing
all students for success in college and careers” (U.S. Department of Education, 2023, para. 2).
Why the Time Is Now to Transform the U.S. Public School System Architecture
Numerous indicators signal the need to transform the American public school system,
which was originally designed to serve the social and economic needs of the 20th century. This
new paradigm of education calls for restructuring the system with a clear emphasis on
prioritizing “teaching and learning more than control, liberation more than colonization,
sustainable approaches more than quick fixes, and human relationships more than bureaucratic
rules” (Mehta, 2022, para. 5). To reimagine this learner-centered education system, it is
imperative that district and school leaders engage their communities to identify the whole-learner
outcomes they aspire for students, define the learning experiences they will commit to learners,
and effectively articulate the school system’s purpose to both internal and external education
partners. The following paragraphs outline the need for a more learner-centered school
architecture, how learner-centered ecosystems benefit learners, and a strategy district and school
leaders can leverage to redefine the grammar of schooling to better prepare students for the
demands of the 21st century.
Disparities in Academic Achievement and Outcomes
Data points, such as high school graduation and college readiness rates, student
discipline, standardized test performance, and levels of student engagement, all underscore the
need for the next evolution of how the public school system serves students. High school
graduation rates offer a measure of how successfully the American public education system
serves students. Cross (2014) pointed out that there is much to celebrate by spotlighting the
exponential improvement in high school graduation rates over the 20th century, from 6.4% of
17-year-olds graduating high school in 1900 to nearly 80% a century later. However, despite

24
these trends, the public school system has yielded one out of five students without a high school
diploma, and disaggregating the data along the lines of color, income, and learner needs reveals
similarly negative findings.
More recently, the 2018–19 school year national adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR)
reached an all-time high since it was first measured in 2010–11. The ACGR is a statistic
representing students who started ninth grade and graduated with a regular high school diploma
within 4 years. The 2018–19 ACGR for public school high school students was 86%, with
Asian/Pacific Islander students having the highest ACGR (93%), followed by White (89%),
Hispanic (82%), Black (80%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (74%) (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2022). Looking at the same 2018–19 data point for California students, the
California Department of Education (2020) reported an 85% overall graduation. When
disaggregating by demographics, African American, Hispanic/Latino, and American
Indian/Alaska Native faired the lowest graduation rates with 77%, 82%, and 75%, respectively,
while White (88%), Asian (94%), and Filipino (94%) topped the ranking. Demonstrating lower
graduation rates were students classified as English learners (69%), students with disabilities
(68%), and foster youth (56%).
In a similar trend to the 2018–19 graduation rates, California’s students of color ranked
the lowest when analyzing the percentage of students meeting the A–G requirements. The A–G
requirements are the courses required for freshman admission to the University of California and
the California State University systems. The following are the percentages of 2018–19 graduates
who completed these requirements by race/ethnicity, per the California Department of Education
(n.d.-a): American Indian/Alaska Native (31%), African American (41%), Hispanic/Latino
(44%), Pacific Islander (44%), White (56%), Filipino (67%), and Asian (75%).

25
Conversely, students of color outpaced their peers in areas of student discipline, chronic
absenteeism, and dropout rates. In California, African American (9.1%), American Indian or
Alaska Native (7.5%), and Pacific Islander (4.6%) students tallied the highest suspension rates,
while Asian (1%) and Filipino (1.4%) students had the lowest in 2018–19 (California
Department of Education, n.d.-b). Expulsion rates for the same academic year also have African
American and American Indian or Alaska Natives generating the highest rates. Students are
determined to be chronically absent if they are absent for 10% or more school days. In 2018–19,
23% of California’s African American students were deemed to be chronically absent, as were
22% of American Indian or Alaska Native, 20% of Pacific Islander, and 13% of Hispanic or
Latino students. White and Asian students tallied the lowest rates at 10% and 4%, respectively
(California Department of Education, n.d.-c).
As with graduation and meeting A–G requirement rates, students of color are
outperformed by their peers on annual standardized tests. Evidenced by the 2018–19 California
English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments,
American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and Native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander students met or exceeded standard at a lower rate than their White
and Asian classmates in both English language arts and mathematics for Grades 3, 8, and 11
(California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, n.d.). Table 1 highlights that for
English language arts/literacy in Grades 3 and 8, American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or
African American, and Hispanic or Latino students had a much lower rate of students meeting or
exceeding standards when compared to Asian and White students.

26
Table 1
2018–19 California English Language Arts/Literacy Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments:
Percentage Meeting or Exceeding Standard
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian
Black or
African
American
Filipino Hispanic
or Latino
Native
Hawaiian
or Pacific
Islander
White
Grade 3 37% 73% 31% 67% 38% 39% 63%
Grade 8 35% 78% 31% 71% 38% 42% 64%
Grade 11 45% 80% 38% 76% 48% 50% 70%
Note. From California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. English Language
Arts/Literacy and Mathematics (Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments) by California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, n.d. In the public domain.
The performance trend in mathematics demonstrates the same achievement disparities
found in the English language arts/literacy outcomes but with a greater degree of variation
(California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, n.d.). As seen in Table 2, the
percentage of American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, and Hispanic
students in Grade 11 who met or exceeded standards on the 2018–19 California Mathematics
Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment was less than 20%, and 26% for Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander students, compared to 70% for Asian students and 45% for White students. The
lag in students of color keeping up with their White and Asian classmates begins as early as third
grade and demonstrates little variation as students matriculate from elementary to middle school
and then from middle school to high school.

27
Table 2
2018–19 California Mathematics Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments: Percentage
Meeting or Exceeding Standard
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian
Black or
African
American
Filipino Hispanic
or Latino
Native
Hawaiian
or Pacific
Islander
White
Grade 3 38% 79% 30% 69% 40% 42% 64%
Grade 8 24% 74% 17% 58% 24% 30% 52%
Grade 11 19% 70% 14% 51% 20% 26% 45%
Note. From California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. English Language
Arts/Literacy and Mathematics (Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments). California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, n.d. In the public domain
Ladson-Billings (2006) challenged educators to avoid seeing these perpetuating academic
achievement trends as evidence of an achievement gap and instead defined these inequities as an
education debt. Ladson-Billings (2006) further noted that a “focus on the ‘Achievement Gap’
moves us toward short-term solutions that are unlikely to address the long-term underlying
problem” (p. 4) and underscores that “the historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral
decisions and policies that characterize our society have created an education debt” (p. 5). The
term “debt” is leveraged to demonstrate how, as in the financial context, year-over-year deficits
in academic achievement lead to compounding interests and fees, and in the case of the
education of students of color, the interests and fees are reflected in higher dropout rates, lower
university attendance rates, and income earnings, as well as a manifestation in the “distrust and
suspicion about what schools can and will do in communities serving the poor and children of
color” (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 5).

28
Declining levels of student engagement and adult satisfaction with K–12 education are
additional data points indicating the need to revamp the public education system architecture in
the United States. Hodges (2018) defined engagement as “a measurement of how involved,
enthusiastic, and committed one is to an organization” (para. 3). Put simply, student engagement
is the psychological relationship students have with their school; engaged students “are 2.5 times
more likely to say that they get excellent grades and do well in school, and they are 4.5 times
more likely to be hopeful about the future than their actively disengaged peers” (Hodges, 2018,
para. 5). Furthermore, engaged students feel safe at school, have strong relationships with
teachers and peers, feel recognized, and feel they learn important things relevant to their future.
Two key findings related to student engagement surfaced in a Gallup study of more than
5 million surveys with students in Grades 5 through 12 (Hodges, 2018). The first is that almost
half (47%) reported that they were engaged, just over a quarter (29%) said they were not
engaged, and the remaining 24% reported that they were actively disengaged. A trend emerges
from data disaggregated by grade levels. Students report high levels of engagement throughout
their elementary years, with 74% of students in Grade 5 reporting high levels of engagement, but
there is a continuous decline in engagement from Grade 6 through Grade 10, with only about
one-third of high school students reporting high levels of engagement (Hodges, 2018). The
second key finding in the Gallup study was the discovery of a correlation that led to high levels
of reported student engagement. Hodges (2018) reported,
Students who were able to “strongly agree” with the statements “My school is committed
to building the strengths of each student” and “I have at least one teacher who makes me
excited about the future” were 30 times as likely to be engaged at school when compared
with students who strongly disagreed with the same items. (para. 11).

29
School superintendents also highlight the importance of student engagement. In a 2018
Gallup study with nearly 1,900 U.S. participants, superintendents rated how important various
variables were to measuring the effectiveness of the public schools in their community. At the
top of the list, with 91% of superintendents rating it very important and 8% rating it somewhat
important, was how engaged students are with school (Gallup, 2018). Similarly, superintendents
rated having students who are hopeful about their future, the percentage of students who
graduate high school and go to college or technical school with a high rate of either very
important or somewhat important, but only 9% rated student scores earned on standardized tests
as a very important measure, and 52% considered it somewhat important (Gallup, 2018).
America’s dissatisfaction with K–12 education is the final data point provided in this study to
underscore the need for a public school system with a redefined purpose and architecture. Saad
(2022) highlighted that the percentage of U.S. adults who replied that they were completely or
somewhat satisfied when asked about overall satisfaction with the quality of education students
receive in kindergarten through Grade 12 in the United States has ranged between 36% and 53%
when we consider a timespan from 1999 to 2022 and denotes a downward trend beginning in
2019. To illustrate, 51% reported they were completely or somewhat satisfied in 2019, 50% in
2020, 46% in 2021, and 42% in 2022 (See Figure 1). In addition, 23% reported being completely
dissatisfied, while 32% recorded a somewhat dissatisfied response. Saad’s (2022) report details
that the latest poll provided the following reasons for Americans’ dissatisfaction with K–12
education: poor/outdated curriculum, the quality of education is poor/outranked by other
countries, lack of teaching basics, reading, writing, and arithmetic, students not learning life
skills, unequal access/opportunities for low-income students/racism, political agendas taught, and

30
lack of care/empathy for students/proper attention/support/one-on-one education, and lack of
care/empathy for students.
Figure 1
Satisfaction With U.S. K–12 Education: Percentage Completely or Somewhat Satisfied
Note. Question asked of U.S. adults: Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of education
students receive in kindergarten through Grade 12 in the U.S. today—would you say you are
completely satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or completely dissatisfied?
From Americans’ Satisfaction With K–12 Education on Low Side by L. Saad, 2012, Gallup.
(https://news.gallup.com/poll/399731/americans-satisfaction-education-low-side.aspx).
Copyright 2012 by Gallup.

31
In summary, the current American K–12 public school education has offered many
benefits and resources to learners in the United States, but it is hindered and weighed down by
many of the design elements that made it so effective in the industrial era. Improving students’
trajectory upon graduating from the system in its current iteration requires undoing a structure
designed for efficiency and control and evolving it into a learner-centered system. The priority of
K–12 education needs to honor the individual skills, strengths, identities, and cultures that
students bring to schools and prepare all learners for the demands of the 21st century. The
following section provides an overview of what learner-centered ecosystems entail and how they
prepare students to command the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to succeed in the 21st
century.
Toward a Learner-Centered Grammar of Schooling
Learner-centered pedagogy is fundamentally driven by placing the student at the center of
the learning process. Building off of Graham’s (2005) four eras used to describe the iterations of
the purpose of public school education in the 20th century, the Assimilation Era, Adjustment
Era, Access Era, and Achievement Era, Vodicka (2020b) suggested that the next evolution for
the grammar of schooling in the 21st century should be named the Agency Era. In this new era,
the purpose of public education needs to focus on “fostering agency, collaboration, and realworld problem solving” (Vodicka, 2020, para. 5). To accomplish this outcome, learner-centered
learning experiences need to emphasize learner autonomy, engagement, and transitioning the
teacher’s role as an agent that transmits knowledge, to one that is guiding the student through
self-exploration, inquiry, and critical thinking. Additionally, the learner-centered approach builds
on the learner’s interests, cultural and linguistic assets, and life experiences to promote and
encourage personalized learning experiences and collaboration among learners. Learner-centered

32
pedagogy also empowers students to be active agents in their learning by encouraging them to
set and track goals, reflect on progress, and develop skills, knowledge, and dispositions relevant
to them and their personal aspirations.
The 14 learner-centered principles (LCPs) of the American Psychological Association
(APA, 1997) shape the learner-centered pedagogical model. The 14 LCPs fall within one of the
four constructs of the APA learner-centered framework: cognitive and metacognitive,
construction of knowledge, motivational and affective, developmental and social, and individual
differences (see Table 3). The APA’s 1997 framework elevates learners as active participants in
their own learning, challenges educators to create learning environments that cultivate
engagement, and is an iteration of an earlier publication titled The Learner-Centered
Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Reform and Redesign (APA Task Force on
Psychology in Education, 1993). Table 3 summarizes the 14 LCPs and highlights “what research
shows about how students learn and the motivation, development, and individual differences that
influence learning” (McCombs, 2003, p. 94).
Table 3
The APA Learner-Centered Psychological Principles
Construct Learner-centered principles
Cognitive and metacognitive factors Principle 1: Nature of the learning process
The learning of complex subject matter is most
effective when it is an intentional process of
constructing meaning from information and
experience.
Principle 2: Goals of the learning process
The successful learner, over time and with support
and instructional guidance, can create
meaningful, coherent representations of
knowledge.
Principle 3: Construction of knowledge

33
Construct Learner-centered principles
The successful learner can link new information
with existing knowledge in meaningful ways.
Principle 4: Strategic thinking
The successful learner can create and use a
repertoire of thinking and reasoning strategies to
achieve complex learning goals.
Principle 5: Thinking about thinking
Higher-order strategies for selecting and
monitoring mental operations facilitate creative
and critical thinking.
Principle 6: Context of learning
Learning is influenced by environmental factors,
including culture, technology, and instructional
practices.
Motivational and affective factors Principle 7: Motivational and emotional influences
on learning
What and how much is learned is influenced by the
learner’s motivation. Motivation to learn, in turn,
is influenced by the individual’s emotional states,
beliefs, interests and goals, and habits of
thinking.
Principle 8: Intrinsic motivation to learn
The learner’s creativity, higher-order thinking, and
natural curiosity all contribute to motivation to
learn. Intrinsic motivation is stimulated by tasks
of optimal novelty and difficulty, relevant to
personal interests, and providing for personal
choice and control.
Principle 9: Effects of motivation on effort
Acquisition of complex knowledge and skills
requires extended learner effort and guided
practice. Without learners’ motivation to learn,
the willingness to exert this effort is unlikely
without coercion.
Developmental and social factors Principle 10: Developmental influence on learning
As individuals develop, they encounter different
opportunities and experience different constraints
for learning. Learning is most effective when
differential development within and across
physical, intellectual, emotional, and social
domains is taken into account.
Principle 11: Social influences on learning
Learning is influenced by social interactions,
interpersonal relations, and communication with
others.

34
Construct Learner-centered principles
Individual differences factors Principle 12: Individual differences in learning
Learners have different strategies, approaches, and
capabilities for learning that are a function of
prior experience and heredity.
Principle 13: Learning and diversity
Learning is most effective when differences in
learners’ linguistic, cultural, and social
backgrounds are taken into account.
Principle 14: Standards and assessment
Setting appropriately high and challenging
standards and assessing the learner’s learning
progress—including diagnostic, process, and
outcome assessment—are integral parts of the
learning process.
Note. From Learner-centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Redesign and
Reform 1997 by American Psychological Association, 1997, pp. 3–7. Copyright 1997 by
American Psychological Association.
Education Reimagined (2020) declared that there are three mutually reinforcing primary
domains learners need to develop and offered a learning model that defines the learning
experiences needed to master them. The three domains are knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Knowledge is the first domain and is characterized as “the theoretical or practical understanding
of someone or something” (Education Reimagined, 2020, p. 6). In a learner-centered school
environment, knowledge includes academic standards, career and technical education, global
competence, applied knowledge, and the learning that takes place beyond the school grounds.
The second domain incorporates skills, defined as the “capacities and strategies that enable
learners to apply knowledge to novel situations, engage in higher-order thinking, problem solve,
collaborate, communicate effectively, and plan for the future” (Education Reimagined, 2020, p.
6). Among the priority skills are metacognition, problem-solving, self-awareness, creativity and

35
innovation, time management, and learning how to learn. Dispositions are the third domain and
are behaviors and ways of being that influence the learner’s ability to fulfill their potential.
Dispositions include resilience, agency, persistence, adaptability, self-control, and curiosity.
While not seeking to be prescriptive, Education Reimagined (2020) suggested a model
for the learning experiences students need to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to
succeed. The first element calls for learning to be characterized by learner agency, which forces
students to be active participants in their learning and are provided voice and choice in their
learning experiences. Second, learning needs to be socially embedded and “rooted in meaningful
relationships with family, peers, qualified adults, and community members and is grounded in
community and social interaction” (Education Reimagined, 2020, p. 7). The social element of
learner-centered learning seeks to provide students with a balance between independent
exploration, collaborative group work, and intentionally designed opportunities to engage with
learners of different backgrounds and interests. The personalization of learning is the third
element and calls for the embracing of each learner’s passions, needs, strengths, communities,
culture, and lived experience in the learning process. Fourth is the concept of open-walled
learning, which acknowledges that learning can occur at any time and in many contexts, not just
during school hours and in the confines of the classroom. To this end, all learning is valued,
encouraged, and made relevant in the learner’s formal education. The final element is
competency-based, which is an alternative to traditional age-based and grade-based learning so
deeply entrenched in today’s grammar of school. Education Reimagined (2020) elaborated on
what distinguishes competency-based learning:
Competency-based learning recognizes that all learners are unique and that different
learners progress at different paces. It allows the system structure to support variation of

36
learning speeds in accordance with each learner’s specific challenges and needs.
Assessments, both formative and summative, are utilized on a continuous basis to inform
the learning and instructional strategy for each learner. Additional resources are provided
to learners who need help to accelerate the pace of competency development. (p. 8)
Education Reimagined (2020) also highlighted the key structural shifts that will evolve the
purpose of education from a school-centric to a learner-centered paradigm (see Table 4). First is
personalizing student learning experiences to each student’s needs, strengths, and interests. A
learner-centered education is a departure from the scientific management principles of the
Assimilation Era in which the education system was driven by standardization and efficiencies,
as well as deviates from the Achievement Era’s focus on a standardized curriculum and highstakes assessments, and instead offers learners the opportunity to progress at their own pace and
to pursue personal interest and passions. Specifically, the grammar of schooling in a learnercentered ecosystem is “designed for the education experience to be adaptable to the needs and
potential of each learner and supports the highest possible outcome for each learner” instead of
prioritizing maximum efficiencies and creating education factories called schools (Education
Reimagined, 2020, p. 5). As seen in Table 4, shifting toward a learner-centered grammar of
schooling requires having students be active agents in their learning and designing personalized
learning experiences that develop the whole child.

37
Table 4
Key Structural Shifts From Today’s School-Centered to a Learner-Centered Paradigm
Category Current paradigm Learner-centered paradigm
Organization of learners Organized in age cohorts Learners learn individually
and in diverse and
shifting groups consistent
with their developmental,
social, and competency
needs.
Curricula Standardized linear
curricula divided into
subjects
Relevant, contextualized
curricula organized by
competency
Learner goals/progress indicators Required credit hours and
seat time
Development of
competency in agreed
domains of knowledge,
skills, and dispositions in
timeframes appropriate to
each learner
Role of learners Passive vessel to be filled Active co-creators of their
learning and development
Role of adults Individual teachers expected
to serve as content
deliverers, curriculum
developers, data assessors
Network of qualified adults
facilitating learning and
development
Technology One-to-many
communication tools
(e.g., books, whiteboards,
projectors)
One-to-one, one-to-many,
many-to-many
communication,
networking, diagnostic,
and content delivery tools
Assessment Primarily “of” learning Intentional assessment “for,
as, and of” learning
Resource allocation Place- and formula-based
funding uncorrelated with
individual children’s
needs
Financial resources applied
and integrated to support
the whole child
Location Localized in a school Learning occurs at many
times, in many places,
and through many
formats; a physical space
is established for learners
and adults to gather,
socialize, and learn.

38
Category Current paradigm Learner-centered paradigm
Meeting learner’s needs Differentiation of the
standard model to meet
learners’ needs
Personalization for each
learner
Note. From A Transformational Vision for Education in the US by Education Reimagined, 2020,
p. 10. (https://education-reimagined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/A-TransformationalVision-for-Education-in-the-US.pdf). Copyright 2020 by Education Reimagined
Leading Transformational Change With a Framework for the Future
District and school leaders play an instrumental role in leading organizations toward a
learner-centered paradigm and can leverage a framework for the future to co-construct a path to
that transformation. By leveraging the key components of transformational leadership and
engaging in the co-authoring of the framework for the future, school and district leaders can fully
realize their leadership capacity, which Northouse (2021) as the “process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6). The forthcoming paragraphs
detail the constructs of transformational leadership as well as the process for co-designing the
key elements of such a framework.
Transformational Leadership
Larson and LaFasto’s (1989) historical study of transformational leadership
underscores three cross-cutting characteristics: establishing a vision, enacting change, and
unleashing talent. Leaders establish a vision for what is possible when they “articulate what an
organization can and should become, or what a team can or should accomplish” (Larson &
LaFasto, 1989, p. 121). Furthermore, leaders articulate the vision in such a way that they inspire
a commitment to the organizational vision, making team members eager to want to be part of its

39
achievement. Second, leaders enact change by demonstrating that change is possible, creating
and communicating a plan for change, and enlisting the support and enthusiasm of others to
support the plan.
Third, leaders unleash the talent, energy, and contribution of others by establishing
guiding principles and supporting team members to have a bias for action, even if it means
failing along the way. Guiding principles define what a team should expect from the team, what
the team leader expects from each team member, and what team members should expect from
each other. Larson and LaFasto (1989) underscore that effective transformational leaders are
committed to a dependable set of values, are principled, explicitly demonstrate a personal
commitment to the team’s goals and vision, are open to new ideas and information from team
members, and are fair and impartial to all team members. These attributes lead team members to
develop strong relational trust with the leader and among each other.
More recently, Bass and Riggio (2006) offer four key components of transformational
leadership in their in-depth account of the leadership theory. According to the researchers,
transformational leaders provoke intellectual stimulation by interrogating the status quo and
encouraging creativity and innovation among those they lead. Second, transformational leaders
have a clear vision and can articulate it, provoking passion and motivation in others to fulfill the
communicated vision and goals. Third, transformational leaders foster positive, supportive
relationships because of their clear lines of communication with all team members and create the
enabling conditions for others to share ideas and information, allowing the leader to recognize
others’ contributions while working toward the new vision. Finally, transformational leaders
serve as models others can emulate and respect because of the trust developed with these leaders.
In short, Bennis and Nanus (2007) succinctly captured the essence of transformational leadership

40
when they stated that transformational leaders “move organizations from current to future states,
create visions of potential opportunities for organizations, instill employees a commitment to
change and instill new cultures and strategies in organizations that mobilize and focus energy
and resources” (p. 19).
A Framework for the Future
Vodicka offered the development of a framework for the future as a process and tool to
support district and school leaders in enacting transformational leadership attributes in their
evolution toward a learner-centered grammar of schooling. Vodicka’s original framework
consisted of eight key components: vision, mission, values, goals, roles and responsibilities, and
a blueprint, Vodicka’s term for a strategic plan (Vodicka, 2020b). More recently, as chief
executive officer of the Learner-Centered Collaborative, Vodicka evolved the framework to a
more simplified scheme that omits roles and responsibilities but maintains the other five
components. Vodicka and Martin, the chief impact officer at Learner-Centered Collaborative
who has written extensively on learner-centered pedagogy, describe the Learner-Centered
Collaborative as a non-profit organization that partners with schools, districts, and state
departments of education and is “guided by the persistent truth that a learner-centered approach
is the foundation for a successful, thriving learning community” (Learner-Centered
Collaborative, n.d.-b, para. 4). This study used the more recent construct of Vodicka’s
framework.
Guiding Statements
Allen (2001) proposed the term “guiding statements” as an all-encompassing term for the
variety of organizational statements that exist in practice. These statements include vision and
mission statements as well as philosophy statements that influence how teaching, leading,

41
administrating, and facilitating take place in a school setting. In this study, the term “guiding
statements” encompasses statements of organizational vision, mission, and values. In analyzing
the use or lack of use of guiding statements in school systems, Allen highlighted five roadblocks
that cause schools to ignore their guiding statements. The first challenge is that guiding
statements in the school setting are so general that it is difficult to identify what success looks
like, and instead are statements embellished with “feel-good sentiments that have been created
for public relations reasons and are not serious statements of intent” (Allen, 2001, p. 290).
Second, the guiding statements do not link desired philosophical stances with specific teaching
and learning practices. Third, the guiding statements are too long, overwhelm the reader, and
distort what could be statements of clear objectives that influence behavior. Fourth, a few people
typically craft guiding statements in isolation, which leads those who are not involved to have a
lack of understanding, connection, or ownership of the guiding statements. Finally, the demands
of day-to-day business obstruct people from engaging in reflective and ongoing dialogue around
the organization’s guiding statements.
Vision Statements: Where Are We Going?
Vision statements are leveraged to articulate the desired future state of an educational
ecosystem. They communicate the aspirations, values, and overarching goals for the system and
are intended to influence planning, prioritizing, and decision-making. Fullan and Quinn (2016)
underscore how having a clear vision can support leaders, school board members, parents, and
students from being overwhelmed by too many initiatives and ensure the school community
focuses on the learning experiences and conditions they aspire to guarantee for all learners.
Furthermore, Fullan and Quinn highlight that operationalized vision statements give leaders
permission to say no to distractors such as alluring innovations, products, or services that do not

42
align with the organization’s vision. Bridges and Bridges (2016) also described the imperative of
vision casting to ensure a successful organizational transformation, highlighting that supporting
vision statements with artifacts, such as video clips, visuals, illustrations, and other tangible
examples of how the outcome will look, sound, and feel generates enthusiasm and commitment
from education partners.
Mission Statements: Why Do We Exist?
Mission statements define the fundamental purpose of an organization. This guiding
statement outlines what the organization strives to achieve, who are the primary beneficiaries of
the system, and how it operates. In education systems, mission statements help define the local
purpose of school in the context of a larger discourse on the purpose of education in the United
States. Stemler et al. (2011) conducted a mixed-methods study with a random sample of 421
mission statements and interviews with principals from diverse high schools in 10 states
throughout the United States to evaluate school leaders’ perspectives on the usefulness of
mission statements. The researchers found that “principals generally regard mission statements
as an important tool for shaping practice and communicating core values” (Stemler et al., 2011,
p. 383). Additionally, Stemler et al. (2011) spotlight that “a wide range of school effectiveness
research has consistently shown that commitment to a shared mission statement is one of the
leading factors differentiating more effective schools from less effective schools” (p. 391).
Stemler et al. (2011) identified 11 key themes in the analysis of 421 mission statements (see
Figure 2). Listed from greatest to least frequency reported, the 11 key themes are civic
development, emotional development, cognitive development, integration into the local
community, integration into the global community, safe and nurturing environment, challenging

43
environment, social development, vocational preparation, physical development, and spiritual
development. The study surfaced several interesting findings. First,
despite the range of political and geographical diversity found in the sample, there was a
fairly clear consensus across schools from all states on at least three major purposes of
secondary education: (a) civic development (58%), (b) emotional development (55%),
and (c) cognitive development (53%). (Stemler et al., 2011, p. 399)
Second, seven out of the 10 states in the sample emphasized that integration into the local
community was a priority outcome for their students, ranking third to the above-mentioned
primary themes. Finally, “schools in Texas, New York, Florida, and California showed a
particular emphasis on cognitive development, with approximately two-thirds of the schools in
each of these states incorporating some aspect of cognitive development in their mission”
(Stemler et al., 2011, p. 400). Outlier findings show that California schools focused significantly
more on vocational development when compared to the rest of the sample, and all the schools in
Colorado had mission statements that emphasized creating safe environments at a significantly
more frequent rate when compared to the other schools in the sample.

44
Figure 2
Frequency Each Major Theme Was Cited Across the 421 Mission Statement Sample
Note. From “Using Mission Statements for Reflection and Research” by S. E. Stemler, D. Bebell,
& L. A. Sonnabend, 2011, Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), p. 398.
(https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10387590). Copyright by University Council for Educational
Administration.
Values: How Will We Behave on the Journey?
Vodicka (2020b) described organizational values as the commitments to how educational
partners will behave on the transformational journey. To this end, organizational values are the
core beliefs and principles that guide the behaviors, actions, and dispositions of an organization
and its members. Schein (2010) emphasized that in times of organizational change or challenge,
the leader must intentionally message guiding statements, as they reveal “the leader’s underlying
assumptions and [create] new norms, values, and working procedures” (p. 243). Still, Gurley et
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Civic Development
Emotional Development
Cognitive Development
Social Development
Vocational Preparation
Physical Development
Spiritual Development
Integration -Local Community
Integration-Global Community
Safe & Nurturing Environment
Challenging Environment

45
al. (2015), while underscoring the importance of organizational values, highlighted that they are
the least understood and under-implemented of the guiding statements. Gurley et al. further
challenged leaders and the use of organizational values by stating that in “order for statements of
organizational values or belief statements to be effective and meaningful to a school community,
however, they must be translated from esoteric statements of stakeholder beliefs into clear and
succinct statements of observable behaviors” (p. 223). This is to underscore that organizational
values address what the organization believes and, more importantly, signal, “Based upon our
core beliefs, how [we will] behave within our organization in order to achieve our vision”
(Gurley et al., 2015, p. 224).
Learner Profile: Defining the Priority Whole-Learner Outcomes
The ambition of creating a learner profile is to define the skills, knowledge, and
dispositions an education ecosystem wants its learners to develop. The learner profile, also called
a portrait of a graduate, profile of success, or graduate profile, shifts the purpose of education
from a narrow focus on standardized testing, system efficiencies, and a standardized learning
path toward a learner-centered grammar of schooling where authentic learning experiences, selfdiscovery, and building on students’ assets is at the core of what is most important. Martin
(2021) highlighted that a learner profile also supports education organizations reimagining and
redefining the purpose of education: “A graduate profile or profile of success helps students,
families, and educators create a common vision and language to align their policies, practices,
and resources” (p. 67). Vodicka (n.d.) added that a “learner profile establishes the whole-child
outcomes and … provides a catalyst to transform systems, processes, and structures necessary to
support students in developing and demonstrating the outcomes” (para. 1).

46
Figure 3 is a sample learner profile that encompasses the school district’s learning model.
In the illustration’s interior are the six-priority whole-learner outcomes the district identified as
the most important skills, knowledge, and dispositions they commit to cultivating in their
students. These include being a creative problem solver, global citizen, confident learner,
effective communicator, critical thinker, and skilled collaborator. As named in the learning
model on the illustration’s exterior, the school district explicitly names and commits to providing
students with learning experiences that are authentic, personalized, competency-based, inclusive,
and equitable to cultivate the whole-learner outcomes. In creating the learner profile artifact,
district and school leaders can establish a vision for defining student success and communicate
with clarity the learning experiences they commit to supporting and challenging learners.

47
Figure 3
Sample Learner Profile and Learning Model Illustration
Note. From What Is a Framework for the Future and Why Do You Need One? by J. C. Morales,
n.d. Leaner-Centered Collaborative. (https://learnercentered.org/what-is-a-framework-for-thefuture-and-why-do-you-need-one/). Copyright 2024 by Strategic Alliances.
District and school leaders can turn to organizations like America Succeeds and other
research groups to stay abreast of the relevant skills, knowledge, and dispositions learners need
to command upon graduating from the K–12 public education system. Cole et al. (2021) stated
that the ambition of America Succeeds is “to ensure public education systems prepare every
student to succeed in the competitive global economy and contribute to their local community”
(p. 4). Furthermore, Cole et al. highlighted that focusing on developing relevant skills,

48
knowledge, and dispositions learners, which they encompass as durable skills, is nothing new as
they elaborated,
Durable skills are not a new concept; across industries, employers have long advocated
for and demanded Durable Skills alongside technical expertise. Whether they’re called
“soft skills,” “21st Century skills,” “workplace skills,” or something else, business
leaders have pointed to Durable Skills as the common key to unlocking opportunity. (p.
8)
In research from 2019 to 2020, America Succeeds partnered with Emsi Burning Glass to
analyze over 82 million U.S. job postings to identify the prevalence of Durable Skills (Cole et
al., 2021). The researchers categorized the one hundred most in-demand Durable Skills into ten
themes or competencies: leadership, character, collaboration, communication, creativity, critical
thinking, metacognition, growth mindset, and fortitude (see Figure 4). The analysis, which
included job postings from 22 sectors, resulted in the following findings: seven out of the 10
most-requested skills were durable skills, at least one durable skill was demanded for 91% of
management jobs, 86% of business operations jobs, and 81% of engineering jobs, and just over
one-third of jobs required at least three durable skills. The competencies in highest demand were
leadership, described as the ability to direct efforts and deliver results, and communication,
described as information exchange and management.

49
Figure 4
America Succeeds’ Most In-Demand Durable Skills Categorized Into 10 Major Competencies
Note. From The High Demand for Durable Skills by L. Cole, S. Short, C. Cowart, & M. Stuart,
2021, p. 11. America Succeeds. (https://mcusercontent.com/9a1ab6cad8fd1f7312ec7cba5/files/
e85c8be0-4f42-fa5a-da78-713bb4bff4ea/The_High_Demand_for_Durable_Skills.pdf).
Copyright 2021 by America Succeeds.
Learning Model: A Framework for Pedagogical Change
The learning model shapes the path for the learning experiences needed to achieve the
defined whole-learner outcomes detailed in an ecosystem’s learner profile. In the same spirit that
the learner profile shapes the organization’s systems, processes, and structures, the learning

50
model serves as a GPS and guides educators to support students in developing and demonstrating
the learner profile outcomes and serves as a framework for pedagogical change. In aspiring to
design learner-centered pedagogical shifts, Martin (2021) explicitly called out the key shifts
educators need to address when forming their learning model. Table 5 highlights these shifts,
which encompass a determined focus on effective student learning instead of effective teaching.
Learners move at their own pace instead of being restricted to standardized paths and ways of
learning. The system adapts to meet learners’ needs instead of learners having to adapt to the
system, creating an education system where students want to learn and be active agents in their
learning (see Table 5).
Table 5
Key Pedagogical Shifts Toward Learner-Centered Teaching and Learning
From school-centered To learner-centered
Focus on the most effective teaching. Focus on producing the most effective
learning.
Learners follow a standardized path, place,
and pace to assess proficiency.
Learners move at their pace and place and
follow a path that allows them to
demonstrate a mastery of knowledge, skills,
and dispositions.
Learners adapt to the standardized system. The system adapts to meet the needs of the
learner.
Learners must be compelled to learn. Learners want to learn.
Education is done to the learner. Education is done by (and with) the learner.
Note. From Evolving Education: Shifting to a Learner-Centered Paradigm, by K. Martin, 2021,
p. 72. IMPress. Copyright 2021 by IMPress.

51
Westover (2020) detailed that fostering precision in pedagogy across a school system
requires the creation of a coherent instructional framework through job-embedded professional
learning. To demonstrate the importance of a learning model, or in Westover’s vernacular, an
instructional framework, Westover (2020) highlighted the wrong approach school systems
typically take in their ambition towards clarity in expected instructional practices:
Here’s the wrong approach for creating instructional coherence: provide all teachers with
a standards-based curriculum, training on instructional strategies, and access to standardsaligned assessments, then support schools with integrating instructional tools and
resources to meet the learning needs of all learners. (p. 38)
Westover asserted that this approach generates a lack of clarity and focus, leading to a
fragmented implementation that frustrates and overwhelms teachers and leaders alike. Instead,
the more effective approach is educators’ collaborative effort focused on defining the priority
pedagogical domains and striving towards precision in creating instructional coherence.
The Learner-Centered Collaborative offers a four-component learning model that has
been adopted by schools and school districts when designing their framework for the future. The
model consists of four learning experience domains: competency-based, personalized, authentic,
and inclusive and equitable (Learner-Centered Collaborative, n.d.-a). Competency-based
instructional practices are learning experiences driven by instruction, assessment, and feedback
cycles that progress toward whole-learner outcomes. Personalized learning takes place when
learning is co-constructed with the learner, taking their strengths, skills, interests, and needs into
account when designing and making pedagogical design decisions. Authentic learning is
embedded in real-world challenges and applications for learning and incorporates authentic
audiences for learners to showcase their learning. The fourth component includes inclusive and

52
equitable learning experiences in which educators intentionally design instructional activities that
are collaborative and culturally relevant. Inclusive and equitable learning experiences ensure that
students have a sense of belonging and fully realize their academic and social potential.
Blueprint for Change: A Plan to Drive Action
The final component of Vodicka’s (2020a) framework for the future is the blueprint for
change. The author asserted that the blueprint is a “critical component that can create focus and
clarity, and catalyze ongoing learning about the connections between activities and outcomes”
(Vodicka, 2020a, p. 55). Leading a district through the learner-centered transformation serves to
“create a culture of accountability to ensure we maintained a sustained focus on doing what we
said we would do” (Vodicka, 2020a, p. 56). By design, the blueprint is co-constructed by
engaging education partners in brainstorming and ideating the strategies needed to ensure
students develop the priority whole-learner outcomes and engage in the priority learning
experiences. Once the priority strategies are codified, they are organized into “action plans,
action steps, and associated finances” (Vodicka, 2020a, p. 56). The creation and implementation
of a blueprint exemplified Fullan and Quinn’s (2016) research on how coherent education
systems are a non-negotiable to prepare students to thrive in the 21st century.
Guiding Coalition: A Process to Co-construct a Framework for the Future
Vodicka (2020b) elaborated on how district and school leaders can use a guiding
coalition to effectively redefine the purpose of education in their context and transition toward
their vision of a learner-centered grammar of schooling. Kotter (2012) described a guiding
coalition as a diverse group of influential individuals who bring their expertise and perspectives
to collaborate and drive change toward a new organizational vision. Kotter added that guiding
coalitions are vital when organizations engage in large-scale change, knowledge and information

53
are scarce, decisions are complex and emotionally charged, rapid innovations affect the
ecosystem, and a new decision-making process is required because working in isolation is
detrimental to the organization, adding,
No one individual, even a monarch-like CEO, is ever able to develop the right vision,
communicate it to large numbers of people, eliminate all the key obstacles, generate
short-term wins, lead and manage dozens of change projects, and anchor new approaches
deep in the organization’s culture. (Kotter, 2012, p. 53)
Vodicka (2020a) echoes the imperative for utilizing a guiding coalition to create a school
system’s Framework for the Future, stating that a “key step is to form a guiding coalition that
includes representatives from multiple stakeholder groups, including students, families, teachers,
classified staff, administration, and community leaders” (para. 5).
Kotter (2012) provided four essential design elements when constructing an effective
guiding coalition. First, there needs to be a good composition of first-line managers on the team
to ensure the execution of the plans developed. Second, the greater diversity of roles in the
system, points of view, lived experiences, nationality, and world views, the more intelligent the
ideation and decision-making process will be. Third, the reputations of those engaging in the
guiding coalition need to be in good standing with others in the organization to ensure that
decisions and pronouncements are taken seriously. Finally, it is equally imperative that the group
have proven leaders to drive the change process, cast a clear vision, and empower the
organizational members at large toward the organization’s new purpose and vision. In reflecting
on how diversely composed the guiding coalition was in transforming a 22,000-student district in
Southern California into a learner-centered ecosystem, Vodicka (2020a) stated,

54
To my surprise, their input turned out to be invaluable and pushed us to think in new and
meaningful ways. This was a humbling lesson for me, and I encourage all leaders to push
themselves to widen the circle to seek additional perspective when developing plans. (p.
55)
Theoretical Framework
District and school leaders must hold a firm belief that they can transform their education
systems to shift the learning experiences for students from a school-centered to a learnercentered paradigm. The sense of collective efficacy district and school leaders report and
describe can be a measure of the confidence they command in their quest toward a new grammar
of schooling. Bohn (2010) described collective efficacy as “the shared belief among members of
a group that their group or organization has what it takes to cope effectively and efficiently with
the demands, challenges, stressors, and opportunities they face” (p. 228). Succinctly stated,
collective efficacy represents a group’s sense of their ability to work collectively to produce
desired tasks, outcomes, and goals and to prevent undesired outcomes (Bandura, 1998). The
forthcoming paragraphs define collective efficacy and describe the variables that influence
perceived levels of collective efficacy.
Self-Efficacy: Similarities and Distinctions From Collective Efficacy
To best detail the distinct tenets of collective efficacy, this section provides an
introduction to self-efficacy, a closely related yet distinct principle of Bandura’s social cognitive
theory. Perceived self-efficacy serves as a significant variable in influencing human behavior,
both implicitly and explicitly. In short, Bandura (2000) defined those with high levels of
perceived self-efficacy as individuals who “believe that they can produce desired effects and
forestall undesired ones by their action” (p. 75) and further highlighted that perceived self-

55
efficacy plays a central role in shaping motivation levels of which tasks or actions to act on or
avoid, as well as impacts the goals and aspirations people set, and the perception of opportunities
and impediments they internalize. Furthermore, perceived self-efficacy impacts the levels of
stress or anxiety individuals experience when facing adversity, the ability to stay the course and
work through obstacles, the effort put into endeavors, and, among other things, influences people
to be pessimistic or optimistic and able to change and adapt as necessary.
While collective efficacy includes many of the constructs of self-efficacy, a distinction is
that the perceived collective efficacy of a group is not the sum of the efficacy beliefs of
individual levels. Instead, “people’s shared beliefs in their collective power to produce desired
results are a key ingredient of collective efficacy” (Bandura, 2000, p. 75). This is to say that a
team composed of highly efficacious members would not, by default, lead to high levels of
perceived collective efficacy; rather, collective efficacy is an emergent group-level property.
Group members garner collective efficacy by acting on a shared belief or purpose that influences
the type of future they seek to achieve, how well they manage resources, the effort and output
they give to the endeavor, and their resilience.
The Impact of Collective Efficacy
Bandura details how perceived collective efficacy functions as an important group
attribute in determining collective performance. Bandura (1997), the pioneering author of
collective efficacy, states the following when describing the impact of collective efficacy:
Belief of collective efficacy affects the sense of mission and purpose of a system, the
strength of common commitment to what it seeks to achieve, how well its members work
together to produce results, and the group’s resiliency in the face of difficulties. (p. 469)

56
Bandura (2000) further underscored that a group’s sense of collective efficacy shapes the type of
future it seeks to achieve through a collaborative effort, how efficiently the team will use and
commit its time, energy, and resources to a common endeavor, and its ability to overcome
challenges, setbacks, and opposition when embarking a tough social dilemma. For this study,
collective efficacy is an influential variable in carrying out the transformational changes needed
to shift the current education system toward a learner-centered grammar of schooling.
Collective Efficacy in School Setting
Research on teachers’ collective efficacy consistently demonstrates its strong correlation
with student learning outcomes. Bandura (1997) reported that teachers’ “beliefs in their
collective efficacy contribute significantly to how well their schools perform academically after
controlling for the socioeconomic and racial composition of the student bodies, teachers’
experience level, and prior school-level achievement” (p. 469). As seen in school performance
indicators, Bandura explained that schools where staff possessed a strong sense of collective
efficacy also had flourishing academic performance, while those with low collective efficacy
achieved little progress or declined academically. Hattie (2018) also highlighted the role of
teachers’ collective efficacy in enhancing student performance and school effectiveness. Hattie’s
research “is the culmination of more than 25 years of examining and synthesizing more than
2,100 meta-analyses comprising more than 132,000 studies involving 300 million students
around the world” (Corwin Visible Learning Plus, n.d., p. 1). When disaggregating and
synthesizing the most influential variables on student outcomes, collective teacher efficacy
(CTE) ranked number one (Hattie, 2018). Hattie’s concept of CTE is rooted in Bandura’s (1997)
theoretical framework:

57
Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) is the collective belief of the staff of the
school/faculty in their ability to positively affect students. CTE has been found to be
strongly, positively correlated with student achievement. A school staff that believes it
can collectively accomplish great things is vital for the health of the school and if they
believe they can make a positive difference then they very likely will. (Hattie, 2018, para.
1).
Table 6 identifies the top five visible learning variables on student achievement and
denotes CTE as the top-ranking one. Hattie’s (2023) research specifically describes CTE as “the
shared belief by a group of teachers in a particular educational environment that they have the
skills to positively impact student outcomes” (para. 1). Furthermore, according to Hattie’s
research, CTE has a greater influence on student achievement than teaching strategies like
feedback (positive and negative reinforcement to advance the next steps in learning), selfreported grades (a practice where learners assess the quality of their own work), constructivist
teaching (a learner-centered approach where students explore ideas, propositions, and solutions
to take subsequent actions), and STEM programs (learning centered around science, technology,
engineering, and/or mathematics curriculum). Similarly, CTE provides a stronger impact on
student achievement than a student’s prior achievement in similar subject matter), peer tutoring,
the student’s working memory strength (how much information the learner can hold and
manipulate temporarily), and explicit teaching strategies, such as scaffolding, clear
demonstration of learning targets, guided practice, and teaching to mastery (Corwin Visible
Learning, 2023).

58
Table 6
Hattie’s Top Five Influencing Variables on Student Achievement
Influencing variable Definition
Collective teacher
efficacy (CTE)
The shared belief by a group of teachers in a particular educational
environment that they have the skills to positively impact student
outcomes
Teacher estimates of
achievement
The estimates of student achievement made by teachers. These
teacher judgments: can help set expectations; be used to
benchmark past understanding; are involved in setting the next
challenges, identify those who may have early signs of
difficulties; inform placement and intervention choices; and
influence instructional choices. These judgments come from
questioning, observing, written work presentations, how the
student reacts to increased challenge, and assignments and tests.
Piagetian levels A theory of cognitive development articulated by the Swiss
developmental psychologist Jean Piaget. According to this model,
human beings pass through four stages—sensorimotor,
preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational—as
they advance to maturity, although each stage or level has
interstitial elements.
Jigsaw method The Jigsaw instructional method is a cooperative approach to
learning. Following this method, a teacher introduces a main topic
and several subtopics. Jigsaw students are broken into “home
groups,” and each member of the home group is assigned a
subtopic. Then, students form expert groups to study their
assigned subtopic through research and discussion. After the
students have mastered the subtopic in question, they return to
their home group to report on their findings. At the conclusion of
the exercise, each home group member has learned about each
subtopic from a member of the relevant expert group or through
their own investigation with an expert group.
Teacher credibility Students who regard their teacher as a credible authority based on
their perceptions of competence, trustworthiness, and perceived
caring. “Is this teacher someone I can turn to for feedback, help,
knowledge, and depth of understanding?” “Am I prepared to
invest in her or his assigned tasks to enhance my learning?”
Note. From Global Research Database by Corwin Visible Learning, 2023.
(https://www.visiblelearningmetax.com/Influences). Copyright 2023 by Corwin Visible
Learning.

59
Positively Impacting a Team’s Sense of Collective Efficacy
It is important to recognize that a group’s perceived collective efficacy is not a constant
characteristic, and it can be influenced by internal and external factors. Bandura (1997) denoted
that “perceived collective efficacy is not a static group attribute. It rises and falls with
fluctuations in the interlinking relationships among the members and changing external realities
and pressures” (p. 470). Additionally, different teams in the same organization can report
deviating views on their group’s sense of collective efficacy, as Bandura (1997) detailed:
“Hence, individuals occupying different positions or serving different functions within the same
social system may differ somewhat in how they view their group’s collective efficacy” (p. 479).
Still, when seeking to generate high collective efficacy among themselves and their
organizations, district and school leaders have influence over key drivers that impact collective
efficacy: vicarious learning experiences, verbal persuasion, emotional arousal, and incorporating
mastery learning experiences (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Schunk, 2020). Schunk (2020) highlighted
that most human learning experiences take place vicariously and include “observing and
listening to models who are live (appear in person), symbolic or non-human (e.g., talking
animals, cartoon characters), electronic (e.g., television, computer, computer, DVD), or in print
(e.g., books, magazines)” (p. 129). Vicarious learning provides the following positive impacts to
strengthen a group’s sense of collective efficacy at a time of organizational change: “Vicarious
sources accelerate learning over what would be possible if people had to perform every behavior
for learning to occur. Vicarious sources also save people from personally experiencing negative
consequences” (Schunk, 2020, p. 129).
In practical terms, district and school leaders can observe each other completing tasks or
achieving desired outcomes. The act of observing others similar to them be successful will lead

60
to increases in collective efficacy because “observers are more likely to perform modeled actions
they believe are appropriate and will result in rewarding outcomes” (Schunk, 2020, p. 139)
Verbal persuasion is another method for strengthening a team’s sense of collective
efficacy. In an educational setting, verbal persuasion for adults can be engaged through “talks,
workshops, professional development, and feedback about progress and achievement” (Hoy et
al., 2002, p. 91). Other strategies, such as providing positive feedback on making gains toward a
desired outcome and encouragement from other influential members of an organization, also
serve as verbal persuasions that fortify a sense of collective efficacy. Emotional arousal also
affects collective impact among a team. Bandura (1997) explained that high levels of emotional
arousal, such as fear or anxiety, can have detrimental effects on the group’s sense of collective
efficacy, and an organization that experiences leadership that is calm in the face of conflict will
garner a positive impact on their sense of collective efficacy. The fourth strategy Bandura (1997)
recommended to leverage to increase a team’s sense of collective efficacy is the exposure to
direct positive experiences by team members. These mastery learning experiences can happen
when district and school leaders experience success, accomplish a goal or outcome, and/or have
a profound impact on an individual’s or group’s efficacy beliefs.
Conceptual Framework
The purpose of a conceptual framework is to provide a visual representation that
describes the study’s key concepts, theories, and assumptions (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell (2013)
further highlighted that the conceptual framework functions as a tentative theory of the study’s
phenomena, however incomplete it may be. To create a conceptual framework, a researcher
utilizes four primary sources: personal experiential knowledge, existing theory and research, the
researcher’s exploratory research in which testing of the research design takes place, and the

61
researcher’s own thought experiments (Maxwell, 2013). Ravitch and Carl (2021) challenged
researchers to view the conceptual framework as the connective tissue of a study and highlighted
that it should be treated as part of a process and not as a product. The paragraphs that proceed
detail this study’s conceptual framework (Figure 5), providing an overview of the interaction
among the primary concepts, assumptions, and theory.
Figure 5
Conceptual Framework

62
The framework for the future, as seen in the orange circle of Figure 5, is this study’s
central concept. It is co-designed by intentionally engaging school and district education partners
in redefining the local purpose of education by defining the organization’s guiding statements,
learner outcomes, and the learning model that shapes the learning experiences offered to
students. Specifically, co-constructing a framework for the future provides a transformational
experience that challenges and supports district and school leaders, parents, students, teachers,
and staff to reimagine the grammar of schooling toward being learner-centered. When facilitated
effectively, using a guiding coalition to co-author the framework affords a school community the
ability to surface the constraints that the current paradigm imposes on learners. As seen in the
grey box to the left of the orange circle in Figure 5, some of the restricting structures of a schoolcentered paradigm are placing a premium on learner compliance, system efficiencies, and the
educator’s role as a transmitter of knowledge. Instead, once a framework for the future is created
and the guiding statements, learner profile, and learning model are operationalized, the education
ecosystem’s guiding principles shift the students’ experiences toward a learner-centered
grammar of schooling, which includes the primary focus of the school to be driven by the
student’s developmental, social, and competency needs, as well place students at the center of
the instructional design process.
In addition to supporting the transformational change of shifting a school system from
school-centered to learner-centered, the framework for the future can enhance district and school
leaders’ sense of collective efficacy. Collective efficacy, seen in the upper blue circle of Figure
5, can be synthesized to three core constructs: a sense of collective purpose, sense of collective
resilience, and sense of collective capability. Sense of collective efficacy is not a static group
attribute and can vary over time for the group, as well as simultaneously vary between two or

63
more groups within the same organization. As seen by the four-diamond shapes outside of the
collective efficacy blue circle in Figure 5, collective efficacy can be influenced by four variables:
vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, mastery learning, and emotional arousal.
The design of the conceptual framework is intended to support answering the study’s
research questions. The interplay of engaging a community to create a framework for the future,
which includes authoring guiding statements, a learner profile, and a learning model, coupled
with challenges of shifting an education system deeply entrenched with a grammar of schooling
designed for the industrial era are at the center of the contemplation of how district and school
leaders rate and described their sense of collective efficacy after creating their ecosystem’s
Framework for the Future.
Summary
Undoing the industrial-era design elements of today’s public education system is a
challenging task for district and school leaders. As this chapter presented, these leaders can use
the co-construction of a framework for the future to support them and their communities in
shifting from a school-centered to a learner-centered grammar of schooling. The framework’s
guiding statements, coupled with the learner profile and learning model, support school leaders
in activating transformational leadership tenets. Specifically, it enables them to cast a vision for a
learner-centered ecosystem, design a plan to actualize it, and empower the system’s education
partners to engage in learning and innovation cycles. These efforts will create meaningful
learning experiences that empower learners and place them at the center of the education system.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology to answer this study’s two research questions centered
around the impact of such a framework on district and school leaders’ sense of collective
efficacy.

64
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study employed an explanatory sequential research design to understand how
SPUSD district and school leaders rated and described their sense of collective efficacy after
creating a framework for the future. Lochmiller and Lester (2017) described an explanatory
sequential design as a process that “begins by collecting quantitative data and then concludes by
collecting and analyzing qualitative data” (p. 218). By employing a quantitative-leading mixedmethods research design, I aimed to use survey data to understand the research problem and
leverage qualitative data to “deepen, enlighten, or explore particular ideas, concepts, or
concerns” (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017, p. 217). I used purposeful sampling for the survey and
focus groups using selection criteria to identify SPUSD district and school leaders who could
provide information to answer the study’s two research questions, as seen in Table 7 (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The following paragraphs overview the research questions and data sources,
methods, participants, instrumentation, and data collection and analysis procedures. Additionally,
they include information on this study’s reliability, validity, credibility, trustworthiness,
limitations, and delimitations. The chapter also includes information about me as the researcher.
Table 7
Data Sources
Research questions Survey Focus
groups
What levels of collective efficacy do SPUSD district and school
leaders report after creating the framework for the future? X
How do district and school leaders describe their sense of
collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm
after creating the SPUSD framework for the future?
X

65
Research Questions
Two research questions guided the study:
1. What levels of collective efficacy do SPUSD district and school leaders report after
creating the framework for the future?
2. How do district and school leaders describe their sense of collective efficacy in
shifting to a learner-centered paradigm after creating the SPUSD framework for the
future?
Data Sources
An explanatory sequential research design shaped the sequencing of the data collection
activities. First, after receiving the University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review
Board’s approval to conduct this study, I conducted a 16-question survey. I selected participants
based on the purposeful sampling criteria presented in the following sections. Upon
administering and analyzing the survey findings, I established three focus groups to further
explore the survey response trends and to gain greater clarity and insight into how the
participants described their sense of collective efficacy, specifically their sense of collective
purpose, resilience, and capability, after creating SPUSD’s framework for the future. I included
informed consent in the request to engage all participants in the survey and those selected for the
focus group interviews. To minimize disruption and maximize convenience for participants, I
worked with my SPUSD direct contact to coordinate the survey deployment in a manner that was
most convenient and schedule the focus group interviews in a manner that most synchronized
with district activities.

66
Participants
I used purposeful and convenient sampling to select the survey and focus group
participants. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) elaborated that purposeful sampling aims to select a
sample of study participants from which the researcher can learn the most based on the end goal
of the research. Due to the study’s time constraint and participants’ limited availability due to the
demands of their work, convenience sampling also guided the selection process (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This study’s participant sample consisted of SPUSD district and school leaders.
District leaders serve as central office directors, assistant superintendents, and the
superintendent. School leaders serve as school principals.
Survey Sampling Criteria
I used two criteria to select survey respondents. The first was that they served as full-time
SPUSD district or school leaders in the 2022–23 academic year. The second was that they served
as full-time SPUSD district or school leaders in the 2023–24 term.
Focus Group Sampling Criteria
I used two criteria to select focus group participants. The first was that they served as
full-time SPUSD district or school leaders prior to the 2021–22 academic term. The second was
that they served as full-time SPUSD district or school leaders in the 2023–24 term. The third was
that they served in a capacity focused on educational services (e.g., director of teaching and
learning, director of curriculum and assessment, or director of technology).
Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale
The first and quantitative phase of the study consisted of sending a survey to all SPUSD
district and school leaders who met the sampling criteria. The second and qualitative phase of the
study incorporated four focus group interviews composed of purposely selected leaders who met

67
the selection criteria. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described purposeful selection as a strategy
“based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight
and therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned” (p. 96). The aim was to
have each of the three focus groups have an ideal count of five to eight intentionally selected
subjects, as Krueger and Casey (2015) recommended. The three facilitated focus groups were
configured by role-alike groupings: directors, principals, and executive cabinet members. Since
district and school leaders are responsible for establishing a clear vision of where the school
district is going and supporting endeavors to accomplish that vision, it was imperative to
understand how they described their sense of collective efficacy upon embarking on learnercentered transformation after creating the SPUSD framework for the future. It was also important
that focus group participants served as full-time SPUSD district or school leaders prior to 2021–
22 and during 2023–24 so that the focus could be on their reflections on their sense of collective
efficacy before and after creating the framework.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
A mixed-methods research design allows the researcher to explore how subjects interpret
and construct knowledge, as well as how they provide meaning to their experiences (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The survey’s purpose was to analyze how district and school leaders rate their
sense of collective efficacy, specifically in the collective efficacy constructs of collective
capability, collective resilience, and collective purpose, as found in the study’s conceptual
framework (see Figure 5). The study’s subsequent focus groups allowed subjects to provide a
more detailed account of their perspectives, experiences, and sense of collective efficacy related
to creating the SPUSD framework for the future.

68
Survey
For the first phase of the study, I distributed the survey to all SPUSD school principals,
directors, and the executive cabinet. The survey included both closed- and open-ended questions.
The purpose of the survey was to answer Research Question 1. The survey applied a five-value
Likert scale to the closed-ended survey items to rate the respondents’ perceptions about
SPUSD’s district and school leaders’ perceived sense of collective efficacy after they created the
framework for the future. I adapted the closed-ended questions from Bohn’s (2010)
organizational efficacy survey instrument, which was validated in a study with 22 organizations
and 886 participants. I used three open-ended survey items to gather qualitative data from
participants on how creating the SPUSD learner profile, learning model, and big moves
influenced their sense of collective efficacy. I distributed requests to participate in the survey via
email. The email included an explanation of the purpose of the study, a description of how I
would use the findings, and reassurance that the results would remain anonymous (See Appendix
A). Appendix B presents the 14 questions used.
There were 19 survey participants: four executive cabinet members, five educational
services directors, and 10 school principals. This yielded a 63% participation rate based on
participation criteria.
Focus Groups
The second phase of the data collection used focus groups to afford me the ability to enter
the subject’s world, ask questions that tap into their worldview, and access a deeper level of their
perspective (Patton, 2002). In addition to gaining a deeper subject insight, the focus groups
allowed me to triangulate the results of the survey items with the interviewees’ accounts. Patton
(2002) underscored that “triangulation, in whatever form, increases credibility and quality by

69
countering the concern (or accusation) that a study’s findings are simply an artifact of a single
method, a single source, or a single investigator’s blinders” (p. 674). I sent an email
communication to invite SPUSD district and school leaders who meet the criteria to participate
in the focus groups. The focus group sessions took place at the SPUSD’s district office and were
guided by a semi-structured interviewing protocol using a 13-question script (see Appendix C).
The question script included knowledge and experience-type questions directly linked to the
study’s theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
There were 13 focus group participants: five executive cabinet members for Focus Group
1, four education services directors for Focus Group 2, three school principals for Focus Group
3, and one school principal for Focus Group 4. The original plan was to have five principals
participate in Focus Group 3, but due to unforeseen circumstances, two of the five principals
could not attend. Then, during Focus Group 4, I determined that one of the school principals did
not meet the sampling criteria.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of making sense of the data and requires consolidating and
interpreting what has been reported, read, and stated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As with the data
collection, the data analysis took place in two phases. I analyzed the quantitative data first,
followed by the qualitative data. To support the data analysis, I administered the survey using
Qualtrics, which allowed the use of the software’s data analytic tools. The analysis was
facilitated by the closed-ended Likert-scale values of 1 through 6 to calculate an average rating
score per survey item as well as aggregate and disaggregate depending on whether additional
analysis was required. Furthermore, the closed-ended item analysis included analyzing the
average rating for each of the three collective efficacy constructs in the study’s conceptual

70
framework: collective capability, resilience, and purpose. I uploaded the open-ended questions
into ATLAS.ti and coded to find patterns in the subjects’ responses.
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) described the task of analyzing qualitative data as working
and organizing the data by “breaking them into manageable units, coding them, synthesizing
them, and searching for patterns” (p. 159). To this end, the qualitative data analysis consisted of
coding the transcripts in ATLAS.ti in a manner directly shaped by the study’s theoretical and
conceptual framework. In doing this, I constructed themes and captured patterns in the data that
allowed me to derive findings. To further support the insights gained from focus group
participants, I created a codebook to document and track the codes and patterns as they emerged
and scheduled follow-up interviews with subjects for further information.
Reliability, Validity, Credibility, and Trustworthiness
Reliability is “the degree to which a test, or whatever you use as a measurement tool,
measures something consistently” (Salkind, 2017, p. 159). I used various strategies to ensure the
survey was reliable. First, I provided clear and standardized testing instructions and procedures
for the survey respondents. Second, I tested the survey questions prior to administering the
survey. The question testing included having colleagues and classmates review the questions,
seeking feedback from members from the context from which I would administer the survey, and
requesting guidance from dissertation committee members to review and critique for ease of
understanding and ensuring the questions align with the research questions. Third, the survey
tool included between eight and nine questions for each of the three constructs of collective
efficacy, which is the study’s central concept.
Where reliability refers to how a survey tool measures something consistently, validity is
“the property of an assessment tool that indicates that the tool does what it says it does” (Salkind,

71
2017, p. 168). The in-depth literature review provided clarity on the constructs of collective
efficacy and the instruments used to test it. As a result, I used Bohn’s (2010) collective efficacy
scale, which has been statistically validated. In addition, I implemented three strategies to
maximize the validity of the survey instrument: clearly defined the construct of collective
efficacy within the study, triangulated the quantitative findings with the qualitative data gathered,
and consulted the survey instrument design with Dr. Vodicka, a member of the dissertation
committee and respected researcher in the areas of the research topic.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Researcher bias is a variable I needed to be conscientious about when carrying out the
study. As a school and district leader, teacher, and athletic coach, I consistently leveraged
guiding statements (mission, vision, and core values statements) to establish the purpose and
direction of the endeavor I was leading and experienced a strong correlation between
operationalizing the guiding statements and experiencing high performance and organizational
coherence. Whether it was opening a new high school, taking on the challenge of turning around
a school from being the lowest performing to one of the top performing in a school district, or
navigating head coaching stints in highly competitive settings and consistently earning top
rankings, I experienced that when there was a clear purpose, vision, and core values that guided
behavior, there were high levels of collective efficacy and success.
These two variables, guiding statements and collective efficacy, play a central role in the
research, and I was cognizant of the need to be cautious with personal bias of their corollary
relationship. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) offer several strategies I used to increase the credibility
and trustworthiness of the study. First, I explicitly practiced and documented the triangulation of
the data gathered. This effort included the use of two or more measurement points, such as

72
leveraging observations along with interviews, to cross-reference data being gathered via
interviews to align with what was observed. Second, I was diligent in compiling a thorough audit
trail, which entailed keeping a log that details how I arrived at the findings. The logging included
defining how I made decisions and collected data. A third strategy was engaging interviewees in
respondent validations after conducting interviews, which meant having them review the
interpretations or findings to affirm that my interpretations matched what they sought to express.
The fourth strategy required me to be disciplined about scheduling time to participate in critical
self-reflection regarding how my assumptions, worldview, biases, and/or relationships with the
subjects in the study may be influencing the data collection, analysis, interpretations, and/or
findings.
Ethics
Agee (2009) asserted that “inquiries into other people’s lives are always an exercise in
ethics” (p. 440). To this end, I entered the study’s context, beginning with the design of the
research questions, methodically to minimize harm to the participants and the organization.
Following Agee’s (2009) recommendation, I based the research questions on the following
design principles: a strong connection to a theoretical framework, free from leading
characteristics, clear and easily understood, and avoiding multiple questions in one. The specific
goal of the questions was to solicit the participants’ thoughts, experiences, and perspectives
about the impact of creating the SPUSD framework for the future on their sense of collective
efficacy.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) offered various strategies implemented in the study to
minimize ethical issues. Obtaining informed consent from all participants engaging in the study
was the default. This included ensuring that the participants understood the scope and purpose of

73
the study, what their participation would entail, and acknowledging that their participation was
voluntary. I maintained data confidentiality by storing all information and artifacts on passwordprotected devices and providing pseudonyms for the study’s subjects and organization.
Beyond procedural strategies, I stated my positionality (i.e., reflexivity) and continuously
consulted with my dissertation committee to seek advice on ethical matters. Lochmiller and
Lester (2017) defined reflexivity as “the process of intentionally accounting for your
assumptions, biases, experiences, and identities that may impact any aspect of your research
study” (p. 95). Regarding my positionality, I included a reflexivity statement to allow the reader
insight into how my lived experiences, both personal and professional, biases, and
intersectionality influenced the lens through which I designed the study.
Reflexivity Statement
I served as an education management consultant to SPUSD during the development of its
framework for the future and when conducting the study. In addition to facilitating the
framework’s creation, I provided professional development or coaching to the district’s
executive cabinet, consisting of the superintendent, three assistant superintendents, school
principals, the education services directors, and instructional coaches. My approach has been to
maintain fidelity to the role of a facilitator, which Schwarz (1994) defined as a person who is
“acceptable to all members of the group, substantively neutral, and has no decision-making
authority” (p. 18). Still, I may be perceived to be in a position of power. As Domhoff (2005)
described, “Power is about being able to realize wishes, to produce effects you want to produce”
(p. 1), as a result of the frequent collaboration I have with the district’s executive team’s
decision-making processes.

74
Upon reflecting on the power dynamics between the study’s participants and me, I can
best self-describe myself as an embraced outsider because of the high levels of relational trust
developed in the professional relationship as well as my self-acknowledged dominant
positionality based on Morgan’s (1996) intersection axes of privilege, domination, and
oppression. The levels of relational trust fostered are evident in participant qualitative and
quantitative feedback, such as end-of-service surveys, focus group interviews about services
rendered, positive net promoter scores (+80) at the end of each work stream, and several renewed
contracts for extension of services.
My positionality, which Villaverde (2008) defined to be “how one is situated through the
intersection of power and the politics of gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture,
language, and other social factors” (p. 10), can also be defined as one of the dominant
characteristics. When referencing Morgan’s (2018) intersection axes of privilege, domination,
and oppression, the fact that I am light-skinned, light-eyed, gentile, and a heterosexual male who
is educated and situated in the upper-middle-class realm affords me such a privilege, whether
embraced or not.
Additional identity characteristics that positively influenced the power dynamics between
the subjects and me are associated with the various roles in education I have served, including
schoolteacher, coach, and school and district administrator. These lived professional experiences
provide me with the currency to connect meaningfully with the participants. Additionally, my
Latinx identity and the non-traditional path toward my current role, which includes a K–12
academic journey that initiated with me as an English language learner and concluded with a
high school academic transcript that denoted a 1.87 grade point average, serves to increase my

75
relatability with the participants and the dominant student demographic the school and district
leaders serve.
I leveraged Milner’s (2007) framework to mitigate the established power dynamics from
infringing on the study’s efficacy. The framework served as a guide to raise awareness in the
areas of positionality and racial and cultural awareness as I carried out the study. A particular
strategy, “shifting from the self to the system,” was to intentionally consider the historical,
political, social, economic, and cultural realities that influence the people and context of the
study (Milner, 2007, p. 397). I could not enter the study with the confidence that I fully
understood the people and the community just because I have been working alongside them in
the capacity of a consultant. Instead, I needed to proactively seek to learn the many dimensions
that make the SPUSD context its own education ecosystem.

76
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand how SPUSD district and school leaders rated
and described their sense of collective efficacy after creating the SPUSD Framework for the
Future. This study specifically aimed to fill a void in the empirical research on how traditional
guiding statements, such as mission, vision, values, and goals, coupled with a learner profile and
learning model, influence district and school leaders’ sense of collective efficacy in shifting
toward a learner-centered grammar of schooling. Deviating from the current industrial-era
education system design, a learner-centered paradigm builds on learners’ interests, cultural and
linguistic assets, and life experiences through purposely designed learning experiences that
encourage personalized learning and collaboration among students.
The imperative to shift from the current school-centered paradigm, where efficiency and
standardization are the premium, to a learner-centered grammar of schooling is clear. Data points
such as levels of student engagement, high school graduation, college readiness rates, student
discipline trends, and, among other measures, public perception of the current education system
all signal that district and school leaders must evolve toward a learner-centered architecture to
better prepare students for the demands of the 21st century. To lead this daunting
transformational shift, district and school leaders need a high sense of collective purpose,
capability, and resilience, all of which are constructs of collective efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1993,
1998, 2000).
Co-constructing a framework for the future is a process and tool school leaders can
leverage to shift toward a learner-centered grammar of schooling. A better understanding of how
district and school leaders rate and describe their sense of collective in shifting toward a learnercentered paradigm after creating the framework will enhance comprehension about the tools and

77
processes district and leaders can leverage in shifting toward a learner-centered grammar of
schooling. Two research questions guided the study:
1. What levels of collective efficacy do SPUSD district and school leaders report after
creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future?
2. How do district and school leaders describe their sense of collective efficacy in
shifting to a learner-centered paradigm after creating the SPUSD Framework for the
Future?
This study used the constructs found in the literature for collective efficacy, a framework
for the future, and a learner-centered grammar of schooling. Succinctly stated, collective efficacy
represents a group’s sense of their ability to work collectively to produce desired tasks,
outcomes, and goals and to prevent undesired outcomes (Bandura, 1998). Collective efficacy has
three constructs: a sense of collective purpose, which is the clarity in understanding the
organization’s direction; a sense of collective capability, which is the confidence team members
have in one another that organizational goals can be accomplished; a sense of collective
resilience; and the confidence colleagues have in the organization’s ability to stay the course
through setbacks and unexpected challenges (Bandura, 1986, 1993, 1998, 2000).
Vodicka (2020b) offered the framework for the future as a strategy for education
ecosystems to shift toward a learner-centered grammar of schooling. The framework consists of
a learner profile and learning model, in addition to traditional organizational guiding statements,
such as mission, vision, values, and goals. Unlike the current teaching and learning practices,
which originate from the industrial-era grammar of schooling, where compliance,
standardization, and efficiency are paramount, a learner-centered education places the students at
the center and embraces their interests, life experiences, cultural and linguistic assets, and fosters

78
student agency (APA Task Force on Psychology in Education, 1993; Martin, 2021; Mehta, 2022;
Vodicka, 2020b). There are clear shifts that take place when transitioning toward a learnercentered grammar of schooling: teachers engage students as co-creators of their learning instead
of vessels to be filled with information, learning becomes personalized instead of governed by a
linear curriculum divided into subjects, and resources are integrated to support the development
of the whole child and not just learning experiences that help performance on standardized tests
(Education Reimagined, 2020).
The forthcoming paragraphs provide an overview of the data collection instruments and
participating stakeholders, as well as this study’s results and findings.
Data Collection Instruments
This study used an explanatory sequential design to collect data. For the first phase, I
administered a14-question survey that was composed of two demographic items, nine questions
focused on collective efficacy constructs, and three open-ended questions that allowed the
participants to describe how, if at all, creating the SPUSD learner profile, learning model, and
big moves influenced their sense of collective efficacy in implementing a learner-centered
paradigm (see Appendix B). The collective efficacy items were adapted from Bohn’s (2010)
validated collective efficacy rating scales. Phase 2 consisted of five focus group sessions that
were guided by a semi-structured interviewing protocol using a 10-question script (see Appendix
E).
Participating Stakeholders
The SPUSD has 10 district leaders and 24 school leaders. For this study, district leaders
were defined as those in executive cabinet roles, such as superintendent and assistant
superintendent, as well as directors in the education services department. School leaders were

79
those serving in the role of school principal. Using purposeful and convenient sampling to select
survey and focus group participants, the number of eligible participants reduced the number of
eligible school leader participants from 24 to 19 but did not impact the number of eligible district
leaders.
Table 8 illustrates the survey participation count by district and school leader role, as well
as the participation rate based on the study’s participation criteria. Table 9 provides the
pseudonyms for survey respondents, and Table 10 displays focus group participants by
pseudonym, focus group number, and role. Table 10 also denotes who participated in the SPUSD
Design Team sessions and the scout team. Participants noted as participants on the SPUSD
Design Team participated in the guiding coalition that created the SPUSD Framework for the
Future during the 2022–2023 school year. Participants who participated on the scout team visited
schools where learner-centered teaching and learning practices were implemented and were
directly involved in the design of the SPUSD big moves.
Table 8
Survey Respondents
Role Participant count Participation rate based on
participation criteria
Executive cabinet 4 80%
Educational services director 5 100%
School principal 10 50%

80
Table
9
Survey Participant Pseudonyms
Survey participant role Survey pseudonym
Anonymous executive cabinet member AECM 1
Anonymous executive cabinet member AECM 2
Anonymous executive cabinet member AECM 3
Anonymous executive cabinet member AECM 4
Anonymous education services direct AD 1
Anonymous education services director AD 2
Anonymous education services director AD 3
Anonymous education services director AD 4
Anonymous education services director AD 5
Anonymous elementary principal AEP 1
Anonymous elementary principal AEP 2
Anonymous elementary principal AEP 3
Anonymous elementary principal AEP 4
Anonymous elementary principal AEP 5
Anonymous elementary principal AEP 6
Anonymous elementary principal AEP 7
Anonymous middle school principal AMSP 1
Anonymous middle school principal AMSP 2
Anonymous middle school principal AMSP 3

81
Table 10
Focus Group Participants
Participant
pseudonym
Interview
type
SPUSD
role
SPUSD
Design Team
participant
Scout team
participant
EC 1 Focus Group 1 Executive cabinet member Yes Yes
EC 2 Focus Group 1 Executive cabinet member Yes Yes
EC 3 Focus Group 1 Executive cabinet member Yes Yes
EC 4 Focus Group 1 Executive cabinet member Yes Yes
EC 5 Focus Group 1 Executive cabinet member Yes Yes
ESD 1 Focus Group 2 Education services director Yes
ESD 2 Focus Group 2 Education services director Yes
ESD 3 Focus Group 2 Education services director Yes
ESD 4 Focus Group 2 Education services director Yes
SL 1 Focus Group 3 School leader
SL 2 Focus Group 3 School leader
SL 3 Focus Group 3 School leader Yes
SL 4 Focus Group 4 School leader
Results for Research Question 1
The first research question asked what levels of collective efficacy SPUSD district and
school leaders reported after creating the framework. The participants reported high levels of
collective efficacy after creating the framework and yielded the following notable results:
• Sense of collective capability and collective purpose were the top-rated collective
efficacy constructs, with scores of 4.4 out of 5.
• A sense of collective resilience had a rating of 4.3 out of 5.
• None of the nine survey items received strongly disagree or disagree Likert-scale
responses.
Table 11 illustrates, by construct, how the participants rated themselves on survey items
using a 5-point Likert scale. The item “People in this organization can mobilize efforts to

82
accomplish difficult and complex goals” within the collective capability construct had the
highest rating, with a score of 4.6 out of 5. A second item in the same construct, “Our ability to
work together makes me very optimistic about the future of this organization,” received a 4.5.
The respondents scored two additional items with a 4.5: “This organization is confident about its
future” in the collective purpose construct and “People in this organization can take on any
challenge” from the collective resilience construct. The lowest survey item score was 4.1, and
two items received this score: “In this organization, everyone works together effectively” from
the collective capability construct and “Every time this organization takes on a challenge, we are
confident of success” from the collective resilience construct, which also received the highest
percentage of neutral ratings with 16% of district and school leaders selecting neutral. The
following paragraphs disaggregate the district and school leader ratings for each of the collective
efficacy constructs by survey question.

Table 11
Sense of Collective Efficacy Likert-Scale Scores by Construct
Collective
efficacy
construct
Survey
items by
construct
Strongly
disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
agree
(5)
Survey
item score
(1 to 5)
Construct
aggregate
score
(1 to 5)
Collective
capability
In this organization, everyone
works together effectively. 0% 0% 5% 74% 21% 4.1
4.4
People in this organization can
mobilize efforts to accomplish
difficult and complex goals.
0% 0% 5% 26% 68% 4.6
Our ability to work together
makes me very optimistic
about the future of this
organization.
0% 0% 0% 47% 53% 4.5
Collective
purpose
People here have a sense of
purpose to accomplish
something.
0% 0% 11% 42% 47% 4.4
We are certain about what we
will accomplish together as an
organization.
0% 0% 5% 53% 42% 4.4 4.4
This organization is confident
about its future. 0% 0% 5% 42% 53% 4.5
8
3

Collective
efficacy
construct
Survey
items by
construct
Strongly
disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
Neutral
(3)
Agree
(4)
Strongly
agree
(5)
Survey
item score
(1 to 5)
Construct
aggregate
score
(1 to 5)
Collective
resilience
People in this organization can
take on any challenge. 0% 0% 5 % 42% 53% 4.5
Every time this organization
takes on a challenge, we are
confident of success.
0% 0% 16% 63% 21% 4.1 4.3
This organization is full of
strength, energy, and
optimism.
0% 0% 5% 53% 42% 4.4
8
4

85
Enhanced Sense of Collective Capability
Executive cabinet members and school principals reported the highest aggregate score for
a sense of collective capability. Executive cabinet members reported a score of 4.6, and directors
provided a score of 4.1 (see Table 12). All executive cabinet members stated that they strongly
agreed that “People in this organization can mobilize efforts to accomplish difficult and complex
goals.” The survey item, “Our ability to work together makes me very optimistic about the future
of this organization,” received a score of 4.8 for the executive cabinet team, compared to a 4.7
for school principals and a 4 for directors. The survey question, “In this organization, everyone
works together effectively,” recorded a 4.2 aggregate score, the lowest of the three collective
capability items, with school principals reporting a 4.3 and both executive cabinet and education
services directors reporting a 4. There were two neutral responses within the collective capability
construct: one by a principal who provided a score of 3 to the statement “In this organization,
everyone works together effectively,” and one by an educational services director who recorded
a 3 for “People in this organization can mobilize efforts to accomplish difficult and complex
goals.”

86
Table 12
Sense of Collective Capability Ratings: Confidence in One Another That the Organizational
Goal(s) Can Be Accomplished
Collective capability
survey items
Executive
cabinet
(n = 4)
Education
services
directors
(n = 5)
School
principals
(n = 10)
Aggregate
score by
question
In this organization,
everyone works together
effectively.
4 4 4.3 4.2
People in this organization
can mobilize efforts to
accomplish difficult and
complex goals.
5 4.2 4.7 4.6
Our ability to work together
makes me very optimistic
about the future of this
organization.
4.8 4 4.7 4.5
Aggregate score by role 4.6 4.1 4.6
Note. Rating is based on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree.
Strengthened Sense of Collective Purpose
As with collective capability, the executive cabinet tallied the highest aggregate rating for
collective purpose. Executive cabinet responses compiled an aggregate score of 4.6, followed by
school principals with a score of 4.5 and education services directors with a score of 4 (see Table
13). All three collective purpose survey items received a 4.4 aggregate score, and neither district
nor school leaders responded disagree or strongly disagree with the three collective purpose
statements. Four neutral responses were provided for collective purpose: one director and one
principal responded neutral to “People here have a sense of purpose to accomplish something,”

87
and the same director rated neutral to “We are certain about what we will accomplish together as
an organization.” The same director responded neutral to “This organization is confident about
its future.” A principal also responded neutral to “People here have a sense of purpose to
accomplish something.”
Table 13
Sense of Collective Purpose Ratings: The Clarity in Understanding Where the Organization Is
Going
Collective purpose
survey items
Executive
cabinet
(n = 4)
Education
services
directors
(n = 5)
School
Principals
(n = 10)
Aggregate
score by
question
People here have a sense of
purpose to accomplish
something.
4.8 4 4.4 4.4
We are certain about what
we will accomplish
together as an
organization.
4.5 4 4.5 4.4
This organization is
confident about its future. 4.5 4 4.7 4.5
Aggregate score by role 4.6 4 4.5
Note. Rating is based on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree.

88
Boosted Sense of Collective Resilience
Ratings for a sense of collective resilience exhibited the greatest rating range when
compared to a sense of collective capability and a sense of collective purpose. School principals
tallied the highest aggregate score for the collective resilience construct with 4.5, followed by
executive cabinet with 4.3, and directors with 3.9 (see Table 14). The item “People in this
organization can take on any challenge” yielded the highest aggregate score, 4.5. while the
statement “This organization is full of strength, energy, and optimism” received 4.4, and “Every
time this organization takes on a challenge, we are confident of success” tallied a score of 4.1.
Directors provided the two lowest scores for all three collective efficacy constructs for “Every
time this organization takes on a challenge, we are confident of success,” with a score of 3.6, and
“This organization is full of strength, energy, and optimism,” with a score of 3.8. Both lowestscoring statements are within the collective resilience construct.

89
Table 14
Sense of Collective Resilience Ratings: Confidence in the Organization’s Ability to Stay the
Course
Collective resilience
survey items
Executive
cabinet
(n = 4)
Education
services
directors
(n = 5)
School
principals
(n = 11)
Aggregate
score by
question
People in this organization
can take on any challenge. 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.5
Every time this organization
takes on a challenge, we
are confident of success.
4 3.6 4.3 4.1
This organization is full of
strength, energy, and
optimism.
4.3 3.8 4.7 4.4
Aggregate score by role 4.3 3.9 4.5
Note. Rating is based on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree.
Figure 6 illustrates district and school leader ratings for each of the three collective
efficacy constructs. Sense of collective capability had an aggregate rating of 4.4, with 47% of the
rating noting strongly agree, 49% agree, and 4% neutral to the three collective capability survey
items. Sense of collective purpose had an aggregate rating of 4.4, and 44% of the responses were
strongly agree, 46% were agree, and 7% neutral. Sense of collective resilience had an aggregate
rating of 4.3, with 39% of the responses being strongly agree, 53% agree, and 9% neutral. There
were no disagree or strongly disagree responses to any of the nine closed-ended survey items.

90
Figure 6
District and School Leaders’ Sense of Collective Efficacy by Construct
Note. Response percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Figure 7 depicts ratings for each of the nine closed-ended survey items that are organized
by collective efficacy construct. The item “People in this organization can mobilize efforts to
accomplish difficult and complex goals,” within the collective capability construct, received the
highest aggregate score with a 4.6 out of 5. Sixty-eight percent of the ratings were strongly
agree, and 26% were agree. With a score of 4.1, the lowest aggregate score was received by the
survey item “Every time this organization takes on a challenge, we are confident of success,”
9%
7%
4%
53%
46%
49%
39%
47%
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sense of Collective Resilience
Sense of Collective Purpose
Sense of Collective Capability
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

91
which is in the collective resilience construct, and 21% of the ratings were strongly agree. These
were followed by agree (74%) and neutral (5%).
Figure 7
District and School Leaders’ Sense of Collective Efficacy by Construct and Survey Items
5%
16%
5%
11%
5%
5%
5%
5%
42%
63%
53%
42%
53%
42%
74%
26%
47%
53%
21%
42%
47%
42%
53%
21%
68%
53%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
People in this organization can take on any challenge.
Every time this organization takes on a challenge we are
confident of success.
This organization is full of strength, energy, and optimism.
People here have a sense of purpose to accomplish
something.
We are certain about what we will accomplish together as
an organization.
This organization is confident about its future.
In this organization, everyone works together effectively.
People in this organization can mobilize efforts to
accomplish difficult and complex goals.
Our ability to work together makes me very optimistic
about the future of this organization.
Collective Resilience Collective Purpose Collective Capability
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

92
The survey used for this study also included three open-ended questions seeking to
understand how, if at all, the SPUSD learner profile, learning model, and big moves influenced
leaders’ sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. The open-ended
items read as follows:
• How, if at all, has creating the SPUSD learner profile influenced your sense of
collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm?
• How, if at all, has creating the SPUSD learning model influenced your sense of
collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm?”
• How, if at all, has creating the SPUSD big moves influenced your sense of collective
efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm?
The following paragraphs summarize the results and findings from these three open-ended
survey items.
Learner Profile Influence on Collective Efficacy in Shifting to a Learner-Centered
Paradigm
The participants reported that the co-construction of the SPUSD learner profile (see
Figure 8) had a positive influence on their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm. The positive influence is largely attributed to the SPUSD learner profile,
which establishes a clear vision for the desired, high-priority student outcomes and fosters a
sense of alignment, coherence, and shared purpose across the organization. Specifically, the
participants underscored that the co-creation process promoted a culture of collaboration,
inclusivity, belonging, and empowerment among the SPUSD community, which encouraged
their belief that their efforts would lead to achieving learner-centered goals. AECM 2 stated, “I
could not come away from this work without shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. It was clear

93
in our many sessions that the work needed to center around students in order to be effective and
make change.”
Figure 8
The SPUSD Learner Profile

94
Figure 9 illustrates that 90% of survey respondents felt that the learner profile had a
positive influence on their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm.
Of the responses, 74% stated that it positively influenced their sense of collective purpose. AD 2
stated, “It is clear to me that the learner profile has given direction and purpose to site leaders,”
which AMSP 1 amplified in a survey response highlighting how the profile provides a clear
understanding of the organization’s direction:
Creating the [learner profile] has influenced my sense of collective efficacy in shifting to
a learner-centered paradigm by establishing a shared vision and common goal. The
learner profile has brought our school community together, fostering a sense of unity and
collaboration among educators, students, and parents alike. It has provided us with a
framework to guide our instructional practices, ensuring we all work towards a learnercentered approach. The learner profile has helped us shift our focus from a teachercentered model to one that prioritizes every learner’s needs, interests, and individual
strengths. This transformation has heightened our belief in our collective ability to impact
student learning and growth positively. It has instilled in us a sense of empowerment and
motivation to continually improve our teaching practices and provide our students with
the best possible educational experiences.

95
Figure 9
SPUSD Learner Profile Influence on District and School Leaders’ Sense of Collective Efficacy
in Shifting to a Learner-Centered Paradigm
Note. Data illustrates responses to the following survey question: “How, if at all, has creating the
SPUSD learner profile influenced your sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm?”
Additionally, 16% of the responses indicated that the SPUSD learner profile positively
influenced their sense of collective capability, which is confidence in one another that
organizational goals can be accomplished. Respondents referenced the collaborative spirit that
went into creating the SPUSD learner profile as a key reason for believing in their capability to
shift toward a learner-centered paradigm. AECM 4 illustrated how the collaborative process
affected the team’s sense of collective capability:
This process was done through a collaborative process with the design team and included
the input from all stakeholders. Together, we identified what was most important for us
16%
74%
10%
Positive Influence on
Collective Capability
Positive Influence on
Collective Purpose
Positive Influence on
Collective Resilience
No Influnece / No
Response

96
[and] what we wanted for our students. Together, we researched, observed, and learned
about what was possible. Together, created a common goal, and it inspired us to believe
we could achieve that goal of making this a reality for our students.
AD 4 provided greater insight into AECM 4’s description of who input was solicited
from for the learner profile: “The [creation of the] learner profile has allowed professionals who
have historically been marginalized to participate in the process.” Finally, AD 5 provided a
personal reflection on the learner profile’s impact on them personally: “The idea of the [learner
profile] gives me hope in terms of my sense of collective efficacy.”
Learning Model Influence on Collective Efficacy in Shifting to a Learner-Centered
Paradigm
Like the SPUSD learner profile co-design experience, the participants reported that the
creation of the learning model (see Figure 10) positively influenced their sense of collective
efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. Eighty-four percent described how the
learning model positively influenced their sense of collective efficacy toward a learner-centered
grammar of schooling (see Figure 11).

97
Figure 10
The SPUSD Learning Model

98
Figure 11
SPUSD Learning Model Influence on District and School Leaders’ Sense of Collective Efficacy
in Shifting to a Learner-Centered Paradigm
Note. Data illustrates responses to the following survey question: “How, if at all, has creating the
SPUSD learning model influenced your sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm?”
Furthermore, of the total responses, 63% highlighted how the learning model positively
influenced their sense of collective purpose. AECM 3 underscores that the SPUSD learning
model provides a clear structure for lesson design that enhances the learning experiences by
creating “a pathway or menu of lesson design that our teachers and administrators can choose
from in order to enhance the learning outcomes. You can think about the minor shifts that a
teacher can provide to any lesson that will make it much more powerful and engaging.” The
SPUSD learning model was also reported to offer a cohesive vision and common language from
5%
63%
16%
16%
Positive Influence on
Collective Capability
Positive Influence on
Collective Purpose
Positive Influence on
Collective Resilience
No Influnece / No
Response

99
which to build desired learning experiences for all learners in the ecosystem. AEP 1 stated that
the learning model “provided a cohesive vision for us to work toward,” and AMSP 1 also stated
that it “encourages us to collaborate and engage in meaningful discussions about best supporting
our students’ growth and development.” In addition to providing clarity on where SPUSD is
shifting its pedagogical priorities toward, using the design thinking process forced the team to
design with and for learners and ensure they were part of the learning process. AECM 2
reflected,
When creating [the] learning model, we really dove deep into what a student wanted to be
really engaged in the learning. These four models shift the learning into a frame where
we understand we are all learners, and we must be part of the process.
District and school leaders stated that the creation of the SPUSD learning model gives
them confidence in shifting toward a learner-centered paradigm. Of the respondents, 16% felt
that the learning model gives them confidence in the organization’s ability to “stay the course.”
The SPUSD leaders highlighted how the shift is in strong alignment with intrinsic values
and principles. AD 3 reported,
The [learning model] directly aligns with my values and beliefs. I believe all school
organizations should have a learning model that resembles the attributes that are outlined
here. I am 100% committed to working within my circle of influence to support the
district in fulfilling the learning model.
AEP 5 spotlighted that the clarity provided by the learning model clarifies what instructional
practices are a priority and empowers educators to have a common vision to collaboratively
design toward: “I think this tells the staff what is most important for our community, and they
feel empowered to work towards achieving those outcomes.” AD 2 shared his vote of confidence

100
in the organization’s ability to implement the learner-centered learning model: “I believe the
SPUSD learning model is perceived by most as being attainable and worthwhile in our efforts to
serve the students and families in this community.”
Big Moves Influence on Collective Efficacy in Shifting to a Learner-Centered Paradigm
While less so than the SPUSD learner profile and learning model, 42% of participants
reported that the SPUSD big moves (see Figure 12) positively influenced their sense of collective
efficacy in shifting toward a learner-centered paradigm (see Figure 11). Leaders highlighted that
the SPUSD big moves influenced their sense of collective efficacy by having clearly articulated
focus areas that fostered a heightened sense of accountability toward shifting to a learnercentered paradigm. As seen in Figure 13, 42% of respondents reported the SPUSD big moves
positively influenced their sense of collective purpose. AD 1 stated, “Similar to previous answers
[referring to learner profile and learning model responses], it’s provided clarity, calibration, and
coherence in the organization. It gives us opportunities to go deeper into meaningful shifts and
impacts on students and their learning.” Fortifying how the SPUSD big moves provide clarity on
the organization’s direction, AEP 5 stated that they show “the actionable steps that will be taken
for this to become a reality. … It builds a district-wide implementation plan.”

101
Figure 12
The SPUSD Big Moves
Note. District’s name concealed for anonymity.

102
Figure 13
SPUSD Big Moves Influence on District and School Leaders’ Sense of Collective Efficacy in
Shifting to a Learner-Centered Paradigm
Note. Data illustrates responses to the following survey question: “How, if at all, has creating the
SPUSD Big Moves influenced your sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered
paradigm?”
The participants also reported that the SPUSD big moves positively influenced their
sense of collective capability and resilience in shifting toward a learner-centered paradigm. Of
the survey respondents, 21% reported a positive influence on collective capability, and 5%
reported a positive influence on collective resilience (see Figure 13). The process of creating the
SPUSD big moves led to a sense of collective effort and belief that the organizational learnercentered ambitions could be accomplished. AMSP 1 described the collaborative effort in which
the SPUSD big moves were designed:
21%
42%
5%
32% Positive Influence on
Collective Capability
Positive Influence on
Collective Purpose
Positive Influence on
Collective Resilience
No Influnece / No
Response

103
The [SPUSD] “big moves” have facilitated meaningful collaboration among our
educators, administrators, and support staff. We have come together as a cohesive team,
sharing ideas, resources, and successes as we continue to work towards transforming our
educational environment. This sense of collective efficacy has strengthened our
commitment to providing a more student-focused learning experience as we see its
positive impact on our students’ growth and development.
AEP 6’s response builds on the positive impact that the process used to co-construct the
SPUSD big moves has on the team’s sense of collective capability:
It has brought staff members together in having ownership of their school and the
direction it is going in. It has created a positive collective environment where everyone,
students, staff, and families, all have a part of what their school is wanting and trying to
accomplish.
Research Question 1 Results Summary
The quantitative data demonstrated that the participants reported high levels of collective
efficacy, reflecting a strong confidence in their collective ability to achieve the learner-centered
aspirations found in the SPUSD Framework for the Future. This positive sentiment was found in
the three collective efficacy constructs, collective purpose, collective capability, and collective
resilience, as well as among participating leaders from three leadership ranks: executive cabinet,
education services directors, and school principals. Both sense of collective purpose and sense of
collective capability constructs rated highest, each with an aggregate score of 4.4 out of 5,
followed closely by collective resilience at 4.3.
The quantitative results indicate that the participants have a clear and shared
understanding of organizational direction (collective purpose). Additionally, the results signal

104
that leaders have confidence in achieving organizational goals through collective efforts
(collective capability) and resilience in pursuing organizational ambitions despite challenges
(collective resilience). No survey items related to the three collective efficacy constructs received
a negative rating, which underscores a unified and optimistic outlook among the respondents.
The highest-rated items emphasized the organization’s capacity to mobilize efforts for complex
goals and an optimistic future view based on the ability to work together. The lowest-rated items,
which still exhibited strong agreement, highlighted opportunities to fortify when working
together and confidence in one another in overcoming challenges.
Findings for Research Question 2
The second research question asked how district and school leaders described their sense
of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm after creating the SPUSD
Framework for the Future. The following are key themes that surfaced from the focus group
interviews with district and school leaders:
• Participants reported a high sense of collective efficacy after creating the framework.
• Both district and school leaders felt a stronger collective purpose, capability, and
resilience.
• The co-creation process of the framework positively contributed to these feelings.
• School leaders described an increased sense of collective purpose, capability, and
resilience before and after the framework, with the framework having a greater
impact on their collective purpose.
The following sections offer a detailed analysis and synthesis of responses to Research Question
2.

105
Before the SPUSD Framework for the Future
As part of the focus group questions, I asked leaders to describe their sense of collective
efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm before creating the framework. Their
responses surfaced that there was an unclear purpose, varied capability, and challenged by
having a strong sense of accountability to the state standards as the sole measure of their success.
Furthermore, before the framework, school leaders stated that they had varying degrees of
confidence in their ability to interpret organizational goals and, in turn, align their efforts and
school initiatives accordingly. SL 4 recalled feeling the need to be keenly observant to
understand where the organization was going to ensure they could prepare the site team for the
upcoming year’s initiative or goal:
I feel like there was not a collective efficacy before because, like, [the] cabinet would
have known, and ed services would have known where we were going. As a site
administrator, prior to the framework, you had to be very observant to know exactly
where we’re going, and you had to pay attention to the little cues.
EC 4 added, “We were all trying to figure it out. … Everybody had just a slightly different
interpretation.” Director Allen highlighted that pre-framework, “our school leaders had a sense
of efficacy and that they would often have kind of their own initiatives.”
School leaders also reported not feeling that they were allowed to or could enact the
shifts to a learner-centered paradigm. SL 1 explained that as a school leader before the
framework for the future,
I didn’t necessarily feel that, as a group of leaders in a room, that we felt that we had a
collective way to move the dial one way or the other. It was, again, top-down. We were
getting information. We’re in the middle. We’re imparting that information, but we’re not

106
part of the group that’s going to actually shift something, or we don’t understand what
role we play in that shifting.
SL 1 also expressed that she did not feel she had the authority or ability to make the shift,
revealing a perceived limitation in the ability to enact significant changes.
SL 2 added that making the big shift toward a learner-centered paradigm was not
explicitly talked about as an organization. Therefore, clear-cut objectives about shifting to a
learner-centered paradigm were absent, as were clear learner-centered outcomes and defined
learning experiences. ESD 3 noted that while there may have been efforts in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm, it could be described as a more fractured approach. School leaders also
described feeling confined and held accountable to the state standards. SL 4 described, “I think
that prior to the framework for the future, I think all principals, site administrators felt a sense of
accountability to the standards in the curriculum that is provided by the state of California.”
After Creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future
Both district and school leaders highlighted that the creation of and process used to coconstruct the framework enhanced their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm. In all focus groups, there was a strong sentiment that the framework provided
clarity in purpose and direction, stoked a unified sense of capability, and bolstered the team’s
confidence that they could stay the course in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm.
Additionally, across all focus groups, there was a sentiment that the framework operationalized a
key statement in the SPUSD vision statement that was in place many years before the
framework’s creation. The paragraphs that follow provide a synopsis of how the participants
described their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm after
creating the framework, as well as detail how it operationalized a key component of the SPUSD

107
mission statement. This section closes with an account of how they described how the process of
creating the framework also positively impacted their sense of collective efficacy.
Operationalizing the Existing Vision
District and school leaders stated that a prominent and often referenced component of the
SPUSD vision statement was operationalized because of the creation of the SPUSD Framework
for the Future. The SPUSD leaders highlighted that the statement, “[SPUSD] will actualize the
unlimited potential of every learner,” has served as an aspirational and motivational motto.
However, until now, there has not been a common understanding of what it meant or how to
measure progress toward achieving it. There was no coherent action plan to shape an
organizational path toward this outcome. ESD 2 provided the following to demonstrate how the
framework aids in operationalizing the SPUSD vision:
I think the starting point is the … vision and mission was already very clear and very
ambitious. I’m thinking specifically of actualizing the limitless potential of all learners,
and by “all learners” referencing all stakeholders involved in the organization. So, I think
that having a clear vision and mission from the beginning is a great starting point. I think
the framework for the future has helped actualize or really represent what does that
actually mean. What does that look like? And the more work that we do around a
framework for the future, it really is giving a sense of like, that vision is actually possible.
EC 1 added, “I believe it [the framework for the future] is the roadmap towards realizing the
vision.” The participants specifically surfaced the value the SPUSD learner profile provides in
creating a clear understanding of what it means to actualize the unlimited potential of every
learner. By clearly calling out the priority whole-learner outcomes (see Figure 6), participants

108
felt there was a clear direction on how to provide the learning experiences to actualize learners’
potential. SL 4 discussed clear outcomes:
I would say the purpose of the framework for the future is to outline the actionable plan,
to move our district forward, and to kind of give us a guiding light of where are we
moving to so that everyone in this very large ship of a district is trying to eventually
move towards those outcomes and towards modernizing our learning model.
Finally, EC 4 highlighted how school leaders were trying to figure out the mission and vision
that the superintendent had brought to the district and how the process of creating the SPUSD
Framework for the Future helped put the pieces together toward a common understanding:
I think we were all trying to figure it out. We were taking [the superintendent’s] vision
and his mission, and everybody had, you know, just a slightly different interpretation.
And so, I think as we did this work, it started bringing us, you know, closer to, like, a
point where, okay, now we all get how it all fits together.
Sense of Collective Purpose
The participants stated that the framework provided a clear sense of purpose and
established a roadmap for achieving the goals and aspirations found in the framework. Focus
group participants underscored that the framework crystalizes a clear direction and alignment of
the organization’s direction, empowers individual and collective creativity, and creates a
coherent vision for district leaders, principals, teachers, and community members to refer to and
reference in their shift toward a learner-centered paradigm. The SPUSD learner profile, learning
model, and big moves were also attributed to generating a positive sense of collective purpose,
capability, and resilience as a result of being accessible artifacts that operationalize the district’s
learner-centered vision. The following paragraphs capture the participants’ sentiments on how

109
creating the framework improved their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learnercentered grammar of schooling.
The participants referenced the framework as serving as a North Star and roadmap that
provides district and school leaders clarity on where the organization is going. EC 2 stated,
The purpose of our framework has been to kind of name what our goals are for our
students. It names the expected outcomes for students and also in the context of a
framework or learning model so that we can clearly define the North Star of what we’re
all aiming toward as we try to redesign what school looks like for students.
In addition to providing a clear understanding of where SPUSD is heading as an organization,
SPUSD leaders also highlighted that the framework functioned like a roadmap that shaped the
path toward designing a learner-centered ecosystem. ESD 3 underscored that the framework
clarifies the organization’s direction and designates the milestones to make the aspirations found
in the framework achievable:
I would just say that once you have a framework in place, you have that roadmap that I
think makes all of these goals achievable. Because before the framework, there were just
ideas, and opinions about what is best for students, but I think what makes all the
difference is having that roadmap in place. Having that North Star.
SLI noted that the framework casts a clear vision of the organization’s orientation, shapes the
path on how to get there, and functions as an accountability tool because it was created in userfriendly language:
[The framework] gives us something tangible, that we can look at, and we can apply, and
that students can use the language. And so, then it becomes like something that, you
know, truly runs its course so other people can also hold us accountable.

110
The participants noted that the framework offers organizational coherence as they
transition toward a learner-centered paradigm. Before the framework, leaders echoed the
sentiment that school leaders operated with a high degree of independence in leading their
schools and pursuing initiatives with their teams, leading to a fragmented approach across the
organization. Leaders who bring diverse backgrounds, experiences, and priorities now find that
framework fortifies a unifying direction that aligns their actions and priorities with students’
needs, creating a cohesive vision and alignment of resources and efforts. ESD 3 captured this
sentiment:
I would say historically, our school leaders had a sense of efficacy, and that they would
often have kind of their own initiatives that they would pursue, but that would be
different from site to site. And I think with the framework you build in that collective
efficacy where I notice more that, as a district, we’re on a single path with a single
purpose, as opposed to a more fractured approach.
EC 2 shared a similar perspective regarding the framework influencing greater coherence and
consistency across school sites: “I would also add that I think that it [the framework] has
promoted more consistency across the organization and calibrating around these common goals.”
EC 1 also expressed gaining greater levels of coherence because of the SPUSD Framework for
the Future: “My impression is that [school leaders’] response at the school site level is that it
feels more cohesive and that we’re all speaking the same language and have a consistent name
for what we expect, those outcomes.”
The framework also provided district and school leaders with a sense of empowerment to
shift to a learner-centered paradigm. Leaders described feeling motivated to focus more directly
on the needs and desires of students and moving away from traditional teaching methods that

111
place teachers in roles of transmitters of information because of the framework and how it was
co-constructed with SPUSD education partners. The leaders highlighted that they felt a call to
action to advocate for educators to become facilitators of learning who support students in
making sense of information and develop greater agency by taking greater care and control of
their learning journey. Furthermore, they stated that the process for creating the SPUSD
Framework for the Future was a shift in the district’s approach to organizational management. In
creating the framework, school leaders identified a transition from a top-down model to a
collaborative and goal-oriented process that was anchored to learner-centered outcomes. SL 2
described how the shift in approach allows the framework to have more leader ownership:
“Rather than, you know, a top-down model that I think we’ve had, it’s more of now … our
model. It’s our … chance to do what we signed up to do a long time ago.”
The SPUSD leaders defined the outcomes named in the framework as being focused on
customizing the educational experiences for students: offering greater choice, making learning
more relevant and engaging, and aligning the learning experiences with each student’s unique
interests and strengths. SL 1 stated, “It’s super empowering. And it’s exciting as a leader to be
able to … get up in front of people and say, ‘Hey, we’re really going to look at kids. We’re really
going to look at what is it that they need or what is it that they want?’” SL 2 also noted that the
framework forces a shift in how school leaders look at students:
In looking at the purpose of the framework, I feel it’s bringing the district together with a
common goal in mind of creating better students and students that are about to embrace
the world rather than students that are test-taking machines.

112
In addition to customizing the learning experience, SL 2 asserted that the framework will support
everyone in the SPUSD organization to place a greater premium on developing the whole
learner:
We’re looking at well-rounded individuals by helping them be creative problem solvers,
helping them take risks, helping them be goal-oriented citizens, and taking control of
their own learning. So, I think that in my world, it is the big picture of what we’re doing
here is student-centered focus on, you know, creating a whole person.
Sense of Collective Capability
The participants described the SPUSD Framework for the Future as increasing levels of
collective capability in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. By engaging in a collaborative
effort to design the framework and avoiding a one-size-fits-all implementation strategy, SPUSD
district and school leaders felt greater levels of engagement and that there were various entry
points to make the learner-centered shifts called out in the framework. Leaders revealed that the
framework unified school leaders’ aspirations, and the framework’s clear roadmap provided
clarity to create a culture of creativity and adaptability, increasing their belief in one another that
they can bring the framework to fruition. SL 4 noted that while there is flexibility in how leaders
lead their teams toward a learner-centered paradigm, all schools are expected to adopt the
framework’s calls to action found:
I think that expectations are pretty clear that this is where we’re going, and how we get
there is kind of kind of be a little different. And there’s time, but at the end of the day,
everybody’s doing this in 5 years.
EC 5 added that the creation of the framework provided greater permission to leaders to be
creative, believe in themselves, and take risks:

113
I would just add that I feel like, with the framework, there’s a culture now where it’s okay to
fail. We’re on this journey together. We’re kind of figuring it out together. There’s no onesize-fits-all solution. No one right answer. We’re all dependent on … and interdependent on
one another to kind of figure out what works best. … So, I think that helps as a school leader
when you’re out there trying something new. It kind of encourages our school leaders to go
ahead and take the initiative and do what they think will be best for our students.
Sense of Collective Resilience
The SPUSD Framework for the Future was described as a beacon for collective resilience
in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. Serving as a guiding North Star, the framework
provides calls to action and outlines the milestones to shift to a learner-centered paradigm, which
leaders highlighted yielded them optimism and a collective sense that they could achieve the
aspirations found in the framework. SL 1 acknowledged that the trek toward a learner-centered
paradigm is going to be messy, but the district and school leaders can leverage the framework to
“get back up” and move forward:
It can be frustrating and discouraging, but if you have this framework that you can go
back to and this roadmap that you can go back to, that refocuses you and, again, gives
you the confidence … that I’m gonna get to my destination. I just maybe took a little bit
longer than someone else, and you shouldn’t judge yourself on that, and you don’t give
up. And so, I think that that helps all of us, like, right? It helps all of us in this room, but
it also helps our colleagues, and it helps those that are leading us to go back and say,
“Well, this didn’t work today.” Okay, or “this isn’t working yet. But tomorrow, we can
try again.” And we can just get back on that road. So, I think that it’s exciting in that
sense, right? And that idea that it’s really going to be helpful to stay the course when

114
we’re feeling discouraged about the messiness because it’s uncomfortable, and it doesn’t
feel good. And so, there’s something there, like we know we’re going somewhere.
SL 4 stated that the framework will support teachers in shifting to a leaner-centered
paradigm because it signals a collective belief in their capacity to bring the SPUSD Framework
for the Future to fruition:
I think it [the framework] helps move a staff or an organization over those obstacles and
hurdles because you’re saying but wait, the whole basic part of the basics of this plan is that
teacher collective efficacy and collaboration is going to be the way to do this work, and
building something where our kids want to engage, and that we all want these outcomes. Our
parents want this, our staff want this, and everybody that’s been involved in the process. I
think that’s what’s going to help get over those obstacles and challenges and stay focused
because it’s a belief in the humans in the organization with a direction.
Furthermore, ESD 4 highlighted that even with looming budget cuts in the forthcoming academic
year, district and school leaders felt confident that the framework will serve as a North Star to
help maneuver the challenges and stay the course:
I think it’s gonna help a lot to have a North Star because we’re just starting to go through
some very difficult times. Schools are losing positions, and it’s an easy time for people to
throw their hands up and say, “I give up.” There’s too many things that we’ve lost. But I
think it’s incredibly helpful to be able to have that Northstar that we can look to that
allows us a lot of flexibility.

115
The SPUSD Learner Profile, Learning Model, and Big Moves and Sense of Collective
Efficacy
The participants reported that the SPUSD learner profile, learning model, and big moves
aided in providing clarity in understanding where SPUSD is going. The learner profile was
described as solidifying a unified vision by clearly naming the high-priority SPUSD learner
outcomes. Leaders stated that it emphasized a new set of success criteria metrics and influenced
them to prioritize learning experiences that developed the six competencies found in the SPUSD
learner profile: empowered learner, empathetic collaborator, ethical scholar, effective
communicator, critical thinker, and creative problem solver (see Figure 6). Through its clarity
and user-friendly language, the profile empowers educators to measure and understand progress
toward the overarching organizational vision of “actualizing the unlimited potential of every
learner.” It acts as a living artifact that is constantly guiding how learners experience school. EC
4 highlighted how the learner profile offers greater opportunities to measure learner success: “It
really now is about what we want when a student leaves our school. … There’s so many more
facets than looking at test scores.” In addition to expanding measures of student success, ESD 1
pointed out that it also expanded conversations around learners’ needs:
I appreciate the way that neuro divergence and equity [are] foregrounded in the language.
… We’re having conversations about equity that I don’t know that we would have been
able to have if we didn’t have this work done.
District and school leaders described the SPUSD learning model as offering a structured
yet flexible array of defined learning experiences to support the development of the wholelearner outcomes named in the SPUSD learner profile. Leaders highlighted that the learning
model catalyzes creative and constructive collaboration across all levels of the SPUSD

116
organization, fostering a sense of collective efficacy rooted in meeting all learners’ needs.
Furthermore, by clearly defining the outcomes and educator competencies for each of the four
elements of the SPUSD learning model (see Appendix G), the model shapes the path on how
educators can shift from being transmitters of knowledge to intentionally designing learning
environments and experiences where students spearhead their learning, engage in authentic and
personalized experiences, and are challenged to demonstrate their learning, as opposed to simply
completing tasks. SL 1 shared the following as it relates to how the SPUSD learning model
shapes the instructional practices school leaders expect to see as they shift to a learner-centered
paradigm:
We’re shifting from what’s been really traditional from, like, a teacher imparting
information being the giver of information to a spot where we’re looking at students and
how they can make sense of the information. And it’s the job of the educators to facilitate
learning, not be the giver of information, but like, oh, how can you facilitate this and how
can I help you grow and how can I help you do this? And so, it’s a mind shift.
EC 1 exclaimed that the new pedagogical emphasis found in the SPUSD learning model
influences teachers, principals, and district leaders alike to reimagine the learning experience
they want to commit to their students:
I think we’ve been waiting for this. And so, like, already I see them as I look at the
momentum, especially like with district leaders and school leaders. You see creativity
starting to happen throughout the organization. You know, one classic example is in the
chief technology officer … area. We had a student approach us for an internship
opportunity. [The chief technology officer] went ahead and developed a course for a
middle school student to come in and shadow after school. He comes in, and he’s got like

117
8 weeks, and we have a student coming in, and [the] technicians are developing minilessons where they shadow them and, like, created this circuit box. So, real-world
application. … And before, we would get caught up in why we shouldn’t be doing this.
And now it’s like, “How do we make it happen?”
Leaders also elaborated that the SPUSD big moves in the framework contributed to
fostering a sense of collective purpose in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. In short, the
participants felt that the big moves transitioned the ambition to shift to a learner-centered
paradigm from theoretical thoughts to tangible and accessible actions to realize the shift. ESD 1
stated,
What I value about the framework is it goes all the way down to those big moves and
then the action steps that come after you establish what those big moves are, and I think
that will be very helpful and bring it to fruition.
SL 4 added that the big moves provide necessary milestones for what the shift to learnercentered entails:
I think the impact it has is because the framework innately has some timelines embedded
in it for the big moves. So, it is time-bound, which makes people feel, like, well, there’s
something that’s gonna happen within a certain amount of time. There are very specific
steps. So, I think that has an impact on the confidence of everybody that we’re doing this.
Co-constructing of the Framework for the Future
District and school leaders described the process used to co-construct the SPUSD
Framework for the Future as instrumental in positively influencing their sense of collective
efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. Leaders describe the design process as a
collective journey that transitioned from an initial scattering of ideas to a co-created vision of

118
learner-centered commitments found in the framework. All those who engaged in the SPUSD
Design Team, a cross-section of 70 or so SPUSD education partners that consisted of school and
district leaders, teachers, parents, labor union leaders, community representatives, and other
classified and certificated staff, describe the framework co-construction process as an iterative
trek that consisted of continuous discussions that progressively refined their focus. The nearly 9-
month journey started with nine student forums aimed at listening to learners to glean from them
what about their school experience they preferred to keep in place, what they preferred would
come to an end, and what experiences they currently weren’t having that they wished they
would. EC 5 recalled the impact that the listening sessions had on shaping what would eventually
become the SPUSD Framework for the Future:
I think the other thing that was key was that it started with our students and finding out
what appealed to them, what they were interested in, and what their expectations were
coming to school, and that kind of guided all the other discussion and where we ended up
taking the framework for the future.
The SPUSD Design team members then leveraged the findings from the student listening
sessions to ideate, define, and prototype the district’s learner profile and learning model.
EC 2 reflected on the timeliness of listening to students and engaging an eclectic group of
education partners to clearly define the aspirations for the SPUSD community:
We were coming off of COVID and really wanted to make sure that we were really
looking at the impact that that had on our community and then our kind of urgency to
respond to the needs of our community. So, I think that creating the framework and in the
way that we did through the design team, making sure that we were really listening to
many different voices and their opportunity to contribute to that and just giving everyone

119
the space to really think about what is it that we want? How has our society changed?
How have the needs of our children changed? And how are we going to then meet those
challenges. I think that that really is what lends a lot of power to the document.
The four directors who participated in the focus group interview also engaged in the SPUSD
Design Team and described the impact that having time and space to ideate and discuss with a
diverse set of SPUSD team and community members had on them and the framework’s
evolution. ESD 3 shared,
I thought it was really powerful to work on a shared vision with a variety of folks from
different roles and backgrounds. But what is really meaningful to me is that it was really
all focused on students, and putting students first and what would students find to be the
most powerful learning experiences that we could offer them or getting student input, I
thought was really powerful as well and really hearing from the source.
ESD 1 underscored how powerful it was to collaborate with an array of education partners
throughout the SPUSD Design Team sessions:
It’s been really interesting to see the engagement of people across the organization,
whether they’re a parent or office manager or board member, or somebody on cabinet or
the union, you sit at tables with all those different people, and there’s an excitement about
it because they have their voices kind of at the table. And so, it’s a reminder that when
you’re … at the table, you need to be representing all those that you serve. And that’s
been really good to see because there’s inherent buy-in across the organization, which I
think will be really helpful in the years to come.

120
SL3 was the only school leader who participated in the focus group interview and was also on
the SPUSD Design Team. She shared how engaging in the co-construction of the framework
impacted her and how she leads:
I think it was an interesting experience. I will say that being able to really have an
opportunity to engage with all the stakeholders in our community. You know, as an
administrator, you gain a perspective that maybe you don’t have every single day talking
to, you know, community members, not just parents, but the opportunity to actually talk
to members from the city … who are local business owners to kind of get their
perspective on what is it they’re expecting for our students moving forward? I think that
that was that was really insightful. What are we hoping to accomplish to contribute to the
workforce so that particular meeting was really insightful?
Additionally, district and school leaders who participated in scout team activities found that
visiting schools with learner-centered practices in place significantly boosted their confidence
that SPUSD as an organization could transition to a learner-centered ecosystem.
Research Question 2 Findings Summary
The qualitative findings indicate that creating the framework improved district and school
leaders’ sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. Participating
school leaders described experiencing ambiguity in organizational purpose and direction as it
pertained to shifting to a learner-centered paradigm, as well as having varied capabilities before
the framework. Furthermore, they did not feel confident in shifting toward a learner-centered
paradigm, perceiving limitations in authority and clarity on objectives and outcomes, as well as
feeling constricted by having success on state standards denoting key student metrics. According
to the participants, the framework provides a clear learner-centered vision and actionable plan,

121
aligning efforts with organizational goals and establishing a coherent action plan that was
previously lacking.
The framework was described as serving as a North Star and road map to realize the
district’s learner-centered ambitions. According to the participants, the SPUSD Framework for
the Future creates a unifying vision with its accessible language and tangible goals, which in turn
increases organizational coherence and collective efficacy. Leaders underscored that the
framework prioritizes students’ needs, interests, strengths, and assets, fostering a mindset shift
from a school-centered to a learner-centered and instilling in leaders a sense of ownership and
permission to innovate and take risks. District and school leaders alike highlighted the positive
impact that the collaborative and inclusive nature of how the framework was co-constructed had
on their sense of collective efficacy to fulfill the aspirations found in the framework.
Specifically, leaders had a deep appreciation for starting the design process by first listening to
learners to identify their needs, dreams, and desires and then having the opportunity to co-create
the SPUSD learner profile, learning model, and big moves with 60 or so diverse education
partners that consisted of school and district leaders, teachers, union leadership, parents,
community members, and parents. This highly collaborative process was described as a journey
that transformed theoretical ambitions into tangible, practical, and actionable steps to shift to a
learner-centered ecosystem.
Chapter Five provides a discussion of the research, further conclusions, and implications
of the research. Finally, recommendations for future research will be reported.

122
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
There are clear signals indicating a need to shift from a school-centered to a learnercentered grammar of schooling. Data such as graduation, academic achievement, student
discipline, and attendance rates demonstrate that the industrial-era education architecture has
peaked and no longer offers students relevant learning experiences to develop the skills needed
to thrive in the 21st century (California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, n.d.;
California Department of Education, n.d.-b, 2020; Cross, 2014; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2022). District and school leaders must forge a shift from the deeply embedded
industrial-era structures, policies, and practices that place a premium on uniformity of people,
curriculum, and resources and work in collaboration with their communities to define and design
the learning outcomes and experiences that cultivate student agency, creativity, and curiosity. To
accomplish this daunting undertaking, district and school leaders need to have high levels of
collective efficacy, described by Bandura (2000) as a key variable influencing the types of
futures a team seeks to achieve through a collaborative effort, how efficiently a team will use its
time, energy and resources, as well as the team’s ability to overcome challenges, setbacks, and
opposition when embarking a tough social dilemma. This final chapter provides this study’s
results and findings, recommendations for practice and future research, and the limitations and
delimitations.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand how district and school leaders rated and
described their sense of collective efficacy after creating a framework for the future. The
framework is a co-created set of guiding statements intended to support leaders in their shift to a
learner-centered ecosystem (Vodicka, 2020a). Unlike traditional organizational guiding

123
statements, which include mission, vision, values, and goals statements, the framework for the
future also incorporates a learner profile and learning model. For this study, district leaders have
executive cabinet leadership roles, and school leaders serve as school principals. This study also
aimed to fill a void in empirical research on how traditional guiding statements, coupled with a
learner profile and learning model, influence levels of collective efficacy. The following research
questions guided this study:
1. What levels of collective efficacy do SPUSD district and school leaders report after
creating the framework for the future?
2. How do district and school leaders describe their sense of collective efficacy in
shifting to a learner-centered paradigm after creating the SPUSD framework for the
future?
Results and Findings Summary
The results and findings of this study were based on the survey and focus group data. The
following paragraphs offer an interpretation of the quantitative and qualitative data and relate
them to the literature found in Chapter Two.
Research Question 1: Learner Profile, Learning Model, and Big Moves Influence on
Collective Efficacy Ratings
The participants reported high collective efficacy after creating the framework. Bandura
(2000) highlighted that “people’s shared beliefs in their collective power to produce desired
results are a key ingredient of collective efficacy” (p. 75) and added that collective efficacy is
composed of three constructs: a sense of collective capability, confidence in one another that
organizational goals can be accomplished; a sense of collective purpose, the clarity in
understanding the organization’s direction; and a sense of collective resilience, confidence in the

124
organization’s ability to stay the course (Bandura, 1997). Of the three constructs, the study’s
participants demonstrated self-reported the strongest ratings for sense of collective capability and
purpose, closely followed by a sense of collective resilience, indicating a unified and optimistic
outlook on their ability to meet organizational challenges and objectives. Furthermore, the
consensus suggests that the framework fostered a sense of collaboration and confidence in
actualizing their learner-centered shift, albeit with some variations in perspective among
different positions within the leadership hierarchy.
The creation of the SPUSD learner profile positively influenced how the participants
rated their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. Martin (2021)
underscored that a learner profile supports school systems in shifting to a learner-centered
grammar of schooling by helping leaders reimagine and redefine the purpose of education: “A
graduate profile or profile of success helps students, families, and educators create a common
vision and language to align their policies, practices, and resources” (p. 67). Vodicka (n.d.)
further added that a “learner profile establishes the whole-child outcomes and … provides a
catalyst to transform systems, processes, and structures necessary to support students in
developing and demonstrating the outcomes” (para. 1). The creation of the SPUSD learner
profile was particularly impactful on district and school leaders’ sense of collective efficacy, as
90% of the survey respondents acknowledge that it had a positive effect: 74% stated that it had a
positive effect on their sense of collective purpose and 16% reported that it had a positive effect
on their sense of collective capability. The positive effect was attributed to the learner profile
providing a clear vision for the high-priority student outcomes, fostering a sense of alignment
among leaders, as well as establishing coherence across the organization. Furthermore, SPUSD
leaders noted that the process of creating the learner profile promoted a culture of collaboration,

125
inclusivity, and empowerment within the SPUSD community, enhancing levels of collective
efficacy.
Similarly, the SPUSD learning model was reported by 84% of the respondents to
positively influence their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm.
In a similar fashion that a learner profile shapes an organization’s systems, processes, and
structures, a learning model explicitly serves as a framework for pedagogical change (Martin,
2021; Westover, 2020). Martin (2021) names key instructional shifts that take place when
evolving from a school-centered to a learner-centered ecosystem: a focus is placed on student
learning over effective teaching, learners have voice and choice instead of following a
standardized academic path, and the system adapts to the learner’s needs, interests, strengths, and
aspirations. Participant responses indicate that 63% felt that the SPUSD learning model
positively influenced their sense of collective purpose, 16% reported that the model positively
influenced their sense of collective resilience in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm, and 5%
stated that the learning model positively influenced their sense of collective capability.
Respondents described the learning model as providing a clear structure for lesson design and
enhancing the learning experiences offered to SPUSD learners by casting a cohesive pedagogical
vision and providing a common language for the high-priority learning experiences desired for
all SPUSD learner.
Unlike the SPUSD learner profile and learning model, the SPUSD big moves had a less
pronounced but still impactful rating. 68% of participating leaders reported the SPUSD big
moves as having a positive influence on their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm. SPUSD used the name “big moves” for what Vodicka (2020a) calls a
blueprint for change. A blueprint for change, Vodicka (2020a) asserted, is a “critical component

126
that can create focus and clarity, and catalyze ongoing learning about the connections between
activities and outcomes” (p. 55). Specifically, when leading a school system’s shift from a
school-centered to a learner-centered paradigm, the blueprint for change serves to “create a
culture of accountability to ensure we maintained a sustained focus on doing what we said we
would do” (Vodicka, 2020a, p. 56). Of the study’s respondents, 42% stated that the SPUSD big
moves had a positive influence on their sense of collective purpose in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm, 21% reported a positive influence on their sense of collective capability, and
5% reported a positive influence on their sense of collective resilience.
Research Question 2
The participants described having high levels of collective efficacy in shifting to a
learner-centered paradigm after creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future. The qualitative
findings indicate that the creation of the framework increased the levels of collective purpose
shared among district leaders because it provided ultra-clarity in understanding the
organization’s direction and operationalizing the SPUSD vision statement. Second, school
leaders attributed their heightened sense of collective capability and resilience to the process
used to co-construct the framework with education partners, including students, district and
school leaders, parents, union leaders, teachers, and community leaders. Finally, the participants
described key tenets of transformational leadership that were exhibited and supported elevated
levels of collective efficacy.
A Clear, Coherent, and Operationalized Vision
Allen (2001) highlighted that there is much to question regarding the impact that
traditional guiding statements, such as mission and vision statements, have on an educational
organization once they are implemented because they are often ignored. In addition to school

127
systems being dynamic entities, Allen (2001) elaborated on obstructions that cause school
systems to ignore their mission and vision statements. They are too general, and education
partners cannot identify what success looks like. There is no link between the desired
philosophical stance of the statements and specific teaching and learning practices. They are too
long, and the demands of the day-to-day obstruct people from engaging in reflective and ongoing
dialogue around the statements. Guiding statements are typically crafted by few people leading
in isolation, and those who are not involved have a lack of understanding, connection, or
ownership of these statements. These variables were addressed and overcome by co-constructing
the SPUSD Framework for the Future, particularly the SPUSD learner profile and learning
model.
Most prominent in each of the district and school leader focus groups was the sentiment
that the framework operationalized a prominent and often referenced component of the SPUSD
vision statement. SPUSD leaders stated that the statement, “[SPUSD] will actualize the unlimited
potential of every learner,” had been used for many, many years before the creation of the
framework but that there was not a clear understanding of that this meant for the SPUSD
community, nor was there an explicit plan to achieve it or success metrics to measure progress
toward it. The focus group participants amplified that the framework functioned like a roadmap
to operationalize the vision of actualizing every learner’s potential. Specifically, leaders
indicated that the learner profile provided a clear understanding of what learners will exhibit
when they actualize their unlimited potential, referencing the six whole-learner outcomes found
in the middle of the learner profile graphic (see Figure 8). The participants exclaimed that the
learner profile provided greater clarity, coherence, and a common understanding, leading to

128
elevated levels of collective purpose. They also referenced that the user-friendly language and
attractive illustration made the aspirations for learners accessible for all education partners.
Similarly, the participants attributed a greater sense of collective efficacy to how they
will “actualize the unlimited potential of every learner” as a result of the SPUSD learning model.
Leaders stated that by describing the priority learning experiences SPUSD is committing to
every learner, the SPUSD learning model catalyzes a clear path forward for innovative and
constructive collaboration across all levels of the SPUSD organization, fostering a sense of
collective purpose, capability, and resilience. Also noted was the positive impact district and
school leaders were already seeing in the ways learning experiences were being reimagined to
bring to fruition the whole-learner outcomes found in the learner profile. Whether it was district
leadership removing bureaucratic procedures and pre-requisites or school leaders actively
signaling to their teachers to shift to intentionally designing learning environments and
experiences where students spearhead their learning, both district and school leaders described
the learning model as provoking a clear vision for the priority learning experiences expected in
SPUSD as well creating a culture of innovation where experimentation was expected in shifting
to a learner-centered paradigm.
The Co-construction Process Mattered
The participants described leveraging a guiding coalition with the design thinking
workflow to co-construct the SPUSD Framework for the Future as having an exponential
positive influence on their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm.
Kotter (2012) described a guiding coalition as an intentionally created design team of diverse
members of an organization who bring with them a diverse set of perspectives because of the
roles they serve, work experiences they have, world views they hold, and the cultural

129
backgrounds that shape them. Kotter added that an effective guiding coalition is composed of
credible members with good reputations, middle managers who can enact change, and senior
leadership to drive organizational change management endeavors. Vodicka (2020a) shared the
imperative for engaging a guiding coalition to create a school system’s framework for the future
by stating that a “key step is to form a guiding coalition that includes representatives from
multiple stakeholder groups, including students, families, teachers, classified staff,
administration, and community leaders” (para. 5).
The SPUSD community engaged what they named the SPUSD Design Team to coconstruct the framework, specifically the learner profile, learning model, and big moves. The
design team was composed of a cross-section of 70 or so SPUSD education partners that
consisted of school and district leaders, teachers, parents, labor union leaders, community
representatives, and other classified and certificated staff. The participants highlighted that
working alongside an eclectic composition of community members was invigorating, and the
time spent together afforded the design team the time and space to ideate and redefine a new
purpose for education in the SPUSD community. They elaborated that the time spent together
over 10 months created the conditions to bring clarity and understanding to the organizational
vision and increased their confidence in one another that organizational goals could be reached
and that the organization as a whole had the ability to stay the course in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm.
The participants also suggested that the design thinking workflow when co-constructing
the framework improved their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered
paradigm. The HASSO PLATTNER Institute of Design at Stanford (2023) elaborated on the five
constructs of the design thinking workflow: the empathize stage is the centerpiece of the flow

130
and focuses on seeking to understand the primary end-user needs, the define stage consists of
focusing on crafting actionable problem statements from the empathize state, the ideate stage is a
transition from identifying problems to creating solutions to the primary end-users, the prototype
stage entails creating anything that the end-user can interact with so that in the next stage, called
the test stage, the end-user can test the prototype and provide the designer or design team
feedback. Of highest impact on the participants’ sense of collective efficacy was feeling
confident that they were designing with and for students. Frequently referenced were the nine
student forums that initiated the design process for the SPUSD Framework for the Future.
Leaders referenced these student listening sessions as pivotal endeavors that made them feel like
they were designing with a purpose and empowered them to stay the course to deliver for those
at the center of their education system: the students.
Enacted Transformational Leadership Tenets
The participants described how the SPUSD Framework for the Future empowered them
to enact transformational leadership in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. Larson and
LaFasto’s (1989) historical study of transformational leadership identified three cross-cutting
characteristics: establishing a vision, which entails the ability to articulate what the organization
can or should become; enacting change, which consists of creating and communicating a change
plan, and unleashing talent, which entails establishing guiding principles and supporting team
members to be creative and innovative, even if it means failing forward along the journey.
SPUSD leaders lauded the framework for affording them a clear, succinct, and aesthetically
pleasing communication tool to clearly articulate where the organization is going. The fact that
the framework provides a diverse set of entry points, whether it is leveraging the traditional
guiding statements, the co-constructed learner profile or learning model, or the long-view big

131
moves, district and school leaders felt that they could adapt a consistent message to a diverse set
of audiences, be it students, parents, industry partners, community members, school board
members, or other education partners, and still provide a compelling articulation of where the
organization is heading and the key practices and milestones it will leverage to ensure a
successful venture.
In addition to leveraging the framework as a communication tool to establish a clear
vision and detail the plan for a learner-centered paradigm shift, district and school leaders
elevated the newly felt sentiment that all SPUSD members were permitted to be creative in
pursuit of the new vision. Specifically, focus groups revealed the impact that EC 1’s closing
statements at the all-district kickoff had on members of the SPUSD community when he stated,
“You have permission to be creative.” This closing remark provided a declaration that
encouraged innovation and clarified that being creative was to be the new norm.
Increased Collective Efficacy by Design
The literature and this study’s conceptual framework identify four key drivers that have a
positive impact on a team’s sense of collective efficacy: vicarious learning experiences, verbal
persuasion, emotional arousal, and incorporating mastery learning experiences (Bandura, 1986,
1997; Schunk, 2020). Executive cabinet members stated that the vicarious learning experiences
of visiting other schools and districts where learner-centered education was already taking place
strengthened their sense of collective capability that they too could make the shift to a learnercentered paradigm, as well as bolstered their sense of collective resilience leading them to
believe that they could stay the course through setback on their learner-centered paradigm shift.
Hoy et al. (2002) describe verbal persuasion as the act of engaging others through professional
development, workshops, and feedback about progress and achievement and is something that

132
was fortified by EC 1’s confident messaging around the framework for the future via diverse
district channels, platforms, and convenings. Whether it was a State of the District address, a
school leaders meeting, or a PTA or chamber of commerce convening, EC 1 was described as
communicating with strong conviction the key elements found in the framework, leading district
and school leaders to have clarity on the organization’s direction, as well as gain confidence in
one another that the aspirations in the framework could be achieved.
How the superintendent and the executive cabinet exhibited emotional arousal also
impacted school leader’s sense of collective efficacy. School leaders described the ambition to
shift to a learner-centered paradigm as a known non-negotiable, but simultaneously felt that
district leaders believed in them and their ability to bring the framework to fruition at a pace that
made the most sense for them and their teams. Anxiety about shifting to a learner-centered
paradigm was also tempered by the various supports offered to school leaders depending on their
readiness to make the shift. Those who felt their teams were ready to go all in received support to
engage in a school redesign. Those who wanted a lower-stakes entry point could create a school
design team to engage in innovation cycles to test new ideas and practices. The teams on the
more conservative side of the innovation curve were offered learning experiences to help them
gain a deeper understanding of the SPUSD learner-centered vision. Finally, the participants
underscored that the clear outcomes and objectives named in the framework afforded them the
targets to help them track whether they were making progress. Whether it was cross-referencing
how the district advanced on the big moves, how the learning experiences were integrated into
the day-to-day instructional practices, or how students developed the whole-learner outcomes,
district and school leaders agreed that the framework provided them a tool to measure their
progress on advancing toward a learner-centered paradigm.

133
Recommendations for Practice
Considering this study’s findings, it is recommended that district and school leaders
seeking to shift from a school-centered to a learner-centered paradigm leverage a framework for
the future to both elevate levels of collective efficacy and engage transformational leadership
conventions. Specifically, leaders should activate a guiding coalition and use the design thinking
workflow to co-create the framework. They should leverage the learner profile, learning model,
and big moves to operationalize a learner-centered vision and enact transformational leadership
principles to communicate and actualize a learner-centered grammar of schooling.
Recommendation 1: Activate a Guiding Coalition With Design Thinking to Spearhead the
Shift to a Learner-Centered Paradigm
The evidence highlights forming a guiding coalition and leveraging the design thinking
workflow to effectively shift to a learner-centered paradigm. The guiding coalition should
include a diverse set of education partners, including students, parents, district and school
leaders, union leadership, teachers, and classified and certificated personnel. The intentional
diversity of the guiding coalition aims to draw on the rich and diverse perspectives, lived
experiences, and worldviews of participants to inform the direction and vision for the change
effort. The guiding coalition must be composed of school principals who can enact change,
senior leaders who advance organizational change efforts, and active participants who are
viewed as credible and trustworthy members of the school community.
The guiding coalition should leverage the design thinking protocol to shape and inform
that transformational change journey. Starting with listening to those most impacted by the
proposed change is imperative. By adhering to the design thinking stages—empathize, define,
ideate, prototype, and test—leaders can maintain a steadfast focus on user-centered solutions,

134
ensuring that initiatives are deeply rooted in the actual needs and expectations of the students.
Iterative feedback, especially from students, is essential in aligning educational frameworks with
the lived experiences and aspirations of the students.
It behooves district and school leaders to acknowledge the critical role of a guiding
coalition, coupled with the power of design thinking, to foster an innovative, collaborative, and
student-centered approach when approaching education reform efforts.
Recommendation 2: Leverage a Learner Profile, Learning Model, and Big Moves to
Operationalize Traditional Guiding Statements When Shifting to a Learner-Centered
Paradigm
The participants’ accounts demonstrate how the SPUSD Framework for the Future,
specifically the learner profile and learning model, operationalized the aspirations found in the
district’s vision statement and positively influenced levels of collective efficacy in shifting to a
learner-centered paradigm. A learner profile clearly articulates the attributes and competencies
students are expected to demonstrate and can be easily understood by all education partners,
ensuring clarity, coherence, and a shared purpose across the organization. By explicitly defining
the priority skills, knowledge, and dispositions students are expected to develop throughout their
academic journey, the learner profile encourages student achievement to be defined by measures
beyond standardized tests, grade point averages, and/or seat time being fulfilled. Instead, the
learner profile requires assessment tools to be used to measure mastery of the outcomes found in
it. In tandem with the learner profile, a learning model aligns the traditional guiding statements,
such as vision and mission statements, and acts as a bridge that connects the philosophical
aspirations of the traditional guiding statements with tangible teaching and learning practices, an
imperative when shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. In addition to a learner profile and

135
model, leveraging the big moves, district and school leaders can create a roadmap for all to
define success metrics that resonate with the outcomes in the learner profile and the learning
experiences shift defined in the learning model.
Leveraging this recommendation will allow leaders to cast a clear and coherent learnercentered vision. This will add clarity about the organization’s direction and enable them to
believe in their ability to meet the organizational goals and stay the course toward a learnercentered paradigm.
Recommendation 3: Enact Transformational Leadership Tenets With the Framework for
the Future
The research findings underscore that the use of transformational leadership, coupled
with the framework for the future, catalyzes collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered
paradigm. District and school leaders seeking to drive transformative organizational change
should embrace the key tenets of transformational leadership. This begins with casting a clear
and compelling vision that inspires a commitment to the organizational direction and vision. It
also involves energizing internal and external education partners to invest emotionally and
intellectually to ensure its achievement. Leaders need to enact change by creating and
articulating a change plan with clear milestones and success indicators, as well as enlisting the
support and enthusiasm of others to actualize the plan. Finally, once there is a clear vision of the
organization’s direction and a plan for change with milestones and success indicators, leaders
need to foster a culture of innovation and trust, giving team members explicit permission to be
creative and to fail forward along the transformative journey. A collaborative and supportive
ecosystem requires trusting relationships and can be accelerated by clear guiding principles that

136
detail what the leader expects from the team, what the team should expect from the team, and
what team members should expect from each other.
The findings also highlighted that the superintendent embodying transformational
leadership principles had a positive impact on district and school leaders’ sense of collective
efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. School superintendents play a pivotal role in
setting the direction, tone, and culture of an educational ecosystem, and their active engagement
is paramount when embarking on transformational change. Their visionary guidance provides a
clear path forward that transforms an abstract vision into actionable steps, generating greater
commitment, motivation, and ownership over the change process.
In implementing this recommendation, leaders, in particular superintendents, who
embody the transformational leadership tenets will cultivate a resilient, innovative, forwardthinking education ecosystem that is prepared to meet future challenges and setbacks.
Limitations and Delimitations
As with all research, this study had several limitations. First, its nature and findings are
limited to one suburban Southern California school district and are not generalizable to other
settings. Second, a design constraint outside my control was how truthfully the subjects
responded to the survey and focus group questions. This limitation was partially addressed by
ensuring confidentiality in the data collection, leveraging Krueger and Casey’s (2015) approach
of directing one’s attention to participants’ feelings, comments, and thought processes, and
creating a comfortable environment that was conducive for participants to open up during the
focus groups. However, ensuring respondents were honest was beyond this study’s scope. A
third limitation is that not all of SPUSD’s district and school leaders completed the survey or
focus group interviews. Therefore, the data do not reflect the thoughts, beliefs, or experiences of

137
all SPUSD district and school leaders. The survey and focus group sampling criteria also
presented a limitation, as well as the study’s timespan, which was limited to a prescribed period.
Recommendations for Future Research
The research on how a framework for the future influences levels of collective efficacy
among district and school leaders in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm is incomplete.
Specifically, there is a void in empirical research on how mission and vision statements, coupled
with a learner profile and learning model, impact collective efficacy. The following two research
recommendations can be used to better understand the impact that the framework for the future,
specifically the co-creation of a learner profile and learning model, has on district and school
leaders’ sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm.
First, longitudinal impact analysis can be used to assess the levels of sustained collective
efficacy among district and school leaders, as well as teachers, throughout the implementation
phase of shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. The research can also track long-term effects on
student achievement, engagement, and well-being, as well as adult innovation efforts and job
satisfaction. The longitudinal study could also examine the effects of continued clarity in
understanding where the organization is going, as well as leaders’ confidence levels in one
another regarding meeting organizational goals toward a learner-centered paradigm. The second
recommendation is a comparative study of public school districts that shifted to a learnercentered paradigm by co-constructing a framework for the future to understand two phenomena.
First, a study to glean how varied contexts and conditions affect how district and school leaders
rate and describe levels of collective efficacy after creating the framework. Second, research how
district and school leaders’ roles influence levels of collective efficacy after creating a
framework for the future. Such research can shed light on best practices and challenges,

138
providing a greater understanding of strategies that allow leaders to operationalize a learnercentered vision across diverse educational settings.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that the time is now to shift from an industrial-era school
architecture to a learner-centered grammar of schooling. The results and findings highlight that a
co-created framework for the future is an imperative tool and process to operationalize a learnercentered vision and increases collective efficacy among district and school leaders on their
learner-centered transformational journey. The participants underscored how co-creating the
framework clarified their understanding of the organization’s direction and enhanced their
confidence in one another in meeting organizational goals. They felt the organization could stay
the course when facing challenges and setbacks. These high levels of collective efficacy
positively impacted a shared belief that they could actualize their learner-centered vision. They
also enabled an organizational culture norm to be creative, innovative, and fail forward in pursuit
of a learner-centered grammar of schooling, as was beginning to be entrenched as a new mindset.
District and school leaders seeking to shift to a learner-centered paradigm can leverage a
framework for the future as a tool and process to elevate collective efficacy and stoke innovation.

139
References
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 22(4), 431–447.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512
Allen, L. (2001). From plaques to practice: How schools can breathe life into their guiding
beliefs. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(4), 289–293.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108300407
American Psychological Association. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A
framework for school redesign and reform 1997. American Psychological Association.
APA Task Force on Psychology in Education. (1993). Learner-centered psychological
principles: A framework for school redesign and reform. American Psychological
Association and Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought & action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice
Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. In J. G.
Adair, D. Bélanger, K. L. & Dion (Eds.), Advances in psychological science, Vol. 1.
Social, personal, and cultural aspects (pp. 51–71) Psychology Press/Erlbaum Taylor &
Francis.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum
Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095

140
Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard
Law Review, 93(3), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (2007). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge (2nd ed). Harper
Business.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Pearson A & B.
Bohn, J. G. (2010). Development and exploratory validation of an organizational efficacy scale.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(3), 227–251.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20048
Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. M. (2016). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (4th
ed.). Da Capo Lifelong Books.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. (n.d.). English language
arts/literacy and mathematics (Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments). California
Department of Education. Retrieved May 25, 2023, from https://caaspp-elpac.ets.org/
caaspp/DashViewReportSB?ps=true&lstTestYear=2019&lstTestType=B&lstGroup=5&l
stSubGroup=144&lstGrade=11&lstSchoolType=A&lstCounty=00&lstDistrict=00000&ls
tSchool=0000000&lstFocus=a
California Department of Education. (n.d.-a). 2018–19 chronic absenteeism rate [Attendance].
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DQCensus/AttChrAbs
Rate.aspx?agglevel=State&cds=00&year=2018-19
California Department of Education. (n.d.-b). 2018–19 suspension rate.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqCensus/DisSuspRate.aspx?year=2018-
19&agglevel=State&cds=00

141
California Department of Education. (n.d.-c). 2018–19 four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
(Statewide report). https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/CohRate.aspx?cds=
00&agglevel=state&year=2018-19
California Department of Education. (2020, December 11). California Department of Education
releases 2019-20 High school graduation and dropout rates [Press release].
https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr20/yr20rel101.asp
California Department of Education. (2023). 2021-22 enrollment by ethnicity and grade.
Cole, L., Short, S., Cowart, C., & Stuart, M. (2021). The high demand for durable skills.
America Succeeds. https://mcusercontent.com/9a1ab6cad8fd1f7312ec7cba5/files/
e85c8be0-4f42-fa5a-da78-713bb4bff4ea/The_High_Demand_for_Durable_Skills.pdf
Corwin Visible Learning. (2023). Global research database.
https://www.visiblelearningmetax.com/Influences
Corwin Visible Learning Plus. (n.d.). The visible learning research.
https://www.visiblelearning.com/content/visible-learning-research
Cross, C. T. (2014). Political education: Setting the course for state and federal policy (2nd ed.).
Teachers College Press.
Davidson, E., Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H. L. (2015). Fifty ways to leave a child
behind: Idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in states’ implementation of NCLB.
Educational Researcher, 44(6), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15601426
Diem, S., & Welton, A. D. (2021). Anti-racist educational leadership and policy: Addressing
racism in public education. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Domhoff, G. W. (2005). Basics of studying power. Who Rules America?
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/methods/studying_power.html

142
Douglas, T.-R., & Nganga, C. (2013). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity,
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. The International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 5(1), 58–82.
Education Reimagined. (2020). A transformational vision for education in the US.
https://education-reimagined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/A-TransformationalVision-for-Education-in-the-US.pdf
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin.
Fusarelli, L. D., & Fusarelli, B. C. (2014). Federal education policy from Reagan to Obama:
Convergence, divergence, and “control.” In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli
(Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (2nd ed., pp. 189–210). Routledge.
Gallup. (2018). The Gallup 2018 survey of K–12 school district superintendents (Leadership
Perspectives on Public Education). https://www.gallup.com/education/241151/gallup- K–
12-superintendent-report-2018.aspx
Gamson, D. A., McDermott, K. A., & Reed, D. S. (2015). The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act at fifty: Aspirations, effects, and limitations. The Russell Sage Foundation
Journal of the Social Sciences: RSF, 1(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2015.1.3.01
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement, 37(2), 479–507.
Graham, P. A. (2005). Schooling America: How the public schools meet the nation’s changing
needs. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195172225.001.0001

143
Gurley, D. K., Peters, G. B., Collins, L., & Fifolt, M. (2015). Mission, vision, values, and goals:
An exploration of key organizational statements and daily practice in schools. Journal of
Educational Change, 16(2), 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9229-x
Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. (2023, February 11). An introduction to design
thinking. https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf
Hattie, J. (2018). Collective teacher efficacy (CTE) according to John Hattie. Visible Learning.
https://visible-learning.org/2018/03/collective-teacher-efficacy-hattie/
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating
to achievement (1st edition). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. (2004). The American Dream and the public schools.
Oxford University Press.
Hodges, T. (2018, October 25). School engagement is more than just talk. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/education/244022/school-engagement-talk.aspx
Horsford, S. D., Scott, J. T., & Anderson, G. L. (2019). The politics of education policy in an era
of inequality: Possibilities for democratic schooling. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of
achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02381004
Klein, A. (2016, March 31). The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/the-every-student-succeeds-act-an-essaoverview/2016/03
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.

144
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(5th ed.). SAGE.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education Debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right, what can go wrong.
SAGE Publications.
Learner-Centered Collaborative. (n.d.-a). Our learner-centered framework.
https://learnercentered.org/our-framework/
Learner-Centered Collaborative. (n.d.-b). Who we are. https://learnercentered.org/our-story/
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
Martin, K. (2021). Evolving education: Shifting to a learner-centered paradigm. IMPress.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
McCombs, B. L. (2003). A framework for the redesign of K–12 education in the context of
current educational reform. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 93–101.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4202_2
Mehta, J. (2022, January 24). Possible futures: Toward a new grammar of schooling. Kappan.
https://kappanonline.org/possible-futures-new-grammar-0f-schooling-mehta/
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

145
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
Morgan, K. P. (1996). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of educational (in-)
equality. In A. Diller, B. Houston, K. P. Morgan, & M. Ayim (Eds.), The gender question
in education (1st ed., pp. 105–122). Routledge.
Murnane, R. J., & Hoffman, S. (2013). Graduations on the Rise: The 2000s saw boost in U.S.
students completing high school. Education Next, 13(4), 58–65.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Public high school graduation rates.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coi/high-school-graduation-rates
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113–130.
https://doi.org/10.1086/461348
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publishing.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological (2nd ed.). Sage.
Saad, L. (2022). Americans’ satisfaction with K–12 education on low side. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/399731/americans-satisfaction-education-low-side.aspx
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using excel 2016 (4th
ed.). SAGE.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4. ed). Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.

146
Schwartz, R. B., & Robinson, M. A. (2000). Goals 2000 and the standards movement. Brookings
Papers on Education Policy, 2000(1), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1353/pep.2000.0016
Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The skilled facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups
(1st ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Silva, E. (2013). The Carnegie Unit—revisited. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/blog/the-carnegie-unit-revisited/
Spellings, M. (2014). 25 Years After A Nation at Risk. U.S. Department of Education.
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/risk25.html
Stedman, J. B., & Riddle, W. C. (1998). Goals 2000: Educate America Act Implementation
status and issues. Congressional Research Service.
Stemler, S. E., Bebell, D., & Sonnabend, L. A. (2011). Using school mission statements for
reflection and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 383–420.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10387590
Trujillo, T. (2014). The modern cult of efficiency: Intermediary organizations and the new
scientific management. Educational Policy, 28(2), 207–232.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813513148
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The “Grammar” of Schooling: Why Has it Been so Hard to
Change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031003453
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Race to the top district (RTT-D).
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

147
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
State University of New York Press.
Villaverde, L. E. (2008). Feminist theories and education primer. Peter Lang.
Vodicka, D. (n.d.). Learner-centered collaborative. How to get started developing a learner
profile. https://learnercentered.org/how-to-get-started-developing-a-learner-profile/
Vodicka, D. (2020a). Learner-centered leadership: A blueprint for transformational change in
learning communities. Impress.
Vodicka, D. (2020b, August 23). Reopening school starts with reexamining why it exists in the
first place [Blog post]. Learner-Centered Leadership.
https://learnercenteredleadership.org/blog/
Westover, J. A. (2020). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement (1st ed.). Corwin.
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th ed.).
McCutchan Publishing.

148
Appendix A: Survey Recruitment Communication to SPUSD Leaders
Dear SPUSD Leader,
I hope this email finds you well. My name is J. César Morales, and I am a doctoral
student at the University of Southern California currently working on my dissertation.
I am reaching out to invite you to participate in a voluntary survey that forms a crucial
part of my research.
The following information is included in this email: study title and purpose, study
information sheet, and survey details, participation criteria, how to participate, deadline.
Click here [hyperlink to be provided] to begin the 14-question survey focused on
understanding how SPUSD district and school leaders rate their sense of collective efficacy after
creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future [hyperlink to document provided].
Sincerely,
J. César Morales
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
000-000-000

149
Survey Details
Title: A Framework for the Future: Co-constructing a Learner-Centered Grammar of
Schooling
Purpose: The survey aims to gather valuable insights to understand how SPUSD district
and school leaders rate and describe their sense of collective efficacy after creating the SPUSD
Framework for the Future, which consists of the SPUSD learner profile, learning model, “big
moves,” and mission, vision, and values. Linked here [hypelink provided] is the study’s
information sheet.
Number of survey items: 14
Time required: Approximately 15–20 minutes to complete the survey.
Confidentiality: Your responses will remain strictly confidential, and no identifiable
information will be disclosed.
Participation Criteria
You are an SPUSD district or school leader who served as a full-time SPUSD district or
school leader in 2021-22 and are currently serving as a full-time district or school leader in 2023-
24.
You are over 18 years old.
How to Participate
Click Here [link to be provided] to begin the 14-question survey.
Your participation is entirely voluntary, and you may withdraw at any point without
providing a reason.
Deadline
Please complete the survey by Friday, February 9.

150
Your contribution is immensely valuable to my research, and your insights will
contribute to a better understanding of how SPUSD district and school leaders rate their sense of
collective efficacy after creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future. If you have any
questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to me juliocmo@usc.edu or 760-271-3966
Click Here [link to be provided] to begin the 14-question survey

151
Appendix B: Research Study Questions and Details
Appendix B: Research Study Questions and Details
Survey item Response choices Scale of
measurement Concept
Demographic items
Which best describes your
leadership role in SPUSD?
Executive cabinet
(superintendent or
assistant
superintendent)
Director
Principal, elementary
Principal, intermediate
Principal, high school
Other
Nominal –
Which description best describes
your tenure as an SPUSD
district and school leader?
This is my first year as
an SPUSD district or
school leader.
Including this school
year, this is my second
year as an SPUSD
district or school
leader.
Including this school
year, I’ve been an
SPUSD district or
school leader for 3 or
more years.
Nominal –
Research question items
In this organization, everyone
works together effectively.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Ordinal Collective
capability
People here have a sense of
purpose to accomplish
something.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Ordinal Mission,
future, and
purpose
People in this organization can
take on any challenge.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Ordinal Resilience
We are certain about what we will
accomplish together as an
organization.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Ordinal Mission,
future, and
purpose

152
Survey item Response choices Scale of
measurement Concept
Disagree
Strongly disagree
People in this organization can
mobilize efforts to accomplish
difficult and complex goals.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Ordinal
Collective
capability
Every time this organization takes
on a challenge, we are
confident of success.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Ordinal
Resilience
This organization is full of
strength, energy, and optimism.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Ordinal Resilience
Our ability to work together
makes me very optimistic about
the future of this organization.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Ordinal Collective
capability
This organization is confident
about its future.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Ordinal Mission,
future, and
purpose
How, if at all, has creating the
SPUSD learner profile
influenced your sense of
collective efficacy in
implementing a learnercentered paradigm?
Open-ended Could be
nominal when
coded.
Learner profile
How, if at all, has creating the
SPUSD learning model
influenced your sense of
collective efficacy in
implementing a learnercentered paradigm?
Open-ended Could be
nominal when
coded.
Learning
model
How, if at all, has creating the
SPUSD big moves influenced
your sense of collective
efficacy in implementing a
learner-centered paradigm?
Open-ended Could be
nominal when
coded.
Learning
model

153
Appendix C: Focus Group Recruitment Communication to SPUSD Leaders
Dear SPUSD Leader,
I hope this communication finds you well.
I am reaching out to invite you to participate in a voluntary focus group aimed at
understanding how SPUSD leaders describe their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a
learner-centered paradigm after creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future [document
hyperlinked].
Purpose of the Study
The focus group aims to gather valuable insights to understand how SPUSD leaders
describe their sense of collective efficacy after creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future,
which consists of the SPUSD learner profile, learning model, “big moves,” and mission, vision,
and values. Linked here is the study’s information sheet [document hyperlinked].
Focus Group Details
The focus group will be comprised of 4-6 leaders and is expected to last approximately
60 minutes. The goal is to facilitate the focus group before March 8, 2024, at a time and location
that is most convenient to participants. Confidentiality: I cannot promise confidentiality in a
focus group. I do not know what other participants will say about the study or participant
responses.
Participation Criteria
Leaders who served as a full-time SPUSD district or school leader in 2021–22 and are
currently serving as a full-time SPUSD leader in 2023-24. Participation in this focus group is
entirely voluntary.

154
Focus Group Sign-Up
Please use this GOOGLE Form [hyperlink provided] to sign up and to receive further
details regarding the focus group. Please sign up by Thursday, February 15.
Your insights will contribute to a better understanding of how SPUSD district and school
leaders rate and describe their sense of collective efficacy after creating the SPUSD Framework
for the Future. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to me at
juliocmo@usc.edu or 000-000-0000.
With much gratitude,
J. César Morales
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
000-000-000

155
Appendix D: Focus Group Recording Consent Form
Title of study: A Framework for the Future: Co-constructing a Learner-Centered
Grammar of Schooling
Principal investigator: J. César Morales
Date:
You are being invited to participate in a voluntary focus group as part of a dissertation
study. Please read this form and ask any questions you may have before deciding whether to
participate.
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to gather valuable insights to understand how SPUSD district and school
leaders describe their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm after
creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future, which consists of the SPUSD learner profile,
learning model, “big moves,” and mission, vision, and values. Linked here is the study’s
information sheet.
Procedures
During the focus group session, you will be asked to engage in a group discussion
facilitated by the principal investigator. The session will last approximately 60 minutes and will
be audio-recorded to ensure accurate capture of the discussion. Your participation is voluntary,
and you are free to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.
Risks and Benefits
Participation in this study involves minimal risk. However, some participants may feel
uncomfortable discussing certain topics or sharing personal experiences. On the other hand,

156
benefits include contributing to valuable research that may inform educational practices and
policies.
Confidentiality
While all information collected during the focus group session will be kept confidential
and your identity will be anonymized, confidentiality cannot be assured as the principal
investigator cannot know what other participants will say about the study or participant
responses.
Voluntary Participation
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You are under no obligation to
participate, and your decision will not affect your relationship with the researchers or any
associated organizations. If you choose to participate, you may withdraw at any time without
penalty.
Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns about the study or your rights as a participant,
please feel free to contact the principal investigator, J. César Morales, at juliocmo@usc.edu or
760-271-3966.
Consent
I have read the above information and understand the nature and purpose of the study. I
have had the opportunity to ask questions and have received satisfactory answers. I voluntarily
consent to participate in the focus group and agree to have the session recorded.
Participant’s Name: _______________________________
Participant’s Signature: ____________________________
Date: ____________________________

157
Appendix E: Focus Group and Question Script
The following sections present the focus group protocol used in this study.
Welcome
Welcome everyone and thank you for taking time out of your busy day to engage in
today’s focus group.
Purpose
The purpose of this dissertation study is to understand how SPUSD district and school
leaders rate and describe their sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered
paradigm after creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future.
Two Reference Documents
The white document is a focus group recording consent form. It contains information
about the procedures, risks and benefits, and confidentiality procedures for today’s focus group,
as well as underscores that your participation is voluntary. At the bottom of the page, there is a
request for your consent to record today’s focus group session.
The double-sided cream-colored cardstock documents has two sides. Side 1 has the 10
interview questions. Side 2 has descriptors for the three core concepts of this study for you to
reference: a learner-centered paradigm description, collective efficacy constructs, and
components of a framework for the future.
Collectively review the three core concepts.
Introductions
Before we begin, let’s quickly go around and introduce ourselves. Please state your name
and your role within SPUSD and share a brief overview of your involvement in creating the
SPUSD framework for the future.

158
Warm-Up Questions
1. If someone were to ask you to describe the purpose of the SPUSD framework for the
future, what would you say?
2. If you participated, what was your experience like in creating the SPUSD framework
for the future?
Core Questions
The following questions will focus on your thoughts about district and school leaders’
sense of collective efficacy in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm after creating the SPUSD
Framework for the Future.
1. What, if anything, do you feel is different in the sense of collective efficacy among
district leaders (Executive Cabinet & Ed Services Directors) in shifting to a learnercentered paradigm after creating the SPUSD Framework for the Future?
2. How would you describe SPUSD’s school leaders’ sense of collective efficacy in
shifting to a learner-centered paradigm before creating the Framework for the Future?
3. Similarly, what, if anything, do you feel is different in the sense of collective efficacy
among school leaders in shifting to a learner-centered paradigm after creating the
SPUSD framework for the future?
4. What impact, if any, do you perceive the framework for the future having on the level
of confidence district and school leaders have in one another that the SPUSD
organizational goals can be accomplished?
5. Does the SPUSD framework for the future offer clearer guidance for SPUSD’s vision
and mission? If so, in what ways?

159
6. How, if at all, do you imagine the SPUSD framework for the future influencing
district and school leaders’ confidence in their ability to lead their teams through
obstacles, setbacks, and challenges, and to “stay the course” toward a learner-centered
paradigm?
7. How confident are you that SPUSD district and school leaders will bring to fruition
the aspirations detailed in the SPUSD framework for the future?
8. What are your aspirations for the SPUSD framework for the future in the upcoming
academic year?
Closing Question
Do you have any final thoughts you would like to share?
Closing Comments
Thank you once again for your time. I know that you are extremely busy, and I very
much appreciate your time and support on this dissertation journey. My goal is to conclude with
all interviews in the next 3 weeks.
Thank you and have a great afternoon.

160
Appendix F: The SPUSD Detailed Learning Model
The following figures further detail the SPUSD Learning Model visible in Figure 10.

Figure F1
Personalized
161

Figure F2
Authentic
16
2

Figure F3
Competency-Based
16
3

Figure F4
Inclusive and Equitable
16
4

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction

PDF

Considering queerness: examining school policies and their influence on inclusivity and safety for LGBTQ+ secondary students

PDF

School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

PDF

Trust in the 100% remote workplace in high growth technology consulting firms

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

The resilience of immigrant Asian American women professional engineers in the construction industry

PDF

Building equity for English language learners: technology employees in Fortune 500 companies

PDF

Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners

PDF

Defining and designing a new grammar of school with design thinking: a promising practice study

PDF

The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace

PDF

The fourth industrial superintendent: transforming public school systems beyond 21st-century mindsets

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

Latina superintendents take center stage in California's rural school districts: a model for culturally responsive school leadership

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success

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

PDF

Learner-centered teaching in Uganda: an analysis of continuing educational needs

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a southern California K-12 school district

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K-12 school district

Asset Metadata

Creator Morales, J. César (author)

Core Title A framework for the future: co-constructing a learner-centered grammar of schooling

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 06/14/2024

Defense Date 04/29/2024

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

Tag collective efficacy theory,design thinking,education,Educational Leadership,framework for the future,guiding coalition,guiding statements,learner profile,learner-centered,portrait of a learner,transformational leadership

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Moore, Ekaterina (committee chair), Krop, Cathy (committee member), Vodicka, Devin (committee member)

Creator Email jcmorales2024@gmail.com,juliocmo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113996WPS

Unique identifier UC113996WPS

Identifier etd-MoralesJCs-13108.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-MoralesJCs-13108

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Morales, J. César

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240619-usctheses-batch-1170 (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