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
/
The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools
(USC Thesis Other)
The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE LEADERSHIP GAP:
PREPARING LEADERS FOR URBAN SCHOOLS
by
Omaira Z. Lee
____________________________________________________
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
August 2010
Copyright 2010 Omaira Z. Lee
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Iris Lindsay and Ruperto
Lindsay. Thank you, Mom for always being there for me, encouraging me, and
seeing me through the tough times. To my father who is deceased, I wish you could
see this.
This is also dedicated to my brother, Franklin Lindsay who has been my
constant cheerleader and supported me throughout all my endeavors.
I especially dedicate this to my two daughters, Rachel and Jasmine. I am
extremely indebted to you for the sacrifices that you made during this process.
Thank you for supporting me, encouraging me, and loving me through this process.
To Jasmine, I’m sorry I missed so many softball games. And to Jarod for being there
even when I was completely absorbed in the project.
And Finally, I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. -
Philippians 4:13. Thank you God!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge the following individuals for their support. To my
Dissertation Committee Chair: Dr. Margaret Reed for her leadership throughout this
process and who spent countless hours reading my work providing me with
suggestions throughout this process. To my Dissertation Committee Members: Dr.
Pedro Garcia and Dr. Dennis Hocevar for their positive feedback and perspective.
To my beautiful daughters – Rachel and Jasmine, I am inspired by you and
love you both. This is for you.
A very special acknowledgement goes to my colleague: Paula Chamberlain.
I am especially grateful for the opportunity to have collaborated during this endeavor
but for the friendship that developed.
I also acknowledge the work of the cohort: Paula L., Sunday A., Diane K.,
Chris H., and Charles F. I thank them for their support and their unwavering
commitment to the task at hand.
I acknowledge my editor, Dr. Shantanu Duttaahmed for his positive attitude
and getting me through this.
And finally to the participants and staff of the two case study schools in
Metropolitan ISD, I am thankful to have conducted the research study at the schools.
Thank you for your commitment to the study and the students of Metropolitan ISD.
To God, for blessing me with opportunity, resiliency and perseverance,
family, and health, this was a huge undertaking at a time in my life that wasn’t
iv
completely optimal but with the help of the above named people I was able to
complete the manuscript.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………………………………………………………………… ...ii
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………….. ...iii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………. ...vii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………... ...viii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………... ...ix
Chapter One: Overview of Study……………………………………………… ...1
Chapter Two: Literature Review………………………………………………...25
Chapter Three: Methodology…………………………………………………... ...92
Chapter Four: Findings………………………………………………………....125
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications……………………....259
References……………………………………………………………………… ...283
Appendices
Appendix A: ISSLC 2008…………………………………………... ...293
Appendix B: McRel 21 Responsibilities and their Correlation (R)…...294
with Student Academic Achievement
Appendix C: Matrix Combining ISLLC Standards and McRel 21… ...295
Responsibilities
Appendix D: Outcomes Chart: Alignment of the Texas Core……... ...296
Leadership Standards, Metropolitan Achieves
Leadership Curriculum (IFL), and Murphy’s
Learning-Centered Framework
Appendix E: Pre-Intervention Principal Interview…………………....298
Appendix F: Post-Interview Principal Interview……………………...300
Appendix G: Pre-Interview Teacher Interview…………………….. ...302
Appendix H: Post-Interview Teacher Interview……………………. ...304
Appendix I: Pre/Post Intervention Observation Protocols………… ...306
Appendix J: Document Analysis Protocols………………………... ...307
Appendix K: Classroom Observation Protocol…………………….. ...310
Appendix L: Letter of Support……………………………………... ...311
Appendix M: Recruitment Letter #1………………………………... ...312
vi
Appendix N: Principal Recruitment Letter…………………………. ...313
Appendix O: The Psychometric Properties of the Val-Ed…………. ...314
Appendix P: District Education Plan Goals………………………... ...317
Appendix Q: NCEA Progress Report 2009………………………… ...320
Appendix R: Case Study One: Informed Consent Letters………….. ...322
Appendix S: Case Study One: Fall 2009 Principal Survey Report… ...325
Appendix T: Case Study One: Mission and Vision Statement…….. ...330
Appendix U: Case Study One: Scorecard Overview……………….. ...331
Appendix V: Case Study One: School Plan…………………………...332
Appendix W: Case Study One: Disciplinary Literacy………………....335
Graphic Organizer
Appendix X: Case Study One: Planning Schedule…………………. ...336
Appendix Y: Case Study One: Meeting Agendas…………………......337
Appendix Z: Case Study One: Six Weeks Common Assessment….. ...339
Appendix AA: Case Study One: Observation Walk Through………... ...340
Documentation Form
Appendix BB: Case Study One: Master Schedule…………………… ...342
Appendix CC: Case Study One: PLC Discussion Guide……………. ...344
Appendix DD: Case Study One: PLC Planning Tool………………......345
Appendix EE: Case Study One: Principal Appraisal System Guiding ...346
Conference Feedback Form
Appendix FF: Case Study Two: Informed Consent Letters…………. ...348
Appendix GG: Case Study Two: Fall 2009 Principal…………………...351
Survey Report
Appendix HH: Case Study Two: Spring 2010 Principal……………... ...358
Survey Report
Appendix II: Case Study Two: Mission and Vision Statement……. ...365
Appendix JJ: Case Study Two: Scorecard Overview……………… ...366
Appendix KK: Case Study Two: School Plan……………………….. ...367
Appendix LL: Case Study Two: Master Schedule………………….. ...368
Appendix MM: Case Study Two: Observation……………………….....369
Walk-Through Form
Appendix NN: Case Study Two: Think Through Lesson Protocol….. ...370
Appendix OO: Case Study Two: Goal Setting Form…………………...372
Appendix PP: Case Study Two: Weekly Bulletins…………………......374
Appendix QQ: Case Study Two: Team Meeting Agendas…………......378
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. National Assessment of Educational Progress………………………. ...33
Table 2. Marzano (2003) First and Second-Order Change…………………… ...46
Table 3. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) Instructional Leadership Behaviors…. ...50
Table 4. Leithwood & Jantzi (2000; 2005) Transformational Leadership…… ...56
Model
Table 5. Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education: Core………….. ...63
Components & Key Processes Intersecting with the ISLLC
Standards (2007)
Table 6. Principles of Learning……………………………………………….. ...85
Table 7. Disciplinary Literacy Principles and Principles of Learning………... ...89
Correlates
Table 8. Number of Exemplary and Recognized Schools……………………. ...97
Table 9. Texas’ AYP Achievement Results, 2007-2008 & 2007-2006………. ...98
Table 10. Graduation Rate Class of 2007 and 2006……………………………....99
Table 11. MPCI Core Components Alignment Matrix……………………….. ...117
Table 12. Data Collection Triangulation Table………………………………. ...118
Table 13. Data Collection Timeline…………………………………………... ...121
Table 14. I. E. Clark TAKS Achievement Data 2008-2009 For All Grades…. ...132
Table 15. Pre-Post VAL-ED Assessment Participation 2009-2010………….. ...178
Table 16. R. G. Smith TAKS Achievement Data 2008-2009 For All Grades... ...193
Table 17. Pre-Post VAL-ED Assessment Participation 2009-2010………….. ...233
Table 18. Principal Weston Fall (2009) and Spring (2010) VAL-ED………... ...240
Results Comparison
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for the Proposed Study…………………….. ...14
Figure 2. Learning-Centered Leadership Framework…………………………. ...60
Figure 3. Theoharis’ Toward a Theory of Social Justice………………………....67
Figure 4. Sample VAL-ED Survey……………………………………………...111
Figure 5. VAL-ED Performance Levels………………………………………...113
Figure 6. Principal Lindsay Fall VAL-ED Survey Results…………………... ...179
Figure 7. Principal Lindsay Fall Mean Effectiveness Rating Comparing……. ...181
Scores for Principal, Teachers, and Supervisor in Core
Component
Figure 8. Principal Lindsay Fall Intersection of Core Components and……......182
Key Processes
Figure 9. Principal Weston Fall VAL-ED Survey Results…………………… ...234
Figure 10. Principal Weston Fall Mean Effectiveness Rating Comparing…….....236
Scores for Principal, Teachers, and Supervisor in Core
Component
Figure 11. Principal Weston Fall Intersection of Core Components and……… ...237
Key Processes
Figure 12. Principal Weston 2010 Connection to External Communities…….. ...241
Results
Figure 13. Principal Weston 2010 Implementing Results……………………... ...242
Figure 14. Principal Weston Integrated Summary of Strengths and…………... ...243
Weaknesses 2009 and 2010
ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this mixed-methods, purposive case study was to investigate
the impact of participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(MPCI) on leadership practice. The MPCI is a district-wide executive leadership
capacity building strategy, which combines the District’s standards-based leadership
curriculum with a leadership coaching support structure for both novice and
experienced principals to support their implementation of district-wide improvement
initiatives. Principal leadership practices were studied in two K-5, urban elementary
schools.
The study was designed to address the following research questions: 1) How
does participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI)
prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders? 2) How does the MPCI
influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of urban school principals?
3) How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes?
4) What leadership support structures enable leader practice? 5) How can the VAL-
ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
Pre- and post-intervention survey data were collected from the online
administration of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED).
The results provided a summary of the principals’ and the teachers’ perceptions of
leader effectiveness on learning-centered leadership behaviors that have been found
x
to correlate with student achievement (Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens,
2006). Additionally, qualitative data were collected from pre/post principal and
teacher interviews, observation of leadership practice, and review and analysis of
existing documents.
Key findings revealed that although the principals had participated in the
leadership coaching initiative for a short time (i.e., five months), both principals
demonstrated behaviors and practices aligned with the learning-centered leadership
framework. This finding, that leadership practice can be influenced by participation
in the MPCI suggests that effective leadership practice can be learned (Northouse,
2007). There was some evidence that these practices had a positive influence on the
teachers’ practice in the areas of implementation of high standards for learning,
rigorous curriculum, and quality instruction focused on a culture of learning
(Murphy, 2006). However, the extent to which these practices were implemented
could not be determined.
Finally, the findings from this study suggest that the VAL-ED survey can be
used as a coaching tool to 1) move principals across performance levels; 2) identify
strengths and weaknesses; and 3) to identify areas of focus for developing
performance plans or for individual principals.
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF STUDY
Introduction
The advent of Nation at Risk 1983 and the reauthorization of Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB,
2001) resulted in the standards-based reform movement. This high-stakes reform
legislation pushed for creating effective schools, closure of subgroup achievement
gaps, and a focus on the need for effective school leadership (NCLB, 2001). It
encompassed four principles: (1) accountability for results; (2) local control and
flexibility; (3) expanded parental choice; and (4) effective and successful programs
(Cross, 2004). This plan demanded that all students achieve success regardless of
race, ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, and academic
ability. Therefore, the aggressive goal of ensuring that 100% of all children meet
proficient or advanced will require a concerted effort by all educators. To accentuate
the urgency of this reform movement, it was expected that all students reach
proficiency in Language Arts and Mathematics by the year 2014. The fact that
federal legislation was mandating a need to educate “all” children suggests that there
are gaps in our nation’s schools’ attempts to educate all students. Mandates such as
NCLB (2001), have been created to provide greater access to several in-school
factors that impact student achievement. Some of these in-school factors include
effective school leadership, expert teaching, quality resources, and access to rigorous
standards.
2
The nation had a number of schools which were failing to ensure that one or
more subgroups met the level of proficiency in mathematics and reading as required
by NCLB (2001). The nation’s call to action required policy makers, educational
leaders, teachers, and the broader community to reexamine the traditional practices
associated with schooling. Understandably, those responsible for implementing
NCLB (2001) were looking for guidance to help them comply with the many facets
of the law and make their schools as effective as possible (Stecher, Hamilton, &
Gonzalez, 2003). Elmore (2003) argued that the best solution was to focus resources
on developing strong theories and practices of school improvement that would
include a complete understanding of the principalship and how the role evolved
overtime.
Evolving Role of Principalship
Consequently, Hallinger (1992) recounted the evolution of the principalship
in the United States over the past thirty years. He described three roles that played a
significance in how the principalship was perceived and subsequently exerted
influence on the administrative practices associated with the job itself. Historically,
the three roles identified in the study were the principal as a program manager,
instructional leader, and transformational leader.
During the 1960’s and 1970’s, principals were seen as administrative
managers. The larger policy environment demanded that principals manage
federally-sponsored, funded programs designed to educate special student
populations (Hallinger, 1992). Compensatory education, bilingual education,
3
education for the handicapped and other federal entitlements required implantation
support from site-administrators. Consequently, the infusions of federal dollars bred
widespread innovations in curriculum revisions. Principals were viewed as change
agents that monitored compliance with federal regulations to assisting in staff
development and providing direct classroom support to teachers (Hallinger, 1992).
Variations in the practices of principals were closely associated with the success or
failure of reform efforts. Thus, principals who demonstrated a greater concern for
compliance had no regard for improving learning for all students and vice versa.
Furthermore, the notion that principals made a difference in the quality of schools as
experienced by teachers and students gave credence to the emergence of the
principal as the schools instructional leader during the 1980’s (Hallinger, 1992).
The 1980’s brought forth a “new orthodox” in how strong instructional
administrative leadership was characterized as the effective schools perspective. The
literature on effective schools reform defined the instructional leader as “the primary
source of knowledge for development of the school’s educational programs”
(Hallinger, 1992, p. 37). The principal was expected to be knowledgeable about
curriculum and instruction and able to intervene directly with teachers in making
instructional improvements. High expectations for students and teachers, close
supervision of classroom instruction, co-ordination of the school’s curriculum, and
close monitoring of student progress were the norms (Hallinger, 1992).
The effective schools research implicitly named the principal as the catalyst
for change. Nonetheless, the previous role of school leadership was highly
4
managerial and embedded in our evolving conception of leadership; therefore, staff
development for school leaders would provide the missing expertise that would
merge the managerial behaviors with instructionally-oriented behaviors (Hallinger,
1992). Critics asserted that the conception of the principal as the instructional leader
is ill-suited for long term effects and that it only encompassed a portion of the
activities associated with effective leadership. This prompted the movement to a
new type of leadership; transformational leadership. Transformational leadership
was an extension of the instructional leader construct. It was often referred to as the
bottom up approach (Hallinger, 2003). The principal was a leader of leaders in this
definition, thus setting direction, developing the instructional leadership in teachers
and redesigning the organization (Liethwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004). The transformational leader focused on the enhancement of individual and
collective problem-solving capacities of organizational members by emphasizing the
importance of collegiality, experimentation, teacher reflection and school-based staff
development. The principal spent a greater portion of time working with staff in a
collaborative mode which meant decision making was no longer a discretionary or
private activity (Hallinger, 1992).
NCLB (2001) recognized that the current system of education was not
adequately preparing students. American public schools would continue to function
as a vehicle for sorting, selecting, and perpetuating societal priorities. Unfortunately,
expectations and beliefs were not sufficient practices needed to educate an ever
changing populace to proficiency. While principals had indirect influence on student
5
achievement they did have direct influence on teacher practice and organizational
climate that would eventually have a profound effect on student achievement
(Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Leithwood et. al, 2004; Darling- Hammond,
2005; Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, & Porter, 2006; Murphy, Goldring, Cravens, Elliot,
& Porter, 2007). Leadership was the key to changing the status quo. Leadership
required men and women who were able to successfully navigate between
instructional, transformational, and learning centered leadership practices to meet the
challenges of NCLB (2001) while leading within the urban context. Principals
integrated a variety of roles that made change sustainable. The evolution from
managerial to instructional leadership resulted in eager principals swimming
upstream in their attempts to put instructional leadership theory into practice.
Nonetheless, as instructional leaders, principals were asked to engage in instructional
improvement where school staffs must thoughtfully examine current practice and
make informed choices as to directions for the development of new practice
(Hallinger, 1992). Therefore, an effective urban school leader who had an explicit
theory and understanding of what represented good instructional practices was
needed to shift patterns of poor performance in urban schools (Elmore, 2003;
Hallinger, 2003; Marzano, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). These educational leaders
understood that improving teacher practice and student achievement meant
facilitating the transition from a weak instructional core to an explicit infrastructure
where powerful teaching and learning was accessible and expected (Elmore, 2003).
While research demonstrated that well prepared effective urban leaders had some
6
influence on teaching and learning, there was a shortage of prepared leaders who had
the capacity to mitigate the challenges of the urban context of learning (Hallinger,
2003; Elmore, 2003). Additionally, there were limited empirical studies specific to
their practice and how leadership practice directly impacted student outcomes
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Hallinger, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2005; Murphy et al,
2006; Murphy et al., 2007).
Urban Leadership
As Hallinger (1992) exclaimed the question that prevailed was are urban
schools equipped with leaders that have the knowledge, skills, and habits of practice
needed to inform and meet the expectations of NCLB (Cuban, 2001). Hallinger et
al., (1996) asserted that a new type of leadership was needed that specifically address
the characteristics inherent in the urban context. Preparing and supporting school
leaders to successfully address the adaptive challenges presented by their context and
provide all students with access to rigorous standards-based curriculum required a
dramatic change in the way in which urban school leaders were prepared and
supported (Elmore, 2003). Ill-prepared urban school leaders often failed to have a
complete understanding of the factors associated with the larger context and the un-
equal distribution of educational opportunities afforded minority students. This
highlights the prevailing assumption that context had no bearing on leadership and
leadership was the same in a low-performing school and a high–performing school
(Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Cuban, 2001). Urban schools faced unique challenges; they
required a different set of resources (Noguera, 1996; Cuban, 2001). Increasing
7
evidence showed that well prepared urban school leaders were critical to increased
student achievement. Leadership effects had proven to be stronger in low-SES
schools as compared to high-SES schools (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Hallinger et al.,
1996).
Leadership Frameworks
Hallinger (1992) described two leadership frameworks that had prevailed in
the past; instructional and transformational leadership. Under the instructional
leadership model, leaders implemented leadership behaviors such as framing school
goals, coordinating curriculum, enforcing academic standards, and monitoring
student progress (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Hallinger, 2005; Heck, 1992). On the
other hand, transformational leadership promoted a collaborative culture in regards
to decision making. It encouraged intellectual stimulation and offered individualized
support (Hallinger, 1992; Liethwood & Jantzi, 2000, 2005). Because both of these
models had been prevalent in the leadership literature, an integrated model would
combine the power of both constructs (Marks & Printy, 2003). The learning-
centered leadership framework emerged to fill this gap.
Murphy et al., (2006) proposed a new leadership framework that was
comprised of both the instructional and transformational constructs. Relative to the
demands of NCLB (2001) the learning-centered leadership framework included a
focus on social advocacy as it related to effective leadership in urban schools.
Unfortunately, 55 years after Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), students of color
were still subject to systematic exclusion from educational opportunities that fostered
8
higher levels of literacy to prepare them for college and a global society (Hallinger,
2003). This framework spoke to the urgency of the role of leadership in addressing
the marginalization of students in urban schools. Theoharis (2007) contended that
leaders who enacted social justice leadership practices “made issues of race, class,
gender, disability, and other historically and currently marginalizing conditions
central to advocacy, leadership practice, and vision” (p. 223).
The goal of taking an integrated approach to leadership practice was to use
theoretical frameworks to develop urban school leaders who were highly
knowledgeable and highly effective. Bolman and Deal (2003) devised frames that
were windows on the world of leadership and management (p. 12). The four frames
were: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. These frames were
considered useful in developing the capacity of urban school leaders. The frames
were maps, tools, lenses, or orientations and perspectives that provided a mental
model from where a leader could begin. As leaders began to reframe organizations,
it was imperative that the four frames were used as bases for restructuring their
organizations. Concurrent with this line of thinking was that the four conceptual
frameworks embodied four different schools of thought that promoted behaviors of
effective school leaders that influenced student achievement through direct impact of
teacher practice and organizational structures.
Our nation continued to struggle under the confines of NCLB (2001), a
shortage of highly qualified principals was prevalent (Davis et al., 2005).
Additionally, as the void became even larger, the knowledge and skills required to
9
successfully lead these schools became even more complex. Urban school leaders
needed to have support structures in place through mentoring and coaching that
enabled them to enact and sustain learning-centered leadership practices in order to
meet the challenges of NCLB (2001). The mentor provided guidance to the learner
by strategizing ways to resolve problems and assist the mentee in the development of
leadership skills. Leadership preparation programs that contained this component
were considered to be effective (Davis et al., 2005).
Statement of the Problem
NCLB (2001) prompted the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR)
movement where administrators were grappling with how to decrease the
achievement gap between Blacks and Hispanics and their White and Asian
counterparts (EdSource, 2005; Zehr, 2006). NCLB (2001) mandated that by the year
2014, all students perform at the proficient level on high stakes measures of
accountability regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic status, language
proficiency, and academic ability. If all students were to demonstrate “universal
proficiency” as mandated by NCLB (2001), then leaders everywhere would likely
begin searching for answers on how to improve instructional practices and affect
student learner outcomes. However, a review of the literature has shown that there is
a shortage of rigorous research on leader practice and little is known about how
leadership practice actually influenced student achievement (Hallinger & Heck,
1996; Hallinger, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006).
10
Clearly a knowledge gap in the preparation of urban school principals
persisted within the educational system because the number of school districts
“failing” to meet the performance indicators established by NCLB (2001) continued
to increase. What is yet to be known was how principals developed the competencies
and capacity to influence how schools function and what leadership behaviors were
fundamental to develop a highly effective principal. To this end, there is significant
research available that correlates leadership practice with student outcomes; however
there is no known body of evidence that correlates the impact of leadership capacity
building programs with increased learner outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2005;
Marzano, 2005; Liethwood et al., 2004). Likewise, program features that influenced
values, beliefs, and knowledge of principal participants was left to be discovered.
More research is needed to understand how key elements of leadership capacity
building programs such as: (a) pedagogy; (b) rigor; (c) curricular coherence; (d)
connection between theory and practice; and (e) support structures such as mentoring
and coaching, influence leader practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Levine,
2005). Additionally, research is absent from the literature in the areas of
“curriculum, assessment, and adaptation to local contexts (Davis et al., 2005).
Because the federal government was clear that all students should be
proficient by 2014, a theory based on social justice is eminent in the development of
preparation programs (Brown, 2006; Capper, Theoharis & Sebastian, 2006;
Theoharis, 2007). What is needed is additional training beyond the scope of
common knowledge about the urban context and what it portrays. As emphasized by
11
Capper et al., (2006) and Theoharis (2004) those programs include components that
address critical consciousness, knowledge, and practical skills, with a focus on social
justice. Brown (2006) argues “if current and future educational leaders are expected
to foster successful, equitable, and socially responsible learning and accountability
practices for all students, then substantive changes in educational leadership
preparation and professional development program are required” (p. 705). Preparing
and supporting leaders in the urban context to address the adaptive challenges of
urban schooling, requires preparation programs to connect theory to practice, and to
actively engage in transformative learning (Brown, 2006).
Purpose of the Study
…frustrated leaders and policy makers…noticed that, after rendering
a decision about something that seemed momentous, absolutely
nothing happened in the classroom. The board adopted academics
standards and solemnly vowed that all children would meet them.
Nothing happened in the classroom. The superintendent announced a
new vision statement; along with core values and an organizational
mission that the entire staff would enthusiastically chant. Nothing
happened in the classroom. Millions were spent on new technology.
Nothing happened in the classroom. Staff development programs
were adopted…Although seats were dutifully warmed during
countless training, nothing happened in the classroom. (Reeves, 2004,
p. 2)
The purpose of this mixed methods, purposive case study was to determine
whether a fully developed leadership capacity building program complemented by
leadership coaching support and assessment of leadership practice, was effective in
promoting and sustaining change in leader practice and teacher professional practice.
The examination of leadership theories and models served as the basis for identifying
12
components of effective leadership development programs (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2007) that would build the capacity of urban leaders to create and sustain the
conditions for quality teaching and learning to occur. Additionally, the study sought
to identify how participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
study (MPCI 2009) influenced leaders’ practice, especially given the challenges that
they encountered in urban schools.
Consistent with contemporary research on leadership, effective leaders are
those who possess beliefs, knowledge, skills and practices critical to shaping a
culture of learning (Elmore, 2003; Marzano, 2003; Murphy et al., 2006; Hallinger,
2003). Therefore, specific program features that influence the leader’s knowledge,
beliefs, and behaviors that impact teacher practice and student outcomes in urban
school settings would be identified. Thus, any and all leadership capacity building
programs should be designed to educate leaders to promote equity and face the
challenges of the urban context (poverty, poor quality teachers, high leadership
turnover, poor student performance, high student absenteeism, English learners, and
high drop-out rates). Additionally, leadership preparation program must focus on
providing leaders with specific skills or strategies that equip participants with the
ability to navigate the unique challenges of the urban context. Data were collected to
determine if the program, in fact, led to a change in the principals’ leadership
practices, and if those factors were shaped or reshaped by participation in the MPCI
(2009).
13
Through a review of the literature, researchers have found that there is a
shortage of leaders in the urban setting that affect the professional practice of
teachers overtime and impact student learning (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Hallinger,
2003; Darling-Hammond, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). Specifically, this research is
driven by the need to learn more about the impact of a leadership capacity building
program that impacts an urban school principal’s ability to successfully lead a low-
performing urban school.
Summary of Conceptual Framework
The conceptual model for this study (see Figure 1) depicts the potential that a
leadership capacity building program can intuitively have on principal behaviors,
which directly affects teacher practice and indirectly affects student outcomes. As
the model is framed by theory, professional standards, and the urban context, it
illustrates how transformational leadership, instructional leadership, and learner-
centered leadership work in concert to promote social justice.
Figure 1 represents the conceptual framework that will guide this study:
14
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for the Proposed Study
The conceptual framework depicts that NCLB and the urban context remain
constant and that they impact leader behavior. Pitner’s (1988) antecedent with
mediated effects model argues that leaders present themselves with a set of pre-
existing behaviors that govern their leadership. Murphy et al., (2007) state that
leadership behaviors are heavily influenced by four major conditions: 1) the previous
experiences of a leader; 2) the knowledge base the leader amasses over time; 3) the
personal characteristics a leader brings to his position; and 4) the set of values and
beliefs that help define the leader. Thus, 1) behaviors are largely influenced by
15
values and beliefs, experiences, knowledge, and personal characteristics, and 2) the
school context which includes the demographics, school size, parental involvement,
and the community (Hallinger et al., 1996).
Principal preparedness is the next part of the conceptual model. Leaders who
are adequately prepared to handle the unique challenges of the urban context can
have a profound effect on teaching and learning and organizational structures.
Consequently, leadership capacity building programs should provide a knowledge
base that encompasses both the learning-centered and the social justice framework.
The learning-centered framework incorporates instructional and transformational
leadership. Leaders who put into practice the social justice leadership framework
have the potential to ensure the success of all students.
As noted in the next section of the framework, leaders indirectly influence
student outcomes. Hallinger et al., (1996) and Liethwood et al., (2004) contend that
leaders indirectly influence student outcomes by the organizational structures they
create, and by their impact on teacher practice; teacher practice and organizational
structures. These factors directly impact student outcomes. The ultimate goal of
education is to educate citizens that can and will compete in the global economy,
thus the ultimate goal is to increase student outcomes. This undoubtedly makes the
development of organizational structures and processes the leader’s responsibility to
influence teacher practice that in turn impacts learner outcomes. Adapting an
integrated model of both learning-centered and social justice frameworks will
prepare leaders for the challenges that lie ahead.
16
Significance of Study
The mandates of NCLB (2001) coupled with the complexities of the urban
context, requires a well prepared urban leader that creates and sustains organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and student
outcomes. The research study has the potential to develop conceptual tools to make
the actions of urban school principals transparent and visible in developing social
capital in schools that benefit professionals and students alike. The focus will be
upon identifying specified features and program attributes that influence leaders’
knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors in ways that positively influence teacher
professional practice in the urban school setting.
The findings of this study will be of value to the education community at
large. First, this study will delineate the components of a leadership capacity
building program and support structures that enable sustainability. Fullan (2005)
defines sustainability as the - capacity of a system to engage in the complexities of
continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human purpose (p. ix). In
addition, policymakers and universities that design leadership capacity building
programs will glean new ways to redesign the structure and curriculum of these
programs. Second, practicing principals will appreciate how structures and processes
were created and sustained that highlight the important role of leadership in
facilitating a results-driven program for improved student performance. This vital
information will depict the necessary leadership behaviors needed in the urban
setting to affect teacher practice and increased learner outcomes. Furthermore, it
17
accentuates the need for the inclusion of how leaders enact social justice and how
social justice leadership theory can form the bases for leadership capacity programs.
Finally, information from this study will add to the accumulating effective research
of current leadership practices that influence the knowledge and leadership practices
of urban school principals and emerging professional trends.
Research Questions
The purpose of the case study was to contribute to the knowledge base
regarding effective components of leadership capacity building programs and
support structures which enable and sustain urban school leaders practice.
Specifically, it investigated the impact of principal participation in a fully developed,
research and standard-based, executive leadership development program on leader
practice and professional practice of teachers. Two principals were identified to
participate in the study that was already a part of the Metropolitan ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI 2009). Through the study, I took a comprehensive look
at the practices they enacted which have the potential to lead to attainment of the
MISD core standards and the eight dimensions of Murphy’s Learning-Centered
Framework. Each case study focused on how the Metropolitan ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI 2009) program prepares leaders to create organizational
structures and practices that promote effective teacher practices and improve student
outcomes in the urban context.
The proposed study will sought to additionally expand the knowledge base in
regards to components of effective leadership support structures at the school and
18
district levels which enable principal’s leadership practice in creating and sustaining
the conditions for effective teacher practice and promoting a more equitable and
effective student learning environment in the urban school setting. Qualitative as
well as quantitative data were collected to determine the leader’s change in practice
and how these factors have been shaped or reshaped by participation and experience
in the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI 2009) over time. The
study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching
Initiative (MPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional
leaders?
2. How does the MPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
These questions will be addressed using a mixed-methods case study approach to
collecting and using both qualitative (interviews, observations, and surveys) and
quantitative data. While the responses to these questions are intended to increase the
19
knowledge base in regards to effective strategies for the development of urban
school leaders, delimitations and limitations do exist.
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
Delimitations are limitations that the researcher chose to use while limitations
refer to limitations on the study that are beyond the control of the specific researcher.
The focus of this study is limited to an investigation of the impact of leadership
capacity building programs on leader practice and teacher professional practice.
Since the urban context is the setting for this study, the participants for this study
will be limited to principals and teachers that work in urban public schools.
The limitations for this study revolve around the issue of time and distance.
Due to these factors, only a few (2 -3) formal observations will be conducted. Time
constraints will only allow for four days (two in the fall and two in the spring) of
data collection on site with each principal, their staff, and students. The study will
take place over a 5-month period, which will limit the researcher ability to observe
substantial changes in leader practice as well as the impact that leader practice had
on teacher professional practice and organizational structures. In addition, the
researcher will have limited face-to-face access with the participants because the
study took place in Metropolitan, Texas. The following areas should also be
considered when looking at the limitations of the study:
1. Length of Study: Time for collecting data from the fieldwork for this
study was limited to five months.
20
2. The fact that the post-assessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively
soon after the pre-assessment (approximately five months) limited the
degree to which it could fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas
assessed. In addition, time for the fieldwork in this study was limited to
five months.
3. Pre-test Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration
of the VAL-ED had inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected
in the second administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of
factors other than the participants’ participation in MPCI.
4. The “halo effect:” Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), participants could have a tendency to
assume specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression.
However, to mitigate against this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-ED
survey required that raters identify the primary source of evidence for
their rating on each item (i.e., personal observation, documents, etc.).
5. The pre-post administration of the VAL-ED survey was not completed by
100% of the teaching staff in each case limited the degree to which it
could fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas assessed.
6. The coach for one of the principals did not engage in a relationship with
the principal during the course of the study.
21
Assumptions
There are five key assumptions that frame this research study. First, is the
belief that leadership is a key variable in the process of improving outcomes for
students. Second, is the belief that the context within which leadership is practiced
matters and determines the actions leaders take. Third, leadership is defined as ―the
process of influencing others to achieve mutually agreed upon purposes for the
organization (Patterson, 1993, p.3). Embodied within this definition is the notion
that leadership is not a personal trait or characteristic of an effective school leader. It
is a process; effective leadership practice can be taught (Northouse, 2007). The
exercise of leadership involves influence. As such, it requires interactions and
relationships among constituents. Leadership involves purpose while focused upon
helping organizations and constituents reach identified goals.
Fourth, this study conceptualizes the effects of principal leadership in
promoting and sustaining valued outcomes in terms of the antecedent with indirect-
effects model (e.g., Boyan, 1988; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Heck et al., 1990;
Leithwood et al., 1990; Silins, 1994). Leadership behavior is shaped by four major
conditions: (a) the previous experiences of a leader (e.g., experience as a curriculum
coordinator in a district office will likely lead to the use of behaviors different than
those featured by a leader who has had considerable experience as an assistant
principal); (b) the knowledge base the leader amasses over time; (c) the types of
personal characteristics a leader brings to the job (e.g., achievement need, energy
level); and (d) the set of values and beliefs that help define a leader (e.g., beliefs
22
about the appropriate role for subordinates in decision processes), (Murphy et al.,
2007, p. 2). Leadership effects occur indirectly through the principal's behaviors that
influence teacher practice and organizational structures and processes (Murphy et al.,
2007; Hallinger et al., 1996). A principal’s practice of effective leadership behaviors
is situated within the learner centered leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2007).
Finally, the major components of this leadership development program align
with those found in the literature (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007) to develop skilled
leaders. These programs have 1) have well articulated goals rooted in theory of
leadership; 2) use preparation strategies that maximize learning, transfer of learning,
and leadership identification; 3) provide strong content and field experience during
leadership preparation.
Definition of Terms
Leadership for Social Justice: A leadership theory and practice where
principals advocate, lead and keep at the center of their practice and vision issues of
race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other historically and currently
marginalizing conditions in the United States (Theoharis, 2007).
Learning Walk: An organized walk through a school’s halls and classrooms
using the Principles of Learning to focus on the instructional core (IFL, 2006).
NCLB: The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, the No Child Left Behind legislations requires that all students reach
English Language Arts and Mathematics proficiency levels by the end of the 2013 –
2014 school year (NCLB, 2001).
23
Metropolitan Achievers – District’s Initiative to become the best urban
school district in America by 2010. It is a comprehensive coordinated professional
development plan focused on building capacity among campus administrators in the
implementation of best practices based on a curriculum and instruction audit by
National Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA, 2005). In partnership with
Institute for Learning (IFL) 17 leadership institutes have been provided district wide
focusing on the Principles of Learning (POL), Learning Walk, Professional Learning
Communities (PLC), and Disciplinary Literacy.
Metropolitan Principal Coaching Initiative (2009) – the program primarily
funded by a grant from the Meadows Foundation. The Principal Coaching Model
began in January 2009 to serve building principals. Principals are provided coaches
who are part-time employees of the district or contracted employees of Region 10
Education Service Center. Each coach is assigned one or two principals to whom
professional development opportunities are given to bring new administrators up to a
similar level of existing administrators. This includes an introduction to the
organization and operations of Metropolitan ISD and Transforming Our Public
Schools (TOPS) series of professional development to build leadership capacity.
Social Capital: derived mainly from the work of Bourdieu (1977), the
concept focuses on the degree and quality of middle-class forms of social support
inherent in a young person’s interpersonal network. Like economic capital, social
ties and networks carry the potential to generate valued resources.
24
VAL-ED: The data collection instrument that will be used to quantify
leadership practice, which is based on the ISLLC standards and developed by Joseph
Murphy at Vanderbilt University (Murphy, 2007).
360º Survey Assessment: A comprehensive evaluation tool providing a view
of a school leader through the assessment of various stakeholders’ (students, parents,
leadership team, teachers, colleagues) perspective of the principal’s performance
(Webb & Norton, 2009).
Organization of the Study
There are five distinct chapters within this study. Chapter One provides an
overview of the research study, including a statement of the problem, the purpose of
the study, summary of the conceptual framework, the significance of the study,
research questions, assumptions and limitations of the study, and finally definition of
terms. A comprehensive review of the literature will take place in Chapter Two.
Chapter Three will describe the methodology of the research that outlines the design
study, sample criteria, data collection, and analysis procedures. Chapter Four
presents the findings of the study. And the final chapter, Five, presents the
conclusion, and suggestions for further research. References and appendices will
conclude the study.
25
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter was to review and synthesize the extant literature
in the area of effective leadership development. In this chapter, the urban context
will be discussed with a discussion on the pervasiveness of low teacher expectations
prevalent in the urban context and how school leadership is different within this
context. Next, the impact that standards-based accountability has placed on leaders
with the development of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC) standards which have elicited a new direction for school leadership that
emphasizes the research on leadership effects. In addition to defining leadership, the
literature on leadership theories will be discussed (instructional, transformational,
learning centered and social justice leadership) as they relate to the development of
effective leaders who can influence the professional practice of teachers and student
learning outcomes in the urban context. Further, research on organizational
structures and processes will be discussed. Following this, the components of
effective leadership capacity building programs and support structures are elaborated
upon to explain how leadership capacity building and support increase the likelihood
of a principal’s ability to increase student achievement and enable and sustain
effective leadership practice. Finally, I will discuss Metropolitan Achieves which is
aligned with many of the components outlined in the literature on effective
leadership development programs. An in depth description of the Metropolitan
Independent School District Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI 2009) will also be a
26
part of this review. The MPCI program will be the focus of the leadership
preparation and development of participants identified for this study.
Background of the Problem
In announcing that President Bush had signed into law the NCLB legislation
in January of 2002, the White House issued a press release that stated the following:
Under the new law, states and school districts developed strong systems of
accountability based upon student performance. The new law also gave those
states and school districts increased local control and flexibility, removing
federal red tape and bureaucracy and putting decision-making in the hands of
those at the local and state levels. Parents of children from disadvantaged
backgrounds had options under the new law to participate in public school
choice programs or obtain supplemental services such as tutoring. And
teachers around the country were encouraged to use teaching methods that
were based upon scientific research demonstrating that they worked.
This statement highlighted the prominent role that leadership plays in the context of
this new accountability system. Furthermore, it suggested that the intent of this
legislation was not only to permeate the walls of the classroom, affecting the way in
which teachers instructed students but to also enable children from high poverty
settings to be academically successful. Although, the legislation called for a focus
on instructional strategies that were backed by scientific research, NCLB (2001) did
not emphasize the relationship between leadership and student achievement. In
2001, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) began an
extensive review of more than 5,000 studies that purported to examine the
relationship between school leadership and student achievement. Seventy of these
studies, involved 2,802 schools, 14,000 teachers and 1.4 million students, met
27
McREL’s (2001) criteria for inclusion in a meta-analysis. The key findings of this
meta-analysis were:
• Principal leadership was significantly correlated with student
achievement. The average effect size was .25. That was, one standard
deviation improvement in principal leadership was associated with 10
percentile difference in student achievement.
• Twenty-one specific leadership responsibilities, and 66 associated
practices, were statistically significant relationships with student
achievement.
Elmore (2003) stated that new policy initiatives from national and state
educational entities were "over invested in testing" focused on measuring growth in
school performance against fixed standards, while it was "under invested in capacity
building" (p. 1). To ensure that all schools were lead by highly qualified principals,
NCLB (2001) established a definition that demonstrated the necessary skills for
effectively leading a school. Within this context of school reform where student
achievement was central, principals connected their supervisory roles to student
outcomes. Teachers were key in connecting the two. Effective leadership was
second among school-related factors that have a strong influence on academic
achievement; teaching was first (Marzano, 2005; Leithwood et al., 2004). The
growing body of evidence that supported that principals, did in fact, influence
student achievement through the development of teachers and organizational
structures typifies the importance of leadership practice (Hallinger et al., 1996;
28
Liethwood et al., 2004; Murphy et al., 2006). Thus, the impact that leadership had
on student achievement could not be placated. The purpose of this study was to
examine how leadership preparation programs were preparing principals for the
challenges faced in high-poverty schools since research implied that the skills needed
for high-poverty schools were different from those of more affluent schools
(Vandehaar, Munoz, & Rodosky, 2007). Specifically it investigated the impact of
principal participation in an executive leadership development program which
enabled and sustained a leader’s practice and professional practice of teachers.
Chapter One established that there was a gap between the knowledge and skills
learned in leadership preparation programs to the actual skills needed to be an
effective leader in the urban context. It also established that there was no correlation
that leadership capacity building programs influenced the knowledge, beliefs, and
values of urban school principals to increase student outcomes. Incidentally, it did
not establish a definition for leadership. A definition of leadership follows.
Leadership Defined
There was certainly no shortage of books, articles, and consultants professing
to know how to enhance leadership skills, create and manage innovation, and to lead
transformation. Educational administration scholars have devoted considerable time
over the past century in hopes of defining leadership in a way that it can be
conceptualized. Professor John Kotter (2002) at Harvard Business School studied
the presence and absence of leadership in business organizations for the past 32
years; he proposed that excellent leadership was like gravity. It was felt everywhere
29
but little understood. Nevertheless, leadership was considered a key element in
organized efficiency and effectiveness (Kotter, 2002). Even though Leithwood and
Duke (1999) claimed that there was no clear agreed upon definition of leadership,
the literature was inundated with definitions.
Researchers agreed that leadership was a process of social influence.
Drawing on the work of Bolman and Deal (2003) and similar to Spillane (2007),
Northouse (2007) asserted that leadership was a process by which one person
influenced other people to achieve common goals (Murphy & Seashore, 1999).
Northouse (2007) identified four components that shaped the definition: (1)
leadership was a process; (2) leadership involved influence; (3) leadership occurred
in a group context; (4) leadership involved goal attainment. Spillane’s (2007)
definition of leadership spoke specifically to the variables being influenced;
motivation, knowledge, affect, or practice (Murphy & Seashore, 1999). Whereas
Bolman and Deal (2003), surmised that both the leader and the followers were
mutually influencing ideas and actions together in order to attain common goals.
Yukl as cited by Liethwood and Duke (1994) illustrated that influence was
intentionally exerted by a person (or group) over other people (or groups). Influence
then seemed to be a necessary ingredient of the word leadership. Elmore (2005)
insinuated that leadership was the “guidance” and “direction” of instructional
improvement. Accountable leadership required educators to incorporate new things
to improve teaching and learning, and their school’s performance (Elmore, 2005).
30
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote on the topic of leadership and leading others to change in
the “The Prince” in 1514:
We must bear in mind, then, that there was nothing more difficult and
dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a
new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all
those who derived advantages from the old order of things while those
who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but
lukewarm defenders.... This indifference arises in part from fear of
their adversaries who were favored by the existing laws, and party
from the incredulity of men who have no faith in anything new that
was not the result of well-established experience. Hence, it was that,
whenever the opponents of the new order of things have the
opportunity to attack it, they would do it with zeal of partisans, while
the others defend it but feeble, so that was dangerous to rely upon the
latter.
Why then was it so difficult for someone to lead others to change? An individual’s
mind-set caused bias to influence thinking; thinking then influenced behavior.
Individual thinking coupled with a leader who disrupted the status quo, challenged
the common practices, and imposed disequilibrium into the organization, causing
change that was not comfortable.
Innovations could not be successful without a fundamental understanding of
the change process. Knowing this, how were leaders developed in this age of
accountability? Undoubtedly if practice was defined by knowledge and skill, then
accountable leaders needed access to knowledge and a conceptual framework to
implement that knowledge. Yukl as cited by Liethwood and Duke (1994) suggested
that variation in leadership theories attributed to who exerted the influence, the
purpose for the exercise of influence, and its outcomes. Assimilating the theories
deeply impacted how school leaders determined their influence. For the purpose of
31
this paper, leadership was defined as a process that can be learned and available to
everyone (Northouse, 2007).
All things considered, leaders are faced with the urgency of school
performance and given its potential improbability for low-performing schools, much
of the research focused on schools that served challenging student populations (i.e.
poverty, language, previous poor performance) but nevertheless met or exceeded
state and national academic performance standards (Orr, Berg, Shore, & Meir, 2008).
Such research did not look in-depth at the school’s persistent lack of progress caused
by the conditions and unique challenges permeated by its environment. According to
Murphy (2002), we responded to the challenges primarily by ignoring them, because
we failed to grapple with the issues at large. This section will highlight the unique
and sizeable challenges associated with school-level factors that affect student
performance including teacher beliefs and school leadership in the context of urban
schools.
Context of Urban Schools
Go into a city, find where the poor people live, visit one of the
elementary schools their children attend and the overwhelming
likelihood is that you will be in a school that is failing to teach its
students to read (As cited by Murphy 2005 in Ellis, 1975, p.4).
If a child cannot read, she or he bears the consequence mostly alone
– embarrassment now, intensifying frustration with each passing
school year, and an adulthood of limited options (Field, Kerr, &
Rosier, 2007, p. 145).
Urban school districts pose the greatest challenges. These districts serve the
vast majority of poor, minority, and immigrant children in the country; low test
32
scores, low grades, high dropout rates, poor attendance, generally unmotivated
students, burned out or ineffective teachers, dilapidated and unsafe buildings,
administration mired in inefficient bureaucracies is representative of the urban
environment including low socioeconomics, cultural differences, and academic
underachievement of students (Cuban, 2001; Noguera, 2003; Nevarez & Wood,
2007; Resnick & Glennan, 2002). Hence, this trend is perpetuated by the
phenomenon known as “White flight” – where white families relocate to suburban
areas leaving urban districts to contend with primarily low-income African American
and Hispanic students, where 51% of children live in low-income homes (Nevarez &
Wood, 2007).
Unfortunately, the achievement levels of students in urban public schools
have continued to lag behind that of white students (Nevarez & Wood, 2007;
Resnick & Glennan, 2002). Low ability in reading and math has hindered overall
academic performance (Nevarez & Wood, 2007). As noted by the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2007 for 4
th
grade students in the Texas
area, 40% percent performed at or above the Basic level in Math and 30% percent
performed at or above the Basic level in Reading. In comparison to white students,
Black and Hispanic students scored on average 20 points lower in Reading; whereas
in Math, Black students scored on average 23 points lower and Hispanics were 17
points lower. Students eligible for free-reduced lunch scored 17-27 points lower
than students not eligible. Table 1 gives an overview of 4
th
grade NAEP data for
2007.
33
Table 1. National Assessment of Educational Progress
Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Texas: 2007
Reading Math
Reporting Groups
Percent of
students
Average
Score
Percent of
students
Average
Score
Male 50 217 51 243
Female 50 223 49 242
White 37 232 36 253
Black 16 207 15 230
Hispanic 43 212 45 236
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 236 3 263
Eligible for National
School Lunch Program
54 209 55 235
Not eligible for National
School Lunch Program
44 232 43 252
NAEP 2007 cut scores depicted the lowest score representative of the level as
followed: Reading – Advanced (268), Proficient (238), and Basic (208); Math –
Advanced (282), Proficient (249), and Basic (214). These results are representative
of the urban schools throughout the state where the urban school is deeply influenced
by the neighborhoods from which it draws its students (Cuban, 2001). Conversely
so, communities that were “school-dependent” depended on the school to address
their children’s learning, socialization, and development needs. Noguera (2003)
described how parents spoke about school being a safe place to send their children.
For many poor children school provided the stability that was often missing from
other parts of their life. There were few, if any, outside environments or other
34
education support options that existed (Orr, Jimenez, McFarlane, & Brown, 2005).
Noguera (2003) stated that public schools were the only institutions charged with
providing educational needs to poor children; even though there was little evidence
of educational efficacy urban schools still provided a social safety net that was
desperately needed for poor children in the U.S.
The underlying assumption was that equal opportunities existed; therefore,
continued low-levels of achievement on the part of minority students were a function
of genes, culture, or a lack of effort (Darling-Hammond, 2009). However, the
educational outcomes for minority children were much more a function of their
unequal access to key educational resources, including quality curriculum, qualified
and experienced teachers, and culturally responsive leaders than they were a function
of race (Darling-Hammond, 2009). Nevarez and Wood (2007) asserted that teachers
needed an understanding of how their beliefs mediated the effects of student-learner
outcomes. Theorists identified structural forces such as school environments,
cultural capital, the persistence of racial stratification and institutional practices such
as tracking and low teacher expectations that shaped student outcomes (Diamond,
Randolph, & Spillane, 2000). All of these forces were implicated in “passing on
privilege to the children of the powerful and cementing the disadvantages of students
from less affluent families” (Diamond et al., 2000, p. 3). Indeed school reform
efforts stalled or failed because deficit beliefs became a filter that blocked educators’
abilities to examine their assumptions (Orr et al., 2008). This type of “deficit-
thinking” was examined by Diamond et al., (2000).
35
This qualitative study (Diamond et al., 2000) examined five urban elementary
schools where the racial composition of schools profoundly influenced what teachers
and school administrators believed about students. These case study schools
perceived students’ color and socio-economic status as a variable in determining
students’ academic capacity. They reported evaluating students work less critically
giving them less challenging work, and resisted instructional innovation. Darling-
Hammond (2009) cited a comparative study where the quality of instruction given
African-American students was on average lower than that given to white students.
The basic argument was that low expectations for students translated into
instructional practices that ultimately contributed to social reproduction where high
and low achieving students were treated differently by teachers, with low-achievers
receiving less attention being seated further from the teacher getting less demanding
work, getting less teacher support and getting less time to answer questions (Darling-
Hammond, 2009; Diamond et al., 2000). Teacher and administrators alike believed
that the students’ family environments and neighborhood contexts, along with the
presence of drugs and gang violence all contributed to them coming to school
unprepared or unable to focus. While recognizing that students faced challenges, the
school administrator’s responsibility was to respond to students and the community
at large regardless of the challenges permeated by the urban context (Diamond et al.,
2000).
As a result, administrators redefined school culture and climate addressing
the intersection between school culture and diversity, and the need to focus on the
36
principles of equity, success, and social justice for all students (Nevarez & Wood,
2007). This meant persons who wished to affect the larger educational community
were directed by a powerful portfolio of beliefs and values anchored in issues such
as social justice, community, and schools that function for the betterment of all
children and youth (Murphy, 2002). According to Nevarez and Wood (2007)
administrators focused on three primary areas to help teachers develop a fundamental
understanding of the urban setting: (1) Teachers must be knowledgeable about
instructional practices that infuse cultural learning styles; (2) Teachers must develop
a disposition that values cultural norms and traditions; advocating for social justice
and educational equity; and (3) teachers must make a connection between a students’
culture and instruction in the learning process. Principals and district administrators
spent little or no time in classrooms and therefore were not aware of the lack of
professional competencies, which led to a lack of capacity to provide adequate
professional development experiences (Schmoker, 2006). Evidence suggested that
careful and sustained attention to the quality of instruction and the conditions of
learning made a difference in the urban context (Resnick & Glennan, 2002).
Culturally responsive teachers were not made overnight, however providing
additional support included the ability to attend conferences, workshops on
educational change, and specialized training in becoming culturally responsive
teachers. As teacher progressed across the continuum of becoming culturally
competent Villegas and Lucas (2002) outlined six characteristics that defined
culturally responsive teachers: (a) they were socio-culturally conscious and accept
37
multiple ways of being; (b) they affirmed students’ identity and culture as assets; (c)
they were agents of change by addressing institutional barriers; (d) they promoted
learner’s knowledge construction and learning styles; (e) they had first-hand
knowledge about the lives of their students and (f) they used knowledge about the
diverse lives of students to inform curriculum and instruction. These six
characteristics provided a framework through which urban school leaders could
ultimately develop culturally responsive teachers.
According to the literature there was a need for leadership programs to
prepare leaders who would work successfully in urban schools. Leaders needed to
have a strong commitment to valuing diversity and the skills to respond to the
challenges and opportunities brought by constantly changing demographics in many
urban communities. Leadership programs needed to design curriculum that (1)
addressed the need for leaders to understand diversity; (2) supported the
development of qualified teachers; (3) acknowledged the cultural differences
between teachers and students; and (4) developed a school climate that is inclusive of
all student views and home backgrounds (Nevarez & Wood, 2007).
With this in mind, leaders needed to know their own values, beliefs, and
attitudes regarding urban schooling. Evans (2007) performed a comparable study
examining the meanings and messages about race that developed a framework for
school leaders about sense-making in the broader conceptions of racism and how that
influenced decision making in schools. Issues and events were interpreted by school
leaders based on their own history and background, beliefs, role identities, and group
38
affiliations (Evans, 2007; Nevarez & Wood, 2007). From this leaders determined
what to emphasize, downplay, or ignore. Evans (2007) asserted that school leaders
made sense of school situations and issues in ways that they believed reflected the
socio-cultural and socio-political dynamics of the larger society. This meant that the
local context had a powerful influence on a school leaders’ sense-making as did an
individual’s own identity development (Evans, 2007; Nevarez & Wood, 2007).
Again, school leaders understood issues based on the way in which they made sense
of their own socio-political identities that included their own race, class, gender, and
professional positions.
Nevarez and Wood (2007) discussed a new model of leadership: Leadership
in Diversity Continuum Model (LDCM). This model displayed how the identity and
views of leaders helped to inform leadership styles and approaches in seven stages of
leadership (1) prohibiting, (2) segregation, (3) color blind, (4) pretext, (5)
recognition, (6) value, and (7) affirmation. Combining these multiple identities
created a world view that influenced how they saw themselves and interpreted, made
sense of, and treated others. The goal of LDCM was to develop urban school leaders
that addressed the needs of a racially diverse student population eschewing color
blindness and marginalization and “saw” race for what it was (Evans, 2007; Nevarez
& Wood, 2007).
Our nation’s urban schools, particularly those in most need, were fraught
with a complex array of assets and challenges. Color and class, economic
disparities, high rates of transiency, ethnic diversity, high numbers of English
39
Language Learners (ELLs), tracking, violence, low-teacher expectations, were all
mainstays of urban schooling (Noguera, 2003; Nevarez & Wood 2007; Vandehaar et
al., 2007). Vandehaar et al., (2007) declared that all students can achieve at high
levels, regardless of their individual socioeconomic status or their schools’
socioeconomic composition. The tasks faced by urban school leaders differ both in
magnitude and kind as they struggled with large percentages of low-performing poor
and minority students. Urban schools needed to do much more than increase student
test scores. The problem was not whether urban students could learn, but rather how
good teaching and expectations became the norm rather than the exception in urban
education settings (Cotton, 1989; Resnick & Glennan, 2002; Cuban, 2001).
Administrators must be seen as leaders for social justice, confidants, and
mentors for students and teachers especially in high minority and high poverty
schools. Leaders must have a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses
and continue to build culturally proficient views of themselves and others so that
they could lead more effectively. This can be done with organized support for a new
form of educational leadership. Leadership capacity building programs will need to
change the way that they prepare leaders to tackle the complexities of the urban
context. This is framed by federal and state accountability policies that influence the
role of leadership in a larger arena. The next section will discuss standards based
accountability.
40
Standards Based Accountability and Reform
The era of accountability forged many different performance indicators for
teachers, students and leaders. Demands for student performance had never been
greater; hence the demands on leaders in public education had never been greater
(Elmore, 2006). Built on the premise that school failure was primarily the fault of
educators and within the control of the educational system, NCLB (2001) required
schools and districts to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting their
targets. Meeting the target required the alignment between several components
(standards, curriculum, instruction, assessment) which were often more difficult to
align in a large urban school district. The problems of NCLB (2001) trickled down
from the policy makers to the local entities that were directly affected by it;
superintendents, principals, and teachers (Elmore, 2003). Understandably, those
responsible for implementing NCLB (2001) were looking for guidance to help them
comply with the many facets of the law and make their school as effective as
possible (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003). Principals, being the instructional
leaders of their schools, were responsible for reforming the organization for all
students. The ISLLC standards served as competencies and characteristics that
school leaders used as a guide. They set a precedent for what effective leadership
looked like and developed a continuum to move theory into everyday work of
shaping an equity-conscious learning culture (Murphy, 2002, 2003, 2005).
41
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)
The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards for
School Leaders were developed between 1994 and 1996 under the auspices of
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and in cooperation with the
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). The standards
were drafted by 24 states which were interested in the health of leadership in
America schools. The purpose of the Consortium was twofold: (1) created a
framework that restructured educational leadership and (2) fostered a dialogue that
directed action in regards to academic, policy, and practice domains (Murphy, 2002,
2005). School leadership was at the center of the development of ISLLC.
According to Murphy, “A new leadership model must construe school leadership as
being about students, learning, and teaching” (2002, p. 3; 2005, p. 155).
Undoubtedly, the ISLLC standards met the challenge of influencing the lenses in
which school leadership was viewed (Green, 2005). With school effectiveness at the
heart of accountability, standards were focused on the performance of school leaders
who had “high expectations for all children and the accountability of individuals
accepting responsibility for their education” (Green, 2005, p. 2).
The effective schools research was aimed at youngsters who had been
historically left behind. Therefore effective schools denoted (a) high levels of
student achievement (b) achievement results that were equally distributed and (c)
outcomes that were attributed to the value-added dimension. In this a variety of
conditions were described that promoted learning, i.e.; opportunity to learn, direct
42
instruction, aligned curriculum, monitoring of student performance, safe and orderly
environment, rewards and incentives, personalized learning environment, a sense of
community amongst staff, and a linkage between home and school (Murphy, 2002,
2005). The research also contended that principals and superintendents that were the
most productive dealt with the core business of schooling – teaching and learning.
These leaders believed that all youngsters could learn with a clear
understanding that schools were responsible for student outcomes. They were
cognizant in the acknowledgement of cultural and social norms and realized that
schools operationalize best when they worked as a whole community (home-school
community, personalized learning climate, community of collaboration) (Murphy,
2002, 2005). Not only were these leaders cognizant about the culture of schooling,
but they were very aware of how the educational enterprise was shaped by the
outside forces that caused large shifts in the economic, political, and social
environments (Murphy, 2002, 2005). These administrators were also very aware of
how Burke’s triangular (2004) forces dominated the coordination of our educational
system. Those forces consisted of state priorities, academic concerns, and market
forces. All of which, exerted considerable influence on the type of leadership
required to lead organizations (Burke, 2004). In the end, the standards mantra was
focused on what was best for youngsters in schools encompassing three principle:
school improvement, community, and social justice (Murphy, 2002, 2005).
Upon completion, ISLLC provided the means to shift educational
administration from complacency which was managerial leadership to educational
43
leadership linking it to the larger goal of student learning. However, critical reviews
of the standards by practitioners and policy leaders led to the overhaul of the current
standards (CCSSO, 2008). For that reason, new Educational Leadership Policy
Standards: ISLLC 2008 (Murphy, 2002, 2005; CCSSO, 2008) were adopted in
2008.
With attention to changes in the field, the new standards were a result of
education research about leadership and the role that school leaders played in raising
student achievement. The standards were foundational in providing the bases for
which an entire system of educator development could be produced. The new
educational leadership policy standards were meant to be used as guidelines for
states to develop their own standards, set policy, and vision. The goal of the National
Policy Board for Educational Administration’s (NPBEA) was to continuously refine
the policy standards to consistently reflect changes in the knowledge base; hence a
majority of the research did not exist when the original standards were published
(See Appendix A for new standards). New research resulted in:
• The language and framework of the six “broad standards” were similar,
yet not identical.
• “Indicators” were not listed in the revised policy standards as they were
in the 1996 version. Policy standards were there to set overall guidance
and vision.
44
• While the titles of the standards changed to make clear that these were
policy standards, the “ISLLC” moniker remained since so many states
adopted the ISLLC standards in one form or another.
• Significantly, “functions” that defined each standard were replaced with
knowledge, skills, and dispositions. This was where research findings
and feedback from NPBEA and its members were addressed (CCSSO,
2008).
In short, The ISLLC standards represented a current national consensus about
the most important observable aspects of education leaders’ work, however “no
single set of administrative standards would solve every problem faced by school
leaders” (Hoyle, English, & Steffy as cited in Mayeski, Gaddy, & Goodwin, 2001, p.
7). Thus, the standards provided a good starting point to begin a cycle of inquiry
into skills that were necessary for effective leadership and a foundation for
preparation programs as they begun to address the need to better prepare leaders for
the urban context (Mayeski, Gaddy, & Goodwin, 2001). Additionally, the new
paradigm that school leaders were second only to classroom instruction as a variable
in student outcomes focused much of the accountability on the capacity and
behaviors of school leaders (Marzano et al., 2005). The next section, will discuss
the literature on leader effects and the behaviors of effective leadership. McREL’s
21 Responsibilities will be discussed to help develop a broader view of the research-
based leadership skills essential to development of exemplary leaders.
45
New Directions for School Leaders
This new paradigm for school leadership, where principals were not only
expected to be instructional leaders, but to also be educational visionaries, change
agents, curriculum and assessment experts, budget analysts, facility builders, and
community builders was a far cry from the days when principals just “managed’ their
schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). In the No Child Left Behind (2001)
climate, the job of the principal became more complex and constrained (Fullan,
1998).
McREL 21 Responsibilities
Robert Marzano, Timothy Waters, and Brian McNulty (2003) in their book,
School Leadership That Works (Waters et al., 2003, p. 41) identified 21
responsibilities of the school leader. These responsibilities included: affirmation,
change agent, contingent rewards, communication, culture, discipline, flexibility,
focus, ideas/ beliefs, input, intellectual stimulation, involvement in curriculum,
instruction, and assessment, knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment,
monitoring and evaluating, optimizer, order, outreach, relationships, resources,
situational awareness, and visibility. Educators have long questioned why some
principals were more effective than others and what characterized them as such
(Waters et al., 2003).
The analysis of the 70 studies found that effective leadership was comprised
of 21 key areas of responsibility (Waters et al., 2003). The Mid-Continent Research
for Education and Learning (McREL 2001) study found that leadership encapsulated
46
21 areas of leadership responsibilities (see Appendix B) that were significantly
correlated to student achievement and that effective leaders not only knew what to
do, but how, when, and why they did it. Each of these areas had a different impact
on achievement based on the magnitude of change. Waters et al., (2003) stated the
magnitude of change was perceived as first-order change or second-order change. In
general, first-order change was an extension of the past and consistent with existing
perspectives. This included new instructional practices, curricular programs or data
collection. Conversely, second-order change was viewed as a drastic break from the
past and conflicted with existing perspectives. For example, the implementation of
standards-based report cards was seen as second-order change. In fact, the same
change was looked at as first-order and second-order change depending on the
stakeholders. For example, disaggregating data into subgroups threatened some
while others found it a necessary component of NCLB (Waters et al., 2003). Table 2
gives an overview of first and second-order implications.
Table 2. Marzano (2003) First and Second-Order Change
First Order Second Order
An extension of the past A break with the past
Within existing paradigms Outside of existing paradigms
Consistent with prevailing norms, values Conflicts with prevailing norms, values
Incremental Complex
Linear Nonlinear
Implemented with existing knowledge & skills Requires new knowledge & skills
Implemented by experts Implemented by stakeholders
47
As a result of the 70 studies, seven of the responsibilities were positively
correlated with leading second-order change. These responsibilities were: (1) change
agent; (2) flexibility; (3) ideals/beliefs; (4) intellectual stimulation; (5) knowledge of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment; (6) monitors/evaluates; and (7) optimizer.
On the other hand, four of the responsibilities, revealed a negative correlation to
second-order change (Waters et al., 2003). These included: (1) communication; (2)
culture; (3) input; and (4) order. These 21 responsibilities were cross-checked with
the ISLLC standards for school leaders by Miller, Devin, and Shoop (2007) and as a
result a new integrated model evolved combining the two into a revolving long-term
relationship (See Appendix C).
Effective leadership of change was increasingly important in this era of high-
stakes accountability. Furthermore, Elmore (2003) stated, “that knowing the right
thing to do” was essential in guiding schools to make the correct changes (p. 9). The
correct changes were emphasized at three different levels: school, teacher, and
student. At the school level, they included viable and guaranteed curriculum,
challenging goals, effective feedback, parent and community involvement, a safe and
orderly environment, and collegiality and professionalism were all fundamental at
the school level. At the teacher level, they entailed effective instructional strategies,
classroom management, and classroom curriculum design. At the student level, they
encompassed positive home environment, learned intelligence and background
knowledge, and motivation (Waters et al., 2003). Indeed, knowing the “right thing
to do” and specifically which leadership responsibilities were associated with
48
second- order change had a profound effect on leaders who created the conditions
necessary to initiate and sustain changes needed in our schools (p. 70). Principals
were responsible for leading change initiatives that resulted in improved student
achievement. Therefore, change that was threatening to some and un-alarming to
others required a thoughtful and skillful leader who strategically differentiated
between the uses of research-based practices based on the implications of change.
The 21 responsibilities offered an opportunity to maximize the use of ISLLC
standards by increasing the utility of the standards, presenting empirical research
guidance and identifying those leadership responsibilities that took precedent over
others. Not only did the responsibilities extend the scope of ISLLC standards but
they offered additional insights into change that established a blueprint for effective
leadership. Hallinger and Heck (1996) posited that the essence of leadership was
achieving results through others. Urban school leaders had a sophisticated
understanding of change and knew how to effectively initiate, lead, and sustain
changes that created the organizational structures to improve teachers’ instructional
practice, which in turn, impacted student success. As preparation programs prepare
leaders for the urban context this was an essential component. The next section will
examine a compilation of leadership theories in an attempt to develop an integrated
model that defines leadership.
Conceptualization of Leadership through Theoretical Perspectives
The concept of leadership has been debated, discussed, and even carved in
stone tracing as far back to the days of Moses. A leader has been defined as many
49
things and has had many expectations assigned to them throughout history. With
leadership defined, the urban educational context outlined, standards-based
accountability characterized, and new directions for school leaders delineated, the
task then is to identify the theories and programs best suited for preparing and
supporting the urban leader. The following section will discuss four distinctly
different perspectives that conceptualize the complex definition of leadership as it
pertains to leadership; Instructional Leadership, Transformational leadership, Social
Justice Leadership, and Learning-Centered Leadership. An integrated model of
leadership is necessitated by the urban school context.
Instructional Leadership
As the effective schools movement begun, the role of the principal shifted
from managerial to a focus on the development of curriculum and instruction
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). The role required principals to be knowledgeable
about curriculum and instruction and to work with teachers directly to guide
instructional improvement (Hallinger, 1992). Principals were considered the primary
source of knowledge, suggesting that teachers followed (Hallinger, 1992; Bass &
Avolio, 1993). Murphy (1990) and Hallinger and Murphy (1985) contended that
successful instructional leaders focused on three dimensions: (1) developing the
school mission and goals; (2) coordinating, monitoring, and evaluating curriculum,
instruction, and assessment; and (3) promoting a climate for learning. Table 3 gives
an overview of the instructional leadership behaviors.
50
Table 3. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) Instructional Leadership Behaviors
Behaviors Descriptions
Defining the
school mission
Frame and communicate school goals
Manages
instructional
program
Supervises & evaluates instruction; coordinates curriculum;
monitors student progress
Promotes positive
school climate
Protects instructional time; promotes professional
development; maintains high visibility; provides incentives
for teachers and students; enforces academic standards
These dimensions were further explained by subcategories associated with
each dimension. The first dimension expanded to include framing and
communicating school goals. Goals were established based on data for the school
year. The second dimension included supervising and evaluating instruction,
coordinating the curriculum and monitoring student progress. In this dimension, the
principal provided instructional support to teachers, monitored classroom instruction
via routine classroom visits and gave critical and concrete feedback to teachers. The
principal also worked with teachers in the area of curriculum and instruction
promoting collaborative conversations centered on best practices that increased
student achievement (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). In addition, the principal worked
directly with teachers disaggregating data and using it to drive instruction. The last
dimension promoted a climate for learning. This dimension required the principal to
create organizational structures that would improve the organizational climate of its
constituents. The first responsibility called for protection of instructional minutes.
51
Principals promoted a positive school culture by valuing the hard work that teachers
did and established a clear school wide discipline plan that delineated a hierarchy for
unacceptable behavior. Principals influenced teacher and student attitudes by
creating a reward system that reinforced achievement and the development of clear
academic expectations. With instructional time protected, the principal also shared
or provided professional development opportunities to the staff that were closely
aligned with the school and district goals. Visibility, the next job function, increased
interactions between the principal and students as well as with teachers. Hallinger
(2005, p.13), further described what effective behaviors of practice would look like
for an instructional leader:
• Created a shared sense of purpose in the school, including clear goals
focused on student learning;
• Fostered the continuous improvement of the school through cyclical
school development planning that involved a wide range of stakeholders;
• Developed a climate of high expectations and a school culture aimed at
innovation and improvement of teaching and learning;
• Coordinated the curriculum and monitored student learning outcomes;
• Shaped the reward structure of the school to reflect the school’s mission;
• Organized and monitored a wide range of activities aimed at the
continuous development of staff;
• Were a visible presence in the school, and modeled the desired values of
the school’s culture.
52
As principals aspired to be “hands-on” instructional leaders, the principal
manager view persisted as the job of principalship became more complicated. High
expectations for teachers and students, close supervision of classroom instruction,
co-ordination of the school’s curriculum, and close monitoring of student progress
became inextricably part of the job description associated with being an instructional
leader (Hallinger, 1992; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). However, the instructional
model neglected to emphasize the importance of reshaping and reorganizing the
school culture. One of the many limitations of this theory was failure to
conceptualize the reality of the job. Principals did not allocate time to teaching and
learning because they were inundated with managerial tasks unrelated to instruction.
Scholars found that although many leaders had good instructional intentions, they
found themselves intimidated and unprepared for the ambiguity of instructional
management and steered closer to the more finite tasks of plant organization
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Not to mention, that principals never really received
training in the area of how to recognize good instructional strategies. Stein and
Nelson (2003) argued that instructional leaders, who were respsonsible for
improving teaching and learning, were able to recognize “strong instruction when
they saw it, to encourage it when they didn’t, and to set the conditions for continuous
academic learning among their professional staffs” (p. 424). Inadequate leadership
programs were unable to train leaders in what Stein and Nelson (2003) called
leadership content knowledge. As Leithwood (2004) noted the instructional model
of leadership neglected to frame well-defined leadership behaviors, this insinuated
53
that a new type of leadership was needed to encompass the managerial construct as
well as the instructional construct. Thus, the 1990’s surfaced a new form of
leadership; transformational leadership.
Transformational Leadership
The emergence of transformational leadership indicated a broad
dissatisfaction with instructional leadership, which many believed overemphasized
principals as the central force and ultimate decision maker. Educational reformers
called for the decentralization of authority acknowledging that conceptually the role
of the leader and follower be united and that leadership was aligned with a collective
purpose (Burns, 1978; Hallinger, 1990; Marks & Printy, 2003).
Burns (1978), a major contributor to the earlier model of transformational
leadership, contended that there were two basic types of leadership: transactional and
transformational. Transactional leadership occurred when an exchange took place
between the leader and the follower. For example, the leader provided a task to be
completed and compensated the follower upon completion. Transformational
leadership occurred when a leader invoked organizational change, encouraged
participants to reach their fullest potential and motivated followers (Bass, 1990;
Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership required the leader to recognize and use
an existing need or a potential motive in followers to satisfy a higher need of the
organization. This built a relationship whereby both were mutually stimulated
(Burns, 1978). This approach to leadership built capacity; hence followers were
54
converted into leaders engaging in higher levels of commitment to organizational
goals (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Bass, 1990).
Bass (1990) argued that transformational and transactional leadership
practices complemented each other and the best leaders were both transformational
and transactional (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Bass (1990) expanded on Burns’
(1978) model and developed a two factor theory that included components of both
transformational and transactional. The components were: idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
However, Bass’ model (1990) came with major criticisms because researchers noted
that transactional leadership was underdeveloped. Thus, Leithwood (1992)
characterized transformational school leaders as having three fundamental goals: (1)
helping staff develop and maintain a collaborative, professional school culture; (2)
promoting teacher development; and (3) helping the school community solve
problems together more effectively. Likewise, Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach
(1999) expanded on the theory to describe transformational leadership along seven
dimensions: (1) building school vision; (2) establishing goals; (3) providing
intellectual stimulation; (4) offering individualized support; (5) symbolizing
professional practices and values; (6) demonstrating high performance expectations;
and (7) developing structures to foster participation in school decisions. Marks and
Printy (2003) reiterated that transformational leaders inspired and motivated
followers by raising their consciousness about organizational goals and by
encouraging them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the
55
organization. They also identified leadership factors that were exhibited by
transformational leaders: (1) idealized influence; (2) inspirational motivation; (3)
intellectual stimulation; and (4) individualized consideration.
With growing popularity of the new leadership theory, Liethwood and Jantzi
(2000; 2005) performed studies on the effects of leadership using two large
databases. The framework included dimensions of transformational leadership as
well as transactional practices. The end result identified three core components of
transformational leadership behaviors (TLBs): (1) setting directions, (2) developing
people, and (3) redesigning the organization. Like the instructional model,
transformational leadership was criticized for lacking emphasis on the managerial
aspects that leaders addressed on a daily basis. To overcome this objection,
Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) added a fourth dimension to the TLBs; (4) transactional
and managerial was created in response to criticisms about Bass’ underdevelopment
of transactional behaviors. Table 4 provides an overview of the transformational
leadership behaviors.
56
Table 4. Leithwood & Jantzi (2000; 2005) Transformational Leadership Model
Behaviors Descriptions
Setting Directions Builds the school vision & goals; demonstrates high
performance expectations
Developing People Provides intellectual stimulation; offers
individualized support; symbolizes professional
practices and values
Redesigning the
Organization
Develops structures to foster participation in school
decisions; builds collaborative cultures; builds
productive relations with parents & community
Transactional/Management Develops contingent reward system; establishes
effective staffing practices, provides instructional
support, and monitors school activities
The first dimension asked the school leader to set direction for the school.
This included establishing goals and a school wide mission for school improvement.
Contrary to the instructional leadership model, the mission and goals were developed
collectively to involve all stakeholders in the decision making process. The second
dimension required the school leader to develop people. The fundamental goals of
the transformational model included: helping staff members develop and maintain a
collaborative and professional culture; fostering teacher development and helping
them solve problems more effectively (Hallinger, 1992; Leithwood, 1992;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood et al., 2004). An effective transformational
leader built capacity of the staff members and acknowledged their contributions to
the attainment of educational goals. An effective transformational leader provided
individualized support and intellectual stimulation while modeling key
57
organizational values and practices. A transformational leader fostered higher levels
of personal commitment to organizational goals; emphasizing personal traits that
introduced organizational change, shared decision-making, teacher empowerment
while necessitating abilities to work in teams, seeing the big picture, concentrating
on continuous school improvement, and fostering the school community’s sense of
ownership (Leithwood, 1992). The third dimension challenged the leader to redesign
the organization. Under this dimension, the principal cultivated a culture that was
conducive to learning. The leader fostered collaborative conversations and instilled
organizational processes and structures that established a productive school
environment. The fourth dimension that Leithwood and Jantzi (2000; 2005) added
was the “management” dimension that linked transactional and transformational
leadership together. This dimension was known as the transactional and managerial
aggregate. It emphasized the need for leaders to provide contingency rewards, to
manage by exception, and to provide management through staffing, instructional
support, monitoring school activity, and buffering.
Based upon findings from their empirical studies, Leithwood and Jantzi
(2000; 2005), and Marks and Printy (2003) agreed that transformational leadership,
with its emphasis on improving organizational capacities, did impact teachers’
instructional practices and student participation and engagement in school, however
there were some limitations associated with the transformational theory. Although
one of the dimensions focused on reshaping the organization, it was hard for the
principal to reshape the organization without an explicit focus on curriculum and
58
instruction (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998; Marks & Printy, 2003). Marks and Printy
(2003) argued that even though the principal was successful in creating a
collaborative culture that encouraged teachers to contribute to leadership and
expertise in teaching and learning, the principal’s role with instruction was central
and needed to be explicit. If the transformational leaders led “from the back of the
band” (quoted Leithwood in Hallinger, 1992), then ambiguity was fostered because
no one knew who was leading and who was responsible for student outcomes
(Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). Marks and Printy (2003) further
argued that successful principals were more successful when they worked
simultaneously on transformational and instructional tasks. Hallinger (2003)
suggested an integration of leadership models; a blending of instructional leadership
and transformational leadership highlighted “the synergistic power of leadership
shared by individuals throughout the school organization” (Hallinger, 2003, p. 345).
The learning-centered framework accomplished this goal and combined both
constructs of instructional leadership and transformational leadership. The learning-
centered framework will be discussed in the next section.
Learning-Centered Leadership
Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter (2006), developed a conceptual
framework that enveloped a portrait of leaders for productive schools. Concurrent
with NCLB (2001), emphasis was on all youngsters reaching ambitious academic
performance targets, thus the name “learning-centered” (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 13).
Finding ways to develop leaders had an important impact on the quality of
59
leadership, quality of instruction, and quality of education in its entirety; however
this development was hampered by the paucity of the lack of a sound tool to assess
and monitor leadership performance (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliot, & Cravens,
2007). Drawing on previous work Goldring et al., (2007) developed a conceptual
framework that proposed to assess the intersection of what principals knew and were
able to accomplish to improve academic and social learning for all students based on
learning-centered leadership. Both frameworks were grounded in the school
effectiveness and school improvement literature. With this in mind, the conceptual
framework for learning-centered leadership will be presented here with a follow-up
of the assessment in Chapter 3.
The conceptual framework for learning-centered leadership captures eight
major dimensions of leadership: (1) vision for learning- developing vision,
articulating the vision, implementing the vision, and stewarding vision, (2)
instructional program – knowledge and involvement, hiring and allocating staff,
supporting staff, and instructional time, (3) curricular program – knowledge and
involvement, expectations, standards, opportunity to learn, and curriculum
alignment, (4) assessment program – knowledge and involvement, assessment
procedures, monitoring instruction and curriculum, communication and use of data,
(5) communities of learning – professional development, communities of
professional practice, community-anchored schools, (6) resource allocation and use –
acquiring resources, allocating resources, and using resources, (7) organizational
culture – production emphasis, accountability, learning environment, personalized
60
environment, and continuous improvement (8) social advocacy – stakeholder
engagement, diversity, environmental context, and ethics (Murphy et al., 2006). In
turn, each dimension defines by functions specific behaviors that leaders employ to
manifest organizational outcomes. Figure 2 depicts the antecedent with mediated
effects model for how principals impact student outcomes. It was the foundation that
guided Murphy’s (2006) notion of how leaders impact student outcomes through
school functions controlled by the leader.
Figure 2. Learning-Centered Leadership Framework
For example, learning-centered leaders devote considerable time and energy
to the “development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of
learning that was shared and supported by the school community” (Murphy et al.,
2006, p. 1). Learning-centered leaders facilitate the creation of a vision that called
for abandonment from the status quo and a belief in the educability of all students.
61
This means articulating the vision and keeping it at the forefront of everyone’s
attention by personally modeling and maintaining it as a central focus of the daily
work to be done.
The learning-centered leader is involved instructionally by visiting
classrooms and working with teachers to strengthen teaching and learning in and
across classrooms. These leaders provide feedback to teachers diligently on a
consistent basis. Academic learning time is prioritized for these leaders as they
monitor the curricular program to ensure alignment between learning standards,
objectives, and classroom instruction. Assessment is addressed through a
comprehensive design that ensures that student progress is regularly reported to
students and parents in an accessible form.
Learning-centered leaders establish a community of learners where learning
is prioritized not only for students but staff as well. These leaders endeavor to create
a culture where collaboration is the norm. The allocation of resources is always
linked to the mission and goals of the school which revolve around improved student
learning. Learning-centered leaders work ceaselessly to create an environment of
high performance expectations for self, staff, and most importantly students. This is
brought to life by established school-wide academic standards that brought
expectations to life which meant holding everyone accountable – students, teachers,
parents, and staff alike for achieving school goals and reaching targets in the area of
student performance. Most importantly, they communicate that “complacency is the
62
enemy of improvement” (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 12) and encourage initiative and
pro-activeness.
Learning-centered leaders are social advocates who manipulate the
environment for the betterment of education for students and their families. These
learning-centered leaders advocate for social justice and “act with integrity, fairness,
and in an ethical manner”. At a deeper level, the expectations are that everyone in
the school community matters; promoting, learning, linking, and ensuring that the
school and community serve one another (Murphy et al., 2006). Effective leaders
anchor their work on the central issues of learning and teaching and school
improvement. They are moral agents and social advocates for children and the
communities they serve. Finally, they make strong connections with people, value
and care for others as individuals and as members of the educational community.
While the learning-centered leadership theory identifies a wide-range of
specific behaviors that includes dimensions and functions for exemplary leaders,
there are some limitations. Absent from the literature was the specific steps taken to
accomplish the dimensions, core components, or key processes. How did leaders
veteran or otherwise implement the dimensions? Was it conducive of every staff and
every community? As such, the precise manners in which leaders facilitated these
leadership practices remained ambiguous and unattainable. Yet, it was important to
recognize that learning-centered leadership was deeply rooted and significantly
aligned with the ISLLC standards as shown in Table 5.
63
Table 5. Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education: Core Components &
Key Processes Intersecting with the ISLLC Standards (2007)
The assessing conceptual framework (VAL-ED) provided an avenue through
which learning-centered leadership theory was assessed. It provided educators with
information on how to improve their leadership practice based on the core
components and key processes that lead to research-based leadership behaviors that
add value to student achievement. It also took into account a principal’s sense-
making about his/her own identity as they developed their leadership practices. The
64
contributing factors included a leader’s set of beliefs and values, experiences, and
personal knowledge that consequently shaped the leader’s decisions. Finally, the
most important theme professed by this framework was “social advocacy”. Through
advocacy, learning-centered leaders promoted learning for all students which focuses
on the topic of social justice (Murphy et al., 2006). Without negating the vital
importance of academic achievement, pioneers for social justice leadership were
called upon to challenge the status quo by questioning the assumptions that drove
school policies and practices to create more equitable schooling (Cambron-McCabe
& McCarthy, 2003). Aside from the other leadership theories that have stood the test
of time, the one theory that seems to lack prominence in the literature is social
justice. This single leadership theory is the one with the potential to close the
achievement gap (the difference in academic performance between ethnic groups).
More than a leadership theory, it is a moral imperative for further development in the
literature but also a tool to diminish the status quo. In the next section, leadership for
social justice will be examined.
Social Justice Leadership
Although policymakers expressed concerns about the future of young people
(NCLB, 2001), few actually took steps to address the economic, political, and social
conditions, which shaped the lives of young people (Ginwright, Cammarota, &
Noguera, 2005). Two existing frameworks critiqued by Ginwright et al., (2005)
provided insights into perspectives that limited the participation of our urban youth
in society; problem-driven and possibility driven. The problem-driven approach
65
treated all urban youth as threats to society. The possibility driven approach saw
urban youth as passive consumers of civic life. Both frameworks were seen as
deterrents for urban youth in society (Ginwright et al., 2005). These constructs
manifested themselves in classroom instruction, resources spent and given, quality of
teachers, opportunities offered, and expectations (Cuban, 2001). Social justice was
one key force that combated the differences; however it was underdeveloped and
missed from leaders’ practice and leadership capacity building programs. Leaders
for social justice advocated, led, and kept at the forefront of their consciousness,
their practice and their vision that impacted race, class, gender, disability, sexual
orientation, and other historically and currently marginalizing conditions that schools
had on students’ learning (Theoharis, 2007; Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2003).
Social justice in school did not happen haphazardly; if it did, segregation,
inequity, and gaps in achievement and resources would not exist. Instead leadership
for social justice called for better than “good leadership” (Theoharis, 2007). Thus,
central to the understanding of youth, social justice, and communities was
recognition of institutional and structural barriers that hindered democratic
participation with an analysis of how urban people negotiated, challenged, and
resisted social control (Ginwright et al., 2005). “Good leadership” required an
analysis of how institutional structures and culture perpetuated inequality and
injustice within the school building and beyond into the community (Cambron-
McCabe & McCarthy, 2005; Marshall & Ward, 2004). Theoharis (2007) asserted
that social justice leadership addressed and eliminated the marginalization that
66
existed in many urban schools. Leaders who espoused a belief in social justice
leadership also examined the power relationships that existed within schools and
society; they examined carefully differential schooling, and were critical of social
class stratifications (Brown, 2006).
Ginwright et al., (2005) defined social justice as a critical awareness of the
systems and institutions that promoted or hindered progress toward social equality
and respect for human dignity. Theoharis (2007) defined social justice leadership as
“principals who made issues of race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and
other historically and currently marginalizing conditions central to their advocacy,
leadership practice, and vision” (p. 223). Leaders for social justice have three goals:
(1) to raise the academic achievement of all students; (2) to prepare their students to
live as critical citizens in society; and (3) to ensure students learn in heterogeneous,
inclusive classrooms (McKenzie, Christman, Hernandez, & Fierro, 2007).
Theoharis (2007) conducted an empirical study to understand the
implications that social justice would have on leadership practices. The study
focused on seven principals who aimed to establish equity and justice within their
schools. The results yielded a four component framework for leadership for social
justice consisting of: (1) personal essence or core aspects of social justice
leadership; (2) the resistance social justice leaders enacted; (3) the resistance they
faced; and (4) the resistance they developed (Theoharis, 2007). Figure 3 gives an
overview of the relationships and struggles of the four components.
67
Figure 3. Theoharis’ Toward a Theory of Social Justice
Central to Theoharis (2007) framework was the commitment by the leader to
face resistance. Resistance came from all sides; resistance from staff, community,
and within and beyond the school district. Leaders who confronted the challenges of
evoking social justice had a moral imperative to (1) raise student achievement of all
students; (2) improve school structures; (3) eliminate pullout and segregated
programs; (4) increase learning time, rigor and access to educational opportunities;
(5) address issues of race; (6) develop staff investment in social justice; and (7) reach
out to the community and marginalized families (Theoharis, 2007). The final
component of the framework specifically focused on the principal to develop their
own personal resistance in the form of proactive strategies (authentic
68
communication, working within a supportive network, engaging in professional
learning) and coping strategies (mindful diversions, regular physical activity,
providing for others) (Theoharis, 2007 & 2007).
In order to prepare educational leaders who addressed the needs of those who
were marginalized by society, it was important that programs were developed that
allowed participants to view the myriad of problems found on their campuses and in
their communities through a different lens. They also understood various contexts
and identities to construct meaning of, defined, and acted upon the issues unique to
their individual schools (Evans, 2007). Leadership preparation programs needed to
be redesigned to bring some meaning to how educational leaders, specifically
principals, enacted social justice (Capper, Theoharis, & Sebastian, 2006). While
there seemed to be a growing wealth of knowledge in regards to social justice, one of
the limitations with this theory was the development. This was problematic for those
who wished to embody a “social justice consciousness” (Capper et al., 2006, p. 213).
There were nonetheless, specific skills that needed to be taught that others argued
were “just good leadership”. Traditionally, leadership preparation programs were
reluctant to change curriculum and pedagogy and insisted on preparing leaders for
non-urban educational environments (Brown, 2006). As a result, principal
preparation programs lacked a focus on the inequities of society that also existed in
urban schools (Brown, 2006).
This section reviewed and synthesized the extant literature in the area of the
development of leadership theories. Based on the needs of society, leadership
69
expectations and effective practices were continuoulsy evolving. It was obvious in
the state of reform that a paradigm shift was necessary when it came to reinventing
schools. Learning-centered schools believed that all students could succeed and they
took responsibility when they did not. Schools were recreated with an emphasis on
instruction and best teaching practices that promoted a productive future for
America’s youth. This included an integrated model of leadership focused on
instructional, transformational, and learning-centered with a heightened emphasis on
social justice. Barriers faced optimistically extenuated the difference between
compliance and commitment; however all barriers were overcame. The next section
will discuss organizational structures and how they promoted processes that could be
sustained.
Organizational Structures
Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) argued that
effective educational leaders developed their schools as organizations that supported
and sustained the performance of teachers as well as students. All principals had a
considerable amount of work ahead to accomplish the task of improving teacher and
student performance through the implementation of organizational structures and
processes or better known as “best practices”. A best practice was defined in both
empirical and non-empirical literature as a means for improving school culture and
student achievement.
Effective principals incorporated a number of “best practices” instinctively.
They recruited and supported high-quality teachers; focused on high quality
70
instruction; had adequate classroom resources; and provided additional support for
struggling students. They continued to set high expectations; implemented new
curriculum; conducted ongoing needs assessment; focused instructional time more
efficiently; and provided multiple interventions for struggling students. These are
some of the many organizational structures however, this list is not exhaustive.
Thus, the following are areas that require a principal’s direct attention.
Culture
The examination of school culture was vital to the implementation of a data
use initiative at a school site (Wayman & Stringfield, 2005). Research showed that
culture impacted the adoption of new practices within schools (Young, 2006).
Reform efforts were shown to be influenced by the collective school culture,
subcultures, and by the contribution of individual teacher ideologies to the culture of
a school (Datnow & Castellano, 2000).
Goal Setting
Marzano (2003) believed that all students could be challenged to be effective.
This was done by establishing goals; goals that reflected high expectations and the
pressure to achieve. Goals were monitored and timely feedback was given to
students. Students’ success was dependent on feedback received throughout the
learning process. A goal-setting conference was essential not only to share the goals
with the student but the parents as well. SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable,
Results-Oriented, Time Bound) goals were set after the Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) and upon completion of formative and summative
71
assessments. Marzano (2003) contended that goals were most effective when
students developed them. School wide goals were also made.
Curriculum and Instruction
Marzano argued that a “guaranteed and viable school curriculum” was the
number one school factor that had “the most impact on student achievement”
(Marzano, 2003, p. 24). He further broke this factor into two parts; “opportunity to
learn,” (OTL) and “time,” with opportunity to learn having the “strongest
relationship with student achievement of all school-level factors” (Marzano, 2003, p.
22) Opportunity to learn was the opportunity afforded to all students to participate in
challenging curriculum tied to standards. An essential ingredient was “time”. A
“guaranteed and viable curriculum” was unattainable without the benefit of time
(Marzano, 2003). Educators needed to afford students time to learn concepts
through multiple exposures.
Instructional Strategies
Robert Marzano and Debra Pickering in their book, Classroom Instruction
That Works (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001, p. 11) identified nine
instructional strategies that made a marked improvement on student achievement.
The strategies included: identifying similarities and differences, summarizing and
note taking, reinforcing effort and providing recognition, homework and practice,
nonlinguistic representations, cooperative learning, setting objectives and providing
feedback, generating and testing hypotheses, and questions, cues, and advance
72
organizers. The strategies were organized into 34 specific behaviors that Marzano
recommended in planning learning units (Marzano, et al., 2001).
Expectations
A comprehensive two year study conducted by top researchers from Stanford,
EdSource, U.C. Berkeley, and the American Institute for Research, entitled, “Similar
Schools, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better?”(Williams, Kirst, &
Haertel, 2005) found that, “When principals communicated a clear vision for their
schools, set high standards for student learning, and made expectations clear to
teachers for meeting academic achievement goals, the school was more likely to be
high achieving” (Williams et al., 2005, p. 19). The importance of leadership in
setting and meeting high expectations could not be understated. The tone, the
feeling, the “way we operated” mentally focused on student success and concrete
goals. As Marzano (2005) stated, “the responsibility of focus referred to the extent
that the leader established clear goals and kept the goals in the forefront of the
school’s attention” (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 50).
Professional Development
For professional development to be successful it was directly linked to the
performance goals of the school and only began after a complete analysis of
organizational gaps was identified. To be effective, objectives of the training were
clear and ensured that knowledge and skills learned transferred to the job and were
fully integrated into the performance improvement programs (Clark & Estes, 2002,
pp. 65-75).
73
High-quality professional development was outlined by Lindstrom and Speck
(2004) components as follows: (1) Focuses on learning and sustaining improved
student learning; (2) Emerges from student data and the need to improve student
results; (3) Nurtures collegiality and collaboration among teachers, other staff, and
principal; (4) Develops shared leadership, resources, and inside/outside support; (5)
Utilizes research with a foundation in standards and accountability; (6) Deepens
teachers’ content knowledge and teaching practices; (7) Centers on the adult learner
through job-embedded work, options, and learning styles; (8) Requires ongoing
inquiry, practice, and reflection to inform practice; (9) Evaluate progress and
accounts for student learning by examining, results.
Data-Driven Decision Making
The crux of an overall school reform effort relied on a data–driven
instructional system that improved the information flow through the school, but also
systematically improved student learning. The idea of continuously examining and
improving current practices was at the heart of effective data-driven decision
making. Administrators and teachers met during professional development periods
to examine data as a means of identifying trends and setting direction for
improvement (Johnson, 2002).
Professional Learning Communities
Professional learning communities, which focused on the learning of each
student, did not require substantial additional monies. Instead, the school staff
worked together to clarify what each student learned, monitored the student’s
74
learning, and provided interventions as well as extended and enriched learning
(Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006, p. 3). High expectations and high levels of
learning were the fundamental responsibility of those who worked within them. The
professional learning communities were composed of collaborative teams whose
members worked interdependently to achieve common goals “linked to the purpose
of learning for all” (Dufour et al., 2006, p. 3). Focusing on the right issues through
reflection, discussion, and ultimately implementation was the key to improving
results.
Also, professional learning communities were cost feasible. Collaboration,
which was essential to their success, required consistent blocks of time (every
Wednesday for one hour as noted above, as well as staff development days
throughout the year), and the master schedule adjusted so groups shared the same
prep period. Furthermore, the principal provided guidance and monitored the
progress. Professional development was needed to help train and guide the staff.
Parent Involvement and Community Engagement
Historically, schools have relied on their own resources to create and sustain
partnerships. The time has come to fully integrate research-based school, family,
and community partnership with other critical strategies to ensure the success of all
of our students (CDE, 2009). Marzano (2003) and Jeynes (2003) concurred that
family and community engagement is a necessary component that influences student
outcomes especially those for minority children. Research showed that students with
involved parents despite their economic background were more likely to be
75
successful in school (i.e. higher grades, performed better on test, less truant, and
advancement placement) (Jeynes, 2003). California Department of Education (2009)
acknowledged the importance of engaging families in partnership with education to
assist with creating conditions necessary for closing the achievement gap and placing
students on a pathway to proficiency and academic success. CDE (2009) identified
four factors which impact student learning and efforts to close the achievement gap:
Access, Culture/Climate, Expectations, and Strategy (ACES). Along those same
lines, Marzano (2003) identified three factors that lead to effective parental
involvement: communication, participation, and governance. CDE (2009) believed
that involving and engaging parents in the education of their children enhanced the
successful implementation of interventions and other efforts to reform education for
children. The academic success of students was truly bounded by the effectiveness
of a school’s parental involvement program. Thus, the importance of parental
involvement is a critical factor in closing the achievement gap (Jeynes, 2003).
Leadership had many facets to consider; parent-school relationship,
interventions, professional development, and raising student engagement to have
named a few. There was a plethora of reforms to mull over, however setting the
stage for change, established meaningful horizontal and vertical collaboration
centered on achievement data and monitored student progress, built capacity, and
challenged students and teachers with high expectations jump started the process.
The positive influence on student achievement provided by effective school leaders
was due to their ability to establish effective organizational structures in their schools
76
and the interaction they had with their teachers (Hallinger & Heck, 1998).
Moreover, the set of skills were developed through participation in effective capacity
building leadership programs.
The next section will discuss the knowledge base for components of effective
leadership development and capacity building programs and describe how
Metropolitan Achieves and the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(MPCI) program align with the components of effective leadership capacity building
programs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).
Leadership Capacity Building: Effective Program Components
One of the major foci of this study was to investigate the specific elements of
leadership capacity building programs that enabled and sustained leader practice.
Traditionally, preparation programs focused on training principals in the areas of
evaluation and supervision, and managerial aspects. Davis et al., (2005) posited that
modern principals are called upon to be visionaries, community builders, budget
analysis, facility managers, and curriculum experts. Nonetheless, principal
preparation programs fail to address many of these roles.
According to Darling Hammond et al., (2007) and Levine (2005), preparation
programs simply had not evolved over time. Instead, current leadership programs
were outdated with a weak knowledge base focused on managerial duties (Levine,
2005; Orr 2006). Overall evaluations of preparation programs revealed that they
were (1) misaligned between program content and student needs; (2) lacked field-
based experiences; (3) failed to link theory to practice; (4) incoherent and lack of
77
rigor; and (5) missed curriculum topics including: effective teaching and learning,
designing professional development and the organizational design. Cambron-
McCabe and McCarthy (2005) added that traditional leadership programs gave only
“token consideration to concerns of social justice” (p. 202).
As American schools continued to fail and accountability measures continued
to increase, the need for effective leaders continued to rise. The increased
responsibilities as well as the ability to utilize leadership theories, standards, and
leadership behaviors only came from one place: leadership preparation programs that
were aligned. This study contended that leadership was a process that could be
taught, then leadership capacity building programs had a duty to ensure that leaders
were prepared (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Levine, 2005). Darling Hammond et
al., (2007) and Levine’s (2005) study was designed to fill the gaps in the knowledge
base associated with design, curriculum, support structures, and financing of
leadership capacity building programs. Effective leadership preparation programs
were: (1) research-based; (2) had curricular coherence; (3) provided experience in
authentic contexts; (4) used cohort groupings and mentors; and (5) were structured to
enable collaborative activity between the program and area schools (Davis, Darling-
Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). Successful programs also included
activities that built on prior learning experiences and continued throughout the
developmental stages of a principal’s career (Davis et al., 2005).
The findings from Darling-Hammond et al., (2007) concluded that effective
leadership capacity building programs had curriculum that was aligned to state and
78
professional standards; thus the ISLLC standards that were used by 45 states were
foundational as they provided a common language for leadership practice. The
standards inherently provided a research based curriculum and a philosophy that
captured the essence of school improvement and the effective schools research. This
philosophy also encapsulated social justice. Nevarez and Wood (2007) argued that
preparation programs must yield individuals who had a strong commitment to
valuing diversity and skills needed to be responsive to the unique challenges of the
urban communities. Brown (2006) recommended that social justice and equity
courses should be stretched over the length of the preparation program rather than
having one course devoted to theory. Prominent researchers suggested four
components they believed leadership programs steeped in a social justice framework
should embed in their curriculum: (1) critical consciousness; (2) teaching and
learning; (3) proactive systems of support and inclusive structure; and (4)
induction/praxis (McKenzie, Christman, Hernandez, Fierro, Capper, Dantley,
Gonzalez, Cambron-McCabe & Scheurich , 2008; Theoharis, 2007; Brown , 2006;
and Caper, Theoharis, & Sebastian, 2006).
Darling Hammond et al., (2007) reported that exemplary programs produced
leaders who bridged theory and practice and made connections between course
material and the broader social context. These leaders engaged in effective
leadership practice. This was through leadership support structures that actively
participated in throughout their time as a principal. The next section will discuss
leadership support structures.
79
Leadership Support Structures
With a large number of urban schools identified as “failing” or
“underperforming” it was important to consider that the success or failure of a school
dependent on its leadership (Borman et al., 2000). With the increasing demands on
the principal’s role, principals needed support structures that would develop their
capacities and skills needed to sustain their focus on effective leadership practice.
Neufeld and Roper (2003) found little evidence to support the belief that leadership
support structures, such as mentoring and coaching, had a positive effect on student
achievement; however leadership preparation programs saw this element as a
missing component in the development of effective leadership practices (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007).
Mentoring and Coaching
Neufeld and Roper (2003) described mentoring and coaching as a school-
based professional development system that provided support to principals in the
area of instruction, school-based resources, content area, use of data and any other
school challenges the principals faced. Effective program components included: (1)
high standards and expectations for performance; (2) collaborative planning by
university preparation programs and school districts; (3) problem-focused learning;
(4) clearly defined responsibilities for mentors, university supervisors, and district
coordinators; (5) and meaningful performance evaluations (SREB, 2007).
According to Neufeld and Roper (2003) mentoring programs provide
problem-focused learning. Those who participate in a mentoring relationship
80
focused upon improving teaching and learning, ensure that they assimilate leadership
practices learned into their repertoire at their school sites. During the mentoring
relationship, future school leaders were given an opportunity to master leadership
competencies by finding, testing, and evaluating solutions to identified problems in
curriculum instruction, and achievement with the support of a mentor.
Neufeld and Roper (2003) contend that roles and responsibilities for mentors
and others involved in leadership preparation programs must be clearly defined.
Mentors have provided a valuable learning experience to mentees by demonstrating
leadership practices that promote improved instruction and student achievement.
Key behaviors and duties for mentors have included: (a) helping principals recruit
teachers that can help them build capacity; (b) assisting the principal in building
capacity for shared decision-making; (c) modeling leadership skills for principals;
(d) assisting with scheduling; and (e) assisting principals in organizing and managing
their time (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).
Additionally, Spiro, Mattis, and Mitgang (2007) developed five guidelines
states, districts and leadership capacity building programs used to strengthen or
establish a mentor program:
1. High-quality training for mentors was a requirement and was provided by
any state or district with mentoring.
2. States and districts that required mentoring gathered meaningful
information about its efficacy.
3. Mentoring was provided for at least a year, and ideally two or more years.
81
4. State and local funding for mentors was sufficient and enough to attract
participants to continue mentoring.
5. The primary goal of the mentoring was focused on leaders who were
ready for change and had the courage to move forward in the face of
resistance (pp. 7-9).
Metropolitan Achieves
The effectiveness of an education system is measured by the academic
performance of its students and impacted by the quality of instruction. With that
said, Metropolitan ISD implemented a vision to be the best urban school district in
the United States. Inherent to educating a diverse population and meeting its goal of
preparing students for a global society, the district engaged in a systemic redesign of
the teaching and learning. This demanded an increased focus on student
achievement including a focused professional development structure that supported
content –specific training and assisted in establishing consistency in the delivery and
implementation of instruction. This redesign was based on a theory of action about
teaching and learning in collaboration with the Institute for Learning (IFL) at the
University of Pittsburgh and the curriculum audit best practices recommendations of
the National Center for Educational Accountability. The future of Metropolitan ISD
students were representative of the expectations that all students would experience a
college- ready level curriculum in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade and would
prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace.
82
The action plan for Metropolitan Achieves encompassed a model of
concentric circles focused on the following education plan goals:
1. Academic Rigor and Student Engagement
2. Professional Development/Capacity Building
3. Leadership
4. Accountability for Learning and Results
5. Parent/Community Engagement
In order to strategically align the district to meet those goals and targets the district
adopted an in-district program geared toward continually building capacity among
campus administrators. This initiative focused on two of the recommendations
related to professional development. They were:
1. Ensure that principals and teachers know the specific knowledge and
skills to be taught and learned at each grade and in each subject.
2. Build the instructional leadership capacity of principals and district
administrators through differentiated, engaging, and rigorous professional
development that is focused on specific academic goals and tied to
student achievement.
Metropolitan Principal Coaching Initiative
The Metropolitan Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI, 2009) was one of the
leadership development programs that was part of the district’s initiatives. This
particular program was a result of Texas State Performance Review (TSPR) and
National Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA) audits. The purpose of all
83
of the in-district programs was to continually build-capacity among administrators to
become instructional leaders. The Metropolitan Independent School District has
taken a proactive approach to ensure quality leaders guide their public schools. The
Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI, 2009) provides a standards-
based capacity building curriculum and the support of a leadership coaching
structure. The District is focused upon building capacity in school leaders by
focusing on what they need to know and be able to do in order to provide the
guidance and direction of sustained instructional improvement leading to higher
student achievement.
The MPCI (2009) is designed to provide principals with a principal coach
who provides elbow to elbow coaching and conferring to enhance instructional
leadership development and build leadership capacity to ensure improved academic
success for students. Principals and coaches participate in professional development
focused on data analysis, goal setting related to academic achievement, leadership
practice and establishing systems and structures to support improved teacher practice
and student learning. Research has demonstrated that effective school leaders have
an impact on student achievement. A focused program of continuing professional
education can help leaders develop the knowledge and skills they need to become
more effective in improving the learning environment for teachers and students.
The relationship established between Metropolitan ISD and the Institute for
Learning (IFL) has had a broad and deep impact in the practice of teaching and
learning across the district. While in partnership over the last four years, IFL and
84
Metropolitan ISD have provided content-based professional development in 17
leadership institutes for principals, associate principals, instructional coaches, central
administrative staff members, teacher-leaders, and classroom teachers. The
leadership institutes focused on IFL’s Principles of Learning (POLs). Those
principles were:
1. Organizing for Effort
2. Accountable Talk
3. Clear Expectations
4. Fair and Credible Evaluation
5. Socializing Intelligence
6. Recognition of Accomplishment
7. Self Management of Learning
8. Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum
9. Learning as Apprenticeship
85
Table 6. Principles of Learning
Organizing for Effort
• Clear and high expectations.
• Fair and credible evaluations.
• Recognition of accomplishment.
• Curriculum geared to standards.
Accountable Talk
• Accountability to Rigorous Thinking
- Synthesize several sources of information.
- Construct explanations and test
understanding of concepts.
- Formulate conjectures and hypotheses.
- Employ generally accepted standards of
reasoning.
- Challenge the quality of evidence and
reasoning.
• Accountability to Knowledge
- Specific and accurate knowledge.
- Appropriate evidence for claims and
arguments.
- Commitment to getting it right.
• Accountability to the Learning
Community
- Students actively participate in classroom
talk.
- Listen attentively.
- Elaborate and build on each others’ ideas.
- Work to clarify or expand a proposition.
Clear Expectations
• Standards available and discussed.
• Models of student work.
• Students judge their own and others’
work.
• Intermediate expectations specified.
• Families and community informed.
Fair and Credible Evaluations
• Exams referenced to standards.
• Curriculum and assessments aligned.
• Grading against absolute standards, not
curve.
• Reporting system makes clear how
students are progressing toward expected
standards.
• Public accountability systems and
instructional assessments aligned.
Socializing Intelligence
• Beliefs
- I have the right and obligation to understand
and make things work.
- Problems can be analyzed and I am capable
of that analysis.
• Skills
- A toolkit of problem-analysis skills (meta-
cognitive strategies) and good intuition about
when to use them.
- Knowing how to ask questions, seek help,
and get enough information to solve
problems.
• Dispositions
- Habits of mind.
- Tendency to try actively to analyze
problems, ask questions, get information
86
Table 6, Continued
Recognition of Accomplishment
• Frequent recognition of student work.
• Recognition for real accomplishment.
• Clearly demarcated progress points.
• Celebration with family and community.
• Employers and colleges recognize
accomplishments.
Self-management of Learning
• Meta-cognitive strategies explicitly
modeled, identified, discussed, and practiced.
• Students play active role in monitoring and
managing the quality of their learning.
• Teachers scaffold student performance
during initial learning, gradually remove
supports.
• Students become agents of their own
learning.
Academic Rigor in a Thinking
Curriculum
• Commitment to a Knowledge Core
- An articulated curriculum that avoids
needless repetition and progressively
deepens understanding of core concepts.
- Curriculum and instruction organized
around major concepts.
- Teaching and assessment focus on
mastery of core concepts.
• High Thinking Demand
- Students expected to raise questions, to
solve problems, to reason.
- Challenging assignments in every
subject.
- Extended projects.
- Explanations and justification expected.
- Reflection on learning strategies.
• Active Use of Knowledge
- Synthesize several sources of
information.
- Test understanding by applying and
discussing concepts.
- Apply prior knowledge.
- Interpret texts and construct solutions.
Learning as Apprenticeship
• Students create authentic products and
performances for interested critical
audiences.
• Experts critique and guide student work.
• Finished work meets public standards of
quality.
• Learning strategies are modeled.
Source: University of Pittsburgh 2002
87
The Principles of Learning are nine condensed theoretical statements
summarizing decades of learning research. Each statement is linked to several
explanatory points about particular features of each principle. These principles are
all connected to the findings by cognitive researchers who believe that attention
needs to be shifted to instructional strategies that immerse students in demanding,
long-term intellectual environments (Resnick, 1999).
In addition to the POLs, content of the institutes has also included
professional development on the practice of using LearningWalks as a school-wide
process of classroom observations to monitor implementation of the district’s
initiative. Additional institutes have focused upon preparing leaders to develop
professional learning communities “Nested Professional Learning Communities” at
all levels of the organization, and Disciplinary Literacy (content focused strategies
for the core disciplines).
The LearningWalk is a unique tool for getting smarter about teaching and
learning. The goal of the Nested Learning Community is two-way accountability,
between teachers and their principals, that makes teaching and learning public. It is
focused on what Elmore (1996) refers to as the instructional core:
• How teachers teach
• How students learn, and
• What gets taught to whom (University of Pittsburgh, 2004)
In keeping with a fundamental commitment to effort-based education, the
LearningWalk also focuses on how a school is organized can create ability (IFL,
88
2006). The lens through which LearningWalk participants view the instructional core
is one or more of the Principles of Learning. One of the hallmarks of the
LearningWalk is observation of the instructional core through the eyes and voices of
students. As a Nested Learning Community, administrators, teachers, and students
are accountable for the achievement of rigorous academic standards for all students
(IFL, 2006). It is an opportunity for recursive staff development where adults
continually upgrade their competency; where teachers learn the value of looking at
student work to expand their opportunity to learn, to cultivate a professional
community that is both willing and able to inquire into practice, and to focus school-
based teacher conversations directly on the improvement of teaching and learning
(IFL, 2006). All members of the communities take responsibility for continuous
learning across all disciplines.
In regards to best practices in teaching and learning, Metropolitan ISD has
also focused on Disciplinary Literacy. In all cases, the content has been viewed
through the lens of the core curriculum content areas of reading/language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies. Thus, the Disciplinary Literacy Principles
combine with the Principles of Learning in each content area to connect content
knowledge and habits of thinking.
89
Table 7. Disciplinary Literacy Principles and Principles of Learning Correlates
Principle One:
Students learn core concepts and habits
of inquiry investigating, reasoning,
reading, writing, and talking within
disciplines as defined by standards.
Principle of Learning:
Learning as Apprenticeship
Clear Expectations
Principle Two:
Learning activities, investigations, field
work, curricular, text, and talk
apprentice students within the discipline.
Principle of Learning:
Learning as Apprenticeship
Accountable Talk
Principle Three:
Instruction provides students with
models, practice, and coaching in
rigorous disciplinary literacy activity.
Principle of Learning:
Learning as Apprenticeship
Self-management of Learning
Academic Rigor in a Thinking
Curriculum
Principle Four:
Intelligence is socialized through
community, class learning culture, and
instructional routines.
Principle of Learning:
Socializing Intelligence
Organizing Effort
Principle Five:
Instruction is assessment driven and
assessment is instruction driven.
Principle of Learning:
Fair and Credible Evaluation
Recognition of Accomplishment
Source: University of Pittsburgh 2002
These instructional strategies help promote critical thinking skills in and
across all the content areas. They allow students to further their conceptual
understanding which also supports retention; because facts and methods learned with
understanding are connected, they are easier to remember and use. And they can be
reconstructed when forgotten (National Research Council, 2001).
90
The Metropolitan Achieves: Leadership Institutes also include school and
district operations updates, and administrator leadership principles all of which lead
to the three core standards for leadership practice in the state of Texas:
1. The leader has the knowledge and skills to think and plan strategically,
creating an organizational vision around personalized student success.
2. The leader is grounded in standards-based systems theory and design and
is able to transfer that knowledge to his/her job as the architect of
standards-based reform in the school.
3. The leader knows how to access and use appropriate data to inform
decision-making at all levels of the system (Texas Education Agency
Website, 2010).
Conclusion
The evolving role of the principal and the urban context presented somewhat
of a conundrum. School leaders were asked to assume responsibilities that they were
ill-equipped to presume. The assumption was that principals could be taught to be
leaders. If this was true, then leadership capacity building programs needed to
reassess their preparation programs.
ISLLC standards and the 21 McRel Responsibilities provided a framework
for the development of preparation programs. Liethwood et al., (2004) explained
that leaders needed a wide range of knowledge and skills. Administration in
education, then, became an integration of managing instruction and managing
structures and process around instruction. This included vacillating between
91
instructional, transformational, and learning-centered behaviors. In addition, urban
leaders were armed for social advocacy.
The way out of this problem was a massive overhaul of current leadership
capacity building programs. Educators, policy makers, and developers of leadership
capacity building programs were responsible for transforming the current system to
one that was solution–based that adequately prepared effective leaders to meet the
challenges of urban communities as well as created and sustained organizational
structures and processes that influenced teacher practice and student outcomes.
Chapter Three will outline the research methodology including the design,
sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis procedures.
92
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter will describe the study’s design, sample selection,
instrumentation, data collection and data analysis processes. The purpose of this
study was to investigate how participation in the MPCI influences leader practice
and on investigating how then does leader practice influence teacher professional
practice.
This study was part of a larger study conducted by the University of Southern
California in partnership with the Metropolitan Independent School District (ISD)
through a generous grant provided by the Meadows Foundation. The overall study
included 14 participating schools and 7 graduate student researchers. The
dissertation chair for my committee was instrumental in securing access to the
district and to the 14 schools. Through a research proposal designed to have graduate
student researchers from the University of Southern California study the impact of
the Metropolitan’ MPCI program on leader practice, teacher practice, and student
outcomes, the Meadows Foundation awarded the district a grant to put this study into
place beginning in the fall of 2009. The Chief Administrative Officer for the district
drafted a letter of support for this project (Appendix D).
Study Design
The case study design was appropriate for this study because it was
particularly suited to situations in which it was impossible to separate the
phenomenon’s variables (e.g., leadership practice, leader knowledge, etc.) from
93
context (Yin, 1994) as was the case in the study of leadership practice in schools. In
case study research, data collection usually “involves all three strategies of
interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents” (Merriam, 1998, p.136). Patton
(2002) contended that multiple sources of information were sought and used because
no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective. By using a combination of observations, interviews and document
analysis, I was able to use different data sources to validate and cross-check findings.
This study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching
Initiative (MPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional
leaders?
2. How does the MPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Sample and Population
The unit of analysis for this study was urban school leadership practice.
Non-probability sampling, specifically, purposeful (Patton, 1990) sampling, was the
94
strategy used to identify participants for this study. This strategy was appropriate for
this study because the intent was to discover and gain a better understanding as well
as insight into the nature of leadership practice. Therefore, it was important to
identify a sample from which the most could be learned.
Patton (1990) contended that “the logic and power of purposeful sampling
lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases
were those from which one could learn a great deal about issues of central
importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling” (p.
169).
Selection Criteria
For this multi-case, comparative, qualitative study, the first level of sampling
involved selection of the “case”. Two schools that met predetermined criteria were
identified for participation in the study. The intent was to explore variation in leader
practice and its effect on teacher professional practice between schools where
principals were participating in the MPCI. For this study, criteria were established
for the purposeful identification of case study schools:
1. Percent minority population was greater than or equal to 50%.
2. Percent low income student population was greater than or equal 50%.
3. Percent English language learner was greater than or equal to 5%.
4. Principal experience was less than or equal to 5 years.
5. School level was elementary.
95
6. Percent of minority population proficient in math and reading was less
than or equal to 50%.
7. Gap in math and reading proficiency among student groups were greater
than or equal to 20%.
8. Principal participation in year one of the MPCI program in fall 2009-
2010.
To strengthen the validity of the study, teacher participants identified from
within case sampling were randomly identified. Each participant, principals and
their teachers were asked to participate in pre-intervention and post-intervention
interviews and observation data collection activities. A minimum of six teachers
who taught high stakes accountability subjects, math reading and/or science were
identified for this level of sampling.
Each MISD executive leader brought together their Nestled Learning
Communities in September 2009 to learn about the importance of the MPCI and
encouraged them to participate. All 14 principals volunteered to participate as case
study schools. The MPCI program coordinator identified and assigned two principal
participants to each of the 7 researchers.
Participants and Setting
Participants in this study were recruited from among K-12 Metropolitan
public schools serving an ethnically diverse student population and substantial
numbers of low-income families. The district had a 2008 student enrollment of
157,804 (K-12) students who were served in 230 schools (Texas Education Agency).
96
The 2008 student demographics in Texas were as followed: Hispanic 65%, African
American 29%, White 5%, and Other 1%.
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) is the State’s
standardized test given to students in grades 3-11th annually. The Texas Assessment
Knowledge of Skills (TAKS) is the state’s accountability measure that quantifies
student performance in English Language Arts and Mathematics. The possible
ratings for districts and campuses were:
1. Exemplary – For every subject, at least 90% of the tested students pass
the test.
2. Recognized – For every subject, at least 75% of the tested students pass
the test.
3. Academically Acceptable – Varies by subject:
• Reading/ELA – At least 70% of the tested students pass the test.
• Writing – At least 65% of the tested students pass the test.
• Social Studies – At least 65% of the tested students pass the test.
• Mathematics – At least 50% of the tested students pass the test.
• Science – At least 45% of the tested students pass the test.
97
Table 8. Number of Exemplary and Recognized Schools
Ratings 2006 2007 2008* 2009
Number Number Number Number
Exemplary 13 14 26 46
Recognized 67 33 77 85
Academically Acceptable 107 143 100 79
Academically Unacceptable 22 27 21 14
Total Number Schools 209 217 228 224**
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Exemplary 6.2% 6.5% 11.4% 20.5%
Recognized 31.1% 15.2% 33.7% 37.9%
Academically Acceptable 52.1% 65.9% 43.9% 35.3%
Academically Unacceptable 10.5% 12.4% 9.2% 6.3%
Source: www.Metropolitanisd.org
As illustrated in Table 8 the district continues to increase the percent of
schools rated Exemplary and Recognized while decreasing the schools that are rated
Academically Acceptable and Academically Unacceptable. The number of schools
currently rated Exemplary increased by 20 from 2008-2009. There was a decrease in
the amount of schools from 2006 to 2008 that were rated Academically
Unacceptable.
Metropolitan ISD is currently rated under three distinct systems; (1) Local –
School Effectiveness Index, (2) State – Academic Excellence Indicator System, (3)
Federal Annual Yearly Progress. Because of the three distinct systems, student
98
results were reported as exemplary, recognized, academically acceptable, and
academically unacceptable or “met standard” or “commended”. For the purpose of
portraying the Texas Disaggregated student achievement on the (TAKS) during the
2006-2008 school year, the third system was used – Federal AYP.
Table 9. Texas’ AYP Achievement Results, 2007-2008 & 2007-2006
Reading
2007-2008
% Met Standard
2006-2007
% Met Standard
Student Group Metropolitan ISD / Texas Metropolitan ISD / Texas
All 80% / 88% 78% / 87%
African American 78% / 83% 77% / 83%
Hispanic 81% / 84% 78% / 83%
White 91% / 94% 90% / 94%
Economically Disadvantage 79% / 83% 77% / 82%
Special Education 53% / 62% 69% / 77%
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 72% / 76% 69% / 75%
Math
2007-2008
% Met Standard
2006-2007
% Met Standard
Student Group Metropolitan ISD/ Texas Metropolitan ISD/ Texas
All 71% / 79% 69% / 79%
African American 62% / 68% 62% / 68%
Hispanic 74% / 75% 70% / 74%
White 84% / 88% 84% / 88%
Economically Disadvantage 71% / 73% 68% / 72%
Special Education 50% / 50% 69% / 74%
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 69% / 72% 65% / 71%
Source: Texas Education Agency Website http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2008
99
Table 9 illustrated Texas’ AYP Achievement Results for 2007-2008 and
2007-2006. While in both mathematics and reading in the aggregate the percent of
Metropolitan ISD students who met the standard was below the State level,
disaggregated data revealed that the percent of Hispanic students who met the
standard was slightly above African American. Within the Metropolitan ISD school
district, the TAKS results revealed that significant gaps existed between minority
groups and their White counterparts.
Table 10. Graduation Rate Class of 2007 and 2006
Graduation Rates Class of 2007
All
African
American Hispanic White
Economically
Disadvantage
Special
Education
Limited
English
Proficient
Number in
Class
8,788 3,344 4,682 637 5,474 774 1,239
Graduates 5,493 2,124 2,799 482 3,475 403 416
Graduation
Rate
62.5% 63.5% 59.8% 75.7% 63.5% 52.1% 33.6%
Student
Group %
100% 38% 53% 7% 62% 9% 14%
Change -6.3% -6.3% -5.8% -5.7% -6.0% -7.8% -8.9%
Graduation Rates Class of 2006
All
African
American Hispanic White
Economically
Disadvantage
Special
Education
Limited
English
Proficient
Number in
Class
8,730 3,362 4,527 700 5,310 799 1,219
Graduates 6,002 2,348 2,968 570 3,690 479 518
Graduation
Rate
68.8% 69.8% 65.6% 81.4% 69.5% 59.9% 42.5%
Student
Group %
100% 39% 52% 8% 61% 9% 14%
Source: www.metropolitanisd.org
100
Illustrated in Table 10 were the graduation rates by ethnicity from 2006-
2007. The table illustrates that Metropolitan ISD has a significant decline in the
percent of students graduating from 2006-2007. As illustrated, only one ethnicity
group is over the 75% with all other ethnicity groups below 65% in 2007. All groups
showed a decrease in the amount of students graduating at a rate higher than 5.7%.
The two schools selected for this district were I. E. Clark Elementary School
and R. G. Smith Elementary School. The dissertation group developed the criteria
for school selection. Both schools met the agreed upon criteria.
I. E. Clark Elementary School was located in a diverse, urban part of the
metropolitan city in the northeast portion. I. E. Clark Elementary School met all the
eight of the selection requirements for this study: (1) Eighty-eight percent of its
student population participated in the Free and Reduced Lunch program meeting the
minimum requirement of 50% percent; (2) The schools overall minority population
was 92% which was greater than 50%; (3) The school’s EL population was 41%
much higher than the 5% noted in the selection criteria; (4) The principal’s
administrative experience was 2 years at the elementary level and she was in her
second year of participation in the MPCI. Additionally, 69% of students made
expected gains in math while 82% of students made expected gains in reading.
R. G. Smith Elementary School was located in the northwest diverse corner
of the metropolitan city. R. G. Smith met all eight of the selection requirements for
this study: (1) Ninety-seven percent of its student population participated in the Free
or Reduced Lunch program meeting the greater than 50% criteria; (2) The schools
101
overall minority population which includes the Hispanic and African American
populations total 94% which is more than the 50% established by the criteria; (3)
The school’s ELL population was 70% much higher than the 5% required of the
study; (4) At the time of the study, the principal was completing her first year at the
elementary school and she was beginning her second year of the MPCI; (5) Students
at R.G. Smith Elementary School displayed a 20% gap between Reading and Math;
Reading performance was 45% and Math performance was 68%. Reading
performance was less than 50%. In addition to meeting the selected criteria,
longitudinal data showed a decrease in Reading and Math and an increase in Science
and Writing. Students who made expected gains in Reading and Math ranged from
68% to 73%.
Gaining Access to Participants
Letters of introduction to case study principals were sent in late September
(Appendix N). An “informed consent” letter accompanied all letters of introduction
(Appendix T and HH).
A follow-up phone call was made to all case study principals in September to
thank them for their willingness to participate in the study. Principals were asked to
identify a lead teacher to assist in maintaining the anonymity of all teacher
participants from their schools. It was anticipated that this person would distribute
survey access codes to all teachers and secured a list of teachers from which to
randomly select case study participants.
102
All participants in the study were given pseudonyms to maintain their
anonymity.
Intervention: Metropolitan Principal Coaching Initiative
In order to meet the district’s goal and to fulfill its mission, the district must
have at its centerpiece exemplary professional development for “everyone who
affects student learning.” (Metropolitan Achieves: Leadership Development
Initiatives Executive Summary, 2009). Coaching programs provide an avenue in
which problem-focused learning can take place (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).
Based on research from the business community, executive coaching has
received positive research support. The MPCI was a district-wide executive
leadership capacity building strategy which combines the District’s standards-based
leadership curriculum with a leadership coaching support structure for principals. To
ensure the success of Metropolitan ISD’s newly hired campus-based administrators,
the Texas Education Agency mandated that all new administrators—those new to the
district, those promoted to principal positions, and those moving into administrative
positions from the classroom received a mentoring component whereby experienced
campus administrators provided ongoing support and information to new
administrators (Metropolitan Achieves: Leadership Development Initiatives
Executive Summary, 2009). Each MISD executive leadership brought together their
Nestled Learning Communities to discuss the importance of the MPCI and
encouraged them to participate. All 14 principals volunteered to participate as case
study schools. Two principal participants were assigned to each of the 7 researchers.
103
Principal Coaches, some of whom are part-time employees of the district, some of
whom are contract workers with the district, and some of whom are provided
through the district’s contract with Region 10 Education Service Center, are assigned
to one or two of the 14 principals.
The program gave participants an opportunity to:
• Meet and interact with the senior leadership of the district,
• Receive information about district wide programs,
• Gain valuable understanding of the administrative structure of
Metropolitan ISD and its organization and operations,
• Establish a professional and personal network with other new
administrators, and
• Allow new principals to visit successful campuses during their first year
on the job (Metropolitan Achieves: Leadership Development Initiatives
Executive Summary, 2009).
• Going beyond the scope of a mentor/mentee relationship, principals and
their coaches attended professional development sessions together. In
some cases, those sessions were the same as all principals attended. In
other cases professional development was specifically designed for
principals and coaches. Sessions were designed to build leadership
capacity and to strengthen the new principal’s awareness and
understanding of Metropolitan Achieves; Leadership Institutes’ content
over the last several years. Other sessions covered included dealing with
104
personnel issues, staff evaluation procedures, budget and finance
considerations, and school climate issues were all part of the program.
The program also provided a venue for sharing successes, challenges, and
solutions to common or individual problems (Metropolitan Achieves:
Leadership Development Initiatives Executive Summary, 2009).
The MPCI was also predicated on building leadership capacity to improve
student achievement. The three MPCI core standards for practice aligned with the
Interstate Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards, 2008:
1. The leader has the knowledge and skills to think and plan strategically,
creating an organizational vision around personalized student success.
2. The leader is grounded in standards-based systems theory and design and
was able to transfer that knowledge to his/her job as the architect of
standards-based reform in the school.
3. The leader knows how to access and use appropriate data to inform
decision-making at all levels of the system (Texas Education Agency
Website, 2010).
The Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI) provides a
standards-based capacity building curriculum and the support of a leadership
coaching structure. The District is focused upon building capacity in school leaders
by focusing on what they need to know and be able to do in order to provide the
guidance and direction of sustained instructional improvement leading to higher
student achievement.
105
The MPCI (2009) is designed to provide principals with a principal coach
who provides elbow to-elbow coaching and conferring to enhance instructional
leadership development and build leadership capacity to ensure improved academic
success for students. To this end, the study sought to identify two principals who
were participating in the MPCI (2009). Each principal would be in their first year of
receiving coaching assistance either by phone or “elbow to elbow" that enhanced
instructional leadership development and equitable learning for outcomes for all
students. Each case study focused on how the MPCI (2009) prepared and supported
leaders to create organizational structures and practices that have the potential to
promote effective leader practice and professional teacher practices. The study took
a comprehensive look at the leadership practices enacted that have the potential to
lead to attainment of the MPCI core standards and implementation of the
Metropolitan Achieves improvement initiatives to determine: (1) the relationship
between principal participation in the MPCI (2009) program and their leadership
practice; and (2) if the practice of the two principals varies, what accounts for that
variance. The proposed study additionally sought to expand the knowledge base in
regards to components of effective leadership support structures at the school and
district levels which enabled principal’s leadership practice in creating and
sustaining the conditions for effective teacher practice and promoted a more
equitable and effective student learning environment in the urban school context.
Additionally, the District was interested in learning more about how the VAL-ED
106
Survey could be used as a tool to facilitate the leadership coaching process and to
promote effective leadership practice.
Data Collection Procedures
This study utilized a qualitative, comparative, case study design. Qualitative
as well as quantitative data were collected in a pre-intervention and post-intervention
design to determine the leader’s change in practice and how these factors were
shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences in the MPCI (2009) program
over time. In general, case studies focus on discovery and exploration rather than
hypothesis testing and the development of deductive inferences (Merriam, 1998).
Case studies were most appropriate in situations where the researcher had little
control over the events in the context surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003).
Therefore the focus of this study centered on descriptive questions which revealed
information about the “hows” and “whys” of changes in principal leadership
behavior through participation in the MPCI 2009 program as well as the impact of
the leader’s practice on teacher practice and organizational structures.
Yin (1984) defined a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used” (p. 23). For this study it was important to analyze the
phenomenon of educational leadership in a real-life context to gain a better
understanding of what factors about the context seemed to influence principal
behavior. As such, a multiple case study design was the best methodological
107
approach for this study. The design of this study supported the ability to identify and
purposefully collect data for analysis of the leadership phenomenon from a very
distinct capacity building context: MPCI (2009) participants. Not only would a
comparative case study design contribute to the robustness of the study, it would
contribute to the base of knowledge supporting the importance of context in change
in professional practice.
According to Patton (2002), “multiple sources of information were sought
and used because no single source of information was trusted to provide a
comprehensive perspective on the program. By using a combination of observations,
interviewing, and document analysis, the fieldworker was able to use different data
sources to validate and crosscheck findings” (p. 306). In addition, Patton (2002) also
pointed out that each type of data source had its strengths and weaknesses.
Triangulation (the use of multiple data sources) increased validity because the
strengths of one approach compensated for the weaknesses of another approach.
Instrumentation: Overview
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For both
case studies the following sources were used to gather descriptive data: pre and post
intervention interviews with each principal and a sub-set of their teachers; pre and
post intervention observations of the principal interacting with teachers and
classroom observations of teachers interacting with their students and with other
teachers; and a collection of documents (e.g., those that were publicly available) and
108
artifacts (e.g., those that were generated in conjunction with MPCI 2009 and IFL)
relevant to the study were collected for analysis.
In addition, principals, their supervisors, and their teachers took the on-line
version of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education Survey (VAL-ED)
in a pre/post design to determine what leader practice was like prior to the
intervention and after a few months of having participated in the MPCI. For MPCI
participants, the first administration for the pre-intervention took place in fall 2009
and the post intervention in spring (2010).
Patton (1990) contended that, “multiple sources of information were sought
and used because no single source of information was trusted to provide a
comprehensive perspective…” (p. 244). Data collected in response to each research
question were triangulated to facilitate the data analysis process and substantiate any
inferences made with regards to changes in leader practice and teacher professional
practice. The VAL-ED survey was administered to each case study school.
Instrumentation: The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education Survey (VAL-ED)
(Murphy, et al., 2007) is a standards-based survey of educational leadership that is
closely aligned with the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)
standards and the Texas Administrative Code (Appendix G). The VAL-ED was
funded by grant by the Wallace Foundation and developed by a team of well-
respected researchers in educational leadership (Murphy et al., 2007). Learning-
centered leadership theory which was discussed in Chapter 2 was the framework
109
used for the development of the VAL-ED. The learning-centered leader is one who
establishes a clear vision, exhibits instructional proficiency, aligns the curriculum to
assessment, personally knows his or her staff, implements a culture of learning for
adults and children, encourages a safe and orderly environment, and communicates
with all actors in the teaching and learning process. It is through this leadership
perspective that the behaviors for this instrument were developed.
The VAL-ED is designed to provide a summary of effectiveness of a
principal’s learning-centered leadership behaviors. The survey was composed of 72
items which were broken down into six Core Component subscales and six Key
Process subscales. The six core components were: (1) high standards for student
performance, (2) rigorous curriculum, (3) quality instruction, (4) culture of learning
and professional behavior, (5) connections to external communities, and (6) systemic
performance accountability. The six Key Processes were: (1) planning, (2)
implementing, (3) supporting, (4) advocating, (5) communicating, and (6)
monitoring.
In reviewing the key principles of the learning-centered framework it was
evident that Core Components of effective school leadership closely aligned to the
Core-Texas Statewide Leadership Standards and the Metropolitan Achieves
Leadership Development Curriculum as shown in Appendix D. Murphy et al.,
(2007) asserted that these “specific actions” are correlated with high student
achievement. The resulting data reflected the principal’s performance level and
percentile rank at an intersection where the Core Components and Key Processes
110
collide. This intersection where the Core Components—high standards for student
learning, rigorous curriculum, quality instruction, culture of learning and
professional behavior, connections to external communities, and performance
accountability—and the six Key Processes - planning, implementing, supporting,
advocating, communicating, and monitoring (Murphy et al., 2006) combine is the
place where effective leadership is born. It is important to note, according to
Murphy et al., (2006), that the Key Processes are essential to achieving each of the
six Core Components of effective leadership.
The resulting data highlights the strength of the assessment tool by: (1)
requiring a 360
o
view of leadership behaviors using the principal, teachers, and the
supervisor as respondents; (2) respondents are required to evaluate the principal
based on sources of evidence such as “reports from others, personal observations,
school documents, or school projects or activities” (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009,
p.2).
For this study, all survey respondents took the on-line version. The surveys
were administered to three respondents: (a) the principal, (2) certificated teachers
and (c) the supervisor. All respondents were assigned a unique ID to protect the
confidentiality of each participant. A lead teacher (responsible for providing the
master list of teachers and their contact information) was identified to distribute
survey IDs which avoided the possibility of retaliation by the principal for their
responses. Through this process, the exact responses of all participants and their
contribution to the overall survey results remained unknown to the principal.
111
Survey respondents were asked, “How effective the principal is at ensuring
the school …” The effectiveness ratings, based on evidence, were on a 5-point
effectiveness scale (1 = Ineffective, 2 = Minimally Effective, 3 = Satisfactorily
Effective, 4 = Highly Effective, and 5 = Outstandingly Effective; (VAL-ED Principal
Report, 2008, p. 3) for each of 72 leadership behaviors. Figure 4 illustrates a sample
of the VAL-ED survey.
Figure 4. Sample VAL-ED Survey
112
Parallel forms of the assessment were used to measure growth over time,
from the pre-intervention assessment in the fall to the post-intervention period in the
spring of the following year. Both principal and teacher surveys were designed to
take from 20-30 minutes to complete. The VAL-ED survey was designed to yield
both criterion-referenced and norm-referenced scores. The VAL-ED provided an
average score across all respondents, as well as separately by each respondent group.
The total score and Core Component and Key Process effectiveness ratings were
interpreted against a national representative sample that included principals,
supervisors, and teachers, which provided the percentile rank. The results were also
interpreted against a set of performance standards: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient,
and Distinguished. Figure 5 illustrates the descriptions of each performance level.
The VAL-ED (2008) was a new instrument in the research of educational
leadership. To establish high standards of content validity and reliability, it went
through extensive field testing. The conceptual framework was based on the
literature on school leadership effects on student achievement (Porter, Murphy,
Goldring, Elliott, Polikoff, & May, 2008). The developers completed a nine-school
pilot test in the fall (2007 to establish both face and content validity). Estimated
reliability coefficients for each of the twelve subscales were also established as a
result of this pilot. Overall, the investigation revealed high reliability coefficients for
the seventy-two-item scales (α = >.98). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted
to investigate data fit to the conceptual model. The factor analytic model was
designed to parallel the conceptual framework for the VAL-ED by incorporating
113
higher-order factors for core components, key processes, and an overall score (Porter
et al., 2008).
Figure 5. VAL-ED Performance Levels
Because each item contributed to both a core component and a key process,
the factor analytic model was split into two separate analyses: one on core
components and the other on key processes. Results from the confirmatory factor
analyses revealed that both the core components and the key processes model fit the
114
data very well, having goodness of fit indices between .96 and .99. A primary source
of validity evidence was the core component and key process inter-correlations. The
correlations were high, both for core components and for key processes, though they
appeared somewhat higher for key processes. For core components, correlations
ranged from a low of .73 (Connections to External Communities and High Standards
for Student Learning) to a high of .90 (Quality Instruction and High Standards for
Student Learning). For key processes, correlations ranged from a low of .89
(Supporting and Monitoring) to a high of .94 (Monitoring and Communicating).
Correlations of core components and key processes with total score were all quite
high, with none lower than .9. These high inter-correlations, along with the factor
analysis results described above, suggested that the instrument was measuring a
strong underlying construct, principal leadership. A full description of the VAL-ED
reliabilities and psychometric properties is provided in Appendix Q. In the winter of
2008 a 300-school field test was completed. The purposes of this test were: (a) to
replicate reliability and validity tests from the initial nine-school pilot in the fall of
2007, (b) to conduct differential item functioning to determine biases, and (c) to
establish norms (Porter et al., 2008).
For this study, all survey respondents took the on-line version. The surveys
were administered to three respondent groups: (a) the principal, (2) all certificated
teachers and (c) the principal’s supervisor. All respondents were assigned a unique
ID to protect the confidentiality of each participant. A lead teacher (responsible for
providing the master list of teachers and their contact information) was identified to
115
distribute survey IDs which avoided the possibility of retaliation by the principal for
their responses. Through this process, the exact responses of all participants and
their contribution to the overall survey results remained unknown to the principal.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each principal (N = 2) and
two sub-set of teachers (N = 3) from each principal’s school site. Principal and
teacher interview protocols had a mixture of pre-determined as well as open-ended
questions. The pre-intervention principal interviews (Appendix E) took place in the
fall (2009) for approximately forty-five minutes with principals and thirty minutes
with teachers. The post-intervention principal interviews (Appendix F) took place in
the winter (2010) after each principal received their results from the first survey
administration. In addition, probing questions were asked when the responses
required more elaboration or clarification. The interviews were recorded and later
transcribed for analysis.
Teachers were randomly selected from the master teacher list secured with
principal cooperation based on whether they taught one of the core content areas;
reading, math, or science. A minimum of three teachers participated in both pre and
post intervention interviews (Appendices G-H) at each school. The interview
protocols were designed to elicit responses which provided evidence for a change in
principal and teacher practice in alignment with the outcomes of value to this study
which were aligned with the MISD Core Leadership standards, the outcomes of the
Metropolitan Achieves Leadership Development Curriculum (IFL) and Leadership
116
Institutes, and the learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2008).
Table 11 below illustrates the alignment of outcomes across these three guiding
frameworks.
Observations and Documents
In addition to interviews, two types of pre/post -intervention observations
(Appendices I & K) were conducted at each school to gather additional data.
Observational data were necessary to strengthen data obtained through interviews
and the VAL-ED. Interview and survey data were based solely on individual
perceptions. Observations and document analysis (Appendix J) provided additional
data that were somewhat removed from individual perceptions and, in some cases,
bias of those working at the school site. Additionally, these observational data added
to the strength of the study as they provided another source of data for triangulation.
Observations included the following:
1. Principal and teacher interactions in both individual and group settings
(i.e. staff meetings, professional learning community meetings).
2. Teachers instructing students in Math, Language Arts, and Science.
3. Principal interactions during day-to-day responsibilities.
4. School level professional learning opportunities in which the principal
was guiding the learning process.
117
Table 11. MPCI Core Components Alignment Matrix
Core Texas State-wide
Leadership Standards
Addressed
Metropolitan Achieves
Leadership Development
Curriculum
Murphy’s Learning-Centered
Framework
(8 Dimensions)
1. The leader has the
knowledge and skills to think
and plan strategically,
creating an organizational
vision around personalized
student success.
Transforming Our Public Schools
(TOPS)
Develop Vision and Goals
• Institute for Learning (IFL)
Institutes & IFL’s
Leadership for Learning: A
Theory of Action for Urban
School Districts*
• District design principles and
theory of change
• District Initiatives and
Procedures
Vertical Learning Communities
• Learning Walk within and
across feeder patterns
• Book studies and article
discussions
• Sharing artifacts that impact
student achievement
I. Vision for Learning
A. Developing vision
B. Articulating vision
C. Implementing vision
D. Stewarding vision
II. Instructional Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Hiring and allocating staff
C. Supporting staff
D. Instructional time
III. Curricular Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Expectations, standards
C. Opportunity to learn
D. Curriculum alignment
IV. Assessment Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Assessment procedures
C. Monitoring instruction and
curriculum
D. Communication and use of data
V. Communities of Learning
A. Professional development
B. Communities of professional practice
C. Community-anchored schools
VI. Resource Acquisition and Use
A. Acquiring resources
B. Allocating resources
C. Using resources
VII. Organizational Culture
A. Production emphasis
B. Accountability
C. Learning environment
D. Personalized environment
E. Continuous improvement
VIII. Social Advocacy
A. Stakeholder engagement
B. Diversity
C. Environmental context
D. Ethics
2. The leader is grounded in
standards-based systems
theory and design and is able
to transfer that knowledge to
his/her job as the architect of
standards-based reform in the
school.
IFL’s Leadership for Learning:
A Theory of Action for Urban
School Districts*
• District design principles and
theory of change
• Foundation of Effective
Learning: The Principles of
Learning
• Disciplinary
Literacy/Academic Rigor
3. The leader knows how to
access and use appropriate
data to inform decision-
making at all levels of the
system.
Leading for Results
• Learning Walks
• Focus on Data Analysis
• Nested Professional
Learning Communities
• Leadership Instructional
Conferring/Coaching
and Reflective Practice
Strategies
Source: Andrew C. Porter, Joseph Murphy, Ellen Goldring, Stephen N. Elliott,
Morgan S. Polikoff & Henry May, 2008. VAL-ED Technical Manual
118
In total, two days were devoted to collecting qualitative data in the field in
the fall and two days in the spring. Reflective field notes from these observations
were recorded using an observation protocol designed for each type of observation.
The notes were transcribed for analysis to facilitate further organization of the data
for analysis.
Table 12 details the triangulation of data in relation to each research question
identified at the beginning of this chapter.
Table 12. Data Collection Triangulation Table
Research Question
VAL ED
Survey
(Pre/Post)
Principals,
Teachers,
Supervisors
Principal
Interview/
Observation
(Pre/Post)
Interview
(Pre/Post)
Teachers
Analyze
Documents
Artifacts of
Practice
(Pre/Post)
Classroom
Observations
1. How does participation in the
Metropolitan ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) prepare
principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
X X X X
2. How does the MPCI influence the
knowledge, beliefs and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
X X X X X
3. How does an urban school
principal create and sustain
organizational structures and
processes that promote effective
teacher practice and improve student
outcomes?
X X X X X
4. What leadership support
structures enable leader practice?
X X X X
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument
serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
X X X X X
119
Data Analysis Procedures
There is no single, accepted approach to analyzing qualitative data, although
several guidelines exist for this process (Creswell, 2003). Data collected for this
study were analyzed in accordance with two levels of analysis, formative and
summative. To protect the integrity of the each case study, each case was fully
analyzed (i.e. coding, pattern matching, organization by themes, and summative data
analysis) prior to the cross case comparative analysis. Once the data for the two case
studies were individually analyzed, data from both cases were analyzed again in
search of patterns and themes that helped to make inferences regarding the variance
between the two cases.
Formative Data Analysis Procedures
A formative data analysis of this study was completed utilizing Creswell’s
(2003) generic six-step process:
1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis which involved transcribing
interviews, field notes and reviewing documents.
2. Read through all the data in order to obtain a general sense of the
information and to reflect on its overall meaning.
3. Began detailed analysis with a coding process—organize the material into
chunks or categories.
4. Use the coding process from Step 3 to organize the categories into themes
for analysis and looked for connections between the themes.
120
5. Define how the themes were represented in the qualitative narrative.
6. Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data (Creswell, 2003).
Summative Data Analysis
While emphasizing the theoretical implications from the conceptual
framework that guided this study, for each research question, the data from this study
were analyzed through the lenses of the literature discussed in Chapters 2 to
determine if there was a change in perceptions of leader behavior and its impact on
teacher practice and organizational structures. For the quantitative data collected
from the VAL-ED survey, the mean differences between the results of the pre and
post administrations of the assessment were used. A positive value was considered a
change in the direction towards effective learning-centered leadership practices. A
negative value was considered a loss. The data were triangulated with the qualitative
data and used to further support the descriptive analysis of the case study data.
This research study was completed over a five-month period of time. Below
is a table illustrating the timeline for the study.
121
Table 13. Data Collection Timeline
Task Timeline
Proposal Development and Planning June/August 2009
Recruitment of Study Participants August/September 2009
Pre-Intervention
On-Site Case Study Qualitative Data Collection(Fall): Observe
case study principals leading PL; interview principals &
classroom teachers; collect documents for analysis; Collect &
Analyze Principal Artifacts of Practice
September 2009
ON-LINE VAL-ED Survey Administration (Fall)
All principal participants; teachers, coaches, supervisors
September to October,
2009
Data Analysis November/December
2009
Post-Intervention
Case Study Qualitative Data Collection (Spring): Observe
principals leading PL; interview principals & classroom
teachers; collect documents for analysis; Collect & Analyze
Principal Artifacts of Practice
January 2010
ON-LINE VAL-ED Survey Administration (Spring)
All principal participants; teachers, coaches, supervisors February 2010
Data Analysis January to March 2010
Validity
Validity strategies were used to determine the trustworthiness (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985 as cited in Creswell, 2003) and accuracy of interpretations and findings.
The accuracy and credibility of the findings of this study were established using the
following validation strategies: data triangulation and peer debriefing. Triangulation
was the process of corroborating evidence from various individuals, sources and
122
methods. Data collected in this study came from a variety of individuals (i.e.
principals, mentors, supervisors, and teachers), sources and methods (i.e. survey,
interviews, observations, and review of artifacts). Peer debriefing was utilized
through a process of identifying a colleague to whom responsibility for reviewing
and asking questions about the interpretations and findings was given. Through this
process, it was anticipated that clarity could be gained from someone other than the
researcher.
Though various limitations and delimitations of the study were addressed in
Chapter 1, it is important to recognize additional threats to validity. Some potential
threats to internal validity are outlined below:
1. Length of the Study: Time for collecting qualitative data from fieldwork
for this study was limited to five months.
2. The fact that the post-assessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively
soon after the pre-assessment (approximately five months) limits the
degree to which it could fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas
assessed.
3. Pre-test Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration
of the VAL-ED had inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected
in the second administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of
factors other than the participants’ participation in MPCI (2009).
4. The “halo effect:” Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), there is potential for participants to
123
assume specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression.
However, to mitigate the effect of this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-
ED survey requires that raters identify the primary source of evidence for
their rating on each item (i.e. personal observation, documents, etc.).
5. The pre-post administration of the VAL-ED survey was not completed by
100% of the teaching staff in each case, which limited the degree to
which it could fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas assessed.
6. The coach for one of the principals did not engage in a relationship with
the principal during the course of the study.
Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
policies and procedures for conducting research were utilized in the development of
this research design. Prior to participation in this study each participant was given an
explanation of the purpose, procedures, and scope of the study. In addition, each
principal participant was given an informed consent form, which outlined the nature
of the study, to read and sign indicating their voluntary participation. To protect the
anonymity of each participant pseudonyms were assigned to the principal and
teacher participants. In addition, the names of the districts and schools which the
participants were associated with were changed to avoid any possible association that
would lead to the identification of participants in this study. All data was stored in a
secure location with restricted access to the data to the researcher only. The proposal
for this study went under a rigorous approval process for the conduct of human
124
subjects research through the University of Southern California’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB), and approved, prior to the start of data collection in the fall
(2009).
Summary
In summary, this chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and the research
methodology that was used to accomplish that purpose. Justification for the use of a
descriptive qualitative analysis to address the research questions was given in the
beginning of the chapter. The research design included a detailed description of the
sample and how the individual cases were selected for study. Data collection and
analysis procedures were explained as were instrumentation considerations. Due to
its infancy and limited use in research of educational leadership to date, a brief
review of the VAL-ED survey and its psychometric properties were given to assure
readers of its validity and reliability in assessing leader behavior in this study. Other
topics covered in this chapter included ethical considerations of the study. Also
included in this chapter was a brief description of the University of Southern
California’s larger longitudinal study in partnership with Metropolitan ISD.
125
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
We know that education is everything to our children’s future. Fight
for social and economic justice begins in the classroom. (President
Barack Obama, July 2008)
Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected in the current study and
reports the findings for each research question. The purpose of this mixed methods,
purposive case study was to determine whether a fully developed leadership capacity
building program complemented by leadership mentoring support and assessment of
leadership practice, was effective in promoting and sustaining change in leader
practice and teacher professional practice.
This chapter discusses the findings from two qualitative case studies which
investigated how a focused district-wide leadership capacity building and support
initiative carried out in a large, urban school district prepared principals to become
effective instructional leaders; and how, as a result, those principals put into practice
behaviors that focused upon creating and sustaining organizational structures and
processes that promote effective teacher practice and positively impact student
outcomes. The rigorous design of this study included the pre/post collection of both
qualitative and quantitative data to be used in descriptive analysis of the findings
from this study. Data collected from each case study school are presented and
analyzed in this chapter to determine the impact that participating in the
Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI) had on leadership practice.
126
The chapter is organized with a brief discussion of the components of the
Metropolitan ISD leadership capacity building and support initiative followed by a
presentation of each case study school including an introduction to the principal,
staffing, the school context including student demographics, student achievement
patterns in math and language arts, leadership challenges and vision/mission/school
goals. For each case study school, this will be followed by a discussion and analysis
of the findings in relation to each of the five research questions that guided this
study. Next, for each case study school, the chapter will present a summary of the
findings. The chapter will conclude with a comparison of the findings for each case
study school and an analysis of the variation in results between the two case study
schools with a discussion relating to the possible cause(s) for the identified variation.
The study focused on the following five research questions:
1. How does participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching
Initiative (MPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional
leaders?
2. How does the MPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
127
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The chapter will proceed with an overview of the district, introduction to
each case study school, and a report of the findings for each research question based
upon the data collected. The data in the analysis section of the chapter were
organized according to each of the five research questions and themes that emerged
from the data. A concluding summary will be provided with a cross case analysis of
each study.
Intervention: Metropolitan Principal Coaching Initiative
The Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI) provides a
standards-based capacity building curriculum and the support of a leadership
coaching structure. The District is focused upon building capacity in school leaders
by focusing on what they need to know and be able to do in order to provide the
guidance and direction of sustained instructional improvement leading to higher
student achievement.
The MPCI is designed to provide principals with a principal coach who
provides elbow to elbow coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership
development and build leadership capacity to ensure improved academic success for
students. Principals and coaches participate in professional development focused on
data analysis, goal setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice and
establishing systems and structures to support improved teacher practice and student
128
learning. Research demonstrates that effective school leaders have an impact on
student achievement. A focused program of continuing professional education can
help leaders develop the knowledge and skills they need to become more effective in
improving the learning environment for teachers and students.
The two case study schools, I. E. Clark and R. G. Smith were both
elementary schools. Both of which were Pre-K-5
th
grade with poverty and minority
rates over 65%. Both schools were making progress toward the district’s goals for
student achievement. The next section will discuss the case study schools.
Case Study One: I. E. Clark Elementary School
First Impression
The first visit to I. E. Clark Elementary School took place in September 2009.
It was located in the Northeastern part of the Metropolitan are on the outskirts of the
city. Driving through the neighborhood to the school site there were houses and
apartments. The school was nestled on a lot primarily by itself. The front of the
school had a small but ample parking lot along with a half moon like driveway that
allowed for easy “drop” off and pick up of students. District personnel parked in the
side parking lot, which required a brief walk to the front of the school. Upon entry
into the school there was a table with hand sanitizer. The school definitely had the
appearance of a brand new school. It was voted NELC’s (Northeastern Learning
Community) cleanest school last year.
Being accompanied by district personnel, I took a seat in the library for the
professional development that was about to take place. As I waited for an
129
opportunity interview the principal, I made some acquaintances. The staff was very
welcoming, and those that were spoken too seemed willing to participate in the
study. Upon entry to the library, the principal greeted the researcher and explained
that she would be talking about the Data Portal; introduce me, and then the
consultant from DRA (Directed Reading Activity). She also mentioned that we
could meet during the presentation.
Demographics
I. E. Clark Elementary School provided services to 586 students. Those
students were present 95% of the time. Of those students 69% were Hispanic, 23%
were African Americans, 6% were White and 1% were other. The Limited English
Proficient (LEP) population constituted 41% of the students while 9% of the students
were special education students. Students who were considered socioeconomically
disadvantaged qualified for free and reduced lunch which equated to 88% of the
students at I. E. Clark Elementary School.
Staff
I. E. Clark Elementary School has a certificated staff of 49 teachers that have
all come from different schools. All teachers are considered highly qualified.
According to NCLB (2001) teachers are required to have a bachelor’s degree, state
certification, and demonstrated subject matter competence for each core subject they
teach. Teachers at I. E. Clark are departmentalized based on subject matter, thus
have passed and met the requirement for certification in the state of Texas (Texas
State Board of Educator Certification). Even though they have met the state’s
130
requirements, the range of experience amongst the staff varies. Some teachers were
veteran teachers while others were brand new and some were alternative certification
coming in from another profession (Principal Interview, 2009).
The school was organized by small learning communities which were based
on grade-level and content area. To further support the staff, the principal requested
additional coaches. Their role in supporting instruction included team teaching,
facilitating collaboration, and learning walks. In addition, teacher assistants and
inclusion teachers were also on campus to support instruction. The attendance rate
of teachers was 91% as noted by the school’s scorecard.
Culture and Vision
Newly established I. E. Clark Elementary School was in the development
stages of establishing a culture and climate. The first year was considered the
“cocktail party” or “honeymoon” where everything was great. The second year
came along and the school found itself in the “chaos” stage. Questions were asked
such as, “Why did we do it that way again?” That stage left everyone asking
questions about everything; year three hoped to be a year where people came
together to begin sharing and trusting one another. Principal Lindsay worked hard to
establish a culture of collaboration among the faculty where sharing and trust were
the norm (Principal Interview, 2009).
The vision of I. E. Clark Elementary School was to educate all students to the
highest level of academic performance while fostering positive growth in character,
independence, and responsibility. The core concepts and key ideas embodied within
131
the school’s vision were academic excellence where character is an essential
foundation. Character that displays being kind to others and doing the right thing
when no one’s watching as well as being life-long learners and self-sufficient this
was the ideas behind the development of the vision by the CILT (Campus
Instructional Leadership Team). The vision was aligned with the elements of
standards-based instructional system by including the ideals of social justice or
academic excellence for everyone. The vision was aligned to the district’s goal as
well as the goals for the school (Principal Interview, 2009).
Performance Data
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) is the State’s
standardized test given to students in grades 3-11th annually. The Texas Assessment
Knowledge of Skills (TAKS) is the state’s accountability measure that quantifies
student performance in English Language Arts and Mathematics. It was designed to
measure individual student growth. In 2007, the Texas state legislature passed a bill
that required Texas to use a vertical scale for English TAKS reading and
mathematics in grades 3-8
th
starting spring of 2009. The vertical scale was required
for those grades, since TAKS was administered yearly.
Performance was evaluated for all students and the following student groups:
African American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantage, Special
Education, and Limited English Proficient.
Illustrated in Table 14 are the percent of students who demonstrated
proficiency on the state’s standards based test for 2008-2009. I. E. Clark Elementary
132
School was rated Academically Acceptable. Trend data were not available for I.E.
Clark.
Table 14. I. E. Clark TAKS Achievement Data 2008-2009 For All Grades
All Grades Reading/ELA Mathematics Writing Science
All 2008
2009
Gain:
79.6 (274)
78.9 (304)
-0.6
73.6 (273)
65.4 (306)
-8.3
90.1 (91)
79.8 (99)
-10.3
63.5 (74)
77.2 (92)
13.7
African
American
2008
2009
Gain
68.3 (63)
72.4 (58)
4.2
58.7 (63)
49.1 (57)
-9.6
81.8 (22)
88.9 (18)
7.1
66.7 (15)
62.5 (16)
-4.2
Hispanic 2008
2009
Gain
81.5 (189)
80.0 (230)
-1.5
76.1 (188)
68.2 (233)
-7.8
91.8 (61)
77.6 (76)
-14.2
61.5 (52)
78.6 (70)
17.0
White 2008
2009
Gain
94.4 (18)
86.7 (15)
-7.8
94.7 (19)
80.0 (15)
-14.7
100.0 (7)
* (5)
71.4 (7)
* (5)
Economically
Disadvantage
2008
2009
Gain
78.7 (233)
77.4 (274)
-1.4
72.3 (235)
63.5 (277)
-8.8
89.6 (77)
79.6 (93)
-10.0
60.9 (64)
76.3 (80)
15.3
Special
Education
2008
2009
Gain
72.7 (11)
33.3 (12)
-39.4
81.8 (11)
50.0 (10)
-31.8
* (3)
42.9 (7)
*
*
*
*
LEP 2008
2009
Gain
73.2 (97)
71.4 (119)
-1.8
69.1 (97)
52.5 (118)
-16.5
91.2 (34)
74.4 (39)
-16.8
38.9 (18)
52.2 (23)
13.3
Source: www.metropolitanisd.org
133
The Principal
The principal of I. E. Clark Elementary School was Ms. Lindsay. She had
been in this position for two full academic years and at the time of the study was
beginning to serve her third year. Prior to having become principal, she taught 7
th
and 8
th
grade English Language Arts, 4
th
and 5
th
grade Writing, Coordinator of
Language Arts, an Elementary and High School Assistant Principal, and Dean of
Instruction at the high school level. To prepare for the principalship, Ms. Lindsay
had participated in the Superintendents Grow Your Own Program for Aspiring
Principals along with her completion of a master’s degree. This was Principal
Lindsay’s first assignment as principal and her first experience opening a new
facility.
Findings
The findings in this chapter are based on data collected from pre and post
principal interviews, and pre and post teacher interviews. A total of three interviews
(N=3) were conducted with teachers.
Pre/Post Interview Data
In the fall and spring of the 2009-2010 school year, data were collected via
Principal & Teacher interviews. The teacher interviews were comprised of three
teachers, with varying degrees of teaching experience and subject matter.
These data were collected prior to Principal Lindsay’s participation in
“elbow-to-elbow” coaching. During the spring of 2010 post interview data were
134
collected after principal Lindsay had continued her participation in the MPCI
training along with the additional coaching support.
Research Question One: How does participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional
leaders?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the MPCI prepared
principals to become effective instructional leaders. The data will be analyzed from
the research perspective of effective leadership capacity building and support
structures for improving and sustaining effective leadership practice (Marzano, 2003;
Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Davis et al., 2005; Dufour, 2006; Murphy et al., 2006;
Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Key Finding: Professional Development on the Principles of Learning
Prepare Leaders
IFL is the district’s model of professional development. It is implemented at
each school site. This model was introduced based on the recommendations of the
NCEA 2005 (Metropolitan Achieves Plan for Student Achievement 2006-2010).
The principal stated that the instructional priorities at the school would be met by
applying the Institute for Learning (IFL) tools, the Principles of Learning (POL’s),
and the Learning Walk frameworks. The IFL concepts were aligned with district
objectives. The principal was introduced to the POL’s at the Institute for Learning
(IFL) district trainings throughout the year but mainly in the summer. She had begun
professional development at her school focusing on the “rigor and accountable talk
135
lens” of the POL framework. This is being implemented with teachers as data teams
work together to look at student work to determine, using various POL’s lenses, the
expectations of the assignment based on the work samples using the Discussion
Guide (Document Analysis, 2010). The POL’s lenses include Clear Expectations,
Accountable Talk, Academic Rigor, Socializing Intelligence, and Recognition for
Accomplishment. The meetings take place every six weeks during staff meetings.
The goal is to use the POL/Disciplinary Literacy to get high implementation of tasks,
which would lead to high academic rigor and expectations with increased student
achievement as the end goal (Principal Interview, 2009, 2010). Teachers
specifically mentioned “Accountable Talk”, “Clear Expectations”, and “Academic
Rigor” as POL’s of focus (Teacher Interview, 2009, 2010). Based on the principal
interview responses (2009, 2010), she has been prepared by the district through the
POL training to better support teachers. These organizational structures include the
weekly planning meeting and data team meetings where teachers use the POL for
academic rigor and “accountable” talk to focus their lesson planning (Document
Analysis, 2010). Administrators and teachers evaluate lessons based on anecdotal
observations of “accountable talk” while aligning this with the lesson plan
expectations and a student work protocol aligned with the POL’s (Document
Analysis, 2010). One observed outcome of these focus driven professional
development meetings, according to the principal and the teachers interviewed
(2010), has been a gradual change in thinking about what counts for student
achievement and how data can be an influencing factor in guiding ongoing
136
instruction. The focus is on three teaching strategies; differentiated instruction, small
group instruction, and individual tutoring for students who are having difficulty
accessing the objectives of the lesson or “clear expectations” of the lesson (Principal
Interview and Teacher Interview 2009, 2010). Ms. Lindsay stated, “They’ve got after
school tutoring, small group instruction built into the day.” (Principal Interview,
2009). Teachers reported that they meet on a regular basis for vertical and horizontal
team collaboration and that they have access to a coach whenever it is needed and
that collaboration has made it easier to learn new teaching strategies that assist
struggling students. Teachers also commented on the usefulness of immediate
feedback through ongoing team meetings and access to an on-site coach. Ms. Lopez
commented, “She’ll (the principal) say that was something good you were doing, and
the coaches, they’re always saying something nice, they’re trying to help us”
(Teacher Interview, 2009) Teachers reported they were held accountable for these
processes through classroom observations and the follow up discussions during
meetings with the principal (Teacher Interview, 2009, 2010). Ms. Jenkins shared,
“She looks at the scores and she talks to us individually to ask us what do we need
help with…professional development or something like that” (Teacher Interview,
2009).
Key Finding: Coaching Support Structure
There is some evidence that principal participation in a leadership coaching
relationship helped to prepare them to focus on instructional leadership. During the
fall data collection it was evident that Ms. Lindsay was participating in the
137
“telephone” leadership coaching support program (Principal Interview Fall, 2009).
One of the main components of the MPCI is “telephone” coaching. In this coaching
model principals are provided with a “telephone” coach where phone calls are set up
regularly throughout the school year. I asked Ms. Lindsay to not only describe the
“telephone” coaching” model, but to also elaborate on how it worked, and to portray
a typical interaction that she had with her coach/mentee. She responded in great
detail:
I filled out an inventory survey you might say, and then she set up a time
when I would call her. So I would pick up the phone, I would call my coach,
and we would talk for one hour. She would start off with “What are your
celebrations today, what do you want to focus on?” And I set the
agenda….at the end of the session today, what do you want to have
accomplished? Do you want an action plan that you can implement or do
you want to work through a fierce conversation that you have to have with a
faculty member, you know, a difficult conversation and you need to practice?
She would stop me and summarize what I had said – paraphrasing in her own
words, which was really valuable because she would use different words than
I used and it would put it more into perspective for me. At the end of the
conversation she would present an action plan with steps. She usually took
all the notes for me and the notes were emailed later– which was wonderful,
so that I would have a copy (Principal Interview, 2009).
In response to another question about how progress was measured and which
coaching model do you and your coach use the “conferring” or “reflective”, Ms.
Lindsay replied:
I’m assessing my own progress. I have to fill out a survey at the end of the
session and say whether or not it was helpful. But again, it’s me deciding it
was helpful. I talk, they listen, they summarize. They ask questions to clarify
what I said…some questions made me think about next steps. They don’t
solve my problems for me, they never give me advice. They might give me
some choices… A, B, C, D, E, F, G and ask which of these looks like a
model you might want to go with? Our next conversation would pick up
right where we left off….do you want to continue with this, or do you want to
138
move on to something different. And so I always got to choose (Principal
Interview, 2009).
The Halverson rubric was another tool used by the district to assess principal
practice. The Rubric was closely aligned with the Texas Core State Standards and
the VAL-ED Survey. Likewise, it could also inform leader practice. It was also
widely known as a means to assess leader practice within Metropolitan ISD. Thus, I
asked the principal how the Halverson Rubric was used. Ms. Lindsay recounted an
experience where at a district-wide meeting principals looked at and discussed the
Halverson’s Rubric (Principal Interview, 2009). She explained that the principals
later followed up within their smaller learning communities and chose one area to
focus on. Groups that chose the same focus were grouped together and high priority
goals were set around whatever Halverson piece the group was working on. Notably
so, how does it inform your work with the coach? Ms. Lindsay answered:
It hasn’t. The coaching is truly all about me, it’s whatever I decide, which in
some ways is good, and some ways I can see where that might be not as
helpful. They don’t know what I’m studying; they don’t know what I’m
doing unless I tell them. They were introduced to some of the POLs in the
learning walk process, but that was through the district - they don’t know
anything about me unless I tell them (Principal Interview, 2009).
Soliciting another question to add to the research base, the question was
posed …in what ways has your coach been involved in building your capacity to
lead this work? Ms. Lindsay in the Fall of 2009 revealed that her coaching
experience was just a semester-long (half a year) last year. Again, she reiterated that
it was her agenda and that it was whatever she thought she needed. She mentioned
139
that it was mostly around fierce conversations focusing on personnel issues (i.e.
inappropriate language) or instructional issues.
Spring data sets revealed a change in principal practice during the period as a
result of leadership coaching. The data continued to provide some evidence that
principal coaching was preparing principals to become effective instructional
leaders. When the principal was asked…how the work with the coach impacted her
work with the staff, parents, students, etc. She exclaimed that it was all about
conversations. In regards to teachers:
It has sparked an interest in me to be a better coach for my teachers, instead
of having that positive presupposition, instead of saying, “Well, have you
thought about this?” Of course you thought about this.“When you thought
about this, what high yield strategies do you plan on using next?” Instead of
saying, “Have you thought about any high yield strategies? What else are
you going to try?”
It’s just a total shift in conversations. It’s truly the positive presuppositions.
It’s assuming positive intent. It’s assuming that you had the best intent in
mind when you taught that lesson, when you wrote that lesson plan, when
you came into my office (Principal Interview, 2010).
In regards to parents and how leadership coaching has provided support in this area:
That’s true with parents too, that they’re in here because they care about their
child. If they didn’t care about their child they would not be sitting in my
office. So I try to put myself in their shoes and say, you know what, if that
were my child I would be here too. I may not have the same issues as this
parent does, but I would definitely be concerned .for my child. That’s all
they’re here for. They’re not mad at me. They’re mad at whatever happened
with their child. And they have a right to be upset or to question (Principal
Interview, 2010).
As Ms. Lindsay spoke she reflected on the positive impact that the leadership
coaching had on her overall presupposition. She shared that it really moves a person
140
from being condescending and passive aggressive to being more positive. She talked
about working on the aspect of thinking instead of being passive-aggressive because
that was not the message that she wanted to convey to her teachers (Principal
Interview, 2010).
Spring interview revealed that Ms. Lindsay was now participating in the
“Elbow- to-Elbow” coaching model where the coach visited the campus once a
month, twice a month, or four times a month depending on the issue and how often
she needed to talk. Ms. Lindsay shared that her current coach was focused on
solving problems rather than the clock. She was willing to stay as long as she
needed in order to solve the problems (Principal Interview, 2010). The elbow to
elbow coaching had an accountability component that the “telephone” coaching did
not have. Ms. Lindsay seemed to like the accountability that was associated with
this model because it built her capacity as a leader.
Knowing that she’ll come on campus and actually want to see products holds
me accountable. She’s actually going to want to come see the things I told
her I was doing. On a phone call you can tell them whatever you want to tell
them. But if somebody is actually going to come and say, “Well, show me
and we’ll talk about it…that’s more helpful to me than the phone call
(Principal Interview, 2010).
Ms. Lindsay continued to describe her current relationship with her coach. She
elaborated on what her coach actually does for her in terms of building her
leadership capacity and facilitating her movement toward achieving her goals.
She helps me park some ideas in my head that are rolling around. And then
she helps me focus on some of the big issues that I really need to focus on.
She helps me narrow it down to one thing instead of so many things.
141
She helps me talk through some of those brutal conversations that I need to
have with an employee that’s not performing, or that may have done
something they shouldn’t have. And we’ll actually do a scenario, “Okay, I’m
the teacher, you’re the principal. Let’s talk through this. What does this
sound like?” and then she’ll give me some feedback on that, you know,
process. And that helps (Principal Interview, 2010).
Ms. Lindsay shared how she’s moved from trying to solve teachers’ problems to
equipping them to solve their own problems.
I was always trying to solve their problems. I always felt like I had to have
the answers or had to have a solution for them, or had to have an idea, but I
don’t. I can put the monkey back on the teacher, and say, “You were hired to
do a job. And, by golly, you better get the job done. Now, what supports do
you need to get it done? If you need something from me, ask. Otherwise I
expect you to get in there and do the job.” You’ve got colleagues to use.
What are your resources that you’re going to utilize?” When you say you
don’t know, then I can offer a suggestion, so that part of framing my
conversations has really changed to where it’s more teacher focused and
bottom line (Principal Interview, 2010).
Teacher evidence further demonstrated that there is some evidence that coaching
prepared leaders to be effective instructional leaders. Change was observed by all
three of the teachers. They all referenced the fact that Ms. Lindsay was more open
and that she was communicating better in the broader sense. Teachers felt more
relaxed because they were more aware of her expectations and the district’s overall
expectations. Ms. Lopez commented that Ms. Lindsay accentuates the positive
(Teacher Interview, 2010). Ms. Aviles added:
She’s always been so open. And, you know, you never notice until you see a
change.
I see her even more open than before. And somehow, I don’t know what
she’s doing different, but she makes us feel a lot more at ease and makes the
team feel more congenial. I’m attributing it more towards what she’s doing,
which I don’t know what it is. You can hear the grapevine and the attitude
142
coming in was not very positive. And you see all the people that usually talk
negative. They came in raging on and keeping on with their attitudes. And
as the year has developed… it’s been like a 360 degree change. And I don’t
know how she did that, but she got it. People are focusing more on the task
than on everything else (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Key Finding: Principal Cohort/Small Learning Communities
There is some evidence that principal participation in Professional Learning
Communities built leadership capacity. A critical component that supported the
reform initiative was evidenced in Metropolitan ISD reorganization of the
administrative team. Data collected during the interview, indicated that schools were
assigned to a learning community. There are 8 learning communities in
Metropolitan ISD. Ms. Lindsay is assigned to the Northeast Learning Community
(NELC). Ms. Lindsay noted that she received support through her fellow colleagues
and that everything learned at principal’s meetings are reiterated at NELC meetings.
The executive director would model at a future NELC meeting exactly what she
expected to see on school campuses. In essence, the NELC provided opportunities to
try new things and receive feedback. Interview data from teachers revealed that Ms.
Lindsay was a participant in the NELC. She shared that she had support from the
communities, “We’re broken up into learning communities. The community leader
is here at least once a week and supports me” (Principal Interview, 2009).
Additionally, Ms. Aviles added that she witnessed a big change when the
committees started working properly (Teacher Interview, 2009). While answering
the same question…is this working and what evidence can you cite to support your
answer. All three teachers agreed that the process in place was working. Ms. Lopez
143
and Ms. Jenkins noted the support that Ms. Lindsay was receiving was definitely
funneling down to the teachers. Ms. Lopez specifically commented on the fact that
when Ms. Lindsay goes to a meeting and she’ll share what was discussed.
She’ll say, this is a new strategy we’re using as a district because we figured
out that this works for the district or for our community. So she brings a lot
of stuff back and we all find out about it – she doesn’t keep it to herself
(Teacher Interview, 2010).
Ms. Jenkins reiterated, “….whatever her supervisor tells her, she tells us, so we’re
getting a lot of staff development, a lot of help” (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Spring teacher data corroborated that there is some evidence that the principal
cohort/small learning community prepared principals to become effective
instructional leaders.
Ms. Lopez shared her knowledge of the Northeast Learning Community
(NELC) meetings. She stated:
And I know they go to a lot of training, like she was saying. And she
mentions it. She’s say “I learned something new”. You know, she’s not
afraid of saying that. And I figured out this, and it was very interesting, and
that’s good because it opens our eyes too. And we see that she’s learning just
like we are (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Ms. Jenkins added that she brings stuff back to teach to us in staff development. Ms.
Lindsay (the principal) commented that NELC meets once a month. Additionally,
each quad meets once a month at a particular school site and “best” practices are
shared. They participate in learning walks and teachers are sometimes asked to join
depending on the topic. For example, teachers were asked to be present at a meeting
that discussed the Daily 5 which was a reading program that was recently
144
implemented in the NELC schools. Some of the other topics covered were Response
to Intervention (RTI) and Curriculum Instructional Planning (CIP) at a glance
monitoring (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Analysis of Key Findings
The vision for learning for Metropolitan Achieves was:
• Building the capacity of teachers and principals to enact the district’s
educational plan and theory of action based on best practices.
• Build the instructional leadership capacity of principals and district
leaders through differentiated, engaging, and rigorous professional
development that is focused on specific academic goals and student
achievement (Metropolitan Achieves 2006-2010).
To this end, the district has made a commitment to redesign the organization and set
a new direction for itself. Thus, a vision for learning emerged that hoped to redefine
the district’s organizational culture which would build in collaborative processes.
Murphy et al., (2006) exclaimed that vision for learning is a key dimension in
educational leadership. The purpose of the vision for learning is to establish a
common thread within an organization. School communities all over the nation are
vying for effective leaders who can articulate clear goals and ground their leadership
practice in instructional improvement (Murphy, 2005). Principal candidates and
existing principals are often ill-prepared and inadequately supported to organize
schools to improve learning while managing all of the other demands of the job
(Davis et al., 2005). The need for instructional leaders who are able to draw from
145
current educational research and enact promising leadership practices that have the
potential to positively impact teacher practice, organizational climate, and ultimately
student outcomes are in high demand.
According to Davis et al., (2005), less is known about how to help principals
develop the capacities that make a difference in how schools function and what
students learn. Therefore part of the district’s initiative is focused on developing
people. In an effort to develop the leadership capacity of their principals the district
incorporated the MPCI as well as a system that gave principals continuous support.
This effort enabled teachers and other staff to do their jobs effectively, offered
intellectual support and stimulated people to improve the work, and provided models
of practice and support (Davis et al., 2005). In essence it taught principals how to:
1. Develop a deep understanding of how to support teachers
2. Manage the curriculum in ways that promoted student learning and
3. Develop the ability to transform schools into more effective organizations
that fostered powerful teaching and learning for all students (Davis et al.,
2005).
Professional development, coaching support, and the principal cohort
structures adopted by the district help to guide the learner in his or her search for
strategies to resolve dilemmas, to boost self-confidence, and to construct a broad
repertoire of leadership skills. Neufeld and Roper (2003) described mentoring and
coaching as a school-based professional development system that provided support
to principals in the area of instruction, school-based resources, content area, use of
146
data and any other school challenges the principals faced. The MPCI coaching
program provided problem-focused learning where participants participated in
activities that improved teaching and learning and ensured that future leaders
assimilated leadership practices learned to their school site. Again, would-be leaders
were given an opportunity to master leadership competencies by finding, testing, and
evaluating solutions that identified problems in curriculum and instruction, and
achievement (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Coaching support and Principal Cohort
helped learners build group and individual knowledge, think creatively, and
restructure problems from multiple perspectives.
The work of Davis et al., (2005) states that there is no empirical evidence on
how program components attribute to the development of leadership skills, however
it is obvious that there is some evidence that the MPCI and the Principal Cohort has
had some effect on leadership behaviors. Participation in the MPCI has allowed
leaders to focus on the following core standards:
1. The leader has the knowledge and skills to think and plan strategically,
creating an organizational vision around personalized student success.
2. The leader is grounded in standards-based systems theory and design and
is able to transfer that knowledge to his/her job as the architect of
standards-based reform in the school.
3. The leader knows how to access and use appropriate data to inform
decision-making at all levels of the system.
147
Summary
Two major findings and five sub-findings emerged from the data collected at
I.E. Clark Elementary School. Professional Development, Coaching, and Principal
Cohort were major findings with the sub-findings of developing people, setting
directions for the organization and redesigning the organization (Davis et al, 2005).
Two other sub-findings included vision for learning and organizational culture.
It is apparent that the Metropolitan Achieves Initiative is making a significant
change in the way that principals lead within the district. The district sought to
intentionally build the leadership capacity of principals through the District’s
Coaching Initiative as well as the collaborative component present in the Principal
Cohorts.
Research Question Two: How does the MPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the MPCI influenced
leader practice in implementing the District’s reform initiatives. To determine the
value added from participation in the MPCI for five months, the data will be
analyzed from the Learning-Centered Leadership practices perspective which
focuses on instructional leadership behaviors that promote change in leader practice.
The VAL-ED survey results are essential in influencing the leadership behaviors of
the urban school principal (Murphy et al., 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006;
McKenzie et. al., 2007).
148
Key Finding: Development of a Shared Vision
The staff of I. E. Clark began the process of developing a school mission
statement. Because the school was new, there wasn‘t a previous vision in place
therefore; it had to be crafted. The principal met with the Campus Instructional
Leadership Team (CILT) and the Site Based Decision Making (SBDM) which
included community, parents, and teachers. Parent Teachers Association (PTA) also
participated. When asked what were some of the core concepts and key ideas
embodied in the vision, Ms. Lindsay shared her own philosophy of education. She
stated “….that academic excellence should be afforded to everyone. Students should
be made to work to their fullest potential and independence should be fostered along
the way.” Additionally, she added that we wanted to instill a character that makes
them do the right thing even when no one is looking and leading them to be life-long
self-sufficient learners. The principal to begin the process of crafting a mission
statement focused on character, independence, and academic excellence. The I. E.
Clark school mission statement emerged with a motto:
Mission - The mission of I. E Clark Elementary is to educate all students to
the highest level of academic performance while fostering positive growth in
character, independence, and responsibility.
Motto – A learning community dedicated to academic excellence.
(Document Analysis, 2009)
The principal shared that academic excellence was expected for all students.
Requiring all students to get the same curriculum, they all received whole group
instruction; students were only tiered after being successful. Ms. Lindsay stated, “It‘s
149
about looking at the results, making sure that cultural issues were not a part of it –
making sure they understand the verbiage and that it makes sense to them” (Principal
Interview, 2009).
To help ensure that the vision was a part of the school improvement initiative
and to ensure implementation, staff was reminded several different ways. Based on
documents collected and observation at the school site (2009, 2010), the mission and
vision statement were observed posted on top of the weekly cavalier as well as in
every classroom, the library, and throughout the school.
Consistent with the findings from the fall the spring interview showed that
the vision was prevalent to some degree throughout the school. The principal Ms.
Lindsay was asked to explain why the vision of the school was achievable. She
stated:
It’s realistic, you know, all children can learn. They can. And they can all…
You can add value to every single child that walks through that door. So it’s
not about the score so much as it’s about adding value to that child, taking
him where he is and moving him forward (Principal Interview, 2010).
During the principal interview Ms. Lindsay was asked how she ensured that the
vision and its goals were implemented. She began by mentioning that it was a
constant reminder and the goals are posted on all agendas. She declared that it’s
talked about at staff meetings until the TAKS test comes in May. For example,
“Well, it’s a constant reminder. You know, all the agendas have our goals on them.
We talk about it. We discuss it. Until the TAKS test come along in May (Principal
Interview & Document Analysis, 2009, 2010).
150
Nonetheless, when teachers were asked in the spring interviews to articulate
the vision, one of the three teachers was able too. Ms. Lopez had a clear
understanding that the vision of the school was to instill a college bound desire in
elementary students (Document Analysis, 2009). When Ms. Zaldivar was asked
about the school vision and whether it had been communicated she reported a motto
that was announced daily on the PA system, “Teamwork makes the dream work.”
This motto is affirmed amongst the staff and the students. Ms. Jenkins shared that
objectives were shared at grade level meetings and the overall school objective was
also reinforced. Additionally, she stated that it was expressed at vertical team
meetings as well (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Key Finding: Establishment of Instructional Priorities
Data sets revealed that there was some evidence that the MPCI influenced the
knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of its principals. The question focused
on the gap at the school and how the principal had identified instructional priorities
that would facilitate closing that gap.
The instructional priority at the school is to have 90% of students meeting the
state standard and 50% passing at commended rates. The principal explained that
the district sets goals for each school. The district’s goal was “The Road to Broad”.
Every school identified as one of its goals to be at 90% passing by 2010 (Principal
Fall Interview 2009 and Metropolitan ISD website). Goals were set based on a
baseline and each school was given three years to accomplish them. Ms. Lindsay
added, “When we look at allocating resources, we ask ourselves – is that decision
151
going to help us get to our goal of 90%?” Furthermore, Ms. Lindsay included that
the goal really had to be communicated. As noted by document analysis and
principal/teacher interviews (2009, 2010), the goal was communicated during
learning walks, on the top of agendas, on the PA system, and on the communicator.
Ms. Lindsay retorted, “This is the goal: Reading 90%, Math 90%, Writing 90%,
Science 90%, Commended 50% (College Readiness)” (Principal Interview, 2009).
When Ms. Lindsay was asked to define the gap at her school, she began by
sharing that just like the student body at her school, her staff was very diversified.
She has experienced teachers who have been around the district and considered to be
high-performing teachers. She also has teachers with limited experience who have
just graduated from college as well as teachers who came in from other professions
(Alternative certification). The diversity amongst the staff is huge; teachers who are
not familiar with the existing demographics and teachers with no experience.
Ms. Lindsay stated, “Both sets of teachers were struggling because as a brand
new school we received only the state-adopted materials; we didn’t receive materials
that came with grants. So, teachers that knew what to teach, and how to teach it,
didn’t have the tools that they needed to get the job done (Principal Interview, 2009).
Ms. Lindsay cited the literacy library and how it was almost nonexistent because of
lack of books and lack of funds. She reiterated that the gap lies within being a new
school versus being an existing school.
Ms. Lindsay continued to discuss the gaps at her school as she elaborated on
how the district was beginning to close some of those gaps. She referred to the
152
Principles of Learning and how after three years of implementation that the common
language and common vocabulary were finally being developed (Principal Interview,
2009).
We’re all talking the same language now, and I contribute that to the IFL –
Institute For Learning, from Pittsburg, who has been very consistent with our
staff development – so consistent that now what I’m hearing, my teachers are
hearing when they go to staff development. So the words and the verbiage is
getting passed down to where it sounds like it’s here to stay, and that’s
helping us implement it better, and that’s very helpful (Principal Interview,
2009).
She continued to share that the district and the schools are consistent in their efforts
to close these gaps district wide and school-wide.
She commented that she had to reconfigure the staff to ensure that the
instructional priorities for the school were being addressed. She also stated that she
attends Curriculum Planning Guides (CPG) meetings for 4
th
grade math so that she is
better able to assist her teachers in their endeavor to attack the math gap among
African American males. Part of attacking the math gap is having a system in place
that adheres to the needs of struggling students (Principal Interview, 2009).
When asked how often she (Ms. Lindsay) observes classroom instruction, she
stated that she has “office” days and “coaching” days. Her coaching days are days
where she assumes a co-teach role. She might visit a classroom and she may
interject as the teacher is teaching. She stated that when she’s in a co-teach mode
that she really wants to be known as another teacher. She communicated to her staff
that when she comes she may see a teachable moment that the teacher may not and
it’s not because she knows more than them, it’s because the moment is readily
153
available and we have to make good use of every minute that we have with our
students. She also shared that she didn’t become a principal because she didn’t enjoy
teaching but that she wanted her teachers to see her as a resource (Principal
Interview, 2009).
In the fall of 2009 teachers were also asked about the instructional priorities
at their school site. As noted in the fall teacher interview data, the teachers for the
most part had a clear understanding that instructional priorities played a huge role in
the teaching and learning at the school. Ms. Aviles answered, “Basically, we are
focused on NCLB which includes reading and math.” Ms. Lopez answered, “….to
have clear expectations for our students, objectives are stated clearly, and rubrics
have charts with expectations.” Ms. Jenkins answered, “….the school-wide focus is
vocabulary, science, and math.” When asked about the impact that it had on
teaching and learning in the content area, 2 of 3 teachers articulated how important it
was to pay close attention to vocabulary (Teacher Interview, 2009).
We’re using graphic organizers and instead of using the low form of the work
like “green stuff.” We use the high form “chlorophyll” explaining and going
into great detail. Our boards displays the school-wide vocabulary focus that
up-levels the instruction even for kindergartens. The principal says the work
of the day in the morning and uses it in the sentence. Teachers follow-up
with it throughout the day (Teacher Interview, 2009)
This was a strategy in place to support struggling students. In fact it was a strategy
used with the Hispanic and African American students.
Spring principal interview data provided an opportunity for the principal to
report that the instructional priorities previously established for the 2009-2010
154
school year were making a positive impact on student learning. The principal cited
data as a result.
Well, the data is showing some positives. We’re seeing some upward trends.
3
rd
grade was our biggest concern, primarily 3
rd
grade African American
boys. My concern right now is that all those 3
rd
graders went to 4
th
grade. 4
th
grade is a concern. 4
th
grade is struggling. And you can see by the data that
they struggle. And data is data. And if they struggle in 3
rd
grade I’m not
surprised if they’re struggling in 4
th
grade, no matter how good the teacher is.
If they didn’t have the foundation, they’re not going to be able to move
forward (Principal Spring Interview and Document Analysis, 2010).
Nevertheless, Ms. Lindsay pointed out that instructional priorities were still defined
by the TAKS.
All the agendas have our goals on them. We talk about it. We discuss it.
Until the TAKS test comes along in May, you don’t really have a way to
compare yourself to yourself. But, you want to outperform yourself. Quit
comparing yourself to the school over there or the school over there. You
just compare yourself to you. So we’ve got to outperform ourselves. We’ve
got to do what we’ve got to do and that’ll make us the best. (Principal
Interview and Document Analysis, 2010).
And those expectations have been shared with the teachers. She stated that the staff
will continue to plan, go to CPG planning sessions, take out data, and continue the
common assessments. Teacher interviews reiterated that expectations had been
shared with the staff. Ms. Aviles noted that expectations were shared before the start
of the school year at the opening staff meeting. Ms. Jenkins reported, “She (the
principal) is always telling us what she expects, how the classroom should look and
what we should be doing.” Additionally, Ms. Lopez added that the instructional
priorities are everywhere and that she is constantly reminding us of what they are.
She keeps reminding us what our goals are for the end of the year, like what our
155
goals are for reading, math, writing, and science. She attends most of the vertical
meetings. Ms. Jenkins included that teachers are monitored, observed, and asked for
results. Results are monitored through benchmark data that is shared at staff
meetings (Teacher Interview, 2010). Ms. Lopez shared:
That we’re constantly evaluating their learning, you know, and that we don’t
go on… If they didn’t get one concept you can’t go on, you know? So she
makes sure that we’re aware of that and we get it with our classrooms. So the
small group sometimes is what you need to do. So in one way you go on, but
in another way you have to come back and reinforce. And that’s very, very
important and she’s always stressing that to us (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Analysis of Key Findings
In analyzing the responses to research question two, it was evident that a
vision and instructional priorities had been established. However, the responses
from the principal and teachers demonstrated quite a bit of variance in regards to the
vision. For example, only one teacher knew that the vision was focused on students
attending college. The other two teachers articulated the instructional priorities for
the school and described the vision as collaborative teamwork. The principal stated
that the vision was a collaborative effort amongst the staff and the CILT and the
staff. Even though, it’s posted throughout the school, it was not evident that teachers
had internalized it. Hallinger (2003) found that the most influential instructional
leader activities were related to developing and executing the school vision.
Murphy et al., (2006) state that it is the leader’s responsibility to articulate the
vision by modeling and communicating it in a variety of ways. Thus, Murphy et al.,
(2006) discusses a vision for learning which includes 4 underlying categories –
156
developing vision, articulating vision, implementing vision, and stewarding vision.
The district’s priorities and mission and vision provided leverage for the
development and articulation of the school’s vision. It is through the implementation
of the school’s vision that the district’s vision is achievable. They are inextricably
linked together. Murphy et al., (2006) assert that principals must emphasize the
vision and make it central to the daily work. Mentoring and communicating the
vision is eminent to Murphy’s (2006) dimension.
As a result I. E. Clark is beginning its third year and may need more time for
the vision to become embedded in the daily culture however, a clear argument would
be that an effective leader would exemplify behaviors that promote the vision
amongst all stakeholders. Thus, the principal’s VAL-ED scores in the Core
Components of High Standards for Student Learning, which posed questions related
to vision for learning were Below Basic with a 1.3 percentile rank. Likewise, the
Key Processes of Planning, Implementing, Supporting, Communicating, and
Monitoring were also Below Basic (Survey Data, 2009). Practices related to school
vision are undoubtedly critical aspects of leadership. As such, the MPCI is
predicated on the Texas Core Leadership Standard - The leader has the knowledge
and skills to think and plan strategically, creating an organizational vision around
personalized student success.
It was evident that the instructional priorities were shared across the
organization. Liethwood et al., (2004) state that setting direction has the most
impact as it involves developing a sense of purpose and a change in organizational
157
culture which requires transformational leadership. Transformational leadership
occurred when a leader invoked organizational change, encouraged participants to
reach their fullest potential and motivated followers (Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978).
These leaders understand and communicate that complacency is the enemy of
improvement. Nonetheless, the principals VAL-ED scores in the Core Components
of Culture of Learning and Professional Behaviors was at a percentile rank of 4.1.
All Key Processes resulted in Below Basic except for Communicating which was
Proficient (Survey Data, 2009). We can conclude the principal was able to
communicate high expectations along with her ideals and beliefs.
The beliefs and values that a principal holds are very important indicators of
culture Leaders have to have to be clear about their own core values and beliefs
before they can build capacity in others (Evans, 2007). The principal believed that
all children could learn and that teachers were hired to a job providing quality
education. This meant that teachers could have no excuses for lack of high
expectations for all students. The ultimate job of the principal is to change the
culture of the school to improve student achievement. With this mindset, the
principal is a change agent optimizing for effective instructional practices that
advocate for all students. A leader who is an optimizer and a change agent is able to
inspire teachers to accomplish things that would normally seem beyond their reach.
Water et al., (2003) assert that a change agent challenges the status quo and reflects
justice and equity, which are prominent themes in social justice (Theoharis, 2007).
158
Summary
Two major findings and six sub-findings emerged from the data collected at
I.E. Clark Elementary School. Development of shared vision and establishment of
instructional priorities were major themes. Sub-findings were vision for learning
which included ideas and beliefs, high expectations, and social justice. Other sub-
findings included change agent and optimizer.
It is apparent that the Metropolitan Achieves Initiative is making a significant
change in the way that principals lead within the district. The fact that the principal
had established a vision and instructional priorities for the school was what the
MPCI had hoped to accomplish. The establishment of the vision and the
instructional priorities helped to set a direction for the organization.
Research Question Three: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
strategies that the principal put into place to create and sustain organizational
structures and processes to promote effective teacher practice. The data will be
analyzed from the perspective of the direct effect that leader practice has on creating
the structures and learning environment that can potentially have a positive influence
on student outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Liethwood et al., 2004; Marshall &
Ward, 2004; Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005; Dufour, 2006; Murphy et al.,
2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Theoharis, 2007).
159
Key Finding: Shaping the School Culture
There is some evidence that the principal created a culture that promoted
effective teacher practice and improved student outcomes. An important aspect of
creating an environment that supports student achievement is based on supporting
high-quality teachers; focusing on high quality instruction; giving teachers adequate
classroom resources; and providing additional support for struggling students. This
can only happen in a culture and climate that is safe, clean, and orderly that is
conducive to learning (Marzano, 2003).
The culture and climate at I. E. Clark were still evolving because it were a
brand new school, however Ms. Lindsay noted that she thought the culture and
climate were one of fairness and kindness – where everyone helps each other. As
Ms. Lindsay reflected she talked about the stages of trust.
The first one being the pseudo stage where it’s a cocktail party or a
honeymoon - everything’s great and wonderful and everybody’s forgiving
because we’re trying to figure it out. Year two is the chaos stage - why did
we do it that way again and you’re questioning every little thing. Year three -
the sharing stage where we can agree to disagree or begin to share our
feelings to begin to build trust. If we don’t get to this stage, we’ll go right
back to the pseudo stage and never progress. Year three was about
collaboration among the faculty, and sharing the data, and trusting each other
to discuss ways to improve the achievement of the lowest performing
students and the highest performing students (Principal Interview, 2009).
During the spring interview, Ms. Lindsay continued to expand on the development of
the culture at I. E. Clark Elementary. She responded to the question, how do you
characterize the relationship between administrators and teachers.
It’s getting better… “Better”, I don’t know what better is. It’s getting more
real. You know? It’s not surface niceness anymore. There are actually some
160
candid discussions and some feedback. Some people are feeling a little bit
more at ease with saying, “Oh, that’s just stupid…” you know, “…why do we
do that? (Principal Interview, 2010).
Ms. Lindsay stated that she was really trying to promote a collaborative atmosphere.
She explained that she and the staff are working towards understanding the decisions
that are made.
It’s more collaborative. It’s truly… It’s not a dictatorship. It’s the “why”
behind it that really helps people accept. If they don’t understand the “why”
behind it, “we just do it because we do it”, then there’s a problem all the time.
We’re still struggling with that. As a new school, we still struggle with the
“why”, “Why is she doing it that way?” But they’re getting to know my style
better. And they’re getting to know me better. There’s a trust factor there
that I feel with my teachers. I trust them a little bit more. And so I hope that
that’s reciprocated. I hope that they’re trusting me more too (Principal
Interview, 2010).
According to teacher interviews (2010), teachers felt as if they’re opinions mattered.
When asked the question, do you feel included in high stakes decision-making. All
the teachers commented that the principal was really open and that she valued
everyone’s input. Ms. Lindsay shared, “There are times where I’ll ask the opinion of
the whole group and then I’ll make my own decision (Principal Interview, 2010).
Teachers also stated that parents had an opportunity to participate by way of Site
Based Decision–Making (SBDM) (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Key Finding: Continuous Development of Professional Learning
Communities
Teachers were afforded the opportunity to meet vertically every 6 weeks,
horizontally every 6 weeks with extended planning, one time a week every 3 weeks
for common assessments and data analysis in NELC, and two times a week coaches
161
are available on campus. Teachers came together in common planning time every
week to share their focus for the next week. Here they are given a chance to speak
about the “how” - the techniques, the activities, and the strategies. In the spring
interview, Ms. Lindsay described the extended planning more in detail:
They start with the vertical planning, the big rocks and aligning the
vocabulary and what they say. Then they meet extendedly as a grade level
for 90 minutes. And they can get more in-depth for the six weeks.
And then they meet weekly so they can get really detailed about what they’re
teaching, and then take it into the classroom; and hopefully cross the
curriculum, content area, so that they can reinforce what each other is
teaching (Principal Interview, 2010).
Ms. Lindsay stated, “… we want to align their tool kit – the tools that go into out tool
kits and talk the same language…align the vocabulary for students rather than calling
it green stuff when we know its’ chlorophyll.” The impact on teaching is
tremendous because “….it all flows together” (Principal & Teacher Interview 2009,
2010; Document Analysis, 2010).
All the teachers agree that they work on a graphic organizer that brings all the
classes into one crossing the boundaries of literacy - developing disciplinary literacy.
When teachers meet horizontally as a grade level they make a map of what’s being
taught for the week (Document Analysis, 2009, 2010).
What are you teaching in language arts this week, and what are some of the
activities that go with it? What are you teaching in science this week? What
are the activities that go with it?…the same thing with social studies, same
thing with math. Well after you’ve discussed these activities that you’re
going to teach, that’s when other people, let’s say the reading teacher says oh
I could incorporate that – they might see a common theme, or they might see
some common vocabulary that they could integrate into their other content
areas; and that’s what we’re really trying to do is let the kids see that it’s not
162
in isolation, it’s really real world. That’s how it’s spilling over into other
content areas (Principal Interview, 2009).
Common planning every Thursday and every six weeks allowed teachers to discuss
instructional strategies that related to the Principles of Learning and Disciplinary
Literacy. Opportunity to collaborate is given to the whole school vertically and
horizontally (Document Analysis, 2009). All three teachers agreed that they had
many opportunities to collaborate (Teacher Interview, 2009, 2010). They felt that
the impact was very positive and gave them a chance to get ideas.
Ms. Aviles reflected on how some of her teacher friends in Metropolitan ISD
aren’t working together and how she felt very fortunate to be working at I.E. Clark.
Some of my teacher friends say that in their school they don’t work together
to work on the lesson plans as a level. I’ve never had any problem, either in
3
rd
grade or in kinder, or heard it from anybody else. We share the lesson
plans and “You do social studies. I’ll do math.” It’s great because then we
ask, “So what are you doing in social studies? What are you going to send
me this week because I’m ‘doing this’?” And they go “Oh, yeah. Send me
that.” And we kind of like put it all together (Teacher Interview, 2010).
As Ms. Lopez commented, - “It‘s good, you always learn….somebody who‘s a
teacher for the first time can have ideas that you never thought of before’ (Teacher
Interview, 2009).
Collaboration time was used for a variety of things (i.e. professional
development, lesson planning, data analysis, sharing ideas and discussing successes
and concerns). Teachers view collaboration as a professional development
opportunity where they have an opportunity to share best practices, build capacity,
and evaluate their instructional program (Teacher Interview, 2009).
163
Teachers are then given opportunities to meet and discuss data collected from
the DRA but they also have opportunities to participate in CPG’s (Curriculum
Planning Guides) with other campuses (Principal & Teacher Interview 2009, 2010;
Document Analysis, 2010).
Key Finding: Data-Driven Decision Making
Teachers described the role that accountability had in implementing the
improvement initiatives. Data are used to inform instruction at the district level,
school level, grade level, classroom level, and student level. Students are
departmentalized at the beginning of the school year based on data. Groups are
formed homogeneously. School data are also used to determine needs for
professional development (Principal Interview, 2009). My Data Portal groups
students into three tiers. As observed on a staff development day, the principal
explained the My Data Portal and how it provided information on standards that
students had not mastered (Fall Observation, 2009). Teachers provide students with
different levels of intervention based on their need. Data is reported by standard
which also allows teachers to differentiate (Fall Observation 2009, Document
Analysis, 2009). Tests are given on a weekly basis and teachers focus on the data at
their vertical meetings.
It plays a huge role because the teachers come back and they reflect on the
data. After they’ve given a common assessment, the next week after the
common assessment is dedicated to data review. And if you didn’t have 80
percent passing then you’ve got to go back and re-teach. And, let me back
up…not “re-teach”, redeliver (Principal Interview, 2010).
164
Grade level teams use data to compare teacher performance, modify
instructional pacing, and to plan for intervention. At the classroom level, bi-weekly
test, common assessments, and benchmark test are used to drive and modify
classroom instruction (Teacher Interview, 2009).
We have benchmark testing which is done by our district. There’s a lot of
evaluation going on, common assessments, between teachers here in the same
grade to compare. And also there’s some going on with the whole learning
community. Every three weeks is with the learning community. And just to
see the growth and to compare. And also mostly to figure out what needs
more work. We keep track of all our scores for all of our students for each of
the tests. And we know. And they have a copy; administrators have a copy
(Teacher Interview, 2010).
If someone did really well, they share how their class did better and if
someone did not do so well they ask for help. Student level data is much more
specific to the student and determines how instruction should be differentiated for
students throughout the school day (Fall Observation 2009; Document Analysis,
2009, Teacher Interview, 2009). Profiles are looked at and examined to see student
strengths and weaknesses (Document Analysis, 2009). Students are then retested.
Teachers agreed that they were held accountable by data conversations. When asked
do you have data conversations with your principal from the common assessments or
benchmarks.
Yes. We’ll have conversations either… With our own grade level, we,
“Hey, how did you do?”, “Why? What do you think?”, you know, that sort
of thing, with our assistant principal, who was, like I said, the evaluator for
4
th
grade. But they both try to be at all our meetings; and with our coaches
also (Teacher Interview, 2010).
165
All teachers also agreed that the data would be the evidence that revealed
whether improvement had occurred (Teacher Interview, 2009, 2010).
Key Finding: School Success Team/Response to Intervention
We encourage all teachers to immediately School Study Team (SST)
struggling students (Principal Interview, 2009). SST is truly a school support team
to help teachers with discipline or academics. The principal and assistant principal
attend all SST meetings (Principal Interview 2010). Students are tiered according to
the strengths and weaknesses highlighted in the data (Fall Observation 2009;
Document Analysis, 2009). One of the teachers noted how she felt supported by the
SST team and how administration made the team a lot more functional.
I feel more supported. They focused more on clearing up what SST really
was and how to make your service better for the students. They really got the
counselor training and they got the information to us. Now SSTs are better. I
mean, now instead of us doing the push, push, push, they’re doing the pulling
and we kind of have to be on our toes and doing the paperwork as soon as we
can (Teacher Interview, 2010).
As evident by the fall observation 2009, the data portal equips teachers with
the three different tiers for RTI. Teachers are given a list on how students are ranked
and they have to pick six students. Teachers are required to meet with these six
particular students every day for 30 minutes because they are the most intensive
(Teacher Interview, 2010). The specialist teachers on the staff also have a 30-minute
time slot where they can pull additional small groups of students struggling. Hence,
small group instruction was built right into the school day for both reading and math.
166
In addition, they have teacher assistants who can also help (Principal Interview,
2009).
Another strategy to help struggling students included peer teaching. Peer
teaching pairs a lower student with a high student and the middle students together.
Students know to ask their partner for help and if they still need help they ask their
team leader, and then if they still need help they ask the teacher (Teacher Interview,
2009, 2010). After-school tutoring takes place in reading and math (Principal
Interview, 2009).
Analysis of Key Findings
Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) argued that
effective educational leaders developed their schools as organizations that supported
and sustained the performance of teachers as well as students. Central to this idea is
social justice and the recognition of institutional and structural barriers that hindered
democratic participation. “Good leadership” required an analysis of how
institutional structures and culture perpetuated inequality and injustice within the
school building and beyond into the community (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy,
2005; Marshall & Ward, 2004). Theoharis (2007) asserted that social justice
leadership addressed and eliminated the marginalization that existed in many urban
schools.
Thus, leaders create the conditions in which to create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes for all students by communicating clear expectations and
167
implementing research-based practices. These practices help to redesign the
organization and develop communities of learners. Murphy et al., 2006 assert that
learning-centered leaders establish a culture of learning and professional behavior by
creating organizational structures such as, data-driven decision making, PLC, and
SST. These leaders work endlessly to create an environment where advocating,
monitoring and evaluating and performance accountability were the norm.
Marzano (2003) discusses how a change agent has to be cognizant of the
change process to induce change. The creation of organizational structures and
processes effect change at three different levels; school, teacher, and student. At the
school level, they include a culture of professional behavior and collegiality, viable
and guaranteed curriculum, and effective feedback. At the teacher level,
instructional strategies and classroom curriculum design. At the student level, they
encompassed learned intelligence and motivation.
Urban school leaders who had a sophisticated understanding of the change
process knew how to effectively initiate, lead, and sustain changes that created
organizational structures to improve teacher practice, which in turn, impacted student
outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Hence, these leadership behaviors are also
evidence of learning-centered behavior assessed by the VAL-ED survey.
According to fall VAL-ED survey results, with a score of Below Basic,
Principal Lindsay’s current practice is “unlikely to either influence teachers
positively nor result in acceptable value-added and social learning for students”
(Principal VAL-ED Report, p. 3).
168
Summary
Two major findings and three sub-findings emerged from the data collected
at I.E. Clark Elementary School. The two major findings were Shaping the Culture
and Continuous Development of Professional Learning Communities in regards to
Data Driven Decision Making and School Success Study Team. Sub-findings were
Communities of Learning, Redesigning the Organization, and Monitoring/
Evaluating.
There is some evidence that the Metropolitan Achieves Initiative is making a
significant change in the way that this principal leads within the district. The fact
that the principal had established and created a number of organizational structures
and processes for the school was what the MPCI had hoped to accomplish. The
establishment of these structures worked toward a redesign of her school.
Research Question Four: What leadership support structures enable leader
practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and
teacher levels) that enabled leader practice and subsequent movement in the direction
of implementation of the district’s and the school’s improvement initiatives. The
data will be analyzed from the perspective of effective strategies for building and
sustaining learning centered leadership practice (Clark & Estes, 2002; Marzano,
2003;Murphy et al., 2006; Darling- Hammond, 2007).
169
Key Finding: Professional Development Enabled Leaders Practice
There is some evidence that professional development influenced leaders
practice. The Metropolitan Principal Coaching Initiative was a school-based
professional development system that promised to provide support to principals.
Building the instructional leadership capacity of principals through differentiated,
engaging, and rigorous professional development was a focus.
In evaluating the current reform initiative behind the Metropolitan Principal
Coaching Initiative it was imperative to ask one really important question …in what
way is your work supported at this school? Ms. Lindsay communicated that support
comes from a variety of avenues. She (Ms. Lindsay) was well supported by her
executive director and the district. The district provided extensive staff development
and the executive director was instrumental in always providing follow-up training.
Verbiage was another huge way that provided support (Principal Interview, 2009).
Ms. Lindsay commented:
We hear one thing at staff development and then when you meet in your
learning community you hear the same thing. When you meet in your grade
level planning you hear the same thing…..when you meet with your parents
you hear the same thing. The verbiage is one huge way that we’re being
supported….everybody’s saying the same thing. When I send my teachers to
a staff development, I know they’re going to hear the same thing, which is
very helpful. They have people they can call upon. They can call across the
district, you know, northwest people can call southeast people, and northeast
people can call any quadrant and they’re hearing the same thing, so that’s
helpful (Principal Interview, 2009).
IFL is the district’s model of professional development. It is implemented at
each school site. This model was introduced based on the recommendations of the
170
NCEA 2005. Teachers and principals attend trainings throughout the year but
mainly in the summer focusing on the Principles of Learning and Disciplinary
Literacy.
She referred to the Principles of Learning and how after three years of
implementation that the common language and common vocabulary was
finally being developed.
We’re all talking the same language now, and I contribute that to the IFL –
Institute For Learning, from Pittsburg, who has come in and been very
consistent with our staff development – so consistent that now what I’m
hearing, my teachers are hearing when they go to staff development. So the
words and the verbiage is getting passed down to where it’s like, okay, it
sounds like it’s here to stay, and we’re all hearing the same words, so that’s
helping us implement it better, and get a better understanding of what it is; so
that’s very helpful (Principal Interview, 2009).
All training received through IFL is made available to teachers on
Curriculum Central. Here teachers have access to power points, hand-outs, and
videos. Teachers are held accountable for implementing the strategies that they learn
during professional development (Principal Interview, 2010; Teacher Interview
2010).
Additionally, teachers view collaboration as professional development
(Teacher Interview, 2009, 2010). Not to mention, that principals also have calendar
days at their disposal to do site-based staff development (Document Analysis, 2009).
They all agreed that the principal was instrumental in setting the focus for the staff
which included staff development (Teacher Interview, 2009). As observed in the fall
observation 2009, the principal led training on the My Data Portal and Directed
Reading Activity (DRA) kits. This was one of the items missed during the Reading
171
First grant. The teachers all felt that the principal was attuned to their needs
(Teacher Interview, 2009). One teacher commented, “She visited another school and
saw a reading program that several other teachers had seen.” They all asked for the
program and she (the principal) ordered the kits for them. Ms. Lopez added, “The
workshops we had yesterday in the afternoon is the way she is all the time…giving
us the answer without really going us the answer” (Teacher Interview, 2009).
Spring data revealed that the IFL is instrumental in providing consistency
throughout the district. It enables me to see effective practice of teachers. Ms.
Lindsay commented:
That consistency piece is just so helpful because what I see in my training is
the same, or what I hear, the format, is the same that my teachers see and hear
at their training. And it’s the same format that we bring back to the campus.
So that consistency piece just helps everybody. And then that’s what we
hope trickles down to the students, is that consistency. So no matter which
school they go to in MISD, there will be some sameness about it (Principal
Interview, 2010).
When Ms. Lindsay was asked how has what you learned from IFL and the district
increased your ability to support student learning? She stated, “That she has a
support system…it’s a team effort” (Principal Interview, 2010). It’s such a team
effort that we now get to chose our professional development.
Now we get to choose our professional development. We go after school or
on a weekend after hours, and that way we can have those comp days off like
the teachers get before the holidays….before it was during the day, during
hours (Principal Interview, 2010).
Teacher interview responses were consistent with the finding that professional
development and content knowledge of teachers is a priority. Professional
172
development is ongoing and was evidence by the both 2009 and 2010 observation.
Teachers feel that their vertical meetings and horizontal meetings continue to give
them an opportunity to learn from one another (Teacher Interview, 2010). Teachers
also stated that frequently after a professional development that they are given
“homework” where we are asked to show student work samples. Ms Aviles shared,
“Were accountable for the training because we have to explain the lesson and how
the student’s accountable talk played a part in it” (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Two of the three teachers interviewed reported that they had just received
training on the Daily 5. This was a need that was evident throughout the school
since teachers had to provide small group instruction to students. Ms. Aviles noted,
“That she struggled with knowing what to do with other students when she was
meeting with a small group” (Teacher Interview, 2010). The Daily 5 gives students
5 things that they can do while the teacher is working with a small group (i.e., read to
self, read with someone, work on writing, listen to reading, working with words).
Additionally, teachers noted that they received Writing workshops and math training
(Teacher Interview, 2010).
Key Finding: Learning Walks
Learning walks were a tool used to establish staff development needs. Ms.
Lindsay noted that learning walks were a tool that they used to evaluate their
progress. “Teachers are never asked or evaluated on something that they haven’t
received Professional Development on. Whatever we’ve done is what we’re not
looking for things that we haven’t taught. Learning walks are done using a protocol
173
that focuses on ‘noticing’ and ‘wonderings’. They’re not meant to be judgmental
however, evaluation-wise I may notice something and know that I need to get back
and have a conversation with that particular teacher because they need specific
feedback.” (Principal Interview, 2009). The Professional Development Appraisal
System (PDAs) allows for feedback to go right to the teacher; and the quicker you
give it, the quicker they can (Document Analysis, 2010). Both methods of learning
walks whether it is generic or evaluative provide avenues for teachers to receive
feedback. It also provides feedback as a whole school and how we’re making
progress. It drives our staff development (Principal Interview, 2009).
Teachers interviewed recognized that classroom observations were an
essential part of the leadership for the school (Teacher Interview, 2009). When
asked during the interview, how often are you observed during classroom instruction
and how is feedback provided? The three teachers responded differently based on
their assignment and credential. Ms. Lopez explained, “That teachers are officially
observed once a year, but that there’s always people coming by. The AP had been
in her room four or five times, and the reading and multilingual coach had visited
several times as well.” She included learning walks as observations where teachers
are also instrumental in visiting classroom (Teacher Interview, 2009, 2010).
Teachers met to discuss how they could help each other to improve (Teacher
Interview, 2010). Ms. Jenkins explained that she and her partner were observed very
often because they were the first teachers to co-teach. Ms. Aviles explained that
being an Alternative Certification (AC) required more observations. She shared that
174
on average she was observed at least once a week. All three teachers confirmed that
feedback was usually very positive either by the administration or coaches.
Feedback was given in-formally and formally, however if it was formally it was a
one to one conference where high-points and low points were discussed (Principal
Interview 2010, Teacher Interview, 2009).
The teachers interviewed felt that they were held accountable through
questions from the principal, learning walks and observations from the executive
director (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Analysis of Key Findings
One of the recommendations from the NCEA 2005 report was to build the
instructional leadership capacity of principals and district administrators through
differentiated, engaging, and rigorous professional development that is focused on
specific academic goals and tied to student achievement needs. If principals are
being asked to increase performance levels of students and teachers, it is important
that educational leaders be provided with expectations for learning, and training and
support that will impact their leadership abilities (SREB, 2007). The Metropolitan
Coaching Initiative was a school-based professional development system that
promised to provide support to principals which promised to improve teachers’ and
principals’ effectiveness.
Effective principals have knowledge of effective practices in curriculum,
instruction, and assessment is necessary to provide guidance for teachers on a day-to-
day task of teaching and learning (Marzano, 2005). Principals must monitor
175
instruction and programs to ensure that teachers address grade level standards.
Instructional leaders create systems that provide feedback. This is at the core of
Monitoring and Evaluating (Marzano, 2005).
To improve instruction it was necessary for teachers to participate in
professional development. This initiative requires teachers to incorporate best
practices into their repertoire of strategies, detect when students aren’t meeting
standards, adjust their instruction accordingly, and enable them to improve their
knowledge and skills in areas of district focus. Part of the district’s initiative was to
have them participate in collaborative teams. Marzano (2005) states that the most
frequently mentioned resource important to the effective functioning of a school is
professional development opportunities for teachers. Thus, “heavy investments in
highly targeted professional development for teachers and principals in the
fundamentals of strong classrooms instruction is critical to the success of a school”
(p. 60). Intellectual stimulation comes from a leader who is able to ensure that the
faculty and staff are aware of the most current theories and practices and makes
discussions of those theories and practices a regular aspect of the school’s culture.
Lindstrom and Speck (2004) assert that there are nine factors that outline
high-quality professional development: (1) Focuses on learning and sustaining
improved student learning; (2) Emerges from student data and the need to improve
student results; (3) Nurtures collegiality and collaboration among teachers, other
staff, and principal; (4) Develops shared leadership, resources, and inside/outside
support; (5) Utilizes research with a foundation in standards and accountability; (6)
176
Deepens teachers’ content knowledge and teaching practices; (7) Centers on the
adult learner through job-embedded work, options, and learning styles; (8) Requires
ongoing inquiry, practice, and reflection to inform practice; (9) Evaluate progress
and accounts for student learning by examining, results.
The Metropolitan Achieves Initiatives incorporate the nine factors in the
design of their district-wide professional development plan. Teachers had an active
role in developing the goals and objectives of the professional development plan by
participating in LearningWalks which highlighted the data that was observed during
observations. Instructional capacity was built so that teachers could become leaders
and help sustain the professional development. Administrators, coaches, and the
CILT team supported the implementation of the professional development by
working either with specific teachers or grade levels. All staff and grade level
meetings as stated by teachers were considered professional development. In
addition, this was a time when student work was examined and evaluated to
continuously reflect on student outcomes to inform practice.
Summary
Two major findings and six sub-findings emerged from the data collected at
R. G. Smith Elementary School. Professional development and Learning Walks
were two major findings. Sub-findings were intellectual stimulation, knowledge of
curriculum and ability to monitor and evaluate people and programs. VAL-ED was
also included that revealed learning-centered leadership as a result professional
development.
177
Literature suggests the purpose for professional development is to promote
teacher growth. As a result, all teachers interviewed indicated that the IFL
professional development is helping to improve their instruction. They agreed that
the scientifically research-based content and the ongoing support from their principal
and coaches has supported their implementation of Principles of Learning,
Disciplinary Literacy, and increased the academic rigor of their classroom. The
researcher found that teachers considered their principal to be a strong instructional
leader who frequently observes their practice and provides them with appropriate
feedback. They have also agreed that the principal’s accountability and monitoring
system to implement the professional development offered to them is one of the main
reasons for improved teacher practice.
Research Question Five: How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool
to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
potential for the data collected from an instructional leadership assessment
instrument, the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL ED), to be used
as a tool to inform the coaching support designed to promote effective instructional
leadership. The data will be analyzed from the perspective of the research on
developing learning-centered leadership practice and effective leadership coaching
practices designed to promote and support effective leadership practice (Davis et al.,
2005; Murphy et al., 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
178
Key Finding: VAL-ED Survey Data Used to Build Leader Capacity
There is some evidence that the VAL-ED instrument can serve as a coaching
tool to assist principals in becoming effective instructional leaders.
Table 15. Pre-Post VAL-ED Assessment Participation 2009-2010
Possible
Respondents
Fall
Actual
Respondents
Fall
Percent
Fall
Possible
Respondents
Spring
Actual
Respondents
Spring
Percent
Spring
Principal 1 1 100% 1 1 100%
Teacher 71 48 68% 71 27 38%
Supervisor 1 1 100% 1 1 100%
Source: Vanderbilt Principal Report, 2009
While the study was designed to have the entire certificated staff complete
the VAL-ED survey, only 48 of the 71 teachers completed the survey for the fall
2009 administration. The 68% response rate was considered moderate. Overall
Total Effectiveness score based on the average ratings of all respondents was 5.9.
The results revealed an overall mean score of 3.05. The standard error of
measurement was 0.5. Thus, the performance level was determined to be Below
Basic. The VAL-ED described principals who achieved a score of Below Basic to be
considered a leader who “exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors at levels of
effectiveness that are unlikely to neither influence teachers positively nor result in
179
acceptable value-added to student achievement and social learning” (VAL-ED
Principal Report, 2009, p.3).
In the area of Core Components the mean item rating results for Ms. Lindsay
ranged from a low of 2.78 for High Standards for Student Learning to a high of 3.54
for Connections to External Communities. Similarly, Ms. Lindsay Key Process
mean item ratings indicate they ranged from a low of 2.78 for Monitoring to a high
of 3.49 for Communicating. Figure 6 represents the information for Ms. Lindsay pre-
intervention assessment in a format that is completely understandable giving the
results in three areas; mean, performance level and percentile rank (Fall VAL-ED
Principal Report, 2009).
Figure 6. Principal Lindsay Fall VAL-ED Survey Results
Source: Vanderbilt Principal Report, 2009
180
Data were taken directly from the VAL-ED Principal Report generated in fall 2009
(VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009, p.3). The primary source of evidence used from
teachers was personal observations.
In the fall survey assessment Ms. Lindsay scored Below Basic in 5 out of 6
Core Components which represent an absence of the fundamental components of
leadership behaviors that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement
and influence the instructional practices of teachers. Likewise, she scored Below
Basic in 5 out of 6 Key Processes, which are inextricably linked to the Core
Components that are critical leadership processes to ensure student success and
impact teaching and learning.
The mean effectiveness ratings were fairly consistent for the Principal &
Teachers in the Core Components except in the area of Connections to External
Communities, with a discrepancy of 1.06 points as shown in Figure 7. Specifically,
the teachers had a mean effectiveness rating of 3.07 in Connections to External
Communities while the principal had 4.00 mean effectiveness score in that area.
Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior reported 1, Quality Instruction
reported .95, and High Standards for Student Learning reported .95. Those Key
Components had the largest the standard deviation due to the greater dispersion of
teacher ratings. The principal had somewhat higher ratings of mean effectiveness
than the teachers in each of the six Core Components. Thus, the supervisors mean
effectiveness ratings was considerably lower in the four areas reported. The mean
effectiveness rating across the Key Processes ranged from 3.67 Communicating to
181
3.17 Monitoring for the principal, however feedback given by the supervisor
revealed a difference of opinion whereas the mean effectiveness rating ranged from
3.50 Communicating to 2.00 Monitoring with the highest standard deviation
resulting in Implementing, Monitoring, and Planning as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Principal Lindsay Fall Mean Effectiveness Rating Comparing Scores for
Principal, Teachers, and Supervisor in Core Component
Source: Vanderbilt Principal Report, 2009
182
Figure 8 shows an integrated summary of the principal’s relative strengths
and areas of growth based on the mean item scores for the intersection of Core
Components by way of the Key Processes of the three respondents: the principal,
teachers, and the supervisor. Cells that are green represent areas for behaviors that
are ‘proficient’ (P). Cells that are yellow represent areas for behaviors that are
‘basic’ (B). Cells that are red represent areas for behaviors that are ‘below basic’
(BB).
Figure 8. Principal Lindsay Fall Intersection of Core Components and Key
Processes
Source: Vanderbilt Principal Report, 2009
183
The fact that Ms. Lindsay demonstrated Below Basic in a majority of the
Core Components and Key Processes indicated that the learning-centered leadership
behaviors were still being developed. The lowest rated Core Components by Key
Processes areas of behaviors yielded leadership behaviors for possible improvement.
Improvements were recommended in the following Core Components by Key
Processes for Ms. Lindsay’s fall survey 2009:
1. Culture for Professional Learning and Professional Behavior and
Monitoring
• Monitors the participation in every student in social and academic
activities
• Assesses the culture of the school from students perspectives
2. Culture for Professional Learning and Professional Behavior and
Implementing
• Implements a learning environment in which all students are
known and cared for
• Builds a culture that honors academic achievement
3. Culture for Professional Learning and Professional Behavior and
Supporting
• Allocates resources to build a culture focused on student learning
• Supports collaborative teams to improve instruction
184
4. Culture for Professional Learning and Professional Behavior and
Planning
• Plans for positive environment in which student learning is the
central focus
• Plans programs and policies that promote discipline and order
5. Quality of Instruction and Monitoring
• Evaluates how instructional time is used
• Evaluates teacher’s instructional practice
6. High Standards for Student Learning and Planning
• Plans rigorous growth targets in learning for all students
• Plans targets of faculty performance that emphasize improvement
in student learning (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009, pp.7-8).
Based on the data previously provided, there is some evidence that the VAL-
ED Instrument could serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to become effective
instructional leaders. The data could be used to develop a leadership plan for
improvement to ensure that the principal carries out certain actions that affect the
core components of learning-centered leadership. When Ms. Lindsay was asked
whether she had reviewed the VAL-ED data, she reported that she had. However,
she also stated that she thought the results were skewed because if teachers didn’t
have the knowledge they just put “no knowledge” (Principal Interview, 2010). She
continued to declare that the data was also skewed by the fact that a teacher
administered it. She shared that the teacher gave them a sheet of paper with their ID
185
and their password but that she also divulged that she kept a master list in case they
lost it. Teachers unfortunately did not feel as if they had anonymity (Principal
Interview, 2010; Teacher Interview, 2010). When asked what was the “lounge talk”
in regards to the VAL-ED, Ms. Lopez shared that, “I just figured that it took people a
long time to fill it out. But I know… We kept getting reminders, general reminders.
So that’s all I can say.” Ms. Jenkins shared that many of the teachers wanted to
know the purpose. They were also concerned that it would backfire on them; like
would she know what they put in since it was associated with a number (Teacher
Interview, 2010). Ms. Aviles commented:
Everybody at first got that negative thought of “how are they tying it back to
me?” Nobody wanted to answer it. The negative people, they didn’t want to
answer it quickly unless they completely understood how that was not going
to be connected to them. And I guess that’s how come it took a little longer
for it to get done and they had to ask us. But after awhile people just said it
was a little too long, but that they felt it made them understand the
operational part a lot better (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Another reason there was not a 100% response rate had to do with the amount of
codes that were distributed.
Did everybody fill out their survey, because it’s only showing 50 percent?”
And it turns out I think I really had a hundred percent of the staff fill it out,
teachers. Because they asked me how many faculty members I had. They
didn’t ask me how many professionals I had. So I gave them custodians and
everybody. You see what I’m saying? So that skewed the data right there.
And so when some of them came back and said, “I’ve lost it. I’ve lost it.”
and she requested some more, well, if I was given 70 in the beginning and I
was given another 25, that was a hundred now and that looked like I had even
more not do it (Principal Interview, 2010).
When asked if the data were shared with the staff, or the coach, the response was
“No, I didn’t know what to do with it” (Principal Interview, 2010). When asked if
186
she shared the information with her executive director, she commented that the
executive director wasn’t quite sure how to answer some of the questions.
“Laura…” She goes, “…I couldn’t answer some of them.” She goes, “I just
didn’t know. I didn’t know.” And so my question for that is, for some
teachers and some people, if I don’t tell you we’re talking and we’re
communicating… You know, I sent you the email. I sent you the
communicator. We did the announcements. We do conferences. We have
conversations. We’re talking. We’re communicating.
And I don’t tell you we’re communicating? You don’t think we
communicate? You know what I mean? So on some of them it’s like if the
question is “How does your administrator…?” or “Does she communicate
effectively with you?” “No.” “What evidence?” “None.” So part of that I
wish that I could put everybody down at a computer and say, okay, this is the
question, and this is what we do on this campus. This is the evidence I can
provide you. And you decide the effectiveness of it. You decide whether it’s
highly effective or totally ineffective. I think it would be more accurate
because they just don’t think about all the things. Because when I was
talking to my executive director, she was the one that brought it to my
attention (Principal Interview, 2010).
As such, respondents for the spring administration were almost obsolete (Table 15).
To that end, VAL-ED data was not available for the spring.
Analysis of Key Findings
A comprehensive picture of the principal has emerged and was reported Fall
2009 with input from teachers, the principal’s supervisor and her own self-report.
Data from the spring 2010 report was not available. While the study was designed to
have the entire teaching staff complete the VAL-ED Survey, only 27 out of 71 did
so. Two teachers logged onto the survey, but did not finish it. Based on previous
conversations with the principal, suggestions were made to help in the completion of
the survey. It was also suggested that she have the teachers take the survey in a staff
187
meetings to explain the nature of documenting the evidence. Several requests were
made but in spite of repeated requests, only 27 teachers completed the survey.
Because of the limited participation rate, Ms. Lindsay’s does not have VAL-ED
results for the spring 2010 administration of the survey.
Taking into consideration, the principal’s results in the fall 2009, one might
infer that she was no longer a willing participant in the spring. Moreover, she did
not campaign for teachers to take the survey in the spring. At the same time,
teachers were never really clear on the purpose and results were never shared. This
gives credence to the principal’s overall score on the survey which was Below Basic
with 5.9 percentile rank. As compared to the norm, she was in fact exhibiting
learning-centered leadership behavior at levels that were unlikely to influence
teachers positively and result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and
social learning (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2010, p.3).
One would also argue that a Below Basic score in the Core Component of
Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior is representative of other data
collected within the study. Likewise, the Key Processes of Planning, Implementing,
Supporting, Advocating, and Monitoring presented a Below Basic score with the
exception of communicating which scored Proficient. Because the response rate was
below 40% and results were not generated, there is no evidence to address whether
the principal used the VAL-ED instrument as a coaching tool to assist her in
becoming an effective instructional leader.
188
Summary
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education is designed to
provide a summary of effectiveness of a principal’s learning centered leadership
behaviors during the current school year (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2010, p.1). The
VAL-ED focuses on leadership behaviors defined by six core components and six
key processes known to influence student achievement.
A comprehensive picture of the principal has emerged and is reported with
input from teachers, the principal’s supervisor and her own self-report. Finding
practical ways to thoughtfully assess and develop leaders can have an important
impact on the quality of leadership, and through that, on the quality of education
(Goldring et al., 2007). However, if one chooses to ignore the results then the
leadership behaviors are bound to stay the same and school performance and student
success will be limited.
The findings from this study showed that The VAL-ED could be used as a
coaching tool to 1) move principals across performance levels; 2) identify strengths
and weaknesses on the core components and key processes; and 3) as areas of focus
for developing performance plans or improvement plans for individual principals.
Case Study One Summary: I. E. Clark Elementary School
The data from interviews, observations, document analysis, and VAL-ED
survey provide evidence for several findings in this research study. This section
discusses the findings from one qualitative case study which investigated how a
focused district-wide leadership capacity building and supportive initiative carried
189
out in a large, urban school district prepared principals to become effective
instructional leaders. As a result, those principals with the support of professional
development, coaching support, and principal cohort put into practice behaviors that
enabled the creation and sustainability of organizational structures and processes
(i.e., culture, vision, instructional priorities, SST/RTI, data-driven decision making,
PLC, and professional development).
Ms. Lindsay was beginning to exhibit learning-centered leadership behaviors.
She held high expectations for student learning and she was committed to
strengthening the instructional capabilities of teachers to improve student learning,
however the core components by way of the key processed revealed that she was
below basic in all but two areas on the VAL-ED survey.
She did however create various organizational structures and processed.
Teachers learned and implemented new strategies by participating in staff
development opportunities which included IFL’s POLs and Disciplinary Literacy
and collaborated regularly in professional learning communities. These new learning
experiences facilitated growth and built her capacity as a leader.
Every learning opportunity was aligned to the district’s plan for student
achievement, which remained the driving force behind decisions regarding teaching
and learning. The district provided the structure (professional development,
collaboration, and learning walks) for teachers to develop a culture of learning and
professional behavior.
190
Although the VAL-ED fall and spring survey results did not provide evidence
to support the findings from the qualitative data regarding effective leadership
behaviors there is some evidence through analysis of the qualitative data sets from
fall and spring that Ms. Lindsay is developing learning-centered leadership
behaviors. The data from the online survey indicated that Ms. Lindsay was Below
Basic in the Core Components as well as the Key Processes.
This section has given an overview of responses to interview questions,
document analysis, and the VAL ED survey for I.E. Clark Elementary School. The
next section will describe the second school in the study and give an overview and
analysis of the findings from the interviews, observations, document analysis, and
VAL-ED survey.
Case Study Two: R. G. Smith Elementary School
First Impression
After numerous attempts to contact Ms. Weston by e-mails and phone calls,
the district personnel were able to reach her on the phone. At that time, the
researcher made an appointment with the principal for that afternoon.
The first visit to R. G. Smith Elementary School took place on September 28,
2009. The school was located in an industrial area. The appearance of the school
seemed slightly run down and no words were on the marquee. The school had a
small parking lot which extended to the side of the school. The front of the school
had a half moon driveway that was for the bus loading and unloading and for parent
pick up and drop off. Upon entry into the school there were two carpet mats one in
191
English and one in Spanish that said, “Welcome to R.G. Smith School.” The
researcher and the district personnel announced themselves and waited on a bench
situated next to the cafeteria.
As we continued to wait for the principal, time was being wasted. The
district personnel and the researcher toured the school. The halls displayed student
work. The floors of the school appeared very clean. The staff was to say the least,
“not very welcoming.” Upon the completing of our tour, district personnel inquired
about the principal’s arrival since an hour had passed. Finally, the custodian
reported that the principal, Ms. Weston was in a portable at the back of the campus.
We were escorted out to the principal’s location to find her sitting in the back of the
room. As we walked back to the principal’s office, the researcher described the
particulars of the case study, its purpose, and the data collection procedures
including the use of the VAL-ED survey.
Demographics
R. G. Smith is a pre-K-5
th
elementary school situated in the urban context of
Northwest metropolitan. The student population was predominantly Hispanic 88%
and African American 6%. Students qualifying for Free and reduced lunch equated
to 97%. This means their annual household income was below the poverty line. The
school’s demographic data as indicated by the school’s report card, states that R. G.
Smith provides services to 458 students. The Limited English Proficient students
constituted 70% of the students. Special education students were 3% of the
population.
192
Staff
R. G. Smith Elementary School had a certificated staff of over thirty teachers.
This included twenty-seven highly qualified teachers, 3 alternative education
teachers, and 1 reading coach. The school was organized by small learning
communities. The small learning communities were organized by grade-level and
subject matter content. In addition, the school was staffed with teachers who serve as
a support to the individual grade levels. They were supported by specialist teachers
in the areas of physical education, English learners, computer science, music, and art.
Additionally, the staff was composed of classified staff.
Performance Data
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) is the State’s
standardized test given to students in grades 3-11th annually. The Texas Assessment
Knowledge of Skills (TAKS) is the state’s accountability measure that quantifies
student performance in English Language Arts and Mathematics. It was designed to
measure individual student growth. In 2007, the Texas state legislature passed a bill
that required Texas to use a vertical scale for English TAKS reading and
mathematics in grades 3-8
th
starting spring of 2009. The vertical scale was required
for those grades, since TAKS was administered yearly.
Performance was evaluated for all students and the following student groups:
African American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantage, Special
Education, and Limited English Proficient.
193
Table 16. R. G. Smith TAKS Achievement Data 2008-2009 For All Grades
All Grades Reading/ELA Mathematics Writing Science
All 2008
2009
Gain:
78.9 (199)
85.7 (189)
6.8
74.2 (198)
86.8 (189)
12.5
92.1 (76)
83.3 (60)
-8.8
77.8 (45)
60.7 (56)
-17.1
African
American
2008
2009
Gain
69.2 (13)
80.0 (10)
10.8
54.5 (11)
80.0 (10)
25.5
* (3)
* (3)
*
* (3)
* (3)
*
Hispanic 2008
2009
Gain
79.3 (174)
86.0 (171)
6.7
75.9 (174)
86.7 (173)
10.8
90.9 (66)
83.9 (56)
-7.0
80.0 (40)
61.5 (52)
-18.5
White 2008
2009
Gain
88.9 (9)
* (5)
*
70.0 (10)
* (4)
*
100.0 (6)
* (1)
*
* (1)
Economically
Disadvantage
2008
2009
Gain
80.3 (188)
85.2 (182)
4.8
76.8 (185)
86.3 (182)
9.5
91.7 (72)
82.8 (58)
-8.9
79.1 (43)
60.0 (55)
-19.1
Special
Education
2008
2009
Gain
* (5)
* (5)
*
66.7 (6)
* (5)
*
* (4)
* (2)
*
*
* (3)
*
LEP 2008
2009
Gain
79.7 (123)
84.7 (131)
5.1
73.4 (124)
86.4 (132)
13.0
91.1 (45)
84.4 (45)
-6.7
76.2 (21)
47.1 (34)
-29.1
Source: www.Metropolitanisd.org
Spring 2009 TAKS data indicated that R. G. Smith‘s staff and students made
academic progress. The Estimated 2009 TAKS results revealed significant growth in
all grades in the areas of Reading and Math. According to the disaggregated data the
school received the rating of Recognized. This meant that at least 75% of the
students passed the test.
194
The Principal
Ms. Weston, the principal of R. G. Smith became the principal in 2008-2009.
At the time of the study, she was beginning her second year of administration and
her second year of at this school site. This was Ms. Weston’s first administration
assignment. Prior to becoming principal, Ms. Weston received a bachelor’s degree
in Social Work and received a master’s in educational administration. She spent two
weeks as an assistant principal and taught reading in the classroom for seven years.
Ms. Weston is African American and at the time of the study was in her early
thirties. Through her behavior, she demonstrated strength of character in her
convictions. Her mission for the R.G. Smith Elementary School was “to be the best
elementary school in Metropolitan ISD.”
Findings
The findings in this chapter are based on data collected from pre and post
principal interviews, and pre and post teacher interviews. A total of three interviews
(N=3) were conducted with teachers.
Pre/Post Interview Data
In the fall and spring of the 2009-2010 school year, data were collected via
Principal & Teacher interviews. The teacher interviews were comprised of three
teachers, with varying degrees of teaching experience and subject matter.
These data were collected prior to Principal Weston’s participation in
“telephone” coaching. During the spring of 2010 post interview data were collected
195
after Principal Weston had continued her participation in the MPCI training along
with the additional coaching support.
Research Question One: How does participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional
leaders?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the MPCI prepared
principals to become effective instructional leaders. The data will be analyzed from
the research perspective of effective leadership capacity building and support
structures for improving and sustaining effective leadership practice (Marzano, 2003;
Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Davis et al., 2005; Dufour 2006; Murphy et al., 2006;
Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Key Finding: Professional Development on the Principles of Learning
Prepare Leaders
The IFL is the primary provider for district-wide professional development in
alignment with the Metropolitan Achieves Initiatives. The district’s expectation is
that the initiatives are implemented at each school site. This model was introduced
based on the recommendations of the NCEA 2005 (Metropolitan Achieves Plan for
Student Achievement 2006-2010). The principal stated that the instructional
priorities at the school would be met by applying the Institute for Learning (IFL)
tools, the Principles of Learning (POL’s), and the Learning Walk frameworks. The
IFL institute strands were aligned with the district’s objectives. The principal was
196
introduced to the POL’s at the district’s trainings conducted by Institute for Learning
(IFL) consultants throughout the year but mainly during the summer.
She has begun professional development at her school focusing on the “rigor
and accountable talk lens” of the POL framework. This is being implemented with
teachers as data teams work together to look at student work to determine, using
various POL’s lenses, the expectations of the assignment based on the work samples
using the Discussion Guide (Document Analysis, 2010). The POL’s lenses include
Clear Expectations, Accountable Talk, Academic Rigor, Socializing Intelligence,
and Recognition of Accomplishment. The meetings take place every six weeks
during staff meetings. The goal is to use the POL’s and Disciplinary Literacy
frameworks to get high implementation of tasks, which have the potential to lead to
high academic rigor and expectations with increased student achievement as the end
goal (Principal Interview, 2009, 2010).
The principal shared that each month the Principles of Learning’s are focused
on, for example August and September focus was on Clear Expectations. The CILT
team then will do a learning walk focused on clear expectations (Teacher Interview
2009, 2010). Based on the principal interview responses (2009, 2010), the principal
has been prepared by the district through the POL training to better support teachers.
These organizational structures include the weekly planning meeting and data team
meetings where teachers use the Academic Rigor and “Accountable” talk POLs
criteria to focus their lesson planning (Document Analysis, 2010). Administrators
and teachers evaluate lessons based on anecdotal observations of “Accountable talk”
197
while aligning this with the lesson plan expectations and a student work protocol
aligned with the POL’s (Document Analysis, 2010).
One observed outcome of these focus driven professional development
meetings, according to the principal and the teachers interviewed (2010), has been a
gradual change in thinking about what counts for student achievement and how data
can be an influencing factor in guiding ongoing instruction. The focus is on three
teaching strategies; differentiated instruction, small group instruction, and individual
tutoring for students who are having difficulty accessing the objectives of the lesson
or “Clear Expectations” of the lesson (Principal Interview and Teacher Interview
2009, 2010). Teachers reported that they meet on a regular basis for vertical and
horizontal team collaboration and that they have access to a coach whenever it is
needed and that collaboration has made it easier to learn new teaching strategies that
assist struggling students. Teachers also commented on the usefulness of immediate
feedback through ongoing team meetings and access to an on-site coach. Teachers
reported they were held accountable for these processes through classroom
observations and the follow up discussions during meetings with the principal
(Teacher Interview, 2009, 2010).
Key Finding: Coaching Support Structure
The district has a definite coaching structure in place to help facilitate
leadership skills. However, in the case of Ms. Weston there was apparently
miscommunication in terms of who her coach was. During the course of the study,
Ms. Weston did not receive coaching support; nonetheless data gathered from the
198
interview showed that she received coaching prior to the study. There is little
evidence in the case of Ms. Weston that coaching prepared principals to become
effective instructional leaders.
MPCI offers two types of coaching support structures. Thus, Ms. Weston
was asked to depict which coaching structure supported her work, the “telephone”
coaching or the “elbow-to-elbow” coaching. She was furthered asked to describe her
coach/mentee interaction and how the coaching support model worked. Ms. Weston
expressed that she had participated in “telephone” coaching. She shared that last
year was her first year so she would call her coach to “vent” but then that it would
turn into a coaching session. She would listen and then comment, “…it sounds like
we need to work on this.” Ms. Weston described an incident that stood out for her:
I had a 4
th
Grade teacher who was really kind of rejecting the things that I
wanted to have happen in that class – she taught two subjects and only really
focused on one. And so then every conversation that I had was about this
teacher. She gave me a lot of good ideas on how to make it look like it was
coming from the teacher, because I’m very direct sometimes… it wasn’t
working with this person. She helped me on how to make it come from them.
It took a lot of sessions to get to that point (Principal Interview, 2009).
At the same time, Ms. Weston concluded that progress wasn’t necessarily assessed
but that she would do everything that her coach recommended and then the next
session would refer back to the last. As she continued to reminisce, she referred to
the incident previously described;
In the 4
th
Grade teacher’s situation I would go back and try what she said.
The next follow-up conversation I would let her know how it went…..if I had
some difficulty or depending on what the outcome was and she would say
well next time do this. And so it wasn’t really any written follow-up because
we were “telephone” – so it was just me going back trying the ideas and then
199
coming back saying okay I either did this or I didn’t do that (Principal
Interview, 2009).
Ms. Weston was asked how the Halverson Rubric was used in assessing her progress
and if it informed the work that she and her coach did. She commented that the
Halverson Rubric was shared at a principal’s meeting and that she refers to it
occasionally however, that she doesn’t refer to it as much as she should “…but when
they do use it then she looks to see what area she’s working on.” When asked to
elaborate on the influence that the rubric had on her work, she noted:
To be honest with you, my coach and I didn’t mention Halverson. I mean
that’s mostly what we use during our principal meeting. But like I said, just
her conversation is good practice ….which is over to the right on the Rubric
(Principal Interview, 2009).
Sessions were scheduled; however there were times when the schedule would
change. They anticipated talking once a week and then sometimes every other week,
it just depended on the schedule (Principal Interview, 2009). When asked which
coaching model do you and your coach use – the conferring model or the reflective
model, Ms. Weston reported that she felt it was both conferring and reflective,
however it was probably more reflective;
Reflective is looking back at what you conferenced with the person about. I
would say it’s more reflective because when I call her and I’m venting…..she
makes me think about what it is I need to change, so I guess it is probably
more reflective (Principal Interview, 2009).
Based on Ms. Weston’s account of her interaction with her coach, the next question
was asked to get her to reflect on the relationship that she had developed with the
200
coach…in what ways has your coach been involved in building your capacity to lead
this work? Ms. Weston commented:
Since its “telephone” it’s kind of hard to pinpoint. But it’s mostly like I said,
just kind of listening to me and coming up with something for me to
implement based on the conversation. So that’s been the extent of it really
(Principal Interview, 2009).
To further probe, the question was asked… when do you get to move to “elbow-to-
elbow” coaching. She responded that as far as she knew she was told that she would
have a ““telephone”” coach but that she was aware that others had the ““elbow-to-
elbow”” coach.
The spring data sets revealed that Ms. Weston did not have an opportunity to
speak with her “telephone” coach since the last visit. Apparently there was some
confusion about which coach was assigned to whom. Ms. Weston reported, “There
was a little bit of confusion on who was coaching who. And when and where and
things like that. She just recently contacted me before the break” (Principal
Interview, 2010). Although Ms. Weston was not afforded the opportunity to
participate in the coaching process in the first half of the school year (fall, 2009), her
teachers reported an overall change in her behavior. Two out of the three teachers
interviewed felt like the principal had made noteworthy improvements in her
communication to teachers (Teacher Interview, 2010). Ms. Terrones shared that she
felt the principal was putting into place everything that she was learning.
If she puts in action what she’s learning, what she’s being guided to do and
she passes that onto us, we kind of can do the same thing with kids. So it’s
that experience that nobody can give you, like that you cannot get for free.
201
It’s that experience that you really…you acquire and like you have to keep it.
And, I mean, it’s priceless (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Mr. Warp added that he received a lot of feedback from the principal and it really
was more about the conversations that they were having. “She tells us what she
wants to see happen, and asks us about what we think is happening” stated Mr. Warp
(Teacher Interview, 2010).
Key Finding: Principal Cohort/ Small Learning Communities
There is some evidence that principal participation in Professional Learning
Communities built leadership capacity. Ms. Weston recounted, “Another form of
support is our learning communities and with our learning communities, there are
groups or quads. Each quad presents to the principals” (Principal Interview, 2010).
We’re in groups of four – the principals, and so then each quad presents to
the principals. And so that’s a form of support because then I have somebody
to go to… I remember when that person presented this and I can go to that
person. And so it’s just giving us the resources, first of all, and then giving
us, having principals share out what they’re doing so then we can have a
point of reference, so if we want to implement this, then this principal does
that. And so just giving us the who to go to if you have a particular question
about something (Principal Interview, 2009).
Other supports included summer trainings from IFL around the Principles of
Learning and Rookie Round Table for first and second year principals. She
commented that the highlights of Rookie Round Table were the book studies where
principals were required to read a book/article and then come back and share. Books
read included; Mindset, Power of Words, Influencer, PLC handbook, Instructional
Coaching Differentiating Coaching, and Instructional Teaching Better Learning
(Principal Interview, 2009).
202
In the spring of 2010, Ms. Weston shared that her Northwest Learning
Community (NWLC) meets once a month. These meetings are considered
principals’ meetings where different topics are covered i.e., math instruction, data
teams, budgets, etc. Additionally, Ms. Weston described how her executive director
and members from her quad meet at school sites to participate in learning walks
(Principal Interview, 2010). Ms. Weston reported:
Quad members visit each other’s schools sites and we visit a classroom. We
travel as a group and visit classrooms. We might visit a particular grade level
but we all spend time within the classroom. When we walk out of the
classroom, we debrief and talk about what we saw. It’s a mini learning walk
but not using the learning walk protocol (Principal Interview, 2010).
Ms. Weston continued to mention that the team then discusses whether the principal
needs to praise the teacher or have a conversation with the teacher.
Analysis of Key Findings
Participation in the MPCI has allowed leaders to focus on the following core
standard: The leader is grounded in standards-based systems theory and design and
is able to transfer that knowledge to his/her job as the architect of standards-based
reform in the school. The Principal Cohort enabled the principal to increase
leadership capacity. Ms. Weston participated in “telephone” coaching from January
to June in the 08-09 school year. She did not participate in the leadership coaching
process during fall 09-10 school year and had just received a call from her coach
upon the second visit. Coaching had not started as of yet. There was no evidence
gathered during the spring data collection that the principal had participated in
leadership coaching, nonetheless based on teacher’s comments from the spring she
203
was able to sustain what she had learned from her “telephone” coaching support
structure from 08-09. The district’s structure allowed Ms. Weston to be assigned a
coach in the fall, however the lack of monitoring lead to her not having a coach
during the time of the study. However, she continued to receive support through
Rookie Round Table and the Principal Cohort. Through its improvement initiatives,
the district has made a commitment to redesign the organization and set a new
direction for itself.
• Building the capacity of teachers and principals to enact the district’s
educational plan and theory of action based on best practices.
• Build the instructional leadership capacity of principals and district
leaders through differentiated, engaging, and rigorous professional
development that is focused on specific academic goals and student
achievement (Metropolitan Achieves 2006-2010).
Through the redesign process, a vision for learning emerged which focused upon
redefining the district’s organizational culture and build in collaborative processes.
Murphy et al., (2006) contend that vision for learning is a key dimension in
educational leadership. The purpose of the vision for learning is to establish a
common thread within an organization. School communities all over the nation are
vying for effective leaders who can articulate clear goals and ground their leadership
practice in instructional improvement (Murphy, 2005). Principal candidates and
existing principals are often ill-prepared and inadequately supported to organize
schools to improve learning while managing all of the other demands of the job
204
(Davis et al., 2005). The need for instructional leaders who are able to draw from
current educational research and enact promising leadership practices that have the
potential to positively impact teacher practice, organizational climate, and ultimately
student outcomes are in high demand.
According to Davis et al., (2005), less is known about how to help principals
develop the capacities that make a difference in how schools function and what
students learn. Therefore part of the district’s initiative is focused on developing
people. In an effort to develop the leadership capacity of their principals the district
incorporated the MPCI as well as a system that gave principals continuous support.
This effort enabled teachers and other staff to do their jobs effectively, offered
intellectual support and stimulated people to improve the work, and provided models
of practice and support (Davis et al., 2005). In essence it taught principals how to:
1. Develop a deep understanding of how to support teachers
2. Manage the curriculum in ways that promoted student learning and
3. Develop the ability to transform schools into more effective organizations
that fostered powerful teaching and learning for all students (Davis et al.,
2005).
Professional development, leadership coaching support, and the principal
cohort learning community structures adopted by the district help to guide the learner
in his or her search for strategies to resolve dilemmas, to boost self-confidence, and
to construct a broad repertoire of leadership skills. Neufeld and Roper (2003)
described mentoring and coaching as a school-based professional development
205
system that provided support to principals in the area of instruction, school-based
resources, content area, use of data and any other school challenges the principals
faced. The MPCI coaching program provided problem-focused learning where
participants participated in activities that improved teaching and learning and
ensured that future leaders assimilated leadership practices learned to their school
site. Again, would-be leaders were given an opportunity to master leadership
competencies by finding, testing, and evaluating solutions that identified problems in
curriculum and instruction, and achievement (Neufeld & Roper, 2003). Coaching
support and Principal cohort helped learners build group and individual knowledge,
think creatively, and restructure problems from multiple perspectives.
The work of Davis et al., (2005) found that there is no empirical evidence on
how program components attribute to the development of leadership skills however,
it is obvious that adult learning is best accomplished when it is part of a socially
cohesive activity structure that emphasizes shared authority for learning,
opportunities for collaboration, and teamwork in practice-oriented situation. In
essence, there is some evidence that the MPCI and the Principal Cohort has had
some effect on leadership behaviors. This is relative to Northouse’s (2007) work on
leadership where he states that leadership can be taught.
Summary
Three major key findings and five sub-findings emerged from the data
collected at I.E. Clark Elementary School. Professional Development, Coaching,
and Principal Cohort were major findings with the sub-findings of developing
206
people, setting directions for the organization and redesigning the organization
(Davis et al., 2005). Two other sub-findings included vision for learning and
organizational culture.
There is little evidence that the Metropolitan Achieves Initiative is making a
significant change in the way that principals are prepared to lead within the district.
The district sought to intentionally build the leadership capacity of principals through
the District’s Coaching Initiative as well as the collaborative component present in
the Principal Cohort structure.
Research Question Two: How does the MPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the MPCI influenced
leader practice in implementing the District’s reform initiatives. To determine the
value added from participation in the MPCI for five months, the data will be
analyzed from the Learning-Centered Leadership practices perspective which
focuses on instructional leadership behaviors that promote change in leader practice.
The VAL-ED survey results are essential in influencing the leadership behaviors of
the urban school principal (Murphy et al., 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006;
McKenzie et. al., 2007).
Key Finding: Development of a Shared Vision
While the staff at R. G. Smith Elementary School had not completed the
process of developing a common vision or mission, they all shared a common
purpose in increasing student achievement. This was foundational in the
207
development and Ms. Weston capitalized on it. She had each content area create a
vision and a mission. The Curriculum and Instruction Leadership Team (CILT)
examined what was submitted and taking input from the rest of the staff a final
mission and vision statement would be presented back to the staff for approval
(Principal Interview, 2009). Ms. Weston presented what they had thus far:
Vision: R.G. Smith will be the best elementary school in Metropolitan ISD.
Mission: To create a learning community that inspires students, parents, and
teachers committed to developing independent thinkers and lifelong learners
(Document Analysis, 2009).
Ms. Weston expressed that everything that was done was to get students to become
independent thinkers. Ideally, that was what the test required, thus the vision and the
mission is focused on developing independent thinkers (Principal Interview, 2009).
She added that the Think Through Lesson Protocol (TTLP) was used by every
teacher in every classroom promoting critical thinking and that was one of the items
on the observation walk through form (Document Analysis, 2009). During
classroom observation, “I’m always looking for critical thinking – the types of
activities that students are participating in.” Through dialogue, she planned on
constantly revisiting the goal in relationship to math, science, and reading (Principal
Interview, 2009). When asked how the vision achieved equitable student results, she
responded:
It’s the topic of conversation, always…so it’s just through dialogue and our
PLC. We want everybody to have access to education. After assessing our
kids in reading, math, and science - every kid is tiered. We’re looking at
kids who are up here and the kids who are down here. And so to me that ties
into vision because we want every kid to be successful and every kid to have
208
the opportunity to think critically and become independent thinkers, so it’s
not like we’re leaving kids off. We’re not ignoring the ones down there,
we’re not ignoring the ones up here, but every kid counts (Principal
Interview, 2009).
In the spring interview 2010, teachers were very unclear about a vision. All
three teachers gave different comments. For example, Mr. Warp reported that the
vision was a joint process. “It’s something that has to…the whole school comes up
with the vision.” He added “from there we talk about it and decide where we want to
go”, however he never quoted the actual vision. Later, Ms. Terrones and Ms.
Zaldivar stated that they did not have a vision or mission yet, but that they were
going to create one (Teacher Interviews, 2010).
On the contrary, the principal interview revealed that the vision was complete
and that the staff had completed it. When asked to comment on the vision, Ms.
Weston provided the following comment “…we made the vision, and we’re done
with it” (Principal Interview, 2010).
Key Finding: Establishment of Instructional Priorities
Data sets revealed that there was some evidence that the MPCI influenced the
knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of its principals. The principal, Ms.
Weston was asked to define the gap at her school. She began by stating that her
school had many gaps. She continued to elaborate that she felt her students had
reading gaps and that the reading instruction was mediocre. Ms. Weston stated that
“The gap is reading instruction and the major components of how to teach reading.
Reading affects everything else, especially math and science” (Principal Interview,
209
2009). Ms. Weston recognized that the staff was in need of a lot of professional
development. She discussed her plan for PLC’s:
Once a month we have a PLC focusing on reading or writing. Reading is
focused on to develop math and science. The reading instructional coach
does lessons and demos. So, mostly through professional development and
having someone model for them (Principal Interview, 2009).
She asserted that in order to close the achievement gap the school was offering
tutoring after school and tier two in-class interventions where students work with the
teacher in small groups. As a school, we are also focused on science; science
instruction through reading instruction (Principal Interview, 2009).
Getting them comfortable with science is my first goal, and then to let them
see that they can – I mean reading and science can be taught
together…building reading through science (Principal Interview, 2009).
When asked how often she (Ms. Weston) observed classroom instruction, she stated
that she visited classrooms at least twice a week, in upper grade (3
rd
through 5
th
).
She goes in a little bit more frequently but the goal is definitely twice a week
(Principal Interview, 2009). She continued to say:
Walk-through forms are completed and given to teachers as soon as she
observes. And if it’s something I need further clarification or it’s something I
need to elaborate on then I call them in for a conference (Document Analysis
2009; Principal Interview, 2009)
When asked what evidence will you look for that shows improvement? Ms. Weston
responded that walk-throughs and test results. Frequent assessments are given in
math, science, and DRA and Fluency probes in reading (Principal Interview, 2009).
When teachers were asked what the instructional priorities were at their
school. Two teachers commented on the school-wide goal to have 90% of students
210
pass the TAKS as well as 50% commended and ready for college. Two of three
teachers explained the role that the TAKS played in identifying the instructional
priorities for the school year. Ironically, two teachers answered the question in
reference to their subject area. Ms. Zaldivar noted that the science score dropped 20
points and that the year before that the school had also not been recognized. Ms.
Terrones referred to the districts goal for reading which focuses on 90% of students
passing (Teacher Interview, 2009).
When asked to elaborate how the instructional priorities impacted teaching
and learning. Mr. Warp mentioned that “There’s not really any down time and
wasted time. We really try to maximize all the time. It’s very important that we’re
accountable!” (Teacher Interview, 2009). Ms. Terrones and Ms. Zaldivar made
reference to small group instruction and its importance as well as the benefits to
having students by sections or departmentalized. When the question was asked if
this was a strategy used with under-performing students, the teachers all responded,
“Yes.” Additionally, they included re-teaching, after school tutoring, Saturday
School, and pulling students during specials (Teacher Interview, 2009).
In review of the interview question, how often are you observed during class
instruction, the teachers responded and all agreed that the principal was in their
classrooms quite often. She (Ms. Weston) walks through twice with all teachers.
The reading coach observes as well. Mr. Warp commented that it was a district
priority as well as a principal priority. Ms. Terrones added that learning walks
211
would be starting soon so visitors would be in her room regularly (Teacher
Interview, 2009).
When asked about feedback, the teachers described the walk through form
from the Principles of Learning (Document Analysis, 2009). Teachers also receive
feedback with suggestions for improvement from the reading coach. Feedback from
the principal is usually in e-mail form. “If she needs to talk to you, an appointment
is set-up” (Teacher Interview, 2009; Principal Interview 2009).
Data from the spring interview substantiated the current findings. Principal
Weston shared that data were constantly being collected for checks and balances
against where they needed to be in regards to reading, science, math, and social
studies (Document Analysis, 2010). She also commented that she felt teachers were
becoming clearer on what needed to happen. Instructional priorities included using
teaching strategies that were beneficial to students. Teachers were exposed to three
books; Checking for Understanding and Gradual Release of Responsibility both by
Fisher and Frey and The Differentiated Classroom by Tomlinson (Principal
Interview 2010; Teacher Interview, 2010; and Document Analysis, 2010). Teachers
from the site reiterated for the most part that the instructional priorities were
established by the district 90% in all content areas and 50% commended and the
principal monitored it by checking the biweekly assessments (Teacher Interview,
2009, 2010). Mr. Warp stated:
She looks at those to see how people have done on them and then she will
look at the particular test, that it was given and just through that. She knows
what’s going on with every single kid (Teacher Interview, 2010).
212
Ms. Terrones added:
She knows what kids are not doing and she tries to find ways to move them
to the next level. So she knows every kid or at least my kids. She’ll ask for
my perception with my kids, “So how is ‘this kid’ doing?” and it’s a specific
kid with a specific problem. So I know she knows (Teacher Interview,
2010).
Ms. Zaldivar included:
Instructionally, she comes through and she comes and sits and she observes
the children. She observes me. She makes suggestions. Like she’s been
making suggestions about the parking lot and I finally put it over on the wall
because I don’t want to get off topic when we’re talking, since we do a lot of
accountable talk with kids in science.
She’s a keen observer. Like she noticed kids are not paying attention at all.
And like if they’re acting like they’re writing but they’re not really writing,
she notices. She notices a lot of things (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Additionally, Mr. Warp included:
She does walkthroughs with everybody. She does regular walkthroughs. She
knows what’s going in the classrooms. And if she has a concern she
addresses it with someone, or a concern with the teacher or a student, or one
of the students and it goes from there (Teacher Interview, 2010).
All three teachers validated the fact that expectations were usually made clear at staff
meetings or through e-mails. They also pointed out that she was very explicit when
it came to objectives or things that the staff was doing (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Mr. Warp stated:
Ms. Weston talks about something that she’s seeing or something she has a
concern about, or something that she thinks is going well. If she has
something smaller to say she’ll send an email, something that she wants to
know about or has a concern about, she’ll send people an email too. She may
also meet with the grade level (Teacher Interview, 2010).
213
Analysis of Key Findings
In analyzing the responses to research question two, it was evident that a
vision and instructional priorities had been established. However, the response from
the principal and the teachers demonstrated a lack of a shared vision. The principal
stated that the vision was a collaborative effort amongst the staff and CILT.
Hallinger (2003) found that the most influential instructional leader activities were
related to developing and executing the school vision.
Murphy et al., (2006) contend that it’s the leaders’ responsibility to articulate
the vision by modeling and communicating it in a variety of ways. Thus, Murphy et
al., (2006) discusses a vision for learning which includes 4 underlying categories –
developing vision, articulating vision, implementing vision, and stewarding vision.
Murphy et al., (2006) assert that principals must emphasize the vision and make it
central to the daily work. Mentoring and communicating the vision is central to
Murphy’s (2006) dimension.
A clear argument would be that an effective leader would exemplify
behaviors that promote the vision amongst all stakeholders. Thus, the principal’s
VAL-ED fall scores in the Core Components of High Standards for Student
Learning, which posed questions, related to vision for learning were Basic with a
36.4 percentile rank. Likewise, the Key Processes revealed quite a bit of variance
with Planning and Advocating - Basic, Implementing and Communicating- Below
Basic, Supporting and Monitoring - Proficient (Survey Data, 2009). Key Processes
for the survey administration in 2010, revealed a change. Her ratings for Planning
214
went from Basic to Proficient, Implementing went from Below Basic to Basic,
Communicating went from Basic to Proficient, and Monitoring went from Basic to
Proficient (Survey Data, 2010). Practices related to school vision are undoubtedly
critical aspects of leadership. As such, the MPCI is predicated on the Texas Core
Leadership Standard - The leader has the knowledge and skills to think and plan
strategically, creating an organizational vision around personalized student success.
There was some evidence that the instructional priorities were shared across
the organization. Liethwood et al., (2004) state that setting direction has the most
impact as it involves developing a sense of purpose and a change in organizational
culture which requires transformational leadership. Transformational leadership
occurred when a leader invoked organizational change, encouraged participants to
reach their fullest potential and motivated followers (Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978).
These leaders understand and communicate that complacency is the enemy of
improvement. Nonetheless, the principals VAL-ED scores in the Core Components
of Culture of Learning and Professional Behaviors was at a percentile rank of 12.3
All Key Processes resulted in Basic except for Communicating which was Below
Basic (Survey Data, 2009).
Administration of the survey in the spring 2010, revealed a change in
practice. The Core Components of Culture of Learning and Professional Behaviors
were at a percentile rank of 36.0. Growth in the Key Processes of Planning,
Implementing, Supporting, and Advocating increased from Basic to Proficient.
Growth in Communication was also evident with an increase from Below Basic to
215
Basic (Survey Data, 2010). We can conclude that the principal exhibited learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that were likely to influence
teachers positively and result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and
social learning for all students (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009, p.3).
The beliefs and values that a principal holds are very important indicators of
culture. Leaders have to be clear about their own core values and beliefs before they
can build capacity in others (Evans, 2007). The principal believed that all children
could learn and that teachers were hired to a job providing quality education. This
meant that teachers could have no excuses for lack of high expectations for all
students. The ultimate job of the principal is to change the culture of the school to
improve student achievement. With this mindset, the principal was a change agent
optimizing for effective instructional practices that advocate for all students. A
leader who is an optimizer and a change agent is able to inspire teachers to
accomplish things that would normally seem beyond their reach. Water et al., (2003)
assert that a change agent continuously challenges the status quo.
Summary
Two major findings and six sub-findings emerged from the data collected at
R. G. Smith Elementary School. Development of shared vision and establishment of
instructional priorities were major themes. Sub-findings were vision for learning
which included ideas and beliefs, high expectations, and social justice. Other sub-
findings included change agent and optimizer.
216
There is significant evidence that through its improvement focus and
expectations for leadership practice, the Metropolitan Achieves Initiative is having a
significant impact on the focus for change within the district. The fact that the
principal had created a vision and instructional priorities for the school was what the
MPCI had hoped to accomplish. The establishment of the vision and the
instructional priorities helped to set a direction for the organization.
Research Question Three: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
strategies that the principal put into place to create and sustain organizational
structures and processes to promote effective teacher practice and improve student
outcomes. The data will be analyzed from the perspective of the direct effect that
leader practice has on creating the structures and learning environment that can
potentially have a positive influence on student outcomes (Liethwood et al., 2004;
Marshall & Ward, 2004; Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005; Dufour, 2006;
Murphy et al., 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Theoharis, 2007).
Key Finding: Reshaping the Culture
There is some evidence that the principal created a culture that promoted
effective teacher practice and improved student outcomes. At R. G. Smith, Ms.
Weston was working toward developing a collaborative culture where teachers
217
depend on each other bringing together the different levels of experience (Principal
Interview, 2009).
Before I came the culture wasn’t very collaborative. So I have been
struggling trying to get them to depend on each other. Because you have a
great teacher here, and an average teacher here and the great wouldn’t share
with the average, and so the average stayed average and the great. I’m trying
to get them to understand that it’s not just about you and your greatness, it
needs to be across the board, because I don’t recognize individual greatness, I
only recognize it as a group. Its better this year, but last year it was a struggle
to get them to change that competitiveness (Principal Interview, 2010).
A good example of the collaborative culture that Ms. Weston was trying to build was
evident in the collaborative decision making that the staff participated in. For
example, one teacher shared that the principal will usually bring the staff together
and say, “This is the issue, this is the problem, how are we going to fix it.” All
teachers agreed that they could bring concerns to the attention of the principal
(Teacher Interview, 2010). Another example of the collaborative culture that Ms.
Weston was trying to build was representative of the comment by Mr. Warp,
Well, one example was when we did the CILT presentation for the area
director. The principal stepped out of the picture and we had to come up with
it. We had to agree on what it was going to be. It didn’t come from her.
And that’s a risk. It took us several days to…a lot of evenings and several
days to do it, but we came up with it. And then we did the presentation. The
principal observed the presentation while we were doing it in front of the area
director (Teacher Interview, 2010).
All three teachers were asked how are families incorporated in the decision–
making… two of the three teachers weren’t sure. One teacher commented that it
wasn’t a priority (Teacher Interview, 2010).
218
Key Finding: Continuous Development of Professional Learning
Communities
The data collected for Research Question Three indicated that an urban
school principal created organizational structures and processes that promoted
effective teacher practice and improved student outcomes. Three teachers were
interviewed in the fall of 2009 and spring 2010. Professional learning communities
provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate, to learn and grow as professionals.
Teachers were involved in regular meetings for teacher collaboration where they
were allowed to collaborate vertically and then across content area as noted by the
principal.
Vertical team – we do vertical teams every six weeks, and that’s where they,
you know, each subject area from Pre-K all the way up to 5
th
get together
with their curriculum planning guides and say okay, this is what I’m
teaching, or how can I teach this. So they do that every six weeks. Once a
month we do our PLCs, which is everybody coming together to learn either
science, math, writing, or reading, and we meet every week horizontally as a
grade level. And so we meet horizontally every week, that’s per grade level,
once a month vertically, by subject area, reading, science, whatever we see
the need is. And then ever six weeks to look at the curriculum and then plan
out the next six weeks. So I think we meet a lot (Teacher Interview, 2009).
One teacher commented that they were given a lot of opportunity to
collaborate and the emphasis was on people having the information they need.
However on the other hand, she also felt like the principal had a lot of control over
collaboration (Teacher Interview, 2010). Ms. Zaldivar stated, “…that many times
collaboration is geared toward what the principal wants you to do rather than what
we want to do…it’s usually paperwork.” Mr. Warp shared, “…there are many
219
meetings and usually information is disseminated and then he’s required to bring that
information back to share with his content area and his grade level” (Teacher
Interview, 2009, 2010). Ms. Terrones contributed that she has had the opportunity to
plan with the reading coach during planning time and this has been very helpful
(Teacher Interview, 2010).
Collaboration time was used for a variety of things (i.e. professional
development, lesson planning, data analysis, sharing ideas and discussing successes
and concerns). Teachers meet in their vertical teams every six weeks with their
curriculum planning guides and discuss what and how to teach. Once a month,
teachers meet to work on specific content areas and then every week teachers meet
horizontally as a grade level (Document Analysis 2010, Principal & Teacher
Interview, 2009, 2010). Teachers are held accountable for lesson plans that are
turned in that display Principles of Learning and Disciplinary Literacy. Part of
teacher collaboration time is to tier students according to the data. Teachers
document which students participate in Tier two interventions where they receive
small group instruction twice a day (Principal & Teacher Interview, 2010). Teachers
document in their lessons plans specific strategies that are used with low-performing
students. All teachers felt that the opportunity to collaborate impacted their teaching
in a positive way (Teacher Interview, 2009, 2010).
Key Finding: Goal Setting
Goals were established based on data for the school year (Principal Interview,
2009). These data was shared with staff at the beginning of the school year and
220
reiterated at the top of each weekly bulletin (Document Analysis, 2009, 2010). The
goals were clearly focused on student learning. As evident by posters in the school’s
hallway in the spring observation 2010, the staff at R. G. Smith established grade
level goals as well as individual student goals (Document Analysis, 2010). The
goals reflected high expectations and the pressure to achieve. Goal setting
conferences took place with students and parents (Document Analysis & Teacher
Interview 2010).
Key Finding: Data-Driven Decision Making
Responding to the researcher questions about accountability in implementing
the improvement initiatives, the teachers referenced data as a possible source (i.e. bi-
weekly test, benchmarks, and TAKS). The Classroom Effectiveness Index displays
how far teachers have moved students (Document Analysis, 2010).
Bi-weekly assessments were given in content areas. The principal looks at
them and holds data discussions to monitor student’s progress (Teacher Interview,
2010). When asked what organizational structures has your principal put in place
that promote an effective learning environment? Mr. Warp answered:
I think it’s a constant review of student performance. And if students are not
doing well or they aren’t doing well in a certain area, she has the teachers
address those particular areas (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Yet, another teacher added:
Well, it’s targeted, completely targeted. The kids take a test and that let’s me
know what skill they’re not very…they’re not mastering or they don’t
understand. So that allows me to kind of pull them individually and it has
specific activities for that objective only (Teacher Interview, 2010).
221
Early release time is allocated to analyze data from benchmarks (Teacher Interview,
2010). Data is used in a variety of ways. Instructional decisions are made based on
formative and summative assessments. Students participate in small group
instruction, after school tutoring, and Saturday school based on data. All teachers
agreed that data was the evidence that improvement had occurred.
Key Finding: School Success Team/Response to Intervention
Response to Intervention is a progressive model to intervention that the
school employs. The School Study Team meets regularly and the principal attends
all the meetings (Teacher Interview, 2010). Students attend intervention; small
group instruction, after school tutoring, or Saturday school (Principal Interview
2009, 2010). Intervention logs are kept and the principal collects them. Ms.
Zaldivar stated that the principal follow-up with students, “She is very good about
following up. She’s very good at ensuring that students come to tutoring” (Teacher
Interview, 2010).
Analysis of Key Findings
Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) argued that
effective educational leaders developed their schools as organizations that supported
and sustained the performance of teachers as well as students. Central to this idea is
social justice and the recognition of institutional and structural barriers that hindered
democratic participation. Marzano (2003) believed that all students could be
challenged to be effective. “Good leadership” required an analysis of how
institutional structures and culture perpetuated inequality and injustice within the
222
school building and beyond into the community (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy,
2005; Marshall & Ward, 2004). Theoharis (2007) asserted that social justice
leadership addressed and eliminated the marginalization that existed in many urban
schools.
Thus, leaders create the conditions in which to create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes for all students by communicating clear expectations and
implementing research-based practices. These practices help to redesign the
organization and develop communities of learners. Murphy et al., 2006 assert that
learning-centered leaders establish a culture of learning and professional behavior by
creating organizational structures such as, data-driven decision making, PLC, and
SST. These leaders work endlessly to create an environment where advocating,
monitoring and evaluating and performance accountability were the norm.
Marzano (2003) discusses how a change agent has to be cognizant of the
change process to induce change. The creation of organizational structures and
processes effect change at three different levels; school, teacher, and student. At the
school level, they include a culture of professional behavior and collegiality, viable
and guaranteed curriculum, and effective feedback. At the teacher level,
instructional strategies and classroom curriculum design. At the student level, they
encompass learned intelligence and motivation.
Urban school leaders who have a sophisticated understanding of the change
process knew how to effectively initiate, lead, and sustain changes that created
223
organizational structures to improve teacher practice, which in turn, impacted student
outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Hence, these leadership behaviors are also
evidence of learning-centered behavior assessed by the VAL-ED survey.
Based upon her ratings on the fall and spring VAL-ED survey, Ms. Weston
who ranked on her overall effectiveness rating as performing at the Basic level is
“likely to influence teachers positively and that result in acceptable value-added to
student achievement and social learning for some sub-group of students, but not all”
(Principal VAL-ED Report, p. 3).
Summary
Two major findings and three sub-findings emerged from the data collected
at R.G. Smith Elementary School. Reshaping the Culture, Goal Setting and
Continuous Development of Professional Learning Communities in regards to Data
Driven Decision Making and School Success Study Team. Sub-findings were
Communities of Learning, Redesigning the Organization, and
Monitoring/Evaluating.
It is apparent that the Metropolitan Achieves Initiative is making a significant
change in the way that principals lead within the district. The fact that the principal
had established and created a number of organizational structures and processes for
the school was what the MPCI had hoped to accomplish. The establishment of these
structures helped to redesign the organization.
224
Research Question Four: What leadership support structures enable leader
practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and
teacher levels) that enabled leader practice and subsequent movement in the direction
of implementation of the district’s and the school’s improvement initiatives. The
data will be analyzed from the perspective of effective strategies for building and
sustaining learning centered leadership practice (Clark & Estes, 2002; Marzano,
2003; Murphy et al., 2006; Darling- Hammond, 2007).
Key Finding: Professional Development Enabled Leaders Practice
There is some evidence that professional development influenced leaders
practice. Mr. Warp articulated:
That a lot of things come from the district…The principal attends
trainings…we attend trainings. The principal has ongoing training and she
brings all the information back to discuss at faculty meetings or grade level
meetings (Teacher Interview, 2009).
When Mr. Warp and Ms. Zaldivar were asked, if the structure was working, they
both commented, “Yes.” Mr. Warp specifically stated, “…that he’s been with the
district for 20 years…I’m seeing progressive accountability.” Mr. Warp attributed
his evidence to summer trainings were Dr. Right (pseudonym), superintendent would
flash up PowerPoint to show the progress being made across the district.
In the spring interview (2010), teachers explained the IFL’s influence on
professional development. Mr. Warp described how the teachers on CILT are trained
225
from a representative from the district and then they are required to bring it back to
the school site (Teacher Interview, 2010, Observation, 2010). He also shared that
he’s attended two of those training since he last saw me. Ms. Zaldivar shared that
her job was to teach the teachers about Science. That she was the science
representative for the school. During the observation (2010), Ms. Zaldivar was
observed giving a presentation on integrating Writing with Science. Teachers were
asked to bring work samples to examine how much evidence students were including
into their writing. The training also included Writer’s Workshop and Write from the
Beginning with the use of Thinking maps to provide scaffolds for students during the
writing process.
During the interview, two teachers mentioned the following as it related to
the role of the coaches on campus. Ms. Terrones commented, “As a reading teacher
I have a reading coach and I can come up to her and ask her for help” (Teacher
Interview, 2010). Ms. Zaldivar shared her experience with the coach:
The coach is very helpful because we are in the area of earth science, which
earth science is low everywhere. And he definitely knows more earth
science. And when he comes in, I just sit down and I let him teach. What
I’m teaching, I’ll let him teach. And I watch. And I see how he presents
(Teacher Interview, 2010).
One of the three teachers interviewed reported that she had received training
on the Daily 5 last year but didn’t really have an opportunity to implement it. The
Daily 5 gives students 5 things that they can do while the teacher is working with a
small group (i.e., read to self, read with someone, work on writing, listen to reading,
working with words). However, she noted that this year, the staff was required to
226
implement it. She also included that the staff was reading a book that detailed how
students could develop meta-cognitive skills in reading if teachers modeled the
process for students. This particular teacher felt that professional development was
also provided through book studies (Teacher Interview, 2010).
Additionally during the interview, the principal explained that she introduced
Gradual Release Response by Fisher and Frey. This is one way teachers could
provide more targeted; individualized instruction is to use the gradual release of
responsibility model. This instructional model requires that the teacher, by design,
transition from assuming “all the responsibility for performing a task . . . to a
situation in which the students assume all of the responsibility”. This gradual release
of responsibility model of instruction has been documented as an effective approach
for improving writing achievement, reading comprehension, and literacy outcomes
for English language learners (Fisher & Frey, 2003). Ms. Weston had the poster
displayed in her office (Observation, 2010). Ms. Terrones stated, “The training was
like scaffolding teachers…that it made connections and makes it easier” (Teacher
Interview, 2010).
Key Finding: Learning Walks
Learning walks were a tool used to establish staff development needs. Ms.
Weston noted that her classroom Observation Walk-through form has the POLs at
the top of the page (Document Analysis, 2010). She stated that she visits classrooms
and looks for the Principles of Learning. Later, she’ll come back to a staff meeting
and share those results (Principal Interview, 2009).
227
When I do my walk through on my walk through form I have the principles
of learning at the top. And so when we have our grade level meetings every
week then I’ll say okay, this past week we went to clear expectations, and
then I’ll say well this is what I expect with your expectations. Having the
conversation about what they each are, because a lot of times, on the clear
expectations they’re kind of – they have misconceptions about what that is,
so then they think oh it’s just me having to check up on the board. (Principal
Interview, 2009).
Teachers confirmed the key finding throughout teacher interviews 2010. Teachers
interviewed recognized that classroom observations were an essential part of the
leadership for the school. Ms. Zaldivar reported that the principal comes through
and she observes the children. She’ll make some suggestions. She may notice kids
not paying attention or make recommendations to move a student.
Like she’s been making suggestions about the parking lot and I finally put it
over there because I don’t want to get off topic when we’re talking, since we
do a lot of “accountable” talk with kids in science. She’s a keen observer.
Like she noticed kids are not paying attention at all. And like if they’re
acting like they’re writing but they’re not really writing, she notices. She
notices a lot of things (Teachers Interview, 2010).
Mr. Warp shared:
She does walkthroughs with everybody. She does regular walkthroughs. She
knows what’s going in the classrooms. And if she has a concern she
addresses it with someone, or a concern with the teacher or a student, or one
of the students and it goes from there (Teachers Interview, 2010).
Teachers also participate in learning walks and they visit classrooms. They look for
certain objectives and afterwards they share what they observed and what they liked
and what could use improvement. The criticism is always positive and they look to
target a problem. A follow-up letter is provided to explain the observations that were
228
made and areas of improvement. Ms. Terrones shared that for her particular it is
very helpful.
So maybe it’s something I have to make sure and go back to my classroom
and see if I have that problem. And that’s really helpful because that kind of
leads us to, okay, this is what I need to do, this is what I need to improve. Or,
I never realized that this is happening ‘til now (Teacher Interview, 2009).
One of the teachers also commented that learning walks were a tool used to establish
staff development needs. She commented that the principal will ask teachers,
“What’s missing” (Teacher Interview, 2010)?
I guess after the learning walks and observing what are our weaknesses, I
know she reads a lot and she’s always looking for something to make us
better in that sense. And she just provides with the resources. And she’s
like, okay, this is our weakness and this is what I’ve been observing and
probably we can try this (Teacher Interview, 2009).
Analysis of Key Findings
One of the recommendations from the NCEA 2005 report was to build the
instructional leadership capacity of principals and district administrators through
differentiated, engaging, and rigorous professional development that is focused on
specific academic goals and tied to student achievement needs. If principals are
being asked to increase performance levels of students and teachers, it is important
that educational leaders be provided with expectations for learning, and training and
support that will impact their leadership abilities (SREB, 2007). The Metropolitan
Coaching Initiative was a school-based professional development system that
promised to provide support to principals who promised to improve teachers’ and
principals’ effectiveness.
229
Effective principals have knowledge of effective practices in curriculum,
instruction, and assessment is necessary to provide guidance for teachers on a day-to-
day task of teaching and learning (Marzano, 2005). Principals must monitor
instruction and programs to ensure that teachers address grade level standards.
Instructional leaders create systems that provide feedback. This is at the core of
Monitoring and Evaluating (Marzano, 2005).
In the post assessment spring 2010 of the VAL-ED Ms. Weston was rated
Proficient in: Performance Accountability, Quality Instruction, Monitoring, and
Planning. Professional development is an essential component to the development of
learning-centered leadership behaviors. Learning-centered leaders understand and
know what quality instruction looks like and they are also able to monitor and hold
staff accountable for teaching and learning. This also requires planning.
To improve instruction it was necessary for teachers to participate in
professional development. This initiative requires teachers to incorporate best
practices into their repertoire of strategies, detect when students aren’t meeting
standards, adjust their instruction accordingly, and enable them to improve their
knowledge and skills in areas of district focus. Part of the district’s initiative was to
have them participate in collaborative teams. Marzano (2005) states that the most
frequently mentioned resource important to the effective functioning of a school is
professional development opportunities for teachers. Thus, “heavy investments in
highly targeted professional development for teachers and principals in the
fundamentals of strong classrooms instruction is critical to the success of a school”
230
(p. 60). Intellectual stimulation comes from a leader who is able to ensure that the
faculty and staff are aware of the most current theories and practices and makes
discussions of those theories and practices a regular aspect of the school’s culture.
Lindstrom and Speck (2004) assert that there are nine factors that outline
high-quality professional development: (1) Focuses on learning and sustaining
improved student learning; (2) Emerges from student data and the need to improve
student results; (3) Nurtures collegiality and collaboration among teachers, other
staff, and principal; (4) Develops shared leadership, resources, and inside/outside
support; (5) Utilizes research with a foundation in standards and accountability; (6)
Deepens teachers’ content knowledge and teaching practices; (7) Centers on the
adult learner through job-embedded work, options, and learning styles; (8) Requires
ongoing inquiry, practice, and reflection to inform practice; (9) Evaluate progress
and accounts for student learning by examining, results.
The Metropolitan Achieves Initiatives incorporate the nine factors in the
design of their district-wide professional development plan. Teachers had an active
role in developing the goals and objectives of the professional development plan by
participating in LearningWalks which highlighted the data that was observed during
observations. Instructional capacity was built so that teachers could become leaders
and help sustain the professional development. Administrators, coaches, and the
CILT team supported the implementation of the professional development by
working either with specific teachers or grade levels. All staff and grade level
meetings as stated by teachers were considered professional development. In
231
addition, this was a time when student work was examined and evaluated to
continuously reflect on student outcomes to inform practice.
Summary
Two major findings and six sub-findings emerged from the data collected at
R. G. Smith Elementary School. Professional development and Learning Walks
were two major findings. Sub-findings were intellectual stimulation, knowledge of
curriculum and ability to monitor and evaluate people and programs. VAL-ED was
also included that revealed learning-centered leadership as a result professional
development.
Literature suggests the purpose for professional development is to promote
teacher growth. As a result, all teachers interviewed indicated that the IFL
professional development is improving their instruction. They agreed that the
scientifically research-based content and the ongoing support from their principal
and coaches has supported their implementation of Principles of Learning,
Disciplinary Literacy, and increased the academic rigor of their classroom. The
researcher found that teachers considered their principal to be a strong instructional
leader who frequently observes their practice and provides them with appropriate
feedback. They have also agreed that the principal’s accountability and monitoring
system to implement the professional development offered to them is one of the main
reasons for improved teacher practice.
232
Research Question Five: How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool
to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
potential for the data collected from an instructional leadership assessment
instrument, the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL-ED), to be used
as a tool to inform the coaching support designed to promote effective instructional
leadership. The data will be analyzed from the perspective of the research on
developing learning-centered leadership practice and effective leadership coaching
practices designed to promote and support effective leadership practice (Davis et al.,
2005; Murphy et al., 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Key Findings: VAL-ED Survey Data used to Build Leader Capacity
The principal, supervisor, and 100% of the teachers completed the survey for
the fall 2009 administration. Therefore, according to the recommendation in the
Principal Report, the scores were valid due to the high response rate. The principal’s
Overall Total Effectiveness score based on the average ratings of all respondents
yielded a percentile rank of 28.2 an overall mean score of 3.43, and a performance
level of Basic. The standard error of measurement was 0.5. The VAL-ED describe
principals who perform at the Basic level as “likely to influence teachers positively
and that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and social learning
for some sub-groups of students but not all” (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009, p.3).
233
Table 17. Pre-Post VAL-ED Assessment Participation 2009-2010
Possible
Respondents
Fall
Actual
Respondents
Fall
Percent
Fall
Possible
Respondents
Spring
Actual
Respondents
Spring
Percent
Spring
Principal 1 1 100% 1 1 100%
Teacher 30 30 100% 30 26 87%
Supervisor 1 1 100% 1 1 100%
Source: Vanderbilt Principal Report
In the area of Core Components the mean item rating results for Ms. Weston
ranged from a low of 3.26 for Connections to External Communities to a high of
3.56 for High Standards for Student Learning. Similarly, Ms. Weston’s Key Process
mean item ratings indicate they ranged from a low of 3.28 for Implementing to a
high of 3.62 for Supporting. Figure 9 represents the information for Ms. Weston’s
pre-intervention assessment giving the results in three areas; mean, performance
level and percentile rank.
Data were taken directly from the VAL-ED Principal Report generated in fall
2009 (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009, p.3). The primary sources of evidence used
from the three respondent groups were personal observations, school documents, and
school projects or activities.
234
Figure 9. Principal Weston Fall VAL-ED Survey Results
Source: Vanderbilt Principal Report 2009
On the fall survey results, Ms. Weston scored Basic in 5 out of 6 Core
Components which represent an understanding of the fundamental components of
leadership behaviors that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement
and influence the instructional practices of teachers. Likewise, she scored Basic in 4
of the 6 Key Processes, leaving Implementing Below Basic and Supporting
Proficient. Murphy et al (2006) stated that the Key Processes are inextricably linked
to the Core Components that are critical leadership processes to ensure student
success and impact teaching and learning.
The mean effectiveness ratings were somewhat inconsistent for the three
respondents in the Core Components. Discrepancies were noted in Connections to
External Communities, Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior, and Rigorous
Curriculum because they had the larger standard deviation based on the dispersion of
235
teacher ratings. Specifically in the area of Connections to External Communities, a
discrepancy of .92 was recorded, in the area of Culture of Learning and Professional
Behavior a discrepancy of .87 was recorded, and in the area of Rigorous Curriculum
a discrepancy of .82 was recorded as shown in Figure 10. The principal consistently
had a lower rating of mean effectiveness than the teachers and the supervisor in each
of the six Core Components. Thus, the supervisors mean effectiveness ratings were
considerably higher than that of the principal and the teachers. The mean
effectiveness rating from teachers across the Key Processes ranged from 3.57
Monitoring to 3.47 Communicating and Planning, however feedback given by the
supervisor revealed a difference of opinion whereas the mean effectiveness rating
ranged from 3.89 Monitoring to 3.33 Implementing with the lowest scores resulting
in Implementing, Communicating, and Monitoring which also yielded the highest
standard deviation as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 11 shows an integrated summary of the principal’s relative strengths
and areas of growth based on the mean item scores for the intersection of Core
Components by way of the Key Processes of the three respondents: the principal,
teachers, and the supervisor. Cells that are green represent areas for behaviors that
are ‘proficient’ (P). Cells that are yellow represent areas for behaviors that are
‘basic’ (B). Cells that are red represent areas for behaviors that are ‘below basic’
(BB).
236
Figure 10. Principal Weston Fall Mean Effectiveness Rating Comparing Scores for
Principal, Teachers, and Supervisor in Core Component
Source: Vanderbilt Principal Report
237
Figure 11. Principal Weston Fall Intersection of Core Components and Key
Processes
Source: Vanderbilt Principal Report
The fact that Ms. Weston demonstrated Basic in a majority of the Core
Components and Key Processes indicated that the learning-centered leadership
behaviors were present and still being developed. The lowest rated Core
Components by Key Processes areas of behaviors yielded leadership behaviors for
possible improvement. Improvements were recommended in the following Core
Components by Key Processes for Ms. Weston:
1. Connections to External Communities and Communicating
• Listens to the diverse opinions and needs of all families
• Listens to feedback from the community
238
2. Connections to External Communities and Monitoring
• Monitors the effectiveness of community school connections
• Collects information to learn about resources and assets in the
community
3. Connections to External Communities and Planning
• Develops a plan for community outreach programs consistent with
instructional goals
• Develops a plan for school/community relations that revolves
around the academic mission
4. Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior and Communicating
• Communicates with parents about the aspects of a positive school
culture
• Discusses standards of professional behavior with faculty
5. Rigorous Curriculum and Planning
• Develops a rigorous curriculum for all students
• Plans access to rigorous curricula for students with special needs
6. Performance Accountability and Implementing
• Implements social and academic accountability equitably for all
students
• Uses faculty input to create methods to hold faculty accountable
(VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009, pp.7-8).
239
The VAL-ED spring data (2010) suggests that Ms. Weston made growth in
learning-centered leadership behaviors. The following data reflects the changes in
her results from the first administration in the fall. The spring 2010 data revealed
that the principal, supervisor, and 87% of the teachers completed the survey.
Therefore, the report is considered valid due to the high response rate.
The primary sources of evidence used from the three respondents were
personal observations, school documents, and school projects and activities. The
principal reported that a 100% of her evidence was taken from observations,
documents, and projects. Teachers noted evidence from personal observations which
was an increase from the fall administration. Similarly, teachers had more personal
observations which decreased the category of “No Evidence.”
In comparison to the Overall Effectiveness score of 28.2 (2009), the spring
score yielded a percentile rank of 45.1 (2010). The mean score of 2009 was 3.43
whereas the mean score of 2010 was 3.56. Ms. Weston’s overall performance was
determined to be Basic. A leader at the basic level of proficiency exhibits learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence
teachers positively and that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement
and social learning for some sub-groups of students, but not all. However, changes
were documented in Core Components and Key Processes.
An examination of Ms. Weston’s Core Components mean item ratings ranged
from a low 3.20 for Connections to External Communities to a high of 3.80 for
Quality Instruction. Similarly, Ms. Weston’s Key Processes mean item ratings
240
indicate they ranged from a low 3.36 for Implementing to a high of 3.77 for
Monitoring. Table 18 depicts a comparison of the VAL-ED survey results for Ms.
Weston from the fall (2009) to the spring (2010); M = mean; PL = Performance
Level, and PR = Percentile Rank.
Table 18. Principal Weston Fall (2009) and Spring (2010) VAL-ED Results
Comparison
Summary of Core Components and Key Processes
Fall (2009) Spring (2010)
M PL PR M PL PR
Overall Effectiveness
Score
3.43 Basic 28.2 Overall Effectiveness
Score
3.56 Basic 45.1
High Standards for
Student Learning
3.56 Basic 36.4 High Standards for
Student Learning
3.55 Basic 35.1
Rigorous Curriculum 3.40 Basic 31.0 Rigorous Curriculum 3.57 Basic 49.7
Quality Instruction 3.50 Basic 29.1 Quality Instruction 3.80 Proficient 61.5
Culture of Learning &
Professional Behavior
3.35 Basic 12.3 Culture of Learning &
Professional Behavior
3.63 Proficient 36.0
Connections to External
Communities
3.26 Below
Basic
30.5 Connections to External
Communities
3.20 Below
Basic
25.5
Performance
Accountability
3.53 Basic 57.0 Performance
Accountability
3.61 Proficient 65.2
Planning 3.38 Basic 26.4 Planning 3.61 Proficient 55.6
Implementing 3.28 Below
Basic
15.9 Implementing 3.36 Basic 22.8
Supporting 3.62 Proficient 35.1 Supporting 3.60 Basic 32.3
Advocating 3.42 Basic 35.5 Advocating 3.40 Basic 31.4
Communicating 3.31 Basic 19.1 Communicating 3.61 Proficient 46.0
Monitoring 3.60 Basic 54.7 Monitoring 3.77 Proficient 71.6
241
In the post intervention assessment Ms. Weston scored Proficient in 3 out of 6 Core
Components, she scored Proficient in 3 out of 6 Key Processes. Furthermore, a
Proficient leader exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors at levels of
effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers positively and result in acceptable
value-added to student achievement and social learning for all students.
Principal performance in regards to Connections to External Communities
continues to be Below Basic. This representative of a comment made during the
Principal Interview (2010), “The survey seemed to focus on parent involvement …I
don’t do that.”
Figure 12. Principal Weston 2010 Connection to External Communities Results
A discrepancy of (1.03) was noted with a variance amongst the three respondents
groups; principal - 2.67, teachers – 3.05, and supervisors – 3.88. The survey
generated leadership behaviors for possible improvement in the Core Component of
Connections to External Communities which included:
242
1. Connections to External Communities and Planning
• Plans for the use of external community resources to promote
academic and social learning goals
• Plans activities to engage families in student learning
2. Connections to External Communities and Implementing
• Builds a positive, open relationship with the community
• Implements programs to help parents assist their children to be
successful in school
3. Connections to External Communities and Advocating
• Advocates for social services needed by students and families
• Advocates for students in need of special services with the
external community.
For the most part, the principal had a lower rating of mean effectiveness than the
supervisor but semi-comparable to that of the teachers in the Core Components.
Respectfully, the supervisor had a higher rating of mean effectiveness than both the
teachers and the principals in the Key Processes. In contrast, the supervisor gave the
principal the lowest rating in Implementing. Figure 13 shows the results.
Figure 13. Principal Weston 2010 Implementing Results
243
Figure 14 shows a side by side comparison of 2009 and 2010 an integrated
summary of the principal’s strengths and weaknesses based on the intersection of
Core Components by the way of the Key Processes. Cells that are green represent
areas of behavior that are 'proficient' (P). Cells that are yellow represent areas of
behavior that are 'basic' (B). Cells that are red represent areas of behavior that are
'below basic' (BB).
Figure 14. Principal Weston Integrated Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 2009
and 2010
Ms. Weston’s VAL-ED data is indicative of growth in learning-centered
leadership behavior. Because leadership is a process (Northouse, 2007) other areas
were generated by the survey for continuous improvement.
244
1. Rigorous Curriculum and Planning
• Plans curriculum to maximize student opportunity to learn
essential knowledge and skills
• Develops a rigorous curriculum for students with special needs
2. Rigorous Curriculum and Implementing
• Implements a rigorous curriculum in programs for students with
special needs
• Coordinates a rigorous curriculum across grade levels
Analysis of Key Findings
The VAL-ED was instrumental in helping the leader develop learning-
centered leadership behaviors. There is some evidence that the VAL-ED can serve as
a coaching tool to assist principals in becoming effective instructional leaders.
In comparing the principal’s fall (2009) performance with her spring (2010)
performance, based upon the mean item scores for the intersection of Core
Components and Key Processes, there is some evidence that Ms. Weston
demonstrated growth across both areas. Accordingly, she is displaying learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence
teachers practice and eventually affect student outcomes. There were nine areas
where the principal performed at the Basic level in the fall (2009); however, in the
spring (2010) there were only five areas in which the principal performed at the
Basic level. Areas that constituted value-added and displayed an increased rating of
Proficient were Quality Instruction, Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior,
245
and Performance Accountability by way of the following Key Processes that were
also Proficient; Planning, Communicating, and Monitoring.
Whereas in the fall (2009) the principal rated herself lower than both her
teachers and supervisor overall; however in the spring (2010) the supervisor gave the
higher rating in all areas. Both times the principal rated herself low in the area of
External Communities. There are some minor discrepancies between the perceptions
of the principal’s practice in all areas at the school site and the overall perception of
the supervisor.
With regard to sources of evidence in the fall (2009) “personal observation”
was cited higher by the principal. In the spring (2010) personal observations, school
documents, and school projects or activities were cited 100% by the principal
whereas the supervisor primary source of evidence were school projects or activities
and school documents. In the spring (2010), teachers cited school documents and
school projects or activities at a significantly lesser degree than the principal.
With regards to specific leadership behaviors for possible improvement, in
the fall (2009) three of those areas where in Connections to External Communities,
one in Culture of Learning, one in Rigorous Curriculum, and one in Performance
Accountability. In contrast, the spring (2010) survey revealed no areas of weakness
were found in the Performance Accountability area. Consistent with the fall data
(2009), the spring data (2010) highlighted the same areas of weakness previously
noted: Rigorous Curriculum and Connections to External Communities.
246
With the VAL-ED data in mind, quality instruction is an essential element if
we want students to improve. Learning-centered leaders are aware that a rigorous
curriculum is insufficient to ensure substantial gains in student learning (Goldring et
al., 2007). By scoring proficient Ms. Weston, is aware of its importance. Learning-
centered leaders understand the properties of quality instruction (effective
pedagaogy) and communicate clear expectations to teachers. They spend time on the
instructional program providing feedback to teachers ensuring that quality instruction
is experienced by all students (Goldring et al., 2007). This instills a culture of
learning and professional behavior which in turn ensures that integrated communities
of professional practice co-exist with a healthy school environment where student
learning is the central focus. Learning-centered leaders work hard to establish a
strong climate. School leadership plays a key role in promoting a climate of respect
and support for teachers (Goldring et al., 2007).
This is a result of collective responsibility among leadership faculty, and
students for achieving the student academic goals. Learning-centered leaders
promote higher levels of internal accountability and are more skillful in areas such as
curricular decision making, addressing instructional issues, and responding to
various performance measures. These leaders are known for holding their staff
accountable for implementing strategies that align teaching and learning with
achievement goals. Learning-centered leaders visit classrooms frequently, discuss
curriculum and instructional strategies, challenge teachers to think critically about
their teaching, and promote an atmosphere of collaboration (Goldring et al., 2007).
247
This is evident through the key leadership processes that influence the core
components; planning, communicating, and monitoring. Planning is defined by
articulating a shared direction or instructional priorities incorporate the district’s
overarching goal. Planning is a necessity for the core components; it is an engine of
school improvement that builds common purpose and a shared culture. Learning-
centered leaders know that planning is key in curriculum planning and providing
teachers with professional development.
Learning-centered leaders continually communicate their high expectations to
students and staff. Information about student progress is communicated regularly to
teachers, parents, and students in accessible form, at multiple times, in multiple
formats. Learning-centered leaders hold staff accountable by communicating the
results of accountability data (Goldring et al., 2007).
Learning-centered leaders monitor data and use it to help teachers identify
and correct gaps in instruction, tailor instruction to individual student needs, and to
identify students in need of remediation. Learning-centered leaders monitor
classroom instruction. These leaders help teachers use data (classroom observations
and assessments) to help teachers identify areas where they need to strength content
knowledge or teaching skills. This data is used for focused professional
development.
The data can also be used to engage the external community; therefore a
robust connection to the external community is essential. As leadership skills
continue to develop, this area will have to be area of focus. Learning-centered
248
leaders play a key role in both establishing and supporting parental involvement and
community partnerships. These leaders model the importance of collaborating with
parents and others in the extended school community (Goldring et al., 2007)
Summary
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education or VAL-ED is
designed to provide a summary of effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered
leadership behaviors during the current school year (VAL-ED Principal Report,
2010, p.1). The VAL-ED focuses on leadership behaviors defined by six core
components and six key processes known to influence student achievement.
A comprehensive picture of the principal has emerged and is reported with
input from teachers, the principal’s supervisor and her own self-report. Finding
practical ways to thoughtfully assess and develop leaders can have an important
impact on the quality of leadership, and through that, on the quality of education
(Goldring et al., 2007).
The VAL-ED could be used as a coaching tool to 1) move principals across
performance level; 2) identify strengths and weaknesses on the core components and
key processes; and 3) as areas of focus for developing performance plans or
improvement plans for individual principals.
As the principal continues to work with her coach, reflective conversations in
regards to the areas of weakness will help guide her leadership behaviors and
promote growth in leadership skills. The district provided coaches to support the
principal’s practice. The findings suggest the coach is having an impact on leader
249
practice as well as teacher practice. More so, the coaching component linked to the
VAL-ED data has the potential to influence the principal’s instructional leadership
practice.
The results should be reported with caution. In addition, the survey data
should not be the sole indicator of the principal’s performance. To increase validity
of these results, the survey data should be used in conjunction with additional
evidence of leadership practice (i.e. observation data of principal performance,
teacher focus groups, and artifacts of practice, etc.).
Case Study Two Summary: R. G. Smith Elementary School
The data from interviews, observations, document analysis, and VAL-ED
survey provide evidence for several findings in this research study. This section
discusses the findings from one qualitative case study which investigated how a
focused district-wide leadership capacity building and supportive initiative carried
out in a large, urban school district prepared principals to become effective
instructional leaders. As a result, those principals with the support of professional
development, coaching support, and principal cohort put into practice behaviors that
enabled the creation and sustainability of organizational structures and processes
(i.e., culture, vision, instructional priorities, SST/RTI, data-driven decision making,
PLC, and professional development).
Ms. Weston exhibited learning-centered leadership behaviors. Specifically,
she held high expectations for student learning and provided effective teacher
feedback that would promote professional growth for teachers. She was committed
250
to strengthening the instructional capabilities of teachers to improve student learning.
In doing so, she exhibited her role as an effective instructional leader.
The principal impacted teacher practice through the creation of various
organizational structures and processes. Teachers learned and implemented new
strategies by participating in staff development opportunities which included IFL’s
POLs and Disciplinary Literacy, school-based book studies and collaborated
regularly in professional learning communities. These new learning experiences
facilitated growth and built her capacity as a leader.
Every learning opportunity was aligned to the district’s plan for student
achievement, which remained the driving force behind decisions regarding teaching
and learning. The district provided the structure (professional development,
collaboration, and learning walks) for teachers to develop a culture of learning and
professional behavior.
After in-depth interviews and a review of the pre-post online VAL-ED survey
results, there is some evidence that Ms. Weston demonstrated a positive change from
Basic with a percentile rank of 28.2 to Basic with a percentile rank of 45.1 in her
learning-centered leadership behaviors. The data from the online survey indicated
that Ms. Weston was effective in ensuring that school-wide processes were
implemented.
The VAL-ED survey was designed to provide a summary of principal
effectiveness or principal ineffectiveness of learning–centered leadership behaviors.
Through interviews with teachers and the school principal, as well as observation of
251
Ms. Weston in action at the school site, there was evidence that the performance
level was consistent with the findings. The data suggested a positive relationship in
the core components and key processes (Murphy et al., 2006). However, the degree
to which Ms. Weston impacted teacher practice remains unclear. More research is
needed to fully assess these areas.
This section has given an overview of responses to interview questions,
document analysis, and the VAL ED survey for R.G. Smith Elementary School. The
next section will discuss a comparative analysis of the two schools.
Cross Case Analysis
The Metropolitan Independent School District has taken a proactive approach
to ensure quality leaders guide their public schools. The purpose of all of the in-
district programs was to continually build-capacity among administrators to become
instructional leaders. However, not all leaders display the same leadership
behaviors. While they had different leadership styles, a comparative analysis of the
two schools to highlight similarities and differences is necessary to the development
of the study.
There are many differences between the two schools. The most obvious
being the leadership. Ms. Lindsay was an Anglo-American woman currently in her
third year as a principal. Ms. Weston was an African American woman currently in
her second year as a principal. Ms. Lindsay opened a new school while Ms. Weston
runs a typical urban school.
252
A notable difference as defined by the conceptual framework and is Pitner’s
(1988) antecedent with mediated effects model argues that leaders present
themselves with a set of pre-existing behaviors that govern their leadership. Murphy
et al., (2007) state that leadership behaviors are heavily influenced by four major
conditions: 1) the previous experiences of a leader; 2) the knowledge base the leader
amasses over time; 3) the personal characteristics a leader brings to his position; and
4) the set of values and beliefs that help define the leader. Thus, 1) behaviors are
largely influenced by values and beliefs, experiences, knowledge, and personal
characteristics, and 2) the school context which includes the demographics, school
size, parental involvement, and the community (Hallinger et al., 1996). So basically,
leadership is based on who you are and what you bring to the task which is
influenced by the context in which you lead.
Another difference between the two leaders was in regards to their motivation
for participation in the Metropolitan Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI)
voluntarily or if they were told they had to participate. Ms. Lindsay explained that
her executive director shared the components of the MPCI and was asked to
participate while Ms. Weston shared that she was directed to participate.
While another difference was highlighted by the coaching supports that they
both received. Ms. Lindsay received both “telephone” coaching and “elbow-to-
elbow” coaching. Ms. Weston received “telephone” coaching prior to the study.
Ms. Weston did not receive coaching support throughout the study even though by
253
design the district had a structure in place that would allow her to participate in
coaching support.
VAL-ED results amongst the two principals were different as well. Ms.
Lindsay’s pre-intervention Overall Total Effectiveness score based on the average
ratings of all respondents was 5.9. The results revealed an overall mean score of
3.05. Thus, the performance level was determined to be Below Basic. In the area of
Core Components the mean item rating results for Ms. Lindsay ranged from a low of
2.78 for High Standards for Student Learning to a high of 3.54 for Connections to
External Communities. Similarly, Ms. Lindsay’s Key Process mean item ratings
indicate they ranged from a low of 2.78 for Monitoring to a high of 3.49 for
Communicating. Ms. Lindsay scored Below Basic in 5 out of 6 Core Components
which represent an absence of the fundamental components of leadership behaviors
that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and influence the
instructional practices of teachers. Likewise, she scored Below Basic in 5 out of 6
Key Processes, which are inextricably linked to the Core Components that are
critical leadership processes to ensure student success and impact teaching and
learning. Ms. Lindsay lacks post-intervention scores.
Ms. Weston’s pre-intervention Overall Total Effectiveness score based on the
average ratings of all respondents was 28.2. The results revealed an overall mean
score of 3.43. Thus, the performance level was determined to be Basic. In the area
of Core Components the mean item rating results for Ms. Weston ranged from a low
of 3.26 for Connections to External Communities to a high of 3.56 for High
254
Standards for Student Learning. Similarly, Ms. Weston’s Key Process mean item
ratings indicate they ranged from a low of 3.28 for Implementing to a high of 3.62
for Supporting. In this pre-intervention assessment Ms. Weston scored Basic in 5
out of 6 Core Components which represent an understanding of the fundamental
components of leadership behaviors that result in acceptable value-added to student
achievement and influence the instructional practices of teachers. Likewise, she
scored Basic in 4 of the 6 Key Processes, leaving Implementing Below Basic and
Supporting Proficient.
Ms. Weston’s post-intervention scores revealed a change in learning-centered
behaviors. In comparison to the Overall Effectiveness score of 28.2 (2009), the
spring score yielded a percentile rank of 45.1 (2010). The mean score of 2009 was
3.43 whereas the mean score of 2010 was 3.56. Ms. Weston’s overall performance
was determined to be Basic. An examination of Ms. Weston’s Core Components
mean item ratings ranged from a low 3.20 for Connections to External Communities
to a high of 3.80 for Quality Instruction. Similarly, Ms. Weston’s Key Processes
mean item ratings indicate they ranged from a low 3.36 for Implementing to a high
of 3.77 for Monitoring. In the post intervention assessment Ms. Weston scored
Proficient in 3 out of 6 Core Components, she scored Proficient in 3 out of 6 Key
Processes.
The differences between the two leaders might be viewed through the lenses
of transformational leadership and instructional leadership. Leadership involves
influence and goal attainment (Northouse, 2007). Ms. Lindsay and Ms. Weston had
255
influence amongst their teachers. Ms. Lindsay less than that of Ms. Weston
according to the VAL-ED survey. Bass (1990) posits that leaders influence others to
reach high expectations by raising their levels of consciousness about the importance
and value of organizational goals. While Ms. Lindsay was shaping a positive school
culture, the data revealed that the instructional program was not tightly managed
possibly because Ms. Lindsay spent a majority of her time on operational issues such
as discipline and maintenance, whereas Ms. Weston spent a majority of her time on
instructional issues either in classrooms or meeting with teachers. Ms. Weston was
also able to appeal to teachers’ collective sense of team to work toward increasing
student achievement.
There are also similarities between the two leaders. Both leaders have the
goal that was pre-established by the district: Reading 90%, Math 90%, Writing 90%,
Science 90%, and Commended 50% (College Readiness). Based on the districts
goal of increased student achievement both principals established instructional
priorities for their schools. These priorities included recruiting and supporting high
quality teachers, focusing on high quality instruction through learning walks,
allocating adequate classroom resources, and providing additional support for
struggling students. They both implemented new instructional strategies, monitored
and evaluated the instructional program through ongoing needs assessment, provided
multiple interventions for struggling students and continued to set high expectations.
256
This was evident through the visions crafted by both schools. However, upon
further analysis of teacher responses from both schools it was evident that there was
a definite lack in distinction between mission and vision and instructional priorities.
For each site visit the teachers and principals were asked to explain the vision
for the school. When asked about the vision for the school, the teachers gave a
variety of responses. None of the teachers from either school actually were able to
articulate the vision that the principal shared. Overall the responses from the
teachers regarding vision addressed the following: TAKS increased achievement,
professional learning communities, making AYP established by NCLB, and
Vocabulary focus to name a few.
In comparison to teacher responses regarding the vision it is clear that both
principals created one, one principal even had the vision posted throughout the
school, however it is difficult to substantiate a claim that the vision was well-defined
and shared throughout the organization.
On the other hand the responses from both principals and teachers clearly
define the instructional priorities for the school. Overall it is important to point out
that the instructional priorities relied heavily on student outcomes as a result of the
TAKS. Yet the primary mechanism for obtaining the vision and mission of the
school is deeply embedded in the instructional priorities was overlooked by both
sites.
Murphy et al., 2006 state that the vision sets the direction for the organization
establishing a collective sense of purpose. It holds that vision for learning is the key
257
dimension in educational leadership for learning-centered leadership. Instructional
priorities are developed in pursuit of the vision. Clear expectations are established to
obtain the vision.
Other similarities include the establishment of organizational structures and
process. Liethwood (2004) reminds us that effective leaders use organizational
structures to facilitate the work. Additionally, Ms. Lindsay and Ms. Weston both
had high expectations for student learning that they wove into the culture. Both also
made use of performance data to further their efforts to increase student
achievement. Instructively, the data indicated that both Ms. Lindsay and Ms.
Weston had redesigned their schools, to some degree, through organizational
structures that allowed for teacher collaboration and student interventions.
The leadership theories of transformational leadership, instructional
leadership, and the learning-centered leadership helped to provide a lens by which to
view the two leaders. Similarities and differences were uncovered. The instructional
priorities provided by both principals anchored their appeals for increased student
achievement. Unfortunately, teachers were not working in concert for the benefit of
students because there was no clear vision to guide them. Many scholars reviewed in
Chapter Two of this study cited vision as being perhaps the most critical factor of
school leadership.
This chapter reviewed the findings based on the data collected in the case
study. The data for each research question accompanied with analysis and findings
in conjunction with relevant research from chapter two has been presented. The
258
findings presented in this study were based on multiple data sources, which served to
strengthen their validity. The study is summarized in chapter five with conclusions,
recommendations and suggestions for further study.
259
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
The most powerful fuel for sustaining the initiative to improve test
scores but rather the moral imperative that comes with the desire to
fulfill the hopes of those we serve (Dufour, 2006.)
Statement of the Problem
Achieving higher levels of learning for all children has become the 21
st
century educational challenge across the nation. School leaders today encounter
critical educational and equity challenges to eliminate the achievement gap of low
income, minority students who have long been underserved (Darling- Hammond,
2003). Urban schools face unique challenges; they require a different set of
resources, and pose the greatest challenges (Noguera, 1996; Cuban 2001). These
districts serve the vast majority of poor, minority, and immigrant children in the
country; low test scores, low grades, high dropout rates, poor attendance, generally
unmotivated students, burned out or ineffective teachers, dilapidated and unsafe
buildings, administration mire in inefficient bureaucracies is representative of the
urban environment including low socioeconomics, cultural differences, and
academic underachievement of students (Cuban, 2001; Noguera, 2003; Nevarez &
Wood, 2007; Resnick & Glennan, 2002). Ill-prepared urban school leaders often fail
to have a complete understanding of the factors associated with the larger context
and the un-equal distribution of educational opportunities afforded minority students
(Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Cuban, 2001; Davis et al., 2005).
260
Substantial evidence exists that principals can have a profound effect on the
learning climate, educational programs, and professional norms of practice in
schools; controversy still reigns over the effects of principal practice on student
learning (Liethwood et al., 2004; Hallinger & Heck 1998). Scant attention has been
paid to evaluating the efficacy of programs and practices for the professional
development and retention of school principals and validation of existing
assessments of principal leadership practice against measures of student
achievement.
The challenges of school leadership are overwhelming, however when an
urban school principal is provided with the necessary support structure such as
coaching, urban leaders can influence the teaching and learning. Neufeld and Roper
(2003) have described mentoring and coaching as a school-based professional
development system that provides support to principals in the area of instruction,
school-based resources, content area, use of data and any other school challenges the
principals faced. In other words, with proper guidance and knowledge received from
a coach, novice and experienced principals can successfully mitigate the challenges
of the urban context to improve learner outcomes. More specifically, urban leaders
gain the needed skills and information to demonstrate leadership behaviors and
practices from an integrated model of leadership (i.e., instructional leadership,
transformational leadership, learning-centered leadership, and leadership for social
justice) to meet the diverse needs of the current student population.
261
The current study is designed to address these gaps in the empirical literature
by investigating the impact of the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(MPCI) on leadership practice. The MPCI is a district-wide executive leadership
capacity building strategy which combines the District’s standards-based leadership
curriculum with a leadership coaching support structure for principals. The study is
designed to address the following research questions: 1) How does participation in
the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI) prepare principals to
become effective instructional leaders? 2) How does the MPCI influence the
knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of urban school principals? 3) How does
an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures and processes
that promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes? 4) What
leadership support structures enable leader practice? 5) How can the VAL-ED
Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
Methodology
The unit of analysis for this study was urban school leadership practice. For
this multi-case, comparative, qualitative study, two schools that met predetermined
criteria were identified for participation in the study. The intent was to explore
variation in leader practice and its effect on teacher professional practice between
schools where principals were participating in the MPCI. For this study it was
important to analyze the phenomenon of educational leadership in a real-life context
to gain a better understanding of what factors about the context seemed to influence
262
principal behavior. As such, a multiple case study design was the best
methodological approach for this study. The design of this study supported the
ability to identify and purposefully collect data for analysis of the leadership
phenomenon from a very distinct capacity building context: MPCI 2009 participants.
Not only would a comparative case study design contribute to the robustness of the
study, it would contribute to the base of knowledge supporting the importance of
context in attempting to change professional practice.
Qualitative data were collected from pre and post interviews, observations,
and existing documents. Additionally, the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in
Education (VAL-ED) was used to collect pre and post survey data on the principals’
leadership practices. It was uncovered that the MPCI successfully addressed
leadership concerns on multiple fronts by providing support for principals in
Metropolitan ISD. As a result of the study, the findings provided valuable
information to substantiate the importance of support structures to exemplify the
leadership behaviors of effective instructional leaders and for the development of
future leadership support programs.
Specifically, the coach influenced the leadership behaviors of Ms. Lindsay by
providing: 1) guidance and support, 2) assistance with problem solving and 3)
technical knowledge in handling instructional and operational matters. Therefore,
there is some evidence that working with a coach helped Ms. Lindsay increase her
knowledge and enhance leadership skills as a learning-centered leader. Data sets, for
example, revealed that Ms. Lindsay demonstrated skills by being an Instructional
263
Leader with knowledge of the instructional program, curricular program, and
assessment program; Organizational Leader by promoting a community of learners;
Culture Builder by developing organizational culture, social advocacy, and vision for
learning. In addition, the organizational structures that supported the coaching
model were; a) principal cohort and b) professional development.
Finally, the conditions set forth by both principals such as professional
learning communities, professional development, learning walks, data-driven
decision making had a positive influence on the professional practice of teachers in
the school improvement process. However, the degree of measurable change in
teacher practice, and therefore its impact on student achievement, remains unknown.
The following is a discussion of findings for each research question.
Discussion of Findings
Research Question One: How does participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional
leaders?
The research study uncovered some important findings that contributed to the
body of knowledge regarding the preparation of leaders to become effective instructional
leaders. In investigating the Metropolitan Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI) the
following three structures emerged: professional development, leadership coaching
support, and the principal cohort structure.
Although the support that the principals received through the leadership
coaching had been in effect for only a short time (i.e., five months) during the course
264
of the study, Ms. Lindsay and Ms. Weston demonstrated behaviors and practices
aligned with the learning-centered leadership framework. By design the district had
a structure in place that would have allowed both principals to participate in
professional development and coaching support; however, the lack of monitoring on
the part of the principal, coach, and executive director lead to Ms. Weston‘s lack of
participation in coaching during the data collection period for this study. There is
some evidence that Ms. Weston’s demonstration of learning centered leadership
behaviors can be attributed to her having participated in district-provided
professional development opportunities aligned with the improvement initiatives,
leadership coaching support provided prior to the study, and participation in the
principal cohort structure.
To support the district’s pursuit of the “Road to Broad” and increased student
achievement, the district implemented the reform strategy of professional
development to build capacity in leadership. Excellent leadership would be the
driving force behind raising student achievement and reducing racial and economic
disparities in achievement. Collaborative efforts established with the Institute for
Learning (IFL) resulted in the development of a new system of professional
development and performance-based evaluation. The goal of the new system was to
prepare school site administration to be the leverage that linked professional
development to effective teacher practice and increased student outcomes.
The coach was instrumental in the development of learning-centered
leadership behaviors based on multiple sources of data gathered Ms. through the
265
conversations with Ms. Lindsay. Neufeld and Roper (2003) have described
mentoring and coaching as a school-based professional development system that
provides support to principals in the area of instruction, school-based resources,
content area, use of data and any other school challenges the principals faced.
Hence, would-be leaders were given an opportunity to master leadership
competencies by finding, testing, and evaluating solutions that identified problems in
curriculum and instruction, and achievement. This was evidenced by the coach’s
work with Ms. Lindsay in conducting fierce conversations. In practice, coaches
guide and counsel mentees in a direct manner through role play, parking big ideas,
and ensuing instructional courage. Specifically, the coach assisted Ms. Lindsay in
the development of reflective practice, which is an integral part of school leadership.
Additionally, Ms. Lindsay and Ms. Weston were supported by the principal
cohort where they shared and discussed stories of success and strategies to
implement within their schools. Cohorts help learners build group and individual
knowledge, think creatively, and restructure problems from multiple perspectives (Davis
et al., 2005).
Additionally, the fact that all teachers commented that, “This is working”
exemplifies the change that took place over the five month time span. Critical to this
finding is the leader’s need to implement newly acquired knowledge into their schools
with teachers. While incremental, Ms. Lindsay’s and Ms. Weston’s development of
leadership skills impacted leadership behaviors which in turn impacted teacher practice.
However, it is difficult to ascertain measurable change in leadership practice as a direct
266
result of principal coaching and principal cohort support since other variables interacted
with the overall coaching process.
Research Question Two: How does the MPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
This research study uncovered some important findings that contributed to the
body of knowledge regarding the ability to influence the knowledge, beliefs, and
leadership practices of urban school leaders. In investigating the Metropolitan Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) the following two structures emerged: vision and
instructional priorities.
Thus, the findings suggest that participating in the MPCI influenced leader
knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices. Evidence of this was provided in the
way both principals implemented the school vision and instructional priorities.
In Chapter Two, the conceptual framework for learning-centered leadership
addressed the importance of context and leader characteristics (Murphy et al., 2006)
in the exercise of educational leadership. Additionally, Hallinger, Bickham and
Davis (1996) asserted that the principal’s personal characteristics may “correlate
with each other as well as [the] principal’s actions” (p. 533). Research found that
these variables shape principals’ instructional leadership and play a significant role
in school effectiveness, which was evidenced in this study.
Murphy et al. (2006) state that, 1) behaviors are largely influenced by values
and beliefs, experiences, knowledge, and personal characteristics, and 2) the school
context which includes the demographics, school size, parental involvement, and the
267
community (Hallinger, et.al, 1996). The urban school is deeply influenced by the
neighborhoods from which it draws its students (Cuban, 2001). Correspondingly so,
the beliefs and values that a principal holds are very important indicators of culture.
With this in mind, both principals believed that all children could learn and that
teachers were hired to provide quality education. This quality education was meant
to provide equal access to minority children with access to key educational
resources, including rigorous curriculum and qualified and experienced teachers.
Therefore, leaders who are adequately prepared to handle the unique challenges of
the urban context can have a profound effect on teaching and learning and
organizational structures.
Moreover, the guidance they received from the MPCI helped them to
establish a vision and instructional priorities to address the district’s overarching
goals. Both principals encouraged teachers to focus on ALL students and aligned
their learning opportunities to their school plan for student achievement. In fact, Ms.
Lindsay’s and Ms. Weston’s personal visions were embedded with high
expectations. Thus, the school’s vision espoused high expectations for student
learning as well. Both principals displayed strong leadership for social justice. They
both demonstrated the learning-centered leadership construct of treating students
with dignity, care and respect. Theoharis (2007) has stated that schools become
more just when there is improvement in the achievement of marginalized students.
Principals who lead for social justice emphasize moral values, justice, respect, care
and equity, while being cognizant of the impact race, class, gender, sexual
268
orientation and disability have on schools and student learning (Cambron-McCabe &
McCarthy, 2005).
There is some evidence that both principals created conditions for social
justice by being highly visible in classrooms and providing feedback. They worked
with teachers on instructional matters, regularly in professional learning
communities. These were complimentary to Theoharis’ (2007) findings as well as
Murphy’s et al.’s, 2006 learning-centered leadership behaviors that social justice
leaders employ.
The findings also suggest that changes in leader practice influenced
implementation of high standards for learning, rigorous curriculum, and quality
instruction focused on a culture of learning (Murphy, 2006). The finding that
leadership practice can be influenced by the MPCI suggests that effective leadership
practice can be learned (Northouse, 2007). Elmore (2005) defines leadership as the
guidance and direction of instructional improvement; a process that can be learned
and is not subject to innate traits. The change in leadership behaviors, based on the
findings from each case study school, add to our understanding and bring
transparency to how changes in leadership practice influence student learning,
implementation of rigorous curriculum, and quality instruction.
269
Research Question Three: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
The research study uncovered some important findings that contributed to the
body of knowledge regarding the organizational structures and processes that promote
effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes. In investigating the
Metropolitan Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI) the following three structures
emerged: culture, professional learning communities, data-driven decision making, and
school success team/ response to intervention
In Chapter Two, a review of the literature revealed that the impact of
leadership is indirect in that it is mediated by school factors and instructional
activities (Leithwood et al., 2004). Specifically, researchers found that principals
have a critical role in the success of students through their influence on other people
or operations of the schools (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 13; Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005; Murphy, Elliot, Goldring & Porter, 2006). As Hallinger, Bickham
and Davis (1996) concluded, principals “promote student achievement through their
influence on features of the school-wide learning climate” (p. 543), which was
evident in the leadership practices of both, Ms. Lindsay and Ms. Weston.
The findings from this research study showed some evidence that Ms.
Lindsay and Ms. Weston influenced teacher practice through their enactment of
learning-centered leadership behaviors. As it was uncovered in Chapter Four, one of
the ways in which Ms. Lindsay’s and Ms. Weston’s practice promoted effective
270
teacher practice and improved student outcomes was through creating and supporting
collaborative opportunities for teachers where they were able to discuss student goal
setting, analyze data, and students at-risk. All six teachers reported that the
principals focus on teacher collaboration and professional learning communities
helped them to improve their practice as professionals. In addition, as learning-
centered leaders they nurture collaborative processes (e.g., shared decision making),
forge schedules (e.g., common planning time), and create organizational structures
(e.g., team leadership) that permit and encourage shared mission and direction,
collaborative work, and mutual accountability for school goals and student learning
(Murphy et al., 2006). Thus, these practices have the capacity to increase the
school’s instructional potential.
At this level, they also are active in building shared beliefs about the
importance of community. Learning-centered leaders of effective schools actively
promote the formation of a learning organization, the development of staff cohesion
and support, and the growth of communities of professional practice. At the broadest
level, these leaders endeavor to create a culture of collaboration and the systems,
operations, and policies that provide the infrastructure for that collegial culture
(Murphy et al., 2006). Both principals ensured a supportive leadership for
developing and sustaining a professional learning community. As a result of Ms.
Lindsay’s and Ms. Weston’s leadership behaviors and practices, based upon an
analysis of the data collected, there is some evidence that teachers at both schools
271
enhanced their internal capacity as professionals and focused on improving
instruction.
In short, there is some evidence that Ms. Lindsay’s and Ms. Weston’s
leadership practice had a positive impact on the organizations climate as they helped
to reshape and enhance the school’s professional learning culture. Congruent with
the literature, Ms. Lindsay’s and Ms. Weston’s leadership practices demonstrated an
indirect path through which the school principal played a key role in advancing
school effectiveness. Murphy et al., 2006 assert that school leadership is a “central
ingredient” for raising student achievement by creating the necessary conditions and
influencing key school processes.
Research Question Four: What leadership support structures enable leader
practice?
Davis et al., (2005) have asserted that little is known about the support
structure needed to build and sustain new school leaders’ capacities to influence
student learning. Specifically, the question remains as to how best to assist new
leaders and find out what intricacies are involved in helping principals develop
knowledge and practices to impact improvements.
This research study uncovered some important findings that contributed to
the body of knowledge regarding support structures needed for the development of
effective instructional leaders. In investigating the Metropolitan Principal Coaching
Initiative (MPCI), the following two structures emerged: professional development
and learning walks which proved to be crucial elements that enabled leader practice.
272
Lindstrom and Speck (2004) outline high-quality professional development
components as follows: (1) Focuses on learning and sustaining improved student
learning; (2) Emerges from student data and the need to improve student results; (3)
Nurtures collegiality and collaboration among teachers, other staff, and principal; (4)
Develops shared leadership, resources, and inside/outside support; (5) Utilizes
research with a foundation in standards and accountability; (6) Deepens teachers’
content knowledge and teaching practices; (7) Centers on the adult learner through
job-embedded work, options, and learning styles; (8) Requires ongoing inquiry,
practice, and reflection to inform practice; (9) Evaluate progress and accounts for
student learning by examining, results.
Preparing and supporting leaders in the urban context to address the adaptive
challenges of urban schooling, requires preparation programs to connect theory to
practice, and to actively engage in transformative learning (Brown, 2006).
Schmoker (2006) noted that principals and district administrators spent little or no
time in classrooms and were not aware of the lack of professional competencies and
lacked the capacity to provide adequate professional development experiences to
their teachers. This opened a door for the establishment of learning walks. Learning
walks allowed for careful and sustained attention to the quality of instruction and the
conditions of learning that made a difference in the urban context (Resnick &
Glennan, 2002). In order for professional development to be effective, objectives of
the training were clear and ensured that knowledge and skills learned transferred to
273
the job and were fully integrated into the performance improvement programs (Clark
& Estes, 2002, pp. 65-75).
Brown (2006) argues that if current and future educational leaders are
expected to foster successful, equitable, and socially responsible learning and
accountability practices for all students, then substantive changes in educational
leadership preparation and professional development program are required (p. 705).
The MPCI support structures enabled leader practice. The findings in this study
found that targeted and focused professional development, together with strong
leadership, teacher collaboration, effective use of specialists and coaches and holding
teachers accountable for implementation of what is learned, resulted in improved
teacher practice. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether these support structures
will have an impact on student outcomes.
Research Question Five: How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool
to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
This research study uncovered some important findings that contributed to
the body of knowledge regarding the use of the VAL-ED instrument as a coaching
tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders. In investigating the
assistive nature of the VAL-ED instrument the following four structures emerged:
identification of areas of strength and weaknesses, principal’s overall effectiveness
score, intersection of core components and key processes, and leadership behaviors
for possible improvement.
274
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL-ED) can be used as
a coaching tool to assist principals in becoming effective instructional leaders. The
VAL-ED was a 72 item survey, measuring behaviors along six core components and
six key processes of the learning centered leadership theory. Specifically, the survey
reflects the characteristics of schools that support student learning and teacher
effectiveness. The core components are: high standards for student performance,
rigorous curriculum, quality instruction, culture of learning and professional
behavior, connections to external communities, and systemic performance
accountability. The key processes are: planning, implementing, supporting,
advocating, communicating, and monitoring.
The findings from this study showed that The VAL-ED could be used as a
coaching tool to 1) move principals across performance levels; 2) identify strengths
and weaknesses on the core components and key processes; and 3) as areas of focus
for developing performance plans or improvement plans for individual principals. As
the principal continues to work with her coach, reflective conversations in regards to
the areas of weakness will help guide her leadership behaviors and promote growth
in leadership skills. The district provided coaches to support the principal’s practice.
The findings suggest the coach is having an impact on leader practice as well as
teacher practice. More so, the coaching component linked to the VAL-ED data has
the potential to influence the principal’s instructional leadership practice.
Results of the VAL ED fall survey for Ms. Lindsay showed that she scored
Below Basic in 5 out of 6 Core Components. Likewise, she scored Below Basic in 5
275
out of 6 Key Processes. The fact that Ms. Lindsay demonstrated Below Basic in a
majority of the Core Components and Key Processes indicated that the learning-
centered leadership behaviors were still being developed. As a result, the data could
have been used to develop a leadership growth plan for further improvement. Again
because of the limited participation rate, it is yet to be seen whether growth would
have been evident on the second administration.
Ms. Weston scored Basic in 5 out of 6 Core Components on the VAL ED fall
survey. Likewise, she scored Basic in 4 out of 6 Key Processes. Both revealed that
she had a fundamental understanding of learning-centered behaviors. Therefore, Ms.
Weston could have used the data to develop a leadership growth plan for herself. As
a result, Ms. Weston scored Proficient in 3 out of 6 Core Components and Key
Processes. A side by side comparison revealed an overall change in learning-
centered leadership behaviors with 8 proficient behaviors in the fall and 17 proficient
in the spring (see specifically tables 15, 17 and 18 in Chapter 4).
The results of the survey should be reported with caution as a result of the
low participation rate. In addition, the survey data should not be the sole indicator of
the principal’s performance. To increase validity of these results, the survey data
should be used in conjunction with additional evidence of leadership practice (i.e.
observation data of principal performance, teacher focus groups, and artifacts of
practice, etc.).
276
Limitations of the Study
A considerable amount of effort was taken to ensure the validity of the data
gathered via Principal and Teacher interviews, field observation of the Principal &
Teachers, document analysis, and analysis of results from the online VAL-ED
surveys. However, there remained limitations to the study.
One major limitation was the generalizability of this study. Because this
study was a comparative case study of a two urban principals in Metropolitan ISD,
the findings may not be generalizeable to every school leader in every urban school
context. In addition, there were threats to internal validity as a result of the pre-post
design of the administration of the VAL-ED. Changes reflected in the second
administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors other than the
participants’ participation in MPCI. In addition, the fact that the post-assessment of
the VAL-ED survey came relatively soon after the pre-assessment (approximately
five months) limited the degree to which it could fully measure the principals’
growth in the areas assessed.
Other limitations included: 1) the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), participants could have a tendency to assume
specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression; this is known as the “Halo
effect”; 2) the pre-post administration of the VAL-ED survey was not completed by
100% of the teaching staff in each case, which limited the degree to which it could
fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas assessed; and 3) the coach for one
277
of the principals did not engage in a relationship with the principal during the course
of the study.
Finally, the sampling of the three teachers who were interviewed at each
school for the study may be in question. These teachers were selected based on the
researcher’s request for a purposeful sampling of new to experienced teachers;
teachers were primarily chosen based on availability. In conclusion, as with any case
study research, there was the possibility of researcher bias.
Implications for Future Research
The study investigated the impact of the MPCI complemented with
leadership coaching support whether or not it was effective in 1) promoting and
sustaining change in leader practice, instructional practice, and student learning
outcomes; and 2) how the VAL-ED assessment of leadership practice might
strengthen principals’ capacity to influence the practice of their teachers. The data
sets revealed that although the leaders had indirect influence on student achievement
they did have direct influence on teacher practice and organizational climate that
would eventually have a profound effect on student achievement. Thus, leaders who
are at the top of the organization can have a positive impact on school improvement
initiatives. Waters et al., (2003) identified seven leadership practices that have been
found to be effective in leading innovative change. The seven leadership practices
are: (1) being a change agent; (2) using flexibility; (3) operating from strong ideals
and beliefs; (4) intellectual stimulation of others; (5) knowledge of curriculum,
278
instruction, and assessment; (6) the ability to monitor and evaluate people; and (7)
being an optimizer of innovation.
All of the leadership practices referred to above were evident in the study. In
understanding the significance of the principals’ role in shaping effective educational
programs, a support structure such as coaching is vital to their success. Effective
principals do not emerge from traditional administration programs prepared to lead;
more likely, “they have been rigorously prepared and deliberately mentored” in a
preparation program that immerses them in real-life experiences (SREB, 2007).
Neufeld and Roper (2003) believe that coaching holds the promise of supporting
educational leaders as they take on the responsibilities of school leadership and
shields new leaders from the trials of the “sink or swim” philosophy.
This case study indicated positive outcomes for both Ms. Lindsay and Ms.
Weston, more so for Ms. Weston. Both principals had one to two years of
experience in an urban setting accompanied with coaching support. However, there
remain further implications for future research in the area of support structures for
new school leaders. The following provides a list of research topics needed to
enhance current literature on effective coaching support practices as well as improve
its impact on leadership practice.
• Develop criteria for selecting effective coaches; evaluate determining factor
for professional development for coaches
• Evaluate the determining factors for matching coaches and mentees
279
• Development and implementation of measurement tool to determine criteria
for “telephone” coaching vs. “elbow-to elbow” coaching
• Determine the length of time (i.e., meeting durations and length of mentor
program) that is required between the coach and mentee
• Develop evidence based tools to measure leaders’ achievement of program
goals and objectives and exit criteria to be presented in a leadership portfolio
• Develop a protocol for a growth plan based on results received from the
measurement tool and who will monitor progress
Implications for Policy and Practice
This case study has several implications for policy and practice in urban
school settings. The implications for policy and practice are discussed in this section
as suggestions for promoting effective leadership behaviors that improve and sustain
increased student achievement.
There was also evidence to support the contention that leader characteristics
contributed to the success of the both principals. School leaders need to operate
from a belief system that puts children first. They need to be passionate about their
beliefs, courageous about standing up for what they believe and ready to work
tirelessly to promote and create a learning environment in which those beliefs are
accepted, nurtured, expressed and practiced. As discussed in this study, clear
expectations in terms of student achievement need to be communicated and
articulated to staff and kept at the forefront of the school’s improvement initiatives.
280
Because vision is recognized by virtually all scholars as perhaps the most
critical leadership behavior, prioritizing the importance of setting directions would
be an effective means to align with the Texas core standards. As previously
mentioned, the school context played a major role in the enactment of Ms. Lindsay’s
and Ms. Weston’s leadership practice. Therefore, an important consideration must
be made in coaching support programs that address urban school context and provide
problem-focused learning. Thus, any and all programs should prepare leaders to face
the challenges of the urban context (poverty, poor quality teachers, high leadership
turnover, poor student performance, high student absenteeism, English learners, and
high drop-out rates). What is needed is additional training beyond the scope of
common knowledge about the urban context and what it portrays. A coaching
support program for the school leaders must also address the level of support that is
needed in terms of the type of knowledge and skills needed to lead in high-poverty
urban settings. Given these differences, coaching support programs must be
designed to address these crucial issues.
Hirsch (2001) cited reasons as to why teachers left the teaching profession
and one critical factor was lack of support, therefore to ensure that teachers remain in
the profession many states have engaged with new teacher induction programs.
Complimentary to this idea would be a support structure such as coaching that has
the potential to influence and reshape leadership practice for improved student
achievement. Therefore, funding at the state and federal levels for support programs
is critical if lasting changes are to take place (i.e., turn around underperforming
281
schools). A state-funded induction program designed to support the professional
development of new novice principals and measure the development of leadership
behaviors using a research-based measurement tool geared towards informing and
guiding leadership practice.
This leadership induction program would provide formative assessment with
feedback, individualized support that addresses the varying needs of individual
leaders and help them improve the quality of education in urban public schools.
Conclusion
There is a shortage of prepared leaders who have the capacity to mitigate the
challenges of the urban context of learning (Hallinger, 2003; Elmore, 2003). Ill-
prepared urban school leaders often failed to have a complete understanding of the
factors associated with the larger context and the unequal distribution of educational
opportunities afforded minority students. Thus, there is a great demand for high-
quality principals who are capable of leading in today’s urban schools. As school
leaders are faced with the challenges, those responsible for implementing NCLB
(2001) are looking for guidance to help them comply with the many facets of the law
and make their schools as effective as possible (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez,
2003). As these leaders are poised to make a difference in student learning, a
coaching support program for new principals must be in place to guide their work to
ensure school success.
A successful coaching support structures provides an opportunity for
individuals to be reflective about their own practices and build capacity to move
282
forward in learning-centered leadership behaviors that promote student learning.
This was demonstrated in both case studies in MISD. In fact, coaches have a critical
opportunity to help shape and develop the tremendous work of school leaders. They
affirm what new leaders bring with them (i.e., a strong value and belief system in
providing equitable education for all students) and assist them in strengthening their
knowledge base and leadership skills they already possess. Ultimately, coaches
support the growth in novice principals to become more responsive to the specific
culture of the school community in which they serve.
Closing the achievement gap is quite a lofty goal, however many schools are
bridging that gap. This is in part, to school leadership that does not see the
overwhelming challenges of the urban setting as a road block to student
achievement. These learning-centered leaders believe that all students are entitled to
quality teaching and learning. A belief in equity and excellence for all students
makes a critical difference between schools that close the achievement gap and
schools that don’t. Novice principals who are supported in their work by a coach
have the potential to make significant studies towards the school improvement
process.
283
REFERENCES
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to
share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques.
In M. Chemers, & R. Ayman, Leadership theory and research perspectives
and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego: Academic Press
Bolman, L., and Deal, T. (2003). Third edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L., and Deal, T. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s
report. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77-96.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Richard Nice.
London: Sage Publications.
Boyan, N. (1988) Describing and explaining administrative behavior. In N. Boyan
(ED) Handbook of research in educational administration (pp. 77-98)
Brown, K.M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity. Weaving a
transformative Framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40(1), 77-108.
Brown, K. M., (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a
transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 42, 700-745.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic and market demands. in J. C. Burke (Ed.) The Many Faces of
Accountability. (pp. 1-24) San Francisco, CA: Jossey -Bass.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
California Department of Education (2009). Webpage Available: www.cde.ca.gov
Cambron-McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. (2005). Educating school leaders for social
justice. Educational Policy, Vol. 19, No. 1 , 201-222.
Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G. & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for
preparing leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration,
44, 209-224.
284
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A Guide to Selecting
the Right Performance Solutions. Atlanta, GA:CEP Press.
Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. NW Archives: School
Improvement Research Series (SIRS). Retrieved on May 23, 2008
http://www.nwrel.org/sepd/sirs/4/cu7.html
Council of Chief State School Officer (2008). Educational leadership policy
standards: ISLLC 2008. Retrieved on March 23, 2009
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, C. (2004). National policy comes of age. In Political Education (Chapter 7).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership-different
in kind and degree. Institute for Educational Leadership
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn (pp. 148-176). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing
school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership
development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Unequal opportunity: Race and education. The
Brookings Institute. Retrieved March 7, 2009
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1998/spring_education _darling-
hammond.aspx
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to success for all: How
beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American
Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775-799. Retrieved February 17, 2008,
from the JSTOR database.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson. (2005). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University
Diamond, J., Randolph. A., & Spillane, J. (2000). Race, class, beliefs, about students
in urban elementary schools.
285
DuFour, R. & Burnette, B. (2002, Summer). Pull out negativity by its roots: Those
who grow healthy school cultures must root out weeds of bad culture.
Journal of Staff Development, 23(3). Retrieved May 23, 2008
http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/burnette233.cfm
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
EdCal. (2009, February 2). Administrator week sample resolution. EdCal
Edsource, Inc. (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Retrieved October 26, 2007 from
http://www.edsource.org/pdf/perfmeasguide05.pdf
Elmore, R., (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10.
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 134-142.
Elmore (2006) & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students. Catch-up growth
for those who are behind. (1
st
ed.) Kennewick, WA: The New Foundation
Press, Inc.
Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and
demographic change. Educational Administration Quarterly. 43(2), 159-188.
Field, L. Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, Catch-up
growth for Those who are behind (1
st
ed.). Kennewick, WA. The New
Foundation Press, Inc.
Fullan, Michael (1998). Leadership for the 21
st
century: Breaking the bonds of
educational dependency. Educational Leadership 55:7, pp. 6-12.
Fullan, Michael (2005). Leaderhship and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action.
Corwin Press.
Ginwright, S., Cammarota, J. & Noguera, P. (2005). Youth, social justice, and
communitites toward a theory of urban youth policy. Social Justice. 32(3),
24-40.
Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing
learning-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional
standards, and current practices. St Louis: The Wallace Foundation.
286
Green, R. L. (2005). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to
implementing the ISLLC Standards (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Hallinger, P. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders. The
Elementary School Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2 , 89-108.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to
instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational
Administration. 30(3), 35-48.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leadering educational change: reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leaderhip. Cambridge Journal of
Education, Vol. 33, No. 3 , 329-351.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing
fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221-
239.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership,
and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-
549.
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (1996) A Critical perspective on teacher participation in
urban schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 45-79.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol.
9, No. 2 , 157-191.
Hallinger, P. & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture
on school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 126-151.
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior
of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 217-247.
Heck, R., Larson, T., & Marcoulides, G., (1990). Principal instructional leadership
and school achievement: Validation of a casual model. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 26, pp. 94-125
Heck, R. (1992). Principals' instructional leadership and school performance:
Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 14, 21-34.
287
Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and
management. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol.
33, No. 2 , 229-244.
Hirsch, E. (2001).Teacher recruitment: Staffing classrooms with quality teachers.
Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A Meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on
minority Childrens’ academic achievement. Education and Urban Society,
35(2), 202-218.
Johnson, R.S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure
equity in our schools. California: Corwin Press.
Julius, D. et al, A Memo From Machiavelli. The Journal of Higher Education, 70
(2), 113-13.
Karoly, L.A.. & Panis, C.W.A. (2004). The 21st century at work: Forces shaping the
future
Kotter, J. (2002). Leadership, mangagement, and change: An interview with the
author of leading change and what leaders really do. The School
Administrator.
Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A century's quest to understand school
leadership. In J. Murphy, & K. Seashore Louis, Handbook of research on
educational administration (pp. 45-72). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49, 8-12.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for
Changing Times. Buckinghame: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38, 112-129.
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership
research 1996—2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199.
288
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning. Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education
School Project.
Lindstrom, P., & Speck, M. (2004). The Principal As Professional Development
Leader. California: Corwin Press.
Marks, H. & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-397.
Marshall, C., & Ward, M. (2004). Strategic policy for social justice training for
leadership. Ford Foundation: Leadership for Social Justice.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works. Alexandria: Virginia, Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. et al (2005). School leadership that works from research to results.
Alexandria: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mayeski,F., Gaddy, B., & Goodwin,B. (2001). Leadership for school improvement.
Aurora, CO: McREL.
McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A.,
Dantley, M., Gonzalez, M. L., Cambron-McCabe, N., & Scheurich, J. J.
(2008). From the field: A proposal for educating leaders for social justice.
Educational Administration Quarterly. 44(1), 111-138.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Metropolitan Achieves: Leadership Development Initiatives Executive Summary,
2009
289
Miller, T, Devin, M., & Shoop R., (2007). Closing the leadership gap. Thousand
Oaks: Corwin Press.
Murphy, J., & Seashore Louis, K. (1999). Introduction. In J. Murphy, & K. Seashore
Louis, Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. xxi -xxvii).
SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New
blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly. 38(2), 176-91.
Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing
concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly.
41(1), 154-191.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. (2006). Learning-centered
leadership: A conceptual foundation. New York, NY: The Wallace
Foundation.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for
learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School
Leadership & Management. 27(2), 179-201.
Murphy, J., Goldring, Cravens, X., Elliott, S. & Porter, A. (in press). The Vanderbilt
assessment of leadership in education: Measuring learning-centered
leadership. East China Normal University Journal.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.
Neufeld, B. & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional
capacity. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Nevarez, C., & Wood, J. L. (2007). Developing urban school leaders: Building on
solutions 15 years after the Los Angeles riots. Educational Studies: Journal
of the American Educational Studies Association. 42(3), 266-280.
Noguera, P. A. (1996). Confronting the urban in urban school reform. The Urban
Review, 28, 1-19.
Noguera, P. A. (2003). Finding hope among the hopeless. In City schools and the
american dream: Reclaiming the promise of public education. New York:
Teachers College
290
Northouse, Peter G. (2007). Fourth Edition. Leadership- theory and practice.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Orr, M.T., (2006, March). Mapping leadership preparation innovation in our nation’s
schools of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (7) 492-499.
Orr, M. T., Byrne-Jimenez, M., McFarlane, P., & Brown, B. (2005). Leading out
from low-performing schools: The urban principal experience. Leadership
and Policy in Schools. 4(1), 23-54.
Orr, M. T., Berg. B, Shore, R., & Meir, E. (2008). Putting the pieces together
leadership for change in low-performing urban schools. Education and
Urban Society. 40(6), 670--693.
Patterson, J. L. (1993). Leadership for tomorrow’s schools. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pitner, N. J. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In N.
Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational administration (pp.99-
122). New York: Longman.
Porter, A.C., Murphy, J. Goldring, E., Elliot, S. N. Polikoff, M.S., & May, H.
(2008b). Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education: Technical
manual version 1.0 http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/Documents/pdf/LSI/VAL-
ED_TechManual_030509.pdf.
Reeves, D. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders
can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Resnick, L. & Glennan, T. (2002). Leadership for learning: a theory of action for
urban school districts. School Districts and Instructional Renewal.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
291
Silins, H. C., (1994). Leadership characteristics and school improvement. Australian
Journal of Education, 38(3), pp. 266-281.
Southern Regional Education Board. (2007) Good principals aren’t born-there are
mentored:Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need?
(Learning-Centered Leadership Program) Atlanta, GA: Author.
Spiro, J., Mattis, M., & Mitgang, L. (2007). Getting principal mentoring right:
Lessons from the field. Atlanta, GA: The Wallace Foundation.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L. & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind. Retrieved October 26, 2007 from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138.pdf.
Stein, M., & Nelson, B. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Education
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol.25, No. 4, 423-448.
Texas Education Agency (2009). Webpage Available:
http://www.tea.state.tx/us/ayp/2008
The LearningWalk: A tool for getting smarter about teaching and learning. Learning
Research and Development Center: Institute for Learning. University of
Pittsburgh (2006).
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a
theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43,
221-258.
Theoharis, G. (in press). Toward a theory of social justice educational leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L., (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public
school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
United States Department of Education. (2001, August). No child left behind.
Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, Instituted of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
various years 2002-2007.
292
Vanderhaar, J., Munoz, M. & Rodosky , R. (2007). Leadership as accountability for
learning: the effects of school poverty, teacher experience, previous
achievement, and principal preparation programs on student achievement.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 19, 17-33.
Villegas, A. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: rethinking
the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education 53:20-32.
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning.
Educational Leadership, pp. 48-51.
Wayman, J.C., & Stringfield, S. (2005). Teachers using data to improve instruction:
Exemplary practices in using data warehouse and reporting systems. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.
Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. S. (2009). Human resources administration: Personnel
issues and needs in education (5
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
White House press release, January 8, 2002. Retrieved March 25, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/01/01082002.html.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (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.
Retrieved May 23, 2008 http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/012DC865-
97CA-4C2F-8A04-9924E2F392F0/0/ThePowerToChange.pdf
Yin, Robert K., (1984). Case study research: design and methods. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, Robert K., (1994). Case Study Research, Design, and Methods, 2
nd
ed.
Newbury Park, Sage Publications.
Yin, Robert K., (2003). Case Study Research, Design, and Methods, 3
rd
ed.
Newbury Park, Sage Publications
Young, V. M. (2006). Teacher’s use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and
team norms. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 521-548.
Zehr, M., (2006). No child effect on english learners mulled. Education Week,
(25)25, 1-4.
293
APPENDIX A: ISSLC 2008
STANDARD 1:
An education leader promotes the success of every
student by facilitating the development, articulation,
implementation, and stewardship of a vision of
learning that is shared and supported by all
stakeholders.
Functions:
A. Collaboratively develop and implement a shared
vision and mission
B. Collect and use data to identify goals, assess
organizational effectiveness, and promote
organizational learning
C. Create and implement plans to achieve goals
D. Promote continuous and sustainable improvement
E. Monitor and evaluate progress and revise plans
STANDARD 2:
An education leader promotes the success of every
student by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school
culture and instructional program conducive to student
learning and staff professional growth.
Functions:
A. Nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration, trust,
learning, and high expectations
B. Create a comprehensive, rigorous, and coherent
curricular program
C. Create a personalized and motivating learning
environment for students
D. Supervise instruction
E. Develop assessment and accountability systems to
monitor student progress
F. Develop the instructional and leadership capacity of
staff
G. Maximize time spent on quality instruction
H. Promote the use of the most effective and appropriate
technologies to support teaching and learning
I. Monitor and evaluate the impact of the instructional
program
STANDARD 3:
An education leader promotes the success of every
student by ensuring management of the organization,
operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and
effective learning environment.
Functions:
A. Monitor and evaluate the management and
operational systems
B. Obtain, allocate, align, and efficiently utilize
human, fiscal, and technological resources
C. Promote and protect the welfare and safety of
students and staff
D. Develop the capacity for distributed leadership
E. Ensure teacher and organizational time is focused
to support quality instruction and student learning
STANDARD 4:
An education leader promotes the success of every
student by collaborating with faculty and community
members, responding to diverse community interests and
needs, and mobilizing community resources.
Functions:
A. Collect and analyze data and information pertinent to
the educational environment
B. Promote understanding, appreciation, and use of the
community’s diverse cultural, social, and intellectual
resources
C. Build and sustain positive relationships with families
and caregivers
D. Build and sustain productive relationships with
community partners
STANDARD 5:
An education leader promotes the success of every
student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an
ethical manner.
Functions:
A. Ensure a system of accountability for every
student’s academic and social success
B. Model principles of self-awareness, reflective
practice, transparency, and ethical behavior
C. Safeguard the values of democracy, equity, and
diversity
D. Consider and evaluate the potential moral and
legal consequences of decision-making
E. Promote social justice and ensure that individual
student needs inform all aspects of schooling
STANDARD 6:
An education leader promotes the success of every
student by understanding, responding to, and influencing
the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural
context.
Functions:
A. Advocate for children, families, and caregivers
B. Act to influence local, district, state, and national
decisions affecting student learning
C. Assess, analyze, and anticipate emerging trends and
initiatives in order to adapt leadership strategies
294
APPENDIX B: MCREL 21 RESPONSIBILITIES AND THEIR CORRELATION
(R) WITH STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Responsibility The extent to which the Principal… Average r
1. Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates accomplishments & acknowledges
failures
.19
2. Change Agent Is willing to challenge & actively challenges the status quo .25
3. Contingent Rewards Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments .24
4. Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with & among teachers
& students
.23
5. Culture Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & cooperation .25
6. Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would detract from
their teaching time or focus
.27
7. Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current
situation & is comfortable with dissent
.28
8. Focus Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the forefront of the
school’s attention
.24
9. Deals/Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs about
schooling
.22
10. Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of important
decisions & policies
.25
11. Intellectual
Stimulation
Ensures faculty & staff are aware of the most current theories &
practices & makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the
school’s culture
.24
12. Involvement in
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of curriculum,
instruction, & assessment practices
.20
13. Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, &
assessment practices
.25
14. Monitoring/Evaluating Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their impact on
student learning
.27
15. Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations .20
16. Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures & routines .25
17. Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders .27
18. Relationships Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers &
staff
.18
19. Resources Provides teachers with materials & professional development
necessary for the successful execution of their jobs
.25
20. Situational Awareness Is aware of the details & undercurrents in the running of the
school & uses this information to address current & potential
problems
.33
21. Visibility Has quality contact & interactions with teachers & students .20
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to
results. Alexandria, VA & Aurora, CO: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development
(ASCD) & Mid-continent Research for Education & Learning (McREL), pp.42-43.
295
APPENDIX C: MATRIX COMBINING ISLLC STANDARDS AND MCREL 21
RESPONSIBILITIES
ISLLC Standards
McRel’s 21Responsibilities I II III IV V VI
1. Affirmation X X
2. Change Agent X X X
3. Contingent Rewards X X
4. Communication X X X X
5. Culture X X X X
6. Discipline X X X
7. Flexibility X X
8. Focus X X X
9. Ideals/Beliefs X X X X
10. Input X X X
11. Intellectual Stimulation X X
12. Involvement in Curriculum,
Instruction, & Assessment
X X
13. Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction, & Assessment
X X X
14. Monitoring/Evaluating X X X
15. Optimizer X X X
16. Order X X
17. Outreach X X X
18. Relationships X X X X X X
19. Resources X X X
20. Situational Awareness X X X
21. Visibility X X X
Miller, T, Devin, M., & Shoop R., (2007). Closing the Leadership Gap: From
research to results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Resource C p.113.
296
APPENDIX D: OUTCOMES CHART: ALIGNMENT OF THE TEXAS CORE
LEADERSHIP STANDARDS, METROPOLITAN ACHIEVES LEADERSHIP
CURRICULUM (IFL), AND MURPHY’S LEARNING-CENTERED
FRAMEWORK
Core Texas State-wide
Leadership Standards
Addressed
Metropolitan Achieves Leadership
Development Curriculum (IFL) &
Leadership Institutes
Murphy’s Learning-Centered
Framework (8 Dimensions)
1. The leader has the
knowledge and skills to think
and plan strategically,
creating an organizational
vision around personalized
student success.
Transforming Our Public Schools
(TOPS)
Develop Vision and Goals
• Institute for Learning (IFL)
Institutes & IFL’s Leadership for
Learning: A Theory of Action for
Urban School Districts*
• District design principles and
theory of change
• District Initiatives and
Procedures
Vertical Learning Communities
• Learning Walk within and across
feeder patterns
• Book studies and article
discussions
• Sharing artifacts that impact
student achievement
I. Vision for Learning
A. Developing vision
B. Articulating vision
C. Implementing vision
D. Stewarding vision
II. Instructional Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Hiring and allocating staff
C. Supporting staff
D. Instructional time
III. Curricular Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Expectations, standards
C. Opportunity to learn
D. Curriculum alignment
IV. Assessment Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Assessment procedures
C. Monitoring instruction and
curriculum
D. Communication and use of data
V. Communities of Learning
A. Professional development
B. Communities of professional
practice
C. Community-anchored schools
VI. Resource Acquisition and Use
A. Acquiring resources
B. Allocating resources
C. Using resources
VII. Organizational Culture
A. Production emphasis
B. Accountability
C. Learning environment
D. Personalized environment
E. Continuous improvement
2. The leader is grounded in
standards-based systems
theory and design and is able
to transfer that knowledge to
his/her job as the architect of
standards-based reform in the
school.
IFL’s Leadership for Learning:
A Theory of Action for Urban
School Districts*
• District design principles and
theory of change
• Foundation of Effective
Learning: The Principles of
Learning
• Disciplinary Literacy/Academic
Rigor
297
Core Texas State-wide
Leadership Standards
Addressed
Metropolitan Achieves Leadership
Development Curriculum (IFL) &
Leadership Institutes
Murphy’s Learning-Centered
Framework (8 Dimensions)
VIII. Social Advocacy
A. Stakeholder engagement
B. Diversity
C. Environmental context
D. Ethics
298
APPENDIX E: PRE-INTERVENTION PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW
Research Question # 1: How does participation in the Metropolitan Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) program prepare principals for the unique
challenges of an urban context?
1. Tell me about your educational background; # of years as educator; what
subjects did you teach; number of years as principal; how long have you worked
with your coach; how were you chosen to participate in the MPCI? Have you
taken the VAL-ED survey?
2. How would you define the “gap” at your school? What have you and your staff
done to close that gap?
3. What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting identified
state standards?
4. What are the instructional priorities at your school? How do they impact
teaching and learning in core content areas?
5. How often do you observe classroom instruction? How do you provide
feedback?
6. What evidence will you look for that improvement has occurred?
Research Question # 2: How does participation in Metropolitan Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) program influence the knowledge and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
1. What are some of the core concepts and key ideas embodied within your school
vision? Through what process was it developed and who was involved?
2. How is the school’s vision aligned with the elements of a standards based
instructional system or district-wide goals?
3. How does your school’s vision help to plan and implement school-wide
improvement initiatives? What strategies are you using to get there?
4. How do you ensure that the vision and its goals get implemented?
5. In what ways is the vision used at your school to achieve equitable student
results?
Research Question # 3: How does an urban school principal create
organizational structures (climate) and processes that promote effective teacher
practices and improve student outcomes?
1. What instructional strategies do teachers use to improve the achievement of the
lowest performing students? Higher performing students?
2. What opportunities do you provide for your teachers to work collaboratively?
299
3. How would you describe the culture and climate of your school?
4. Is the school a safe, clean, and orderly place that is conducive to student
learning? What evidence can you cite in support of your answer?
Research Question # 4: What leadership support structures enable leader
practice?
1. In what ways is your work supported at this school?
2. Who do you go to try out a new idea? Has this process worked for you before?
3. What additional support do you need to achieve the goals of your school wide
vision or to sustain your current progress?
Research Question # 5: How can the VAL ED instrument serve as a coaching
tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
1. Please tell me which coaching structure supports your work, the “Elbow to
Elbow” or the ““telephone” Coaching” structure? Describe how this coaching
support model works.
2. Please describe your coach/mentee interaction and include in your discussion the
length of time of interaction and give an example of what that interaction looks
like.
3. How do you and your coach decide what to work on? And how is your progress
assessed?
4. How is the Halverson Rubric used? And how does it inform your work with the
coach?
5. Which coaching model do you and your coach use the “conferring model” or the
reflective practice model”? How does that model work?
6. How do your teachers use the Principles of Learning in developing their lesson
plans? Which principle are you focusing on this year? Why? Who supports
teachers to ensure the principles are in the lesson?
7. What is your understanding of Disciplinary Literacy and how do you recognize
this in the classrooms? What evidence is there that teachers are using
Disciplinary Literacy concepts/components in their classroom curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices?
8. Describe the training you’ve had around Disciplinary Literacy (PLC, POLS~
academic rigor) concepts? In what ways has your coach been involved in
building you capacity to lead this work?
[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about
that is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for
their cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it
is done and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.
300
APPENDIX F: POST-INTERVIEW PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW
Research Question # 1: How does participation in the Metropolitan Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) program prepare principals for the unique
challenges of an urban context?
1. What changes have happened since I was last here?
2. What PD have you attended since September? Any with the coach?
3. You defined the gap previously, what evidence can you cite that the instructional
priorities at your school have had a positive impact on teaching and learning? If
not, what do you attribute the results.
4. What challenges does your school continued to face in spite of participation in
MPCI?
5. How has working with your coach informed your process toward achieving the
goals?
6. What impact have the programs identified to support struggling students had on
their performance? What evidence can you cite? How has working with your
coach informed the programs chosen?
Research Question # 2: How does participation in Metropolitan Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) program influence the knowledge and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
1. How does participation in MPCI program influence the knowledge and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
2. Top 3 ways that the MPCI have influenced your professional practice?
3. Describe for me your leadership style? How has it been impacted by your
participation in the MPCI?
4. Now that you’ve begun interaction with your coach how have you changed as a
leader?
5. How does you leadership practice foster student learning?
6. What makes you school vision achievable and worth fighting for?
7. How do you ensure that the vision and its goals get implemented?
Research Question # 3: How does an urban school principal create
organizational structures (climate) and processes that promote effective teacher
practices and improve student outcomes?
1. How has MPCI supported you in recognizing effective practice of teachers?
2. How has what you learned from the MPCI increased your ability to support
student learning?
3. What are the classroom practices that support student learning? How did you
promote these practices?
301
4. From your perspective, what are the three most important things your school
does to support student achievement?
5. How effective have the intervention programs been in addressing the
instructional priorities?
6. What role does data disaggregated by student subgroup play in your school's
efforts to support student achievement?
7. How does your work with the coach impact your work with your staff? CILT
team? Parents? Etc.
8. Have you noticed greater support as a result of participation in the MPCI?
9. What additional support do you need if any to achieve the goals of your
instructional priorities?
Research Question # 4: What leadership support structures enable leader
practice?
1. What systems are in place to support instruction? What are the roles of AP’s,
Coaches, Coordinators and other staff?
2. What systems are in place to ensure that the school is a safe, clean, and orderly
environment that is conducive to learning?
3. How would you characterize the relationship between administrators and
teachers at this school – collaborative, competitive?
4. What resources, whether inside or outside the school, have been most important?
Research Question # 5: How can the VAL ED instrument serve as a coaching
tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
1. Please describe your coach interaction in your discussion include the length of
time of Interaction and give an example of what that interaction looks like
2. Have you reviewed the results of the VAL-ED survey? How do you interpret the
results? Why do you believe the results are what they are? How do you plan to
use the results? Have you shared them with the faculty, CILT, supervisor, and or
coach? Based on the results how do you and your coach decide what to work on
and how has it impacted the relationship with the coach?
[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about
that is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for
their cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it
is done and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.]
302
APPENDIX G: PRE-INTERVIEW TEACHER INTERVIEW
Research Question # 1: How does participation in the Metropolitan Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) program prepare principals for the unique
challenges of an urban context?
1. What are the instructional priorities at your school? Why? How do they impact
teaching and learning in your content areas? How were these instructional
priorities determined? Are all teachers working on these instructional priorities?
In what ways?
2. How often are you observed during classroom instruction? Who observes you?
How are you provided with feedback from the observations?
3. Which students are having the most success/difficulty demonstrating
proficiency? Why?
4. What programs/strategies are in place to support students that are not proficient?
5. How are teachers held accountable for implementing the improvement
initiatives?
6. What evidence will you look for that improvement has occurred?
7. How have resources been distributed to facilitate achievement of the
improvement goals? Do you believe that these resources are sufficient to achieve
the goals? Why or why not?
8. What role does your school principal play in the school improvement process?
9. In what ways does your school principal provide you with the support to meet the
needs of all students?
Research Question # 2: How does participation in Metropolitan Principal
Coaching Initiative (MPCI) program influence the knowledge and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
Research Question # 3: How does an urban school principal create
organizational structures (climate) and processes that promote effective teacher
practices and improve student outcomes?
1. What support does your principal have in identifying and implementing the
school improvement initiatives?
2. From your perspective, is this working? Why or why not? What evidence can
you cite in support of your answer?
303
Research Question # 4: What leadership support structures enable leader
practice?
1. What opportunities exist for you and other teachers to work in collaboration
around core issues of practice?
2. How often do you come together and how do you spend your time?
3. How are you held accountable for this work?
4. How does participation/collaboration in the PLC, Common Planning Time
impact your teaching?
Research Question # 5: How can the VAL ED instrument serve as a coaching
tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about
that is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for
their cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it
is done and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.]
304
APPENDIX H: POST-INTERVIEW TEACHER INTERVIEW
(Questions are created in alignment with the knowledge and dispositions of the
ISLLC standards as defined by the New Teacher Center at University of California
Santa Cruz)
1. How have the past 4 months gone? What changes have you seen in the
instructional program?
2. How do you think the coaching has influenced the principal’s practice?
3. How has it impacted your teaching?
4. Have you noticed greater support for your principal as a result of participation in
the MPCI?
5. Did you take the VAL-ED survey? What was the lounge talk in regards to the
VAL-ED? Were the VAL-ED results shared with the faculty? Do you have
evidence that the VAL-ED results have been used?
6. What has the principal done to promote the success of all students within the
larger cultural context?
• How has the principal communicated the school’s vision?
• What are some of the high expectations that your principal has
communicated to you and faculty?
• How does your principal ensure continuous school improvement?
• How does your principal provide feedback with regard to meeting school
goals?
7. How has your principal encouraged growth for students?
• How have you been supported in providing high quality, rigorous
instruction?
• What new teaching strategies have you incorporated into daily lessons?
• What kinds of learning opportunities have you been provided with?
• How does the principal provide you with the support that you need to
ensure that your classroom teaching and learning activities meet the needs
of all students
8. How effective have the intervention programs been in addressing the
instructional priorities? What evidence can you cite that it is working?
9. How are you held accountable for this work?
305
10. What are the organizational structures that your principal has in place that
promote a safe and efficient learning environment?
• How do you bring concerns in this area to your school leader?
• Do you feel you are included in high stakes decision-making and in what
ways?
• In what ways are families and the community incorporated into the
decision-making to ensure student success?
[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about
that is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for
their cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it
is done and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.]
306
APPENDIX I: PRE/POST INTERVENTION OBSERVATION PROTOCOLS
Pre: _____ Post:_____
Focus
Research Question #3: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
Setting People
Type of Meeting:
Location of Meeting:
Duration of Meeting:
Frequency of Meeting:
Who attends the meeting? (e. g., certificated only,
certificated & classified, students, parents, etc.)
Who facilitates the meeting? (Principal, assistant
principal, facilitator, department head, etc.)
Is there a particular committee, department, group,
or person that has specific responsibilities, or
reports out during every meeting? Explain
Routines/Procedures Content/Focus
What seems to be some of the normal procedures? (e. g.,
sign-in sheets, announcements, celebrations, review of
minutes or agendas, seating arrangement, etc.)
What are the goals of the meeting? Circle all that apply
• Professional development/training
• Sit and get of information
• Collaboration among department or grade level
• Combination of the above
• Other __________________
What is the focus of the meeting? Circle all that
apply.
• Curriculum and Instruction
• Analyzing Data
• District & Site Announcements
• Facilities and Management
• Discipline/Students
• Student Grades
• District Problems/Complaints
• Variety of Information
• Other ___________________
Who seems to be responsible for preparing the
content/focus of the meeting?
Nonverbal Communication Additional Comments & Questions
What is the tone and attitude of the participants? Circle
all that apply
• Engaged/Interactive/Ask questions
• Complaining (Length of meeting, students, parents,
school issues, etc.)
• Off-task behaviors/comments/questions
• Uncooperative/rude/disruptive
• Leaves early
• Other _______________________
What outside factors or school issues seem interfere with
the goal of the meeting?
307
APPENDIX J: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOLS
Department Curriculum Maps
Unit Focus & Title
Unit Objectives
Essential Questions
Standards Met
Texts & Other Sources
Evidence of
differentiated
instruction/strategies
Formative
Assessments
Summative
Assessments
308
Meeting Agendas and Minutes
Type of Meeting
(Faculty, Dept., PLC,
SLC, Grade Level,
Special Program, Etc.)
& Date
Attendance
Facilitator
Focus Areas of
Meeting
Decisions made
regarding or impacting
teacher instruction and
practices
Decisions made
regarding or impacting
student access and
achievement
Decisions made
regarding or impacting
the school’s
organizational
structures
Decisions made
regarding or impacting
the school’s
stakeholders (parents,
district level
personnel, community,
students, etc)
309
Single Plan for Student Achievement
Comprehensive
Needs Assessment
API Data
AYP Data
Standardized
test data
AMAO’s
District
Assessments
Other Findings
Achievement
Goals for
Students
Reading/Writing: Math:
Plan for Student
Achievement
Measures 1 - 6
310
APPENDIX K: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
____pre ____post
Research Question #3: How does an urban school principal create (and sustain)
organizational structures (climate) and processes that promote effective teacher
practices and improve student outcomes?
1. Content: According to the teacher, the purpose of this lesson was. What is
the activity being observed? Who are the participants?
2. Strategies: How are the participants being observed
learning/participating/applying skills, knowledge and concepts? What are
they doing?
3. Alignment: Design of the lesson was reflective of best practices and
consistent with the Professional Development training that staff has received.
The instructional strategies and activities reflected attention to issues of
access, equity, and diversity for students.
Adapted from California Network of School Leadership Coaches 2007-2008 New
Teacher Center at University of California of Santa Cruz.
311
APPENDIX L: LETTER OF SUPPORT
312
APPENDIX M: RECRUITMENT LETTER #1
313
APPENDIX N: PRINCIPAL RECRUITMENT LETTER
314
APPENDIX O: THE PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE VAL-ED
315
316
317
APPENDIX P: DISTRICT EDUCATION PLAN GOALS
318
319
320
APPENDIX Q: NCEA PROGRESS REPORT 2009
321
322
APPENDIX R: CASE STUDY ONE: INFORMED CONSENT LETTERS
323
324
325
APPENDIX S: CASE STUDY ONE: FALL 2009 PRINCIPAL SURVEY REPORT
326
327
328
329
330
APPENDIX T: CASE STUDY ONE: MISSION AND VISION STATEMENT
331
APPENDIX U: CASE STUDY ONE: SCORECARD OVERVIEW
332
APPENDIX V: CASE STUDY ONE: SCHOOL PLAN
333
334
335
APPENDIX W: CASE STUDY ONE: DISCIPLINARY LITERACY
GRAPHIC ORGANIZER
336
APPENDIX X: CASE STUDY ONE: PLANNING SCHEDULE
337
APPENDIX Y: CASE STUDY ONE: MEETING AGENDAS
338
339
APPENDIX Z: CASE STUDY ONE: SIX WEEKS COMMON ASSESSMENT
340
APPENDIX AA: CASE STUDY ONE: OBSERVATION WALK THROUGH
DOCUMENTATION FORM
341
342
APPENDIX BB: CASE STUDY ONE: MASTER SCHEDULE
343
344
APPENDIX CC: CASE STUDY ONE: PLC DISCUSSION GUIDE
345
APPENDIX DD: CASE STUDY ONE: PLC PLANNING TOOL
346
APPENDIX EE: CASE STUDY ONE: PRINCIPAL APPRAISAL SYSTEM
GUIDING CONFERENCE FEEDBACK FORM
347
348
APPENDIX FF: CASE STUDY TWO: INFORMED CONSENT LETTERS
349
350
351
APPENDIX GG: CASE STUDY TWO: FALL 2009 PRINCIPAL
SURVEY REPORT
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
APPENDIX HH: CASE STUDY TWO: SPRING 2010 PRINCIPAL
SURVEY REPORT
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
APPENDIX II: CASE STUDY TWO: MISSION AND VISION STATEMENT
366
APPENDIX JJ: CASE STUDY TWO: SCORECARD OVERVIEW
367
APPENDIX KK: CASE STUDY TWO: SCHOOL PLAN
368
APPENDIX LL: CASE STUDY TWO: MASTER SCHEDULE
Error!
369
APPENDIX MM: CASE STUDY TWO: OBSERVATION
WALK-THROUGH FORM
370
371
APPENDIX NN: CASE STUDY TWO: THINK THROUGH LESSON
PROTOCOL
372
373
APPENDIX OO: CASE STUDY TWO: GOAL SETTING FORM
374
375
APPENDIX PP: CASE STUDY TWO: WEEKLY BULLETINS
376
377
378
379
APPENDIX QQ: CASE STUDY TWO: TEAM MEETING AGENDAS
380
381
382
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this mixed-methods, purposive case study was to investigate the impact of participation in the Metropolitan ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (MPCI) on leadership practice. The MPCI is a district-wide executive leadership capacity building strategy, which combines the District’s standards-based leadership curriculum with a leadership coaching support structure for both novice and experienced principals to support their implementation of district-wide improvement initiatives. Principal leadership practices were studied in two K-5, urban elementary schools.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school
PDF
An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices
PDF
A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century
PDF
Preparing leaders for the urban school context: a case study analysis for effective leadership
PDF
Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context
PDF
Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative
PDF
The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement
PDF
The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals
PDF
An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors
PDF
Outperforming urban schools that are closing the achievement gap: a case study of Phoenix High School
PDF
K-12 public school district principals in California: strategies for preparation, recruitment, and retention
PDF
Building leadership capacity from the top: how superintendents empower principals to lead schools
PDF
Sustaining quality leadership at prep academy charter schools: promising practices for leadership development in public schools
PDF
Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
The role of the school district toward preparing students for the 21st century
PDF
The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals
PDF
Perceived factors for narrowing the achievement gap for minority students in urban schools: cultural norms, practices and programs
PDF
The 21st-century principal: the recruitment, mentoring, and retention of principals
Asset Metadata
Creator
Lee, Omaira Z.
(author)
Core Title
The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
06/24/2010
Defense Date
04/12/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Coaching,mentoring,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal leadership,principalship
Place Name
Texas
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Reed, Margaret (
committee chair
), Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee member
), Hocevar, Dennis J. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
olee@rcoe.us,ozlee24@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3155
Unique identifier
UC182934
Identifier
etd-Lee-3934 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-359310 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3155 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Lee-3934.pdf
Dmrecord
359310
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Lee, Omaira Z.
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
mentoring
principal leadership
principalship