Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...
(USC Thesis Other)
An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
AN ALTERNATIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY UTILIZING THE GAP ANALYSIS PROCESS TO
REVIEW A DISTRICTWIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOCUS ON RESULTS
REFORM INITIATIVE: IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES
OF THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, MOTIVATION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE GAPS
by
Debra Lee Hill
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Debra Lee Hill
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Randy, who has been my greatest
cheerleader and comforter through this extraordinary journey:
You saw the potential in my dream and assisted me in making it become a reality.
As my “marathon” coach, you were both encouraging and firm. You listened to me talk
for hours and held me when I was discouraged or exhausted. You made me laugh with
your silly jokes and funny dances, especially when I was taking myself too seriously.
You helped me find balance when I was overwhelmed with all my responsibilities and
commitments. You made many personal sacrifices to support my “mission,” including
all the household chores and caring for our precious grand-dogs, Bagel and Newbie.
Actually, I hope this doesn’t stop!
You always believed in me and reminded me often that I could overcome any
circumstance. You’ve been my husband, best friend, companion, counselor, coach,
comedian and date for thirty-three years, and I deeply adore and love you very much.
I will always remember your commitment to me through this process. I appreciate you
very much.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I will be forever grateful to the Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California (USC), for granting me this privilege of participating in this most
prestigious, challenging and rewarding doctoral program. I have learned vast knowledge
and will continue to grow professionally and personally beyond the boundaries of this
experience. I am proud to belong to the Trojan family. Fight on!
I was blessed to have two incredible team members, Rosemary Santos-Aguilar
and Regina Zurbano who are very extraordinary women. Your talent, experiences and
intelligence guided us through the many chapters of this capstone project. As we labored
together we grew together, experiencing both blessings and difficulties. Thank you both
for all the assistance and support you continually gave; it was not always easy as we were
often sleep deprived and constantly juggling our schedules to accommodate one another.
Thank goodness for Skype – it kept us connected. You both deserve a lot of credit for the
process being completed. I appreciate your faithful persistence and will always
remember you both fondly.
I am also grateful to my fellow colleagues of the capstone the dissertation cohort.
I have learned from each of you and am proud to graduate with such an esteemed group
of highly qualified (and much younger) educators and professionals.
I have been guided through this process of education by brilliant and practical
professors, Dr. Marsh and Dr. Rueda, who believed in our efforts and supported us
through the most challenging aspects of this journey. Thank you both for your
iv
encouragement and insight. You really made a difference in my life, and I am grateful
that I was part of your innovative capstone inquiry project.
I am also appreciative of my third committee member, Dr. Rob Arias, who has
offered his expertise and support. I am grateful for his willingness to read our
dissertation and offer his feedback and guidance. His commitment to help others in
education rise to be effective leaders is both admirable and a sacrifice of time.
I would like to mention Dr. Myron Dembo who first introduced me to gap
analysis process and convinced me to change my concentration from K-12 to Educational
Psychology. It was the right decision for me. However, I am most appreciative that he
encouraged me to request the capstone dissertation project! He was right again.
I must acknowledge my supervisor, Assistant Superintendent, Linda Baxter, and
Superintendents Richard Tauer and Dr. Sharon Nordheim who allowed me to adjust my
work schedule to meet the demands of this rigorous program and schedule. Each of you
was a wonderful source of encouragement and solid support. Without your assistance
this very important life goal and dream was not attainable. I am deeply grateful.
And finally, I want to thank my wonderful staff who “stepped-up” and maintained
a high level of service throughout these two years. You extended yourself and increased
in your efficacy and capacity to lead. It was a joy to observe your collaboration and
support for one another. I am honored to have such a caring and efficient team. Soon we
will all celebrate together.
My final tribute is to my Lord and Savior who sustained me each day.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………….……… iii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………. ix
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………... x
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………………… 1
Global Society……………………………………………………….. 2
Background of the Problem………………………………………….. 4
Statement of the Problem. …………………………………………… 5
Importance of the Problem………………………………………...…. 8
State accountability…………………………………………….. 9
District accountability………………………………………….. 11
Analysis of the Problem……………………………………………… 13
Glendale Unified School District..……………….……………. 14
Focus on Results (FoR) reform initiative……………………… 17
Capstone Inquiry Project………………………………….……. 20
Gap Analysis…………………………………………………… 21
Significance of the Work…………………………………………….. 22
CHAPTER TWO: THE INQUIRY PROCESS AND FINDINGS………….. 25
2A: Review of the Literature……….....……………………………………... 25
Introduction…………………………………………………………... 25
Outdated system of education………………………...………… 25
History of Education Reform………………………………………… 26
Misalignment of policies…………………………………...…… 27
Failed reforms…………………………………………………… 28
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reform initiative………………... 29
The District as a Unit of Change……………………………………... 30
District-led Comprehensive Reform…………………………………. 33
Systemic change……………………………………………........ 35
District capacity…………………………………………………. 38
Root Causes of Performance Gaps…………………………………… 40
Knowledge/skill gaps…………………………………………… 42
Motivation gaps………………………………………………… 47
Organization culture gaps………………………………………. 51
vi
2B: Methodology…….…………………………...…………………………... 54
Introduction…………………………………………………………... 55
Inquiry Project Questions ………………………………...………….. 57
Analytical Framework: Gap Analysis Process ……………………… 58
Unit of Analysis………………………………………………………. 62
Sampling Strategies……………………..……………………………. 63
Data Collection……………………………………………………….. 65
Limitations to Data Collection. ……………………………………… 70
Human Subjects Considerations……………………………………… 71
Alternative Capstone Inquiry Team Structure……………………….. 73
Inquiry Project………………………………………………………... 74
Project overview……………………………………………….. 74
Project progression…………………………………………….. 74
Fall 2009………………………………………………….… 74
Spring 2010……………………………………………….... 76
Inquiry proposal and qualifying exam…………………………. 76
Developing inquiry tools………………………………………. 77
Summer 2010………………………………………………. 77
Fall 2010……………………………………………………. 77
Issues of confidentiality and perceived intent of inquiry……… 80
Additional presentation: District FoR writing team…………... 81
Spring 2011………………………………………………… 82
2C: Analysis of Root Causes of the Performance Gaps…………………….… 83
Introduction…………………………………………………………… 83
Background….……………………….………..……………………… 83
Gap Analysis……………….…………………………………………. 85
Analysis of Motivational Gaps……………………………………….. 86
Self-efficacy…………………………………………………... 87
Active choice…………………………………………………. 88
Persistence……………….…………………………………… 90
Mental effort……………………………………………….…. 94
Analysis of Gaps Organizational Culture…..….……………………... 98
Organizational culture………………………………………... 98
Establishing organizational goals…………………………….. 99
Work process and procedures………………………………… 99
Resources……………………………………………………... 102
Analysis of Knowledge and Skill Gaps………………………………. 103
Communication……………………………………………….. 103
Intention of reform initiative………………………………….. 103
Transparency………………..……….……..…………………. 105
Goal structure…………………………………………………. 107
Procedure……………………………………………………... 110
Experience…...…………...…………………………………... 111
vii
CHAPTER THREE: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS……………………………. 114
3A: Expanded Literature Review Related to Solutions with Citations 114
Introduction…………………………………………………………… 114
District as a Unit of Reform…………………………………………... 115
Alignment of Organizational Goal Structure…………….…………… 118
Executing a consistent strategy across the organization……… 118
Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups…………………………... 122
Training systems…………………………………………….... 122
Formal induction system for new personnel………………….. 123
Support personnel………………….……….……………….... 124
School principals and instructional leadership teams ………... 125
Instructional Walkthroughs……….……….…………………. 126
Principals as instructional leaders……………………………. 130
Sustainability…………………………………………………………. 132
Implementation and sustainability……………………………. 133
Conclusion……………………………………………………………. 139
3B: Summary of Proposed Solutions……………………...………………….. 140
Introduction…………………………………………………………… 140
Strengths of FoR Implementation…………………………………….. 141
Summary of Performance Gaps………………………………………. 142
Recommendations to District…………………………………………. 144
Recommendation 1: Ensure alignment of organizational goal
structure……………………………………………….………
144
Recommendation 2: Build knowledge/skill capacity of
GUSD role groups………………………………………….....
147
Develop a formal induction system. ………………… 149
Support personnel……………………………………. 149
Principals and instructional leadership teams……..… 151
Instructional walkthroughs…………………………... 152
Principals as instructional leaders………………….... 152
Recommendation 3: Stay the course! Work to sustain the
reform………………………………………………………....
153
Human capital……………………………………………….... 157
GLOSSARY OF TERMS…………………………………………………….. 158
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………... 167
viii
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………... 185
Appendix A: Inquiry Project Timeline.....…………….………………. 185
Appendix B: Interviewed Role Groups…….………………………….. 186
Appendix C: Scanning Interview Guide…….………………………… 187
Appendix D: Stages of Concern (SoC) Interview Guide…….………... 188
Appendix E: Triangulation of Data…………………….……………… 189
Appendix F: Executive Summary ……………...…………………...… 190
Appendix G: Proposed Solutions Power Point Presentation..…………. 204
Appendix H: Focus on Results Implementation Plan Documents…….. 224
Glendale – Building Capacity…………………………………. 224
Years 1-5 Leadership Expectations…………………..………... 225
Indicators of Implementation………………………………….. 230
A. Identify and Implement a Schoolwide Instructional Focus 230
B. Develop Professional Collaboration Teams to Improve
Teaching and Learning……………………………………
230
C. Establish an Instructional Leadership Team……………... 231
D. Identify, Learn and Use Evidence-based Teaching
Practices and Develop a Targeted Professional
Developmental Plan that Builds Expertise in Selected
Evidenced-based Practices……………………………….
231
E. Create an Monitor an Internal Accountability System
Growing Out of Student Learning Goals that Promote
Measurable Student Gains in Learning for Every Student..
232
F. Realign Resources (Time, People, Money) to Support
Instructional Focus………………………………………..
232
G. Engage Families and Community in Supporting the
Instructional Focus……………………………………….
233
H. Principal as Instructional Leader………………………… 233
I. Central Services and Wider Community Support is
Evident…………………………………………………...
234
Appendix I: Focus on Results 2010-2011 Coaching Trios With
Administrators…………..………………………………...
235
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table A1: Inquiry Project Timeline 185
Table B1: District Level Personnel…………………………………………... 186
Table B2: School Site Personnel……………………………………………... 186
Table D1: Typical Expressions of Concern about an Innovation…………… 188
Table E1: Triangulation of Data……………………………………………... 189
Table H1: Four Year Plan for Building Capacity……………………………. 224
Table I1: Focus on Results 2010-2011 Coaching Trios with Administrators.. 235
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schoolwide Instructional Focus…………………………………… 230
Figure 2: Professional Collaboration Teams…………………………………. 230
Figure 3: Instructional Leadership Team…………………………………….. 231
Figure 4: Targeted Professional Development Plan…………………………. 231
Figure 5: Internal Accountability System……………………………………. 232
Figure 6: Alignment of Resources…………………………………………... 232
Figure 7: Community Partnerships…………………………………………... 233
Figure 8: Instructional Leaderhip……………………………………………. 233
Figure 9: Central Services Support…………………………………………... 234
xi
ABSTRACT
This innovative Alternative Capstone Project emerged as a partnership between
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC) and the
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD). In collaboration, this opportunity provided
USC doctoral candidates, who are also educators, to serve as consultants in a local school
district, to identify the strengths and performance gaps in the implementation of the
district’s reform initiative. The capstone design plan uniquely provided mutual growth
and learning between both partners who are professionals in the same work context. The
inquiry process created a reflective experience for the USC team members to also
evaluate their own practice and belief systems.
The goals of the inquiry project were to: 1) become informed about the FoR
reform initiative; 2) determine the fidelity of implementation at the different levels of
instruction; 3) determine the nature of the performance gaps in the implementation
process; 4) identify and classify the root causes of the performance gaps; and 5) provide
research-based recommendations to address the root causes underlying the performance
gaps. Specifically, this collaborative project, utilized the Clark & Estes (2002) gap
analysis process model as the analytical framework to identify existing gaps in the
implementation of the Focus on Results (FoR) reform initiative in three specific
dimensions: knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture. The inquiry
process utilized interviews, observations and document analysis to gain an understanding
of the district’s progress.
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Today, more than ever, a quality education is a prerequisite for success. America
was once the best-educated nation in the world when a generation ago America led all
nations in college completion, but today several countries have surpassed the United
States (EdTrust, 2010; and The Broad Residency in Urban Education, 2010). In 2009,
the United States was among thirty-four developed nations that participated in the
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and still ranked in the middle of
the global pack (EdTrust, 2010). The Ed Trust Analysis of the 2009 PISA results
proclaims the United States is average in performance, but leads the world in inequity.
This updated finding of America’s educational status is crucial as education is still the
critical factor that plays a decisive role in the success of our young people and the
strength of our economy (EdTrust, 2010; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Fullan, 2003; Friedman,
2005; and Elmore, 2002).
In the 2010 Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (Ed.gov), the policy makers espouse that this effort will require
everyone’s best thinking and resources – to support innovative approaches to teaching
and learning; to bring lasting change to the lowest-performing schools; and to investigate
and evaluate what works and what can work better in America’s schools. Instead of
investing in the status quo, schools must reform to accelerate student achievement, close
achievement gaps, inspire our children to excel, and turn around those schools that for too
many young Americans aren’t providing them with the education they need to succeed in
college and a career.
2
Reforming America’s schools is a shared responsibility as our nation’s teachers
and principals cannot shoulder the task alone (Elmore, 2000; and Fullan, 1993).
Leadership must foster school environments where teachers have the time to collaborate,
(Elmore, 2002; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, 2004; Reeves, 2005; Schmoker,
2004; Fullan, 1999; and Barth, 2005); and opportunities to lead (Elmore, 2002; Massell,
2000; and Reeves, 2004). Educators must recognize the importance of communities and
families (Epstein, 1995; 2001; and Epstein & Dauber, 1991), as comprehensive reform
requires schools, communities, and families to work in partnership to deliver services and
supports that address the full range of student needs.
Elmore (2000) states that a significant approach that will change districts is to
increase partnerships, collaboration and distributed leadership where a common culture
of expectations regarding skills and knowledge hold all individuals accountable for their
contributions to the collective result. In this manner, all leaders, regardless of role,
should be working to improve instructional practice and performance, rather than
shielding their districts and schools from outside involvement.
Global Society
The face of America is changing as greater diversity among its members presents
increased opportunities and challenges. Through the means of technology, our nation has
become a global society where information, knowledge, and face-to-face interactions
with people on the other side of the universe occur with a click of a key. As globalization
advances, societies rely on the production of knowledge, its transmission through
education and training, and dissemination through communications technologies” (Nerad,
3
2005). Clark & Estes (2002) claim that increasing knowledge, skills, and motivation and
focusing those assets on organization goals, are the keys to success in the new world
economy (p. 2). While businesses and communication systems continue to advance in its
capacity and sophistication, education systems continue to remain static and
overwhelmingly inadequate in preparing its students to be ready to compete with
worldwide competitors (Elmore, 2002, 2004; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Fullan, 2003;
Friedman, 2005; Schmoker, 2004; Simmons, 2007; Reeves, 2000; DuFour, DuFour,
Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004; Jenks, 1995; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004; and Reigeluth & Garfinkle, (Eds.), 1994).
Friedman (2005) portrays the global leveling of opportunities throughout the
world since the massive investment in technology, which has resulted in the ways people
work, play, compete, connect, collaborate, and negotiate power (p. 6). He indicates that
global competitors now have an equal opportunity for maximizing commerce and
growing substantial economies that will highly compete and potentially surpass the
wealth and status of the United States. Now, more than ever, sophisticated knowledge,
critical thinking skills, and rigor are required in America’s public schools to contend with
the 21
st
century demand. Educators must reinvigorate their commitment to learning by
infusing technology and customizing learning for many more students if America is to
highly compete in the global classroom and advance in the global market (Christensen,
Horn & Johnson, 2008).
4
Background of the Problem
America was explicitly warned in the 1983 report, “A Nation at Risk,” (Ed.gov)
that it would face major threats to its prosperity, security and civility unless a profound
response to mitigate the prevalence of mediocrity toward achievement performance was
systemically modified. The response was a large-scale governmental action that included
structural solutions through top-down regulations, specified and mandated curricula,
detailed and tested competencies for students and teachers, increased teacher salaries, and
leadership training (Fullan, 1993; and Elmore 1999). However, substantial literature
contends that the condition of public education is one of disparity and inequitable
outcomes. The list of concerns is extensive and very disturbing when one considers that
the future of our nation depends on high quality education for our students.
Although there have been numerous federal reforms and some individual schools
have experienced sporadic improvement from year to year, public education as a whole
has continued to falter, especially in urban settings populated with large percentages of
African American and Hispanic students (EdTrust, 2010; www.broadeducation.org).
District outcomes continue to be grossly unsatisfactory for minority and low-income
students. A meta-analysis of such districts reveal that they often have a history of
internal political conflict, factionalism, and tension; a lack of focus on student
achievement, a high proportion of inexperienced teachers and high teacher turnover rates,
difficult working conditions; disparity in capacities of teaching staffs, lack of demanding
curricula and low expectations for minority students; lack of instructional coherence
within and across schools, contradictory educational programs with little alignment with
5
state standards, fragmented professional development initiatives, high student social and
academic difficulties and high student mobility; unsatisfactory business operations and
unqualified district office staff who do not have the will or the skills to take on the
challenge of system-wide improvement for student learning (Anderson, 2003; Elmore,
1990, 2002, 2004; Fullan, 1993; Marzano, 2001; Schmoker, 2004; Simmons, 2007; and
Snipes, Doolittle & Herlihy, 2002).
Historically, the reform plans included similar lists of characteristics that defined
improved organizational practices, more effective leadership qualities and better
instructional strategies that were seemingly presented as the magical solution to increase
achievement performance and narrow the achievement gap. Many of the same
assumptions underlie the most recent results-based accountability policies, including the
2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the most recent 2010 Reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, A Blueprint for Reform (Ed.gov).
Statement of the Problem
The United States ranks in the middle among thirty-four industrialized nations (Ed
Trust, 2010). The 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results
reveal that student achievement in America has improved in math and science since 2006,
however, it still ranks 13th in science, and tied in tenth place in both reading and
mathematics (EdTrust, 2010). Specifically, American high school students rank 12th in
reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math when compared with the best students across
the globe. More than 1.2 million students drop out of school every year and the national
graduation rate is only seventy percent. Subsequently, America's economy has been
6
significantly compromised because its students are not learning the skills and
knowledge they need to succeed in today's world.
How could the most developed nation in the world demonstrate such failure to
educate all its students? Elmore (2002) claims schools and school systems were not
designed to respond to the pressure for performance that standards and accountability
bring, and their failure to translate this pressure into useful and fulfilling work for
students and adults is dangerous to the future of public education. American schools and
educators are inadequately prepared to respond to the increased accountability as
determined by test scores. Current educational designs inhibit educators from effectively
changing their practice to engage in systematic, continuous improvement in the quality of
the educational experience of students and to subject themselves to the discipline of
measuring their success by the outcomes of students' academic performance (Elmore,
2002; Fullan, 2003; and Tyack & Cuban, 1995).
Specifically, schools, as organizations, aren't designed as places where professional
are expected to continually advance their expertise in best practices, where they are
mentored and coached in this improvement, or where they are expected to expose their
practice to the scrutiny of peers, or the discipline of evaluations based on student
achievement (Elmore, 2002). Educators have not been adequately prepared to expect the
same level of performance of all students, regardless of social background, extreme
poverty, unprecedented cultural and language diversity and unstable family and
community patterns (Elmore, 2002).
7
A second challenge is to understand the qualitative changes in knowledge and skills
required for students to move beyond basic levels of performance to attain academic
proficiency (Schmoker, 2004; Reeves, 2000; and Marzano, 2003). Unfortunately, our
national preoccupation with standardized test results fosters the misconception that
learning can be reduced to knowledge and skills that can be taught and learned
additively (Elmore, 2002). The disconnect between the skills and knowledge
requirements of the global economy and modern democratic society, and the limited
understanding of learning measured by standardized tests, reflect the dangers inherent in
using tests rather than the standards themselves as the major driver of school reform
(Elmore, 2002; and Reeves, 2005).
Overall, teachers still continue to work in isolation with limited support and
collaboration with colleagues that inhibits ongoing professional development to improve
their knowledge and skills to equip them to meet the social, emotional and instructional
needs of every student who enters their classrooms (Elmore, 2000; 2002; Fullan, 2004;
2005; and DuFour & Eaker, 1999). So, how will America’s education system meet the
global demands of the 21
st
Century when little substance has changed in schooling in the
past one hundred years? The travesty of this dilemma is that compared to the rest of the
industrialized world, the United States may be “left behind” unless a radical reform
occurs that uproots and transforms the dysfunctional system to meet the demands of
accountability.
8
Importance of the Problem
Prior to the passage of NCLB (2001), Americans may have intuitively believed
that the quality of education offered to its youth was neither equitable nor equal
(Rudalevige, 2005), but this was confirmed by the updated results-based accountability
system, NCLB (2001), a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(EdSource, 2005). The two-pronged approach of NCLB (2001) demanded improvement
through content standardization and accountability.
Subsequently, the accountability structure of NCLB (2001) provided the
“evidence” that exposed the glaring disparities among various groups who demonstrated
they were not achieving at the same capacity as the majority population (Spellings, 2007)
that could no longer be ignored. As the required data was examined, the substandard
performance of specific subgroups including gender, socioeconomic status,
race/ethnicity, geography, or English language proficiency revealed more clearly the
educational inequalities that existed among America’s youth. The new accountability
system confronted the apathy and external attributions that educators often ascribe for the
significant disparities that exist in American education.
Though numerous reform efforts have permeated the educational system for
years, these reform endeavors tend to be circular in nature. Whether this is due to the
nature of the system itself, a lack of knowledge and skills, and/or misguided policies; or a
lack of the fiscal resources that are desperately needed to upgrade the processes of
learning to match the technological advances of other nations, it is certain that America is
experiencing a broadening achievement gap. The Broad Foundation indicates that this
9
achievement gap is occurring internally among minority groups, but also internationally
between the United States and other industrialized nations.
State accountability.
California Department of Education (CDE) was one of the original states in
developing learning standards for its English Language Learners in its endeavor to make
a significant impact on closing the achievement gaps among its disadvantaged student
groups. Prior to the authorization of NCLB (2001), CDE had already designed its own
growth-based accountability system – the Academic Performance Index (API), as an
outcome of PSSA (1999). Even so, the state was required to comply with federal
government’s status-based Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) model. As a result, the API is
one of the indices used to evaluate AYP for a school or district in California. This dual
accountability system has intensified California’s effort to improve achievement and
close the pervasive performance gap among many of its minority youth in order to meet
the 2014 target that all students are 100% proficient in English Language Arts and
Mathematics (CDE, 2009).
While both initiatives are composed of similar dimensions: set targets, avoid
consequences, identify need, implement standards-based curricula, utilize data, build
capacity, develop leadership and improve instruction, Elmore (2000) adamantly confronts
the lack of empirical evidence to support the current NCLB accountability system due to
the underinvestment in human capital and resource development compromises districts’
efforts to achieve the achievement goals. Districts are expected to assess the prescriptive
state and federal requirements for raising skill and knowledge without much guidance, or
10
more importantly, without the resources to do it. Elmore projects that the flawed
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) standard and negative consequences of performance-
based accountability will ultimately result in a case load of low-performing schools that
will exceed the capacity of the federal, state, and local districts to manage.
Nevertheless, these models have created an external pressure to confront the
ubiquitous denial among districts throughout the nation that students are not achieving
equally or proficiently. However, this heightened awareness and acknowledgement of
the performance issues and educational gaps, did not inform educators what to do
differently or how to implement a systemic change that would ultimately result in
improving academic outcomes and closing the achievement gap (Elmore, 2000).
It did, however, create the impetus for administrators and teachers to explore a
myriad of ideas, strategies, curricula, and practices, such as the increased use of data for
decision-making, to achieve the prescribed performance goals set by the federal and state
governments.
The increased transparency fostered by these accountability measures has
prompted schools and districts to implement more rigorous efforts to improve instruction
and monitor its progress by using achievement data to assess learning and adjust
curricula. As with all federal and state policies, it is the responsibility of the local
government, meaning school boards, district leadership, site leadership, teachers, parents
and community to collaboratively work together to ensure high academic achievement
for each and all students (Elmore & Burney, 1999). This requires all stakeholders to
11
manage moral purpose and change agentry, which is at the heart of productive
educational change (Fullan, 1993).
District accountability.
School districts are often not considered very important in school improvement
and are sometimes considered a significant barrier. However, Elmore and Burney (1999)
hold that the district performs an important role in driving reform, especially in low
performing schools. It is the local school system, rather than the State or individual
school, which must embrace and assume its extensive responsibility for improved student
performance. Even so, the challenge for district leaders is to remove the barriers and
build the commitment to change within both the structure and culture of the organization
(Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2001).
Louis (1989) identified four district-level approaches to school improvement: 1)
innovation implementation, 2) evolutionary planning, 3) goal-based accountability, and
4) professional investment. Louis, as well as other similar researchers who assessed the
district’s role in school-based improvement processes (e.g. Rosenholtz, 1989) found that
districts vary in approach and that the variation is associated with district leader
conceptions of the change process. Other researchers identify factors that initiate and
sustain change across the district include a clear focus on classroom instruction, building
the capacity of teachers to teach, developing principals as instructional leaders who
monitor performance, and ensuring program coherence from the classroom to the board
room (Gilbert, Hightower, Husbands, Marsh, McLauglin, Talbert & Young, 2002).
12
The role of the district level responsibility in educational reform has oscillated
from centralized to decentralized as districts endeavor to create more effective schools.
The most recent accountability models, No Child Left Behind (2001) and the competitive
2010 Race to the Top reform program (ED.gov) have required districts to shift their
primary focus from presenting curricula to student learning. The threat of sanctions has
seemingly energized districts throughout the nation to seek the magical formula to
achieve their annual targets in hopes of avoiding the devastating consequence of losing
their autonomous control. However, history has demonstrated that all reform efforts have
failed to produce high-performing urban school districts that represent the greatest need
among all demographics (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006).
While school-based solutions are important, achieving excellence on a broad
scale requires a district wide strategy for improving instruction in the classroom
(Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). However, numerous failed attempts have
challenged and perplexed district officials in knowing how to widely assess the extent
and quality of implementation of teaching and learning strategies related to district
reform (Togneri &Anderson, 2003). A meta-analysis of research on the impact of site-
based management on improving student outcomes and teaching quality demonstrated
consistent evidence that site-based management produces little if any improvements in
the quality of education unless both district and state levels of education exert pressure
and support to ensure accountability (Leithwood & Menzies, 1998). Even so, Harris
(2002) believed strongly that school improvement could only occur when schools apply
13
strategies and practices that best match their own context and unique developmental
needs.
Since public education is vastly more complex than businesses, districts must
create a framework for developing an effective strategy for achieving high student
academic performance throughout entire school district and construct an aligned and
coherent organization that removes barriers to allow effective implementation of that
strategy in a sustainable way (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). District office
leadership must 1) create a research-based strategic plan; 2) identify and promulgate best
practices; 3) develop leadership skills and capacities at all levels; 4) build information
systems to monitor student achievement improvement; and 5) hold people accountable
for results (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). This requires district offices to
confront their own ineffective and status quo practices. It will necessitate district office
personnel to understand the change process, to transform and redefine their roles and
responsibilities.
Analysis of the Problem
The purpose of this capstone project is to utilize the Clark & Estes (2002) gap
analysis process to identify the root causes for the gaps in the implementation process of
the Focus on Results districtwide reform initiative in the Glendale Unified School District
(GUSD). This analysis will focus on three dimensions: knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organization culture. Once completed, research-based recommendations to improve
performance in these areas will be offered to the district for consideration.
14
Glendale Unified School District.
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) is a culturally diverse district
comprised of thirty-one schools and over 2,620 employees, serving 27,000 students in
grades kindergarten through 12
th
grade. Eighteen of the twenty elementary schools
achieved an API score over 800; four middle schools, and three of the five high schools
also obtained an API of 800 or above. Over the years the district has received numerous
awards such as National Blue Ribbon, State Distinguished Schools, Title I Achieving,
Teachers of the Year, and numerous other academic and vision and performing arts
awards. The opening home page of the GSUD website is inscribed with a message that
reads, “ It should be clear that the mission and focus of the Glendale Unified School
District is student achievement. Each of us should clearly understand how we support that
process.” The summation of the district’s purpose is stated in their mission statement:
”With a vision toward the future and a commitment of excellence, Glendale Unified
School District provides quality teaching, ensuring that all students become responsible
citizens who possess the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in an ever-changing
world.”
The GUSD Board of Education establishes yearly essential priorities for
improving student achievement and maintaining a safe learning environment. It
recognizes that improving achievement is a comprehensive K-12 effort, which
encompasses all student groups and subject areas, and that maintaining a safe and orderly
learning environment is critical to student success. Their essential priorities include:
15
1) Ensuring in every classroom instructional practices that are high quality,
research-based, consistent with the models of effective teaching and the
California teaching standards and that support school success;
2) Using Board adopted budgetary principles to maintain the fiscal integrity and
stability of the District that best meet Board priorities and student needs;
3) Completing Measure K work as promised and determines what facility needs
exist and what funding streams may be available to address these needs;
4) Evaluating the 2010 Strategic Plan results and begin 2015 strategic planning.
GUSD is a diverse community of learners. The student ethnicity is comprised of
of the following ethnic groups: White (55.5%); Hispanic/Latino (21.7%); Asian (13.1%);
Filipino (6%); African American (1.2%); American Indian and Pacific Islander (0.2%
each); and no response (2.3%). Within their population of students their English Learner
enrollment includes Armenian (12%); Spanish (7.2%); Korean (1.1%); Arabic (0.2%)
and Other (1.3%). GUSD’s student subgroups consist of 61% Title I; 41% low income
students; 24.6% English Learners; and 8.7% of the students qualify for special education
services.
The GUSD Board of Education, the Superintendent, Dr. Richard Sheehan, and the
Cabinet members understand and embrace their moral responsibility to ensure all the
students within GUSD are minimally proficient in academic achievement, as well as,
prepared to meaningfully contribute to society as responsible citizens. Their commitment
to provide the necessary knowledge and skills for their students to enter advanced
institutions of education is apparent in their clearly defined priorities, mission statement,
16
allocation of resources and leadership capacity building endeavors. However, within the
boundaries of the district, complacency and disparities among staff, schools, and students
undermine optimal achievement for all students. High performing schools were satisfied
believing they were “good enough.” Low performing schools dismissed their moral
responsibility by attributing student performance issues to family and community factors.
While Elmore (2000) espouses the key to America’s educational dilemma is a
large scale improvement of instruction, he also acknowledges that public education has
been unable to effectively accomplish this even though the last twenty-five years of
standards-based reform was considered the grand solution to America’s achievement
quandary. He declares that a major overhaul in the way public schools define and
practice leadership is essential, as current leaders are not equipped with the knowledge
and skills to implement the systemic changes to meet the challenges posed by standards-
based reform.
Most people agree that teachers are the agents of educational change and societal
improvement (Fullan, 1993). NCLB (2001) has focused the spotlight on the performance
of students within individual teacher classrooms, thereby calling into question the
efficacy of teachers to effectively respond to the higher demands of a data-driven system.
Results-oriented accountability no longer enables excuses or external attributions to
acquit and exonerate the community of educators from achieving its moral responsibility
to provide equal access to a high quality education.
Elmore (2002) defines the imperative as the investment in human skill and
knowledge. The prevailing assumption is that teachers learn most of what they need to
17
know about how to teach before they enter the classroom – despite massive evidence to
the contrary. Overall, teachers operate in isolation from one another under conditions of
work that typically limit their exposure to other adults doing the same work
Focus on Results (FoR) reform initiative.
The district leadership of Glendale Unified School District recognized the need
for external leadership support to create the learning shift in their district to improve
achievement and narrow the performance gap. In 2005, they strategically created the
opportunity to partner with the educational consulting firm, Focus on Results, which
provided the structure and facilitation of the systemic change process. Focus on Results
is a framework that is comprehensive, data driven, and instructionally focused (Palumbo
& Leight, 2007). The district’s commitment to the five-year timeline was an essential
agreement to ensure the foundation of this reform initiative was embedded in the culture
to promote sustainability beyond the external fiscal and human resources.
GUSD adopted a progressive approach to begin the implementation of the
district-wide change allowing clusters of schools to work in cohorts. Each year new
schools joined the endeavor until all schools were active participants by the third year.
The district’s goal was to increase capacity of staff as learning leaders and increase the
probability of sustainability. The school’s responsibility was to increase student
performance on standardized tests and ultimately close the achievement gap. The
implementation process was embedded in the local context and culture and required a
shift from a traditional central office to a central services organization, meaning a
18
customer service-driven services organization that fully supported school-level
implementation (Palumbo & Leight, 2007).
GSUD and its schools became “loosely coupled” (Tyack & Cuban, 1995; and
Elmore, 1996). The organization (district), schools, and classrooms were collectively
part of the same entity, yet distinctly individualistic in terms of focus, actions, and
accountability to the whole. As the district and schools embraced the concept of
developing an ‘urgent’ message and an Instructional Focus, these became the catalyst for
bringing the organization together into a more focused whole (Palumbo & Leight, 2007).
This dynamic was most obvious in the third year of the implementation process.
The Focus on Results framework delineates seven key components for school-
level improvement. Both the conceptual belief and the prescriptive action were essential
to the progressive change process. The core components included:
1) Identify and implement a school-wide instructional focus based on multiple
sources of student data that has been disaggregated by various student groups.
2) Develop professional collaboration teams, an Instructional Leadership Team
(ILT), that meet regularly, share knowledge, and serve as a guiding coalition
to improve teaching and learning for all students.
3) Identify, learn, and use three to five effective evidenced-based teaching
practices that all teachers use consistently to meet the needs of all students.
4) Create a targeted professional development plan that builds expertise in the
selected evidenced-based strategies using four strategies: 1) build expertise,
19
2) change practice, 3) monitor student performance, and 4) communicate
relentlessly.
5) Realign resources including people, time, talent, energy, and money to support
the Instructional Focus and the improvement of teaching and learning.
6) Engage all families and the community in supporting the Instructional Focus
by creating two-way communication and treating them as valued clients.
7) Create an internal accountability system using assessment measures
(SMARTe Goals) that benchmark progress in the focus area and drive
continuous adjustment to daily instruction.
Leadership development was a key focus in the Focus on Results reform effort
(Palumbo and Leight, 2007). Elmore (2000) emphasizes that large scale improvement of
instruction will occur only if education emphatically changes the way it defines and
practices leadership. Elmore (2000) further posits that school leaders are valued
according to their capacity to buffer teachers from outside interference and protect them
from outside scrutiny. Years of research have postulated the most important role in
school change is effective principal leadership as they are the gatekeepers of all that
occurs in the school environment (Fullan, 2003). Effective school leaders create vision,
develop and support teachers and school staff, and strengthen school culture. They also
share or distribute leadership roles among teachers and other school staff, particularly to
enhance instructional leadership capacity (Elmore, 2000; Spillane, 2006).
20
Palumbo and Leight (2007), consultants for Focus on Results, describe four
characteristics of leaders of improving schools:
1) Transformational leaders have deep moral commitment are and willing to
reexamine and transform any structures, practices, policies or roles;
2) Instructional leaders are “learning” leaders who realize the key to improved
student learning is improved instruction, and they focus on it relentlessly;
3) Reflective leaders use data to inform thinking that generates a specific plan of
actions to improve the effect of instructional practices on student learning;
4) Intentional leaders have a vision, a strong sense of urgency, a specific plan,
and guidance to implement and adjust the plan. They do what is best for their
students rather than what is always politically expedient.
The seven core components of Focus on Result and the restructuring of leadership
expectations, roles and capacity were key strategies that increased the potential for
internal sustainability. While the consultants from Focus on Results facilitated, guided,
trained, redirected, and challenged district personnel (district administrators and staff,
principals, and teachers) to uproot the status quo, re-energize learning, and engage in a
systemic change, it required the active choice, mental effort, and persistence of staff to
achieve the outcomes. Overall, the systematic effort seemingly resulted in improved
achievement as demonstrated by increased Academic Performance Index (API) scores.
Capstone Inquiry Project.
The Superintendent of Glendale Unified School District (GUSD), Dr. Escalante,
invited doctoral students from the University of Southern California (USC) Rossier
21
School of Education to partner with GUSD to support their endeavors in improving
academic achievement. Specifically, each project inquiry team utilized the Clark and
Estes (2002) gap analysis framework to understand the work accomplished in three
different areas of interest.
Our project team focused on specific criteria to identify strengths and gaps in
achieving optimal performance in the district’s implementation of the Focus on Results
district-wide reform initiative. Acting as consultants, our role was supportive in nature,
as interviews were conducted with staff at all levels within the organization to ascertain
levels of commitment, communication processes, necessary resources, and potential for
sustainability.
Gap analysis.
The Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis framework provides a delineated
structure to analyze most innovative and strategic reform plans. This prescriptive model
helps an organization to compare its actual performance with its potential. Numerous
businesses, financial companies, technology companies, retailers, health care agencies
and many more have adopted some of its strategies to identify the gap between goals and
current performance. At its core are two questions: 1) Where are we? and 2) Where do
we want to be? More importantly, Clark and Estes (2002) focuses on performance
solutions by assessing for root causes for the gaps in goal attainment. This model
considers three specific areas for consideration: knowledge and skills, motivation, and
barriers in organization culture (p. 43). “Increasing knowledge and skills, and otivation,
are the keys to success in the new world economy” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 2).
22
The Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model was utilized to analyze and
understand the process and extent to which the district successfully implemented Focus
on Results and achieved their goals of increasing leadership capacity and future
sustainability of the new learned practices. The framework helped to:
1) Determine if the overall goals of GUSD were aligned with the Focus on
Results framework;
2) Identify, quantify, and classify the gaps that may otherwise prevent these
schools from reaching those goals;
3) Define and examine the differences in school operation, faculty/staff culture,
professional development, and collaboration both prior to and after the
implementation of the Focus on Results reform principles—and determine the
effects they had on overall student achievement; and
4) Understand how resolving these issues could impact and close the
achievement gaps for disadvantaged students.
Specifically, the project team identified strengths and recommendations based on
current literature and presented their findings to the district leadership. The goal was to
improve the ongoing implementation process in order to deepen the commitment and
ensure sustainability of Focus on Results and instructional improvement over time and
personnel changes.
Significance of this Work
System change is difficult given the current structures, policies, and practices in
education that impede any significant change. Even though recent reform efforts address
23
the need to restructure, there are numerous organizational barriers embedded in its
delivery system that perpetuates the inequities and disparities among several
disadvantaged subgroups. Since NCLB (2001) there has been an increased focus on
students, an increased standardization of achievement in most curricular areas, and new
ways of assessing performance and progress, yet American students are falling behind the
students of other industrialized nations (PISA, 2009; and Ed Trust, 2010).
The very design of the educational system is constructed in ways that buffer its
members from outside scrutiny (Elmore, 2000), and even more importantly, those
charged with the successful education of all children and youth, are products of the very
system that needs to be changed. Seldom does one get to lead in education without being
well socialized to the norms, values, predispositions, and routines of the organization one
is leading (Elmore, 2000). However, the design of the capstone alternative project
created a meaningful learning opportunity that was mutually beneficial for both GUSD
and the University of Southern California project inquiry team members.
The learning experience was profound for the project team members (doctoral
students) as it mirrored an experiential understanding of the vulnerability and resistance
of educators to allow “outsiders” to enter their private domain. The application of current
research while utilizing the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis model provided a dual
experience for the doctoral students as novice researchers and as practitioners in the field
of education, who are also products of the very culture (system) that needs to change.
The capstone project also provided objective research-based information for the
district to assist them in their efforts to achieve optimal capacity and sustainability in the
24
implementation of their educational reform initiative. The Clark & Estes (2002) gap
analysis is a proven goal-oriented framework that measures performance gaps by
identifying root causes that are often missed or dismissed as numerous attributions may
be assigned for seeming successes and failures. It also instills progress monitoring within
the system.
The capstone partnership also informed the experts within the USC Rossier
School of Education as they endeavor to influence change in the educational design of the
K-12 system and reorganize educational preparation programs. This work is imperative
if ever we are to change the momentum from dismal and mediocre to one that is
respectfully competitive with other nations who are becoming more educationally
advanced. The economic future of our nation is at risk.
25
CHAPTER TWO: THE INQUIRY PROCESS AND FINDINGS
Chapter 2A: Review of the Literature
Introduction
One of the most unsettling imperatives for educational reform was the 1983
report, A Nation at Risk (ED.gov) presented by the National Commission on Excellence
in Education. The premise of this study concluded that a major threat to the prosperity,
security, and civility of American society was the increasing prevalence of mediocrity in
educational performance. This report further suggested that this complacency would
eventually threaten the economic future of America and its people.
Outdated system of education.
Many experts espouse that the report misdiagnosed the root problem in which
current educational policy and many reform efforts have since been based. Wolk (2009)
stated “the deficiency in the public education system will make real progress only when it
realizes that the problem in education is not one of performance but one of design” (p.
30). Current literature validates this description of the organization and culture of
American schools that, in the most important respects, is the same as it was in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century. Unfortunately, while the organization of schools
remains, for the most part, static and rigid, the requirements of schools are significantly
more complex and demanding and exceed the current capacity of local districts (Elmore,
2002, 2004; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Fullan, 2003; Friedman, 2005; Schmoker, 2004;
Simmons, 2007; Reeves, 2000; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Karhanek, 2004; Jenks, 1995;
Reigeluth & Garfinkle, (Eds.), 1994; and Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
26
2004). The fragility of a rigid system will eventually collapse under the pressure of
demand and performance if its leadership is not equipped with the knowledge and skill
level needed, further contributing to the perilous state of American public education
(Elmore, 2002).
While the debate of how to improve the educational system has persisted through
all years of reform efforts and continues to confound policy-makers, most stakeholders
agree that America’s students do not have equal access to an education, nor do they
achieve at the rigorous level required to compete in a global economy. School reforms
are now designed to enhance the economic advancement of the individual and the
international competition of the country (Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Fullan, 2003; Friedman,
2005; and Elmore, 2002).
History of Education Reform
Educational reforms are intrinsically political in origin as various groups with
divergent viewpoints vie to express their values and to secure their interests in the public
schools. Unlike corporate institutions, education reform is painfully slow as it is often
inhibited and misdirected by faulty policies and adversarial labor unions (Elmore, 2000).
Progressive change is additionally impacted and regressed by numerous variables
including inadequate and misaligned resources, lack of professionalism, outdated
knowledge and skills, waning motivation and organizational barriers that compromise the
quality of implementing accountability structures. Tyack and Cuban (1995) describe
reform efforts as a series of political acts, rather than technical solutions to problems.
27
Misalignment of policies.
More importantly, policymakers share conflicting views of the purpose and
mission of a meaningful and economically beneficial education. In their profound
analysis of the history of U.S. education reform, Tyack and Cuban (1995) note the
persistent gap between what they call "policy talk" and the world of daily decisions about
what to teach, how to teach, and how to organize schools. Most reforms, they argue,
exist mainly in the realm of policy talk-visionary and authoritative statements usually
involving harsh judgments about students, teachers, and school administrators about how
schools should be different (Tyack & Cuban, 1995).
Policy talk is influential in shaping public perceptions of the quality of schooling
and what should be done about it, but it hardly ever influences the deep-seated and
enduring structures and practices of schooling, meaning the instructional core of school
(Elmore, 1997). Educational reform must change the organizational structure and
policies, so that all students have access to an equitable education that is customized to
the needs and circumstances of students, which has been the dream of progressive
educators since John Dewey (Peterson, 2010; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Fullan, 2003;
Friedman, 2005; Elmore, 2002). However, throughout the history of subsequent
educational reform eras, committees theorized and proclaimed the magic bullet to cure
the inequality of educational access and opportunities for all students as the pendulum of
education reforms vacillated between whole-child education and test scores for
accountability.
28
Failed reforms.
Reform initiated by the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (Ed.gov)
considered education as the single most powerful tool with which to erase rigid class
distinctions, remedy socioeconomic inequality and improve opportunities for minority
children. During this time significant federal aid initiated greater demands for
accountability (Wimpelberg & Ginsberg, 1988). Soon after, the Correlates of Effective
Schools identified unique characteristics and common processes that correlated with
student success (Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Lezotte, 1990). Brookover, Edmonds, and
Lezotte concluded that instructional leadership, clear and focused mission, safe and
orderly environment, climate of high expectations, frequent monitoring of student
progress, positive home-school relations and opportunities to learn and student time on
task were key goals (Lezotte, 1991). Current researchers list similar characteristics for
closing the achievement gap among minority students (Reeves, 2000; Marzano, 2003;
Schmoker, 1999; 2004) yet, the gap continues to widen.
In response to the infamous report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform, (Ed.gov) the first wave standardization was initiated in hopes of
overcoming America’s rising tide of mediocrity (Clune, 1989; Fuhrman & Elmore, 1990;
Fuhrman et al, 1988; Schwille et al., 1988). Additional reform efforts followed that
focused on decentralization, teacher empowerment, site-based management, parental
involvement, restructuring, and the use of technology (Goodlad, 1987; Sizer, 1984;
White,1989).
29
Ambitious efforts to restructure American education included several research-
based, results-driven comprehensive plans to reorganize entire schools, including such
models as the New American Schools, Core Knowledge Schools, Accelerated Schools,
Success for All, the Edison Project, and Goals 2000 (Fuhrman, 1994; Sizer, 1984, White,
1989; and Madden et al, 1993). Millions of dollars were allocated to states to develop
school improvement plans to ensure that all students reach their full potential based on
the premise that students will reach higher levels of achievement when more is expected
of them (Fuhrman, 1994). Though well intended, these goals were not realized and pubic
skepticism continued to grow (Fuhrman, 1994). The pendulum of education reform
continued to vacillate and education remained mediocre as the achievement gap
broadened.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reform initiative.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Ed.gov) enacted the theories of standards-
based education reform based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing
measurable goals would improve individual outcomes in education. The standards and
accountability movement stemmed from the basic belief that schools should be able to
demonstrate what they contribute to student learning, and that they should engage in
steady improvement of practice and performance over time (Elmore, 2002). The intention
of NCLB (2001) is to utilize rewards and sanctions with student test results to hold
educational systems responsible for the quality of their products, meaning students’
knowledge, skills, and behaviors (Stecher & Kirby, 2004)
30
The NCLB (2001) content standardization and accountability system helped bring
educational inequity to the national forefront (Rudalevige, 2005) and revealed glaring
disparities among minority and disadvantaged groups (Spellings, 2007). Even though
many schools experience increased achievement and often rally to meet their
Achievement Performance Index (API) and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals, there is
often insignificant progress in closing the achievement gap of specific subgroups—
whether gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, geography, or English language
proficiency.
NCLB (ED.gov) embodied four key principles including 1) greater accountability
for student performance; 2) increased local control and flexibility; 3) high-quality
teachers using scientifically based practices; and 4) expanded options for parents. The
goal is that all students have access and opportunity to a fair and equitable education and
comparable student achievement by 2014 by raising standards, testing student
performance, and focusing on results.
NCLB (2001) represented another call to action to address the disheartening
disparities that existed in American education; however, a systemic change is needed to
impact organizational culture, leadership, professional development, teaching and
learning and meet the targets of the current accountability systems (Elmore, 2002, 2004;
Fullan, 2003; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; and Tyack & Cuban, 1995).
The District as a Unit of Change
The local school district is the central unit of change in educational reform and school
Improvement (Marsh, 2002; Elmore, 1993; Hightower; and Lasky, 2002; Crandall, 1984;
31
Eubanks & Levine, 1983; Leithwood et al., 2004; and Fullan, 1985). Districts—
composed of local school boards, superintendents, and central office staff— act as
gatekeepers for federal and state policy by translating, interpreting, supporting and
blocking actions on their schools’ behalf (Massey, 2000, pg. 1). Elmore and Burney
(1999) also indicated that district level leadership is significant in driving reform,
especially in supporting the efforts at low performing schools. Many case studies have
demonstrated that districts that lead schools with at-risk student groups have improved
student outcomes (Mclaughlin & Talbert, 2002; Massell and Goertz, 2002; Hightower,
2002; Snyder, 2002; and Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
The central office was the unit responsible for determining educational structures,
protocols, expectations, and accountability for educators involved in the process of
teaching and learning, (Elmore, 2003) which ultimately had a profound affect on how
schools function and implement change. District leadership served as the intermediary
between the state and schools, as well as, provided direction, resources, and support to
schools in improving classroom instruction and student learning (Elmore, 1993; Marsh,
2002; Hightower, 2002; and Lasky, 2002). Effective districts implemented multi-layered
strategies simultaneously to mobilize support for system-wide success in student learning
(Anderson, 2003).
While individual schools may be able to improve instruction and achievement
without support from the district office, Mac Iver and Farley (2003) indicated that
logistical support from the district level was essential to sustain the school’s progress. If
a school’s reform effort is to accomplish long-term success, the district’s influence and
32
role is essential in capacity building, accountability, coherence of instructional practices,
and innovative support to schools (Crandall, 1984; Eubanks & Levine, 1983; and Fullan
1985). Therefore, the central office leadership must create cultures and environments
that focus on best instructional practices, teacher efficacy, principal development, and
high expectations and learning for all students (Childress, Elmore, &Grossman, 2006;
Eaker, DuFour & DuFour, 2002; Elmore, 2006; Gay, 2000; and Marzano, 2003).
The superintendent as the organizational leader plays a pivotal role in leading
comprehensive school reform (Petersen 2002; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Elmore, 2000;
and Bolman & Deal, 2003). Therefore, superintendents must engage in their own
professional learning and intellectual development, including a reconnection to and
understanding of classroom instruction (Elmore, 2000). Elmore (in an interview with
Carol P. Choy on December 1, 2003) disclosed that many superintendents do not fully
realize the consequential impact of the high-stakes accountability measures, and if they
do, have not embraced the knowledge necessary to operate in this new environment. The
Connecticut Superintendents’ Network (CSN) is a coalition of superintendents who meet
with Elmore to discuss and strategize reform issues. The CSN are adamant about
demystifying the “mythological” leadership model of the superintendency. The CSN’s
goal is to focus on the fundamentals of instructional leadership, which will require
superintendents to connect to the actual work of schools. This essential leadership focus
on instructional practice will be evidenced when superintendents regularly observe
classroom settings in schools with a particular focus in mind.
33
Waters and Marzano (2006) conducted a meta-analysis to determine the
characteristics of effective schools, leaders, and teachers. Their findings concluded that
district-level leadership matters and that effective superintendents focus their efforts on
creating goal-oriented districts. The study also correlated superintendent tenure and
student achievement, which manifest as early as two years into a superintendent’s tenure.
District-led Comprehensive Reform
Analyses of failed reform efforts and ineffective initiatives revealed several
obstacles to significant system change (Fullan, 2001; Elmore, 2000; and Tyack & Cuban,
1995). Among the major contributors that stymied district reform was school-level
resistance to a strong central office role, personnel turnover, and the politics of local
education reform (Fullan, 2001). Even though some district and school reform efforts
have yielded examples of success in student achievement, district-wide systemic reform
has been minimal (Corbett & Wilson, 1992).
Literature has evidenced that districts matter for school reform progress, and that
a district can improve its support of school reform, however, the district must operate as a
dynamic, proactive agent of school reform (Marsh, 2002; Elmore, 1993; Hightower; and
Lasky, 2002; Crandall, 1984; Eubanks & Levine, 1983; Leithwood et al., 2004; Fullan
1985; and McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Central office administrators are crucial in the
school improvement process (Crandall, 1984; Eubanks & Levine, 1983; and Fullan,
1985). District initiated reforms play an important role in creating the conditions for
success in schools (Mclaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Massell and Goertz, 2002; Hightower,
2002; Snyder, 2002; and Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Case studies of reforming districts
34
and a survey of district administrators pointed to several key conditions that characterize
reforming districts: 1) a system approach to reform; 2) learning community at the central
office level; 3) coherent focus on teaching and learning; 4) explicit stance for supporting
professional learning and instructional improvement; and 5) data-based inquiry and
accountability (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Leightwood et al. (2004) defined three
basic sets of practices that are at the core of successful leadership: setting directions,
developing people, and redesigning the organization
Most fundamental to reforming districts is their focus on the system as unit of
change (Elmore, 2000). These districts engendered shared norms of reform practice
across schools through system-wide communication and strategic planning, and the
central office continually improved its support of schools’ reform efforts through data-
based inquiry and learning (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Capacity to improve teaching
and learning was developed and sustained through the system, with the district office
playing particular, strategic roles to lead and support school reform. According to Weiss
(2007, p. 3), organizing an entire school system around producing high student
achievement requires a thoughtful, systemic approach to teaching and learning in which
standards, curriculum, assessment (both formative and summative), professional
practices, and professional development are carefully designed and mutually reinforcing.
While some schools were capable of implementing these significant reform
practices, this system’s design was typically performed at a district level, because the
35
ability to replicate a school’s success was challenging and required extraordinary
leadership and effort beyond the capacity of most teachers and principals (Elmore, 2000).
The district has the resources, and therefore the responsibility, to develop the capacity of
principals, teachers, and staff as well as organizational systems to support teaching and
learning (Mac Iver and Farley, 2003).
Systemic change.
Reforming districts established clear expectations for central office-school
relations and took a leadership role in developing shared norms of reform practice across
district schools. Their theory of change implicated the organizational system in contrast
to district reform strategies that import models of school change, such as a New
American Schools model or Success for All (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Thus, a
reforming district considered itself as the focus for change and has a clear theory of
change for the system (Fullan, 2001; Elmore, 2000; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; and
Resnick & Glennan, 2002). Focusing on system change meant that all schools and all
elements of the district’s policy environment—the business office, human resources, the
school board, the union and the broader community—were explicitly included in the
reform agenda and strategic planning (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003).
Duffy (2004) espoused that the district change process is a non-linear process and is
both challenging and complicated due to the complex nature of district environments. He
believes that three winding paths must be implemented simultaneously to transform
entire school systems: 1) improve how work gets done; 2) improved the district’s
internal social architect, including culture, communication patterns, pay schedules,
36
reward system, organizational design, and career ladders; and 3) improve the district’s
relationship with its external environment. These variables influence staffs’ capacity and
willingness to work effectively, their ability to respond to the pressure of change, their
motivation, and their j ob satisfaction. According to Bolman and Deal (2008)
districtwide reform requires that multiple frames be considered simultaneously to
understand all the ramifications associated with significant organization change. These
four frames or lenses include:
1) The Human Resources frame which define the issues associated with affecting
individuals’ ability to feel effective, valued, and in control. Without support,
training, and a chance to participate in the process, people become a powerful
anchor, inhibiting forward movement.
2) The Structural frame considers the patterns and goals that need to be revised and
realigned to support the new direction.
3) The Political frame includes those factors that initiate intense conflicts between
perceived winners and losers –those who benefit from the new direction and those
who do not. This conflict requires contexts where issues can be renegotiated and
the political map redrawn between and among groups.
4) The Symbolic frame includes transition rituals, mourning the past, and
celebrating the future helping people let go of old attachments and embrace new
ways of doing things.
Other literature such as Fullan, Bertani, and Quinn (2004) describe additional
crucial components that effective, district level leadership must demonstrate:
37
1) Collective moral purpose – an explicit goal for all stakeholders of
raising the bar and closing the achievement gap for all individual and schools;
2) The right bus (Collins, 2001) – the organization must have the right bus
(structure to get the job done), and the right people need to be in the right
seats on the bus;
3) Ongoing learning is strategic and disciplined inquiry and problem-
solving that promotes deeper and more sustainable improvement;
4) Demanding culture requires high levels of trust, pressure and support
among stakeholders that combines respect, personal regard, integrity, and
competence;
5) External partners provide valuable expertise and well-placed pressure
that stimulate innovative thinking for strategic planning and problem-
solving.
6) Focused financial investments require districts to redirect and
ruthlessly deploy existing resources into the service of teaching and
learning.
Elmore (2000) cautions districts to ensure their strategic plan for creating
instructional change has the capacity to connect instruction to management, organization,
and accountability. By narrowing a district’s focus on actions that support the
instructional core work, districts will progress in student learning and achievement.
Three explicit activities that will accomplish this are: 1) increasing the knowledge and
38
skills of teachers; 2) changing the content; and 3) altering the relationship of the student
to the teacher and the content (Elmore, 2000). Marzano (2003), espouses that the new era
of school reform is based on three principles: 1) reform is a highly contextualized
phenomenon; 2) reform is characterized by a heavy emphasis on data; and 3) change is
approached on an incremental basis. Fullan (1982) also believes that significant and
complex change can be pursued incrementally and accomplished by taking a
developmental approach, building in more and more components of the change over time.
As indicated in most current literature, the path to achieve the moral imperative is at the
local education level.
District capacity.
The factors that make up a district’s capacity to support ambitious reform are
highly intertwined. Reforming districts developed and sustained shared reform goals and
focused efforts through system-wide planning processes. They brought together people
from all levels and parts of the district system to deliberate over reform goals and
outcomes, to share knowledge of successful practices, and to design strategies for change.
By engaging the system of stakeholders in defining problems, foci, and strategies for
change, collectively the collaborative teams developed commitment to reform goals and
broadened leadership for change to include school administrators, teachers, parents,
community members and other outside agencies, such as universities. Linkages to
sources of knowledge outside the school district develop the local education leaders’
human capital (Spillane and Thompson, 1998). A strategic planning process was
fundamental to establishing shared accountability among district administrators,
39
principals, and teachers for progress on agreed-upon reform goals (McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2003). A critical outcome of this process is widely shared accountability for
making progress on the agreed-upon reform efforts and outcomes.
In a reforming district, central office administrators and staff were continually
working to improve their support of professional learning throughout the district and to
effectively respond to schools’ particular needs. Recent reforms proposed a pedagogy
that is uprooting the present practice and notions about teaching, learning and subject
matter (Spillane & Thompson, 1998; Elmore, 2002; Marzano, 2003; and Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). The new waves of change require deeper knowledge of
subject matter and more complex pedagogical decision-making, and greater dependency
of local capacity. Thus, central office administrators must also reform their own practice
and effectively model the learning and risk-taking that are expected of all other
stakeholders (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1998).
In a comprehensive study of nine Michigan districts, Spillane and Thompson
(1998) assessed the local districts’ capacity for ambitious reform. They determined that
human and social capital and financial resources were interdependent for effective
reform. Human capital included the commitment, dispositions, and knowledge of
professional networks and trusting collegial relations, which were important components
of the district’s capacity to promote and accomplish ambitious instructional reform. This
was evidenced when administrators, principals, teacher-leaders and other instructional
experts worked in partnership to improve instruction and shared their substantive
knowledge of reform ideas.
40
Similarly, linkages to outside sources of knowledge, such as universities and
businesses, created a social network that offered divergent perspectives on and
knowledge about subjects and other facets of instructional improvement or organizational
change (Spillane & Thompson, 1999). Staffing, time, materials, and other financial
resources also impacted ambitious reform. The critical resource needed was adequate
time for local reformers and change agents to work together and with outside experts for
strategic planning and to understand substantive reform ideas.
The learning agenda for central office administrators is a substantial and
continuous one. As a service provider who also monitored accountability, they tracked
schools’ progress and defined specialized support needs, incorporated stakeholders’ input
on reform goals and engaged their support, employed resources strategically and
brokered educators’ access to knowledge resources, as well as, responded to state policy
developments while preserving the district’s strategic focus. The excellent human and
social knowledge that districts developed, not the material resources themselves,
positioned districts to grow richer in capacity for reform (Spillane & Thompson, 1998).
Root Causes for Performance Gaps
The brief review of educational reform efforts shared many common elements,
values, beliefs and intent, yet America’s schools are performing at substandard levels in
comparison with other industrialized nations, and the achievement gap among divergent
groups continues to widen. Policy makers seemingly operate in good faith that their plan
will resolve the performance problems, however, each formula targeted the symptoms of
educational inequity and failure but not necessarily the possible root causes.
41
Clark and Estes (2002) equated the ills within the educational reform efforts as a
medical illness that needs accurate diagnosis, and rather than treating the symptoms of
the performance illness, the professionals must study disease more deeply to identify the
reasons the performance system isn’t responding to the reform treatments (p. 5). While
some efforts have resulted in sporadic and inconsistent growth, the system still remains
dysfunctional and broken. Years of treatment failure has resulted in pervasive
underperformance and a compromised national economy and civilized society.
While NCLB (2001) is highly rigorous and may be flawed in its design, its
accountability system established target goals, which align with Clark and Estes (2002)
belief that organizations and systems need to be goal-driven and performance goals need
to support organizational goals (p. 21). Effective performance improvement must start
with clearly understood work goals (Bandura, 1997). Without clear and specific
performance goals that are concrete, challenging and current, people may focus on tasks
that help advance their career instead of helping the organization achieve its goals (Clark
& Estes, 2002). However, the more novel or complex the goals, the more substantial the
performance support is needed for people to stay focused to accomplish it. Performance
goals cascade down from the organizational goals, which are currently defined by NCLB
(2001) as improved achievement where all students are proficient or advanced by 2014,
meaning the achievement gap is closed.
When organizations are not achieving its goals, the best intervention is to perform a
gap analysis to determine the human causal factors and identify the appropriate solutions
or responses to close the performance gap (Clark & Estes, 2002). This will involve
42
collecting people’s perceptions about the challenges or barriers they face in attempting to
close the gap and achieve the goal as these perceptions influence and control reality
(Clark & Estes, 2002). This can be accomplished by reviewing many kinds of work
records, conducting focus groups, interviews, and survey methods.
There are three primary causes of performance gap that must be examined during
the analysis process. These factors include 1) people’s skills and knowledge levels; 2)
their motivation to achieve the goal or goals; and 3) the organizational barriers that may
impede their ability to be successful in preserving and accomplishing the goals (Clark &
Estes, 2002). Since everyone in an organization participates in separate but interacting or
interdependent systems, it is crucial that all three of these factors be apparent and aligned
with each other for optimal performance and goal achievement (p. 41).
Knowledge/skills gaps.
Knowledge and skills is one of the vital facilitators or inhibitors of work
performance (Clark & Estes, 2002; Elmore, 2000; 2002; 2004; and Fullan, 2003). When
implementing a gap analysis to understand the root cause for underperformance it is
important to assess whether people know how to achieve their performance goals.
Organizational leadership often may assume that their staff has the knowledge and skills
to achieve the expectations and explicit outcomes, and staff may be reticent to ask for
information or support fearing they may be perceived as inadequate or incapable. Yet,
when an entire nation is struggling with closing the achievement gap, it is probable that
there is a lack of sufficient knowledge and skills to increase achievement without
43
additional training, job aids, and organization information and resources (Elmore, 2002;
and Fullan, 1993).
With increased accountability, American educators are expected to do something
new – to engage in systematic, continuous improvement in achievement for every student
and to measure their success by students’ academic performance (Elmore, 2002). Most
people who currently work in public schools were not adequately prepared with the
knowledge and skills in their professional education or prior experiences to know how to
facilitate a systemic change process or confront the organizational barriers the impede the
change (Fullan, 2003; and Elmore, 2000; 2002). Unlike other disciplines, schools, as
organizations are not designed with expectations for staff to engage in sustained
improvement in their practice by allowing peers and outsiders to observe or scrutinize
their work, or experience evaluations of their performance based on student achievement
(Elmore, 2002).
Additionally, most educators have not received prior training nor have their
experiences prepared them for the increasing challenging conditions they must mitigate,
including extreme poverty, unprecedented cultural and language diversity, unstable
family and community patterns (Elmore, 2002). Administrators and teachers require a
level of knowledge and skills to achieve the same goal or targets under these conditions
than those who work in less demanding situations. Yet, accountability systems expect
the same outcomes regardless of social background. The prevailing assumption is that
teachers are adequately equipped with the knowledge and skills needed in their preservice
programs to address all the expectations and needs of students, yet many will attest that
44
they are overwhelmed with students’ personal and environmental factors that impede
their academic progress (Elmore, 2002).
In order for educators to respond to external pressure for accountability, they have
to learn how to reorganize the structure of schooling in order to do their work differently
(Tyack & Cuban, 1995; and Elmore, 2002; 2004). As long as performance-based
accountability is the measure that will validate a quality educational experience for all
students and the performance of schools, then professionals, policymakers and the public
at large must realize and support a strategy for investing in the knowledge and skills of
educators (Elmore, 2000; 2002).
Subsequently, professional development must also be redesigned so that it is
explicitly focused on strategies and learning theories that improve instruction and student
performance (Sparks, 2001; Stiggins, 2005; Reeves, 2000; and Marzano, 2003). It must
be tailored to address the difficulties encountered by actual students in actual classrooms
as well as broader systemic objectives (Elmore, 2002). Effective professional
development is connected to questions about content and pedagogy and the consequences
of their instructional practices on actual students as well as inquiry about effective
teaching practice (Fullan, 1991; Sparks, 2005; and Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).
The outcome of effective professional development is that it sustains focus over time and
results in continuous improvement. It involves active monitoring of student learning and
regular feedback on teacher learning and practice.
Those who engage in professional development must be willing to share what new
knowledge and skill educators will learn as a consequence of their participation, how this
45
new knowledge and skill will be manifested in their professional practice, and what
specific activities will lead to this learning (Elmore, 2002). It should be designed to build
the capacity of teachers to work collectively on problems of practices within their own
context and with other practitioners to enhance the knowledge and skills of individual
educators (Fullan, 2003; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Schmoker, 2005; Sparks,
2005; and Lezotte, 2005). Clark & Estes (2002) reported ninety percent of training
emphasizes only10 percent of the knowledge that participants need to learn and that
approximately ninety percent of all our knowledge is automated and unconscious (p.72).
The best professional development happens in the context of the workplace rather
than the workshop as educators learn more powerfully in concert with others who are
grappling with similar situations that are relevant to them (DuFour & Eaker, 1998;
DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004; Reeves, 2000; Elmore, 2002; and Schmoker, 2004).
This is essential as learning is a collaborative and interdependent activity rather than
individualistic; professional development should be designed to help educators
accomplish the collective goals of their team and school. Fostering collaboration is the
route of high performance (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
The knowledge gap is not so much about knowing ‘what’ good professional
development looks like; it’s about knowing ‘how’ to get it rooted in the institutional
structure of schools (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Fullan, 2003; and Elmore, 2000).
In recent years, increased attention has been directed to the development of the
community of learning model to address the practice of teacher isolation and initiate
structures and opportunities for collaboration. Teachers in successful schools with
46
professional learning communities worked together on a continuous basis and were
focused on student work (through assessment); they strategically changed their practices
based on assessment results to achieve better outcomes (Fullan, 2005; Schmoker,
2004;2005; Reeves, 2004; 2005; and Stiggins, 2005). Learning communities required that
each participant grow in self-efficacy by contributing to the systemic change by sharing
their knowledge and skills and taking immediate steps to improve their schools (Dufour
& Eaker, 1998; and Fullan, 2005).
Even under the pressure of performance-based accountability, schools struggled to
embed a new practice without more explicit attention to the practice of improvement. To
some measure this is influenced by Western culture that values the traditional view of
leaders as heroes and is deeply routed in the individualistic worldview of the West
(Senge, 1994). The assumption is people’s powerlessness, their lack of personal vision,
and their inability to master the forces of change, can only be remedied by a few great
leaders (experts) who have all the answers (Elmore, 2000). However, in the private
sector there is not a great correlation between charismatic leadership and sustained
organizational excellence (Collins & Porras, 1997). As long as schools cling to the idea
of a leader as the source of inspiration and energy, their effort to improve will be
impeded as leaders come and go. Teachers must take ownership collectively gaining the
knowledge and skills needed to continuously improve their professional practice as
measured by increased academic achievement for all students (Fullan, 1993; Elmore,
2002; Marzano, 2003; and Reeves, 2004).
47
Motivation gaps.
Motivation is the internal, psychological process that creates the initiative an
individual needs to actively choose to engage and apply mental effort to persist until the
goal is achieved (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Motivation involves goals that provide the
impetus for and direction to action (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008). This aspect of
work performance is more complex and challenging to assess when analyzing the root
causes for gaps in achieving performance goals. When people avoid, disagree, delay,
refuse, and/or make excuses not to accept or engage in attaining a goal(s), it is probable
that a motivation issue is the underlying cause (Clark & Estes, 2002). One might assume
if the goal was imposed or externally designed that the outcome would be a motivation
gap, however, people can easily accept and be motivated to do their best with assigned
goals (Clark & Estes, 2002. p. 23).
Understanding one’s goal orientation is beneficial when endeavoring to nurture
motivation toward goal achievement (Ford, 1992 cited in Shrunk, Pintrich & Meece,
2008, p. 181). Two common descriptors or goal orientation are mastery and
performance. Mastery orientation defines one’s internal motivation toward self-
improvement and developing competence, developing new skills, trying to accomplish
something challenging, or trying to gain new understanding and insight (Ames, 1992; and
Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Performance orientation focuses on demonstrating
competence or ability and how ability will be judged relative to others. It may involve
attempts to surpass normative standards, striving to be the best to seek approval or public
recognition, or avoiding judgments of low ability or appearing less capable (Ames, 1992;
48
Dweck & Leggert, 1988; and Pintrich, 2000). One’s self-efficacy is influenced by
perceived ability and personal agency beliefs (Bandura, 1993).
When assessing for motivation gaps the evaluator needs to understand the source of
the goals and the individual’s orientation toward a goal or goals. While active choice is
important, motivation can be cultivated when the individual believes in the goal and the
process if the target is concrete, challenging and current (Clark & Estes, 2002). In cases
where participatory goal setting is not possible, value for the goal is enhanced if 1) people
perceive the person or team who assign the goal to be trustworthy; 2) has high
expectations for everyone; 3) gives ownership for accomplishments to team members;
and 4) offers constructive feedback and recognition (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Since motivation is the response or product of interactions between people and
their work environment (Clark & Estes, 2002), nurturing safe, supportive and respectful
relationships is an essential environmental goal. There are several theoretical
frameworks that contribute to the understanding of human motivation
Social Cognitive theory of learning and motivation provided a framework for
understanding, predicting, and changing human behavior, which involves the triadic
interactions of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors (Bandura, 1977, 1986).
This “triadic reciprocity” encompasses how people acquire knowledge, rules, skills
strategies, beliefs, and emotions through their interactions with and observations of
others, which is directly correlated to motivation. While everyone is motivated by the
drive to be effective, there are cultural and personal differences influencing people’s
beliefs about what makes them effective (Bandura, 1977). People who are positive and
49
believe that they are capable and effective will achieve significantly more than those who
are just as capable but tend to doubt their abilities.
Self-efficacy is another important construct in motivation and is defined as a
person's belief about their ability to organize and execute courses of actions necessary to
achieve a goal (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is usually referenced to some type of goal.
Beliefs about self-efficacy have a significant impact on one's goals and accomplishments
by influencing personal choice, motivation, patterns of behavior, and emotional reactions.
For example, people tend to avoid threatening situations that they believe exceed their
coping skills.
Perceived self-efficacy also affects how successfully goals are accomplished by
influencing the level of effort and persistence a person will demonstrate in the face of
obstacles (Bandura, 1993; 1997). That is, the stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the
more active one's efforts. Higher self-efficacy is also associated with more persistence, a
trait that allows us to gain corrective experiences that reinforce our sense of self-efficacy
(Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
Goal setting and goal achievement requires motivation that is externally evident or
demonstrated with performance or achievement behavior (Bandura, 1997; and Atkinson,
1964, cited in Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008). The Expectancy-Value theory posits
that the two most important predictors of achievement behavior are expectancy and task
value, which are the internal, cognitive beliefs of the individual or group (Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002). This theory addresses an individual’s understanding of the purpose,
importance or value, interest, utility and perceived costs involved in choosing and
50
persistent toward a goal. The individual’s expectancy beliefs are one’s self-efficacy or
belief in his ability to successfully accomplish a task. Motivation is highest at levels of
intermediate task difficulty, which provide the most information to individuals about their
effort and capabilities (Weiner, 1992). An individual’s self-schemas, causal attributions,
and locus of control beliefs influence active choice, quality of effort and persistence
toward a goal. Thus, self-efficacy is a powerful motivator as is impacts an individual’s
self-esteem, self-concept, and elicits potential feelings of embarrassment,
discouragement, or conversely, pride and encouragement (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Attribution Theory is a cognitive theory of motivation and provides a significant
framework for understanding achievement and goal attainment motivation (Weiner,
1992). Attributions are “perceived” causes of outcomes and are crucial to the formation
of self-perceptions of competence and expectancies (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
This theory is based on two general assumptions: 1) individuals are motivated by a goal
of understanding and mastering the environment and themselves, and that this goal is the
primary instigator for achievement behavior; 2) people inherently need to understand
their environment and in their search for mastery seek to understand the causal
determinants of their own behavior as well as the behaviors of others (Schunk, Pintrich,
& Meece, 2008). Attributional dimensions and affect are linked are related to actual
behavior consequences (Weiner, 1992; and Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). One’s
attribution search is mediated by the importance of the event or outcome, and the
perceived causes are influenced by environmental and personal factors. Positive
emotions should result in motivated behaviors, such as choice, effort, and persistence.
51
The causal structures for success and failure include attributions of ability, effort,
task difficulty or luck (Weiner, 1992). It is generally more helpful if individuals believe
effort rather than ability is the determining factor resulting in an outcome as they can
influence this causal factor. The causal dimensions that also influence motivation are
stability, which is closely related to expectancy for success (Weiner, 1992), internal or
external locus and control (Schunk, Pintrich & Meece, 2008). These dimensions are
strongly related to psychological consequences, including self-efficacy and affect
(Weiner, 1992).
Organizational culture gaps.
The institution of education has traditionally been one that inherently maintains a
status quo culture (Elmore, 2002). Yet, unless there is a radical change in the structure of
school leadership, few schools will be able to rise to the challenge of enabling all students
to meet high standards (Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 2001, 2003; Reeves, 2000; and Schmoker,
2004). With accountability standards creating more public scrutiny than ever before,
educational leaders must focus their efforts on instruction if they are to thrive and survive
in the current conditions. The way out of this problem is through the large scale
improvement of instruction, something public education has been unable to do to date,
but which is possible with dramatic changes in the way public schools define and practice
leadership (Elmore, 2002; 2004; Fullan, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004; Reeves,
2000; and Schmoker, 2004).
The perplexing dilemma is that most leaders in all sectors of society are creatures of
the organizations they lead. Nowhere is this truer than in public education, where
52
principals and district superintendents are recruited almost exclusively from the ranks of
practice (Elmore, 2000). Consequently, current education leaders are no better equipped
than the organizations they lead to meet the challenges posed by standards-based reform
(Cuban, 1995; and Elmore, 2000). More succinctly, most current leaders are educational
causalities of the same system they are being asked to reform. School structures are not
susceptible to reliable external evaluation as the administrative superstructure of the
organization – principals, board members, and administrators—exist to buffer the weak
technical core of teaching from outside inspection, interference, or disruption (Olson &
Weick, 1990; and Elmore, 2000).
Administration in education is more about the management of the structures and
processes around instruction rather than the management and improvement of instruction.
Consequently, that which cannot be directly managed must, in this view, be protected
from external scrutiny (Elmore, 2002). Organizational experts discussed the inherent
expectations and practices of buffering or protecting the internal educational process
from outside evaluation. It consisted of creating structures and procedures around the
technical core of teaching that, at the same time, 1) protected teachers from outside
intrusions in their highly uncertain and murky work, and 2) created the appearance of
rational management of the technical core, so as to allay the uncertainties of the public
about the actual quality or legitimacy of what is happening in the technical core. This
buffering creates what institutional theorists call logic of confidence between public
schools and their constituents (Cuban 1984; 1990; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; and Elmore
1996; 2000; 2002). Local board members, system-level administrators, and school
53
administrators perform the ritualistic tasks of organizing, budgeting, managing, and
dealing with disruptions inside and outside the system, all in the name of creating and
maintaining public confidence in the institutions of public education.
Large-scale reform does not occur in a vacuum or sterile environment.
Organizational change occurs in human systems that are defined by beliefs, assumptions,
expectations, norms, and values, both distinctive to the individuals within the
organization and shared. Deal (1985, p. 303) referred to organizational culture as the
epicenter of change. Educational reform begins with a deep understanding of the basic
constructs of organizational climate and culture both within a district and within each
individual school that comprises the district conglomerate (Deal, 1993; Deal & Peterson,
1994); Hargreaves, 1994; and Harris, 2002).
The complexity of assessing organizational culture is a daunting task as compared
to understanding an organization’s climate. Climate can be analyzed and measured by
utilizing various quantitative survey instruments to gather stakeholders’ perceptions of
the environment (Lindahl, 2006). However, organizational culture is a multi-layered
phenomenon.
Culture, at the most global level, is the integrated pattern of human knowledge,
belief, and behavior that depends upon man’s capacity for learning and transmitting
knowledge to succeeding generations; it is the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and
practices that characteristics an organization (Merriam-Webster’s On-line Dictionary,
2005). Culture embraces organizational needs as common language, shared concepts,
defined organizational boundaries, methods of selecting members for the organization,
54
methods of allocating authority, power, status, resources, norms for handling and
interpersonal relationships, criteria for rewards and punishments, and way of coping with
unpredictable stressful events (Schein, 1985). Collectively, these shared attributes create
solidarity, meaning and inspire commitment and productivity (Deal, 1985).
Culture is experienced differently by members of the organization (Rousseau,
1990) and is also contextually influenced. It is the interaction of an organization’s people
variables with physical and structural (ecological) variables (Hall & Hord, 2001). Each
school within a district has its own culture which include 1) artifacts, 2) patterns of
behavior, 3) behavior norms, 4) values, and 5) fundamental assumptions (Rousseau,
1990). Therefore, when a district initiates school reform, it must assess and analyze the
multiple layers of school culture in order to understand and utilize the best change theory
and supportive strategies. Change disrupts existing role patterns and relationships
resulting in confusion and uncertainty. The one belief all educators can share is that
change must happen. It is the moral imperative of all stakeholders to ensure equal access
and high academic achievement for all students (Fullan, 2001; 2003).
Our inquiry project processes are presented in Chapter 2B, the methodology. This
includes the situational context, the project questions, the gap analysis process model, the
structure of the dissertation, data collection & limitations, and project progression.
Chapter 2B: Methodology
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra Lee Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
The following sections of the dissertation, as a result, are common across the
three members of the inquiry team: Section 2B, the Methodology; Section 2C, the
55
Inquiry Findings; Section 3A, the Literature Review of Solutions; and Section 3B, the
Expanded Solutions Summary. This is noted in the heading of these sections. Each
individual completed Chapter 1 and Chapter 2A, the Literature Review, on her own.
Introduction
This alternative capstone project can be likened to a real-life application of action
research in its design and implementation. According to Patton (2002), action research
aims at solving specific problems within a program, organization, or community (p. 221).
As consultants, the focus of our alternative capstone project was to become part of the
change process by engaging the people in the program or organization in studying their
own problems in order to solve those problems (Whyte, 1989, cited in Patton, 2002, p.
221). The results derived from our capstone project, like those of action research, cannot
necessarily be generalized to all organizations for it is quite specific to the problem,
people, and organization for which the research is undertaken (Patton, 2002, p. 221). The
timeframe in which the research is conducted can also impede how much the results can
be generalized to organizations other than the one participating in the research (Patton,
2002).
We were not just observers but participants-as-consultants that applied the Clark
& Estes (2002) gap analysis as a systematic problem-solving model. This analysis
model is the instrument by which we chose to identify and examine the root causes
underlying the degree of Focus on Results (FoR) reform implementation.
According to Clark & Estes (2002), it is essential that change result from
systematic analysis of the causes of performance gaps and be accompanied by necessary
56
knowledge and skill changes and accompanying motivational adjustments (p. 4). The
gap analysis model devised by Clark & Estes (2002) was the framework of analysis
employed by our inquiry team to better understand what components of the FoR reform
initiative were successful in its five years of its implementation in GUSD. The gap
analysis model is a data analysis method specifically designed to examine gaps in an
organization’s performance in a systematic manner.
Clark & Estes (2002) state that making informed decisions, using the most current
research evidence, dramatically increases the chances that a chosen performance
improvement strategy will be effective. GUSD chose to implement the FoR
comprehensive school reform model to increase student achievement and close the
achievement gap.
The Focus on Results (FoR) Framework for school-level improvements is rooted
in the following seven principles:
1) Identify a schoolwide instructional focus based on student needs assessment;
2) Develop an Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) that will become a guiding
coalition for the school;
3) Select three to five high-quality, research-based strategies that every teacher
should use consistently;
4) Provide targeted professional development on the strategies selected in
number four and ensure that all teachers use those three to five practices;
5) Realign everything in the school in support of the instructional focus;
57
6) Implement an internal accountability system using assessment measures that
benchmark progress in the focus area;
7) The Principal becomes an instructional leader by supporting the focus through
classroom visits, coaching, modeling, and allocating resources and support.
The gap analysis model is based on the achievement of organizational goals.
Clark & Estes (2002) contend that goals must be concrete, challenging, and current (C
3
).
These goals must be designed to be clear, easily understood and measureable. They must
be difficult yet practical. Challenging but achievable short-term goals are highly
motivating to employees.
Inquiry Project Questions
Clark & Estes (2002) propose that in order to achieve organizational goals, it is
necessary to assess the causes that prevent the achievement of the desired outcomes. For
GUSD, the desired outcome is the successful implementation of Focus on Results (FoR)
as a means to increase student achievement. The questions that guided our inquiry
process were:
1) How was the FoR reform initiative implemented throughout GUSD?
2) What was the degree of implementation of FoR at the different levels of
instruction offered in GUSD?
3) What performance gaps exist at this point in the FoR implementation process
that need to be addressed?
4) What were the root causes of these performance gaps?
58
5) What research-based recommendations can be offered to address the
performance gaps and help GUSD enhance and sustain its implementation of
FoR?
For this capstone project, data was collected at all levels of the organization to
determine the beliefs and perceptions of the FoR implementation in GUSD. Employees’
beliefs and perceptions about their work are vital to the identification of any gaps in the
implementation of FoR and the main root causes of those gaps.
Analytical Framework: The Gap Analysis Process
According to Clark & Estes (2002), making informed decisions using the most
current research evidence dramatically increases the chance that a chosen performance
improvement strategy will be effective. Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), also known
as school districts, are working hard to identify and implement the silver bullet that will
result in academic achievement for all students. A significant number of popular
performance-improvement strategies are implemented yet rarely evaluated to determine
its effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2002). The goal of this project is to evaluate the LEA’s
primary reform strategies and determine if they are producing solid, cost-beneficial
performance results in student achievement.
Clark & Estes (2002) propose that, in order to achieve the global organizational
goals, it is necessary to assess the causes that prevent the achievement of the desired
outcomes. Since the beliefs and perceptions of the people doing the work are essential to
redirecting performance to the goal, the project will identify individual and organizational
59
gaps in knowledge and/or skill, motivation, as well as any organizational barriers that
may be creating the organization’s performance gap(s) (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The first step in the gap analysis process is to identify the key organizational
goals. According to Bandura (1997), effective performance improvement must start with
clearly understood work/performance goals. A work/performance goal is a description of
task or objectives that individuals and teams must accomplished by a specific time or
criteria. The LEA must make the connection between the organizational goals and the
specific individual or team goals. Effective work/performance goals must directly
support the evolving organizational goals and they cascade from or follow the
organizational goal. Members should have a clear understanding of what their
performance goal is, the rationale for the goal, and whether or not they are achieving it.
The organizational goals must be flexible to reflect changing business conditions and
specific enough to meet the need for the day-to-day guidance (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Step two of the gap analysis model requires the identification of the individual
performance goals. Members of the organization must know and understand their
specific performance goal(s). According to Clark & Estes (2002), research on setting
goals strongly suggest how vital it is to select the type of work/performance goal and also
how the goal is communicated. They recommend work goals should have three qualities
or what Clark & Estes (2002) refer to as the C³ Goa ls. The goals should be concrete or
clear, easily understood, and measureable; challenging or difficult but doable; and current
or short-term daily or weekly (p. 26).
60
Step three requires the identification of the performance gaps between the
organizational goals and the performance of individuals and teams. Clark & Estes (2002)
describe the following steps for setting and analyzing benchmark goals:
1) Identify the organizational goals & indicators for achieving those goals.
2) Benchmark & identify industry leader’s achievement in the specific area.
3) Quantify the organization’s current achievement for each goal.
4) Compute the gap by subtracting the organizations achievement for each goal from
the industry leader’s achievement.
5) Determine the economic benefit of closing the gap.
6) Identify individual and team goals that will close each gap.
In step four, we analyze the individual and team gaps to determine the root
causes. There are three major causes of performance gaps: people’s knowledge and
skill; their motivation to achieve the goal; and organizational barriers (p. 43). In order to
determine gaps in knowledge and skill it is necessary to determine whether people know
how, when, why, what, where, and whom they need to achieve their performance goal(s).
Identifying motivational causes of gaps will be more complex because it requires
determining if the individual or team choose to work towards the goal; will persist at it
until it is achieved; and the amount of mental effort they are willing to invest to
accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2002). Organizational barriers result from
inadequate facilities and faulty processes and procedures that delay or prevent the work.
Often, organizational problems can be attributed to the misalignment between work
processes and the organizational structure.
61
In order to analyze and determine the root causes in each area, the gap analysis
process recommends surveying opinions and beliefs about the gaps. This is best done
through active listening, interviews, focus groups, and surveys (p. 45). It is important to
learn the beliefs and perceptions of the people doing the work. It is imperative to listen
carefully, naturally, and actively in order to determine if people are saying the
performance gaps are due to knowledge and/or skill, motivation, organizational barriers,
or a combination of the three.
Step five entails three distinct parts. Step 5A offers solutions and
recommendations to close the performance gaps in knowledge and skill. Knowledge and
skill enhancement are required when people do not know how to accomplish the
work/performance goal and when new learning is required to accomplish future goals.
This is accomplished by providing information, job aides, training, and/or education.
Step 5B addresses the motivation issues that contribute to the gap. According to Clark &
Estes (2002), three facets of motivation performance exist:
1) Active choice: intention to pursue goal is replaced by action
2) Persistence: once started, we continue in the face of distractions
3) Mental effort: people work smarter and develop novel solutions.
An individual’s motivation to work is determine by his/her belief that the environment
provides them with the goals and resources that can result in a reasonable amount of
effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2002). Motivation at work is based on results from the
individual’s experiences and beliefs about themselves, their co-workers, and their
prospects for being effective. Step 5C offers possible solutions to inefficient and
62
ineffective work processes and material resources that are causing performance gaps.
Once the organizational policies, processes, or resources levels that are causing the gap
are identified and solutions are proposed, they must be filtered through the organizational
culture to determine the potential for success. Clark & Estes (2002) recommend that an
organizational cultural profile be develop to determine if the solutions are compatible
with the culture of the organization.
“Evaluation is an absolutely essential ingredient when you are attempting to close
performance gaps or improve performance” (p. 125). Clark & Estes (2002) claim that
evaluation is the only way to determine the connections between performance gaps,
improvement programs, and cost-effectiveness.
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis of this alternative capstone project is the Glendale Unified
School District (GUSD). GUSD serves the cities of Glendale, Crescenta Valley, and
Montrose-Verdugo City. Glendale is a community of about 200,000 residents located
about 15 minutes drive north of downtown Los Angeles. It is the third largest city in Los
Angeles County, as of 2009. GUSD serves over 27,000 students in kindergarten through
grade 12 through thirty-one schools and employs over 2,600 people (GUSD, 2010).
We investigated the effects of the degree of implementation of a program, Focus
on Results (FoR), at three school sites in GUSD, a specific, geography-focused
organization, over the last five years of its implementation, which is a specific timeframe.
This is an example of a Structure Focused, Time Based case study that is Geography
Focused (Patton, 2002, p. 231). It is important to note that these categories cannot
63
necessarily be mutually exclusive—this is the nature of action research, specific to one
particular organization that cannot necessarily be generalized to all organizations in a
common field (Patton, 2002).
The district as the unit of analysis is challenging since the district’s decision to
implement FoR effectively dedicated resources (through its supplemental grant) to allow
for full implementation of the reform effort with fidelity—but the implementation took
place at the site level among the different schools. Within-district variation may result in
differential enactment across schools (Mangin, 2009, p. 765). The quality of the district-
level reform implementation is not the subject of this inquiry project. Rather, the focus is
instead placed on how district-level context affects the district’s decision to implement
the reform effort.
Sampling Strategies
This alternative capstone inquiry project employed purposeful sampling strategies
that allowed for “selecting information-rich cases from which a great deal about matters
of importance and therefore worthy of in-depth study to be selected strategically and
purposefully (Patton, 2002, p. 243). We did not rely on random probability sampling
since the action research we conducted applied to a specific organization and was not
generalized to reflect other LEAs. Random probability sampling allows for a
representative sample of the greater population to be used for the inquiry; however, the
small sampling size can become especially problematic when the purpose of the inquiry
is to generalize the results from a sample of the population to the population of which it is
a part (Patton, 2002, p. 244).
64
The inquiry team focused on three sampling strategies: snowball/chain sampling,
typical case sampling, and emergent sampling. These can all be integrated into a
combination or mixed purposeful sampling strategy which help facilitate triangulation, is
flexible in its nature, and has the ability to meet multiple interests and needs of the
research project (Patton, 2002, p. 244). Snowball/chain sampling allows for the
identification of cases of interest from sampling people who know what cases are
information-rich, that is, good examples for study, good interview participants (Patton,
2002, p. 243). Typical case sampling allows site-based personnel to “illustrate or
highlight what is typical, normal, average” (p. 243)–in other words, how the reform
initiative took shape at the school sites during the implementation process. Emergent
sampling allows the inquiry team to be flexible and follow new leads during fieldwork,
giving the inquiry team the chance to take advantage of the unexpected (p. 244).
The semi-structured interview guides were developed collaboratively as a whole
dissertation group over the course of two separate working sessions in mid-February and
early March 2010. The questions in our interview protocol are specific to the GUSD
districtwide reform process in question, FoR. The interview protocol was designed with
three specific purposes in mind: 1) to gather initial data on the implementation of FoR as
a reform initiative for the district; 2) to gain a historical perspective on FoR; and 3) to
collect data on the perceived goals and implementation gaps for the districtwide reform.
The interview guide (see Appendix C) is the interview guide used for the initial
“scanning interview” process that Clark & Estes (2002) describe as the initial step
required in their gap analysis process. The purpose of the scanning interview was to
65
collect rich data from key stakeholders in an organized, uniform fashion to facilitate
comparison of information on a number of key issues that can be resolved through the
use of the gap analysis model. The scanning interview is used to help identify what gaps
are identified by stakeholders, how they quantify these gaps, and to what they attribute
these gaps.
The design of the scanning interview first involved the development of a
document introducing the research team and its members, what the team’s intent was
with respect to this research project, the expected length of time the team intended to
spend collecting data on site, and a general overview of the process by which the team
intended to conduct this collection–including the presentation of the interview questions.
Open guiding questions about reform in general as it applies to the school district in
terms of FoR, the reform initiative, were asked in order to allow for the respondents to go
into more detail about their perceptions of the degree of success of FoR and where they
feel the issues with FoR implementation are today.
Data Collection
Patton (2002) describes the nature of data collection in action research as being
more informal, the people in the situation are often directly involved in gathering the
information and then studying themselves, and the results are used internally to attack
specific problems within a program, organization, or community (p. 221).
Data for this project was collected at the district office and three GUSD school
sites through one-on-one interviews, observations, and document analysis. The
interviews were face-to-face, one-on-one semi-structured, and open-ended. These
66
interviews work best in a conversational context – having a discussion rather than having
an interview gives an air of informal nature. The conversational interview provides
opportunities for flexibility, spontaneity, and responsiveness to individual differences and
situational changes (Patton, 2002, p. 343).
The interview protocols we employed provided the opportunity for staff to be
insightful, to be candid, and to be forthright about their thoughts on the reform initiative.
Though we had a number of topics that we wanted to address, they were not necessarily
presented in a certain order. In a semi-structured interview, the interviewers must only
ensure that all the topics of concern are addressed during the course of the interview
(Patton, 2002). We did not conduct any structured interviews. Structured interviews
would work best when interviewing groups that may not necessarily have the full
background of the topic being investigated (Patton, 2002).
We conducted two rounds of interviews utilizing the Scanning Interview (see
Appendix D). The first round of interviews was used to obtain a sense of the issues
surrounding the implementation of FoR at different levels of the organization. We
interviewed district leadership cabinet members, district support staff, site administrators,
and members & non-members of the site ILTs. Data from these interviews help 1)
establish the context of the reform initiative and its implementation at the school sites and
2) provide staff the opportunity to give their perspectives on what they believe are the
issues with the implementation of FoR. These interviews were 30-45 minutes in length,
recorded digitally, transcribed, and coded to disaggregate data for further analysis.
67
The Stages of Concern protocol, based on the Concerns-Based Adoption Model
(CBAM, Hall & Loucks, 1979), was used to conduct the second round of interviews at
the three individual school sites. Hall, George, and Rutherford (1977) define concern as
the composite representation of the feelings, preoccupation, thought, and consideration
given to a particular issue or task. The CBAM (Hall & Loucks, 1979) describes the
seven levels of concern that teachers experience as they adopt a new practice (NCREL,
2010): At stage 0, awareness, teachers have little concern or involvement with the
innovation. At the informational stage (Stage 1), teachers may express some general
interest in the innovation and would like to know more about it. Stage 2 teachers, at the
personal stage, want to learn about the personal ramifications of the innovation. In other
words, they want to know exactly how the innovation will affect them. Stage 3 teachers
are at the Management stage, where they engage in learning the processes and tasks
required of the innovation. They focus on information and resources. At stage 4, the
Consequence stage, teachers focus on how the innovation will impact students and their
learning. Collaboration (stage 5) has teachers working in collaboration with others to
implement the innovation. Teachers at the highest stage of concern, refocusing (Stage 6)
find the benefits of the innovation and work to develop modified strategies that are even
more effective than the innovation being implemented.
We utilized this protocol in the second round of interviews to quickly gauge more
stakeholders with respect to the implementation of FoR at their school site. Staff
members at-large were interviewed for ten to twenty minutes. They were encouraged to:
1) speak of their overall experience with FoR as a reform initiative; 2) share their
68
perceptions of the strengths and challenges of the reform initiative; and 3) provide
suggestions and recommendations of how to improve the implementation process.
We utilized probes during both interview processes to: 1) further deepen the
perspectives of our interview participants; 2) clarify participant responses when the
comments did not seem clear; and 3) redirect participants when the question(s) asked
were not addressed in their commentary. The interview protocols served as the inquiry
team’s checklists to ensure we covered all topics of interest.
All three consultants on the inquiry team were present to facilitate the interviews
with the district-level role group members and the FoR consultant. Interviews of school
site personnel were distributed among the three consultants on our inquiry team – one for
each school level we reviewed: elementary, middle, and high school. Each consultant
was responsible for interviewing the principal and the administrative team, members of
the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), teachers not affiliated with the ILT, and other
support personnel, both certificated and classified.
We prepared for the interviews by: 1) reading the websites of both the district
and the school sites under our review; 2) reviewing public documents on standardized
testing data (DataQuest, California Department of Education (CDE)) and the School
Accountability Report Cards over the period of reform implementation (2004-present);
and 3) reading the Focus on Results framework, The Power of Focus.
An interview agenda and the interview protocol were provided to all participants
prior to the interview day in order to facilitate the meeting, giving the interviewee ample
time to prepare his/her thoughts about the topics the inquiry team wanted to discuss. The
69
agenda was also provided to inform the participants of the purpose of the interview. In
addition, we provided a written group introduction in the effort to explain the purpose of
our project and the purpose of the interview at hand.
We provided the interview participant with an opening statement that set the tone
of mutual respect, collegiality, and gratefulness. We asked prior to each meeting for
permission to digitally record the interview. It provided a real-time, authentic audio
record of the meeting that may be lost if only taking notes was the primary method of
transcribing the interview. These digital recordings were later transcribed for analysis
and became the basis of the coding that took place to disaggregate the data and determine
patterns of note for further investigation. Data gathered from the interviews were
amassed and then disaggregated through content analysis that involves identifying,
coding, categorizing, classifying, and labeling the primary patterns in the data (Patton,
2002, p. 463).
We developed a coding system to process the data gathered from the two rounds
of interviews. Coding is a manageable classification scheme (p. 463) that allows for the
analysis of the content of interviews and observations to determine what is significant
(Patton, 2002). This disaggregation strategy was based on the closed and open coding
techniques as described by Strauss & Corbin (1998). The closed coding technique
integrated the Clark & Estes (2002) dimensions of the gap analysis into the
disaggregation of data: knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture are
considered closed codes. The open coding technique (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) further
deepened our data analysis for it allowed for the development of new codes to be created
70
in order to categorize, classify, and identify commonalities in the data. Examples of open
codes include: misperception of knowledge/skill, resources, goal structure, and
commitment to reform. These codes worked to allow patterns in the data to be more
easily identified. A combination of the themes from the literature review on school
districts and educational reform, the gap analysis process model, and reflection on the
interviews served as the basis for the inquiry team to identify the major issues in the
implementation strategies employed by the three GUSD sites we examined.
Limitations to Data Collection
Although we conducted two full rounds of interviews with critical role groups
throughout the district (See Appendix A), we decided to end data collection after
disaggregating the interview data through coding and comparing the information we
obtained through our analysis process.
We had an extremely short period of time in which to gather the data needed for
our inquiry analysis. We were given access to a very limited number of school sites and
worked in earnest to gain access to the different school sites multiple times to speak with
different personnel. However, we were only able to investigate the implementation
processes of three school sites, one at each level of instruction: elementary, middle, and
secondary. This is a very small sample of the thirty-one schools in GUSD. We know
that the results of our inquiry project are representative of a great majority of schools
throughout the district—they were recommended to our team by various members of
district leadership—but also know they cannot necessarily be generalized as being the
case at every site in GUSD.
71
We did not elicit the participation of all critical GUSD role groups in our inquiry
process. We made several unsuccessful requests to speak with the leadership of the
Glendale Teachers Association (GTA). We struggled to speak with a greater number of
certificated personnel at the high school level. We also did not interview parents or
students—reform implementation primarily involves the Local Educational Agency
(LEA) and the individual school sites. Students and parents, though fundamentally
critical stakeholders in the school community, had a minimal role in the formulation,
development, and implementation of the reform effort, as they are really the recipients of
the reform process. We have included, though, questions that probe how students and
parents are kept abreast of the reform implementation at school sites.
As a research team, we were able to identify common themes amongst the issues
that arose in the implementation of FoR throughout GUSD. These common themes were
substantial and were linked to one or more of the three main components behind the
Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis model: motivation, knowledge/skill, and
organizational barriers. These themes were cited extensively in social sciences and
education literature. We felt that the information we obtained was sufficient to
systematically analyze through the gap analysis model and provide a solid foundation for
the recommendations we suggest to the district to enhance the reform implementation
process throughout GUSD.
Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration. The
72
intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional
dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of providing
consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as
research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research designed to produce
generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a University Institutional Review
Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the present project:
Federal Regulations define research as a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge
1
(45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
Report
2
, .the term ‘research’ designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis
[and] permit conclusions to be drawn. Research is usually described in a formal
protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures to reach that objective.
Research generally does not include operational activities such as defined practice
activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work (e.g., routine outbreak
investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for internal management purposes
such as program evaluation, quality assurance, quality improvement, fiscal or program
audits, marketing studies or contracted-for services. It generally does not include
journalism or political polls. However, some of these activities may include or constitute
research in circumstances where there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable
knowledge. (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2). Quality improvement
projects are generally not considered research unless there is a clear intent to contribute to
1
Generalizable knowledge is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied to populations or
situations beyond that studied.
2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for human subjects
research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
73
generalizable knowledge and use the data derived from the project to improve or alter the
quality of care or the efficiency of an institutional practice (Office for the Protection of
Research Subjects, p. 4). Further clarification is provided in the following section:
Alternative Capstone Inquiry Team Structure
This alternative capstone project differs from the traditional dissertation process
in both the inquiry process and presentation of findings. A traditional thematic
dissertation process has students working collaboratively to prepare the literature review
and methodology for their subsequent individual studies. In our case, an inquiry team of
three individuals collaborated throughout the entire inquiry process. The team assembled
to tackle the inquiry topic of districtwide FoR reform implementation was best qualified
to address this work. Two of the three members are district administrators with long-
standing careers in education: one is an assistant superintendent of schools with extensive
experience in the classroom, site administration, and district level directorship of
curriculum & instruction; the other is director of pupil services and student welfare with a
long-standing private practice as a therapist. The third member is a classroom teacher
with leadership experience in accreditation as well as school reform and the restructuring
process at her school site. As a team, we developed our data inquiry tools, interacted
with the district, collected data, identified the performance gaps and their root causes,
developed research-based solutions, and defended our dissertations together with a
common presentation.
74
Inquiry Project
Project overview.
A chronology of the inquiry process is presented in Appendix B. The project
progression subsequently provides a more detailed account of the process for each
semester over the last 15 months.
Project progression.
Fall 2009
As an introduction to the school district, the District Superintendent and his
cabinet of Assistant Superintendents and the Public Relations officer provided a general
overview in a presentation to the entire thematic dissertation team. This meeting took
place early in early October 2009. A general overview of the state of the district, the
demographics, the current state of their district and their noted achievements were
presented. The API score profiles (over a 6-8 year span) were shared for schools that
demonstrated dramatic gains in relatively short periods of time. API scores in this district
range from 702 to 936. GUSD has only one school in Program Improvement (PI). That
particular school was unable to meet its proficiency targets in English Language Arts
(ELA) for Hispanic/Latino and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students and in
Mathematics for Hispanic/Latino and Special Education students (CDE, 2010). Although
GUSD is a high-performing district with considerable achievements, the district
acknowledged in this presentation that it needed to better support the needs of struggling
students and ensure greater success for all its subgroups across the district.
75
Focus on Results (FoR), their districtwide reform initiative, was presented by the
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services as a professional development
framework implemented to improve student achievement. Now starting its sixth year of
implementation, FoR was developed to act as a concerted, cohesive movement to
dramatically improve student achievement—through an intense focus on instructional
practices—of the district’s statistically significant subgroups (Hispanic/Latino, English
Learners, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, Special Education) that were not showing
dramatic gains at the same rates like their counterparts throughout the district.
Further discussion between the District Superintendent with our dissertation
advisors narrowed the inquiry topics to the three considered most urgent in the district:
districtwide Focus on Results implementation, closing the achievement gap for
Hispanic/Latino English Language learners, and increasing the number of eligible
students to attend four-year colleges and universities. The selection of topics and
assignment of dissertation inquiry groups were facilitated by the advisors and announced
in mid-December 2009. Districtwide reform implementation was assigned as our inquiry
team topic.
The rest of the Fall 2009 semester was spent getting to know the district in terms
of its prioritized needs and the preparation of our inquiry proposals for university defense
in February 2010.
76
Spring 2010
A group meeting held in January 2010 was used to develop a common interview
guide in preparation for the data collection to occur at the district/school sites this coming
spring.
The next contact with the district by the inquiry team was made on February 18,
2010. The team met with the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services. The
purpose was to: 1) establish norms for a working relationship between the inquiry team
and the district representatives; 2) determine what the organizational goals are for the
district, meaning what they perceive their expected outcomes to be as a result of the FoR
implementation; 3) understand the district benchmarks/measures for results; 4) determine
the district’s expectations of the inquiry team; identify nine key stakeholders in the
district (site and district level) that could provide better insight into the implementation of
FoR in the district; and 6) how to make initial contact with these key stakeholders.
Inquiry proposal and qualifying exam.
The oral defense for the qualifying exam proposal took place on Thursday,
February 25, 2010. The defense committee was composed of both dissertation advisors
and the representative from the sister school district being examined by the other half of
the thematic dissertation group. The oral defense consisted of a 10-minute PowerPoint
presentation by the entire group as one unit followed by 30-40 minutes of discussion
between the proposal team and the reviewing committee. Suggestions were made to the
proposal team in preparation for the research that followed as a result of the proposal
being accepted by the committee.
77
Development of inquiry tools.
The next thematic dissertation group meetings immediately following the
qualification exam were used to prepare for the data collection phase of the project. This
included the development of the Scanning Interview guide & interview norms, the Stages
of Concern (SoC) interview guide, and the Innovation Configuration.
Summer 2010
Identification and explanation of the roots that cause these performance gaps
occurred during the summer. We prepared the comprehensive analysis of the roots
causes of performance gaps using the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process model to
frame our work. We developed recommendations (as solutions) to help mitigate and
close the performance gaps uncovered in our inquiry. These solutions were the primary
focus of the products we produced this summer. This included the Executive Summary
(see Appendix F) presented in early Fall 2010 to GUSD leadership cabinet members.
This fifteen-page document provided an overview of the entire inquiry process as well as
the initial findings from the inquiry analysis.
Fall 2010
We visited with representatives of district leadership three times in the fall of
2010. After meeting with our dissertation advisor, it was decided that the entire district
leadership team would meet with the USC inquiry teams to discuss the executive
summaries of our inquiry projects. The district leadership team was provided with
executive summaries of the identified performance gaps and their root causes for each of
the three inquiry topics examined by the GUSD inquiry teams. Representatives from all
78
three USC inquiry groups met with the newly appointed Superintendent of Schools and
his Leadership Cabinet on September 13, 2010.
It was beneficial to have that meeting with the district because it provided the
GUSD leadership cabinet the opportunity to be refreshed with the entire inquiry project.
It also provided the inquiry team members the opportunity to listen to the
Superintendent’s Leadership Cabinet regarding their primary concerns with each team’s
findings. This afforded each inquiry team the opportunity to clarify viewpoints and
terminology—much of which was explained in the full executive summaries completed
by the inquiry teams.
Feedback from that September 2010 meeting with the GUSD Leadership Cabinet
helped the inquiry groups to develop their recommendations for presentation on
November 1, 2010. The district Leadership Cabinet asked if the inquiry teams could
present their findings in a manner that sounded less like a research study. An inquiry to
use the project documents for an unintended purpose was also discussed. The political
ramifications of our work and its interpretation by different role groups throughout
GUSD were of major concern by the Superintendent and much of his cabinet.
The inquiry team reflected on the September 13
th
requests and constructed the
presentation for November 1
st
with greater clarity. We prepared for the presentation with
the understanding that it would be unlikely that our audience would read the extended
solutions chapter with the accompanying literature review. It was determined that all
three inquiry teams would report their findings and recommendations in a combined
PowerPoint presentation (See Appendix G). We wanted to provide the district
79
Leadership Cabinet a cohesive and comprehensive view of the findings from each inquiry
team. Each team submitted their contributions for the PowerPoint presentation with this
context in mind.
We adhered to some commonalities and fundamentals that is characteristic of all
the work we developed together for this PowerPoint. We removed references to the
dissertation process to give more credibility to our work as consultants helping in a real-
world action research inquiry. We framed our partnership with the district as a result of
their invitation to consider the fidelity of their implementation process. We emphasized
that our intent was to be a viable resource of helpful information, while also learning for
our doctoral studies. As a result of careful preparation and reviewing on our intentions,
the tone of the team presentation was less like a formal report of research findings and
more like a professional dialogue among role groups, to exchange ideas, and plant the
seeds for change. The PowerPoint presentation clearly revealed how deeply each inquiry
team understood the status of the district in each inquiry investigation.
Two weeks prior to the November 1
st
presentation, the district reform
implementation inquiry team met with the Assistant Superintendent of Educational
Services and the Deputy Superintendent of Schools. We presented our slides to solicit
input and feedback regarding the clarity of our content and our delivery method. We
also used this opportunity to gauge the receptivity of our messages. We believe this
additional meeting contributed to the positive outcomes of our November 1
st
inquiry
group presentation. This process of presenting the underlying root causes for the
80
performance gaps as well as the proposed solutions represents step 5C of the gap analysis
process (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The third interaction with the district was on November 1, 2010 – the final inquiry
group PowerPoint presentation. We were on the agenda of a special Leadership Cabinet
meeting. The Superintendent and his Leadership Cabinet were in full attendance. To
facilitate the presentation, one member from each inquiry team was selected to present
for their group. The Superintendent made a 1-minute opening remark, thanking our
inquiry team for the work we did as well as to frame the context for our presence in the
district as a partnership with GUSD. Our district liaison provided a 5-minute
introduction to the inquiry process and the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2002)
used to conduct our inquiry analysis. Each team gave a 15-minute presentation. This
was followed by 10-15 minutes of dialogue between the district administrators and the
inquiry team about questions/concerns and next steps.
The PowerPoint was constructed with both visual representations of concepts as
well as descriptions to convey their findings and recommendations. The Leadership
Cabinet members validated the clarity of our outcomes and informed the inquiry teams
they would carefully consider many of the ideas that were presented on November 1,
2010.
Issues of confidentiality and perceived intent of inquiry.
It is important to note a request from members of the district Leadership Cabinet
that would have compromised the integrity of our agreements with interview participants
as well as future opportunities for the school staff to participate with USC dissertation
81
teams. At the conclusion of the inquiry team presentation, members of the leadership
cabinet requested for the three inquiry teams to present the findings to the relevant
schools where we conducted our data collection last spring. They also requested the
names of the school sites where we conducted our inquiry projects.
A concern was raised by someone on our inquiry team that the work we shared
during the presentation could be used by district administrators for more than just
“helping the district” better examine itself to understand issues that are affecting them in
their district at the current time. It could be potentially used as a point of political
leverage against other district role groups. Many times during the inquiry presentation
we found the administrators expressing the need for our findings to be presented to other
groups in the district to explain that was what they as the district leadership have been
saying all along they need to do. Our purpose was not to reinforce district philosophies
and mandates. We were there to help the district leadership better understand the
dynamics of each of the three issues they brought to our attention as their priorities to
better understand.
Upon further debriefing, members of all three inquiry teams wholeheartedly
agreed that we must collectively protect the integrity of the inquiry process and our
commitment to school staffs.
Additional presentation: District FoR writing team.
The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services invited our inquiry team to
present our PowerPoint presentation to their district FoR writing team, who are
responsible for writing the curriculum that drives the Focus on Results implementation at
82
sites throughout the district. We presented our work on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 to
this team as well as the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services, the Deputy
Superintendent of Schools, and the external consultant from Focus on Results.
Many of the members of the writing team—composed of teachers, assistant
principals, principals, teacher specialists, and district-level coordinators—stated that
messages resonated with what they found in their work. They seemed to accept the ideas
presented in the PowerPoint presentation well and did not question the suggestions we
offered them. They wanted more details, however, regarding the methodology of the
inquiry process, especially data collection, including the sites we visited, the members we
interviewed, the job positions of those we interviewed, the length of time these schools
had executed their implementation plans, and the level of involvement these members
had with the ILT process at their sites. They also sought our advice on how we could
direct them as a writing team to help engage more people to participate in the reform
process.
Spring 2011.
The nine members of the project will defend their inquiry work before the
dissertation committee on January 22, 2011. The defense design includes a five minute
introduction; a 10-minute private consultation by the committee; a 25-minute common
oral presentation of the grounding ideas, purpose, methodology, findings and how the
district was helped by the inquiry team; a 45-minute question-and-answer discussion
session led by each committee member; and three individual 10-minute feedback sessions
to each member of the inquiry team. Finally, a reflection on the alternative capstone
83
process, the use of the gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) as a framework
for investigating the problems experienced at the school district and its individual sites,
and suggestions for next steps took place in this time period was presented to the
professors.
We now turn to Chapter 2C and present 1) the inquiry findings and 2) our
subsequent analysis of the roots that cause the performance gaps we presented in our
findings. We utilize the three dimensions of the gap analysis process model (Clark &
Estes, 2002) as the structure of the presentation of our findings: motivation,
organizational culture, and knowledge/skill.
Chapter 2C: Analysis of Root Causes of the Performance Gaps
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
Introduction
We present the findings to our inquiry and the subsequent analysis of the root
causes that result in the performance gaps we identified. These findings are the evidence
about the roots of the problem as explained by the gap analysis process model (Clark &
Estes, 2002). The three dimensions of the gap analysis—motivation, organizational
culture, and knowledge/skill—provide the structure to this section.
Background
Educators in school districts across the state of California—and the United States
in general—continue to struggle with the great educational dilemma as it encounters
challenges faced in this modern age of information and technology. Educators are also at
the mercy of political agendas that are in a constant state of flux. The latest political
84
agenda, Race To The Top (RTTT), under President Obama’s administration, imposes
even greater expectations as states compete for the coveted educational funding needed to
achieve its academic goals for every student. While much debate takes place over the
competitive process to receive these fiscal resources, most agree that students are entitled
to an equitable and rigorous education no matter their ethnic, social, or economic
background. The Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) initiated a reform process
that seemingly anticipated this rigorous shift in expectations when it adopted the Focus
on Results (FoR) Reform Initiative five years ago.
Focus on Results (FoR) is a research-based model that is comprehensive, data-
driven and focused on instruction. This model encompasses the key elements that are
commonly described in highly credible change models, such as developing a sense of
urgency, creating a guiding team with a powerful vision, increasing leadership capacity,
removing obstacles, resolving conflicts with effective communication, and persisting
through the difficult challenges. The implementation of this framework is embedded in
local context and culture, and it is only effective when accompanied by a shift from a
traditional central office to a central services organization. With increased capacity
among all staff, this framework is designed to improve student achievement and
ultimately close the achievement gap.
Specifically, the FoR key strategies for professional development are: to build
expertise, change practice, monitor student performance, and to communicate relentlessly
(Palumbo and Leight, 2007). FoR has three distinct phases: 1) identifying a schoolwide
instructional focus based on an assessment of students' needs; 2) creating and
85
implementing a schoolwide instructional focus that meets students' needs; and 3) living a
unity of purpose through a clear instructional focus that drives all decisions.
The Gap Analysis
The gap analysis process model is a systematic problem-solving approach
specifically designed to examine the gaps in an organization’s performance to help
improve and achieve their desired goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). The gap analysis focuses
on identifying, analyzing, and solving a specific problem in a specific context. This is the
nature of action research, where larger organizations and institutions undertake this type
of investigation, guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving the
overall strategies, practices, and knowledge of the organization (as community) within
which they practice (Center for Collaborative Research, 2010). Clark & Estes (2002)
outline the six major steps that comprise the gap analysis process model (p. 22):
1. Identify clear organizational goals that define the vision for the organization;
2. Identify individual performance goals that are concrete, challenging, and
current (C
3
);
3. Determine performance gaps by quantifying gaps between desire goals;
4. Determine root causes by analyzing the gaps in knowledge/skill, motivation,
and/or organizational barriers;
5. Identify research-based solutions and implement to affect the root causes; and
6. Evaluate results of implementation and fine-tune goals.
Overall, GUSD successfully implemented the components of the FoR reform
initiative at the district level and established a good foundation for continued work
86
toward embedded sustainability. This chapter identifies a limited view of the district’s
accomplishments in the implementation process as well as some suggestions that will
strengthen the commitment to long-term cultural change.
GUSD’s efforts are commendable as we consider the five most common barriers
that typically impede a district’s success in implementing strategic initiatives. These
include: executing the strategy consistently across schools with difference
characteristics, creating a coherent organizational design in support of the strategy,
developing and managing human capital, allocating resources in alignment with the
strategy, and using performance data to guide decisions (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman,
2006).
Using the gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) to determine the
performance gaps and, consequently, the root causes that led to these gaps, we found
many of the issues we uncovered are rooted in issues of motivation. Though we present
our rationale for identifying issues rooted in both knowledge & skill and organizational
barriers, the majority of the issues that we feel have adversely affected the potential
success of FoR reform implementation are rooted in motivation. We devote much of the
discussion to this component.
Analysis of Gaps in Motivation
The Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process model was employed to assess the
motivational factors in the implementation of the Focus on Results reform initiative in
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD). According to this model the analysis of
motivation involves three processes or indexes (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Clark & Estes,
87
2002, 2006; Song & Keller, 2001), which include active choice (starting the task), mental
effort (the degree to which one applies focus and energy), and persistence (continuing in
spite of distractions and competing goals). When cultivating motivation, the individual’s
belief in the goal and process is essential to initiate movement toward implementation.
An individual may have the knowledge and skills to achieve a goal, but unless he or she
is motivated to initiate the process toward achieving the goal, the endeavor will be futile.
Since motivation is the response or product of interactions between people and their work
environment (Clark & Estes, 2002), nurturing safe, supportive and respectful
relationships is an essential global goal. Identifying motivational causes of gaps is
complex because one must assess if the if the individual or team chooses to work towards
the goal; will persist at it until it is achieved; and the amount of metal effort they are
willing to invest to accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy is an important construct in motivation and is defined as a person's
belief about their ability to organize and execute courses of actions necessary to achieve a
goal (Bandura, 1997). Beliefs about self-efficacy have a significant impact on one's goals
and accomplishments by influencing personal choice, motivation, patterns of behavior,
and emotional reactions. For example, people tend to avoid threatening situations that
they believe exceed their coping skills.
Perceived self-efficacy also affects how successfully goals are accomplished by
influencing the level of effort and persistence a person will demonstrate in the face of
obstacles. That is, the stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the more active one's efforts.
88
Higher self-efficacy is also associated with more persistence, a trait that allows us to gain
corrective experiences that reinforce our sense of self-efficacy. Therefore, an
individual’s belief in the value of the task, his or her personal and group efficacy to
accomplish the goal, and the probability of success or effectiveness are factors that
influence one’s active choice to engage, to persist and apply mental effort toward that
end. When these three constructs are closely aligned, an individual or group is motivated
to work toward achieving the goals (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Active choice.
Active choice is essential to motivation as this is the behavioral evidence that one
has replaced his or her intention to pursue a goal with action. However, a moderator of
active choice may be influenced by whether one’s participation is voluntary or
involuntary. If the individual or group was excluded from the goal-setting and decision-
making processes, they may demonstrate resistant behaviors, such as procrastination,
avoidance and argumentativeness. One elementary school teacher stated: “the same
teachers that resist FoR were against NCLB accountability. These teachers always rebel
against ‘the machine’.” If, however, individuals actively work towards the goals even if
they did not select them, they are considered to have chosen that goal (Clark & Estes,
2002). Even though the district selected the FoR reform initiative, school sites had the
choice of how the implementation would develop at their individual sites. These chosen
activities include the setting of their instructional focuses, the development of their ILTs,
and the use of student performance data to influence their decision-making processes.
The motivation of staff in implementing the Focus on Results (FoR) reform
89
initiative varied throughout the five-year process. Initially, the goals and expectations
were unclear and defined differently by the different role groups. While principals were
initially given a voluntary choice to participate, they did not understand the degree to
which their commitment would necessitate substantial changes to the entire school
program. Some principals expressed their belief that FoR was a “leadership capacity
building model for principals” that would give them a “vehicle to drive the school
forward”. Subsequently, the unexpected impact on teacher behavior created internal
conflict among school site administrators and staff. As the process unfolded and
expectations were increasingly defined, principals and district administrators gradually
realized the intent of the work was clearly focused on classroom instruction and change
of practice in order to increase student achievement. Consequently, the site-level
teachers believed they did not have a choice or a substantial voice in the decision-making
process, as they were not engaged in collaborative conversations prior to making the
commitment. Some teachers felt the reform was imposed on them: “We were already
using data and doing the strategies recommended by FoR;” “We didn’t appreciate being
told to implement this initiative, especially when we found out how much this was going
to cost the district!”
The structure and process of staff work was required to change in order to
implement the seven components of Focus on Results. While most teachers appeared
committed to the process, it is more often based on external locus of control rather than
intrinsic motivation. This was more evident among tenured teachers who believed it was
“just another program,” “we have no choice,” “they don't understand our kids
90
(limitations),” or this is “just another way of doing what we are already doing
(overconfidence); how long will this last?” Initially, some teachers expressed great
resistance demonstrated by procrastination, avoidance, arguments and unwillingness to
participate, as they perceived the “choice” to be a “top-down directive.”
In the third year of implementation, when the district administration modified the
teacher evaluation format to incorporate student achievement outcomes, an even greater
adversarial reaction among staff created and “us” versus “them” climate. Teacher
commitment has varied from year to year even though they agree that test scores have
increased across the district, though some believe they would have improved anyway.
The interview process repeatedly revealed residual effects of “having no choice” and
resenting the “dog-and-pony shows” (performance versus mastery) associated with the
classroom instructional walkthroughs by district and site staff.
Persistence.
Persistence is the ability to maintain action regardless of your feelings; you press
on even when you feel like quitting. It is a form of self-discipline that is required when
one has many competing goals demanding time and attention. Persistence is an element
of motivation that allows a person to keep taking action, to overcome distractions, and to
focus on the process of achieving the goal-oriented results. Thus, when assessing for
performance gaps, a lack of persistence due to too many goals, lack of ownership, lack of
focused attention, and lack of interest or task value, and many other reasons may be
contributing factors in insufficient motivation (Clark & Estes, 2002). A number of the
interviewed teachers with many years of service in the district, for example, expressed
91
the historical pattern of changing initiatives often and therefore they assumed this
initiative, too, would soon pass – “we just have to wait it out.”
Several motivation theories focus on the reasons individuals or groups persist and
remain engaged toward achieving goals. Intrinsic motivation theories espouse when
individuals are intrinsically motivated, they engage in an activity or task because they are
interested in, value, and enjoy the task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Deci & Ryan, 1985)
proposed self-determination theory in which they integrated two perspectives on human
motivation: 1) Humans are motivated to maintain optimal level of stimulation, and 2)
humans have basic needs for competence and personal causation or self-determination.
They argue that intrinsic motivation is maintained only when participants feel competent
and self-determined. Evidence that intrinsic motivation is reduced by exerting external
control and by giving negative competence feedback supports this hypothesis (Deci &
Ryan, 1985; Deci, Kroestner, & Ryan, 1999).
Prior to the implementation of FoR, school staffs were accustomed to making the
decisions about their own projects, programs, curricula, and efforts. These school sites
worked independently of each other; teachers exercised a great deal of autonomy in their
decision-making. The first fundamental component in the FoR implementation was for
each school staff to define their instructional focus as a collective. Many of the staffs
reported this process to be overwhelming and/or frustrating. Initially, teachers seemed to
resent losing “control” of deciding what curriculum or strategies they would use in their
classrooms. For example, one teacher stated, “the district has imposed another program.
They chose FoR and got the results they wanted.” Other teachers also voiced this, as “it
92
cannot be one size fits all “and” we know our community and our students and how to
teach them best.” However, as school teams began to redefine their primary instructional
focus or goal, such as literacy, writing, or comprehension, a new energy emerged, as
teachers felt relieved to be less fragmented. As expressed by many teachers, “everyone
shares the same targeted focus on instruction and we have increased collaboration”. Staff
was also expected to work collaboratively and use student data as the focus of their
discussions.
By the fourth year of implementation, these common goals, purposes, and
practices began unifying many teachers’ efforts. Some teachers who were interviewed
believed the rebellion they expressed toward the district administration in year three of
the implementation process resulted in fewer top-down directives from “the district” to
more site-based decisions. A sixth-grade teacher expressed that FoR was “the best thing
that ever happened–it provided direction and focused us on our response to student
needs.” Seemingly, this change created more ownership as the value of the site
Instructional Leadership Teams (ILT) increased and evidence of increased intrinsic
motivation emerged. An ILT member at the high school level stated, “the ILT is the
decision-making body that takes into account what teachers need to understand about
strengthening our instructional practices.”
The inquiry team observed varying degrees of persistence between the elementary
and secondary schools; between the schools with an API score above 800 and those
below 800; and between ILT members and non-ILT members. The nature of how staff
works at the elementary level is more collaborative than at the secondary level where
93
teachers are more isolated by their content area. Additionally, the district is comprised of
mostly elementary schools, which created a larger focus on strategies relevant to their
communities. Consequently, it seemed that some elementary teams more easily defined
their schoolwide focus, hosted more frequent meetings, worked collaboratively and
communicated across grade levels more consistently as the elementary ILTs were
comprised of a grade level representative. However, the secondary schools consisted of
larger teaching staff and experienced greater challenges in bringing staff out of isolation
into schoolwide collaboration. This need was addressed by dividing the district into
elementary and secondary cohorts, at the suggestion of the FoR consultant, in order to
give the secondary groups more individualized expertise and support.
A difference in persistence also existed between staff that were part of the district
level ILT and the site-based ILT. One teacher stated: “it would be helpful if we rotated
the teachers on the district and site level teams because teachers need to understand the
purpose and be more involved in the process of FoR.” A probationary teacher shared
how his membership on the ILT helped him understand the process: “I joined this school
two years ago and didn’t have a clue as to what FoR was all about. My second year, I
joined the ILT and the district team. I finally understood why we are doing what we are
doing with FoR.”
Some teachers expressed feelings of exclusion because the district level teams did
not rotate staff. Others expressed appreciation for the support of the ILTs. In some
cases, it was noted that teachers who participated on the ILTs focused on mastery
orientation while those who chose not to participate seemed more aligned with
94
performance orientation by quickly preparing and scripting their students for the
“classroom walkthrough shows.” Some teachers shared that the walkthroughs felt like a
“dog and pony show because we coach the kids to perform for the visits.”
Another factor that seemed to influence persistence was the schools’ Academic
Performance Index (API) scores. Many staff believed they were “good enough” as they
had achieved scores above the desired 800+ even though all students were not proficient.
Initially, all staff equated a high API with closing the achievement gap and did not see
the value in a process that “cost so much” and “required so much time.”
Mental effort.
The third dimension of motivated performance is mental effort, which is closely
related to persistence. People are natural cognitive misers as we are forever trying to
conserve cognitive energy (Aronson, 2008; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). In other words, all
other things being equal, individuals are motivated to use relatively effortless and simple
mental shortcuts that provide rapid but often inaccurate solutions rather than effortful and
complex mental processing that provides delayed but often more accurate solutions. If a
goal or process is routine and individuals can draw on past experiences to reach the goal,
it may not require much mental effort, however, novel or unanticipated challenges require
a great deal of mental effort to succeed (Aronson, 2008).
Additionally, mental effort is determined to a great measure by one’s confidence.
People who lack confidence or have misjudged their abilities and are over-confident do
not invest much mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2002). People who are challenged by the
task or process but are neither underconfident or overconfident seem to invest the most
95
mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2002).
There was evidence of both overconfidence and underconfidence in the
implementation of the FoR Initiative. The district leadership seemed convinced that all
achievement improvement was directly the result of implementing the FoR components.
Clark & Estes (2002) describes an overconfident person as one who thinks that he knows
what he is doing and that the task is a no-brainer, so he does not have to work hard to
accomplish the goal (p. 81). Some teachers of high-performing schools saw little value in
the process, as they believed they had achieved success as evidenced by their test scores
and academic performance index. Teachers espoused, “We already do this good work,”
or “this is just another label,” or ‘it's business as usual.” People who are overconfident
may make mistakes and take no responsibility for them. While some members at both
the elementary and secondary level embraced the purpose and process, many tenured
teachers felt it was more meaningful and helpful to the probationary teachers in the
education field.
Underconfidence also influences mental effort, persistence, and choice concerns. If
people do not believe their efforts will result in growth and success, they may not engage
or persist as a form of self-preservation. The interviews of teachers at the elementary,
middle, and high school levels expressed feelings of professional and personal threat
relative to their students’ scores.
In the early phases of the implementation process, teachers perceived the district's
intent to be a “gotcha” strategy. Though they were reassured otherwise, teachers
believed they were being “judge, evaluated, and negatively criticized” during the
96
instructional walkthroughs. These feelings translated into perceptions of dishonesty,
hypocrisy, and unfairness (p. 87) described by Clark & Estes (2002) as inhibitors of
motivation toward goals and trusting relationships. Trust is a major factor in work
motivation and is difficult to gain and easy to lose. These perceptions, not reality,
influenced the personal motivation of many staff.
The collaborative process exposed their class achievement data to fellow staff
members as well as the administration. This fear and anxiety escalated when the protocol
for teacher evaluation was changed to include data on student outcomes. This heightened
the perception of an “us-them” culture.
Clark & Estes (2002) speak of “I” and “We” cultures. In an “I” culture people
work hard individually and independently when they personally accept the value of the
work goal. “I” cultures value initiative and autonomy. Some thrive in this type of
environment. However, in the “we” culture, the work is accomplished collectively and
cooperatively as a team. For some, this type of environment is a catalyst for increased
motivation and mental effort. The successful implementation of the FoR initiative
required staff to shift from an “I” approach to a “we” approach. These conflicting
cultural styles undermined the fluid progress at various schools, especially the secondary
level. While teachers acknowledged academic growth during the 5-year implementation
process, consistent tones of self-protection emerged as they referred to the leadership as
“The District People” who got what “they” wanted.
Other factors that sabotaged motivation were unclear goals and feedback during the
classroom instructional walkthroughs. Numerous teachers reported they were informed
97
well in advance of the upcoming visit as well as the FoR components they would be
observing; however, staff reported not receiving sufficient or helpful feedback from the
team. Teachers expressed a need for explicit information about their performance and
specific suggestions for improvement as well as accolades. Clark & Estes (2002)
indicated that vague and constantly changing performance goals and feedback (p. 87)
compromise confidence and motivation to maintain effort.
The attribution theory (Weiner, 1980, 1992) integrates both cognitive theory and
self-efficacy theory in the sense that it emphasizes that an individual’s or group’s current
self-perceptions will strongly influence the ways in which they will interpret the success
or failure of their current efforts and hence their future tendency to perform these same
behaviors. An important assumption of attribution theory is that people will interpret
their environment in such a way as to maintain a positive self-image. That is, they will
attribute their successes or failures to factors that will enable them to feel as good as
possible about themselves. In general, this means that when individuals succeed at a task
or goal, they are likely to want to attribute this success to their own efforts or abilities;
but when they fail, they will want to attribute their failure to factors over which they have
no control, such as lack of family support or bad luck. The basic principle of attribution
theory as it applies to motivation is that a person’s own perceptions or attributions for
success or failure determine the amount of effort the person will continue to expend.
Throughout the five-year process of the district’s implementation of the FoR
education reform initiative, motivation vacillated among all stakeholders. The first three
years demonstrated the greatest challenges in establishing the foundation for systemic
98
change. Since excellent human performance motivation is a complex phenomenon that
grows from passion, belief, expectation, and expertise, only time will reveal whether the
investment of human and fiscal resources will result in sustained change of practice that
ultimately may close the achievement gap.
Analysis of Gaps in Organizational Culture
Organizational culture.
Organizational Culture is the “most important ‘work process’ in all organizations
because it dictates how we work together to get the job done” (Clark & Estes, p. 107).
Work culture is our understanding of who we are, what we value, and how we work.
According to Clark & Estes (2002), improving an employee’s performance is the highest
leverage activity available to an organization (p. 9). The lack of well-organized and
useful organizational work processes and material resources can contribute to
organizational gaps. Unproductive work process and inadequate resources can prevent
the achievement of performance goals even when individuals have high motivation,
knowledge, and skill. For example, a fifth grade teacher expressed that “the district did
not provide additional resources for our demographics for us to be successful in FoR.”
The FoR initiative had a substantial impact on the GUSD organizational culture
for it changed who they were, what they valued and how they worked as a collective. In
order to do this, district leadership was strategic in how they articulated the goal, changed
work processes, and provided the required tangible resources to implement FoR.
99
Establishing organizational goals.
Organizational leadership is crucial to goal attainment. Their ability to help
employees see the organizational goal as valuable and desirable is critical to the initial
implementation of FoR. According to Clark & Estes (2002), leaders must be perceived
as legitimate trusted authority with a convincing rationale for the goal. They must inspire
a vision that is aligned to the desired goals.
Interviews and district documents indicate that GUSD leadership clearly
articulated the organizational goals. The first goal was to increase the API and to meet
AYP targets, which the Board of Education supported and it was communicated to the
GUSD community. The intermediate goal was to implement the FoR strategy, which
would be the process to attain the first goal. Principals were informed of the goals and
were encouraged to join the first cohort and initiate the implementation of the FoR at
their sites.
The organization goals—to increase the API and to meet AYP targets—were very
clear to the entire GUSD staff. Interviews with staff at all levels of the organization and
documents indicted that there was a significant focus on increasing the API. The goal to
implement FoR was also clear; however, the FoR model required a fundamental shift in
how people were expected to work in order to achieve the organizational goals.
Work process and procedures.
District leadership and FoR consultants coordinated and provided initial
professional development for the Instructional Leadership Teams. The training was
extensive and comprehensive. Teachers and principals commented on the amount of
100
time they were away from their schools and classrooms. In addition, the FoR Consultants
developed a 5-year capacity building plan design to develop the capacity of the GUSD
leadership to sustain the FoR approach (See Appendix I). The strategy was design to
decrease the involvement of the FoR consultants over time while increasing the capacity
of district staff to lead the work.
This capacity building strategy was initiated during the second year of FoR
implementation. This required GUSD staff to assist with the facilitation of the training
for the second cohort. By the third year, GUSD staff developed content, provided
training, and coordinated the Instructional Walk Teams (IWT). At the end of the fourth
year, three cohorts encompassing all the schools in the district were trained and charged
with leading the FoR effort with minimal assistance from the consultants (See Appendix
I).
The following procedures occur in support of GUSD’s implementation of FoR:
1. School ILTs were encouraged to participate and motivated by the availability of
grant funds to pay for training and substitutes.
2. District level training was provided for ILTs with content and tools to present the
training back at the site.
3. The ILTs met regularly to discuss and address the schoolwide instructional focus.
Professional learning communicates were encouraged at the sites to improve
teaching and learning.
4. Targeted professional development plans were created at each site that build on
expertise in selected best instructional practices.
101
5. The school’s professional development is design to support the schoolwide focus
by building teacher expertise, ensuring change in practice, and promoting high
expectations for all students.
6. The re-alignment of resources (people, time, talent, energy, and money) in order
to support instructional focus was evident at all levels.
7. Internal accountability systems were evident through schoolwide SMART-e
goals. These SMART-e goals included state assessments as well as local internal
measures of student performance (e.g. benchmarks). The data is part of the
internal accountability system that is used as a lens for decision-making both
schoolwide and in the classroom. Results are easily available, publicly posted,
and widely communicated.
8. The principal and instructional support staff members are expected to be
instructional leaders.
9. District leadership has realigned their work to support schools around the FoR
implementation by providing leadership, coaching, support, supervision, and
creative problem solving to ensure school demonstrate dramatic growth in student
achievement.
10. The District is building its internal capacity to lead the work by increasing
designing and delivering the professional development related to the FoR
framework.
102
Resources.
Having the appropriate resources is vital to the success of any endeavor. At a
time when districts face historic fiscal challenges, GUSD was able to acquire a grant and
finance the FoR district reform. Reallocation of resources is one of the principles of FoR
and crucial to the support and sustainment of any reform. The grant funds provided the
opportunity for employees to see results and experience the benefits of the FoR reform
before having to reallocate district and site resources.
Staff training and capacity building for all roles groups to implement the FoR
initiative was substantial and comprehensive. First, it was provided to a cohort of
instructional leaders (teachers and principals) that chose to participate in the initial
training. Second, it was intense, requiring ILTs to attend monthly meetings that
encompassed over 60 hours of training the first year. Third, the ILTs were required to
present the information to their school staffs and facilitate the identification of the
schoolwide instructional focus.
The district’s leadership communication has been clear and explicit with regard to
the organizational goal as well as the strategy to achieve it (FoR). They created a
capacity-building plan to ensure the internal capacity of the organization to continue the
reform work. It has reallocated both human and fiscal capital to prioritize and sustain the
reform. Based on the data, the processes and procedures principals and teachers use to
determine the school’s instructional focus has changed. In addition, there are new
districtwide processes and procedures for the identification, development, and delivery of
professional development.
103
Analysis of Gaps in Knowledge and Skill
To better understand performance gaps due to discrepancies in knowledge and/or
skills, we will frame our examination through the following three areas (p. 50):
communication, procedure, and experience.
Communication.
Lack of knowledge and/or skill in three specific areas led to communication
issues in the GUSD implementation of FoR. These three specific areas are the
understanding of the intention of FoR as a reform initiative, the level of transparency of
reform processes, and the overall knowledge of the changes to the district’s goal
structure.
Intention of reform initiative.
GUSD understood FoR to be a leadership capacity-building model but did not
fully understand until well into the implementation process (Year 3) the degree of change
that would be necessitated at the site level. District administration echoed this sentiment.
The FoR consultants designed the reform implementation to affect every role group to
make them cognizant of the direct impact their work processes have on student
achievement and success. The district effectively transformed their role into a central
services organization in order to remove barriers and provide critical resources to support
the four types of knowledge and skill enhancement described by Clark & Estes (2002, pp.
58-59):
104
• Information about the reform effort and its guiding principles that district
personnel (administrators and teachers) needed to know in order to succeed on
their own;
• Job aids that provided information for district employees to refer to while on the
job to perform the tasks necessary to reach the desired goals;
• Training in the form of monthly districtwide ILT workshops where personnel
acquired “how-to” knowledge and skills (first from the FoR consultants, later
from the internally-staffed writing and presenting teams) as well as the
opportunity to come back to gain corrective feedback on the practice they
implemented at the school sites to help them achieve their work goals; and
• Education necessary for personnel to acquire conceptual, theoretical, and strategic
knowledge and skills that may help them handle novel and unexpected future
challenges.
Communication was also inhibited as a culture of mistrust has intensified over the
course of the FoR implementation. This mistrust is rooted in the perceived true
intentions of FoR and is still prevalent in the district. Interviews revealed a pervasive
“Us” versus “Them” and an “I” versus “We” mentality at all levels of the district. This
tone was evident as well between “he District” and school staff, the Glendale Teachers
Association (GTA) and district administration, between tenured teachers and
probationary teachers, and between principals/site administration and teachers. Some
teachers at every level of instruction in the district expressed the sentiment of the FoR
process being a “conspiracy on the part of the district to evaluate and weed teachers out.”
105
Other teachers shared that they “felt a degree of threat and loss of autonomy, and it has
created huge divisions among the staff and with the principal.”
Knowledge about FoR as a reform initiative and its intentions has not been
disseminated to new personnel in a systematic fashion. The higher degree of professional
isolation at the middle and high school levels compared to the elementary level is due to
deeply rooted norms, beliefs, and traditional practices. The highly collaborative nature
that is the hallmark of FoR is hindered as a result at the middle and high school levels.
The decreased effectiveness of the reform implementation mirrors this hindrance at the
middle and high school levels.
Transparency.
The district-level instructional leadership team (ILT) was created to develop
professional collaboration teams to design the work that would improve teaching and
learning (Focus Area 2, FoR Framework). The district ILT was comprised of members
from across the district, representing all instructional levels (K-12). The ILT met once
per month for a total of 10 times per academic year. These monthly meetings allowed the
ILT to develop all six dimensions of cognition—remember, understand, apply, analyze,
evaluate, create—as described by Anderson & Krathwohl (2006). These meetings were
initially highly structured and facilitated by the FoR consultants in the first two years of
implementation. This provided the opportunity for the ILT to safely explore and master
the higher levels of cognition as they worked as a collective to better understand the FoR
principles, understand how to look for change, and understand how the ILT should center
its reform work on the core principle of having an laser-like focus on instruction.
106
Most importantly, the highly collaborative structure of the districtwide ILT helped
to develop a common language that is now used throughout the district to discuss student
achievement. This sentiment was echoed by virtually all staff members interviewed in
the inquiry. This common language was further developed through the Instructional
Walkthrough (IWT) process. Many staff members interviewed in the inquiry process
considered the Instructional Walkthrough process to be a strong tool by which to examine
instruction more critically. The collaborative processes undertaken to write the
curriculum to present strategies to staff across the district, the actual presentation formats,
and the guides that facilitate the walkthroughs further develop the common language that
improves the quality of the professional conversations that staff members have about
student achievement. Having a common language helps to increase the transparency and
credibility of the processes that propel a reform process forward (Muller, 2004).
Not all teachers, however, engaged in the FoR reform initiative nor were they
versed in the FoR framework, its principles, and how it is directly linked to instruction.
Some teachers even admitted in their interviews that they elected not to participate in the
reform process. Teachers uninvolved in the ILT were less likely to understand the link
between their work in the classroom and the FoR process. These teachers more often
expressed dissenting viewpoints when the district first mandated the implementation of
FoR in 2005.
Across the organization, the feedback loop is not consistent regarding the
implementation of instructional practices. Teachers who did not value the Instructional
Walkthrough (IWT) process dismiss it as a “dog-and-pony show” for the “people in
107
suits” and indicated it was impossible to perform at that level on a daily basis. This is
reflective of inconsistent monitoring by principals to ensure the implementation of the
explicit instructional strategies. Moreover, teachers lack specific feedback from
principals on how to modify their instruction based on the knowledge and skills they
received in trainings. Lack of explicit feedback hinders the trial-and-revise cycles that
Clark & Estes (2002) advocate when helping employees take an innovation or strategy
learned in training and transform it into a commonplace practice.
Feedback given during the districtwide IWTs was anonymous and generalized.
Observers that participated in the walkthroughs were encouraged to write feedback on
Post-It notes that are then consolidated and presented at district ILT meetings. The
collective feedback was given to the school sites that were visited and disseminated
through the principals and site ILTs. Some teachers interviewed in the inquiry process
expressed interest in more specific positive feedback as well as constructive input on
what needs improvement. A department chair at the high school expressed it this way:
“How can I as a teacher improve if I do not know exactly what I did right and what I need
to change? Give feedback. Don’t assume that I don’t want to change. Maybe I just
don’t know what… or how to change it.”
Goal structure.
GUSD leadership clearly articulated that the organizational goals were to 1)
improve the academic achievement of all students and 2) close the achievement gaps
between different student subpopulations in order to raise API scores and meet AYP
108
targets. This was articulated by the vast majority of staff members interviewed at each of
the three school sites we visited along with administrators at the district office.
The global organizational goal is supported through intermediate-level work goals
that require extended periods of time to achieve (but are more specific in their tasks).
The intermediate-level goals in GUSD are the seven areas of focus that comprise the FoR
philosophy.
Defining the work/performance goals were left in the hands of each individual
school site principal and his/her Instructional Leadership Team (ILT). However, staff
interviewed at the three school sites visited in the inquiry did not seem to understand the
direct relationship between the internal, site-specific SMART-e goal attainment and the
implementation of the seven areas of focus that comprise the FoR model. This lack of
understanding seemed to reflect the degree of involvement with the site ILT. Many of
the teachers interviewed in the inquiry process explained that their involvement on the
Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs) gave them a deeper understanding of the FoR
philosophy, its areas of focus, and the implementation plan for the site level. This same
level of understanding was not seen among the teachers not directly affiliated with the
ILT (neither districtwide nor site wide). These non-ILT affiliated teachers were not able
to articulate the alignment of their work goals to the intermediate-level goals –the seven
areas of focus that comprise FoR.
This misalignment of the goal structure at the intermediate and work goal levels
made it difficult for teachers to understand what they were responsible for achieving at
each level of the goal structure. Alignment between the organization and its employees
109
begins with compatible goal structures. Without this initial step, all other attempts to
improve performance are like traveling in the dark to an unknown destination through
dangerous territory (Clark & Estes, 2002, pp. 22-23).
The ultimate objective for performance improvement is that it must support the
larger goals of the organization” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 23). Principals must clarify the
goal structure to help their teachers understand how the work they facilitate both in and
out of the classroom directly supports the implementation of the FoR areas of focus and,
subsequently, help to improve student achievement throughout the district. Principals
must take care to define the big picture for their staffs, to establish how the various
components they engage in on a regular basis through their professional practices –
analyzing student performance data, adopting the schoolwide instructional focus, use and
understanding of specific research-based instructional strategies to enhance student
learning – directly relate to and impact FoR implementation.
Clark & Estes (2002) assert that goal setting is often the missing link in
performance improvement and must be made clear and specific for employees in the
organization so that they work toward achieving the organizational goals rather than their
own. Clark & Estes (2002) describe the need for these work/performance goals to be
concrete, challenging, and current so that they can help employees 1) achieve them
within specific deadlines and criteria (p. 22) and 2) assess if they are succeeding or
failing at achieving them (p. 26).
To assume that the success of the reform implementation would hinge solely on
every single teacher in every school site throughout GUSD being directly involved with
110
the goal setting and planning necessary to implement FoR would be misguided. Clark &
Estes (2002) assert that employees do not need to be a part of the goal setting process in
order to be committed to achieving the goals set for them (p. 23). It is the level of clarity
of the work goal, being able to know if and when the goal(s) are being achieved, and the
rationale behind the work goal that employees should expect to know in an organization
(Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 23).
Across the organization, the feedback loop is not consistent with regard to
implementation of instructional strategies – a major area of focus in the FoR philosophy.
It is assumed that the teachers will fully implement an instructional strategy without need
for additional support.
Procedure.
GUSD made considerable strides to implement the components of the FoR reform
initiative at the district level and established a solid foundation for continued work
toward embedded sustainability. The development of an incremental reform process, in
partnership with FoR, has resulted in the total inclusion of all 31 school sites after three
years of implementation. A substantial, comprehensive 5-year capacity building plan to
ensure training of all staff members was created (See Appendix I). Most importantly, the
reform process saw the conversion of the district office into a central services
organization that provides leadership, support, and guidance by: 1) modeling processes
of establishing district goals; 2) examining student performance data to determine
achievement gaps; and 3) holding principals accountable for increasing student academic
achievement.
111
It is the districtwide expectation that every GUSD staff member be fully versed in
the goal structure and the reform initiative being implemented to support the
organizational goal of improving academic achievement for all students enrolled in the
district. Though this is the expectation from the district level, the induction of new
personnel (probationary teachers, principals, and district administrators) on the tenets and
processes of FoR is not institutionalized. New staff is left to acquire the knowledge and
skills needed to understand and implement FoR philosophy on their own. No orientation
or training is offered at either the district office that would bring these new staff members
to the same level of understanding as the rest of the staff with regard to this reform
initiative. A probationary teacher at the secondary level said, “I don’t know what FoR is
really about – I just know that I want to survive my first years in the classroom. No one
has explained to me what to do and what I’m responsible for.” A probationary teacher at
the elementary level shared: “I joined the staff in January; someone has yet to explain
anything to me about the FoR process.” It is assumed that staff members will intuitively
understand because they are staff members of a district with this comprehensive reform
initiative being implemented.
Experience.
A reform implementation should be so strong, well-defined, and comprehensive
in its scope that even if changes in leadership at individual sites occur, district
administrators declared that a new principal should be able to walk into the building and
know exactly what the reform effort is about and what is being done. Coupled with the
coaching trio, the district administrators were confident that the GUSD principals were
112
provided all the knowledge required to lead the reform effort at the school site they were
charged with leading.
A GUSD administrator initially described the process by which principals were
given the opportunity to volunteer their sites to participate in the implementation of FoR
but later clarified that the reform implementation was really a mandate: “This is what we
will be doing in GUSD. There wasn’t much flexibility of choosing to implement FoR.
Schools that were struggling were encouraged to participate in the initial cohort.”
Early on into the implementation process, the principals requested more support
from the FoR consultants. The FoR consultant and district administrators, in response,
developed the formation of the coaching trios (See Appendix I) after the end of the
second year of implementation. The coaching trio was the smaller collaborative unit in
which the principals gained additional peer support as they faced the day-to-day
challenges of implementation on site. It was designed to allow site administrators the
opportunity to have a safe environment to explore and dialogue, to seek critiques, and to
sound off ideas with each other. The coaching trios also encourage self-reflection—an
essential component for any person building his/her metacognitive knowledge. It is the
awareness of a person’s self-knowledge and thought process that is vital to a strong
educational leader charged with implementing a reform effort to decide, through
reflection, which processes are more beneficial to moving the reform in a forward
direction while at the same time empowering the site staff to participate and offer their
genuine support.
113
Understanding the FoR framework is part of the conceptual knowledge that all
principals must possess to lead the work. The question that remains is exactly how
principals move their staffs from the primary levels on the knowledge dimension (factual
and conceptual knowledge) about the fundamentals of FoR as a reform initiative and
develop the more advanced dimensions of procedural and metacognitive knowledge
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2006) as the reform initiative is internalized.
The district administrators and the FoR consultant we interviewed agreed that the
coaching trios lack structure. The district has not elaborated on what skills they want
their principals to develop when meeting in the coaching trios. This support element has
been redesigned for the 2010-11 school year. Coaching trios now consist of three
principals from the same instructional level who partner to support each other’s
implementation efforts of FoR. A district administrator oversees each trio.
The focus of the dissertation now shifts from the analysis of the root causes of the
performance gaps to the proposed solutions to be offered to GUSD, the focus of the third
chapter. Chapter 3A will provide the context of the role of the district in school reform
and provide a review of literature that will link the findings presented in Chapter 2C to
the specific areas that directly impact the performance gaps and their root causes,
previously addressed in the inquiry analysis. From this review of literature, Section 3B
will present, in the extended solutions summary, the three major recommendations that
the inquiry team has selected as having the greatest potential to best mitigate the
performance gaps of the FoR implementation and therefore enhance the next stage of
implementation for GUSD.
114
CHAPTER THREE: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
Chapter 3A: Expanded Literature Review Related to Solutions with Citations
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
Introduction
The passage of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) ushered in a new wave
of learning standards and performance accountability for students being educated in the
American public system of education. States across the nation rose to this daunting
challenge of ensuring 100% proficiency in content by 2014; however, the Local
Educational Agencies (LEAs), better known as school districts, bore the heavy burden of
responsibility in having to adapt to yet another set of expectations on what student
learning is and how it should be used to hold schools accountable for its academic
performance in helping the nation’s children learn. The reforms instituted by schools
could promote high-quality curricular frameworks, assessments tied to those standards,
and professional development of teachers whose performance would be directed toward
meeting a defined set of objectives (O’Day & Smith, 1993, cited in Schneider & Keesler,
2007, pp. 205-206). This focus on standards was supposed to change the system to
allocate resources in a way… that would ensure all students would receive a high-quality
education and improve their opportunities for learning (Darling-Hammond, 2004, cited in
Schneider & Keesler, 2007, p. 206).
The role of the district office is now more crucial than ever as these reform
initiatives are developed and implemented by school districts. Chrispeels et al. (2008)
contend high levels of student achievement are possible when schools and the district act
115
as coordinated units of change (p. 730). The district office needs to take a more central
role in initiating substantial change – and helping to maintain that change for the better.
Childress, Elmore, & Grossman (2006) assert that district offices must carry out what
[they] call the ‘strategic function’ – that is, they need to develop a districtwide strategy
for improving teaching and learning and to create an organization that is coherent with
the [reform] strategy (p. 59).
District as a Unit of Reform
Districts have a profound affect on how schools function and are often the
deciding factor if a school will be successful in a reform effort (Crandall, 1984; Eubanks
& Levine, 1983; and Fullan 1985). Elmore (2003) states that the school district generally
establishes the educational structures, procedures, expectations, and accountability for all
stakeholders involved in the process of teaching and learning. Thus, school districts are
often viewed as the best vehicle to implement school reform (Elmore, 1993; Marsh,
2002; Hightower, 2002; & Lasky, 2002).
Research also indicates that although some district and school reform efforts have
yielded pockets of excellence in student achievement, districtwide systemic reform can
be difficult (Corbett & Wilson, 1992). Replicating success requires extraordinary
leadership and effort; most teachers and principals do not exhibit the skills necessary to
create effective schools. According to Weiss (2007), “organizing an entire school system
around producing high student achievement requires a thoughtful, systemic approach to
teaching and learning in which standards, curriculum, assessment (both formative and
summative), professional practices, and professional development are carefully designed
116
and mutually reinforcing” (p. 3). Therefore, the district has the resources, and the
responsibility, to develop the capacity of principals, teachers, and staff as well as
organizational systems to support teaching and learning (MacIver & Farley 2003).
According to Anderson (2003), successful districts employ a large repertoire of
strategies to mobilize and support districtwide success in student learning. However, the
effectiveness of these strategies is dependent on the strength of district leadership.
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) found that the total (direct and
indirect) effects of leadership on student learning account for about one-quarter of total
school effects. Thus, central office administrators are crucial in the school improvement
process (Leithwood et. al, 2004; Crandall, 1984; Eubanks & Levine, 1983; & Fullan
1985).
According to Leithwood et al. (2004), there are three basic sets of practices that
are at the core of successful leadership: 1) setting directions, 2) developing people, and
3) redesigning the organization. Clark & Estes (2002) concur with these practices in their
gap analysis model. They state that establishing organizational goals is critical to any
organization for it must have a sense of where they are going. Second, ensuring that
employees posses the appropriate knowledge and skill is critical to accomplishing the
performance goals. Third, organizational structures and cultures that facilitate the work
of organizational members are vital to successful outcomes. Thus, even though these
practices in isolation will not improve performance in an organization, without them no
117
reform strategy will be successful. Consequently, superintendents leading
comprehensive school reform must understand and integrate these basic practices in their
leadership.
To this end, the superintendent as the organizational leader plays a pivotal role in
leading comprehensive school reform (Petersen 2002; Bolman & Deal, 2003). According
to Petersen (2002), the superintendent has influential power over factors that directly
affect teaching and learning. Specifically, the superintendent is able to: 1) direct
districtwide adoption of curriculum, standards and monitor benchmarks; 2) lead the
establishment of goals; 3) development district policy and organizational structures in
support of teaching and learning; and 4) establish expectations and evaluation processes
that ensure staff is accountable for supporting district educational goals.
District-level reform requires leadership from a superintendent that is built to last.
In Good to Great (2001), Collins identified the hierarchy of five levels of leadership that
defines leaders at all levels. A level one leader is a highly capable individual that makes
productive contributions through talent, knowledge, skill, and good work habits. A level
two leader is a team member that contributes to the achievement of the group and works
effectively with others. The level three leader is a competent manager that can organize
people and resources to the effective pursuit of predetermined goals. A level four leader
is an effective leader that can catalyze commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and
compelling vision. The level five leader builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical
blend of personal humility and professional will.
118
There are two sides to a level five leader: professional will and personal humility.
As a professional, a level five leader creates superb results and takes the organization
from good to great; demonstrates unwavering resolve to do whatever it takes to get the
job done; sets the standard for building an enduring great company; and takes personal
responsibility for poor results. This leader also demonstrates great personal humility by
demonstrating compelling modesty by shunning public adulation; acts with quiet
determination and relies principally on standards; sets up successors for greater success;
and attributes success to others in the organization. Collins (2001), states that great
companies begin with “who should be on the bus and in the right seat”. Similarly,
superintendents need to develop the capacity of their district to lead the reform by
building a central office that has the right individual that can support and sustain the
reform.
Alignment of Organizational Goal Structure
According to Fiol & Lyles (1985), the alignment of goals in an organization relies
on the assumption that an organization has “the potential to learn, unlearn, or relearn
based on its past behaviors (p. 804). Organizational performance affects the
organization’s ability to learn and to adapt in a changing environment (Fiol & Lyles,
1985, p. 804). Childress, Elmore, & Grossman (2006) suggest, “district leaders must
come to view their organizations as integrated systems whose interdependent parts are
directly linked to the work of teachers and students in classrooms. Putting a districtwide
strategy into practice requires building a coherent organization that enables people at all
levels to implement their piece of the strategy” (pp. 59-60).
119
As the framework for guiding the rationale for our first recommendation, we
consider the five most common barriers that typically impede a district’s success in
implementing strategic initiatives (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006):
1) Executing the strategy consistently across schools with different characteristics;
2) Creating a coherent organizational design in support of the strategy;
3) Developing and managing human capital;
4) Allocating resources in alignment with the strategy; and
5) Using performance data to guide decisions.
Executing a consistent strategy across the organization.
“Clarity and alignment among the five aspects of organizational life – purpose,
objectives, strategy, structure, and culture – are key to the proper direction of an
organization” (Merron, 1994, p. 52, cited in Semler, 1997, p. 25). In order to achieve this
alignment, the higher leadership of an organization must re-establish organizational,
intermediate and performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). Organizations need to be
goal-driven (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 21). The organizational or global goal must be far-
reaching, ambitious, and have a time span that may stretch beyond many years. Clark &
Estes (2002) contend that performance/work goals must support the greater, global-level
organizational goals (p. 23). However, these two goal levels are often disconnected.
When an organization implements reform initiatives or strategies to obtain the desired
global organizational goals, the reform initiatives can be considered intermediate-level
goals. Intermediate-level goals help make the link between the daily performance goals
120
(of which each member of the organization has direct control) to the long-term goals of
the organization. Most organizations struggle with making this link.
To achieve these [organizational] goals, a district office must develop a coherent,
clearly communicated strategy to help people decide what to do and what not to do
(Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006, p. 60). Without clear goals to work toward,
Clark & Estes (2002) assert that individual employees may lose sight of working to
support the organization and instead work to achieve their own personal goals that may
not necessarily be in alignment with the global organizational-level goals (p. 23). They
do not necessarily have to participate in developing the work goals but the work goals
assigned to them must be clear, challenging, and concise (C
3
) (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Therefore, organizational leadership must determine and define individual performance
goals for role groups (district, principals, and teachers) at different levels of the
organization (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Gaps between the performance of employees and work/performance goals are
natural and desirable consequence of managing performance using cascading goal
systems (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 47). However, if the goals are not set for everyone to
understand, it will not be clear for people to know what they are working toward (Clark
& Estes, 2002). The greater the congruence of perceptions between central office and
school leadership teams regarding these leadership tasks, the more effective the
leadership teams will be in achieving organizational goals (Chrispeels et al., 2008, p.
734).
121
Marsh et al. (2005) contend that districts successful in achieving significant
progress toward reaching intermediate instructional improvement goals–the reform
initiatives–were largely contingent on the implemented strategies being “aligned and
mutually supportive” of the varying perspectives held by different role groups involved
(p. 3). Having an aligned goal structure—and having multiple role groups agree to the
alignment of the goal structure – has the power to minimize frustrations regarding the
reform initiative that Marsh et al. (2005) believe can result in a lack of buy-in to the
implementation process.
A comprehensive focus on a small number of initiatives is also crucial for a
district to achieve the intermediate-level goals for instructional reform (Marsh et al.,
2005, p. 2). With fewer components of the reform initiative on which to have to focus,
the district leadership can send a clear and consistent message to the entire organization.
This enhances the district stance on its priorities and supports the subsequent reallocation
of funds in order to support this prioritized reform initiative. This level of commitment
sends a powerful message to all role groups that may otherwise be wary of how long this
reform initiative will be enacted through the district. Goals at the local/site level
(performance/work goals) can then be developed with an even tighter focus to support the
intermediate (reform) level goals (Marsh et al., 2005).
Re-affirm the establishment of the district and site-level Instructional Leadership
Teams as the primary decision-making or intermediary groups (Marsh et al., 2004)
responsible for making decisions about FoR implementation and the implementation of
the FoR strategy at all sites as the district’s intermediate goal. Thus, seeing a greater
122
importance of what school leadership teams (SLTs) can have a more rapid impact on
change, if you understand how to really facilitate and work with the SLT (p. 740).
Aligning and developing a comprehensive set of strategies can reinforce overarching
instructional improvement goals (Marsh et al., 2004). By adopting the FoR reform
initiative and setting its comprehensive, incremental system of change into play, the ILTs
were well-poised to respond to the new district goals in ways that should have enhanced
system coherence, shared purpose, and student learning (Chrispeels et al., 2008, p. 745).
Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups
According to Clark & Estes (2002), a key factor or cause to consider when staff is
not achieving work/performance goals is to assess whether they have acquired sufficient
knowledge and skills. The organizational gaps in achieving goals are caused by human
performance (Clark & Estes, 2002), thus the imperative is to invest in human skill and
knowledge development (Elmore, 2002). Leaders must create a common culture of
expectations regarding skills and knowledge, and hold individuals accountable for their
contributions to the collective result (Elmore, 2002; DuFour, Eaker & DuFour, (2005).
Unger, Macq, Bredo, & Boelaert (2000) stated that systems reform depends upon training
of field staff, on-the-spot expert coaching, and the promotion of a new organizational
structure.
Training systems.
Continuous training to increase the knowledge and skills of staff is an essential
component of implementation. Training opportunities should continuously inform and
review with participants the organization’s global goal; the intermediate goals (initiative,
123
framework, strategy, curriculum), and work goals (instruction) that are implemented at
the site level. Richard Elmore (2000) observed that learning about improvement occurs in
the growth and development of common understanding about why things happen in the
way they do.
The design of effective professional development to guide the implementation of
an innovation includes five elements: 1) theory, 2) demonstration, 3) practice, 4)
feedback, and 5) coaching (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Kealey, Peterson, Gaul, & Dinh,
2000). The rationale, protocols, and theory for the initiative or program must be
communicated during knowledge acquisition to provide understanding, meaning and
motivation. The content of training will vary depending upon the evidence-based practice
or initiative.
Formal induction system for all new personnel.
In order to sustain knowledge and skills for the practices of reform, it is important
that the organization systematically induct new staff to the culture, expectations, and
policies of that organization. Human Resources typically provides some level of new
employee orientation that informs staff of structures, safety, policies and resources;
however, formal induction should also entail the organization’s vision and mission, and
ensure knowledge transfer of the organization’s mental model or instructional framework
and values and expectations (Robinson, 2003). According to Robinson (2003), induction
processes should play a key role in knowledge management initiatives.
124
Support personnel.
Support personnel such as instructional coaches, department chairs, ILT leaders,
and district office personnel are critical in the implementation of an innovation. Their
commitment is to help novice or struggling staff to develop the knowledge and skills
needed to understand how to embed the instructional changes in the classroom, as well
as, identify the criteria that serve as indicators for others to observe the evidence-based
practices (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Wren & Vallejo, 2009; Spouse, 2001). The
implementation of systems reform depends upon “training support staff, on-the-spot
experts, coaching, and promotion of a new organizational structure” (Spouse, 2001).
Formal knowledge needs to be supplemented with skills and strategies so practitioners
can see the relevance of what they have learned to the situations at hand.
Support staffs add another layer of training and coaching for principals and
teachers as they learn how to implement the components of an initiative or new
instructional strategies. This resource counters the ‘train and hope’ approach (Stokes &
Baer, 1977), when staffs learn new knowledge and skills in a workshop and struggle to
transfer the acquired knowledge into the classroom.
The primary role of a school leadership team is to provide support and peer
coaching to ensure their colleagues have the resources, knowledge, and skills (Marsh et
al., 2005) needed to achieve the site level work performance goals. Like athletes,
teachers will put newly learned skills to use if they are coached (Joyce and Showers,
2002). Effective coaching fosters a blame-free culture where initial attempts are viewed
as valuable learning. Technical coaching, team coaching, and challenge coaching models
125
are used when there is a concern for learning and the implementation of an innovation in
curriculum and instruction (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Resnick & Glennan, 2002). All
coaching models use feedback as a vehicle of improving or changing practice as it
provides information for the teacher on the effectiveness of their implementation of the
new strategy or curriculum (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Spillane, 2006).
School principals and Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs).
The site level provides another induction opportunity that is less formal, but more
detailed and explicit. The ILT must clearly know and inform staff of the components of
the FoR initiative and help staff understand how these objectives serve as a bridge to
connect their classroom practice to the intermediate goal of implementing FoR and the
organization’s goal of high academic achievement for all students. When staff
understands the goals and rationale behind their practice, they are more likely to engage
in the process (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The ILT collaborates and shares the leadership responsibilities so that there is
greater capacity to maintain the instructional focus (Spillane, 2006). The quality of
teaching, learning, and relationships in learning communities depends on the quality of
leadership by principals and teachers who shape conversations by persistently “offering
their values, intentions, and beliefs to others and by expressing themselves in declarative
sentences” (Sparks, 2005, p. 157).
The principal and the ILT deepen the focus on instruction by implementing a
well-designed learning community, which is a powerful and meaningful way to
seamlessly blend teaching and professional learning to produce more complex, intelligent
126
behavior in all teachers (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2003; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005;
Schmoker, 2004; 2005; Sparks, 2005). A professional learning community involves a
systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze data and improve their
classroom practice and instruction (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005). As teams
continually redirect staff to consider multiple sources of data, effective solutions to
challenges for student learning, teacher learning and organizational change are more
likely to emerge through professional collaboration (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2003;
DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Schmoker, 2004, 2005; Sparks, 2005), which is the key
to developing and sustaining goal consensus, shared beliefs, and commitment to reform.
The unifying principle of a professional learning community asserts that educators have
not fulfilled their fundamental purpose until all students have learned at high (proficient)
levels (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Fullan, 2005; Schmoker, 2005; Reeves, 2005).
Instructional walkthroughs.
The Instructional Walkthrough (IWT) process has been portrayed as an effective
and efficient system to collect data regarding instructional practices and provide feedback
(Downey, et al., 2004; Cervone & Martinez-Miller, 2007). Fink & Resnick (2001)
define the instructional or classroom walkthrough as “ an organized observation that
requires the principal or supervisor to frequently visit the classrooms to look for specific
instructional practices (p. 598). The walkthrough process was developed through the
Institute of Learning at the University of Pittsburgh to support the systemic focus on
instructional improvement. A set of nine principles of learning (Resnick, 2008) serves as
an organizing framework for both thinking about and observing learning and instruction.
127
These nine constructs are the heart of the walkthrough process and are designed to help
educators analyze the quality of instruction and opportunities for learning that they offer
to students:
1) Organizing for Effort: A sustained and directed effort can yield high achievement
for all students by re-organizing the organization to evoke and support this effort;
2) Clear Expectations: Expectations for student learning must be defined explicitly
so that all role groups know and understand the benchmarks that indicate each
stage of learning;
3) Fair & Credible Evaluations: assessments, connected to and embedded in the
curriculum, that are used should be fair to students and found credible by the
public. Students are evaluated by measuring progress toward explicit learning
standards;
4) Recognition of Accomplishment: Clear, regular recognition of authentic
accomplishment should be celebrated by all role groups. Work that meets
standards or intermediate progress benchmarks as well as standards-based
assessments should be recognized.
5) Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum: In every subject, at every grade level,
instruction and learning in every subject in every grade level must include
commitment to a knowledge core, high thinking demand, and active use of
knowledge;
6) Accountable Talk
®
: talking with others about ideas and work is fundamental to
learning. Accountable Talk
®
uses evidence-based questioning appropriate to the
128
discipline and follows established norms of good reasoning to sustain
learning;
7) Socializing Intelligence: educators can teach intelligence—a set of problem
solving and reasoning capabilities along with the habits of mind that lead one to
use those capabilities regularly—to all students;
8) Self-management of Learning: students need to develop and regularly use an
array of self-monitoring and self-management strategies. These metacognitive
strategies help students be more self-aware of their role in the learning process;
9) Learning as Apprenticeship: learning environments should be organized so that
complex thinking is modeled and analyzed; mentoring and coaching should be
provided for students as they undertake extended projects and develop
presentations of finished work, both in and beyond the classroom (Resnick, 2008).
The Walkthrough is not designed for evaluation but rather for the purpose of
professional development (Fink & Resnick, 2001). It can be varied to serve different
levels of educational needs. While all walkthroughs are organized to improve learning
and instruction, differing relationships among the individuals participating in the
Walkthrough, and their specific purpose for participating, determine the need for
different walkthrough modes (Resnick, 2001). Observational Walkthroughs are
conducted by the school principal and external observer(s) that come from outside of the
district. Collegial Walkthroughs are conducted by people that serve as colleagues to the
principal or by others who have a shared commitment to the improvement of instruction
and learning in the school. Supervisory Walkthroughs may involve a principal and his or
129
her immediate supervisor. In all three walkthrough modes, the observers closely examine
the learning and instruction process as it relates to the content in which students are
engaged. The focus of discussion for each walkthrough mode is on progress in student
learning. This is tied to the discussion that happens as a result of the walkthrough
process: what support is being offered to teachers so that learning and instruction of
essential content show continuous improvement.
Fink & Resnick (1999) incorporate the Walkthrough as a focal event in the
professional development of principals as instructional leaders. The typical principal day
is often encumbered with numerous management duties, which impedes their active
participation in developing their knowledge of curriculum and to develop their skills as
an instructional leader. Fink & Resnick (1999) designed a professional development
system for principals, calling on the school to be a learning organization that, under its
principal leadership, is continuously improving its capacity to teach children (p. 5). In
turn, the principal is “expected to be an instructional leader in the strongest possible sense
of the term” (p. 6). Thus, the principal must understand the district’s adopted
instructional programs well enough to actively guide teachers in its implementation.
He/she must be able to assess the quality of teaching in order to select and maintain a
strong teaching staff.
Walkthroughs develop a learning community among students, staffs, all levels of
administration, parents and community. Love (2009) emphasizes the value of
opportunities for collaborative inquiry by school staff – especially among teachers – as a
structure to keep the focus on the strengths and need for improvement in instructional
130
practices. Skretta (2007) adds that the time allotted for collaborative reflection (learning
community) after walkthroughs is essential. Successful participation in productive
professional collaboration also increases the capacity of the group to be a professional
learning community –a safe place to ask hard questions about the links between results,
content, and instructional practices. (Cervone and Martinez-Miller, 2007).
Principals as instructional leaders.
The quality of school leadership directly correlates with school and pupil
outcomes (Cotton, 2003; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, Hopkins, 2006a;
Leithwood, & Riehl, 2005; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). Quality of
school leadership is a primary influence on student achievement (Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Principals must balance pressure and support (Elmore,
2000) to ensure the implementation of the innovation so that the goal of increased student
learning can be realized. Effective leaders know not only what to do, but how, when and
why to do it. They understand the impact on student achievement, school staff and
community, and how to adjust their practices to respect the socio-cultural influences
(Waters, Marzano, & McNultry, 2003).
The goal of ongoing training for principals is to increase their capacity as
instructional leaders. Principal training needs to be rigorously challenged and cause them
to question their long-held assumptions and inspire them to embrace new thinking about
leadership, teaching, or learning (Evans & Mohr, 1999). Many studies on school
effectiveness report that instructional leadership is one of the several defining
characteristics of successful school (Waters, Marzano, & McNultry, 2003).
131
A meta-analysis published by the McREL (Mid-Continent for Research and
Learning) Center compiled a list of twenty-one essential skills that comprise their
“Balance Leadership” framework for effective principal leadership. The top five
principal leadership responsibilities include (Waters, Marzano, & McNultry, 2003):
1) Situational awareness - the extent the principal is aware of the details and
undercurrents in the running of the school and to what degree this data is used
to address current and potential problems and barriers;
2) Intellectual stimulation - ensures that teachers and staff are aware of the most
current theories and practices and embeds discussions of these concepts
deeply into the school’s culture;
3) Culture - fosters the development of shared beliefs and the sense of
community and cooperation;
4) Input - involves teachers in the design and implementation of important
decisions and policies;
5) Change agent - willingness to and actively challenges the status quo.
Jim Collins (2001) refers to this type of effectiveness as a level five leader who
demonstrates tenacious professional will and personal humility.
Principal learning is personal yet takes place most effectively while working in
groups (Evans & Mohr, 1999). Coaching for principals is essential to ensure they
develop effective and research-based leadership strategies to improve instruction (Joyce
& Showers, 2002). Coaching reinforces the value of building on one another’s thinking
and of being willing to let go of former assumptions in order to construct new knowledge
132
together (Evans & Mohr, 1999). A culture that emphasis continuous learning and mutual
accountability encourages “lateral accountability” among principals as they collectively
develop their professional learning community (Resnick & Glennan, 2002; Elmore, 2000;
Schlechty, 2002). Principals who engage in coaching sessions deepen their commitment
and determination to do whatever it takes to succeed (Joyce & Showers, 2002).
Sustainability
Educational organizations facing the threat of sanctions and the need to improve
academic achievement for at-risk students are desperately searching for the silver bullet
that will address these concerns. Significant amounts of money and effort are invested in
research-based strategies that have proven to be effective in improving student
achievement, only to fail when other organizations attempt to replicate them. Why is it
that these evidence-based best practices fail to deliver as promised? It is not because they
are not effective but because of an inadequate implementation design. Therefore, in
order to improve or change practices that result in positive outcomes for students,
educational leaders need to know and understand what factors, processes, and practices
are critical to the implementation of any new strategy or reform.
We define implementation as the efforts taken to incorporate a program or
practice in an organization and at the practitioner level. We will present research-based
frameworks and processes that can be used to ensure effective implementation of
programs and practices in districtwide reforms. GUSD’s districtwide initiative, Focus on
Results, affects both organizational structures and individual practice. Therefore, we hope
that GUSD finds the following suggested considerations useful in deepening the
133
implementation and thus yield the benefits that this evidence-based reform strategy can
provide.
Implementation and sustainability.
The identification and development of an implementation framework that can
ensure the implementation of a new strategy or program in an organization is critical
(Fixen et al. 2005; Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Lambert, 2003; Mourshed,
Chiijioke, & Barber, 2010). According to research, successful implementation is vital to
obtaining the desired results from a program or practice and the ability to sustain the
reform over time (Fixen et al. 2005; Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Lambert,
2003; Mourshed, Chiijioke, & Barber, 2010). However, Fixen et al. (2005) found the
science related to implementing evidence-based practices and programs was limited. In
2003, the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health declared the need to
identify processes and contextual factors that can improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of program implementation. Fixen et al. (2005) have developed a
framework for implementation that includes promising processes and practices to address
this need. These practices are research-based and have proven to be successful in other
fields.
First, it is important to understand the complexity of implementing a new program
or strategy. According to Fixen et al., (2005), there is broad agreement that
implementation is a…complex endeavor, more complex than the policies, programs,
procedures, techniques, or technologies that are the subject of the implementation
efforts”(p. 2). Therefore, successful implementation requires not only careful attention to
134
the structures, procedures and processes but also explicit attention as to whom, how, and
where the new initiative will affect the organization. Consequently, thoughtful and
effective execution of implementation strategies at multiple levels of the organization is
critical for it requires transformation of the system, change in human behavior, and the
restructuring of organizational context, which can be particularly difficult to any
organization.
Two critical factors must be in place in order to achieve positive outcomes from
the implementation of a new reform strategy. The reform must be evidence-based and
has proven to be successful in the environment in which it is being implemented. The
effective reform must also be implemented with fidelity. According to Fixen et al.
(2005), ineffective programs can be implemented well and not yield positive results.
Thus, desirable outcome can only be achieved when effective programs are implemented
well.
Second, it is important to know and understand the essential outcomes for the
implementation of any program. Fixen et al. (2005) define organizational
implementation as a specific set of activities designed to put into practice an activity or
program of known dimensions where the implementation processes are purposeful and
are described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the presence
and strength of the specific set of activities related to the implementation (p. 5).
Therefore, the essential implementation outcomes are:
1) Changes in adult professional behavior (knowledge and skills of practitioners
and other key staff members within an organization or system);
135
2) Changes in organizational structures and cultures, both formal & informal
(values, philosophies, ethics, policies, procedures, decision making), to
routinely bring about & support changes to adult professional behavior;
3) Positive changes in relationships to consumers, stakeholders, and systems
partners.
These three outcomes have the potential to have a substantial impact on the core of any
organization for they require shifts in personal behavior as well as organizational values
and beliefs.
Third, Fixen et al.’s (2005) framework identifies three degrees of implementation:
paper, process, and performance. Paper implementation is based on developing new
policies and practices to be implemented in the organization. Process implementation
refers to new procedures or processes to conduct business. Performance implementation
deals with how procedures and processes in a way that result in positive outcomes for the
consumer. All three of these implementation levels are important to GUSD because all
three must be present to achieve effective implementation of FoR.
The process of taking a reform strategy and ensuring that it is embedded in the
day-to-day work of an organization to the point of achieving the desired results can be
daunting and challenging for organizational leaders. Fixen et al., (2005) have identified
six stages that comprise the implementation process. The first stage, exploration and
adoption, deals with finding the right strategy for the organizational problem being
addressed. Program installation, the second stage, establishes all the required resources
and structures necessary to initiate the program. The most complex stage is stage three,
136
initial implementation. It requires change in every aspect of the organization, including
skill level, organizational capacity, and organizational culture. If the initial
implementation is successful, then full implementation (stage four) can occur once the
new learning becomes integrated into practitioner and organizational practices,
procedures, and policies. Stage five, innovation, involves making modifications to the
practice. Many times, practitioners try to modify the practice during the initial
implementation stage, thus affecting implementation fidelity. This can result in failing to
achieving the expected outcomes. Therefore, this should only be done after the practice
has been implemented with fidelity and is operational. The sixth and final stage is
sustainability, the continual capacity building of the organization to ensure the leadership,
funding streams, and program requirement changes.
Fixen et al.’s (2005) conceptual framework for implementation is based on five
essential components:
1) Source (an evidence-based best practice or framework, e.g. FoR);
2) Destination (the individual practitioner and the organization that adopts the
practice, e.g. teachers and schools);
3) Communication link (the individuals who work at implementing the identified
practice with fidelity; e.g. consultants, district leaders, principals, and ILTs);
4) Feedback mechanism (a regular flow of reliable information about
performance of students, teachers, principals, teams, and organizations acted
upon by relevant practitioners (teachers, principals, and district
administrators); and
137
5) Sphere of Influence (social, economic, political, historical factors impinge
directly or indirectly on people, organizations, or systems).
In addition, Fixen et al. (2005) identified ‘implementation drivers’ that are
necessary to accomplish high-fidelity practitioner behavior. These drivers are staff
selection, preservice & in-service, ongoing consultation and coaching, staff & program
evaluation, facilitative administrative support, and systems intervention.
Fixen et al. (2005) found the implementation of a reform effort to be successful
when practitioners were carefully selected and received coordinated training, coaching,
and frequent performance assessments. This includes the infrastructure necessary for
timely training, skillful supervision and coaching, and regular process & outcome
evaluations. Assessment of practitioner performance and program evaluation can be
useful in determining the overall success of the implementation in order to assure
successful integration of the desired practices.
Facilitative administrative support provides leadership the means to obtain the
desired outcomes. This includes the utilization of a variety of data that can inform
decisions and determine if interventions are necessary. Interventions for the
implementation process deals with external forces—fiscal, political, human, and
organizational—that impact successful implementation and, consequently, reform
sustainability. According to Fullan (2005), sustainability is at the heart of any initiative
because the reform strategy is only as good as a district’s ability to obtain successful
outcomes. Fullan (2005) suggests that educational leaders should not focus on a
particular initiative but on the system’s ability to sustain it. Hargreaves and Fink (2006)
138
concur: Sustainability addresses how a particular initiative can be developed without
compromising the development of others in the surrounding environment now and in the
future (p.30). Finally, Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber (2010) found that for the
improvement journey of a system to be sustained over time, the improvement strategy
had to be integrated into the very fabric of the system’s pedagogy.
Mourshed, Chiijioke, & Barber (2010) outline three ways that improving systems
keep getting better. These systems established collaborative practices, they were able to
mediate between the school and the district, and they built leadership capacity for the
future.
Collaborative practice describes how teachers and school leaders work together to
build their own capacity to address the learning needs of all their students. According to
Hargreaves and Fink (2006), sustaining reform requires deep learning about the work and
the individuals in the organization. This includes preserving and advancing the most
valuable aspects of the work over time from one leader to another and creating a culture
of distributed leadership that builds the capacity of others to lead. It also requires the
creation of a fair and diverse environment that not only promotes the growth of material
and human resources but honors and learns from the best of the past to create an even
better future.
Sustainability also requires building the capacity of instructional leaders at all
levels of the organization to become system thinkers that go beyond content knowledge,
teaching strategies and even leadership. According to Fullan (2005) the development of
system thinkers at all levels of the organization is imperative to sustaining reform. These
139
system thinkers interact with larger parts of the system to bring about deeper reform and
help produce other leaders working on the same issue. Building instructional leadership
capacity to become system thinkers involves developing the collective ability of leaders
to bring about positive change by demonstrating the necessary disposition, skills,
knowledge, motivation, and resources (Fullan, 2005).
Lambert (2003), defines leadership as the organizations ability to lead itself and
sustain that effort when key individuals leave, therefore having a profound effect on the
effectiveness and maintenance of an educational reform effort. The ultimate purpose of
leadership in an organization is to broaden the skillful participation of teachers, parents
and students in the work of leadership. When “the principal, a vast majority of the
teachers, and large number of parents and students are all involved in the work of
leadership, then the school will most likely have a high-leadership capacity that achieves
high student performance” (p. 4) and is able to overcome difficult challenges and
transitions.
Conclusion
This literature review examined three areas that school districts should consider
when designing and executing the implementation of a reform initiative or strategy
through its organization: alignment of the organizational goal structure, the knowledge &
skill capacity of the role groups throughout the district most impacted by the reform
initiative, and the efforts made by the district to work toward sustainability of the reform
initiative. These three components are crucial to enhancing the foundation of the reform
implementation plan that has already been in place for a significant period of time (five
140
years). Enhancing these aspects of the reform implementation will strengthen the
foundation of the reform initiative and elevate the district to deeper levels of
implementation, giving the potential to be even more transformative in its impact on
academic success for all students.
From this broad base of research, we now turn to the recommendations we would
like GUSD to consider in working to enhance its current implementation efforts to
support greater success throughout the district. Chapter 3B will present the strengths of
the current FoR implementation and then present, in more detail, the three major
proposed solutions and their rationales for consideration. These three areas are what we
consider to have the greatest impact on the implementation efforts of FoR as GUSD
moves onto the next phase of the reform effort.
Chapter 3B: Summary of Proposed Solutions
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
Introduction
The gap analysis process model has provided the inquiry team with a systematic
method of examining the degree of implementation of the Focus on Results (FoR) reform
initiative throughout Glendale Unified School District (GUSD). Combining our inquiry
analysis with a comprehensive review of relevant research, the performance gaps
currently experienced in the GUSD reform implementation process can now be addressed
by specific, research-based strategies that we present for consideration in this section.
First, we present an overview of the strengths of the current implementation of FoR as
initiated by GUSD. This follows by a presentation of the three major recommendations,
141
along with their rationales, that we suggest for GUSD in order to enhance its reform
implementation efforts.
Strengths of FoR Implementation
The organizational goals for GUSD are to 1) ensure the academic success of all
students by increasing the Academic Performance Index (API) & meet federal Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks; and 2) to close gaps in achievement that persist for
some subpopulations of students enrolled in GUSD. To accomplish these goals, the
GUSD leadership adopted the Focus on Results (FoR) framework in 2005. The purpose
of this inquiry project was to examine how well the district had laid the foundation
required for the implementation of FoR. The Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis process
model was the analytical framework used to identify and classify the performance gaps in
the FoR implementation.
Our inquiry project revealed that the district had created a comprehensive
implementation plan design to build districtwide capacity in an effort to implement and
sustain the reform. The analysis discovered that the district had:
• Clearly articulated the organizational goals: to increase the API and AYP and
close the achievement gap;
• Designed/implemented a comprehensive five-year capacity building plan;
• Secured a supplemental grant to wholly finance the implementation process;
• Developed a common language to discuss student achievement;
• Created the Instructional Walkthrough process to monitor the districtwide
implementation of the instructional focus and chosen instructional strategies;
142
• Developed Instructional Leadership Teams at each school site which increased the
level of collaboration throughout the district;
• Converted the district office into a central services organization; and
• Worked to increase the internal capacity of GUSD staff to design and lead
professional development.
The process that GUSD has taken to establish FoR as the change initiative is very
strong. Each of these components, on their own, are very intensive and have required
significant commitments of time, personnel, and financial resources. GUSD has not only
been able to establish these components but has done so in a sequential fashion that has
allowed the effort to support itself and strengthen it. This strong foundation is necessary
to support academic success of all students. However, our inquiry analysis revealed three
specific performance gaps that, if addressed, can help to deepen and sustain the GUSD
implementation of FoR.
Summary of Performance Gaps
According to Clark & Estes (2002), the three ‘Big Causes’ (p. 43) of performance
gaps are: people’s knowledge and skill, their motivation to achieve the goal, and barriers
that persist in the organization. Our inquiry uncovered that in the area of knowledge and
skill, performance gaps resulted from both the lack of an institutionalized training and
induction process for new staff as well as the lack of specific feedback to teachers during
the site instructional walkthroughs.
With respect to motivation, the first performance gap is based on the
misperception as to the choice of selecting FoR as the reform initiative to implement
143
through the district. District leadership felt that site staff had a choice to identify the
instructional focus and the instructional strategies; in other words, the way that the reform
would be implemented at the site was left to the site staff. Site-level staff felt they were
directed to implement the FoR framework, therefore all work involved with
implementing FoR was therefore a district mandate. Both positions are true; however,
the misinterpretation from both role groups created a motivational barrier in some
instances to the degree of reform implementation. District leadership failed to
communicate two important points. The first was that the implementation of FoR was
not a choice, that eventually the entire district was going to implement the reform.
Second, the individual sites had a choice as to determine the instructional focus and the
instructional strategies to be implemented schoolwide. The second performance gap in
motivation was based on some teachers feeling that they were already doing the
processes being asked of them in the reform implementation and that there was no need
to spend the funding required for implementation of the work. These teachers chose not
to participate in the reform process and therefore did not invest the mental effort to get
the job done as required by the reform implementation.
In the area of organizational barriers, the analysis uncovered that the intermediate-
level goal was not defined. Determining goal alignment is a critical step in the gap
analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2002). The global-level organizational goals and the
site-level work performance goals were clear, but the intermediate goal—to implement
FoR as the reform initiative—was not made explicit to all role groups in the district. The
second gap revealed a lack of commitment to the sustainability of the reform. Several
144
significant administrative changes were scheduled to take place at the site and district
level after the sixth year of implementation; staff felt that there might be a change of
focus once those administrative changes were made. Some teachers also expressed the
concern that another new change idea would come around, supplanting FoR, so why
invest so much time and energy if the change effort would once again change so soon?
The third organizational barrier was the lack of a districtwide evaluation done for the FoR
implementation to determine whether the reform needed additional support and direction
to ensure its successful and continued implementation.
Recommendations to the District
We offer three recommendations for GUSD to consider: 1) ensure the alignment
of organizational goal structure; 2) work to build the knowledge/skill capacity of role
groups; and 3) develop a plan for reform sustainability.
Recommendation 1: Ensure alignment of organizational goal structure.
We found that the vast majority of individuals working throughout GUSD could
clearly identify the global organizational goals and could explain the site-specific
SMART-e goals. However, the work being done by teachers in their classrooms could
not be linked to the implementation of FoR, the intermediate-level goal. It is not
uncommon that individuals within an organization fail to make the connection between
high-level goals and the specific team/individual goals.
The gap analysis model provides a structure that identifies a disparity between the
site work performance goals and the global organization goals. This information assists
the organizational leadership in constructing a plan to improve outcomes. GUSD must
145
align the goal structure by re-establishing organizational, intermediate and performance
goals throughout the district (Clark & Estes, 2002). This will help in setting direction,
one of the three key leadership practices necessary for moving a reform forward
(Leithwood & Riehl, 2003, Leithwood et al., 2004).
If goals are not set for everyone to understand, it will not be clear for people to
know what they are working toward (Clark & Estes, 2002). Clark & Estes (2002) assert
that employees do not need to be a part of the goal setting process in order to be
committed to achieving the goals set for them (p. 23). It is the level of clarity of the work
goal, being able to know if and when the goal(s) are being achieved, and the rationale
behind the work goal that employees should expect to know in an organization (Clark &
Estes, 2002, p. 23). This way, the chances of individuals working toward their own
personal goals are minimized.
We believe the link between what is being done in the classroom and how this
work is linked to FoR can be better articulated for all role groups throughout GUSD.
Individual performance goals that are concrete, challenging, and current (C
3
) must be
determined and defined (Clark & Estes, 2002) for role groups at different levels of the
organization (district, principals, and teachers). The individual performance goals should
ultimately support the establishment of the schoolwide instructional focus and the
implementation of relevant instructional practices in all classrooms, both intermediate-
level goals that are two of the areas of focus advocated in FoR.
Aligning and developing a comprehensive set of strategies can reinforce
overarching instructional improvement goals (Marsh et al., 2004). We are aware that the
146
district has committed to working toward this for the 2010-11 school year. Though it is
the primary role of the site principals to be able to communicate and translate the vision
for their staffs, training the ILTs to be able to help site staffs understand the goal structure
should be a district priority. By adopting the FoR reform initiative and setting its
comprehensive, incremental system of change into play, the ILTs were well-poised to
respond to the new district goals in ways that should have enhanced system coherence,
shared purpose, and student learning (Chrispeels et al., 2008, p. 745). Chrispeels et al.
(2008) go on to explain how this coherence impacts goal attainment: [t]he greater the
congruence of perceptions between central office and school leadership teams regarding
these leadership tasks, the more effective the leadership teams will be in achieving
organizational goals (p. 734).
Although we acknowledge the strong level of reform implementation thus far in
GUSD, we must keep in mind that prioritization of FoR must also be complemented by
sending a clear and consistent message about district priorities and by channeling limited
district and school resources to a finite number of areas (Marsh et al., 2004, p. 2). GUSD
needs to modify and update their graphic mental model that clearly depicts the FoR
framework and the cascading goals. It is vital that all stakeholders at every level
understand the organization goal structure and actively link their role at a school or in the
district to achieving the goals at every level. The district instructional leadership team
(ILT) needs to provide specific training to increase their understanding of the goal
structure, as well as, offer effective strategies to communicate understanding with site
staff.
147
Recommendation 2: Build knowledge/skill capacity of GUSD role groups.
Knowledge systems are one of the most important factors in achieving the
organization goals. It is crucial that each role group is provided ongoing information,
training, and coaching to ensure the implementation of the reform initiative is done with
fidelity. Training and coaching support are significant activities to increase the
knowledge/skill capacity of all staff. Joyce and Showers (2002) concluded that the
objectives of both training and coaching mirror each other and that professional
development plans and leadership need to embed coaching into the training component to
ensure knowledge transfer occurs when participants return to their school site. Clark &
Estes (2002) identifies lack of sufficient knowledge/skill as a cause for performance gaps.
Knowledge and skills provide the what, when, where, who, how and why information. A
gap analysis is helpful is assessing this need as people are often unaware of their own
lack of knowledge or skill or are reluctant to disclose their need for training and support
(p. 44).
As the project inquiry team interviewed the members of various role groups, a
consistent theme emerged indicating a significant gap in critical information among
teachers, principals and district leadership. Teachers have varied levels of involvement
with FoR. Some choose not to participate. They do not realize how to link their work to
FoR principles and implementation. Some teachers claim the FoR principles are already
a part of their teaching repertoire—but they cannot articulate how they link together.
Principals are instructional leaders who must enhance guidance and standardization, [can
produce] faithful implementation of program-specific teaching regimes, without leading
148
to negative results, such as decreased teacher motivation (Rowan and Miller, 2007, pp.
287-288).
Furthermore, there was lack of awareness or clarity of how the reform initiative
directly linked to their classroom practice. The knowledge and skill gap was also
demonstrated by the lack of a specific induction plan for new personnel at neither the
district or site level. It was learned that grade level teachers did not provide a specific
orientation of the FoR framework that links the work performance goals to the
organization goal. It was assumed that new staff would catch on eventually or that they
would figure it out by being part of the staff.
The gap analysis also disclosed the inconsistent practice among principals for
providing meaningful feedback related to the ILT-selected instructional strategies in the
classroom. Teachers expressed the need for validation of their best practices as well as
guidance and support that could help them improve. Staff expressed a greater desire for
more explicit feedback that would help them achieve their performance goals.
Performance goals need to be monitored with regular observation and feedback so staff
may improve their efforts of success (Clark & Estes, 2002). Feedback is one of the most
important elements in learning, improving, and refining an innovation.
While districtwide Instructional Walk Throughs (IWT) were regularly scheduled,
the desired feedback was inconsistent, vague, and created uncomfortable reactions among
teachers as they wondered about their performance. This attitude may have contributed
to the inconsistent implementation of the reform initiative among classrooms and schools.
Without a clear understanding of the goal alignment, explicit feedback to validate or
149
improve best practices, the IWTs did not achieve their full capacity or the intended
outcomes consistently.
The project inquiry team proposes five steps to enhance teacher and principal
efficacy and ensure that all role groups have sufficient knowledge and skill to accomplish
the work and FoR intermediate goals:
Develop a formal induction system
While GUSD has provided ongoing information and some training in the FoR
components incrementally over the past five years, designing a formal induction process
for new staff would ensure transfer of knowledge and increase fidelity of the
implementation process. Induction opportunities must be offered regularly so that new
staff is trained very shortly after they join the organization. When new employees join
the GUSD staff, in addition to the typical orientation agendas (policy, protocols, safety),
the district personnel should present the instructional mental model – the graphic that
displays the three levels of goals and defines the strategies and tactics within each one. It
is imperative for the sustainability of the FoR reform that everyone, everywhere is knows
the district’s value for professional learning, collaboration and instructional focus. New
staff needs to know the ILT structures and be directed to meet with them at the site.
Support personnel
Support personnel such as instructional coaches, department chairs, ILT leaders,
and district office personnel are critical in the implementation of an innovation. Their
commitment is to help novice or struggling staff to develop the knowledge and skills
needed to understand how to embed the instructional changes in the classroom, as well
150
as, identify the criteria that serve as indicators for others to observe the evidence-based
practices (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Wren & Vallejo, 2009; Spouse, 2001). Perceived
value and effectiveness of interactions were greater when coaches tailored their work to
school and/or teacher needs and advised teachers about instruction (Marsh et al., 2004, p.
2).
An effective coaching model is critical to support novice or struggling teachers
and principals in the implementation process. Both technical and team coaching models
would be beneficial to support the implementation of an innovation in curriculum and
instruction (Joyce & Showers, 2002). The principals and ILTs could be trained in
coaching protocols that include supervision and monitoring of the instructional focus,
teaching and modeling while engaged in practice activities, offering meaningful
assessment and feedback, and providing emotional support (Spouse, 2001). This would
increase the capacity of site leadership to provide ongoing coaching so staff would
understand more deeply how the seven components of FoR are implemented at their
particular site and reinforce the focus on the SMART-e goals for student achievement.
Many districts decide to hire professionals (instructional coaches) to lead
instruction in literacy, math and science to provide ongoing, job-embedded professional
development to the classroom teachers (Sturtevant, 2003). Under pressure for high
achievement, many schools are recognizing the need for site-based, content-specific
expertise to guide improvements in curriculum and instruction (Wren & Vallejo, 2009).
There is sufficient evidence that the knowledge and talent of the classroom teacher is one
151
of the most important variables influencing academic success for students (Elmore, 2002;
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004).
Principal and instructional leadership team
The analysis of data from staff interviews revealed the varying levels of
knowledge and commitment among staff members. While district and site ILT members
demonstrated greater knowledge, skill, and active engagement in the FoR principles, non-
participants seemed to have less understanding of the intermediate goal and its
connection to the performance work goals and the organizational goal. School ILTs
could better mitigate this distancing by establishing a specific plan to induct new staff
and refresh site staff in their understanding of the rationale and instructional focus. This
type of informal induction provides site-specific details about that would serve as another
layer of training and peer coaching to enhance implementation fidelity. As the ILT
collaborates and shares the leadership responsibilities by recruiting all team members to
increase participation, there is greater school wide capacity to maintain the instructional
focus (Spillane, 2006).
School leadership teams need to be part of a broader communication bridge with
the central office, rather than indirectly through the principal. The creation of a more
formal linkage and communicative relationship may allow for more explicit discussions
of team and district theories of action, thus increasing an important opportunity for
collective dialogue and greater co-construction of the reforms (Datnow et al., 2006;
Hubbard et al., 2006, cited in Chrispeels et al., 2008, p. 744).
152
Instructional walkthroughs
Instructional Walkthroughs (IWTs) are a viable process that ensures increase
accountability and fidelity of the instructional focus (Graf & Werlinich, 2002). While the
IWT is intended to gather school wide data regarding school climate and efficacy in
instructional practices, many GUSD teachers requested that they receive more explicit
feedback that informed them about their classroom practice. In the tone of a professional
learning community, the IWT should be non-judgmental, non-evaluative and inquiry-
based using multiple forms of data. The feedback should validate best practices, as well
as provide considerations for ways to improve implementation fidelity and classroom
instruction. This requires cultivating professionally safe, supportive, honest, and trusting
relationships.
Principals as instructional leaders
Principals are the gatekeepers of change, whether intentionally or due to lack of
knowledge and skill. They are also the barometers of academic achievement; therefore, it
behooves the organization to invest many resources to help each principal achieve full
capacity as an instructional leader as school leadership is strongly correlated with student
achievement (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, Hopkins, 2006a). The role of the
principal has changed and many may not have sufficient knowledge and skill in the
twenty-one key McREL responsibilities required of effective principals (Waters,
Marzano, & McNultry, 2003). District leadership may provide principals with additional
knowledge in prioritizing school tasks so that they find substantial time to be in
153
classrooms to coach, mentor, support, and provide resources to build trusting
relationships and increase teacher capacity.
A more structured peer coaching system for principals should be developed by
district leadership to increase principal capacity to lead change and implement the reform
initiative. A consideration would be to create principal trios that meet regularly, conduct
IWTs at each other’s sites, and disclose their needs for additional information to
strengthen their efforts in being an effective school leader. This type of informing
coaching relationships allow each individual to hear new ideas, reflect on different
possibilities, and confront their personal assumptions and stereotypes. This would also
increase cooperation among schools by acknowledging and learning from each other’s
strengths and strengthening perceived or real weaknesses. When a collective mentality is
nurtured, the culture transitions and emerges into a higher-level professional learning
community.
Recommendation 3: Stay the course! Work to sustain the reform.
Clark & Estes (2002) proposed that when organizations make informed decisions
using the most current research evidence, it increases the chances that the chosen
performance improvement program will success.
Turnover in leadership at all levels of the district (superintendent & leadership
cabinet, principals, staff ILT leaders) and the end of the supplemental grant that provided
districtwide training and collaboration threaten the sustainability of FoR and may support
the notion that it is “just another reform” that will disappear as soon as the next novel
154
idea is popularized. District leadership needs to reaffirm its commitment to the FoR
initiative.
The second threat facing the reform is the major turnover in leadership at the
district and site levels. Staying the course and deepening the implementation is a
practical cost-effective choice for GUSD. Implementation of a multi-level
comprehensive reform like FoR in a large organization like GUSD takes time. According
to research, successful implementation is at the heart of getting the desired results from a
program or practice and the ability to sustain the reform over time (Fixen et al. 2005;
Fullan, 2005; Lambert, 2003; Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Mourshed, Chijioke, and
Barber, 2010).
It is important to understand the complexity of implementing a new program or
strategy. According to Fixen et al., (2005), there is broad agreement that implementation
is a…complex endeavor, more complex than the policies, programs, procedures,
techniques, or technologies that are the subject of the implementation efforts (p. 2).
Therefore, successful implementation requires not only careful attention to the
structures, procedures and processes but also explicit attention as to whom, how, and
where the new “initiative” will affect the organization. Consequently, thoughtful and
effective execution of implementation strategies at multiple levels of the organization is
critical for it requires transformation of the system, change in human behavior, and the
restructuring of organizational context, which can be particularly difficult to any
organization.
155
Though these obstacles to reform would stop any other district from proceeding
forward, we feel that GUSD has established such a strong foundation for its reform
implementation that it should stay the course and proceed forward, being mindful of the
rough road ahead that it will face: demands from Race To The Top (RTTT) legislation,
severe budget constraints, tepid relationship with the unions of its classified and
certificated staff, and the increasing proficiency requirements under NCLB. A strong,
multi-faceted sustainability plan will help GUSD mitigate these obstacles and help all
students achieve academic success.
As GUSD evaluates their progress for the past five years and measures for
implementation fidelity, they will be able to construct explicit next steps to deepen the
reform effort and achieve their greatest goal for academic success for each and every
student in their classrooms. The project inquiry team proposes the following eight steps
for GUSD to consider in developing a plan for reform sustainability:
• Ensure leadership at all levels of the organization can define the ‘big picture’ for
staff;
• Re-establish staff’s belief in the goal structure to increase task value;
• Reaffirm its commitment to the FoR reform initiative under the leadership of the
new Superintendent;
• Use the developed rubrics to measure the degree of implementation for each
GUSD site – ILT, school staff, and district administrators;
• Establish mentoring system between schools for reform support.
156
School teams who are efficacious in the reform effort would partner with another site that
shares a common instructional focus to share strategies and ideas. All role groups must be
able to harness social capital – “the formal and informal ties with others and the degree of
trust, shared norms, and expertise that characterizes those ties” (Honig & Coburn, 2008,
p. 598) as they interact with one another through the district.
• Acknowledge group efficacy by explicitly celebrating the growth in student
achievement outcomes across all schools;
• Mitigate perceptions of threats/“ill-intent” (evaluation vs. coaching); and
• Symbolically create a ‘new beginning’ by creating a digital message on portable
medium (DVD) where the new Superintendent presents his views on FoR and the
reform implementation:
o acknowledges the hard work, talents, commitment, and other virtues that
have occurred over the past five years;
o validates the leadership of the ILTs and team members;
o outlines the district human and fiscal resources that will support the
implementation of the FoR reform;
o reaffirms the team’s commitment to continuing the collaborative approach
for implementation, including ILTs, site-based professional development,
the use of data to inform and modify instruction, to reinforce the
instructional focus; and
157
o reinforces the importance of positive, caring relationships based on open
communication, trust, support and willingness to problem-solve
differences together.
Human capital.
There is one thing that is common to every individual, relationship, team, family,
organization, nation, economy, and civilization throughout the world---one thing
which, if removed, will destroy the most powerful government, the most
successful business, the most thriving economy, the most influential leadership,
the greatest friendship, the strongest character, the deepest love. On the other
hand, if developed and leveraged, that one thing has the potential to create
unparalleled success and prosperity in every dimension of life. Yet it is the least
understood, most neglected, and most underestimated possibility of our time.
That one thing is trust (Covey, 2006, p. 1).
Though it is crucial to close the gaps in the aforementioned three areas, the
foundation of the reform plan must always be maintained. The impact of human capital
must not be disregarded in this implementation process. The reform will continue to
persist when all GUSD role groups feel a sense of collective ownership about the reform
initiative and process, when the process is transparent, and fosters collegiality among
members. The working relationships that support the foundation of the reform effort (and
go toward ensuring the individual components of the reform process will persist) must be
based on trust and mutual respect. District leadership must be mindful of the impact of
human capital upon the overall success of the reform effort – and the ability of the effort
to be sustained for years to come.
158
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Academic Performance Index (API): A number summarizing the performance of a
group of students, a school, or a district on California’s standardized tests. A
school’s number (or API score) is used to rank it among schools of the same type
and among the 100 schools of the same type that are most similar in terms of
students served, teacher qualifications, and other factors.
Accountability: The notion that people or an organization should be held responsible for
improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for their
success or lack of success in doing so.
Achievement Gap: A consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between certain groups of children and children in other groups. The data
documents a strong association between poverty and students’ lack of academic
success as measured by achievement tests. And while poverty is not unique to any
ethnicity, it does exist in disproportionate rates among African Americans and
Latinos. The reasons for the achievement gap are multifaceted. They do to some
degree stem from factors the children bring with them to school; however, other
factors contribute to the gap stem from students’ school experiences.
Achievement Test: A test to measure a student’s knowledge and skills.
Action Research: Systematic investigation by teachers of some aspect of their work in
order to improve their effectiveness. Involves identifying a question or problem
and then collecting and analyzing relevant data. (Differs from conventional
research because in this case the participants are studying an aspect of their own
159
work and they intend to use the results themselves.) For example, a teacher might
decide to give students different assignments according to their assessed learning
styles. If the teacher maintained records comparing student work before and after
the change, he would be doing action research. If several educators worked
together on such a project, it would be considered collaborative action research.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Adequate Yearly Progress is a set of annual
academic performance benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and
subpopulations of students are supposed to achieve if the state receives funding
under Title I, Part A of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Alignment: The degree to which assessments, curriculum, instruction, textbooks and
other instructional materials, teacher preparation and professional development,
and systems of accountability all reflect and reinforce the educational program’s
objective and standards.
Assessment: Another name for a test. An assessment can also be a system for testing and
evaluating students, groups of students, schools or districts.
At-risk Students: Students who have a higher-than-average probability of dropping out
or failing school. Broad categories usually include inner-city, low-income, and
homeless children; those not fluent in English; and special needs students with
emotional or behavioral difficulties. Substance abuse, juvenile crime,
unemployment, poverty, and lack of adult support are thought to increase a
youth's risk factor.
160
Benchmark: A detailed description of a specific level of student achievement expected
of students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels.
California Standards Test: Tests that are a part of the Standards Testing and Reporting
(STAR) program and are based on the state’s academic content standards.
Cohort: A particular group of people with something in common. For instance, a cohort
might be a group of students who had been taught an interdisciplinary curriculum
by a team of junior high school teachers. Researchers might want to track their
progress into high school to identify differences in success of students in the
cohort compared with students who had attended conventional classes in the same
school.
Comprehensive School Reform: An approach to school improvement that involves
adopting a design for organizing an entire school rather than using numerous
unrelated instructional programs. New American Schools, an organization that
promotes comprehensive school reform, sponsors several different designs, each
featuring challenging academic standards, strong professional development
programs, meaningful parental and community involvement, and a supportive
school environment.
Continuous Progress: A system of education in which individuals or small groups of
students go through a sequence of lessons at their own pace, rather than at the
pace of the entire classroom group. Continuous progress has also been called
individualized education or individualized instruction and is one version of
mastery learning. In continuous-progress programs, able and motivated students
161
are not held back, and students take on new lessons only if they show they have
the prerequisite skills. A criticism, however, is that unmotivated students often
progress more slowly than they would in regular classes.
Core Academic Standards: The basic academic standards that are assessed in the
statewide testing system for K-12 public schools.
Corrective Action (Sanctions): A plan to improve low-performing schools. Under the
federal No Child Left Behind Act, when a school or school district does not make
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the state will place it under a corrective action
plan.
Criterion-Referenced Test: A test that measures specific performance or content
standards along a continuum from total lack of skill to excellence. These tests
also have cut scores that determine whether a test-taker has passed or failed the
test or has basic, proficient or advanced skills.
Curriculum: The course of study offered by a school or district.
Disaggregated Data: The presentation of data broken into segments or smaller groups.
Data Driven Decision Making: The process of making decisions about curriculum and
instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and data and standardized test
data. Data driven decision-making uses data on function, quality, and quantity of
inputs and how students learn suggest educational solutions.
Disaggregated Data: Test scores or other data divided so that various categories can be
compared. For example, schools may break down the data for the entire student
population (aggregated into a single set of numbers) to determine how minority
162
students are doing compared with the majority, or how scores of girls compare
with those for boys.
Educational leadership: Leadership in formal educational settings. It draws upon
interdisciplinary literature, generally, but ideally distinguishes itself through its
focus on pedagogy, epistemology and human development. In contemporary
practice it borrows from political science and business. Debate within the field
relates to this tension.
Educational organization: Organization within the scope of education. It is a common
misconception that this means it is organizing educational system; rather, it deals
with the theory of organization as it applies to education of the human mind.
Formative Assessment: Any form of assessment used by an educator to evaluate
students’ knowledge and understanding of particular content and then used to
adjust instructional practices accordingly toward improving student achievement
in that area.
High-stakes Testing: A test that results in some kind of consequence for those who score
low, some kind of reward for those who score high or both.
Intervention Program: Program(s) that provide extra support and resources to help
improve student or school performance.
Instructional Leadership: Actions or behaviors exhibited by an individual or group in
the field of education that are characterized by knowledge and skill in the area of
curriculum and instructional methodology, the provision of resources so that the
school’s mission can be met, skilled communication in one-on-one, small-group
163
and large-group settings, and the establishment of a clear and articulated vision
for the educational institution.
Lateral Accountability: Mutual accountability to a peer group (e.g. principals in a
coaching trio).
Low-performing schools: Schools, almost always located in urban or low-income rural
areas, in which an unacceptably low proportion of students meet established
standards, as indicated by test scores. Also called failing schools. Some observers
believe it is unfair to call such schools failing because, they say, the real failure is
society's for allowing the social conditions that hamper student learning. Others
point out that some schools, called effective schools, succeed in teaching low-
income children, so others could do it too. Because policies increasingly focus on
such schools, and because test scores usually vary from year to year rather than
going steadily up or down, state and national officials have devoted considerable
attention to procedures for deciding which schools should be declared “low-
performing”.
Multiple Measures: An approach that relies on more than one indicator to measure a
student’s academic strengths and weaknesses.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA programs
provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools.
164
Mentoring: A developmental relationship between a more experienced mentor and a less
experienced partner referred to as a mentee or protégé. Usually - but not
necessarily - the mentor/protégé pair will be of the same sex.
Norm-Referenced Assessment: An assessment in which an individual or group’s
performance is compared to a larger group.
Percentile Ranks: One method to compare a student, class, school or district to a
national norm by ranking them according to how they scored on a given test
compared to others who took the same test with the 99th percentile rank being the
highest.
Performance Assessment: Also referred to as alternative or authentic assessment.
Requires students to generate a response to a question rather than choose it from a
set of possible answers provided for them.
Performance Standards: Standards that describe how well or at what level students
should be expected to master the content standards.
Professional Development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to acquire the
knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully.
Proficiency: Mastery or ability to do something at grade-level.
Program Improvement: An intervention under the No Child Left Behind Act for
schools and districts that receive federal Title I funds when for two years in a row
they do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of having all
students proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
165
Reform Strategies: Strategies used by superintendents/system leaders to improve
student performance. USLI has identified ten key change levers that are worthy of
study: curriculum, assessment, professional development, human resource system
and human capital management, finance and budget, communications,
governance/board relations, labor relations/contract negotiations, family and
community engagement, and strategic plan.
Sampling: In education research, the administration of a test to and analyzing the test
results of a set of students who, as a group, represent the characteristics of the
entire student population. Based on their analysis of the data of the representative
sample, 22 researchers, educators, and policymakers can infer important trends in
the academic progress of an individual or group of students.
School Board: A locally elected group, usually between three and seven members, who
set fiscal, personnel, instructional, and student-related policies. The governing
board also provides direction for the district, hires and fires the district
superintendent, and approves the budget and contracts with employee unions.
School District: A local education agency directed by an elected local board of
education that exists primarily to operate public schools.
Scientifically Based Research: Research that involves the application of rigorous,
systemic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge
relevant to educational activities.
166
Self-efficacy: The belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions
required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy, which is the power to
produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the belief (however
accurate) that one has the power to produce that effect.
Significant Subgroup: A group of students based on ethnicity, poverty, English Learner
status, and special education designation. Socioeconomically Disadvantaged:
Students whose parents do not have a high school diploma or who participate in
the free/reduced price meal program because of low family income.
Standardized Test: A test that is the same format for all takers. Relies heavily or
exclusively on multiple-choice questions.
Standards: Degrees or levels of achievement based on grade level curriculum.
Superintendent: Chief administrator of a school district selected and evaluated by the
district’s board of education and responsible/accountable for all school district’s
operations and management.
Title I: A federal program that provides funds for educationally disadvantaged students
based on the number of low-income students in a school.
Valid: An adjective that describes the efficacy of a test.
Value-added Systems of Accountability: Models that attempt to measure the value
added by an individual teacher or school to students’ performance over
167
REFERENCES
Anderson, S. E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature. Ontario, Canada: International Center for Educational Change,
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New
York, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Aud, S., Fox, M., & Kewal-Ramani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of
racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Autor, D. H., Levy, F. & Murnane, R. J. (2003, November). The skill content of recent
technological change: an empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
118(4), 1279-1333.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Barth, R. (2004). Learning by Heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barth, R. (1991). Restructuring schools: some questions for teachers and principals. Phi
Delta Kappan, 73(2), 123-128.
Barth, R. (2005). Turning book burners into lifelong learners. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R.,
& DuFour, R. (Eds.). On common ground: The power of professional learning
communities (pp. 115-134). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boulding, K. E. (1989). The three faces of power. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2003, March). Trust in schools: A core resource for school
reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-45.
168
Cal Facts 2006. (2006, August 6). California's economy and budget in perspective.
Retrieved January 31, 2010, from California Legislative Analyst's Office Web
site: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2006/cal_facts /2006_calfacts_econ.htm
California Department of Education. (2009). 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress report
information guide. Retrieved February 10, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
ta/ac/ay/documents/infoguide09.pdf
California Department Of Education. (2009). Data and statistics. Retrieved February 8,
2010, from California Department of Education Web site: http://cde.ca.gov/ds
Cervone, L. & Martinez-Miller, P. (2007, Summer). Classroom walkthroughs as a
catalyst for school improvement. Leadership Compass, 4(4). Retrieved from
http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Leadership_Compass/2007/ LC2007v4n4a2.pdf
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., & Grossman, A. (2006, November). How to manage urban
school districts. Harvard Business Review, 1-14.
Chrispeels, J. H., Burke, P. H., Johnson, P., & Daly, A. J. (2008). Aligning mental
models of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education
and Urban Society, 40(6), 730-750. doi: 10.1177/0013124508319582
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Business.
Covey, S. (2006). The speed of trust. New York: Free Press.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide for selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1992). The central office role in instructional
improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(1), 45-68.
Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001, September). The district role in
instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78-84.
Cotton, K. (1995), “Effective Schooling Practices: A Research Synthesis 1995 Update,”
NW Regional Educational Laboratory, http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/esp/es/
95toc.html
169
Crandall, D. P., & Eiseman, J. W. (1983). Coordinating assistance in school improvement
efforts: issues to consider. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 93, 63-71.
Cuban, L. (1989, June). The ‘at-risk’ label and the problem of urban school reform. Phi
Delta Kappan, 70(10), 780-784, 799-801. Retrieved July 15, 2010 from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404031
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: a competent teacher for every child.
Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-200.
Darling-Hammond, L., (1999, December). Teacher quality and student achievement: a
review of state policy evidence. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Retrieved on December 14, 2008 from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/
LDH_1999.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers
College Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153.
Datnow, A., Park , V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2006). Achieving with Data: How High-
Performing School Systems Use Data to Improve Instruction for Elementary
Students.” Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California. Available at:
http://www.newschools.org/viewpoints/AchievingWithData.pdf
David, J. L., (2008). What research says about classroom walkthroughs. Educational
Leadership. 65(4), 81-82.
Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (2000). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.
Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychology
Bulletin, 125, 627-68.
170
Downey, C. J., Steffy, B. E., English, F. W., Frase, L. E., & Poston, W. K. (2004). The
three-minute classroom walkthrough: Changing school supervisory practice one
teacher at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a “professional learning community”? Schools as
Learning Communities, 61(8), 6-11.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington,
IN: National Educational Service.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work:
Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). Closing the knowing-doing gap. In
DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities (pp. 225-252). Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R., (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Edsource, Inc. (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Retrieved October 11, 2006, from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/perfmeasguide05.pdf
Education Data Partnership. (1999, September). Understanding the API. Retrieved
February 6, 2010, from Education Data Partnership Web site: http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Articles/21Article.asp?title=Understanding%20the%20APIEducati
on Week (2009), Quality Counts 2009 Per Pupil Funding. Retrieved January 11,
2009, from http://www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/35098CAB-729F-4436-B2D5-
AC8A1AD8CFEE/0/CAPerPupilFunding47thRankingChartQC20091909.pdf
Education Week (2009), Quality Counts 2009 Per Pupil Funding. Retrieved
January 11, 2009, from http://www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/35098CAB-729F-4436-
B2D5-AC8A1AD8CFEE/0/CAPerPupilFunding47thRankingChart
QC20091909.pdf
171
EdSource. (2004). No child left behind in California? The impact of the federal NCLB act
so far. Palo Alto, CA, EdSource.
EdSource (2005a). Holding school districts accountable. Retrieved February 25, 2008,
from http://www.edsource.org
EdSource. (2005b). Understanding school district budgets. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource.
EdSource (2005c). School accountability under NCLB: ambitious goals and competing
systems. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
EdSource. (2006). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better?
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In
S. Fuhrman, (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the System
(pp. 96-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert Shanker
Institute: Washington, DC. Retrieved on December 15, 2008 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and
performance-based accountability [Electronic Version]. CPRE: NGA Center for
Best Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.nga.org/cda/files/
0803KNOWING.PDF
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practices, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff Development and
Instructional Improvement in Community School District #2, New York:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education and National Commission on
Teacher & America’s Future, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Eubanks, E. E., & Levine, D. U. (1983). A first look at effective schools projects in New
York City and Milwaukee. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(10), 697-702.
Evans, R., & Mohr, B. (1999). Turnaround principal: high-stakes leadership. Principal,
84(1), 13-23.
Fiol, C. M. & Lyles, M. A. (1985, October). Organizational learning. The Academy of
Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.
172
Ferren, A. S. & Kinch, A. (2003, Summer). The dollars and sense behind general
education reform. Association of American College &Universities peerReview, 8-
11.
Fink, E. & Resnick. L. (1999). Developing principals as instructional leaders.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, High Performance Learning
Communities Project, Learning Research and Development Center, Retrieved
December 18, 2010 from: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/hplc/
Fink, E. & Resnick, L. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82(2), 598-607.
Firestone, W., Meyrowitz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and
instructional change: the effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fixen, D., Naoom, S., Blasé, K., Friedman, R., Wallace, F., (2005). Implementation
Research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
French, J. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.).
Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World is Flat: A brief history of twenty-first century. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Fullan, M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The Elementary
School Journal, 85(3), 391-421.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Press.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). Lessons from districtwide reform.
Educational Leadership, 61(6), 42-46.
173
Fullan, M. G. & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what
doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752. Retrieved July 22, 2010 from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404761
Fuhrman, S. & Elmore, R. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state
education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.
Garcia, G. E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student cultural diversity:
Understanding and meeting the challenge (3
rd
Ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston, MA:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Gardner, D. P. (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform
(ED 266 006). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April
18, 2010, from The National Commission on Excellence in Education website:
http://datacenter.spps.org
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Gerhardt, M. W. & Luzadis, R. A. (2009). The importance of perceived task difficulty in
goal orientation – assigned goal alignment. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies 16(2): 167-174. doi: 10.1177/1548051809337875
Gillispie, J. & Chrispeels, J. H. (2008). Us and them: conflict, collaboration, and the
discursive negotiation of multishareholder roles in school district reform. Small
Group Research, 39(4), 397-437. doi: 10.1177/1046496408319877
Ginsberg, M. B., & Murphy, D. (2002). How walkthroughs open doors. Educational
Leadership, 34-36.
Guskey, T. R. (2003, June). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta
Kappan, 749.
Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about the
innovation: a manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, TX: The
University of TX at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education.
Hall, G. & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Hall, G. & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
174
Harvey, T. R. (1995). Checklist for change: A pragmatic approach to creating and
controlling change. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.
Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (Eds.). (2009). Change wars. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.
Hersh, R. H. (2009, April 22). Our 21st-century 'risk': Teaching for content and skills.
Education Week. Retrieved January 11, 2010 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/22/29hersh_ep.h28.html
Hightower, A. M. (2002). Theory of instruction drives district’s decision making and
infrastructure. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Hoerr, T. R. (2005). The Art of School Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Honig, M. I. & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district
central offices: toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4),
578-608. doi: 10.1177/0895904807307067
Hopkins, G. (2008, April 12). Walkthroughs are on the move. Education World.
Retrieved December 14, 2010 from: http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/
admin/admin405.shtml
Jacobson, S. L., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., & Giles, C. (2005). Successful leadership in
challenging US schools: enabling principles, enabling schools. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43(6), 607-618. doi: 10.1108/09578230510625700
Johnson, D. P. (2005). Sustaining Change in Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Johnston, H. (2003). Leadership by walking around: walkthroughs and instructional
improvement. The Principals’ Partnership. Retrieved from
http://www.principalspartnership.com/feature203.html
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). How should we spend our time in professional
development? (3rd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision of
Curriculum and Development.
Kealey, K. A., Peterson, A. V., Jr., Gaul, M. A., & Dinh, K. T. (2000). Teacher training
as a behavior change process: Principles and results from a longitudinal study.
Health Education & Behavior, 27(1), 64–81.
175
Kewal-Ramani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., and Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and trends
in the education of racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-039). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department
of Education. Washington, DC.
Keirsey, D. & Bate, M. (1998) Please understand me: Character and temperament types.
Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books.
King, D. (2002, May). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8),
34-39.
Kirkpatrick, D. E. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koelher Publishers, Inc.
Knowles, R. N. (2002). The Leadership Dance: Pathways to Extraordinary
Organizational Effectiveness. Niagara Falls, NY: The Center for Self-Organizing
Leadership.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lasky, S. (2002). The district as lens. In A. Datnow & S. Stringfield (Eds.), CREDE
synthesis project on systemic integration for effective reform. Unpublished
manuscript.
Leithwood, K. (2006). Understanding successful principal leadership: progress on a
broken front. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 619-629. doi:
10.1108/09578230510625719
Leithwood, K. (2010, June). Turning around underperforming school systems:
guidelines for district leaders. A paper commissioned by the College of Alberta
School Superintendents. Retrieved July 22, 2010 from: http://o.b5z.net/i/u/
10063916/h/Moving%20and%20Improving/District_turnaround_main_text_June
_8.pdf
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong
claims about successful school leadership. Nottingham, England: National College
of School Leadership. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from
http://www.npbs.ca/2007- elements/pdfs/seven-strong%20claims.pdf
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research:
How leadership influences student learning. Learning from Leadership Project.
The Wallace Foundation
176
Levitt, B. & March, J. G. (1988, August). Organizational learning. Annual Review of
Sociology, 14, 319-338. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org
Lewis, A. C. (1998, May). The importance of evidence. Phi Delta Kappan, 644.
Lieberman, A. (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning. In McLaughlin, M. & Oberman, I. (Eds.),
Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 185-201), New York:
Teachers College Press.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’
professional relations. Teachers College Record, 509-536.
Loesch, P. C. (2010, May/June). Four core strategies for implementing change.
Leadership, 28-31.
Louis, K. S. (2005). Reconnecting knowledge utilization and school improvement: two
steps forward, one step back. In Hopkins, D. (Ed.), The practice and theory of
school improvement (pp. 40-61). Netherlands: Springer.
Love, N. (Ed.). (2009). Using data to improve learning: A collaborative inquiry
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Mac Iver, M. A. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back: The role of the Central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore, MD: John
Hopkins, University.
Mangin, M. M. (2009). Literacy coach role implementation: how district context
influences reform efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 759-792.
doi: 10.1177/0013161X09347731
Marsh, J. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature on
the relationship of districts with states, schools, and communities. Seattle, WA:
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Marsh, J. A. (2002). Broadening boundaries to build system capacity: The Highland
School District. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R., &
Barney, H. (2004). Advancing systemwide instructional reform: lessons from
three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation, Research Brief RB-9142-EDU. Retrieved from:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9142/
177
Marsh, J., Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. S., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2006). Leading,
learning, and leadership support. Seattle: University of Washington.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollack, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Massell, D. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research &
Improvement. (2000). The district role in building capacity: four strategies.
CPRE policy briefs. (CPRE RB-32). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education, Graduate School of Education, University of
Pennsylvania.
Massell, D. & Goertz, M. (2002). District strategies for building instructional capacity.
In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh, & McLaughlin, M. (Eds). (2002).
School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43-60). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge. Boston, MA:
Shambhala.
McDermott, K. A. (2000, Spring). Barriers to large-scale success of models for urban
school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 83-89.
Retrieved July 15, 2010 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164309
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good,
what’s not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2002). Reforming districts. In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp,
Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. (Eds). (2002). School districts and instructional
renewal (pp. 173-192). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mourshed, M. Chijioke, C. & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school
systems keep getting better. McKinsey & Company.
Muhammad, A. (2009). Transforming school culture: How to overcome staff division.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
178
Muller, R. D. (2004, November). The role of the district in driving school reform: A
review for the Denver Commission on secondary school reform. Retrieved 5 June
2010 from: http://www.dpsk12.org/pdf/district_role.pdf
Nerad, M. (2005). From graduate student to world citizen in a global economy.
International Higher Education, 40, 8-9. Retrieved from Boston College Web.
Site: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2009).
Retrieved from: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number40/
p8_Nerad.html
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publications, Inc.
O’Connell, J. (2009). Highlights Impact of Budget Cuts to Education,
California Department of Education Retrieved February 10, 2010 from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel86.asp
Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your
project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of
Southern California.
Olson, B. & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view
their work inside current education policy contexts. American Education
Research Journal, 46(1), 9-44. Doi: 10.3102/0002831208320573
Olson, D. R. (2003). Psychological theory and educational reform: How school
remakes mind and society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ouchi, W. G. (2003). Making schools work: A revolutionary plan to get
your children the education they need. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543-578.
Palumbo, J., & Leight, J., (2007). The power of focus: More lessons
learned in districts and school improvement. United States of America.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
179
Pennsylvania Department Of Education (2008). Teacher Induction Report, November
2008. (TeacherInductionRerport 9-29.pdf) Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=
web&cd=1&ved=0CbgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fschools.nlsd.org%2Fnlsd_
admin%2FstrategicPlan%2Freports%2FteacherInductionReport%25209-
29.pdf&rct=j&q=teacher%20induction%20report%20929.pdf&ei=y2kITcqpMou
gsQO0w5H8Dg&usg=AFQjCNFlKlBlFZ1ipCICxjG4S4iy74_ezQ&sig2=IUBMF
p92I7LqVVO3NyWsEg&cad=rja
Perkins, D. (2004). Knowledge alive. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 14-18.
Peterson, P. E. (2010). Saving schools: From Horace Mann to virtual learning. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart communities turn
knowledge into action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. (2
nd
Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Pollock, J. E. (2009). Improving Student Learning One Principal at a Time.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Programme of International Student Achievement. (2006). Top of the class: High
Performers in Science in PISA 2006. Paris, France. Retrieved on December 7,
2009, from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/1742645389.pdf
Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social
power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Reeves, D. B. (2000). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond.
In Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations (Chapter 19).
Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2005). Putting it all together: standards, assessment, and
accountability in successful learning communities. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., &
DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning
communities (pp. 45-64). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Resnick, L. (2008). The principles of learning. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute of Learning,
University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved December 18, 2010 from:
http://ifl.lrdc.pitt.edu/ifl/index.php/resources/principles_of_learning/
180
Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in
educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307-358. Doi:
10.1177/0013161X08318962
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Rowan, B. & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional
change: implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive
school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252-
297.
Rudalevige, A. (2005, October). Adequacy, accountability, and the impact of
“No Child Left Behind”. Working Paper PEPG/05-27, Progarm on Education
Policy and Governance, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University. Retrieved February 11, 2010 from: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/
PDF/events/Adequacy/PEPG-05-27rudalevige.pdf
Rusch, E.A. (2005). Institutional barriers to organizational learning in school systems:
the power of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 83-120.
Saphier, J. (2005). Masters of Motivation. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R.
(Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp.
85-114). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service
Sarason, S. (1999). Teaching as a performing art. New York: Teacher College Press.
Schlechty, P. C., (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational
reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Schlechty, P. C., (2002). Working the work: An action plan for teachers, principals, and
superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Schneider, B. L. & Keesler, V. A. (2007). School reform 2007: transforming education
into a scientific enterprise. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 197-217. Doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131731
Seaton, M., Emmett, R. E., Welsh, K., & Petrossian, A. (2008). Teaming up for teaching
and learning. Leadership, 37(3), 26-29.
Semler, S. W. (1997). Systematic agreement: a theory of organizational alignment.
Human Resource Development Quarterly 8(1): 23-40. Doi:
10.1002/hrdq.3920080105
181
Senge, P. (1990) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1990, Fall). The leader’s new work: building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32, 10-13.
Schmoker, M. J. (2001). The results fieldbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. J. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive
instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424-432.
Schmoker, M. (2005). No turning back: The ironclad case for professional learning
communities. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common
ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 135-154).
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Schneider, B. L. & Keesler, V. A. (2007). School reform 2007: transforming education
into a scientific enterprise. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 197-217.
Simmons, W. (2007). From smart districts to smart education systems: A broader
agenda for educational development. In R. Rothman (Ed.), City schools: How
districts and communities can create smart education systems (Chapter 12).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for Success: Case studies of
how urban school systems improve student achievement. MDRC for the Council
of the Great City Schools.
Snyder, J. (2002). New Haven Unified School District: A teaching quality system for
excellence and equity. In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M.
McLaughlin, M. (Eds). School districts and instructional renewal. (pp. 94-110).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Sofo, R. (2008, Summer). Voices Inside Schools. Beyond NCLB and AYP: one
superintendent’s experience of school district reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 78(2), 391-409.
Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-
assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 49(2), 5-22.
182
Sparks, D. (2005). Leading for transformation in teaching, learning, and relationships.
In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The power
of professional learning communities (pp. 155-176). Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Sparks, D. (2001, April). The real barrier to improved professional development. Results
Newsletter, 2.
Spellings, M. (2007, April). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No
Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved July 7, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/print/
policy/elsec/guid/secletter/ 070423.html
Spillane, J. P. (1996). Districts matter: Local educational authorities and state
instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10, 63-87.
Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school
district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational
Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spouse, J. (2001) Bridging theory and practice in supervisory relationships: a
sociocultural perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 512-522.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L. & Gonzales, G., (2003). Working smarter to leave
no child behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.
Stecher, B. & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/publications
Stiggins, R. (2005). Assessment for learning: Building a culture of confident learners.
In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The power
of professional learning communities (pp. 65-84). Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Sturtevant, E. G. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improving teaching and learning in
secondary schools. Alliance for Excellent Education:
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/LiteracyCoach.pdf
183
Tichy, N. (2002). The cycles of leadership: How great leaders teach their companies to
win. New York: Harper Business.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Toll, C. A. (2005). The Literacy Coach’s Survival Guide: Essential Questions and
Practical Answers.
U. S. Department of Education (2010). Improving basic programs operated by local
educational agencies (Title I, Part A). Retrieved February 15, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Resources Division. (1993, April). Systemwide
education reform: federal leadership could facilitate district-level efforts
(Publication No. GAO/HRD-93-97). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., and Rahman, T. (2009).
Achievement gaps: how Black and White students in public schools perform in
mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress,
(NCES 2009-455). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Wagner, T. (2001, January). Leadership for learning: an action theory of social change.
Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 378-383. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439912
Walters, J., Marzano, R., McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What thirty years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/LeadershipOrganizationandDevelopment/
5031RR_BalanceLeadership.pdf.
Weiner, B. (1992). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiss, J. (2005). Conditions for student success: the cycle of continuous instructional
improvement. Working Paper 4. School Finance Redesign Project. University of
Washington retrieved on November 29, 2010 at
http://newschools.org/files/ConditionsForStudentSuccess_0.pdf
184
Williams, T., Kirst, M., & Haertel, E. (2005) Similar students, different results: Why do
some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools
serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Retrieved
November 14, 2005, from http//www.edsource.org/pdf.
Wolk, R. A. (2009, April 22). Why We’re Still at Risk. Education Week. Retrieved from
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/22/29wolk_ep.h28.html.
Wong, H. (2002, March). Induction: the best form of professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 52–55.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teachers and classroom context
effects on student achievement: implications for teacher evaluations. Journal of
Personal Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Educational
Psychology, 25, 82-91.
185
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Inquiry Project Timeline
Table A1: Inquiry Project Timeline
Semester Project Activities
Fall 2009
Inquiry Team Formation
Defining Context of Need
Understanding District Priorities
Narrowing Inquiry Focus: Districtwide FoR Implementation
Spring 2010
Qualifying Examination Proposal & Defense
Interviews of key District personnel
Data Collection
Exploring the Roots of the Problem
Chapter I completed
Summer 2010
Data Analysis
Identification of Performance Gaps & Root Causes
Development of Findings
Chapter II completed
Fall 2010
Interactions with the District:
Presentation of Findings & Solutions as Recommendations to:
-Superintendent & District Leadership Team
-Additional Select District Role Groups, on request
Chapter III completed
Spring 2011
Dissertation defense
Group, Individual Reflections
Completion of Alternative Capstone Project
Graduation
186
Appendix B
Interviewed Role Groups
Table B1: District Level Personnel
Stakeholder Assigned Code Organization
Assistant Superintendent,
Educational Services
AS GUSD
Public Relations Officer PRO GUSD
Director,
Professional Development
PD GUSD
Lead Consultant LC Focus on Results
Table B2: School Site Personnel
Stakeholder
Assigned
Code
Elementary
School
Middle
School
High School
Principal P 1 1 1
Assistant Principal AP 0 1 1
Associate Principal AP 0 0 4
Teacher on Special
Assignment (TOSA)
TS 1 0 1
ILT Teachers T 10 15 8
Non-ILT Teachers T 1 5 2
Counselors C 0 1 0
Classified Staff CS 3 1 0
187
Appendix C
Scanning Interview Guide
Client’s Name Date
Role in District Interviewer
Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’d like to focus on the
implementation of the Focus on Results (FoR) Reform Initiative in GUSD. Your
comments will help us better understand what is happening. We want to assure you that
we will not quote nor attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC dissertation
team.
1) Please give me an overview of the implementation of FoR as a reform initiative
here in GUSD.
What is the current situation? Where do things stand?
What do you think is being done about it?
Is this situation a “problem”? In what sense?
2) I would like to gain some historical perspective on this situation.
What was it like here in the years prior to implementing FoR?
After the implementation, what has changed?
How has the district tried to address this districtwide reform initiative in
specific ways? Could you please describe?
Was there any degree of success with these efforts?
Do they continue to this day? What happened to these efforts you
described?
3) Regarding FoR, are there any formal or informal goals for what you or the district
are trying to accomplish?
What is/are the goal/s of this effort?
What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
How will you/the district know if this effort is successful?
Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? What
specifically do you know?
How large is the gap between where you are not and where you aspire to
be?
4) Let’s go a little further into this gap between where you are now and where you
aspire to be. I/we want your perspective.
What do you think is keeping the district from achieving perfect success
with regard to FoR implementation?
How else do you attribute this difference?
5) What suggestions do you have for our team to better understand the FoR
implementation in GUSD?
188
Appendix D
Stages of Concern (SoC) Interview Prompt Guide
1) “What do you think about Focus on Results as the reform initiative implemented
in GUSD?”
2) “What are the positives and the concerns or challenges with the FoR initiative?”
Table D1: Typical Expressions of Concern about an Innovation
Stage of Concern Expression of Concern
6 Refocusing
I have some ideas about something that would work
even better.
5 Collaboration
How can I relate what I am doing to what others are
doing?
4 Consequence
How is my use affecting learners? How can I refine
it to have more impact?
3 Management
I seem to be spending all my time getting materials
ready.
2 Personal How will using it affect me?
1 Informational I would like to know more about it.
0 Awareness I am not concerned about it.
(Adapted from Hall and Loucks, 1979)
189
Appendix E
Triangulation of Data
Dissertation Title:
An Alternative Capstone Project: Gap Analysis of Districtwide Reform Implementation
of Focus on Results in Glendale Unified School District (GUSD)
Chairs:
Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda
Methods
Table E1: Triangulation of Data
Research Questions Interview Observation
Document
Analysis
1) How was the FoR reform initiative
implemented throughout GUSD?
X X X
2) What was the degree of implementation
of FoR at the different levels of instruction
offered in GUSD?
X X
3) What performance gaps exist at this
point in the FoR implementation process
that need to be addressed?
X X X
4) What are the root causes of these
performance gaps?
X X
5) What research-based recommendations
can be offered to address the performance
gaps and help GUSD enhance and sustain its
implementation of FoR?
X X X
190
Appendix F
Executive Summary
Background
Educators in school districts across the state of California—and the United States
in general—continue to struggle with the great educational dilemma as it encounters
challenges faced in this modern age of information and technology. Educators are also at
the mercy of political agendas that are in a constant state of flux. The latest political
agenda, Race To The Top (RTTT), under President Obama’s administration, imposes
even greater expectations as states compete for the coveted educational funding needed to
achieve its academic goals for every student. While much debate takes place over the
competitive process to receive these fiscal resources, most agree that students are entitled
to an equitable and rigorous education no matter their ethnic, social, or economic
background. The Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) initiated a reform process
that seemingly anticipated this rigorous shift in expectations when it adopted the Focus
on Results (FoR) Reform Initiative five years ago.
Purpose
A three-person team, working in a consultant capacity, led this particular
dissertation inquiry project. GUSD leadership requested our team to examine the Focus
on Results (FoR) implementation process throughout the district. The goals of the
inquiry project were to 1) determine the nature of the performance gaps in the
implementation of FoR in the district and 2) provide GUSD with a set of research-based
recommendations to address the root causes behind the performance gaps we identified in
the inquiry process.
191
Project Timeline
The timeline below outlines the requirements for our doctoral candidacy and the
progression of our work in GUSD.
Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Summer 2010
1. Research team formation
2. Topic: review of district
reform implementation
3. Context of need
4. Understanding the district
data
1. Qualifying examination
and proposal
2. In-depth data collection:
- Scanning interviews of
key district/site personnel
- SoC Interviews with site
personnel
1. Chapter 1 completion:
Context of Project
2. Chapter 2 Completion:
Literature review of
roots, methodology,
findings, executive
summary
Fall 2010 Spring 2011
1. Chapter 3 completion: Literature Review, Solutions,
and Recommendations
2. Presentation of findings & recommendations to
designated group
3. Chapters 4 & 5 Completion: Leadership Portfolio and
Process Reflection
1. Chapter 6 Completion:
Next Steps
2. Dissertation Defense
3. Graduation
The Gap Analysis
The gap analysis process model is a systematic problem-solving approach
specifically designed to examine the gaps in an organization’s performance to help
improve and achieve their desired goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). The gap analysis focuses
on identifying, analyzing, and solving a specific problem in a specific context. This is the
nature of action research, where larger organizations and institutions undertake this type
of investigation, guided by professional researchers, with the aim of improving the
overall strategies, practices, and knowledge of the organization (as community) within
which they practice (Center for Collaborative Research, 2010). Clark & Estes (2002)
outline the six major steps that comprise the gap analysis process model (p. 22):
192
7. Identify clear organizational goals that define the vision for the organization;
8. Identify individual performance goals that are concrete, challenging, and
current (C
3
);
9. Determine performance gaps by quantifying gaps between desire goals;
10. Determine root causes by analyzing the gaps in knowledge/skill, motivation,
and/or organizational barriers;
11. Identify research-based solutions and implement to affect the root causes; and
12. Evaluate results of implementation and fine-tune goals.
Methodology
We utilized the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis framework (Appendix A) to
guide our inquiry to understand the district’s progress toward its achievement goals. Our
inquiry also helped us uncover some possible reasons for underperformance that may be
rooted in issues of motivation, knowledge and skills, and institutional barriers. It is our
hope that our understanding and knowledge of staff perceptions may assist the district in
their next steps toward continued growth toward sustainability of the FoR reform
initiative.
The primary data collection methods were the review of documents (from Focus
on Results and GUSD) and the informal interview. The interviews were face-to-face,
one-on-one semi-structured, and open-ended in nature, proving staff the opportunity to be
reflective, insightful, and candid about their thoughts and feelings regarding the strengths
of the FoR components and their concerns about the process of implementation. We
were careful to honor the integrity of the semi-structured interview process by ensuring
193
that the participants were encouraged to voice all of the topics of concern during the
course of the interview (Patton, 2002).
Our team conducted two rounds of interviews. Our initial scanning interviews
included three district level personnel, the consultant from FoR, the principals of three
school sites and their Instructional Leadership Teams and lasted approximately one hour
each. The three schools that responded to our request for interviews represented the
elementary, middle, and secondary levels of education. The scanning interview guide
(Appendix B) included was five open-ended questions that helped us understand staff
perspectives. The purpose of the scanning interview was to collect rich data from key
stakeholders in an organized, uniform fashion to help facilitate problem solving in the
implementation process. In a sense, this step in the process is a form of progress
monitoring, which is a vital action step in performance improvement.
The team utilized the Stages of Concern (SoC) Concerns-Based Adoption Model,
CBAM (Hall & Loucks, 1979) format for the second phase of interviews that included 20
people at the elementary level; 18 people at the middle school level; and 16 people at the
high school level. The SoC interviews ranged from 15-30 minutes and included
teachers, administrators, and support personnel. This phase of the interview process
involved ten-to-twenty minute interviews with teachers that focused on three items: 1) to
share their overall experience with FoR as a reform initiative, 2) to share their
perceptions of the strengths and challenges of the reform initiative, and 3) what
suggestions and recommendations might improve the implementation process.
194
The Focus on Results Reform Initiative
Focus on Results is a research-based model that is comprehensive, data-driven
and focused on instruction. This model encompasses the key elements that are
commonly described in highly credible change models, such as developing a sense of
urgency, creating a guiding team with a powerful vision, increasing leadership capacity,
removing obstacles, resolving conflicts with effective communication, and persisting
through the difficult challenges. The implementation of this framework is embedded in
local context and culture, and it is only effective when accompanied by a shift from a
traditional central office to a central services organization. With increased capacity
among all staff, this framework is designed to improve student achievement and
ultimately close the achievement gap.
Specifically, the FoR key strategies for professional development are to build
expertise, change practice, monitor student performance and to communicate relentlessly
(Palumbo and Leight, 2007). FoR has three distinct phases: 1) identifying a schoolwide
instructional focus based on an assessment of students' needs; 2) creating and
implementing a schoolwide instructional focus that meets students' needs; and 3) living a
unity of purpose through a clear instructional focus that drives all decisions.
Findings
Strengths in the District Reform Implementation Effort
Overall, GUSD successfully implemented the components of the Focus on
Results reform at the district level and established a good foundation for continued work
toward embedded sustainability. This report identifies a limited view of the
195
organization’s accomplishments in the implementation process, as well as some
suggestions that will strengthen the commitment to long-term cultural change.
GUSD’s efforts are commendable as we consider the five most common barriers
that typically impede a district’s success in implementing strategic initiatives. These
include: executing the strategy consistently across schools with difference
characteristics, creating a coherent organizational design in support of the strategy,
developing and managing human capital, allocating resources in alignment with the
strategy, and using performance data to guide decisions (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman,
2006).
GUSD leadership clearly articulated that the organizational goal was to improve
student academic achievement to raise API scores and meet AYP targets.
GUSD, in partnership with FoR, developed and implemented an incremental
reform process that resulted in:
o Total inclusion of all GUSD school sites after three years;
o A 5-year capacity building plan to ensure training was substantial and
comprehensive;
o The conversion of the district office into a central services organization
that provides leadership, support, and guidance by:
modeling processes of establishing district goals;
examining data to determine achievement gaps; and
holding principals accountable for increasing student achievement
196
• GUSD realigned resources (people, time, money, talent, and energy) to support
the changes necessitated by FoR.
• An increase in the internal capacity of GUSD staff is noted by the shift of
responsibility from FoR consultants to instructional leaders for 1) development of
content to be taught to staff; 2) facilitation of trainings; and 3) Instructional
Walkthrough processes.
• The Instructional Walkthrough process is considered a strong tool by many
respondents for helping teachers see what happens in the classroom by giving a
focus from which to examine the schoolwide instructional focus and relevant
instructional practices.
• Respondents at all levels of GUSD (from district to school site) agree that FoR
provided a common language that all stakeholders now use districtwide to discuss
student achievement.
• Districtwide collaboration efforts increased through the development of the
districtwide Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) and the school site ILTs.
Teachers involved with the ILT process were cognizant of the FoR process and
could articulate the seven areas of focus.
• Modifications to the implementation of FoR were made to address the issues as
they arose: 1) cohort structure changed from the year of FoR implementation to
instructional level of the school sites (primary vs. secondary) and 2) the formation
of the principal trios to provide principals with peer-to-peer support.
197
• The implementation of FoR did not affect the general funding of GUSD for the
first five years – a grant was secured that paid for resources, facilitator training,
release time for teachers, and facilities to host meetings.
Areas of Growth: Emergent Themes
In order to close performance gaps and achieve the organizational goals,
underlying causes for performance gaps must be identified. The gap analysis process
(Clark & Estes, 2002) provides a framework for diagnosing the human causes and
identifying appropriate effective performance solutions. Underperformance is typically
the result of insufficient knowledge, inadequate skills, and lack of motivation or
organizational barriers. We found four emergent themes in our process of inquiry:
perceptions of the need for FoR, the misalignment of goals, the knowledge/skill capacity
of role groups in the district, and the sustainability of the reform effort.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Perceptions
• A lack of active choice is apparent in the significant number of respondents
that indicated the Focus on Results reform initiative to be a “top down”
district mandate, that “it was never an effort from the ‘bottom up’”. District
leadership, however, felt that because each school ILT and school staff
custom-designed the reform strategies to match their site-specific data and
needs, FoR implementation was therefore more of a “bottom up” initiative.
• A tone of mistrust about FoR is apparent throughout the district. Interviews
revealed a pervasive “Us” versus “Them” and an “I” versus “We” mentality at
all levels. This tone was evident among all role groups.
198
• The pervasiveness of the reform effort tended to differ based on the
instructional level of the school site (elementary schools identified by district
administrators and the FoR consultant are seemingly doing well compared to
secondary schools).
• The higher degree of professional isolation at the middle school and high
school levels compared to the elementary level is due to deeply rooted norms,
beliefs and traditional practices. The highly collaborative nature that is the
hallmark of FoR is hindered at the middle and high school levels.
• As educational policy moves toward explicit accountability where educators’
performance reviews reflect some aspect of student outcomes, the natural
reaction to this level of accountability is fear and resistance, as self-
preservation becomes a primary motivation – the initiative for believing and
behaving a certain way.
• Though GUSD initially “invited” the participation of principals and teachers,
staff not involved in the district-level or site-level Instructional Leadership
Teams (ILTs) expressed dissenting viewpoints. This pattern proved more
prominent at the secondary level and among veteran educators as opposed to
newer educators in the field.
• GUSD understood FoR to be a leadership capacity-building model but did not
fully understand until well into the implementation process (third year) the
degree of change that would be necessitated at the site level.
199
• Comments such as “we were doing this already” and “this is nothing new”,
made by a significant number of tenured teachers working in the district
before the FoR initiative was introduced, tended to convey an overconfidence
in these teachers.
• The tenured teachers interviewed believed the work, time, and money spent
on this reform was unnecessary—although they believed it to be very
beneficial for the newer, younger teaching staff. This overconfidence often
compromises motivation as people invest little mental effort when they
misjudge their own abilities (Clark & Estes, 2002). However, the same
viewpoint may be an indicator of limited task value or interest.
• Principals and staff often attributed this teacher perspective of overconfidence
to resistance to change, lack of ownership for all students’ success, and fear of
professional judgment and criticism.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Misalignment of Goals
• Defining the work/performance goals were left to each individual site
principal and his/her Instructional Leadership Team. However, staff did not
seem to understand the direct relationship between internal, site-specific
SMART-e goal attainment and the implementation of the seven areas of focus
that comprise the FoR model.
• Although the majority of teachers felt they were doing the work necessary to
meet the organizational goal of helping the school improve its API score, they
200
could not articulate the alignment to the intermediate level goals – which were
the seven areas of focus that comprise FoR.
• Teachers not directly involved with the districtwide or sitewide ILT could not
explain the seven areas of focus that comprise Focus on Results nor could
they identify the work that led to achievement of performance goals for the
reform effort. They knew of the walkthroughs and know that the “schoolwide
instructional focus” was set, they knew of looking at data for student
achievement but did not know how these all related to FoR.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups
Teachers.
• Not all teachers are engaged in the FoR reform initiative nor are they versed in
the FoR framework, its principles, and how it is directly linked to the work
they are doing in the classroom. Some teachers have even elected to not
participate.
• Probationary teachers, new to the district, are not provided an orientation or
training that will catch them up to the rest of the staff with regard to FoR. It is
assumed that they will “get it” because they are a part of the site staff.
• Across the organization, the feedback loop is not consistent with regard to
implementation of instructional strategies.
o Lack of consistent monitoring by principals to ensure changes to
instructional practices.
201
o Lack of specific feedback to teachers from principals on how to modify
their instruction based on the knowledge and skills they received in
training.
o Only anonymous, generalized feedback is provided to teachers in the
walkthrough process.
o Teachers desire more specific feedback – especially if their classrooms are
visited. They want feedback about what is working and what needs
improvement.
Principals.
• Principals were expected to already have the knowledge and skills necessary
to lead the reform work. Those that did not demonstrate that capacity were
either reassigned or removed from their school sites where improvement in
the API score was not demonstrated.
• The need to increase principal leadership capacity was identified by the FoR
consultant and the district administrators (after the end of Year 2), leading to
the formation of the coaching trios. The structure and dynamics of the
coaching trios is unclear. The district must be more explicit about what skills
they want their principals to develop when in the coaching trios.
• The dynamics of the coaching trios, originally meant to be a peer group of
three principals, shifted when a district administrator was made one of the
three members. Principals did not feel comfortable to share their issues with
202
one another for fear of evaluation. This speaks to the culture of mistrust that
persists in this district.
District Level.
• Induction of new personnel (probationary teachers, principals and district
administrators) on the tenets and processes of FoR is not institutionalized.
Consequently, new staff is left to acquire the knowledge and skill on their
own.
• Differences in individual capacity level among the principals is evidenced by
the varied levels of implementation of the FoR process at the school sites.
From the onset of the reform implementation, it was assumed that 1) all the
principals had the capacity to create and lead a comprehensive, school-based
improvement process and that 2) the principals had the same level of
enthusiasm in adopting FoR as the reform initiative to improve student
achievement.
• District administrators assumed an increase in the API was equivalent to the
level of success of FoR implementation.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Sustainability
• The belief that Focus on Results is “just another reform” that will disappear as
soon as the next novel idea is popularized (expressed by a number of tenured
teachers that were interviewed) undermines commitment to the reform.
• Staff expressed a general consensus that the new practices were improving
teaching and learning, but waned on full commitment as many believed ‘the
203
reform’ would dissipate due to district and site leadership changes and the loss
of grant funds needed to support collaboration time.
• Changes in leadership throughout the district (new Superintendent, Assistant
Supt., Director of Professional Development, principal replacements, and
teacher layoffs) threaten the vision for sustaining the reform effort.
• The grant that funded the reform has ended and the fiscal challenges facing
the district will require careful consideration when reallocating resources to
continue funding the collaboration time required by FoR.
• Continued tension between district leadership and GTA leadership fosters a
culture of mistrust and fear of professional judgment and criticism.
Conclusion
GUSD can celebrate its tremendous progress in its collective effort to change the
organizational culture by implementing the FoR framework. While there are many
challenges and areas of growth that need explicit attention, this will always be true in a
dynamic and complex organization. Use of the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis
process should not be one-time; the process of measuring and addressing the various
performance gaps in the organization is continuous and must be visited on a regular basis
in order to monitor the progress of FoR as a reform initiative. It is a daunting task to
address root causes of human behavior that inhibit an organization from achieving its
moral purpose. Educators must once again internalize their moral imperative to ensure
that all students receive a high quality and proficient education for the sake of our
nation’s future.
204
Appendix G
Proposed Solutions Power Point
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
Appendix H
Focus on Results (FoR) Implementation Plan Documents
Table H1: Four Year Plan for Building Capacity
225
226
227
228
229
230
Figure 1: Schoolwide Instructional Focus
Figure 2: Professional Collaboration Teams
231
Figure 4: Targeted Professional Development Plan
Figure 3: Instructional Leadership Team
232
Figure 6: Alignment of Resources
Figure 5: Internal Accountability System
233
Figure 8: Instructional Leaderhip
Figure 7: Community Partnerships
234
Figure 9: Central Services Support
235
Appendix I
Focus on Results 2010-2011 Coaching Trios with Administrators
Table I1: Assignment and Focus of Administrative Coaching Trios
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This innovative Alternative Capstone Project emerged as a partnership between the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California(USC) and the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD). In collaboration, this opportunity provided
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results
PDF
Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project
PDF
An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school
PDF
An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...
PDF
Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District
PDF
Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model
PDF
An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model
PDF
A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District
PDF
Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District
PDF
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district
PDF
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model
PDF
Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district
PDF
An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college
PDF
Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis
PDF
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective
PDF
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of english language learners at sunshine elementary school using the gap analysis model
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hill, Debra Lee
(author)
Core Title
An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
04/06/2011
Defense Date
01/22/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
educational reform,Focus on Results,gap analyis,instructional focus,knowledge/skill gap,motivation gap,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational barriers
Place Name
California
(states),
Los Angeles
(counties),
school districts: Glendale Unified School District
(geographic subject),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Marsh, David D. (
committee chair
), Rueda, Robert S. (
committee chair
), Arias, Robert J. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
debrahil@usc.edu,debralhill@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3720
Unique identifier
UC187614
Identifier
etd-Hill-4282 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-452329 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3720 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Hill-4282.pdf
Dmrecord
452329
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Hill, Debra Lee
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
educational reform
Focus on Results
gap analyis
instructional focus
knowledge/skill gap
motivation gap
organizational barriers