University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

(USC Thesis Other)

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SYSTEMIC CHANGE AND THE SYSTEM LEADER: A CASE STUDY OF
SUPERINTENDENT ACTION TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN A
LARGE URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT

by

David E. Haglund

________________________________

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

May 2009

Copyright 2009 David E. Haglund

i

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my Dad, who – by his example – challenged
me to be better than I thought I could be, to work longer and harder than I thought
was required, and to never stop short of achieving a goal. Those lessons were never
fun and I know I was not always the most cooperative student. However, without
your persistent example, I could never have become the man I am today. I remember
all of the nights that you sat in the garage; working to complete your college
education, while struggling to raise a family. But, I also remember you taking breaks
each night, so that you could read us stories before we went to sleep. You taught me
to love reading. (And, Lord knows I never would have been able to pull off this
dissertation, had I not enjoyed reading.) More importantly, you taught me that some
things are worth the extra effort; some things set an example for those who come
behind us.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank all of those people who have
encouraged, challenged, and supported me throughout the doctoral program. I am
particularly grateful to Dr. Rudy Castruita, who served as my chair and mentor
during the past two years. Thank you also to Dr. David Marsh, my co-chair, and Dr.
Michael Escalante the third member of the committee that served to guide me
through this process. The scholarly wisdom and practical expertise represented on
the committee served to fuel my professional curiosity and push me to a level of
work beyond what I thought possible. Finally, to Dr. Susan Rainey, thank you for
believing in me and challenging me to take on this project. Your faith in me gave me
a footing for belief that I was capable of attaining this goal. I hope this work, and that
which I have the opportunity to accomplish in the field, represents a good return on
your investment and serves to make you all proud.
Thanks also to my immediate Trojan family - the Orange County weekenders
and the Marsh-Castruita thematic group. Your friendships and support will continue
to be a valued part of my life for years to come. I will miss our friendly debates and
classroom discussions. It has been a pleasure to work with each of you and I am
proud of what we have accomplished together. Special thanks to Lila, Roberto, Eimi,
and Liz for all of the phone calls, text messages, and email chats, and to my
Community College friends, Tricia, Al and Teresita for their insight and friendship.
You guys kept me on my toes and I enjoyed every minute of it…really. I look
iii

forward to our continued investment in one another, and the students we serve, over
many years to come.
Most importantly, I want to thank my family. To Tyler and Tobias: A father
could not be more proud of his sons. Your support, understanding, and
encouragement made all of the difference. Even so, I will do my best to make up for
the all of the missed time and opportunities sacrificed for this endeavor. To Mom and
Dad: Your continued support and friendship means the world to me. Had I listened to
you after high school, this process would have been long past us all. I was born to be
a Trojan. Better late than never, right? To Dale: Your friendship, energy, and time
have made this learning process productive and manageable. To Barbara: You have
long been a role model to me and someone whose life and mind I admire. I proudly
walk in your footsteps.
To each of you, and many more, I owe a debt of gratitude.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ……………………………………………………………… i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ………………………………………..………… ii
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………..…………… vii
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………… ix
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………… x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………. 1
Statement of the Problem …….…………………………………….. 13
Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………….. 15
Importance of the Study ……………………………………………. 16
Research Questions ………………………………………………… 16
Assumptions ………………………………………………………... 19
Limitations …………………………………………………………. 19
Delimitations ……………………………………………………….. 20
Definitions of Terms ……………………………………………….. 20
Organization of the Study ………………………………………….. 26

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……………..……… 27
Student Achievement Trends and Implications ……………………. 28
A Multinational Perspective ……………………………… 29
Student Performance in the United States ………………... 30
The Achievement Gap ……………………………………………... 31
No Child Left Behind and System Accountability ………………… 32
The District’s Role in Driving School Reform …………………….. 33
Focus on Teaching and Learning …………………………. 34
Developing Capacity ……………………………………... 35
Accountability Systems and Performance Management …. 36
Program Coherence ………………………………………. 37
A New Role for the System Leader ………………………………... 38
Leadership Matters ……………………………………….. 40
Leadership, System Coherence, and Sustainability ………………... 42
New Leadership Requires a New Skill Set ………………………… 45
The House Model ………………………………………… 46
Strategic Plan ……………………………………………... 47
Assessment ……………………………………………….. 48
Curriculum ………………………………………………... 49
Professional Development ………………………………... 51
v

HR Systems and Human Capital Management …………... 52
Finance and Budget ………………………………….…… 54
Communications ………………………………………….. 55
Governance and Board Relations ………………………… 56
Labor Relations and Contract Management ……………… 57
Family and Community Engagement …………………….. 58
A Crisis of Leadership ……………………………………………... 59
New Leaders, New Skill Set ……………………………… 60
Innovative Leadership Preparation Models ………………………... 62
University-based Leadership Preparation Programs ……... 63
Foundation and Leadership Preparation Academies ……... 65
Sources of Emergent Leadership …………………………………... 67
Conclusion …………………………………………………………. 68

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY …………………….. 71
Sampling Criteria and Process ……………………………………... 74
Selected District Profile …………………………………... 75
Description of School District / Key Players ……………... 75
Instrumentation …………………………………………………….. 82
Data Collection Instruments …………………………….... 88
Data Collection …………………………………………………….. 95
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………. 99
Viability and Reliability ………………………………….. 101
Summary …………………………………………………………… 106

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION ………. 103
Findings ……………………………………………………………. 103
District Background ………………………………………. 106
Background of the Superintendent ……………………….. 106
Condition of District at the Time of Superintendent’s
Arrival……………………………………………………... 107
The Entry Plan and Launching Strategies ………………... 112
Ten Key Reform Strategies ………………………………. 117
Other House Model Elements ………………………….…. 159
Discussion ………………………………………………………….. 167
Systemic Change and the System Leader ………………… 168
Capacity Building as a Theory of Action ………………… 173
All Eyes on the Classroom ……………………………….. 177
Summary……………………………………………………………. 179
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 180
Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………….. 180
Methodology ……………………………………………………….. 182
vi

Sample ……………………………………………………. 183
Data Collection and Analysis ………………………….…. 183
Selected Findings …………………………………………………... 186
Research Question #1 …………………………………….. 186
Research Question #1a …………………………………… 189
Research Question #1b …………………………………… 192
Research Question #1c …………………………………… 194
Conclusions ………………………………………………………… 195
Implications for Practice …………………………………………… 200
School and District Administrators ………………………. 201
Local Community Stakeholders and School Board
Members…………………………………………………... 202
Policy Makers and Superintendent Preparation Programs... 203
Recommendations for Future Research ……………………………. 204

REFERENCES …………………………………………………………..….. 206

APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………. 219
A: Superintendent Interview Guide ………………………………... 219
B: Key Player Interview Guide …………………………………….. 221
C: Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide ………………. 222
D: Quality Rubrics …………………………………………………. 228
E: Implementation Rubric ………………………………………….. 248

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Relationship of Research Questions to Data Collection Instruments.. 88
Table 2: Data Collection Activities ………………………………………..…. 97
Table 3: Demographics of Eastern Seaboard Public School Student………… 105
Table 4: Strengths in Eastern Seaboard Public Schools Upon Arrival ………. 109
Table 5: Challenges in Eastern Seaboard Public Schools Upon Arrival ……... 111
Table 6: Reform / Launching Strategies Leveraged in Eastern Seaboard ……. 114
Table 7: Rubric Ratings of House Model Reform Strategies ………….……... 120
Table 8: Rubric Scoring of Strategic Plan …………………………….…….... 120
Table 9: Addressing Change in Strategic Plan ……………………………….. 123
Table 10: Strategic Plan Rating by Rubric Component ……………………… 123
Table 11: Rubric Scoring of Assessment …………………………………….. 124
Table 12: Addressing Change in Assessment …………………...…………… 125
Table 13: Assessment Rating by Rubric Component ……………...…………. 127
Table 14: Rubric Scoring of Curriculum …………………………...………… 128
Table 15: Addressing Change in Curriculum ………………………………… 129
Table 16: Curriculum Rating by Rubric Component ………………………… 131
Table 17: Rubric Scoring of Professional Development ……………………... 132
Table 18: Addressing Change in Professional Development ………………… 133
Table 19: Professional Development Rating by Rubric Component ………… 135
Table 20: Rubric Scoring of HR System and Human Capital Management …. 136
viii

Table 21: Addressing Change in HR System and Human Capital
Management………………………………………………………... 138
Table 22: HR System and Human Capital Management Rating by Rubric
Component …………………………………………………………

140
Table 23: Rubric Scoring of Finance and Budget ……………………………. 141
Table 24: Addressing Change in Finance and Budget ……………………….. 142
Table 25: Finance and Budget Rating by Rubric Component …………...…… 143
Table 26: Rubric Scoring of Communications ……………………………….. 144
Table 27: Addressing Change in Communications …………………………... 145
Table 28: Communications Rating by Rubric Component …………………... 147
Table 29: Rubric Scoring of Governance and Board Relations ……………… 147
Table 30: Addressing Change in Governance and Board Relations …………. 149
Table 31: Governance and Board Relations Rating by Rubric Component ….. 152
Table 32: Rubric Scoring of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations …… 153
Table 33: Addressing Change in Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations... 154
Table 34: Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations Rating by Rubric
Component ………………………………………………………… 155
Table 35: Rubric Scoring of Family and Community Engagement ………….. 156
Table 36: Addressing Change in Family and Community Engagement ……... 157
Table 37: Family and Community Engagement Rating by Rubric Component 158
ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Characteristics of Improved School Districts ……………………. 43
Figure 2: The PELP Coherence Framework ……………………………….. 44
Figure 3: The House Model ………………………………………………... 82
Figure 4: The House Model ………………………………………………... 118
Figure 5: System Coherence Model ……………………………………….. 170
Figure 6: Systemic Change in Eastern Seaboard …………………………... 172
Figure 7: The Role of Data as a Driver of Change ………………………… 178
Figure 8: Creating a Culture of Change ……………………………………. 191

Figure 9: The Continuous Improvement Model …………………………… 200
x

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify the actions large urban school
district superintendents take to leverage systemic change designed to positively
impact student achievement. The study explored the entry of one superintendent into
a large urban school district. This analytical case study focused on ten specific
reform strategies, in order to determine how superintendent action impacted levels of
quality and implementation. One research question and three subquestions inquired
into the strengths and challenges of the district, how district characteristics related to
the development of a strategic plan of entry, how the superintendent determined
specific actions to be taken to initiate systemic reform to improve student
achievement, and how those choices related to the unique context of the district and
their own personal and professional background.
Data indicate that large urban school district leaders effectively deploy
reform strategies designed to impact student academic performance by aligning the
goals of the district to the activities taking place within the work and learning
environments throughout the system. Establishing clear and consequential linkages
between the district vision and action builds system coherence and allows for
effective, systemic capacity building. Three overarching strategies were identified as
essential to the change process, when advocated by the system leader. These include;
ensuring equity of resources to all schools and students; practicing effective hiring,
training and retention practices; and, ongoing strategic planning that both informs
and directs district action.
xi

As the superintendency transitions from a managerial-focused position to one
responsible for instructional leadership, it is critical that system leaders have both the
skill set and knowledge base necessary to direct multi-dimensional, district-wide
action towards a single objective: improving student achievement. The findings and
conclusions from this study can provide instructive guidance to those responsible for
student achievement, as well as those who are vested in the outcomes of public
education. Future research is warranted that incorporates a quantitative review of
student achievement data in relation to the efforts for systemic reform, in order to
provide a more robust analysis of the various reform strategies and establish a
statistical relationship between district action and student learning.
1

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
A convergence of pressures including the demand for higher levels of student
performance, related concerns about America’s ability to compete in a global
economy, and the rise of rigorous accountability measures have pushed school
systems towards significant changes in how they do business. The roots of current
school accountability efforts can be traced to numerous Federal laws designed to
exert pressure on the states to increase student academic achievement. Beginning
with the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and extending through the civil rights legislation
of the 1960’s and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the
Congress of the United States has moved to ensure a quality education for all
students (Elmore & Fuhrman, 1990; EdSource, 2004). As the nation developed an
awareness of and responsiveness towards the needs of all students, the federal
government established a foothold in an area of policy previously left to the states.
The demand for higher levels of accountability for student learning gained
nationwide prominence in 1983, when the Ronald Reagan administration published a
landmark report titled A Nation at Risk. In this report, the members of the National
Commission on Excellence (NCE) constructed a foreboding narrative regarding the
relationship between public school outcomes and the nation’s economic and political
security. The foundation for the current national push for educational accountability
finds its roots in the NCE report and the national drive to maintain global
competitiveness. Since that time, the goal of improving public educational outcomes
2

has held a dominant position in the socio-political arena in the United States. A
subsequent National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) report titled
Tough Choices or Tough Times confirms research that ties student achievement to
both individual wage earning capacity and the strength of the national workforce
(Friedman, 2005; National Council on Education and the Economy, 2007; Ruzzi,
2006).
As schools across the country face increased pressures relating to
accountability, the federal government wrestles the implications of student
performance from a more global perspective. America ranks as one of the most
economically developed countries in the world and belongs to a consortium of
industrialized nations (The United States, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom,
France, Germany, Italy, and Russia) commonly referred to as the G8 or Group of
Eight. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provides international
student achievement comparisons with data compiled from three international
assessment surveys: the Indicators of National Educational Systems (INES) project,
the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), and the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS). Underperformance of
American students, as compared to their peers in other G8 nations, is demonstrated
by indicators relating to math and reading achievement. German, French, Japanese,
and Canadian students outperformed 15 year olds in the United States in both math
and reading (Ruzzi, 2006). The United States also was found to have the 3
rd
largest
achievement gap when comparing the wealthiest and poorest students; a gap of 82
3

points. Only France (88 points) and Germany (102 points) had wider gaps than
American students of poverty (Miller, Sen, & Malley, 2007). The United States has
much at stake in a global economy where student achievement is linked to worker
productivity and wage earning capacity.
The Clinton Administration structured the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA to
require states to implement a standards-based educational program that was
accessible to all students and evidenced by performance in standardized testing. In
the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, more commonly known as No Child Left Behind
(NCLB), the Bush Administration and Congress incorporated accountability
measures (benchmarks and sanctions) designed to ensure all students were receiving
equal benefit from a standards-based education. The bill requires evidence that all
students demonstrate grade-level proficiency in language arts and math by the year
2014. The structure of NCLB incorporates several cornerstone concepts that include,
increased local control and flexibility, focus on research-based programming,
expanded parental choice, and public accountability for results (EdSource, 2004;
California Department of Education, 2007e; EdSource, 2007).
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was conceived in
1969 and represents the genesis of congressionally mandated accountability
processes. The NAEP is published every four years by the United Stated Department
of Education and has tracked trends in student achievement in reading and math for
student in grades 4, 8, and 12 since the early 1970s (Perie, Moran, & Lutkas, 2005).
Modifications to the assessments in 1984 by the Educational Testing Service (ETS)
4

expanded the scope of the report to include science data, establishing the NAEP’s
reputation as the nation’s unofficial report card. The NAEP data has provided a point
of analysis through which researchers have drawn comparisons between performance
levels of various student groups and districts and has provided evidence regarding
the role played by poverty in student academic achievement.
Two of the key initial findings of the 1971 NAEP report, which were
sustained through 1999, center on the achievement gaps between white and minority
students and the role played by poverty in student academic achievement. Although
the achievement scores of minority student have risen significantly since 1971, the
gap between those students and their white peers remains. This same gap was
evidenced in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) where the United States demonstrated the third largest achievement gap
between students of poverty and their non-impoverished peers (82 points) as
compared to the world’s eighth largest economic superpowers (Miller, Sen, &
O’Malley, 2007). This trend data is important for urban school districts where
continuously shifting residential patterns have resulted in large districts where 60%
or more of students live in poverty and over 70% represent minority populations
(Elmore & Fuhrman, 1990; Quinn, 2007). Clearly, raising the academic achievement
of all students is a key national economic priority (Karoly & Panis, 2004; Friedman,
2005; NCEE, 2007; Ruzzi, 2006). Research suggests that the work of urban school
superintendents has specific implications for traditionally underserved student
5

populations these who are overrepresented in urban schools (Snipes, Williams,
Horwitz, Soga, & Casserly, 2007; Elmore & Fuhrman, 1990).
Several systemic factors have been identified as possible keys to driving
improved student academic performance in the face of challenges confronting large
urban school districts. Douglas Reeves (2000) studied schools that face high poverty
rates (90 percent or higher) and ethnic diversity (90 percent or higher), yet have
found success in supporting student academic success (90 percent met or exceeded
academic targets). Reeves’ work suggests that further research is warranted to
determine the effect of implementing specific change levers including, a school-wide
focus on individual student achievement, frequent assessment that is aligned to a
common curriculum, and increasing the collaborative efforts of staff that are
supported by sufficient resources in terms of time and money. The success evidenced
in these “90/90/90” schools suggests that, although the challenge faced by large
urban school systems is significant, it is not insurmountable.
While Reeves’ studies (2000 and 2005) demonstrates the role that school’s
play in raising academic achievement, questions remain as to how these activities
translate to district-wide success. Elmore and Burney (1999) hold that the district
plays an important role in driving reform, particularly in low performing schools.
Low performing schools benefit greatly from the programmatic support that a district
can provide in terms of instructional support and professional development (Elmore,
2003a). By advocating systemic programming and evidencing effective leadership,
the district leader is in a unique position to focus system resources on implementing
6

a coherent, system-wide program to raise student performance (Waters & Marzano,
2006; Reeves, 2000; Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006).
To improve student performance district-wide, school systems must develop
the professional capacity to address the needs of struggling learners, particularly in
large urban school districts where poverty and ethnic diversity place greater
challenges on the table (Education Data Partnership, 2007a). This is the clear
purpose of NCLB-related state accountability systems, which seek to raise student
achievement by improving the quality of schooling for all students. Carnoy and Loeb
(2002) provide evidence that students in states that have adopted strong
accountability systems have evidenced measured gains on the NAEP since 1999,
whereas students in states without strong measures have not evidenced similar gains.
That said, research indicates that accountability systems, in and of themselves, do not
promote academic achievement. Simply put, a State proclamation that a school
system is “failing” does nothing to change the reality. Without local funding and
programmatic adjustments, systemic change does not occur (Dorn, 1998; Elmore,
2003a).
Researchers are beginning to question how and where lasting reform is most
effectively leveraged and whether or not site leaders have the political clout to
navigate district hierarchies and secure the necessary funding to support systemic
change (Chrispeels, Gonzales, & Edge, 2006). These questions suggest that it is the
local school system – and not the State or individual school – that must assume long-
term responsibility for student performance. The emerging role of the district as the
7

agent of change raises questions about the role of the district superintendent;
specifically, how their actions impact student achievement. These potential variables
may include increasing responsibility for systematically defining teaching and
learning, acquiring and allocating human, fiscal, and physical resources towards
achieving system-wide objectives, creating local systems of accountability, and
developing the professional capacity of teachers and administrators (Childress et al,
2006, Johnson, 1996; Gilbert et al, 2002).
Recent educational reform efforts at the district level have centered on
accountability and refocused the primary role of the superintendent to driving and
sustaining student achievement (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006). A research team at
Harvard is studying the role of the system leader in taking instructional improvement
efforts to scale across a district. Their findings suggest that establishing program
coherence – an alignment between district instructional goals and resource allocation
– is a key component to the success of any system-wide strategic initiative (Odden &
Picus, 2008; Childress et al, 2006). The increasing complexity of the
superintendent’s work environment requires a differentiated ability to navigate areas
such as local governance, political power, and legislative agendas and mandates
(Childress, Elmore, Grossman & King, 2007). Research by Waters and Marzano
(2006) identifies the positive impact that effective district-level leadership can have
on student achievement. This meta-analysis of current research suggests that a
critical relationship exists between how a superintendent creates, implements, and
monitors instructional goals to how leaders work with elected school boards to
8

ensure alignment between those goals and how resources are allocated across the
district.
The job of the superintendent has become increasingly complex with the
advent of accountability measures that include punitive consequences for failing to
increase student achievement levels from year to year (Bjork, Kowalski, & Browne-
Ferrigno, 2005). Historically, school boards have called upon superintendents to
manage the centralized resources of the district and coordinate relationships with the
local community, while site leaders held responsibility for student academic progress
at each school. However, increasing accountability at the district level, including the
potential risk of sanctions against the Local Educational Agency (LEA) should
schools fail to meet targets, have forced superintendents to assume new roles;
including those of district instructional leader and champion of efforts to restructure
school and district programs (Eiter, 2002; Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham
Institute, 2003; Mojkowski & Bamberger, 1991). In one recent study, raising student
achievement was identified as the primary responsibility of superintendents by 41%
of school boards (Byrd et al, 2006).
The pressure on school districts in the age of accountability has radically
changed the political environment in which system leaders, professional educators,
elected school boards, and members of the community interact (Quinn, 2007; Bjork
et al, 2005). Urban superintendents report that their ability to implement academic
reform efforts are increasingly frustrated by issues related to district governance,
shifting State and Federal mandates, and relationships with teachers unions. (Fuller
9

et al, 2003). This dynamic environment demands a radically different leader than has
been called for in years past. This new reality brings to mind the work of Bolman
and Deal (1997) who stress the complexity of the environment in which leadership is
exerted and propose four frames of reference (structural, human resource, political,
and symbolic) through which successful leaders approach their work. Diverse school
systems wrestle with cultural, structural, political, and environmental forces that can
reinforce or inhibit strategic planning; calling for system leaders that understand the
educational, political, and managerial aspects of the job (Johnson, 1996).
The increasing pressure and complexity of the job has contributed to a high
rate of turnover among superintendents. A recent survey conducted by the American
Association of School Administrators (AASA) sampled 2,262 superintendents to
discover an average tenure of between 5-6 years. In large urban school districts, the
length of tenure drops to between 4 and 5 years (Byrd et al, 2006).The high turnover
and short tenure rates of district superintendents, particularly in large urban school
districts, suggests the need to consider the complicated skill set demanded of new
system leaders, as well as how those skills are developed and supported prior to entry
into the superintendency.
In their role as superintendent, new system leaders must possess a divergent
set of strategies from which to draw that can be aimed at altering the structure and
functionality of a district to positively affect student achievement. In point of fact,
research infers that one can determine whether or not a new leader will develop the
necessary momentum to achieve long-term success by monitoring the new
10

superintendent’s first 90 to 100 days in office (Watkins, 2004; Neely, Berube, &
Wilson, 2002). Leaders commonly use this time to obtain a firm grasp on
understanding the organization, as each district has a unique history and political
structure that will strongly influence which decisions are supported and how action
plans are implemented (Jentz & Murphy, 2005; Johnson, 1996). Much energy is
expended by new leaders into developing relationships with key stakeholders,
identifying key managers, setting standards and expectations, and establishing a
foundation for leadership (Neff & Citrin, 2005). Research supports the use of a
structured plan of entry by new leaders as a means for learning about the new
environment, about themselves as a leader, and providing an effective tool for
collective learning about the organization by the leadership team (Neely et al, 2002;
Jentz & Murphy, 2005).
The Broad Foundation has incorporated a strategic entry plan as one
component of their innovative urban school leader preparation program (Takata,
Marsh, & Castruita, 2007). The Broad Superintendent’s Academy incorporates
numerous research-based reform strategies into a conceptual framework called the
House Model, which serves as a structural support for the work of new urban school
superintendents. The House Model represents a 3-year strategic plan that focuses on
overarching areas of influence (or rooms of the house), which include, resource
allocation, instructional alignment, organizational effectiveness, and system
governance. The model also aligns specific reform strategies or dimensions of
reform to each area of influence; ten of which were identified as the key focus of this
11

study. This unique entry plan is implemented by the new Broad superintendents who
are supported by TBA mentors and other Broad Foundation resources (Broad
Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003; Takata et al, 2007). Since 2002,
TBA has placed both traditionally and non-traditionally prepared leaders into the
superintendency within twenty of the largest, most diverse and challenging urban
school districts in the country (The Broad Academy Website, 2007).
A debate continues amongst policymakers, scholars, and practitioner
associations as to how best prepare new superintendents for the increasingly complex
responsibility of managing large urban school districts. The changing political
climate surrounding school systems in the age of accountability has generated new
pressures, calling for new leadership skills and styles. Leadership preparation
programs have responded by rethinking how system leaders are trained as well as
identifying the pools from which potential candidates for these new, innovative
programs are sought. School systems are beginning to seek leaders from two cadres
of candidates; those who have risen through the ranks of school district employees
and those who have gained managerial experience in fields outside of education.
Most superintendents once served in the role of principal; an experience
which may provide insight into supervising effective instruction but does not
necessarily shape leaders who can develop a vision or lead a large organization under
heavy public scrutiny. Individuals who have risen to district leadership through
school-based routes receive training focused on learning theory and resource
management and often struggle with external pressures (Fuller et al, 2003). On the
12

other hand, leaders from outside of education bring a skill set that may better prepare
them to navigate the politically-charged environment brought about by increasing
levels of accountability. Research suggests that superintendents with work
experience outside of the educational field may be more comfortable dealing with
external criticism and therefore more likely to accept it at face value and challenge
the internal workings of the system for a response (Fuller et al, 2003; Broad
Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003).
It stands to reason that programs which provide pre-service and in-service
training for system leaders in large urban school districts must address these new
realities; including external pressure for raising academic achievement of all students
(Johnson, 1996). Educating School Leaders, a report published by the Education
School Project (Levine, 2005), established that there exists a lack of differentiation
between educational leadership programs that train site administrators and those
which prepare individuals seeking to assume district-level leadership positions. The
American Association of School Administrators concurred with the findings of the
report and called for closing the divide between what these programs teach and what
new leaders need to know (Levine & Dean, 2007). Research conducted by Fuller et
al (2003) suggests that superintendent training programs should be redesigned in
innovative ways to incorporate greater development of leadership and managerial
skills and actively recruit individuals who have evidenced strong political,
managerial, and leadership acuity.
13

Today’s superintendents face increasingly non-routine and complex problems
that are educational, managerial, and political in nature. New problems demand a
new skill set; including a broad knowledge-base, strong analytical skills, mastery of
research-based change strategies and increased hands-on application during training
(Bjork et al, 2005). Pre-service and in-service administrative credentialing and
advanced educational leadership degree programs are struggling to align themselves
to this shifting skill set and rethinking how potential new leaders are identified,
prepared, and placed in leadership positions (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, &
Garabedian, 2006; Bjork, Kowalski, & Young, 2005; Levine & Dean, 2007).
Researchers are just beginning look closely at programs that are introducing new
ideas into the leadership development schema (Dembo & Marsh, 2007; Walker,
Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2008; Shulman et al, 2006; Quinn, 2007;
Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003; Murphy & Vriesenga,
2006). One program – The Broad Academy (TBA) – has emerged from the research
as a model of innovation in leadership preparation that is having a positive impact on
the work of large urban school systems.
Statement of the Problem
Growing demands for accountability regarding student achievement has
changed the environment in which system leaders exert leadership and has
established consequential ties between the superintendent’s work plan and student
performance. While a significant amount of research has been conducted on system
leadership, there is much to be learned about how change is enacted by new urban
14

school district leaders in high-stakes accountability environments and how
superintendents are best prepared for leveraging the various dimensions of district
reform strategies toward improving academic achievement. Each district holds a
particular history, possesses distinctive strengths, and faces unique challenges, which
all shape how important decisions are agreed upon, implemented, and evaluated.
New system leaders must navigate these political, managerial, and educational
realities to determine the particular actions for initiating systemic change that will
positively impact student achievement.
Despite the increased difficulty of the job, research has shown that
superintendents can have a strong, positive impact on student achievement.
Considering the national push for higher levels of accountability, it is critical to
determine what effective urban school superintendents are doing to initiate systemic
change, what impact those decisions have had on student achievement, and how
specific choices made by superintendents are tied to the personal and professional
background of the leader. Research is also needed to determine how the unique
characteristics of a district support or inhibit the efforts of a new superintendent to
leverage change and how those decisions may or may not be tied to the preparation
of new superintendents. To that end, it is critical to understand the reform strategies
selected by effective urban school leaders and to determine how those choices are
related to the manner in which they were prepared for the job.

15

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the actions superintendents take to
initiate change and positively impact student achievement in large urban school
districts. Research has shown that there are many actions that a superintendent may
engage to drive change within a school system. However, this study focused on ten
actions (reform strategies) to determine how a superintendent’s action, including
levels of quality and implementation, relates to improved student achievement. This
study built upon the Phase I study conducted by Takata, Marsh, and Castruita (2007),
which sought to compare the actions taken by large urban school superintendents to
initiate change related to raising student achievement. Consistent with the Phase I
study, this study used the House Model as a conceptual framework to understand
how the unique context of the district may influence new leaders in terms of ten key
reform strategies they engage upon entry into the role of superintendent.
The study explored the entry of one superintendent into a large urban school
district, including how they assessed the strengths and weaknesses of their district,
how district characteristics related to the development of a strategic entry plan, how
the superintendent determined the specific actions to be taken to initiate reform
strategies that lead to improved student achievement, and how those choices relate to
the unique context of the new district and their own personal and professional
background.

16

Research Questions
1. How are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban school
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective
district?
a) How does the quality and implementation of ten key reform
strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district
when the superintendent took office?
b) What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do
they correspond to the elements of the House Model?
c) How does the choice and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of
the superintendent?
Importance of the Study
This study clarified the factors that contribute to the effectiveness of a
superintendent’s efforts to raise student achievement by identifying the reform
strategies selected by system leaders to improve student performance and
considering how an individual’s personal and professional background and
preparation impacts these choices. By examining the actions taken by one urban
school district superintendent, others will gain insight and understanding of the role
that training and background contribute to system leadership. Therefore, this study
has importance to school and district administrators, local community leaders,
leadership preparation programs, educational researchers, and policymakers.
17

School and district administrators bear the burden of assuring the local
community that schools are appropriately engaged in the difficult work of reform,
leading to the improved academic performance of all students. As high-stakes testing
and accountability systems increase pressure on districts through sanctions for poor
student performance, the role of superintendent has shifted from resource manager to
instructional leader. Without a thorough understanding as to how specific actions
taken by system leaders that are most closely tied to improved student achievement,
superintendents are unlikely to find success. Districts that have found success in
narrowing achievement gaps and raising student achievement can provide important
lessons as they serve to model proven change strategies. This study illuminates the
specific actions taken by effective system leaders to shape the district reform strategy
to enhance student performance and therefore serves to inform the actions of others.
Local community members rely on the schools to find success with students
of all ages and produce graduates that will contribute back to the economy. Parents,
business owners, and others rely on the local school system for the education,
enculturation, and socialization of children, despite a lack of sufficient resources and
inability to control the negative effects of societal ills evidenced in the local
community. Elected leaders, including city council members, mayors, and school
board members are subject to the public with regards to the level of success
evidenced by children in the school system. Various local officials face public
pressure to act when there is dissatisfaction with levels of student achievement.
Although removed from the school setting, these local stakeholders will benefit from
18

a more sophisticated understanding of the role they play in the process and how their
actions support or hinder shared goal attainment. Likewise, policymakers at the state
and federal levels are striving to improve student achievement through high-stakes
accountability systems. A deeper understanding and appreciation for the role that the
system leader plays in the process may result in legislation that affirms an informed
position of advocacy relating to how superintendents are best prepared for
leadership.
Shifting political realities have driven changes in the professional capacities
that are required of superintendents to experience success on the job. Organizations
responsible for providing pre-service training and certification of system leaders
need to know how change levers are utilized by effective urban superintendents to
improve student academic performance. Leadership preparation programs, be they
university-based certification and advanced degree programs or innovative leader
preparation programs such as the Urban School Leadership Institute, strive to align
to the needs of individual participants as they relate to the changing demands of the
job. The findings of this study will add to the field of knowledge regarding the
practice of effective system leadership in an age of high accountability. The study
provides similar benefit to educational researchers who continually search for
demonstrated accounts of effective or “best” practices in the field. The findings will
serve to refine the relevant frame of inquiry and clarify a conceptual framework
through which further research will be enhanced.

19

Assumptions
This study assumed a direct relationship between the actions taken by a
superintendent and student achievement in large urban school districts. It further
assumed that the system leader is held accountable for increasing student
achievement throughout the district. The conceptual framework that informed this
study evolved from a thorough review of the scholarly literature and informed the
selection of data collection tools and procedures. It was assumed that these tools and
processes provided valid information and that the information provided by
individuals was credible and truthful.
Limitations
There were limited resources and time available to support this analysis;
therefore, focus was restricted one case study. The data for this study was collected
via interviews, surveys, and questionnaires, during June of 2008. One, two-day site
visit was made to the Eastern Seaboard Public School District for the purpose of
conducting interviews and collecting related artifacts. The small sample size and
qualitative nature of the study limit generalizing the findings outside of the specific
districts involved. As is common to qualitative research, analysis of interview data is
subject to the interpretation by the researcher. Although every effort was made to
prevent researcher bias through triangulation of data and by adhering to specific
conceptual frameworks founded in the literature; there were no true controls for
preconceived biases present in study participants.

20

Delimitations
Taking into consideration the above referenced limitations, the structure of
this study was an analytical case study of one large urban school district
superintendent. Specific attention was paid to the ten key reform strategies
implemented by the system leader in efforts to leverage district efforts to improve
student achievement. The criteria used to select the case study district included:
1. District must be identified from the largest 125 school systems in the
United States;
2. The superintendent must have been in office since 2006 or earlier; and,
3. The superintendent must have graduated from the Urban School
Leadership Institute.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms were operationally defined
as specified below:
Accountability: Accountability refers to the obligation for schools to produce
improvements in student academic achievement. A system designed to hold districts,
schools, and/or students responsible for academic performance. Accountability
systems typically consist of assessments, public reporting of results, and rewards or
sanctions based upon student performance over time.
Achievement gap: A term that refers to the observed difference in educational
performance measures between groups of students defined by race/ethnicity, gender,
and socioeconomic status.
21

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Federal indicator of annual progress
towards the goal of grade-level proficiency for all students that is required by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The NCLB law requires districts to pay attention to
the performance levels of all students by sub group (e.g., grade, sex, special program
status, and ethnicity). Districts must make annual progress towards the goal of 100
percent proficient by 2014.
Assessment: Assessment activities enable districts to know whether students
are learning what they are supposed to learn (i.e., the standards). Common, regularly-
scheduled district-wide assessments should connect directly with standards, the
curriculum, pacing guides, and professional development.
Capacity: The ability to flexibly respond to external demands in order to
translate high standards into effective instruction and strong student performance that
was comprised of both qualitative and quantitative factors residing within structures,
processes, and relationships.
Central office: Term used interchangeably with district office, typically
referring to the location of the senior management (e.g., superintendent, cabinet,
divisional directors) and their support staff.
Coherence: Alignment between institutional goals and objectives to
allocation of resources across the system.
Communication: Communication of great stories in the district must be
shared. The development of a public relations or communications office staffed with
22

experts on dealing with the media can enable the district to communicate its vision to
the public or proactively build support for an important initiative.
Conceptual framework: A comprehensive and consistent application of
thought, represented by an integration of research literature, theoretical constructs,
and other pertinent information, which provides a basis for collecting, analyzing, and
reporting the findings of data.
Curriculum: Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach, including
classroom materials such as textbooks, worksheets, pacing guides, etc. They should
address the scope and sequence of the district’s learning standards.
Family and Community Engagement: Family and community engagement
offer the district multiple opportunities for all stakeholders to interact with the
district, from volunteering to partnering with local organizations in support of
student success. Many districts take surveys of parents of students and the
community in general to determine how they view the district and what priorities for
improvement are. Surveys should be closely linked to the district’s performance
management system and data dashboard. Increasing stakeholder satisfaction can
lead to greater support for funding measures, significantly increasing its financial
resources.
Finance and Budget: The finance and budgeting functions of a district should
be in alignment with instructional priorities as well as balanced and sustainable.
Some successful district’s have adopted innovative budgeting approaches such as
23

“zero-based budgeting” and weighted students funding to bring their budgets into
closer alignment with their priorities.
Governance and Board Relations: The area of governance and board
relations is critical since most districts are governed by boards elected from the local
population; others answer to appointed boards. The school board is responsible for
setting policy direction for the district; superintendents can take a supporting role in
developing policy but are mainly charged with executing it. Winning the support of
the board is time consuming but a critical task for superintendents.
House Model: A conceptual framework developed by the Broad Academy
staff, providing a visual representation of the reform model that is used by The Broad
Academy in its training session and curriculum. The House Model incorporates four
key components including, resource allocation, instructional alignment,
organizational effectiveness, and system governance.
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management: Human resource
(HR) system and human capital management research indicates that teacher quality
is a primary influence on student achievement. Effective districts do a good job in
attracting, selecting, and managing talent at the teacher, principal or district office
level. Improving the recruiting and hiring processes for personnel, developing
attractive compensation packages, and streamlining the process of applications and
payments are evidence of a good HR system.
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations: The area of labor relations and
contract negotiations presents the superintendent the opportunity to build
24

relationships and negotiate with several unions to which various staff belongs.
Success in working with unions requires an upfront investment in building
relationships and understanding the priorities of union leaders. The content of the
contract also requires close attention. Contract language can restrict or expand the
superintendent’s options for replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly
crucial with teacher contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant
influences on student achievement.
Large urban School District: As defined by the Urban School Leadership
Foundation, a large urban school district is defined by student enrollment. The
largest 125 districts are considered to belong within this category.
Professional Development: Professional development is any program or
course intended to improve teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness. Successful
districts have an integrated professional development strategy that centers on
enabling teachers to detect when students aren’t meeting a certain standards and to
adjust their instruction accordingly, or enables principals and teachers to improve
their knowledge and skills in areas of district focus.
Reform Strategies: Reform strategies include numerous actions and processes
utilized by system leaders to initiate and sustain systemic change.
Sanctions: In accountability systems, the consequences imposed upon an
individual or system for not meeting identified performance outcomes.
Standards: Standards describe the learning goals for a particular subject area,
at a particular grade level.
25

Standardized test: An assessment that is administered and scored with
uniform procedures to ensure consistency for all students. The test is designed to
measure specific skills and knowledge.
Strategic plan: The Strategic Plan defines the district’s mission, goals, and
vision. It also assigns performance indicators and work plans to each of the district’s
primary goals and serves as the guiding document for the district decisions and
priorities.
Subgroup: A homogeneous group as defined by race/ethnicity, language
proficiency, gender, socioeconomic status, or special program.
Sustainability: Sustainability refers to the goal of long-term district reform
that retains a permanent focus on student achievement beyond the success of initial
gains.
System leader: The term system leader refers to the superintendent of a
school district.
Systemic reform: Coherent change that occurs throughout all aspects and
levels of the educational institution, impacting and requiring the involvement of all
stakeholders.
Urban School leadership Institute (USLI): An innovative school system
leadership program, which is funded by the Urban School Leadership Foundation
(USLF). The 10 month Superintendents Institute provides an intensive training
regimen designed to prepare senior executives from business, non-profit, military,
government, and education backgrounds to lead urban public school systems.
26

Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of this dissertation began with an introduction to the study, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions to be
answered, a statement regarding the importance of the study, the assumptions, the
limitations, the delimitations, and a listing of operational definitions for key terms. A
review of the relevant literature comprised Chapter 2 and addressed the following
topics: The impact of accountability systems, the relationship between student
performance and the local school system, the role system leaders play in improving
student performance, the strategies used by new superintendents, and how
superintendents are trained in relation to their role in improving student performance.
Chapter 3 presented the research methodology used in the study, the reasons for
interest in the study, the rationale for how participants were selected, as well as the
overall design and relevant background of the study. In Chapter 4, the findings of the
study were presented along with analysis and discussion of the data. Chapter 5
presented a summary of the study and proposed possible implications for practice as
well as recommendations for further research. References and relevant appendices
follow.

27

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Much of the recent research on school effectiveness focuses on a
convergence of pressures relating to the demand for improved student performance
and the rise of accountability measures, which have pushed school systems towards
significant changes in how they do business. The roots of current school
accountability can be found in several Federal laws enacted to pressure school
systems and state departments of education to address issues pertaining to low levels
of student academic achievement. From the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 through the
civil rights legislation of the 1960’s and to the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965 and its subsequent reiterations, the Congress of the United
States has taken steps to ensure a quality education for all students (Elmore &
Fuhrman, 1990; EdSource, 2004).
A review of the research relevant to this study identified several distinct areas
of concern. First, it was important to understand the status of academic achievement
in American public schools; this would include the relationship between academic
achievement and social and economic stability and the role that race and
socioeconomic status plays in the achievement of school children attending large
urban school systems. This perspective provided a more comprehensive
understanding of the particular needs presented by learners in these settings, as well
as the special issues superintendents must consider if they hope to positively impact
learning in an urban environment. Secondly, research was consulted that spoke to the
28

systemic role that a school district has in improving student achievement. Due to the
shifting accountability from the states to districts, it is imperative to know the
leverage that central office staff and strategies they implement can exert on the work
in classrooms. Finally, a review of research pertaining to the role of the system
leader was completed, including how they are prepared for the job and which
strategies that they select to drive change throughout a large organization. It is
important to note that without establishing linkages between superintendent action
and relevant, scholarly research, any study describing these actions would prove less
than helpful in supporting the work of urban school leaders and institutions that
prepare them.
Student Achievement Trends and Implications
The demand for higher levels of educational accountability gained
nationwide prominence in 1983, when the Reagan administration published A Nation
at Risk. In this landmark educational report, the National Commission on Excellence
(NCE) constructed a striking description of the relationship between public school
outcomes and the economic and political security of the United States in years to
come. It has been argued that the foundation for the current national focus on
educational accountability is the NCE report and that the ideas contained therein
serve as the thrust promoting the effective schools movement as a key to ongoing
global competitiveness. Since the NCE report was released, the focus of improving
public educational outcomes has held an increasingly dominant role in the socio-
political dialogue in the United States. A subsequent National Center on Education
29

and the Economy (NCEE) report titled Tough Choices or Tough Times confirms the
findings of scholarly research tying student achievement to both individual wages
and the composite strength of the national workforce (Friedman, 2005; NCEE, 2007;
Ruzzi, 2005). The United States has much at stake in a global economy where
student achievement is linked to worker productivity and wage earning capacity. As
schools across the country face increased pressures relating to educational
accountability measures, the federal government wrestles the implications of student
performance from a global competitiveness perspective.
A Multinational Perspective
The United States remains one of the most economically developed countries
in the world and belongs to a consortium of industrialized nations known as the G8
or Group of Eight. This economic roundtable includes the United States, Canada,
Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia as active members.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2005) provides international
student achievement comparisons between G8 nations, utilizing data compiled from
three international assessment surveys: the Indicators of National Educational
Systems (INES) project, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA),
and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS).
Underperformance of American students, as compared to their peers in other G8
nations, is demonstrated by indicators relating to math and reading achievement. For
example, German, French, Japanese, and Canadian students outperformed American
15 year olds in both math and reading (Ruzzi, 2006). The United States also
30

supports the 3
rd
largest achievement gap (82 points), when comparing the wealthiest
and poorest students. Only France (88 points) and Germany (102 points) had wider
gaps than students of poverty in the United States (Miller, Sen, & Malley, 2007).
Student Performance in the United States
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was initiated in
1969 and marks the beginning of congressional mandates regarding accountability
for student academic achievement. The NAEP, published every four years by the
United Stated Department of Education, tracks student achievement in reading and
math in grades 4, 8, and 12 and has monitored trend data since the early 1970s
(Perie, Moran, & Lutkas, 2005). Modifications to the assessments in 1984 expanded
the scope of the report to include science data, allow for comparison between student
cohorts, and established foundational data for monitoring student growth across time.
For example, in the 2004 NAEP report, the percentage of 9-year-olds reading at the
advanced level (a score of 350 or more on a 500 point scale) grew by 4 percent
between 1972 and 2004. Students aged 13 demonstrated a growth of 3% during the
same time period. However, the advanced reading scores of 17-year-old students
have dropped 1 percent, from 7 percent to 6 percent, since 1972 (NCES, 2005). The
reading score drop-off on the NAEP was one of several concerns addressed in the
EdTrust report, Stalled in Secondary: A Look at Student Achievement Since the No
Child Left Behind Act (2005). The NAEP data has also provided a point of analysis
through which researchers have drawn comparisons between performance levels of
31

various student groups and districts; documenting the relationship between poverty
and student academic achievement in the United States.
The Achievement Gap
Two key findings in the 1971 NAEP report, which were sustained through
1999, center on the achievement gap between white and minority students and the
role poverty plays in student academic achievement. Although achievement scores of
minority student have risen significantly since 1971, the gap between minority
students and students of poverty and their white peers is persistent and has proven
difficult to overcome. The same gaps were evident in the 2003 Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), where data demonstrated the
third highest achievement gap between American students of poverty and their non-
impoverished peers (82 points) as compared to students in other G8 countries
(Miller, Sen, & O’Malley, 2007). This trend data is particularly relevant to urban
school systems where socio-cultural and economic realities have produced large
districts in which poverty and minority rates between 60-70 percent are
commonplace (Elmore & Fuhrman, 1990; Quinn, 2007). The research is clear; in
these environments, raising the academic achievement of all students is a key
national economic priority (Karoly & Panis, 2004; Friedman, 2005; National Center
on Education and the Economy, 2007; Ruzzi, 2005). The work of large urban school
districts and superintendents has specific and consequential implications for
traditionally underserved student populations who are over-represented in urban
32

schools (Snipes, Williams, Horwitz, Soga, & Casserly, 2007; Elmore & Fuhrman,
1990).
No Child Left Behind and Systemic Accountability
This awareness of and subsequent responsiveness towards the needs of all
students, has resulted in the federal government establishing a foothold in an area of
policy (local education) previously left to the states. In 1994, the Clinton
reauthorization of the ESEA required states, as a condition to receive funding, to
implement a standards-based educational program; one that was accessible to all
students and measured for effectiveness by student performance on standardized
tests. In the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB),
the Bush Administration incorporated enhanced accountability measures, including
penalties for school and district underperformance. The bill requires evidence that all
students demonstrate grade-level proficiency in language arts and math by the year
2014. These national benchmarks, and the subsequent sanctions for failing to achieve
them, were designed to ensure all students received equal benefit from a standards-
based education. The structure of NCLB incorporates several cornerstone concepts
that include, increased local control and flexibility, focus on research-based
programming, expanded parental choice, and public accountability for results
(EdSource, 2004; California Department of Education, 2007a; EdSource, 2007).
Several systemic factors have been identified in the research as possible keys
to improved student academic performance in face of daunting challenges
confronting large urban school districts. Douglas Reeves (2000) studied schools with
33

high rates of poverty (90 percent or higher) and ethnic diversity (90 percent or
higher), yet have found a 90 percent success rate (the number of students meeting or
exceeding academic targets). These successful school programs were termed
“90/90/90” schools, reflecting their evident success with raising academic
achievement, despite high rates of poverty and ethnic diversity. Reeves’ work
suggests that further research is warranted to determine the effect of implementing
specific reform strategies, including a school-wide focus on individual student
achievement, frequent assessment that is aligned to a common curriculum, and
increasing the collaborative efforts of staff by providing sufficient resources in terms
of time and money. The success evidenced in these schools suggests that, although
the challenge faced by large urban school systems is significant, it is not
insurmountable. What is limited, in terms of examples in the literature, are cases in
which this level of success has been taken to scale; driving change across a large
urban school district.
The District’s Role in Driving School Reform
While Reeves’ studies (2000 and 2005) demonstrate the role that school’s
play in improving academic achievement, questions remain as to how these activities
might translate to district-wide efforts to reform practice. Elmore and Burney (1999)
suggest that the district plays an important role in driving reform, particularly with
regards to supporting the work at low performing schools. Underperforming schools
benefit greatly from the programmatic scaffolding that districts can provide,
particularly with regards to instructional support and professional development
34

(Elmore, 2003a; MacIver & Farley, 2003). This suggests that lasting reform is most
effectively leveraged when site leaders have the political clout to navigate district
hierarchies and secure the necessary funding to support systemic change (Childress
et al, 2006; Anderson, 2003; Chrispeels, Gonzales & Edge, 2006). It is the local
school system, as opposed to the State or individual school, which must assume
long-term responsibility for student performance.
The challenge for district leaders is to build momentum for change within
both the structure and culture or the organization so that individuals embrace the
value of accountability and are willing to stand up to public scrutiny. The literature
identifies four, broad areas of focus that support efforts to bring and sustain change
across an entire school system (Gilbert et al, 2002; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003).
These include focusing on the work in classrooms, building the capacity of teachers
to teach and administrators to monitor performance, and ensuring program coherence
from the classroom to the board room.
Focus on Teaching and Learning
The clear purpose of NCLB-related state accountability systems is to raise
student achievement by improving the quality of schooling for all students (CDE,
2007). While student achievement is the central work of classroom teachers,
academic improvement within a district context requires an articulated strategy for
improving instruction that is supported by all of the organizations resources
(Childress et al, 2006; Anderson, 2003). Anderson (2003) suggests that district-level
personnel can leverage powerful influence over which instructional pedagogy is
35

favored and implemented across the system, promoting a sense of coherence in the
instructional environment, or confusion where district engagement is inconsistent or
limited. In these cases, the lack of instructional coherence between classrooms or
across school sites presents a challenge to a district’s efforts to develop the
professional skills of teachers and principals (Anderson, 2003; Chatterji, 2002).
Developing Capacity
Instructional coherence finds its foundation in the instructional capacity of
the teacher and leadership capacity of the principal and district-level administrators
(American Institute for Research, 2003; Byrd, Drews & Johnson, 2006). Successful
districts focus their attention on articulating a system-wide vision for raising
academic achievement through improved instruction and guaranteed access to a
viable curriculum (Laboratory for Student Success, 2002; Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollack, 2001). These instructional improvements are most effectively leveraged in
districts that: 1) identify people that know the action steps that need to be taken; 2)
develop the skills of all people in the organization to learn what needs to be done;
and, 3) establish an environment in which those who possess the desired skills can
work with those who don’t (Elmore, 2002; Waters & Cameron, 2007; Institute for
Educational Leadership, 2006).
To improve student performance district-wide, school systems must develop
the professional capacity to address the needs of struggling learners, particularly in
large urban school districts where poverty and ethnic diversity place greater
challenges on the table (Education Data Partnership, 2007a). Consequently, “all
36

schools, no matter what their demographic characteristics or prior performance, must
do different things, not just the same things differently…new things require new
knowledge and skills” (Elmore & Fuhrman, 2006, p 12). It is important to note that
there is a certain reciprocity between capacity and accountability; one in which the
district must own responsibility for providing opportunities for professional growth
(including instruction, practice, and coaching) before accountability is likely to be
embraced (Elmore, 2002; Institute for Education Leadership, 2006).
Accountability Systems and Performance Monitoring
Carnoy and Loeb (2002) found that students in states with strong
accountability systems evidenced measureable gains on the NAEP since 1999,
whereas students in states without strong measures did not make similar gains.
However, research indicates that accountability systems, in and of themselves, do not
promote academic achievement. Districts that evidence system-wide academic
improvement hold all adults accountable for student achievement, support student
learning through the effective use of data, strategically allocate fiscal, human, and
material resources and, develop program coherence (Childress et al, 2006; Dorn,
1998; Elmore, 2003a). Without these types of resource and programmatic
adjustments and district leaders who are committed to establishing and holding to
measureable performance objectives, systemic change does not occur (Institute for
Educational Leadership, 2006; Shannon & Blysma, 2004).

37

Program Coherence
A meta-analysis of current research by Waters and Marzano (2006) identified
a positive relationship between effective district-level leadership and student
achievement. More specifically their work spoke to how a superintendent creates,
implements, and monitors instructional goals and how leaders work with elected
school boards to ensure alignment between those goals and how resources are
allocated across the district. The literature suggests that establishing program
coherence – an alignment between district goals and resource allocation – is a key
component to the success of any system-wide strategic initiative (Odden & Picus,
2008; Childress et al, 2006). Fullan et al (2004) define program coherence as “when
the elements of a school district work together in an integrated way to implement an
articulated strategy” (p. 2). Harvard Business School professors, Michael Tushman
and Charles O’Reilly, developed a coherence model (figure 2) that contains five
organizational elements that influence system performance. These include district
culture, organizational structures and systems, available resources, community
stakeholders, and the local environment. The conceptual framework which supports
the model suggests that it is by building coherence among various actions at the
classroom, school, and district levels, a chosen strategy will become scalable and
thus more sustainable as a strategy for systemic reform (Fullan et al, 2004). By
advocating program coherence and providing leadership capacity, the district leader
is in the position to focus system resources on implementing a system-wide program
38

to raise student performance (Waters & Marzano, 2006; Reeves, 2000; Childress,
Elmore, & Grossman, 2006).
The pressure on school districts in the age of accountability has radically
changed the political environment in which system leaders, professional educators,
elected school boards, and members of the community interact (Quinn, 2007; Bjork,
Kowalski, & Browne-Ferrigno 2005). Urban superintendents report that their ability
to implement academic reforms are increasingly frustrated by issues related to
district governance, shifting State and Federal mandates, and relationships with
unions. (Fuller et al, 2003). However, in order to implement system-wide strategic
initiatives, districts must execute the strategy consistently in school settings with
varied characteristics, create a design that provides coherent support, develop and
manage the requisite human capital, align resource allocation to support the strategy,
and monitor the effectiveness and fidelity of the implementation at all stages
(Childress et al, 2006).
A New Role for the System Leader
The job of the superintendent has become increasingly complex with the
advent of accountability measures that include punitive consequences for failing to
increase student achievement levels from year to year (Bjork et al, 2005).
Historically, school boards have called upon superintendents to manage the
centralized resources of the district and coordinate relationships with the local
community, while site leaders held responsibility for student academic progress at
each school. However, increasing accountability at the district level, including the
39

potential risk of sanctions against the Local Educational Agency (LEA) should
schools fail to meet targets, have forced superintendents to assume new roles;
including those of district instructional leader and champion of efforts to restructure
school and district programs (Eiter, 2002; Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham
Institute, 2003; Mojkowski & Bamberger, 1991). In one recent study, raising student
achievement was identified as the primary responsibility of superintendents by 41%
of school boards (Byrd et al, 2006).
The emerging role of the district as the agent of change raises questions about
the activity of the district superintendent; specifically, how their actions impact
student achievement. Potential variables include increasing responsibility for
systematically defining teaching and learning, acquiring and allocating human,
fiscal, and physical resources towards achieving system-wide objectives, creating
local systems of accountability, and developing the professional capacity of teachers
and administrators (Childress et al, 2006, Johnson, 1996; Gilbert et al, 2002). Recent
educational reform efforts at the district level have centered on increasing
accountability and refocusing the primary role of the superintendent to driving and
sustaining instructional improvement (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006). The literature
suggests that accountability leadership is most effective when distributed throughout
the organization and when it emphasizes the importance of both individual and
collective agency (Elmore, 2005 and 2003b; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003; Institute
for Educational Leadership, 2006; Leithwood et al, 2004).
40

Goldberg and Morrison (2003) defined accountability as “willingness to give
an account of one’s actions; to fully describe and explain… willingness to accept the
consequences of one’s actions according to agreed upon commitments” (p. 63). This
infers that being accountable has less to do with application of consequences than it
does to seeking explanations for outcomes. Leithwood et al (2004) point to the
district leaders’ role in driving ownership of accountability throughout the
organization, specifically as it relates to influencing district-wide efforts to improve
student learning. System leaders contribute to student achievement in indirect ways,
influencing personnel and structures that have a direct impact on activity in the
classroom. By distributing the accountability for instructional improvement, system
leaders increase the scope of ownership of student achievement-based outcomes
(Elmore, 2003b; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003).
Leadership Matters
The literature suggests that effective leadership requires knowledge beyond
simply knowing what to do; leaders must possess the ability to discern when, how,
and why specific actions should be taken. This knowledge base includes aspects of
experiential, declarative, procedural, and contextual knowledge, as well as the ability
to determine the magnitude of change efforts they engage. Studies have identified
two magnitudes of change at work in the systemic reform process (Waters et al,
2003; Waters & Marzano, 2006). First order change is represented in programmatic
differences, which are viewed as natural “next steps” that are related to past practice
and exist as logical extensions of a known pedagogy. They are commonly viewed as
41

consistent with the common values and norms at play in the organization. First order
change is typically problem-based, linear in nature, incremental, and tends to be
implemented with existing knowledge and skill levels. Second order change
represents a clear break with the past; asking people to embrace new pedagogy that
may not be in alignment with the prevailing norms and values of the organization.
Second order change is complex, non-linear, and represents a disruption to the entire
organization; demanding development of new skill and knowledge sets. That said,
not all change is experience in the same order of magnitude by all persons in the
system. What is first order (logical next steps) to some may be second order
(disruptive innovation) to others (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
The leadership associated with second order magnitude change brings to
mind the work of Bolman and Deal (1997) who stress the complexity of the
environment in which leadership is exerted and propose four frames of reference
(structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) through which successful
leaders approach their work. Systemic change requires leaders who understand the
structure of the organization in order to determine where human resources should be
developed or deployed. They also must understand the political realities at work in
the system and how the symbolic nature of their role includes articulating the vision
in such a way as to bring all stakeholders along. Seven dimensions of leadership
have been identified, which can serve to identify important characteristics system
leaders should possess (Eiter, 2002):
1. A strategic thinker
42

2. A driver of change
3. One who models a teachable point of view
4. The leader as a coach
5. The leader as a creator or champion of culture
6. The leader as a decision maker
7. The leader as a driver of results
Diverse school systems wrestle with cultural, structural, political, and environmental
forces that can reinforce or inhibit strategic planning; calling for system leaders that
understand the educational, political, and managerial aspects of the job (Johnson,
1996). Systemic change demands strong, transformative leaders who can
successfully engage others in accomplishing common goals (Eiter, 2002; Bjork,
2002; Elmore 2003b).
Leadership, System Coherence, and Sustainability
Shannon’s (2004) meta analysis of school improvement literature identified a
list of recommendations for district leaders relating to how best support systemic
efforts to improve student achievement, including; high expectations and levels of
accountability; close attention to the instructional program; alignment of standards,
curriculum, and assessments; targeted professional development; distributed
leadership; strategic allocation of resources; and, management of the impact of
external forces on the classroom environment. These themes from the research were
placed into a conceptual framework (Figure 1) demonstrative the impact of effective
leadership on the sustainability of reform over time (Shannon & Blysma, 2004).
43

Figure 1: Characteristics of Improved School Districts

Source: Shannon & Blysma (2004)

As the model suggests, improvement is a function of interactivity between high
quality teaching and learning, clear and collaborative relationships, and systemic
support for the program improvement goals.
A similar conceptual model is provided by researchers at the Public
Education Leadership Project (PELP) at Harvard University’s School of Education.
The PELP Coherence Framework (Figure 2) defines various district components and
their relationship to supporting, or presenting challenges to, the instructional core.
The framework was designed to assist leaders in understanding and addressing the
unique context and challenges that exist in urban school systems (Childress et al,
2007).
44

Figure 2: The PELP Coherence Framework

Source: Harvard University, Childress, Elmore, Grossman and King,
2007, adapted from Tushman and O’Reilly’s Congruence Model, 2002.

The authors of the PELP framework suggest that program coherence is supported by:
1) connecting the instructional core with a district-wide strategy for improvement; 2)
highlighting district elements that can support or hinder effective implementation of
reform strategies; 3) identifying interdependencies among district elements (e.g.,
culture, structure, systems, resources, and stakeholders); and, 4) recognizing forces
in the external environment (e.g., regulations, statutes, contracts, funding, and
politics) that might prove detrimental to implementation of strategic reform
initiatives. As a conceptual framework, the model emphasizes the role that district
45

leaders have in promoting change and developing organizational capacity to sustain
reform strategies over time (Childress et al, 2006; Childress et al, 2007).
The PELP model recognizes that there are powerful forces that exert
influence on school systems and have a role in the success or failure of reform
strategy implementation. These include, multiple stakeholder groups that each hold
varied perceptions of “success,” political entities that produce conflicting pressures
on the system, funding restrictions in the form of dollars tied to particular programs,
pressures to follow “hot” trends or adopt new ideas, and high rates of leadership
turnover (Childress et al, 2007). These factors contribute to district fragmentation; a
collection of “programs” that are unrelated and often counterintuitive. Taking reform
to scale throughout a large district requires the recognition of differences between
schools and across stakeholder groups, while leveraging the power of the network as
a whole.
New Leadership Requires a New Skill Set
In their role as superintendent, system leaders must possess a divergent set of
strategies from which to draw that can be aimed at altering the structure and
functionality of a district to positively affect student achievement upon entry into
office. In point of fact, research infers that one can determine whether or not a leader
will develop the necessary momentum to achieve long-term success by monitoring
the superintendent’s first 90 to 100 days in office (Watkins, 2004; Neely, Berube, &
Wilson, 2002). As each district has a unique history and political structure that will
strongly influence which decisions are supported and how action plans are
46

implemented. Leaders commonly use this time to obtain a firm grasp on
understanding the organization (Jentz & Murphy, 2005; Johnson, 1996). Much
energy is expended by new leaders into developing relationships with key
stakeholders, identifying key managers, setting standards and expectations, and
establishing a foundation for leadership (Neff & Citrin, 2005). Research supports the
use of a structured plan of entry by leaders as a means for learning about the new
environment, about themselves as a leader within the context of the new district, and
providing an effective tool for collective learning about the organization by the
leadership team (Neely et al, 2002; Jentz & Murphy, 2005).
The House Model
The Broad Foundation has incorporated a strategic entry plan as one
component of their innovative urban school leader preparation program (Takata,
Marsh, & Castruita, 2007). The Broad Superintendent’s Academy incorporates
numerous research-based reform strategies into a conceptual framework called the
House Model, which serves as a structural support for the work of urban school
superintendents. The House Model represents a 3-year strategic plan that focuses on
overarching areas of influence (or rooms of the house), including; resource
allocation, instructional alignment, organizational effectiveness, and system
governance. This unique model informs the work implemented by the Broad
Academy graduates who are further supported by TBA mentors and other Broad
Foundation resources upon entry to their new position (Broad Foundation & Thomas
B. Fordham Institute, 2003; Takata et al, 2007). Since 2002, TBA has placed both
47

traditional and non-traditional school leaders into the superintendency within many
of the largest, most diverse and challenging urban school districts in the country (The
Broad Academy Website, 2007). The model aligns specific reform strategies or
dimensions of reform to each area of influence; ten of which were identified as the
key focus of this study and are defined below.
Strategic Plan
A Strategic Plan defines the district’s mission, goals, and vision; assigning
performance indicators and work plans to each of the district’s primary goals; and,
serves as the guiding document for district decision-making and priority-setting
processes (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Shannon & Blysma, 2004). The literature
suggests that the process of creating and implementing a strategic plan builds
common understanding and commitments to adopted goals and strategies and
focuses the intellectual, human, and fiscal capital of the district on a coherent
pathway (Childress et al, 2006; McLaughlin et al, 2002; Goldberg & Morrison,
2003). Districts benefit from the shared learning experience by way of focused action
and commitment to reform that is produced when a multi-year strategic plan is
adopted and owned by all stakeholder groups (Council of Great City Schools, 2006;
Goldberg & Morrison, 2003).
Effective system leaders leverage the natural tension and confusion presented
during organizational transitions to their advantage (Applebaum, Molson & Valero,
2007). It is during this time, which Jentz and Murphy term the “entry period,” that a
leader’s actions can have a significant impact on the culture, structure, and
48

performance of a district. The literature suggests that system leaders can make
significant progress towards laying the foundations for reform by developing a clear
entry plan, which is founded on a well-articulated theory of action (Jentz & Murphy,
2005; Neff & Citrin, 2005). Fullan, Bertani, and Quinn (2004) define a theory of
action as “the organizations collective belief about the causal relationships between
certain actions and desired outcomes” (p. 4). Childress et al, (2006) add “In the
educational context, a ‘theory of action’ encompasses the beliefs and interconnected
explanatory structures that underline education leaders’ approach to instruction,
curriculum, and the organization of schools – especially as these concerns attempt to
guide reforms” (p. 4). When a clear theory of action is embedded within and
articulated through the strategic planning process, the leader can effectively leverage
change across a system (MacIver & Farley, 2003; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003;
Applebaum et al, 2007).
Assessment
Assessment activities enable districts to know whether students are meeting
academic targets, as well as measuring effectiveness of adopted curriculum and
instructional strategies (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Fuller & Ruenzel, 2004;
O’Day et al, 1999). Common, regularly-scheduled, district-wide assessments are
most effective when they connect directly with standards, the curriculum, pacing
guides, and professional development (Marzano, 2007; Chappuis, S., Stiggins, Arter,
& Chappuis, J., 2005). The increasing sophistication of web-based technology has
provided greater access to data at the school and classroom levels and facilitated
49

real-time, data-driven decision making that serves to inform the work of schools and
districts with regards student achievement and systemic reform (Schmoker, 1999;
Guskey, 2007; White, 2007; Gregory & Kuzmich, 2005). Data analysis software
provides teachers, principals, and district administrators with a powerful tool to
disaggregate student assessment data to identify instructional “best practices”,
inform decision making and evaluative processes, and support student learning.
Two differentiated strategies for assessing student performance are
commonly referred to in the literature. Summative assessments provide feedback at
benchmark periods in the curriculum map and are most effective when associated
with clear program goals, articulated proficiency levels, and outcomes that are tied to
accountability measures (O’Day et al, 2004; Fuller & Ruenzel, 2004). Formative
assessments offer mid-stream feedback and are typically used to provide information
to teachers in time to make instructional corrections during the course of learning
(Chappuis & Chappuis, 2008; Ainsworth, 2007; Gallagher & Ratzlaff, 2008).
Developing teacher and administrator capacity with data analysis and data-driven
decision making is a critical component of assessment-based reform strategies
(Johnson, 2002; Chappuis et al, 2005; Reeves, 2007; Stiggins, 2004; White, 2007).
Curriculum
Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach (e.g., classroom materials,
textbooks, worksheets, pacing guides, etc.) and the scope and sequence of the
district’s content and performance standards. Effective curriculum programs include
components that address alignment to learning standards and assessments,
50

guaranteed access to a rigorous, high-quality curriculum, fidelity of implementation,
and procedures designed to support programmatic revisions and updates (Anderson,
2003; CDE, 2007; Carr & Harris, 2001; MacIver & Farley, 2001; Swanson &
Stevenson, 2002). Effective districts adopt and implement a curriculum that
embraces clearly articulated standards and frameworks. This includes the
identification of grade-level knowledge and performance objectives, for which all
students are expected to develop mastery (CDE, 2007; Swanson & Stevenson, 2002).
The implementation of such a program should ensure opportunities for
underperforming students and students with learning challenges (e.g., special
education students and English language learners) to access the curriculum in an
environment that supports individual student learning needs (MacIver & Farley,
2001; Carr & Harris, 2001).
The literature suggests that the availability of a high quality curriculum may
not be the core issue in districts with poor student achievement. MacIver and Farley
(2003) suppose that fragmentation and lack of clear direction regarding faithfulness
of the implementation across the system contributes to district failure to achieve
curricular objectives. The district plays an important role in guiding the adoption,
implementation, and evaluation processes that are critical fidelity components of any
curriculum. Ongoing monitoring and adjustments, which are based upon local
student achievement data, ensure that the adopted curriculum reaches effectively into
each classroom and addresses the learning needs of all students (Anderson, 2003;
Carr & Harris, 2001; Swanson & Stevenson, 2002; CDE, 2007).
51

Professional Development
Professional Development activities are intended to improve teacher and
principal performance and build institutional capacity for instructional effectiveness.
Successful districts have integrated professional development components that
enable school staff to detect when students aren’t meeting desired standards and to
adjust the instructional program accordingly (Jacob, 2007; Joyce & Showers, 2002;
Darling-Hammond, 1999; Marzano & Pickering, 2001). Effective professional
development planning incorporates research-based “best practices” that have been
linked to improved student achievement, are integrated into the district’s curricular
plan, and are tied to specific and measurable goals and objectives (Council of Great
City Schools, 2006; Marzano & Pickering, 2001; Eaker, Dufour, & Burnette, 2002;
Togneri, 2003). These professional development goals are critical to maintaining
direction and supporting program evaluation efforts (Guskey, 2000; Worthen &
Sanders, 1989).
Effective districts provide structural and procedural support for professional
development beginning with the planning process and ending with evaluation.
Guskey (1999) suggests that data should be collected at the organizational, collegial,
and individual levels to both inform planning of future professional development
activities and to measure the relationship between training objectives and practice
outcomes in classrooms. This supposition is well supported in the literature (Elmore,
2002; Joyce & Showers, 1998; Marzano & Pickering, 2001; Worthen & Sanders,
1989). The work associated with measuring the effectiveness of instructional
52

practices at the classroom level promotes a collaborative culture among teachers; a
practice which has been tied to student achievement gains (Elmore, 2002; Fullan,
2000; Marzano & Pickering, 2001; Eaker, Dufour, & Burnette, 2002).
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management
Human resource (HR) system and human capital management research
identifies several components of an effective human resource system in large urban
school districts. These include systems to support the recruitment, selection,
placement, and retention of effective administrators and highly qualified teachers;
developing the capacity of human capital, particularly that which impacts the
classrooms; maintaining parity with outside employment agencies with regards to
staff salaries, wages, and benefits; and, the use of incentives to achieve desired
outcomes.
Effective districts do a good job in attracting, selecting, and managing talent
at the teacher, principal, and district office levels. This is accomplished through
establishing and maintaining effective data systems that are used to define desired
qualities for school administrators, to develop criteria for principal and teacher skill
sets that are matched to student needs, to track teacher and administrator
proficiencies as they relate to outcomes based on schools of education, and to
measure the impact of professional development activities (Elmore, 2003 & 2000;
Council of Great City Schools, 2006; Thomas et al, 2007; Hanushek et al, 2004).
The literature is ripe with descriptors of the relationship between teacher
quality and student achievement (MacIver & Farley, 2003; Institute for Educational
53

leadership, 2006; Marzano, 2003; Wong, 2004). The district’s role in building the
instructional capacity of classroom teachers is critical and represents an important
indicator of student academic success. Wong (2004) supports the work of teacher
induction programs when they are structured, sustained, and intensive and include
opportunities for new teachers to be mentored and to network with expert teachers at
their own school. Strong induction programs and effective professional development
structures for teachers increase the likelihood that the district’s curriculum and
instructional objectives will be tended to by all classroom teachers; resulting in
improved instructional coherence (Wong, 2004; Jacob, 2007; MacIver & Farley,
2003).
Improving the recruiting and hiring processes for personnel, developing
attractive compensation packages, and streamlining the process of application and
payment are key priorities for development of strong HR systems (Hanushek, 2004;
Brewer et al, 2007; Thomas et al, 2007). Richard Elmore (1996 and 2003) suggests
districts can influence behavior of staff through the use of compensation incentives.
This is particularly effective when districts use the strategy to draw proven
administrators and effective teachers to schools with performance issues or high
populations of underperforming students (Brewer et al, 2007; Snipes et al, 2002;
Laboratory for Student Success, 2002; Jacob, 2007). By targeting district fiscal and
human resources to struggling schools and/or programs that support underperforming
students, districts align the work of the HR system to student performance objectives
54

and enhance the coherence of the organization and, by extension, the likelihood that
student achievement goals will be met (Childress et al, 2007).
Finance and Budget
The Finance and Budget strategies deployed by a district leader play an
important role in academic achievement of students, when they are aligned to
instructional priorities, balanced, and sustainable (Waters & Marzano, 2006;
Shannon & Blysma, 2004). District reform efforts are commonly challenged by poor
performance within the business office, including poor linkages between fiscal
policies and district priorities (Anderson, 2003; Brown & Peterkin, 1999). Waters
and Marzano (2006) identify the ability to ensure that necessary resources are made
available to staff (e.g., time, money, personnel, and resources), as a key
responsibility of the district leader. McLaughlin et al (2002) concur; “In a resources
strapped context and without strong leadership…lack of guiding focus leaves the
district without strategic direction for the allocation of funds toward the
improvement of student learning” (p. 6). When the budgeting process is embraced as
a tool to support articulated priorities (e.g., mission, vision, goals, and strategies),
important resources can be more effectively leveraged to drive systemic reform
(Anderson, 2003; Shannon & Blysma, 2004). Linkages between school,
departmental, and district-level budgets support alignment with between system
goals and actions and provide a basis for program monitoring and evaluation
(Childress, Elmore & Grossmann, 2006; EdSource, 2005; MacIver & Farley, 2003).
55

Some successful district’s have adopted innovative budgeting approaches
such as “zero-based budgeting” and weighted student formula funding models, in
order to bring budget processes into alignment with district goals and objectives
(Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004; Anderson, 2003). These articulated processes allow
for fiscal and human capital to target specific and measurable student learning
objectives and provide further support for system coherency (Shannon & Blysma,
2004; Brown & Peterkin, 1999; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Fullan et al, 2004;
Childress et al, 2007).
Communications
Great stories in the district should be shared within the larger community.
Effective communication includes the development of a communications plan that is
aligned to the district strategic plan and promotes a commonly shared vision for
student success (Carlsmith & Railsback, 2001; Howlett, 1993; National School
Public Relations Association, 2002). The development of a public relations or
communications office, staffed with experts in dealing with the media, can enable a
district to articulate its vision to the public and proactively build support for
important initiatives. Research suggests that districts with clear plans and effective
communication strategies have greater success building community support and
engaging parents (Shatkin & Gershberg, 2007; Bauch & Goldring, 1995).
The effective communications office also provides critical support to the
district’s decision-making processes, acting as a liaison with members of the local
community. The communications office serves as a central component of the
56

district’s community outreach program, providing an avenue for sharing stories of
success and a means for collecting public impressions to inform the program
improvement feedback loop. This process assists stakeholders in feeling a part of the
work at the schoolhouse and supports community leaders and parents in finding
ways to engage with the schools. The literature demonstrates that increased parent
and community involvement results in stronger student achievement and is generally
supportive of school improvement efforts as a whole (Carlsmith & Railsback, 2001;
Shatkin & Gershberg, 2007).
Governance and Board Relations
The area of Governance/Board Relations is critical. Although most districts
are governed by boards elected from the local population, others answer to appointed
boards. Superintendents engage influential power during the policy development
stage, but are charged with the responsibility of executing the policies as adopted by
the board (Elmore, 2000). It is the school board that is responsible for setting policy
direction for the district. Winning the support of the board is a time consuming albeit
critical task for any superintendent. The literature suggests that several components
can be used to measure the effectiveness of the district’s governing policies and the
relationship between the system leader and the board. These components include,
direction setting, effectiveness and efficiency of the board structure, accountability to
the public, monitoring the action of board members, and provision for support and
resources to board members (Elmore, 2000; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Leithwood,
1995).
57

Effective district leaders ensure that board members are trained and well
acquainted with their roles and responsibilities. Clear lines must be drawn to allow
for the responsiveness demanded via public accountability mechanisms (Waters
&Marzano, 2006; NSBF, 2001; Smolley, 1999; Leithwood, 1995). Districts must
ensure that their vision, mission, and goals are evident in decision making,
particularly as they relate to policy setting and budgeting. When district goals are
clear, measurable, and associated with ongoing evaluation, the associated outcomes
are more relevant to decision makers (NSBF, 2001; Waters & Marzano, 2006;
Petersen & Short, 2001). Various competing priorities and politics tend to work
against efforts that support alignment and should be part of the ongoing discussion
between superintendent and the school board (Elmore, 2000; Petersen & Short,
2001). When roles and responsibilities of board members interact or intersect with
day-to-day district decision making, boards tend to get stuck “in the weeds,”
allowing tension to build. This tension between board member priorities and district
leadership plays a significant role in superintendent turnover and challenges efforts
to sustain reform over time (Byrd et al, 2006; Childress et al, 2007).
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
The processes of developing effective labor relations and contract
negotiations present superintendents with both challenges and opportunities. District
leaders must negotiate with several unions to which various groups of staff belong.
The language of each contract requires close attention, as it can restrict or expand the
superintendent’s options for replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly
58

crucial with teacher contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant
influences on student achievement (Hannaway & Rotherham, 2006; Hess & West,
2006). Success in working with unions requires an upfront investment in relationship
building, a commitment to understanding the priorities of union leaders, and
obtaining the labor unions’ commitment to the vision and goals of the district. It is in
the best interest of both sides of the negotiations process to have solid, trusting
relationships that are based in credibility and ethical behavior (Ingram & Snider,
1998; Hewitt, 2007). These are important tools to support ongoing communication as
well as to plan for strategies to engage when addressing an impasse during
negotiations. Effective teams meet regularly and work collaboratively to review
existing contract language, identify problem areas, and articulate the concerns of
their stakeholders (Hannaway & Rotherham, 2006).
Family and Community Engagement
Research over the past twenty years has increased focus on the relationship
between parental involvement and student academic achievement. The Literature
supports the notion that students with involved parents earn higher grades, perform
stronger on benchmark assessments, and enroll in a more rigorous curriculum. They
also have more consistent attendance rates, pass courses on time, and have higher
transition rates to college (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2003; Lunenburg &
Irby, 2002). One key factor seems to be related to connections between the school
curriculum and the capacity of parents to provide academic support in the home or
access to community-based academic support services (Jeynes, 2003; Warner, 2002).
59

These efforts are most successful when they develop specific knowledge and skills
(Henderson & Mapp, 2002).
Strategies for increasing family and community engagement provide multiple
opportunities for the district to partner with families and local organizations to
support student success. Many districts survey parents of students and the
community in general to determine how they view the district and how they rank
their priorities for improvement (Warner, 2002; Ingram, Wolfe, & Lieberman, 2007).
To enhance effectiveness and relevance of the data, surveys should be closely linked
to the district’s performance management system and data dashboard. The literature
suggests that increasing stakeholder satisfaction and building collaborative
relationships with parents and the community can also lead to greater support for
funding measures and significantly increase access to community-based financial
and human resources (Henderson & Mapp. 2002; Warner, 2002). There is ample
support in the research for the use of community-based volunteers to support
academic achievement objectives in classrooms. However, studies indicate barriers
to parental involvement exist, particularly in large urban school systems (Ingram et
al, 2007; Henderson & Mapp, 2002).
A Crisis of Leadership
The increasing pressure brought about by rising levels of accountability and
the overall complexity of the district leader’s job has contributed to a high rate of
turnover among superintendents. A recent survey conducted by the American
Association of School Administrators (AASA) sampled 2,262 superintendents to
60

discover an average tenure of between 5-6 years. When considering large urban
school districts, the length of tenure drops to between 2.5 and 5 years (Byrd et al,
2006). The high turnover and short tenure rates of district leaders, particularly in
large urban school systems, suggests the need to consider the complicated skill set
demanded of the school system’s chief executive officer during this age of high-
stakes accountability, as well as how those skills are developed and supported prior
to and following entry into the superintendency.
A debate continues amongst policymakers, scholars, and practitioner
associations as to how best prepare superintendents for the increasingly complex
responsibility of managing large urban school districts. Researchers at the Wallace
Foundation concluded that district leaders must be able to 1) Generate and
communicate a clear organizational vision that is focused on student achievement
and relevant to all stakeholder groups; 2) Manage and allocate fiscal, human, and
material resources to bring about specific results articulated in the vision; and, 3)
Develop and empower people – both within and outside of the organization –
through effective communication, strong engagement strategies, and collaborative
leadership (Education Policy and Leadership Center, 2006). The changing political
climate surrounding school systems in the past twenty-five years has generated new
pressures, calling for new leadership skills and the ability to deliver results.
New Leaders, New Skill Set
Today’s superintendents face increasingly complex and non-routine problems
that contain educational, managerial, and political components (Fuller et al, 2003).
61

New problems demand a new skill set; including a broad knowledge-base, strong
analytical skills, abilities to develop personnel, mastery of research-based change
strategies, and a clear understanding of how to translate theoretical concepts into
practice (Bjork et al, 2005; Education Policy and Leadership Center, 2006). A
national survey of school superintendents was conducted by Byrd et al (2006) and
reports that district leaders believe that the revamping of leadership preparation
programs was necessary and would result in improved school leadership. This
finding is in line with data presented by Waters and Marzano (2006), which
identified a statistically significant (.05), positive correlation (.24) between district
leadership and student achievement. This factor equated to an average student
achievement increase of 9.5 percentile points.
In the age of increasing public scrutiny and rising levels of accountability,
superintendents must manage local politics and build professional efficiency and
capacity of the organization, while maintaining the instructional focus of the work.
Research conducted by Fuller et al (2003) suggests that superintendent training
programs should be redesigned in innovative ways to incorporate greater
development of leadership and managerial skills, while actively recruiting
individuals who have evidenced strong political, managerial, and leadership acuity.
Pre-service and in-service administrative credentialing and advanced educational
leadership degree programs are being aligned to this shifting skill set. Program
coordinators are beginning to rethink how potential new leaders are identified,
62

prepared, and placed in leadership positions (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, &
Garabedian, 2006; Bjork et al, 2005; Levine & Dean, 2007).
Innovative Leadership Preparation Models
It stands to reason that programs which provide pre-service and in-service
training for system leaders in large urban school districts must address these new
realities, including external pressure for raising academic achievement of all students
(Johnson, 1996; Education Policy and Leadership Center, 2006). Educating School
Leaders, a report published by the Education School Project in 2005, established that
there exists a lack of differentiation between educational leadership programs that
train site administrators and those which prepare individuals seeking to assume
district-level leadership positions. The American Association of School
Administrators concurred with the findings of the ESP report and called for closing
the divide between what these programs teach and what leaders need to know
(Levine & Dean, 2007).
Researchers are just beginning to look closely at programs that are
introducing new ideas into the leadership development schema (Childress et al,
2006; Dembo & Marsh, 2007; Walker et al, 2007; Shulman et al, 2006; Quinn, 2007;
Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003; Murphy & Vriesenga,
2006; USDE, 2004). Weaknesses, including poor linkages between curriculum and
practice and the lack of hands-on experience for program participants, have been
identified in the research, establishing a basis for calls to reform the models utilized
63

within current urban school leadership preparation programs (Bjork et al, 2005;
Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006).
University-based Leadership Preparation Programs
It is not uncommon for urban school district leaders to possess one or more
advanced degrees in the field of education. Because states do not all require specific
credentialing for district leaders, the doctorate has been viewed by many as the
process through which district leaders gain legitimacy. Glass et al (2000) found that
the number of superintendents that possess a doctoral degree is steadily climbing,
from 28 percent (1982) to 36 percent (1992), to over 45 percent in the year 2000.
This number is even higher in large, urban school districts where 83 percent of
superintendents in districts with over 25,000 students possess either a degree of
Ph.D. or Ed.D. However, the quality and focus of university-based leadership
programs has been called into question. This discussion centers on the differences
between the research-centered (Ph.D.) study versus an applied problem-centered
(Ed.D.) study as the preferred pathway for school leaders (Walker et al, 2008;
Schulman et al, 2006; Carnegie Foundation, 2007).
Research by Bjork et al (2005) identified key differences between problems
of research and problem of practice, which typically differentiate Ph.D. and Ed.D.
programs. The data suggest problems of practice are more relevant to individuals in
leadership preparation programs and hold greater promise for impacting the leaders’
work in the field. Leithwood et al (2004) concur, suggesting a pressing need to
restructure educational administration training and certification programs to become;
64

1) more learner-focused and oriented towards understanding problems of practice; 2)
provide learning modules that combine field and clinical experience; 3) support
systems thinking and constructed knowledge; and 4) promote work-embedded
learning. In a five year study (2001 – 2005), the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate
(CID) sought to understand the effectiveness of university-based programs in the
United States, which enrolled nearly 44,000 students and awarded approximately
6,500 doctorates at over 400 institutions in 2008 (Shulman et al, 2006; Walker et al,
2008).
The University of Southern California (USC), one of a number of universities
to participate in the CID project, supports a newly designed and implemented
pathway to the educational doctorate that is a model of how innovation can be
achieved in university-based programs (Dembo & Marsh, 2007; Shulman et al,
2006). The 3-year, cohort-based model was launched at USC’s Rossier School of
Education in 2001, following a thorough review of the university’s doctoral
programs and focuses on the specific needs of urban school district leaders. The USC
program was restructured to ensure all students work through a common core
curriculum, while engaging in a more in-depth study of one of four specialty areas.
These concentration areas include Educational Psychology, Higher Education, K-12
Leadership in Urban School Settings, and Teacher Education in Multicultural
Societies. The K-12 concentration, for example, was specifically designed for school
and district-level administrators or individuals working with K-12 education policy.
Each of the four concentration areas supports a number of thematic dissertation
65

groups during the final “capstone” experience (Dembo & Marsh, 2007; Shulman et
al, 2006). The thematic dissertation process is designed to research a problem of
practice and emphasizes theoretical inquiry within a real-world context. The process
encourages collaboration between colleagues and is tied to the work experience of
cohort members.
The Urban Superintendents Program at the Harvard School of Education is
another example of innovation within the nation’s schools of education (Institute for
Education Leadership, 2006). The Urban Superintendents Program was established
in 1990 in response to calls for reforming how school leaders were being prepared
for their work in the age of accountability. The doctoral program incorporates
coursework, and internship, and a traditional dissertation. The program is spread
across a 36-month timeline in which students dedicate one year to fulltime classes,
while in residency at Harvard. Coursework is followed by the field-based internship
experience and the dissertation process. In both the Harvard and USC cases, the
universities have developed a clinical model that incorporates challenging
assignments aimed at understanding the issues related to student performance and the
leader’s role is driving systemic change.
Foundations and Leadership Preparation Academies
The Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003) assert that
state licensing and/or university-based legitimacy is insufficient and may hinder
school organizations from gaining access to talented and effective leaders from fields
not traditionally seen as pathways to the superintendency. Non-profit foundations
66

and for-profit organizations have been established to meet the growing need for
system leaders due to the high turnover rates and the lack of high quality preparation
programs available to potential school system leaders (Teitel, 2005; Fuller et al,
2003). These organizations often focus on developing a forum in which emergent
leaders can discuss challenges faced in school systems and engage with peers and
expert practitioners in complex problem solving. Participants build relationships with
experts from which they can learn and in whom they develop trust (Norton, 2002;
Teitel, 2005). One such program is the Broad Superintendent’s Academy, a rigorous
and highly competitive 10-month program run by the Eli and Edith Broad
Foundation (Quinn, 2007).
The Broad Academy (TBA) is designed to prepare leaders from education,
military, business, and government backgrounds to assume leadership positions in
the largest urban school districts in the country. These districts represent a quarter of
US school-age children; over 70 percent of whom are from minority families and
more than 60 percent live in poverty. Quinn (2007) reports that two-thirds of TBA
graduates who have been on the job for longer than two years have produced student
achievement results that outperform peers of similar tenure in like districts. Broad
Academy participants are working individuals who attend ten weekend-long sessions
during the year, focusing on topics such as CEO leadership, corporate profit,
educational leadership, start-up, connections, competence, and career path. Like
many of the newly redesigned university-based programs, the TBA trains skilled
leaders from various fields (education, government, military, non-profits, and
67

business) within annual cohorts, in order to give depth and perspective to the
conversations and develop more robust understandings as to the issues and potential
solutions covered during sessions (Quinn, 2007).
Sources of Emergent Leadership
These leadership preparation programs have responded to the changes in the
field by rethinking how system leaders are trained and best prepared to address the
problems of practice in 21
st
century school systems. Additional changes are taking
place in terms of identifying the pools from which potential candidates for these
new, innovative programs are sought. Management of a large urban school system
frequently calls for leadership skills more commonly possessed by business
executives and government officials than they are by principals and educational
leaders (Fuller et al, 2003). School systems are beginning to seek leaders from two
cadres of candidates; those who have risen through the ranks of school district
employees and those who have gained managerial experience in fields outside of
education (Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003; Norton, 2003;
Fuller et al, 2003).
Most superintendents once served in the role of principal; an experience
which may provide insight into supervising effective instruction, but does not
necessarily shape leaders who can develop a vision or lead a large organization under
heavy public scrutiny. Individuals who have risen to district leadership through
school-based routes receive training focused on learning theory and resource
management and often struggle with the external political pressures encountered on
68

the job (Fuller et al, 2003). Elmore (2000) comments that, “Administration in
education, then, has come to mean not the management of instruction, but the
management of the structures and processes around instruction” (p. 6). It is possible
that leaders from outside of education may bring a skill set that is better suited to
navigate the politically-charged environment brought about by increasing levels of
accountability (Quinn, 2007). Research suggests that superintendents with work
experience outside of the educational field may be more comfortable dealing with
external criticism and therefore more likely to accept it at face value and challenge
the internal workings of the system for a response (Teitel, 2005; Fuller et al, 2003;
Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003). Still, school boards
continue to be more comfortable hiring superintendents with experience in education
(Quinn, 2007).
Conclusion
This review of the current literature related to the topics under study
numerous issues relating to the rise of accountability and its effect of school systems
and, in particular those that lead large urban school systems. The focus of this study
was on how large urban school district superintendents are orchestrating district
action to drive improved student learning. The reform strategies embraced by
effective school leaders to increase student achievement were explored and ten
specific areas were investigated in some depth to inform the study. These strategies
included:
1) Strategic Plan
69

2) Assessment
3) Curriculum
4) Professional Development
5) Human Resource System and Human Capital Management
6) Finance and Budget
7) Communications
8) Governance and Board Relations
9) Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
10) Family and Community Engagement.
The literature demonstrated how transformative leaders work to develop
system coherence designed to move their districts to achieving a common vision that
supports clearly articulated goals and objectives. The review of literature contributed
to the researchers understanding of the intricate connectivity between the system
leaders’ personal and professional background and how each relates to the unique
challenges and strengths of the systems into which they are hired. The match
between the superintendent, the district, and the strategies they deploy to drive
systemic reform has critical and lasting consequences. These include the schools,
who bear the brunt of accountability penalties for failure to improve student learning;
the communities (including the families and students they serve), who wrestle with
the quality and skill levels of the emerging workforce; and. the economic stability of
nation, which faces increasing competition from developing nations.
70

These consequential realities uncovered within the literature demand a clearer
understanding of the work of the superintendent and how new leaders are best
prepared to enact change. The ability of the district leader to develop systemic
coherency that drives alignment of district action to a well articulated vision, clearly
defined goals, and specific and measurable outcomes, is critical to sustaining efforts
to improve student achievement. An innovative model for systemic reform called the
House Model was developed by practitioners at the Broad Foundation and provides
the theoretical structure that supports the Broad Superintendent’s Academy. The
House Model provided the conceptual framework for this study of reform strategies
engaged by a system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school
district. The methodology for how this model was used will be discussed in Chapter
3. Discussion and analysis of the findings are presented in Chapter 4.
71

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter described the research design, sampling and criteria processes,
instrumentation, and methodology for data collection and analysis that was utilized
within the study. The purpose of the study was to describe and analyze the impact of
ten key reform strategies used by an urban school district superintendent, which have
been identified by the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) as those most likely
to positively impact student achievement. Findings suggest a set of useful ideas
and/or strategies that may inform the work of district superintendents and those
organizations that seek to prepare them. The researcher explored the actions and
effectiveness of one urban school superintendent, within the unique context of one
large urban school district. This analytical case study incorporated the following
research question and three related subquestions:
1. How are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban school
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective
district?
a) How does the quality and implementation of ten key reform
strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district
when the superintendent took office?
b) What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do
they correspond to the elements of the House Model?
72

c) How does the choice and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of
the superintendent?
Much of educational research is focused on identifying specific behaviors of
individuals and the related consequences of their actions within a localized context.
Establishing which reform strategies are utilized by large urban school district
superintendents in order to improve student achievement is a complex issue. It is
precisely due to this challenge that a case study approach provided the best
opportunity to develop and establish a rich description of each component under
study (Patton, 2002). Determining which key reform strategies contributed most
significantly to improving student academic achievement represented a significant
task. Did the attempts to align curriculum and assessment strategies outplay efforts to
establish hiring incentives to attract highly qualified staff to work in hard to staff
schools? Did effective management of labor negotiations outpace the effect of
ensuring the alignment between district goals and budgetary allocations? Case study
methodology provided a means for investigating the complexities of educational
programs by incorporating the explicit experiences of participants and supports
evaluation rooted in a localized context (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 1998; Patton,
2002). More specifically, the case study approach permitted the research team to
follow the data and explore findings as they became apparent.
The purpose of the study suggested that qualitative methods be used within
an analytical case study format in order to secure rich descriptors and grounded
73

explanations of the processes in place within a localized environment (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Interviews were selected as the key data gathering tool in that they
provided the vehicle for describing individual perceptions regarding the selection
and implementation of ten key reform strategies engaged by an Urban School
Leadership Institute (USLI) superintendent in efforts to positively impact student
achievement in one large urban school district. The specific findings that emerged
through this in-depth, multi-perspective case study analysis produced qualitative data
that defined and delineated the effectiveness of each reform strategy engaged by the
one USLI superintendent in their respective district and provided a means to measure
the ties between superintendent action and student achievement. The unit of analysis
is this study was one large urban school district, the district superintendent, and other
relevant key players.
This current study represented a continuance of previous research on USLI
graduates which was initiated by Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Rudy Castruita in 2006.
The Institute has established a reputation for innovation and has introduced new
ideas into the academic discussion regarding how urban school leaders are prepared
for system leadership. In the Phase I study, two school districts were studied to
identify the strengths, challenges, and strategies related to school system leaders in
urban school districts (Takata, Marsh, & Castruita, 2007). The Phase I study
established preliminary findings and laid a foundation for further research. The
Phase II study expanded upon the previous research and sought to synthesize ten
analytical case studies to establish a wider look at ten school districts and speak to
74

how ten specific reform strategies were leveraged by large urban school district
superintendents to raise student achievement.
Sampling Criteria and Process
One large urban school district superintendent was purposefully selected for
this study in order to provide a means for investigating the reform strategies engaged
in efforts to leverage district reform efforts to improve student achievement.
Purposeful sampling was used to allow for an information-rich case study, which
provided deep insight into the actions taken by the superintendent to raise student
achievement as well as how their personal and professional background may have
served to informed decisions and processes.
Superintendents that met the selection criteria were identified using criterion
sampling and were fully informed regarding the purpose of the study prior to being
invited to participate. Support for identifying superintendents meeting the selection
criteria was provided through consultation with the Urban School Leadership
Foundation and the University of Southern California. Case study participants
included the district superintendent, two key players, and multiple strategy-specific
persons; including, deputy and/or assistant superintendents, district-level directors,
principals, board members, or members of the local community. All participants in
the study were volunteers and were informed of the efforts taken in the study to
protect their anonymity.

75

Selected District Profile
The district under study was selected based on the following criteria:
1. District must be identified from the largest 125 school systems in the
United States;
2. The superintendent must have been in office since 2006, or earlier; and,
3. The superintendent must have graduated from The Urban School
Leadership Institute.
Description of School District / Key Players
The Eastern Seaboard Public School District (ESPSD), located of the eastern
seaboard, was the 17
th
largest school district in the United States and served a diverse
student population of 132,227. The district encompassed 141 elementary schools, 32
middle schools, 22 comprehensive high schools, 6 alternative high schools, 4 charter
schools, 2 vocational schools, and 13 special programs, which were divided into five
regional districts administered by an assistant superintendent and their staff. The
district also offered childcare programs and an adult education program.
According to the mission statement found in the district’s 2007 Annual
Report, “The Eastern Seaboard Public School District Board of Education will
advance the achievement of its diverse student body through community
engagement, sound policy governance, accountability, and fiscal responsibility.” The
report advocated five core operating beliefs, including: 1) Children are our business
and they come first, 2) Parents are our partners, 3) Victory is in the classroom, 4)
Continuous improvement in teaching, leadership, and accountability is the key to our
76

success, and 5) Every member of this community shares the responsibility for
successful schools.
To this end, the district’s programs included a comprehensive curriculum that
spans the spectrum from special education to gifted and talented education.
Contextual Learning Environments (CLEs) were established in order to promote
“opportunities to both enhance and enrich the educational experiences of all
learners.” These programs included an Advancement Via Individual Determination
(AVID) program, talented and gifted magnet (middle schools), a center for visual
and performing arts magnet (K-12), International Baccalaureate magnet schools
(middle and high schools), a military academy, technical academies, French
immersion magnet schools (K-12), Montessori schools (K-8), science and
technology magnet schools, and a biomedical program, and biotechnology magnet
schools. Nineteen ESPSD schools have been identified as National Blue Ribbon
schools.
The 2006 - 2007 high school graduation rate in ESPSD was 86.6% with
sixty-seven percent of the graduates (8,842 students) taking the Scholastic Aptitude
Test (SAT). The average SAT score was 1475, 20 points below the national average
of 1495. More than 5,000 Advanced Placement (AP) exams were taken by ESPSD
students during the same school year. At graduation, a total of 7,816 academic and/or
athletic scholarships, totaling $84.7 million, were awarded to the senior class.
Eastern Seaboard Public School District served students who spoke 151
languages in addition to English and 143 countries were represented in the student
77

enrollment. Of the enrolled student population, over 94 percent were classified as
minorities. The largest ethnically represented group in the district is the African
American student population. This subgroup accounts for 76 percent of the
population, while 6 percent were White, 15 percent Hispanic, and 3 percent Asian.
Approximately 11,198 students were classified as Limited English Proficient.
Additionally, 45.4 percent of the student population qualifies for free or reduced-
price lunch.
In order to maximize academic achievement for every student in ESPSD, the
district employed over 16,000 staff members, including both certificated and
classified employee groups. The district employed 9,625 full-time, credentialed
teachers and 7,761 classified support positions. The administrative staff consisted of
2,072 employees in district and site positions. The average teacher salary in the
district was $64,727 (ranging between 59,109 with a BA and 78,687 with an MA).
District administrators averaged $102,354 per year and support staff salaries
averaged $33,062 annually. The operating budget for the 2006-2007 year was $1.66
billion, representing a per-pupil expenditure of $10,332.
The Superintendent: Dr. Mark Dulles had been employed in ESPSD since
April of 2006. However, the superintendent had extensive experience in the public
school system, having previously served in the capacity of Superintendent, Assistant
Superintendent, Director of Personnel, High School Principal, and teacher in various
school districts across the country. In April 2006, after serving as superintendent for
a school district in southern California, he assumed the top position in the ESPSD.
78

The superintendent graduated from Providence College (BA in Biology and
Chemistry Education and MA in Education Administration) and the University of
Louisville (Ph.D. in Education). He has served as a School of Education faculty
member at several universities in the United States.
Key Player One: Dr. Hilliard White, also an Urban School Leadership
Institute graduate, was brought into the District as Deputy Superintendent soon after
Dr. Dulles came on board in 2006. His responsibilities included directing ESPSD
efforts to improve teaching and learning, along with providing for the appropriately
related professional development. Previous experience included serving as Deputy
Superintendent in a large urban school district in Georgia, Director of Curriculum
and Instruction, and various site-based administrative and teaching positions in
secondary education. Along with Dr. Dune and Dr. Johnson, Dr. White made up the
ESPSD “big three”, whom Dr. Dulles considered critical to his work in ESPSD.
Key Player Two: Mr. Frank Lawrence, the Chief Operations Officer, was also
a USLI graduate as well as a graduate of the National War College in Washington,
D.C. Having formerly served as a logistics officer with the U.S. Marines, Mr.
Lawrence brought a set of management skills and experience to the table that is
uncommon in K-12 educational leaders. Although Mr. Lawrence was fairly new to
ESPSD (joined the executive team during the fall of 2007), Dr. Dulles felt that his
responsibilities supervising the operational aspects of the District called for his
identification as a Key Player for the purposes of this study.
79

Reform Strategy-specific Players: Additional study participants were
purposefully identified in order to provide additional information and perspective
related to the identified research questions. The district superintendents were asked
to provide access to those persons in the district that possess knowledge related to
each of the reform strategies being studied. For example, with relation to the human
resources reform strategy, an Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources may
have been identified and interviewed in one district, while a Director of Human
Resources may have been interviewed in the other. In each case, the individual was
identified as having personal knowledge regarding the reform strategies implemented
to effectuate change.
The following individuals were identified by the superintendent to participate
in semi-structured group interviews relating to their area of expertise:
Strategic Plan: Dr. Mona Dune, Chief of Accountability and Dr. Gloria Shay,
Director of Strategic Planning and Grants were selected by the superintendent as two
individuals most closely tied to the ongoing strategic planning in ESPSD. Dr. Dune
had a longstanding history in the school reform movement in the State and has
worked with Dr. Dulles in Districts prior to Eastern Seaboard. Her previous work
with the Harvard School of Education included studying the work of schools in
ESPSD. Dr. Shay was recruited to by Dr. Dulles as a member of the executive team,
shortly after his arrival in the District.
Assessment: Dr. Ted Stoke, Director of Testing and Dr. Cole Sammons,
Director of Research and Evaluation led the Assessment and Evaluation Divisions at
80

ESPSD and oversaw a staff of 25 employees. Their work, according to Dr. Dulles,
was a critical component of ESPSD’s performance management plan.
Curriculum: Dr. Georgia Hill, Interim Chief of Academics was selected by
Dr. Dulles to represent the curriculum division in the interviews. Dr. Hill had served
as Director of Curriculum and Instruction in ESPSD, since 1999. She also had
longstanding ties to the local community college system.
Professional Development: Mrs. Kathleen Katz, Director of Principal
Professional Development was selected by Dr. Dulles due to her extensive history in
and knowledge of the inner workings of the district. Mrs. Katz began employment as
a teacher in ESPSD during 1978, after having herself graduated as a student of the
Eastern Seaboard school system. Her administrative experience in ESPSD included
19 years as a school principal and 9 years as regional superintendent.
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management: Dr. Loraine
Leeds, Chief Human Resources Officer was one of the first executive hires of the
new superintendent in 2006. Dr. Dulles conducted a national search for “a true
human resources expert” and found Dr. Leeds outside of the field of education. He
felt her corporate experience and understanding of customer service brought to
ESPSD a unique set of skills that matched the needs of the District.
Finance and Budget: Mr. Stan Matthews served as the Interim Director of
Budget Management and was selected for interview by Dr. Dulles because of his
strong grasp of the fiscal priorities established within the Bridge to Excellence
81

Master Plan, as well as his role in ensuring adherence to the goals and objectives
outlined in the plan.
Communications: Mr. Dan Brown, Communications Officer, came to ESPSD
in 2004 after having worked as a newspaper reported in Baltimore and serving as
press secretary for members of the State Legislature. Mr. Brown’s involvement in
the communications audit and his role in managing the District’s relationship with
the media led to his selection as an interview participant by Dr. Dulles.
Governance/Board Relations: The ESPSD School Board Chairperson, Mrs.
Gina Laycock represented ESPSD during the Governance and Board Relations
interview. As head of the elected school board in Eastern Seaboard, Mrs. Laycock
possessed a unique understanding of the political environment of the community, as
well as how the new superintendent had negotiated his relationship with the Board.
Labor Relations/Contract Negotiations: Dr. Dulles identified Mrs. Gwen
Johnson, Director of Employee and Labor Relations to participate in this interview.
Although Mrs. Johnson had only been in ESPSD since fall of 2007, Dr. Dulles
indicated that her involvement in the most recent set of negotiations would provide
the study with the most current descriptors of that process.
Family and Community Engagement: Dr. Wilma Spence, Chief
Administrator of Student Services came to ESPSD with Dr. Dulles in 2006. Dr.
Spence served successfully as principal of a high poverty high school in Chicago,
prior to Dr. Dulles’ recruiting her to lead his community and parent outreach
82

programs ESPSD. Dr. Dulles considered Dr. Spence one of his “indispensables” and
a valued member of his cabinet.
Instrumentation
The conceptual framework selected as a basis for the study, the House
Model, was developed as a component of the Urban School Leadership Foundation’s
Framework for District Success. The House Model is a visual model of effective
reform strategies that is advocated by the USLF and used as a foundation for training
within the Leadership Institute. It also served as a conceptual framework for this
study and is incorporated below as Figure 3.
Figure 3: The House Model

83

The “house” is divided into several levels, which are represented by four
foundations, three rooms, and a roof. Several reform strategies have been identified
and incorporated into each area of the House Model. The foundational levels of the
house speak to the work of a superintendent upon entry, including organizational
assessments and audits, adjustments to the management and organizational structure
of the district, and the strategic planning process. The main rooms of the house are
divided into three overarching areas of influence, which relate to instructional
alignment, operational excellence, and stakeholder management. The roof
incorporates targets focusing on increasing student achievement, closing the
achievement gaps, and improving college readiness for all students.
Urban School Leadership Foundation staff established the House Model
through a review of current literature and research-based best-practices. Their work
revealed ten key strategic actions or “reform strategies” through which systemic
change is initiated and sustained by system leaders, specifically as it related to
improving student achievement. These ten key reform strategies, as defined by the
USLF, include:
1. Strategic Plan: The strategic plan defines the district’s mission, goals,
and vision; assigning performance indicators and work plans to each
of the district’s primary goals; and, serving as the guiding document
for district decision-making and priority-setting processes.
2. Assessment: Assessment activities enable districts to know whether
students are meeting academic targets. Common, regularly-scheduled
84

district-wide assessments should connect directly with standards, the
curriculum, pacing guides, and professional development.
3. Curriculum: Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach (e.g.,
classroom materials, textbooks, worksheets, pacing guides, etc.) and
the scope and sequence of the district’s content and performance
standards.
4. Professional Development: Professional development activities are
intended to improve teacher and principal effectiveness. Successful
districts have an integrated professional development strategy that
centers on enabling school staff to detect when students aren’t
meeting a certain standards and to adjust the instructional program
accordingly.
5. Human Resource System and Human Capital Management: Human
resource (HR) system and human Capital management research
indicates that teacher quality is a primary influence on student
achievement. Effective districts do a good job in attracting, selecting,
and managing talent at the teacher, principal or district office level.
Improving the recruiting and hiring processes for personnel,
developing attractive compensation packages, and streamlining the
process of applications and payments are evidence of a good HR
system.
85

6. Finance and Budget: The finance and budget of a district should be in
alignment with instructional priorities as well as balanced and
sustainable. Some successful district’s have adopted innovative
budgeting approaches such as “zero-based budgeting” and weighted
students funding to bring their budgets into closer alignment with
their priorities.
7. Communications: Communication of great stories should be shared.
The development of a communications office staffed with experts on
dealing with the media can enable the district to communicate its
vision to the public or proactively build support for important
initiatives.
8. Governance and Board Relations: The area of governance and board
relations is critical since most districts are governed by boards elected
from the local population; others answer to appointed boards. The
school board is responsible for setting policy direction for the district;
superintendents can take a supporting role in developing policy but
are mainly charged with executing it. Winning the support of the
board is time consuming but a critical task for superintendents.
9. Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations: The area of labor
relations and contract negotiations presents the superintendent the
opportunity to build relationships and negotiate with several unions to
which various staff belongs. Success in working with unions requires
86

an upfront investment in building relationships and understanding the
priorities of union leaders. The content of contracts requires close
attention. Contract language can restrict or expand a superintendent’s
options for replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly crucial
with teacher contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant
influences on student achievement.
10. Family and Community Engagement: family and community
engagement offer the district multiple opportunities for all
stakeholders to interact with the district, from volunteering to
partnering with local organizations in support of student success.
Many districts take surveys of parents of students and the community
in general to determine how they view the district and what priorities
for improvement are. Surveys should be closely linked to the district’s
performance management system and data dashboard. Increasing
stakeholder satisfaction can lead to greater support for funding
measures, significantly increasing its financial resources.
With regards to each of these reform strategies, two factors were shown to
have great influence over the desired outcomes:
1. The quality of implementation
2. The level of implementation
The instruments utilized in the study were developed collaboratively by the
10 member research team. Each team member was a doctoral candidate at the
87

University of Southern California who met during the winter and spring of 2008 in
seminars facilitated by professors David Marsh, Ph.D. and Rudy Castruita, Ed.D.
The research team conducted a comprehensive review of the literature relating to
five key areas of current research. These areas included student achievement and
school accountability, the role of the district in raising student achievement, how
system leaders influence academic performance, strategies implemented by system
leaders to improve student learning, and how urban school superintendents are
trained. From this process arose the purpose of the study, the research questions, and
the conceptual framework used for developing the data collection instruments.
A previous phase of this study was conducted in 2006 by Dr. Jen Marsh, Dr.
David Marsh, and Dr. Rudy Castruita. The Phase I study clarified the reform
strategies emphasized by the Urban School Leadership Institute; focusing on the
strengths, challenges, and strategies accessed by USLI graduates during their first
years in office. The research in Phase I investigated the use of reform strategies by
two USLI graduates. The Phase I study served to inform Phase II by refining the
interview methodology and construction of data analysis tools. A matrix that
demonstrates the relationship between the research questions and each data
collection instrument can be found in Table 1 below.

88

Table 1: Relationship of Research Questions to Data Collection Instruments

RQ1
10 Key
Levers
RQ 1a
Factors
Context
RQ 1b
Additional
Strategies
RQ 1c
Background/
Experiences
Superintendent Interview Guide

X X X X
Key Player Interview Guide

X X X
Strategy-specific Interview
Guide

X X

Data Collection Instruments
The data collection instruments were rooted in the conceptual frameworks in
order to best establish ties between the gains made in student achievement to the
reform strategies selected for implementation by the district superintendent. In
January of 2008, the research team met with the USLF lead researcher in order to
learn about the House Model and gain a deeper understanding of the role that the
reform strategies play in the training process for Leadership Institute graduates. To
provide depth and structure to the data analysis process, each team member
investigated one of the ten reform strategies identified in the House Model,
developing the research base and rubrics used for data analysis. Findings were shared
during regularly scheduled team meetings and each member was responsible for
mastering the findings relating to each topic.
Rubrics and the related instruments were developed through a review of the
relevant literature and provide the conceptual framework for the extent of
implementation of each reform strategy. They were further refined through
89

collaborative work of the team members who field-tested each instrument during the
spring of 2008 to ensure alignment with the conceptual frameworks and research
questions prior to data collection. For example, the Human Resource System and
Human Capital Management reform strategy incorporated into the Quality Rubric
(Appendix D) measures the quality of relevant actions utilizing a 5 point Likert scale
indicating high (5), moderate (3), or low (1) quality. These components include
recruitment and selection of new administrators, placement of site administrators,
recruitment of highly qualified teachers, classroom teacher evaluations, teacher
support and development, use of incentives, and salaries, wages, and benefits. A
separate Implementation Rubric (Appendix E) was designed to measure how each
reform strategy was implemented utilizing a 5 point Likert scale indicating high (5),
moderate (3), or low (1) levels in terms of four criteria including; 1) the external
challenges to full implementation; 2) the extent that each component of the reform
strategy is fully implemented in practice; 3) the level of shared understanding,
values, and expectations; and, 4) the sustainability of staff and fiscal resources.
These quality and implementation rubrics served as the starting point for
developing the interview guides that provide the foundation for data collection in the
study. These data collection instruments included a Superintendent Interview Guide
(Appendix A) that related each interview question to the related research question,
outlined the superintendent interview process, established a process for coding
interview data, and defined processes for identifying artifacts and documents that
were collected from each district; a Key Player Interview Guide (Appendix B) that
90

related each interview question to the related research question, outlined the key
player selection and interview process, established a process for coding interview
data, and created linkages to artifacts and documents collected from each district;
and, a Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C) that correlated
each interview question to the related research question(s), outlined the participant
selection and interview processes, and established a procedure for recording and
coding interview data.
Each interview tool provided critical support to the process of organizing
complex and divergent qualitative data to inform the research questions. Interview
process and questioning techniques were developed based on the semi-structured
interview protocol developed by Creswell (1998). The questions were aligned with
the conceptual frameworks and utilized open-ended questioning to allow the research
team to tailor probing questions for each participant. Each interviewee was asked to
identify appropriate documents that support their perceptions. In each case, access to
documentation was facilitated by the District upon request of the researcher.
Instrument 1: The Superintendent Interview Guide
The Superintendent Interview Guide from the Phase I study was reviewed
and revised collaboratively by the research team to facilitate collection of data
relevant to the research questions posed in the study. The document (Appendix A)
incorporated a script for the interviewer that outlined several lead questions and
includes relevant probing questions to provide depth to the information collected.
The Superintendent Interview Guide assumed an initial interview of 60 minutes and
91

included a set of open-ended questions with relevant probing questions designed to
allow the researcher to expand and explore issues raised during the process. The first
question and subsequent probes focused on establishing the strengths and challenges
of the district, in terms of student achievement, upon the superintendent’s arrival
(research sub-question 1a). Those questions included:
a) Describe the overall academic status of the district when you assumed
your position as Superintendent;
b) What were the major strengths of the district?
c) What were the major challenges facing the district?
d) What was the overall academic profile of the district?
A second question and relevant probes inquired as to the change strategies
were implemented by the district under the superintendent’s leadership (research
sub-question 1b). Those questions included:
a) Considering the context of the district when you arrived, what strategies
did you use to improve the overall condition of the district?
b) What specific strategies did you employ to improve student achievement
within your district?
c) What participants were significantly involved in these strategies?
d) How would you describe the level of implementation you have achieved
for each strategies used?
A second, 60 minute follow-up interview was scheduled with the
superintendent on Day Two to focus on understanding the background and
92

experience of the superintendent (research sub-question 1c). Those questions
included:
a) Please describe key aspects of your previous background/experience.
b) How did your preparation and experience help you to select and
implement appropriate reform strategies designed to improve student
achievement?
Additional questions, which arose from subsequent interviews, were presented to the
superintendent to help clarify “puzzles and missing information” that arose relating
to understanding of the reform strategies and overall strategy discussed during the
subsequent key player and Specific Dimensions of Reform interviews
Instrument 2: The Key Players Interview Guide
The Key Players Interview Guide was also based on a data collection
instrument utilized during Phase I of the study. The research team made
modifications to the instrument in order to ensure alignment with the conceptual
framework and to provide meaningful data related to each research question. The
Key player Interview Guide assumed interviews of approximately 60 minutes and
included several lead questions, with relevant probing questions to allow the
researcher to explore issues that arose in the process. The questions focused on
developing an understanding of the context of the district prior to the arrival of the
superintendent (research sub-question 1a) and the process used by the district
superintendent to implement reform strategies aimed to improve student
achievement. These questions included:
93

a) Describe the overall status of the district when the superintendent
arrived?
b) Considering the context of the district, what strategies did the
superintendent use to improve the overall condition of the district?
c) What specific strategies did the superintendent employ to improve student
achievement within the district?
d) What was your involvement in these strategies?
e) How would you describe the level of implementation achieved within for
each of the reform strategies used?
Each question was designed to provide access to a rich data set that addresses the
relevant research questions and informs the study. The Key Player Interview Guide
was incorporated into this study as Appendix B.
Instrument 3: The Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide
The Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C) was
developed through the collaborative work of the research team in order to collect
data relevant to the research questions as they relate to the ten key reform strategies
being studied. Each member of the team conducted significant research into the
theoretical and practical background of one reform strategy proposed by the Urban
School Leadership Institute. From that research, ten strategy specific quality rubrics
were developed by the group, which identified the components of a high-quality
implementation of the reform strategy when aligned with district efforts to raise
academic achievement. A single implementation rubric was developed and used to
94

measure the level of the district’s progress with each particular reform strategy. Lead
and probing questions for each strategy-specific interview panel were developed by
the research team, based on the related reform strategy quality rubrics, and were used
to guide interviewers on the process of data collection.
The Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide was designed to support
semi-structured group interviews of individuals identified by the superintendent as
having specific knowledge relating to each of the ten key reform strategies under
study. Each group was interviewed for approximately 60 minutes and were presented
with open-ended lead questions and relevant probes designed to provide a picture of
the context of the district prior to the arrival of the superintendent and describe how
the actions taken by the superintendent may have impacted student achievement.
These questions included:
a. What is your district currently doing with regard (name the dimension)?
What has been the superintendent’s specific strategies regarding this
dimension?
b. What has been your success in getting your current reform in this
dimension actually implemented and what challenges do you now face in
this regard?
c. How does your current effort for this dimension differ from what you
were doing prior to when the current superintendent came to this district?
d. For your prior approach, to what extent was that approach fully
implemented?
95

Reform strategy quality and level of implementation rubrics were used to determine
probing questions and support in guiding the discussions toward providing data
useful for informing the research questions.
Data Collection
The Urban School Leadership Foundation staff assisted the research team by
providing information relating to matches between sampling criteria and USLI
graduates. Access to the administrative teams in the district was facilitated through
collaboration between USLF and the Rossier School of Education staff at the
University of Southern California. In order to assure district leaders that the process
and reporting of findings would be managed professionally, USC professors David
Marsh, Ph.D. and Rudy Castruita, Ed.D. served as active members of the research
team and participated in the site interviews. Using the team approach ensured
multiple sets of ears and eyes – both those with years of practical experience in the
field and those with a deep understanding of the current research – would touch the
data and allow for a significant depth of perspective throughout the process.
The ten member research team initiated the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
process in April of 2008. The University of Southern California IRB committee is
charged with ethical oversight of research projects conducted by USC students and
staff. The committee reviews research proposals to ensure that participant rights are
protected and that studies adhere to an ethical approach to research and result in
findings that are beneficial to society as a whole. The IRB review secured these goals
by requiring submission of detailed descriptions of the scope, the specific population,
96

and the methodology to be used in the study. For this study, the research team
submitted one IRB proposal for the ten related studies conducted by cohort members.
Although limiting the freedom of the individual researchers in the cohort to some
degree, the process resulted in increased consistency of the larger research project;
the use of common data collection instruments and methodologies will enhance the
team’s ability to speak to the transferability of the findings. The feedback from the
USC IRB indicated that the study did not require formal IRB approval, as it did not
focus on human subjects. Following the finding of the IRB, the research team began
the progress of establishing contact with sites and preparing for the initial site visits.
Data for the study were collected from the district during a two-day site visit
during June of 2008. Prior to the site visit, the district superintendent was contacted
by Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Rudy Castruita and informed of the purpose and
structure of the study. The superintendent received documentation relating to the site
visits, prior to the arrival of the research team and was allowed the freedom to
identify study participants, including two key leaders who were present when the
transition took place and held roles in implementing change. The district leader also
was asked to identify and provide access to other individuals who held roles in
implementing policies related to the ten key reform strategies and could provide
nuanced perspective regarding the dimensions of the identified reform strategy.
These individuals included cabinet members, district-level staff, site principals,
board members, and local community and/or parent group leaders that volunteered to
participate in the study.
97

The site visit was conducted over a two day period during which time on-site
data collection was facilitated by the research teams of two members. A matrix that
outlines the data collection activities can be found in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Data Collection Activities
Time
frame
Day One Day Two
Morning • Superintendent Interview (1 hour)
• Key Player Interview (1 hour)
• Key Player Interview (1 hour)
(Interviews conducted by three data
collectors to build shared
understanding)
• 5 Dimensions of Reform Strategy-
Specific Small Group Interviews
(60 minutes each interviews
completed by one , two, or three data
collectors)
Afternoon • 5 Dimensions of Reform Strategy-
Specific Small Group Interviews
(60 minutes each interviews
completed by one , two, or three data
collectors)
• Superintendent Interview (1 hour )
(Interview focused on the background
and experience of superintendent and
obtained missing information from
Day One.
Evening
Data collectors met to debrief, make
initial ratings, and identify missing
information.
Data collectors formulated initial ratings
and prepared data for deeper analysis.

On Day One, a semi-structured, individual interview was conducted with the
district superintendent and was based upon the Superintendent Interview Guide
(Appendix A). The superintendent interview took place at the district office, lasting
approximately 60 minutes. Following the superintendent interview on Day One, the
research team interviewed two key players who had been identified by the
superintendent, following the guidelines established in the Key Player Interview
Guide (Appendix B). Each of these semi-structured, individual interviews were
conducted at the district office and lasted approximately 60 minutes.
During the afternoon of Day One, team members met individually with the
reform strategy-specific panels to conduct 60 minute small group interviews, which
included the individuals identified by the superintendent as having knowledge
98

specific to each of the ten key reform strategies identified by the USLF as those most
likely to lead to improved academic achievement. With permission, the interviews
were digitally recorded and detailed field notes were taken by the researcher. At the
end of the day, the research team met to review impressions and consider issues that
required clarification during Specific Dimensions of Reform small group interviews.
On Day Two, the team continued to meet with change-lever specific groups
until all ten panels had participated in the 60 minute small group interviews. The
research team used the Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide to inform
this process (Appendix C). With permission, all of the interviews were tape-recorded
and detailed notes were taken by the researcher. All small group interview
participants were volunteers who agreed to be involved in the study. At the end of
Day Two, a 60 minute follow-up interview was conducted by the research team with
the superintendent in order to ensure opportunities for clarifying questions that
would lead to a rich data set. In each instance, the digitally recorded interviews were
set aside to be reviewed in greater detail at a later time. In the case that important
clarifying questions remained following the two day visit, phone contacts were made
to study participants during the weeks following the site visit by the research team.
Going into an organization with ongoing political issues might bring
concerns regarding consequences should confidentiality and/or anonymity were
breached. Structures were put into place to provide participants ample security and
options to withdraw from the study at their discretion. Each participant was assured
of their confidentiality and participated voluntarily after signing an informed consent
99

that specified the right to refuse and/or withdraw from the process at anytime. In
every instance, procedures were in place to mask identifiers so that participants could
share freely and maintain their anonymity throughout the process. These processes
provided assurance to the district superintendent regarding what information would
be collected and how it would be processed and shared.
Multiple data sources were accessed during the visits in order to provide
depth and richness to each qualitative data set. Collected data (documents and other
artifacts related to specific reform strategies) were cross-referenced against interview
data and longitudinal student achievement data. The credibility of findings was
enhanced through triangulation of data, which was achieved through a thorough
review of relevant documents, interviews, and district student achievement on
standardized measurements.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the strengths,
challenges and reform strategies utilized by urban superintendents to improve
student achievement, resulting in a useful set of ideas, findings, and implications that
fundamentally enhance the preparation of urban superintendents and support their
early work as superintendents. Specifically, the study explored ten key reform
strategies identified by the Urban School Leadership Foundation as those most likely
to positively impact student achievement. The research question and four sub-
questions were developed to focus the study and assist in development of data
collection instruments. Alignment between the research questions, the conceptual
100

frameworks, and the data collection instruments increased the reliability of findings
made following a review of the data. The data analysis process was developed during
the spring of 2008 and incorporated Creswell’s (2003) six steps for data processing:
1) organizing and preparing the data, 2) establishing meaning through a review of
data, 3) beginning the coding process, 4) generating a description of themes or
categories, 5) determining how data will be represented in the narrative, and 6)
developing interpretations.
The process of data analysis began on Day One, as the research team met at
the end of the day in order to debrief, discuss interview findings, and record overall
impressions (Creswell, 2007). Researchers compared notes, consolidated their
information, established a preliminary rating for each the reform strategy rubrics, and
identified any missing information. Issues that required clarification were determined
and the process for presenting follow-up questions was integrated into interviews
scheduled for Day Two of the visit. Additional follow-up calls were made, as
necessary, to specific participants during the remaining research window. Upon
conclusion of the site visit, the digital recording of each interview was reviewed by
the researcher and the information coded according to specific research question for
deeper analysis. An Excel spreadsheet was used to record relevant rubric scores for
both the quality and level of implementation related to each of the ten key reform
strategies. This spreadsheet provided a means for the data to be sorted effectively,
allowing patterns in the data to be revealed (Creswell, 2007). This spreadsheet is
included in the study as Appendix F.
101

During the month of August, 2008, the entire research team met to review the
recordings and field notes and conduct an extensive analysis and synthesis of the
data. Initial drafts of the case studies were completed at that time, summarizing
initial findings of the site visits to the ten districts led by USLI graduates. The
research team met together three times, for five hours per session, to discuss rubric
ratings by research question. Teams of three researchers reviewed the initial findings
of their case studies as they related to each quality and implementation reform
strategy rubric. This “norming” process allowed for revision of the rubrics, was
appropriate, and led researchers further into the research by exposing emergent
themes, issues, and trends in the data (Creswell, 2003 & 2007; Merriam, 1998;
Patton, 2002). Further collaboration between members of the cohort resulted in a
comparative analysis of how ten USLI superintendents selected and implemented
specific reform strategies in an effort to improve student academic achievement in
large urban school districts. This summary document was presented to USLF by Dr.
David Marsh and Dr. Rudy Castruita in November of 2008.
Validity and Reliability
Construct validity was enhanced through the collection of data via multiple
evidence sources, establishing data patterns to be investigated. Triangulating of data,
a process through which research makes ties between evidence from multiple
sources, minimized the internal threats to the validity of findings (Patton, 2002;
Creswell, 2007). Because the nature of qualitative data is subject to multiple
perspectives, multiple data sources were used to minimize subjectivity and enhance
102

the strength of findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Creswell, 2007). The purposeful
selection criteria used to identify participants presents limits the overall
generalizability of findings to the districts under study. However, findings may serve
to inform readers of practices that have proven successful in these specific contexts
and, therefore, be transferrable to other settings.
Summary
Chapter 3 contained information regarding the specific research methodology
applied in this study, which included details relating to design, sample,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. The procedures and instruments
used in the study were collaboratively developed by the members of the cohort and
were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern
California. Permission to access district documents and personnel was granted by the
district superintendent and no actions were taken without their express consent. All
processes for collection of data were transparent to the superintendent and disclosed
prior to the site visit. Results and findings from the data analysis were presented in
Chapter 4.

103

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
This chapter presented the findings from a case study of one district
superintendent’s efforts to leverage systemic change aimed at driving positive gains
in student achievement. In order to learn more about how reform strategies are
implemented by superintendents to drive student achievement in large urban school
systems, one district was selected as the unit of analysis. Within the context of one
school system, factors relating to the conditions in the district prior to the arrival of
the superintendent were a particular area of focus, as was the professional
background of the superintendent. In addition, each strategy that was selected for
implementation was measured to determine the quality of the reform effort, as well
as the level of implementation both prior to and after the arrival of the
superintendent. Case study methodology was utilized to support data collection.
This study examined the systemic reform strategies implemented by one
superintendent to drive student achievement gains in a large urban school district.
Five instruments, described in depth in Chapter 3, were used in the collection of
data: (1) Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A); (2) Key Player Interview
Guide (Appendix B); (3) Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix
C); (4) Quality Rubric (Appendix D); and, (5) Implementation Rubric (Appendix E).
The data collected in the study consisted of interviews with fifteen district leaders,
District documents, artifacts, and reports from District and State Department of
Education web sites. Data was interpreted and analyzed using the process if
104

triangulation where multiple sources of information were available to support
findings. This methodology supported the reliability and validity of the findings.
Further interpretation and analysis of data was conducted during collaborative work
sessions with other members of the USC research team who were utilizing the same
tools and processes to study nine additional districts.
The findings from the research, as well as a detailed analysis and discussion
of the data, were presented in this chapter. The chapter focused on how the strengths
and challenges of the District and the background of the new Superintendent
impacted the selection, quality, and levels of implementation regarding ten specific
reform strategies leveraged to improve efforts to raise student academic
achievement. The five research questions helped to focus the study and determined
the section headings in this chapter.
District Background
The Eastern Seaboard Public School District (ESPSD) is located in
Maryland, just east of Washington, DC. As the 17
th
largest school system in the
United States, ESPSD served a diverse student population of 133,325. Students
attended 141 elementary schools, 32 middle schools, 22 comprehensive high schools,
6 alternative high schools, 4 charter schools, 2 vocational education schools, and 13
special programs, which are divided into six regional districts. Eastern Seaboard
served students who speak 151 languages and 143 countries were represented in the
community. Of the enrolled student population, 94 percent were classified as
minorities; the largest group (76 percent) being African American. Approximately
105

11,198 students were classified as Limited English Proficient and 43 percent of the
student population qualified for free or reduced-price lunch.
Table 3: Demographics of Eastern Seaboard Public Schools Student Population
District Size White Black Hispanic Other
Free / Reduced
School Lunch
133,325 6.3% 76.3% 14% 4.4% 43.2%
Comments: Demographic shift in the district has been significant since 1993 when Caucasian students made
up 23% of the enrollment, Hispanic students represented 4% of the school population, and 68% of the children
were of African-American decent.

The district employed over 16,000 staff members, both certificated and
classified to work in 220 schools. The district employed 9,625 full-time, credentialed
teachers and 7,761 classified personnel. The administrative staff consisted of 2,072
employees in district and site positions. The average teacher salary in the district was
$64,727 (ranging between 59,109 with a BA and 78,687 with an MA). District
administrators averaged $102,354 per year and support staff salaries averaged
$33,062 annually. The operating budget for the 2006-2007 year was $1.66 billion,
with a per-pupil expenditure of $10,332.
According to the mission statement found in the district’s 2007 Annual
Report, “The Eastern Seaboard Public School District Board of Education will
advance the achievement of its diverse student body through community
engagement, sound policy governance, accountability, and fiscal responsibility.” The
report also articulated five core operating beliefs, including: 1) Children are our
business and they come first, 2) Parents are our partners, 3) Victory is in the
classroom, 4) Continuous improvement in teaching, leadership, and accountability is
the key to our success, and 5) Every member of this community shares the
106

responsibility for successful schools. To this end, the district’s programs included a
comprehensive curriculum that spans the spectrum from special education to gifted
and talented education.
Background of the Superintendent
The Superintendent, Dr. Mark Dulles, had been employed in ESPSD since
April of 2006; however, the superintendent had extensive previous experience in the
public school system. As Superintendent of the West Los Angeles Unified School
District in California, he led a district with a diverse student population. During his
tenure, Dr. Dulles led district-wide reforms aimed at a highly focused set of
strategies on the improvement of teaching and learning. Prior to West Los Angeles,
Dulles was Superintendent of the Coventry Public Schools in Rhode Island. Dr.
Dulles has also served as a high school principal in two communities, director of
personnel, and assistant superintendent of schools. Prior to those leadership roles, Dr.
Dulles taught biology, chemistry, calculus, and English at the high school level, and
coached high school sports. The superintendent is a graduate of Providence College
(BA in Biology and Chemistry Education and MA in Education Administration) and
University of Louisville (Ph.D. in Education).
Dr. Dulles’ accomplishments included being named a USLI Fellow, an
Annenberg Fellow, and Rhode Island Superintendent of the Year (2001). Dr. Dulles
has presented at numerous State and National conferences, has invested time as a
consultant to school districts undertaking high school reform and district-wide
systemic improvement initiatives, and served on numerous boards including
107

Operation Public Education at the University of Pennsylvania and the Change
Leadership Group at Harvard. He has also served as a School of Education faculty
member at several universities across the United States. Dr. Dulles came to ESPSD
following two successful superintendencies in California and Rhode Island. His
previous work as a teacher, school administrator, and district-level administrator
provided a wide range of previous experience from which to draw expertise.
Condition of District at the Time of Superintendent’s Arrival
At the time of Dr. Dulles’ appointment as Superintendent of Schools, the
Eastern Seaboard County Public School system was under state control, having faced
takeover due to poor student performance. The District was also attracting a great
deal of media attention due to an ongoing criminal investigation of the former
Superintendent. Both issues contributed to wide-scale distrust of the central
administration on the part of the local community and school site personnel alike.
Clearly, the system faced significant challenges at the time of Dr. Dulles’ arrival in
April of 2006. These issues also presented opportunities to leverage strengths of the
community and the District workforce and to begin the work of system-wide change.
Dr. Dulles arrived to find a family and school community that was frustrated
and looking for change. Student achievement was not improving and there existed a
severe lack of equity between schools in the more affluent areas of the county and
those inside the beltway of Washington DC. With five superintendents during the
past six years, the District was in want of clear direction and open to developing a
108

plan for success. Dr. Dulles’ expertise at strategic planning fit well with the needs of
the district.
The appointed School Board, which hired the Superintendent out of West Los
Angeles, California, provided Dr. Dulles with the means and support to develop and
implement a powerful master plan that established result-oriented performance goals.
The Board also granted authority to restructure the executive administration team
and conduct a broad, nation-wide search for the “best and the brightest” leaders in
both the traditional and nontraditional environments. At Dr. Dulles’ request, the
board authorized external needs assessments in the areas of Human Resources and
Communications.
The curriculum in Maryland is centrally developed and tightly aligned to
State assessments and adopted instructional materials, including monthly pacing
guides and daily lesson plans. Having a strong curriculum in place enabled the new
Superintendent to focus on building the capacity of the human resources of the
District to deliver (teachers) and monitor (principals and regional office staff)
effective instruction and develop intervention and support strategies for struggling
students, students with special needs, and English learners.
Finally, due to the State appointed Board’s tight management of the budget
for two years, a sizable budget surplus had been established. This was critically
important to Dr. Dulles’ ability to hire high-quality executive staff and implement
several key reform initiatives upon arrival and begin the process of driving change
throughout the system. Six months after his arrival, an elected School Board was
109

reinstated to oversee District operations. These nine, elected community leaders
brought new perspectives and constituent priorities to the table.
Table 4: Strengths in Eastern Seaboard Public Schools upon Arrival
Strengths: Eastern Seaboard County
• Community values the work of the schools as important for their children.
• There was a strategic plan in place, although the state mandated process was
compliance driven and the plan had little impact on actual practice.
• There was openness to implementing a plan of action that could serve to focus the
work of the district.
• Willingness to grant new superintendent authority to form a new executive team.
• Appointed board participated in externally controlled HR audit and communications
needs assessment.
• Strong, state-mandated curriculum in place and aligned to the adopted standards,
textbooks, and assessments.
• Large balance of funds remained carried over from previous budget years provided a
means to fund priority initiatives upon arrival of new superintendent.

The level of dissention and dissatisfaction in the local and school community
was very high and contributed to the student performance challenges that would be
present in any large urban, high-poverty school district. Prior to Dr. Dulles’ arrival,
the District had taken an adversarial posture towards the media; working very hard to
avoid the press. The lack of communication only made matters worse for the
community that distrusted district leadership and had high levels of resentment
regarding the non-responsiveness of the unelected school board. The newly elected
board members felt a strong sense of connection to and empowerment from their
constituency groups.
Dr. Dulles’ racial profile presented a challenge of its own. With seven of the
nine newly elected Board members being African American, the ESPSD School
Board closely mirrored the ethnic diversity of the community. This Anglo male from
110

an affluent area of Southern California was considered to be unlike his new
constituents and a great deal of doubt existed regarding whether or not he could
understand the needs of the African American community. This challenge was
especially relevant due to the lack of equity between the high poverty schools near
Washington DC and the high performing schools located in the suburbs. For
example, only 8 of the 22 high schools offered Advanced Placement classes in 2005.
Systemic issues, such as academic gate keeping and advocacy budgeting, propagated
racial tensions and resentment between the district’s high and low SES communities.
These challenges in ESPSD were further complicated by a high turnover of
district leadership and the high rate of non-credentialed teachers in classrooms. Dr.
Dulles was the fifth superintendent in six years, his immediate predecessor having
left under suspicion of fraud. The teaching staff faced equally difficult challenges.
Some schools were 100 percent out of NCLB compliance, particularly in the hard to
staff, high-poverty schools. Teacher turnover was exceptionally high, particularly
among teachers with less than five years experience. In 2005, ESPSD had to recruit
for replacements for nearly 20 percent of its instructional staff.

111

Table 5: Challenges in Eastern Seaboard Public Schools upon Arrival
Challenges: Eastern Seaboard County
• Community confidence/trust was very low due to state takeover of the Board and
ongoing FBI investigation of former superintendent.
• Adversarial relationship between the district and the media.
• The state appointed Board was perceived as non-responsive to local community
demands.
• Only 54% of teachers were NCLB compliant. Some schools 100% out of compliance.
• Schools engaged in “gate keeping” activities aimed at low income and EL students.
• Racial tensions were high; challenge for a “skinny little white guy” to overcome.
• Human resource department was ineffective at recruiting and retaining qualified
teachers.
• Labor unions advocated for the rights of adults, regardless of the impact on students.
• Relationships between district and union leaders were polarized.
• The instructional program was ineffective, across the board; despite the availability of
state mandated curriculum and aligned benchmark assessments.

In some ways, the Superintendent was fortunate to enter the picture during a
time of unrest following a State take-over of the District due to low performance and
mismanagement. The State appointed Board of Education was tasked with restoring
budget stability, improving student achievement, and ensuring enforcement of State-
mandated curriculum and assessment policies. External audits were ordered relating
to communications and human resources and several consulting firms had been
brought into the district in order to conduct a wide-scale needs assessment. Although
the District had experienced some measurable growth in student academic
performance, a clear achievement gap between Caucasian students of high economic
status far outscored students of color and students of poverty throughout the district.
Dr. Dulles’ assessment of the situation reflected a belief that the curriculum in place
was of very high quality, but that the consistency of implementation and the level of
instructional proficiency was very poor across the board. The fact that the curriculum
112

was in place and was aligned to the state assessments allowed the Superintendent to
focus on improving the human capacity of the teaching staff and the monitoring
proficiency of site administration.
Prior to Dr. Dulles’ arrival, the Board had accumulated a large fund balance,
which the new Superintendent used to fund and launch several large-scale reform
initiatives. Those initiatives included restructuring of the regional management
system to focus on supporting the development of teachers and principals and
moving the system towards becoming a data-driven decision making organization
from the Board room to the classroom. The community of Eastern Seaboard had
been introduced to five superintendents over the span of six years. Community
leaders and parents were eager to see strong leadership and embraced the need for a
plan of action to address the issues of equity and accountability throughout the
system.
The Entry Plan and Launching Strategies
Superintendent’s Entry Plan included strategies to engage the community in
owning the district’s Children Come First vision and was based on five key goals:
1. Develop and Ensure effective district governance through effective
and positive board-CEO relations;
2. Increase student achievement for all students while simultaneously
closing the achievement gap;
3. Improve public trust, commitment, and confidence through open,
honest communication and responsive corrective action to obstacles
113

to improving student achievement and the conditions of teaching and
learning;
4. Increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency; and,
5. Establish a supportive, positive, and effective district climate and
culture singularly focused on the improvement of student
achievement using a continuous improvement model.
Each goal of the entry plan identified specific objectives and activities designed to
move the plan forward with speed and purpose. These reform and/or launching
strategies included: Board training (Goal 1); Establishing internal and external
monitoring processes to support program evaluation efforts (Goal 2); Effective and
transparent communication of the districts vision for and progress towards achieving
systemic improvements (Goal 3); Restructuring of the districts organizational
structures to support student achievement goals and objectives (Goal 4); and,
Building effective relationship with local constituency groups that are aligned to
district goals and objectives for raising student achievement (Goal 5).

114

Table 6: Reform / Launching Strategies Leveraged in Eastern Seaboard
Areas of Reform
Reform / Launching Strategies
Strategic Planning • Three-phase Plan of Entry outlined Superintendent’s actions for first 6 months.
• Utilized “listening tour” to gain deeper understanding of the community.
• Formal board training provided time and focus on development of common
commitments, core values, and the strategic plan goals.
• Set clear district vision; focused district activity on student achievement.
• Developed master plan with executive staff and Board; widespread ownership.
• Use of the data dashboard to measure progress of the master plan.
• Superintendent’s annual performance evaluation is tied to the data dashboard.
Organizational
Assessment and
Audits
• HR, curriculum, and communications audits conducted by outside firms.
• Divided the assessment and accountability into two departments; one looks at
identified performance outcomes and the other tracks levels of implementation.
Organizational and
Management
Structure
• Rebuilt executive staff with a mix of internal and external candidates who were
traditional and non-traditional in training and experience.
• Recruited the “best and the brightest” from the nation’s top performing districts.
• Required executive staff to be in classrooms on a daily basis. Superintendent
begins his work day at school sites three days each week.
• Executive retreats kept team focused on the plan and clear about their roles.
• Restructured regional offices; re-tasked staff to support work of the schools.
Instructional
Alignment
• Redefined role of principal as instructional leader and minimized impact of
operational issues on site administrators.
• Retrained all counselors and reduced caseloads from 800-to-1 to 300-to-1.
• Required all AP teachers and counselors to participate in College Board training.
• Data analysis coaches placed at all middle schools to support teachers and
administrators in developing capacity with data-driven decision making.
• Eliminated professional development activities not explicitly tied to developing
capacity of staff to implement strategies identified in the master plan.
Operational
Excellence
• Established a data-driven culture to emphasize the meaning of accountability at
all levels, with high-profile progress monitoring.
• Several initiatives developed to address challenges of staffing at low performing
and high-poverty schools, and low-performing students at all sites.
• Used current resources to support new initiatives by redirection and realignment
of funds to support the objectives of the master plan.
• Performance-based budgeting reinforces measurable outcomes of the master
plan.
• Prioritized work of HR department towards meeting needs of low performing
schools; recruiting the best administrators and HQTs in all core content areas.
• Developed a pay for performance initiative (FIRST) to attract high performing
teachers and administrators to the lowest performing schools.
• Active pursuit of external funding for performance incentive program (FIRST).
• Autonomy zones were created to allow staff and administrators increasing
freedom based on improved student achievement.
Stakeholder
Management
• Regained community trust and confidence through increased transparency and
reporting progress on district-wide initiatives using various types of media.
• High visibility of the superintendent in the community, which was focused on
promoting the district’s vision, master plan, goals, and objectives.
• Effective use of media to promote district objectives and initiatives.
• Created “Children come first” brand to focus attention on district master plan’s
objective of improving achievement and closing achievement gaps.

115

In his interviews, Superintendent Dulles spoke to the importance that his Plan
of Entry and subsequent decisive action played in the launching strategies
implemented to drive change. “I wanted to develop and get a strategic plan into place
very quickly”, Dulles stated. This action was followed up by the superintendent’s
initiation of a process to, “re-staff the schools with instructional leaders who would
own accountability for student achievement.” The superintendent’s Plan of Entry
included participation with school board members in Board member training where
core values and goals were established to support improved student achievement,
promote effective district governance, ensure open and honest communication with
constituents, improve organizational efficiency, and develop a positive and
productive district culture that is focused on continuous improvement.
Deputy Superintendent, Dr. Hilliard Brown, identified the Superintendent’s
“laser-like focus on student achievement and what is good for kids” as key to early
successes. He also identified the superintendent’s “clearly articulated vision for
achieving student performance gains and closing achievement gaps” as key factors in
driving wide-scale change at all schools in the district. This vision has been widely
embraced by the community, which had struggled in recent years with distrust of the
central office administration. Although Dr. Dulles is an Anglo from the West Coast,
it was clear that the majority African American community had faith in his
commitment to their children and confidence in his strategic plan.
The District’s master planning document, referred to herein as the Bridge to
Excellence Master Plan (or Master Plan), was developed with specific input from
116

executive staff and the School Board and incorporates a strategic vision, core beliefs,
and common commitments that promote the beliefs that; 1) all students can be
successful; and, 2) achievement gaps can be eliminated through the strategic and
equitable distribution of human and fiscal resources. Dr. Mona Dune, ESPSD’s
Chief Accountability Officer, stated that “Dr. Dulles was the first superintendent in
10 years that seemed to have a clear idea of the work that needed to be done.”
The Master Plan tied all strategic reform initiatives, including employment
contracts, employee incentives, budget processes, staffing and resource allocation,
and site-based decision-making authority to measurable student performance
benchmarks. The walls of the executive cabinet’s conference room were covered
with charts that delineate each strategic initiative in play, identify the responsible
executive staff member(s), and state the measurable outcome against which
performance was to be evaluated. Shared and individual ownership of and
accountability for student achievement was the central focus of the Superintendent’s
leadership team. For example, the job descriptions of principals were rewritten to
support the master plan objectives relating to instructional improvement in all district
classrooms. New hiring processes were implemented to ensure that all staff
possessed the capacity to implement the plan and then stood accountable for results.
The regional offices were restructured to support development of teacher and
principal capacity with data-driven decision making. Each middle school was
provided access to a data coach who would assist with building local capacity for
effective data-driven decision making at the site and classroom level. This type of
117

tight alignment between Board goals, District processes, and expected outcomes was
a key component of the Master Plan.
To communicate the new vision of the district and drive advocacy efforts
with community and parent groups, Dr. Dulles engaged the district communications
staff to share his vision with all stakeholders. The Superintendent went into the
community and spoke at every venue that would give him time, including churches,
service clubs, and local political advocacy groups. Dr. Dulles’ high profile in the
community and open access policies were contrary to the stance of the district during
previous administrations and served to build bridges of support for important change
initiatives in the schools. The district’s efforts to address the achievement gap
relating to poverty and language diversity included efforts to improve parental
involvement in their student’s education, initiating pre-kindergarten programs at all
high poverty elementary school sites, placement of parent liaisons and parent
resource rooms at all schools, and increase the language and academic support
structures for parents that do not speak English. With the parents and community-at-
large behind him, the new Superintendent was able to hold to the plan, while
navigating the resistance presented by entrenched teachers and central office
administrators and preparing for a transition to an elected Board of Education.
Ten Key Reform Strategies
The research question posed “How are the ten key reform strategies being
used by the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) superintendents to improve
student achievement in his or her respective district?” Superintendent and Key Player
118

interviews identified the reform strategies implemented by the system leader to drive
student achievement gains across the organization. Those strategies were compared
to the House Model (Figure 4); the conceptual framework that served as the basis of
the study. Although interviews with key staff members in the district probed ten
specific reform strategies, interview data and district artifacts provided a wider look
at numerous superintendent actions to drive systemic change.
Figure 4: The House Model

The house is divided into several levels, which are represented by four
foundations, three rooms, and a roof. Several reform strategies have been identified
and incorporated into each area of the House Model. The foundational levels of the
house speak to the work of a superintendent upon entry, including organizational
119

assessments and audits, adjustments to the management and organizational structure
of the district, and the strategic planning process. The main rooms of the house are
divided into three overarching areas relating to instructional alignment, operational
excellence, and stakeholder management. The roof incorporates targets including
increasing student achievement, closing the achievement gaps, and improving
college readiness for all students. USLF staff established the House Model through a
review of current literature and research-based best-practices. Their work revealed
ten key strategic actions or “reform strategies” through which systemic change is
initiated and sustained by system leaders, specifically as it related to improving
student achievement.
The following section provides access to information obtained through the
interview and artifact review processes for the ten key reform strategies (underlined
in Figure 4). The specific interviewees and/or artifacts were cited where appropriate.
Rubric scores (a 5 point Likert scale indicating high (5), moderate (3), or low (1)
quality), which were summarized in Table 7 and referenced elsewhere, were based
on the Quality Rubrics (Appendix D) and the Level of Implementation Rubric
(Appendix E).

120

Table 7: Rubric Ratings of House Model Reform Strategies
House Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Difference
Implementation
Level
Strategic Planning 1.9 4.7 2.8 3
Assessment 3.0 3.7 .7 3
Curriculum 3.4 3.8 .4 4
Professional Development 2.5 3.5 1.0 4
HR System and Human Capital
Management
1.0 4.2 3.2 3
Finance and Budget 2.3 3.7 1.4 3
Communication 1.8 3.4 1.6 3
Governance and Board Relations 2.2 3.4 1.2 3
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations 1.5 3.0 1.5 3
Family and Community Engagement 2.0 4.0 2.0 4

The following section details the findings related to each of the ten reform
strategies under study and presents data that identifies where the district stood with
regard to the reform strategy prior to the arrival of the new superintendent, the
reforms put into place by Dr. Dulles, and the impact those reforms have had on the
work of the district aimed at improving student achievement.
Strategic Plan
Table 8: Rubric Scoring of Strategic Plan
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Strategic Plan 2 5 From state-mandated
template to a plan tied to
board goals and objectives;
adopted Theory of Action
(Managed Performance
Empowerment); hold tight
the “what” and loose the
“how”.
• Plan development committees
included members from all
stakeholder groups
• Identified five key goals on which
district action is aligned / evaluated
• Clear goals and objectives identified
in Superintendent’s entry plan
• Creation of Autonomy (flexibility)
and Opportunity (choice) zones
121

The previous strategic plan was drafted by a subcommittee of the Board of
Education in 2003 and complied with all state mandates, including assessments and
data collection procedures. However, there was minimal alignment between the
planning process and District action. Consequently, the Master Plan had little actual
impact on the work in the schools. Dr. Dune reflected on the previous
superintendent;
My perception is that he really didn't have a clear agenda or clear set of
initiatives or programs that he was pushing or proposing. He certainly
embraced improving the academic achievement for students, but he didn't
seem to have any clear way.

Gloria Shay concurred;

While neither of the previous two superintendents had an overarching
approach to school improvement or improving student achievement. They
had little programs and strategies that they brought in and many still exist.
One of the things we're trying to do now is to weed all of that out. We had
had several years of change; but here was no clear direction, no clear set of
priorities. Morale was low, as you would expect during all that chaos. Dr.
Dulles brought the passion and excitement about improving student
achievement, but he also articulated a clear strategy; a clear approach as to
how that would happen in Prince George County…he's the first
superintendent in about ten years who seems to understand the enormity of
the problems here; the size and scope of what needs to be done. And he has
brought in some very viable tools to move that work along.

Rapid turnover of District leadership (five superintendents in the six years prior to
Dulles’ arrival) minimized the true value of the plan. As a further devaluation to the
strategic planning process, school site plans tended to comply with state mandates,
yet were poorly aligned to District plan. Although a culture of compliance was
present in the District, staff was responsive to Dulles’ shift in focus towards a
planning process that identified clear performance objectives and benchmarks.
122

In the area of strategic planning, ESPSD made dramatic shifts from an
organization that complied with state-mandated planning templates to an
organization where strategic planning resulted in specific ties between Board-
adopted goals and objectives, an adopted Theory of Action (Managed Performance
Empowerment), and a belief that central office staff and the School Board should
hold tight to the “what” (measurable objectives) and systematically loosen control of
the “how” (actions taken by the schools to drive improved student performance). Dr.
White reflected;
He [Dulles] framed the conversation around five components. Those five
components became the belief statements for the system that the board ended
up adopting…Children Come First; that was the ‘first thing.’ All initiatives
went to one of those five things. We did the same from an achievement
perspective.

Dr. Dune expounded on the role that the core beliefs played;

Dr. Dulles had five core values that he put forward as the system's five core
beliefs, which framed the eight initial programs called the Children Come
First Initiatives launched in August of 2006. The description of these values
made up the executive summary and first pieces of the Master Plan, which
attempted to show how the eight initiatives were linked to the goals in
substantive ways.

The creation of Autonomy (earned flexibility) and Opportunity (choice) Zones
enabled the district to approach systemic change in a nuanced manner and
acknowledge the strong work being accomplished in the schools.

123

Table 9: Addressing Change in Strategic Planning
Strengths Challenges
• Plan drafted by committee of constituent
groups
• Plan complied with State mandates
• Plan identified key data for measurement
• Minimal alignment between plan and District
action
• High turnover rate of District leadership
• Poor alignment between school and District plans
• Competition between divisions for scares
resources
Strategies
• Identify five core beliefs upon which to frame development of new Master Plan
• Build strong connections between board goals, adopted Master Plan, and District actions
• Refocused work of all District departments with measurable performance objectives with ties to Master
Plan
• Clearly delineate benchmark targets that are tied to board goals and articulate key action steps

The Board-adopted Master Plan was developed with input from members of
all stakeholder groups, promoting buy-in from all parts of the school system and the
surrounding community. The plan incorporated a clear vision of what improvement
looks like and identified five clearly defined goals that supported student
achievement and served as tethers from which all district actions were anchored and
evaluated. This effort represented a structural realignment that refocused the work of
all departments onto measurable performance objectives that were specifically tied to
goals outlined in the Master Plan. Clearly delineated targets allowed staff to know
where they were headed and what things would ultimately look like when they got
there.
Table 10: Strategic Plan Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.9
Current Quality
4.7
Level of
Implementation
Vision 1 5
3
Mission 1 3
Objectives (goals) 3 5
Strategies 1 5
Action Plan 3 5
Theory of Action 1 5
Data Dashboard 3 5
124

In evaluating the current reform efforts behind the strategic plan, a score of
4.7 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a score of 3 was
provided for the level of implementation. The strategic plan met the high end of the
rubric scale, although the progress towards full implementation was still in the
process of “ramping up”. For example, the Superintendent’s executive team had not
yet been fully staffed; the Chief Academic and Chief Business Officer positions
remain filled by interim personnel while a search continues for permanent team
members. Because of this, the scores indicate a moderate level implementation of a
high quality reform strategy.
Assessment
Table 11: Rubric Scoring of Assessment
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Assessment 3 4 From data management
focus to data-driven decision
making model, both in terms
of high stakes benchmark
testing and formative
assessments at the classroom
level.
• Move district from culture focused
on compliance to performance
• Accountability department
divided; Assessment and
Evaluation
• Coaches placed in middle schools
to build capacity for data-driven
decision making
• Performance evaluations tied to
data, strategic plan goals and
objectives

The assessment division was active prior to the arrival of the new
Superintendent, facilitating benchmark exams as required by the state, which were
aligned to the state mandated curriculum. Student achievement data was regularly
disaggregated at the central office and disseminated to the sites as it became
available. That said, the District’s approach to assessment was compliance-oriented
125

and site administrators relied on central office staff to wrestle with the data. Data
discussions were limited in scope and responses to data not common at all sites. Very
few teachers received training in data-driven decision making, resulting in an
environment in which student achievement data had little impact on classroom
instruction.
Table 12: Addressing Change in Assessment
Strengths Challenges
• Benchmark exams in place and aligned to
mandated curriculum
• Data is disaggregated at the District level and
disseminated to the sites as available
• Assessment process is compliance oriented
• District staff is tasked with finding meaning in
data
• Data discussions are limited / not common at all
sites
• Few teachers trained in data-driven decision
making
Strategies
• Master Plan incorporates data targets as performance measures for all departments
• System-wide focus on student achievement included in budget setting and program evaluation
• Regional offices redesigned to support data-driven decision making and program evaluation at the site
level
• Student achievement data plays a key role in the Superintendent’s annual performance evaluation

The Master Plan incorporated student achievement targets as performance
measures for all departments; an essential component of the District’s strategy for
moving from a culture that rewards compliance to one the values results. This shift
included moving from a data management focus to data-driven decision making
model; both in terms of high stakes benchmark testing and formative assessments at
the classroom level. This system-wide focus on achievement included how resources
were allocated (equitability), paying particular attention to the needs of struggling
learners at low performing schools. An example of that strategy would be found in
how data coaches positioned at all district middle schools in order to address the
126

curriculum and instruction issues related to underperformance at those grade levels.
Stoke reflected on Dulles’ innovative approach:
One of the innovations that the superintendent did - I mean it's kind of
startled the state - is creating Data Coach/School Testing Coordinator
positions at the middle schools. It doesn't exist anywhere in the State that I'm
aware of. John's idea was to take the existing Test Coordinator position and
combine it with something a little more sophisticated that goes beyond just
managing the testing to, once the data hits the school, what happens to
[because of] it?

Regional offices were also restructured to support student achievement objectives,
including data-driven decision making, alignment of assessments and curriculum,
and efforts to improving instruction.
Student achievement data played key role in Superintendent’s performance
evaluation, as well as informing program evaluation processes implemented within
all areas of the organization. To support program evaluation, the office of
accountability was divided into two branches; one to focus on the impact programs
have and another to measure quality levels and fidelity of implementation. Dr. Dulles
described the focus of the work:
One guy's role is to tell me if we're on track; the other guy's role is to say if it
is the right track. Cole’s [role] is to research and analyze implementation; to
answer questions we don't know the answer to; not just about
implementation, but also the ‘what ifs’…an independent assessment of the
quality of the work that's happening, to determine if it's the right work. Ted's
[role] is, ‘what do the numbers tell you?’…we don't know if it's right or
wrong, but is it a yes or a no? Are 50 percent of the kids achieving
proficiency? That's what Ted tells us.

127

Table 13: Assessment Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
3.0
Current Quality
3.7
Level of
Implementation
Summative Assessments 3 3
3
Formative Assessments 3 3
Data Management, Information,
and Reporting System
3 3
Analysis, Interpretation, and
Utilization of Assessment Data
3 5
Professional Development 3 3
Fiscal Support and Resources 3 5

A score of 3.7 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. This reflected a moderate
rubric score and level of progress towards implementing the assessment components
of the Master Plan. For example, while the district had improved efforts to
incorporate data-driven decision making at the central and regional level, those
strategies had not quite made it to the classroom level beyond efforts at the middle
schools. Assessments also focused on summative benchmark tests. Formative
assessments, where available, were widely spread apart and had limited impact on
classroom instruction. These scores reflected a moderate level implementation of a
moderate-high quality reform strategy.

128

Curriculum
Table 14: Rubric Scoring of Curriculum
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Curriculum 2 4 From compliantly applied
curriculum plan to
managed instruction that
incorporates aligned
curriculum, pacing, and
assessment with consistent
monitoring and focus on
results.
• Strengthened curriculum; managed
instruction / consistent monitoring
• Principal refocused on instructional
leadership and program monitoring
• Increased rigor of high school
program, 8 AP Initiative
• District support for differentiating
curriculum / instruction

Dr. Georgia Hill, Interim Chief Academic Officer, described a “high-quality
curriculum that was fully aligned to approved textbooks, adopted content area
standards, and state benchmark assessments.” Due to State mandate, the curriculum
was readily available to all teachers across the district at the time of Dr. Dulles’
arrival in 2006. Dulles described the curriculum:
Curriculum is, either fortunately or unfortunately, not an issue because it is
almost entirely mandated by the State. The Maryland standards actually come
with a curriculum. There is literally a 30-day, October, 9th grade, algebra
curriculum. And then there's one for November and there is one for
December…They're all very clear…The quality of the curriculum was
excellent…what teachers had was fairly stunning to me, excellent resource
guides for teachers. But no one had any skill to do it. That was the problem.

Daily pacing guides and detailed lesson plans supported teachers by providing a
means to address all standards during the school year. Although the state mandated
curriculum was readily available to all teachers via a centralized content distribution
system, there were no procedures in place to monitor its use at the classroom level.
Consequently, there existed a wide variation in the quality of instruction between
classrooms and across all school sites.
129

High teacher turnover rates, particularly in special education and English
language learner classrooms, contributed to the lack of consistency in terms of the
implementation of the adopted curriculum. The scheduling practices of high school
counselors with regards to Advanced Placement (AP) classes created widespread
issues with regards to equity of access. Principals typically determined the need for
offering AP classes at their school site and school counselors determined who had
access to those classes. In fact, only 8 of the 22 high schools in the district offered
those classes at the time of Dr. Dulles’ arrival. This type of “gate keeping” activity
on the part of school counselors made it very difficult for English language learners
and students from low income families to enroll in AP classes, even when they were
available at their school site.
Table 15: Addressing Change in Curriculum
Strengths Challenges
• High quality curriculum is provided by the State
and aligned to mandated benchmark
assessments
• Daily lesson plans and pacing guides are
available to all teachers at all grade levels
• No consistent plan for monitoring classroom
activity
• Wide variation of practice between classrooms
• High teacher turnover rates, particularly in special
education and classrooms with English learners
• Strongest administrators and teachers migrate to
the highest performing schools
Strategies
• Focus on establishing fidelity of implementation of the adopted curriculum
• Re-focusing work of principal to instructional leadership, classroom monitoring, and performance
evaluation
• Regional offices redesigned and re-tasked with supporting the work in classrooms
• Creating of autonomy zones to encourage innovation that leads to student academic success

When Superintendent Dulles arrived in ESPSD, he worked to move the
district from a compliance-focused approach to curriculum to embracing managed
instruction that incorporates aligned curriculum, pacing, and assessment with
consistent monitoring and a focus on results. The Interim Chief Academic Officer,
130

Dr. Georgia Hill stated that “Dr. Dulles focused on developing instructional quality
and fidelity of implementation of high-quality curriculum by re-focusing role of
principal on instructional leadership and tying performance evaluations directly to
student achievement.” Specific steps were also taken to increase the rigor of the high
school academic program. This included mandating that eight Advanced Placement
(AP) courses be provided at all comprehensive high school sites.
The role of central administration staff was also shifted to support and serve
the schools, rather than provide compliance oversight. Autonomy and Choice Zones
were established to give schools that evidenced academic progress greater freedom
in instructional and curriculum decision making. District support has been provided
to support developing teacher professional capacity for differentiating curriculum
and instruction. Specific district-wide efforts have been initiated for supporting
differentiated curriculum development for Gifted and Talented Education, English
Language Learners, and Special Education programs. These improvements, as well
as classroom instruction across the board, were supported through a systemic
monitoring and evaluation processes at the site and regional level.

131

Table 16: Curriculum Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
3.4
Current Quality
3.8
Level of
Implementation
Alignment to Learning
Standards and Assessments
5 5
3
Equal Access to Learning
Standards
3 3
Fidelity in Implementation 3 3
Sufficiency of and
Appropriateness of Materials
3 3
Clear and Regular Procedures
to Review and Update the
Curriculum
3 5

A score of 3.8 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. This reflects findings that
the State mandated curriculum was fully accessible to classroom teachers and the
District has embedded support structures to ensure monitoring of implementation
levels. The moderate-high level quality score is reflective of the compliance focus
relating to District efforts at monitoring, which itself was limited by a lack of
effective instructional differentiation in classrooms to ensure access to the
curriculum by various student subgroups.

132

Professional Development
Table 17: Rubric Scoring of Professional Development
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Professional
Development
3 4 From a scatted, new
program-focused system
of delivery to alignment of
professional development
activities to objectives
outlined in the adopted
Master Plan.
• Eliminated all PD that was not tied to
specific goals of the strategic plan
• Refocused work of regional offices to
provide direct classroom support
• Emphasized training of principals as
instructional leaders
• Focus on stratified accountability and
continuous improvement

Staff indicated that high quality professional development activities were
available to teachers and administrators in ESPSD prior to the arrival of Dr. Dulles in
April of 2006. The existing district budget prioritized teacher training and a
comprehensive Administrators Institute was in place. However, Kathleen Katz,
Director of Professional Development, indicated that professional development
activities were poorly articulated and follow-up to measure the direct impact on
classroom activity was minimal.
We're doing what we need to be doing, but we’re still going trying to connect
the dots. One of the previous challenges was that sometimes we just brought
too many things on board at one time. We need to make sure that it
happens…There was no coherence from staff development to curriculum and
instruction; to the administration and the leadership in central office. There
wasn't that common thread that everybody was able to talk about internally
and externally about what were common goals.

Dr. Dulles described a professional development structure that “focused on too many
things”. Teachers were regularly pulled out of classrooms and in-classroom support
and coaching was only available to new teachers. This external focus for professional
development had a direct, negative impact of the work of the schools. Likewise,
133

principals were commonly pulled away from sites 7 or 8 days per month. Dr. Dulles’
challenge with site administrators was to refocus the work of middle management
staff, which was largely disconnected from the classroom in terms of focus and
priority. Katz described the shift:
Dr. Dulles has been very adamant that none of us in the regional offices or
curriculum and instruction or in staff development go off and create their
own initiatives. The Master Plan is there for a reason. We wrote this plan and
said this is what's going to change instruction in Eastern Seaboard County.

Table 18: Addressing Change in Professional Development
Strengths Challenges
• High quality professional development
activities available to teachers and
administrators
• Budget clearly prioritized professional
development
• An administrators institute was in place to build
capacity of District middle management team
• Professional development activities were not
aligned to Master Plan
• Minimal follow-up to ensure implementation
• PD activities scheduled during the instructional
day
• Little in-class support/coaching available to
teachers
• Principals pulled from the sites 7 – 8 days per
month
Strategies
• Identified building staff professional capacity as one of five district priorities
• Limited PD activities to those identified in the Master Plan and attached to measurable outcomes
• Placed emphasis on direct, on-site support
• Realigned District resource allocation to support Master Plan PD goals and objectives
• Limited out of class time for teachers and off-site time of principals
• Increased involvement of the Superintendent in administrator training to promote District investment

Mrs. Kathleen Katz, the Director of Professional Development, identified
building the human capacity of staff as one of district priorities set by Superintendent
Dulles upon his arrival.
Since John has come, it really has been a major focus. Building capacity of
the school leaders, so that we can ensure what happens in the classroom, is
something we want every single day. He formed the School Leadership
Office. He felt that it needed to be a separate office…to support and to make
sure we continually expand the professional repertoire of our leaders. We are
assisting principals to be comfortable with initiatives; to be able to take it
back to the schoolhouse and get it implemented into the classroom
134

appropriately…to assess what's happening in there, and then make good
decisions about what next steps need to be.

Mrs. Katz described a marked shift from a scatted, new program-focused system of
delivery of professional development to a close alignment of professional
development activities to objectives outlined in the Master Plan. By limiting funded
professional development activities to those with direct ties to the Master Plan and
specific, measurable outcomes, the district established a clear sense of focus and was
better able to direct scarce resources towards activities most likely to have an impact
on teacher performance and student achievement.
Dulles’ push to restructure and re-task the staff in the regional offices
provided direct and critical support to work in classrooms. Katz described the
emphasis placed on just-in-time, on-site teacher support as having a “positive,
focusing effect in establishing stratified accountability and a pathway for continuous
improvement.” The “all eyes on the classroom” philosophy extended up into the
Superintendent’s Cabinet. Dulles’ vision is seen in the practice of each executive
team member spending the equivalent of one full day in ESPSD classrooms during
every school week. He reflected;
When you talk about [changing] culture, it is hand-to-hand combat. Every
one of us [cabinet] has school visitations every week. We’re in classrooms.
You go to principals and have your one-on-one. There's a formal protocol.
Here's the data. Here's your targets. What are you doing? I want to visit these
classes. Walk with me. Tell me how you're doing observations. We have a
standard set of questions we ask every kid and we kneel down next to them in
class.

135

The Superintendent himself began each Tuesday morning by walking classrooms,
commonly with a community stakeholder in tow.
During the first years of his Superintendency, Dr. Dulles elected to conduct
principal workshops in person, in order to establish himself as a role model and
ensure principals knew he was fully engaged and knew the work at hand. As Katz
described Dulles’ leadership:
A big piece of this is to know the leadership is going to really talk about and
demonstrate their understanding of what their expectations are for people at
the school house. He [Dulles] can talk the talk. He can talk Institute for
Learning. He can talk Disciplinary Literacy. So he has a lot of authenticity to
what he says.

Ongoing principal meetings have been limited to twice monthly, in order to keep site
administrators focused on supporting classroom instruction. Katz added:
If we expect them [principals] to be instructional leaders, then we want them
to be in their buildings and do what they're paid to do. We also realize you
need staff development, so we are going to try to fine-tune it to give you
[principals] the biggest bang for your buck along with keeping you in the
building.

Leadership Academies were established for aspiring site administrators and newly
hired principals. These efforts at building local capacity for instructional leadership
were organized through a partnership with the Institute for Learning.
Table 19: Professional Development Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
2.5
Current Quality
3.5
Level of
Implementation
Designing Professional
Development
3 5
4
Implementing Professional
Development
3 3
Evaluating and Improving
Professional Development
3 3
Sharing Professional
Development Learning
1 3
136

A score of 3.5 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 4 was provided for the level of implementation. This reflected a moderate
rubric score on the quality of the PD plan in place. This score reflected a lack of
coordinated effort to ensure all teachers had access to targeted PD that was aligned to
the curriculum and content standards. At the same time, there was adequate funding
in place and teachers are encouraged to voluntarily participate in trainings. The
scores indicated a moderate-high level implementation of a moderate quality reform
strategy.
HR System and Human Capital Management
Table 20: Rubric Scoring of HR System and Human Capital Management
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
HR System and
Human Capital
Management
1 4 From a position focused
recruitment office to a
human capital development
office that aligns
recruitment, placement, and
evaluation to specific student
achievement benchmarks.
• HR audit conducted with support
from Urban School Leadership
Foundation.
• Pay for performance program
incented teachers/principals to
“hard to staff” schools
• Student achievement led
placement decisions of
administrators / HQTs
• Principal job redesigned: 70% of
principals retired or reassigned

The Chief Human Resources Officer, Dr. Loraine Leeds, was one of the first
new hires of the Superintendent; recruited from a nontraditional environment. Leeds
implemented Dulles’ plan to reorient the Human Resources department from a
position focused recruitment office to a human capital development office that aligns
recruitment, placement, and evaluation to specific student achievement benchmarks.
As a key first step, Dulles worked with the Board of Education to conduct an
137

external human resources audit, prior to implementing a plan to recruit, develop, and
retain the “best and brightest” executive staff available.
Strengths relating to the Human Resource system in ESPSD, at the time of
Dulles’ arrival, went without mention during all interviews. Dr. Leeds summed up
what was said by many interviewees; “HR was a mess”. Leeds described the
previous HR leadership:
Prior HR chiefs were not true HR professionals. They were former teachers
or principals who grew up in the system…who came from within education,
without a broad HR background where they were strategic partners in the
organization and worked with the other division heads to deliver HR services.

This appears to have been a consistent practice in the district where administrators
rose through the ranks without regards to job expertise or professional readiness.
Leeds stated that “unsuccessful principals commonly moved into central or regional
office positions”.
Human resources-related issues extended well into the classrooms. In 2005,
only 54 percent of teachers were considered compliant according the Federal No
Child Left Behind standards. At some sites, schools were 100 percent out of
compliance. The trend was pointing downward in 2006, when 45 percent of the new
hires were not appropriately credentialed in the content area for which they were
hired to teach. Dr. Leeds reflected on her arrival in the District:
I had no idea what to expect, so I wasn't focusing on what to ask for. When
August rolled around and we were opening school, John said, 'give me an
idea how many...what the percentage of certified teachers that you hired'. I
went back to my person who did the hiring and said, 'what can you show me?'
She came back and with 45 percent and I thought I would fall through the
floor. They hired bodies. They found 1,400 people, only about 45 percent of
138

whom were certified. I could see in her eyes when she told me that she wasn't
even aware it had only been 45 percent. That wasn't the focus; the focus was
filling jobs. Get people in those schools. So, the next year it was clear that we
were looking for certified teachers; not just people to walk into the schools. I
hired a director to do nothing but recruiting, staffing, and certification. Our
goal is to get 100 percent highly qualified teachers in the four core subject
areas. Now, in Title I schools, we're at about 80 percent of highly qualified
teachers; all total, we're at above 70 percent.

This problem was exacerbated by a high rate of teacher turnover, particularly among
those with less than 5 years of experience. Because the new teacher retention rates
were so poor, the District commonly hired more that 20 percent of teaching staff
(1,600 teachers in 2005) each school year.
Table 21: Addressing Change in HR Systems and Human Capital Management
Strengths Challenges
• No HR-related strengths were identified during
any of the interviews
• There was a general agreement that the HR
division was ineffective and needed
restructuring
• Superintendent’s contract provided his with
authority to make personnel changes, system-
wide
• Prior HR executives not true HR professionals
• 45% of teacher staff out of compliance with
NCLB
• High rate of turnover, particularly of those with
less than 5 years of teaching experience
• Administrators promoted by seniority, not talent
• Unsuccessful principals moved to District-level
management positions
Strategies
• HR executive was one of the first hires of the new Superintendent; hired from non-traditional market
• Reshaped HR department into a customer service organization
• Sought to recruit, hire, and retain the “best and brightest” executive team through a nation-wide search
strategy
• Pay for performance incentive programs used to draw the strongest teachers and administrators to the
District’s poorest performing schools
• Hard-to-staff schools given preference during the hiring process

Dr. Leeds spoke about Dr. Dulles’ focus on implementing programmatic
structures that serve to effectively recruit, support, and retain new teachers and
ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher (HQT) in all core classrooms.
One of the things that I think came with him [Dulles], and we have embraced
them as ours, are his five core objectives. And, since Children Come First
was first and key, it has become something that we all have...it's sort of
embedded now in the culture. They [core beliefs] gave something for each
139

group of constituents to relate to. Parents are our Partners…Victory in the
Classroom… every piece of our business, of the institution itself, has a place
in our core objectives, which ultimately will improve student achievement.
The other thing he did was to work diligently to put a strong team of leaders
in place who were committed to being accountable and making employees
accountable…to not stray off the Children Come First vision…to do things to
keep it present in people's minds…that everything we do is about student
achievement.

These efforts resulted in a dramatic improvement in compliance (from 54 percent to
88 percent) with this critical component of the Federal No Child Left Behind
legislation.
To ensure that these teachers had the support and direction to find success,
Dulles redesigned the job description of the site principal to focus on instructional
leadership and required that all principals reapply for their positions. The process
enabled the Superintendent to have the necessary “difficult conversations” with each
site leader. It also provided a means for the Superintendent to communicate his
vision for the schools and ask for the support of each site administrator. As a result
of this process, 70 percent of principals retired, were released, or were reassigned in
first year of Dulles’ tenure.
Dulles also sought and obtained federal funding to implement a
comprehensive “pay for performance” program in ESPSD, enticing HQTs and strong
administrators to the lowest performing ESPSD schools. Both teachers and principals
were incented to come to ESPSD’ most difficult to staff schools and rewarded for
their effective work with students. Additionally, the lowest performing schools were
prioritized in the hiring processes for both teachers and administrators, which
140

enabled the HR department to recruit earlier for the District’s underperforming
schools.
Table 22: HR System and Human Capital Management Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.0
Current Quality
4.2
Level of
Implementation
Recruitment, Selection and
Placement of new
Administrators
1 5
3
Recruitment of Highly
Qualified Teachers
1

3
Teacher Support and
Development
1 5
Salaries, Wages and Benefits 1 3
Use of Incentives 1 5

A score of 4.2 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. This reflects the finding that
ESPSD had developed a strong HR plan and made significant progress in efforts to
manage human capital in such a way as to support improved student achievement.
For example, the pay for performance initiative successful in incenting high quality
teachers and administrators to the Districts poorest performing schools. The rating
scores indicated a moderate level implementation of a high quality reform strategy.

141

Finance and Budget
Table 23: Rubric Scoring of Finance and Budget
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Finance and
Budget
2 4 From percentage increase
formula model to outcomes-
based funding model;
specific ties between budget
decisions and strategic plan.
• Large carryover fund leveraged to
initiate first initiatives of the new
strategic plan
• Transition from base plus
percentage to performance-based
budgeting
• All expenditures tied to and
measured against strategic plan
goals and objectives

Stan Matthews, Interim Director for Budget Management described the
budget process in ESPSD, prior to the arrival of the new superintendent, as routine
for school districts in Maryland. Matthews characterized funding as “adequate and
steady.” ESPSD budgeting processes followed base allocation formula from the state
with annual across-the-board percentage increases. This systematic approach to
budgeting was tightly aligned to state guidelines. There was also a sizeable budget
surplus in ESPSD in 2006, due to carryover of unspent funds from prior years.
Mathews described the situation since 2003:
The system was running deficits of like $10 to $15 million a year. By 2005,
they had almost a $100 million surplus. How does that happen? That just tells
you there was not good [fiscal] management there. How did you go from
running deficits of that size to surpluses of that size in a matter of a year or
two? That tells me you're not managing resources properly.

When he addressed the challenges present in the district, Matthews pointed to
restricted alignment between district goals and spending priorities and the fact that
not all players were at the budgeting table. “Departments routinely fought for scarce
142

resources and well-positioned department leaders had better access to scarce
resources”.
Table 24: Addressing Change in Finance and Budget
Strengths Challenges
• Budget process was established and routine
• Process followed State guidelines
• There were significant carryover funds available
to initiate new programs and staffing changes
• Restricted alignment between District goals and
spending priorities
• Not all players were invited to the budgeting table
• Well-positioned departments historically received
preferable treatment in the budget process
• Ongoing FBI investigation of previous
Superintendent for fraud and mismanagement of
public funds
Strategies
• Incoming Superintendent had strong background and understanding of educational budgets
• Established a performance-based budget process that was tied to District goals and objectives
• Transitioned away from advocacy budgeting to the use of measurable performance indicators
• Resource allocation and budget processes tightly aligned to District Master Plan
• Implementation of a Balanced Scorecard for use within the program evaluation and budgeting processes

The Superintendent’s strong background and understanding of school
budgets enabled movement from a percentage increase formula budgeting model to
an outcomes-based funding model in which specific ties were established between
the budget decision making process and the goals outlined in the Master Plan. Upon
arrival in ESPSD, the new Superintendent leveraged a large carryover fund balance
to initiate high priority initiatives outlined in the newly adopted Master Plan. Dulles
described the fiscal environment into which he arrived:
The place was in complete chaos. I can't tell you how dysfunctional it was. I
came in because they had to find a superintendent to replace the one they had
to fire, who is actually on trial this week for kind of massive corruption. I was
the fifth person in six years…No one knew what they were doing. So, just
having one plan and drilling it down was a win. There was so much
mismanagement that they had actually amassed $100 million surplus, which I
have promptly spent. The strength of the place was the people truly wanted
kids to do well; the people wanted something better.

143

The Balanced Scorecard tied budget decisions to measurable performance indicators,
providing a transition away from advocacy budgeting, which had dominated the
process under previous leadership. Stan Matthews reflected on the change:
Dr. Dulles is moving us towards a performance management budgeting and
financial approach. We just received a grant from the Broad Foundation and
the Michael Susan Dell Foundation to conduct a performance measurement
analysis. We're really moving in the performance-based budgeting direction.

This shift ensured that all actions of the organization centered on student
achievement and focused dialogue on student achievement rather than advocacy
efforts on behalf of particular programs or spending priorities.
Table 25: Finance and Budget Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
2.3
Current Quality
3.7
Level of
Implementation
Strategic Budget Planning 1 5
3 Organizational Culture 3 3
Operational Procedures 3 3

A score of 3.7 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. The current plan focused on
the District level budgeting processes and limited reach in terms of decision making
and accountability at the site level. The scores reflected a moderate level
implementation of a moderate-high quality reform strategy.

144

Communications
Table 26: Rubric Scoring of Communications
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Communication 2 4 From a department whose
aim is to protect the district
from negative press to a
strategic tool for
communicating the district’s
vision and promoting
student-centered news to the
media.
• High visibility, beginning with
“listening tour” during entry phase
• Monthly reports on strategic plan,
using various media
• Communications needs
assessment initiated upon
Superintendent’s entry
• Focused all district
communication on strategic plan’s
five core beliefs

The Communications Director, Dan Brown, supervised what he described as
“a well-defined communications office that received strong funding and district
support” prior to the arrival of Dr. Dulles. Mr. Brown identified multiple media
outlets in community, which were routinely engaged by the District. Brown also
identified several communications-related challenges present at the time of Dulles’
arrival in April of 2006. First and foremost was the relationship between the district
and media, which Brown characterized as “largely adversarial due to the high
turnover of district leadership, low academic performance, and ongoing FBI
investigation of the previous Superintendent.” The previous administration exerted a
great deal of effort towards avoiding all contact with the press.
It was Brown’s view that the district communications efforts were
structurally challenged by being divided into two departments; the public
information office and the web development team. In addition, the fact that schools
typically disseminated their own positive news via newsletters, with limited support
145

from communications department, was also problematic. Brown suggested that the
structure facilitated communication of many “variations” of the district image and
represented “lost opportunities for promoting the great things that ESPSD schools
were doing to a larger audience across a diverse community of stakeholders.” He
saw Dr. Dulles’ effort to bring the two departments into one division as helpful in
promoting a consistent vision to all stakeholder groups.
Table 27: Addressing Change in Communications
Communications Strengths Challenges
• Adequate funding of communications
departments
• Multiple media outlets available in the county
• District owned television station
• Communication efforts divided between two
departments (press and web)
• Adversarial relationship between District and
press
• Schools left to disseminate information on their
own with limited support from the District
Strategies
• Communications audit initiated by the Superintendent upon arrival
• Combined two departments into one communications division
• Reversed District’s stance towards the press by increasing accessibility and transparency with the media
• District television station used to promote Superintendent’s vision and the five core belief statements

Under the direction of the new Superintendent, Dan Brown, Director of
Communications, initiated a communications needs assessment in the early days of
Dr. Dulles’ tenure. This led to a departmental shift from day-to-day efforts to protect
the District from negative press to a broad-based understanding of the division’s role
as a strategic tool for promoting the District’s vision and student-centered news
stories to the media. Mr. Brown described the changes:
Our approach, in many ways, has transformed from when I got here. "No
comment" was being used a lot. So [now] we're trying to open up and be
more available, accessible, and transparent. I think that has helped. Our
current superintendent is much more accessible than some of his
predecessor's.

146

This shift was initiated with a high level of visibility by the Superintendent during
his first several months on the job, which ran contrary to the behavior of previous
district leadership. Dr. Dulles conducted a comprehensive “listening tour” during his
entry phase, spending time with all stakeholder groups and conducting town hall-
style meetings in all areas of the large school system. Brown continued:
It was pretty amazing how people allowed us to turn the page. This
superintendent didn't appear to have any baggage. This superintendent
wanted to meet people; he wanted to speak to people. We had a honeymoon
that, you know, I'm surprised hasn't ended yet. So, that's a credit to Dr.
Dulles.

These community meetings have continued since the entry period, as a means to
provide community stakeholders with reports on progress of the Master Plan. These
progress reports are conducted on a monthly basis and shared out using various
forms of media.
Dulles combined the public information office with the web development
team; enabling consistency of message and leveraging several means of
communicating with the public. By focusing all district communications (print, web,
television) on the five core beliefs in the strategic plan, the superintendent provided a
clear vision and a means to guide the dialogue regarding education within the larger
community. This reversed the districts’ historically oppositional stance with regards
to the press and meshed with the public’s view regarding the appropriate role of a
school system leader.

147

Table 28: Communications Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.8
Current Quality
3.4
Level of
Implementation
Communications Plan 1 3
3
Communications Office 3 3
Communication of District
Vision to the Community
1 5
Build Support for District
Initiatives
1 3
Two-way Communications with
Community
3 3

A score of 3.4 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. While the District made
great strides in providing a unified front to the community, efforts to coordinate with
school sites is limited in both scope and practice. The changes put into place as a
result of the external communications audit have not yet matured and budget
challenges have limited efforts to support the coordinated work with the schools.
Consequently, scores reflected a moderate level implementation of a moderate
quality reform strategy.
Governance and Board Relations
Table 29: Rubric Scoring of Governance and Board Relations
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Governance
and Board
Relations
2 3 From a state appointed
board with limited
accountability to the local
community to an elected
board that has embraced
five core beliefs that drive
the district strategic plan.
• Fully embraced Sup’s “Children
Come First” vision and achievement
focus
• Board training provided with
support of the Urban School
Leadership Foundation.
• Weekly Board report addresses
progress on each Strategic Plan goal
• Meets weekly with each Board
member; communicates daily with
Board President
148

The School Board in place at the time of Dulles’ arrival was appointed by the
State following a takeover of the District resulting from fiscal mismanagement and
poor student performance. The appointed Board was clearly ready to identify and
support a new leader. Dr. White reflected on the arrival of the Superintendent and his
leadership team:
You had an appointed board who was trying to 'right the ship'. The appointed
Board actually wanted to get us up and running quickly. They were less
concerned about what a lot of people in the community thought; they just
wanted the school system righted, as quickly as possible.

The appointed Board had been successful in solving the district’s financial crisis,
providing the new Superintendent with a multimillion dollar balance with which to
fund key initiatives upon arrival. They also granted Dulles with a great deal of
authority to the in terms of selecting his executive team and site administrators. At
the same time, the appointed Board was mistrusted by the community, who felt there
was limited accountability to the voters. Gina Laycock, the current ESPSD School
Board Chairperson, indicated that community members were only able to access
appointed Board members “during public sessions and parents resented the lack of
accountability to the voters.” Laycock continued:
The perception was that…I’m being clear this was a perception…the
appointed Board was not responsive to community, that they were not
accountable. The appointed Board came in with a major budget shortfall.
They cleared it up, put the school district back in the black from a financial
perspective, but the view was that superintendents pretty much ran the school
system and the Board just rubber stamped. Another perception was that
previous Board members were not individuals, they were puppets.

149

Table 30: Addressing Change in Governance and Board Relations
Strengths Challenges
• Appointed Board ready to support a new leader
• Resolution of District’s financial crisis
• Multimillion dollar funding balance
• Tension between Board and the community
• Resented of the State takeover
• Little access to Board members
• Little accountability of Board to the voters
• Suspiciousness of new, Caucasian leader
Strategies
• Moved “controversial” aspects of his Plan of Entry Plan (e.g., reorganization of the regional offices,
restructuring of schools, and establishing pay for performance program) into place under appointed board
• Established a strong connection with the local media and gave open access to the press
• Promoted key programs directly to the parent community; mitigating potential resistance from the
new board
• Advocated School Board member training; obtaining external funding to support the process
• Invested time with new members (individually and as a group) in order to build familiarity, establish
core beliefs and common commitments, and set goals for the District

Dr. Dulles assumed the leadership position under the appointed Board. The
perceived disconnect between the local community and school system became an
obstacle the new Superintendent had to address immediately upon arrival.
Chairperson Laycock also made a connection between the general mistrust issues
and racial tensions present in the largely African American community. Laycock
described a “feeling in the community” relating to community members’ suspicion
of this “white guy who did not look like us or understand our issues”:
I do believe that some Board members came with a directive [from their
constituents] that this [superintendent] is not the person for our school
system, because he doesn’t look like us. But the reality is - where our
dilemma is - it is not about whether you look like us, it is about whether we
have the same beliefs about students. Do we believe that all children can
achieve?

The Urban School Leadership Foundation sponsored a Board retreat shortly
following the elections and provided an arena in which the new Board and new
Superintendent could establish a shared vision and embrace a common set of core
beliefs and goals. A common focus on student achievement and establishing equity
150

of fiscal and human resources at all school sites created common ground upon which
the Superintendent and Board found success in moving forward. Laycock recalled
her experience with the Board training:
When we got this CRSS [Center for Reformed School Districts] information
to apply as a board for this Broad Training, the community told us, in no
uncertain terms, were we to do this. We saw the challenge that was presented
for us and an opportunity to learn the work as we were just coming in; we
took advantage of it. That has been challenging, because we were a brand
new school board, trying to learn what the job is…I said to my colleagues,
take the good and leave the bad [of the board training], whatever you
consider to be the bad parts. What has come out of it are unbelievable
policies. We developed our core beliefs and commitments policy, where we
were able to put our voice in writing. I remember typing it one night at two
o’clock in the morning saying they [the community] are going to love this
stuff. We were able to say to the community, this is what we believe in and
this is what we are committed to doing, based on that belief.

When Dr. Dulles arrived in ESPSD, it was under the direction of a State
appointed school Board. The autonomy given to the Superintendent by the Board
enabled him to move several “controversial” aspects of his entry plan (e.g.,
reorganization of the regional offices, restructuring several schools, and establishing
a pay for performance program) into place with minimal resistance. The new
Superintendent was able to guide the District from a scenario in which the state
appointed board had limited accountability to the local community to one in which a
freely elected Board embraced the five core beliefs that drive the District’s Bridge to
Excellence Master Plan.
It is important to note that the current Board was elected six months
following the arrival of the new Superintendent. A strong connection with the local
media and open access to the press enabled Dr. Dulles to promote programs directly
151

to the parent community (voters), mitigating the potential resistance from the newly
elected Board. The elected Board willingly embraced a school board member
workshop funded and facilitated by the Urban School Leadership Foundation, which
provided time for members to get to know one another, establish core beliefs and
shared commitments, and set goals for themselves and for the District. Laycock
described the situation when the newly elected Board took office:
John was already here…we did not hire Dr. Dulles. I lost count of how many
Superintendents we’ve had over the years. Having said that, we sort of came
in with the mindset that our goal was to make this work for what is best for
students. I think Dr. Dulles did a good job of trying to bring the Board
around, because he was here before us. We started to develop a relationship
that was around our vision about what is best for students… I think one thing
that is clear; we believe that John believes in student achievement. He cares
about children. For example, when he came with the message of 'your zip
code should not determine whether or not you can take an AP class’; That
resonated with this Board.

The Board fully embraced the Superintendent’s “Children Come First” vision
statement and the focus this vision provided when establishing goals and objectives
for all district divisions that are rooted in student achievement.
To foster a productive relationship with the Board, Superintendent Dulles met
weekly with each of the nine ESPSD Board members and communicated daily with
the Board Chair. A weekly Board report was submitted to the members that
addressed levels of progress for each goal of the Master Plan. Mrs. Laycock, the
ESPSD School Board Chairperson, acknowledged a “natural tension between the
Board’s priorities and the District’s actions.” She stated, the “conflict existing
between the Board and the Superintendent’s office is rooted in his focus on student
152

achievement and their focus on constituent services.” Dr. Dulles’ proactive effort to
develop an effective relationship with each board member enabled his ability to
move forward large-scale reform efforts with minimal resistance.
The Superintendent established a strong relationship with the Board Chair
and effective relationships with each Board member. The Board and the executive
cabinet embraced each of the key components of the Superintendent’s Plan of Entry
and have aligned District resources to support the goals of the Bridge to Excellence
Master Plan. The political and social realities of the community had a fairly
significant impact on these efforts and on the Board as a whole. Issues of Race and
social inequity commonly found their way into the working dialogue of the District’s
decision-making processes, including public Board meetings.
Table 31: Governance and Board Relations Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
2.2
Current Quality
3.4
Level of
Implementation
Setting the Direction for the
Community’s Schools
3 3
3
Establishing an Effective and
Efficient Structure for the
District
3 5
Providing Support and
Resources
1 3
Ensuring Accountability to the
Public
3 3
Actions as Community Leaders 1 3

Based on data collected during interviews of key personnel and a review of
relevant documents, a score of 3.4 (high-medium) was given for the quality of the
current reform strategies relating to governance and Board relations using the
153

Quality Rubric (Appendix D). This score reflected positive growth of 1.2 points from
the prior implementation score of 2.2. The level of implementation of these efforts to
date were rated a 3, reflecting a medium level of implementation.
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
Table 32: Rubric Scoring of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Labor Relations
and Contract
Negotiations
2 3 From a group-centric
negotiations process in
which each process works
independently to a managed,
ongoing negotiations process
managed by one department.
• Brought teacher’s union on board
with pay for performance program
• Inserted student achievement into
negotiations / evaluation processes
• Provided Intraspace bargaining
training to negotiating teams
• Brought negotiations process
under one department to build
consistency

In the area of labor relations, Superintendent Dulles arrived in ESPSD to find
five negotiation teams in place with a history of “successful” contract negotiations.
However, labor contracts were negotiated by teams from various departments and
relationships between the district and member organizations were contentious and
polarized. Each union negotiated to their own end with no process in place to tie
union goals to the district Master Plan or to student achievement. It was the view of
the Superintendent that “union leaders advocated for the rights of adults, without
much regard for the potential negative impact of students.” Dr. White described the
situation in spring of 2006:
It was adult-centered, based on the needs and resources of adults…a
placement agency where many individuals were from the community were
relatives or friends of...were misplaced principals who weren't doing an
effective job...were misplaced administrators. There was not a lot of capacity;
154

very little will to do anything other than those things that benefited the
person.

Table 33: Addressing Change in Labor Relations
Strengths Challenges
• Experienced negotiation teams in place
• Previous history of successful negotiations
• District focused on the needs of adults, not
students
• Negotiations processed through three departments
• Negotiating goals not linked to student
achievement
Strategies
• All negotiations conducted through Director of Employee and Labor Relations
• Superintendent contact with unions limited to outside the negotiations process; receives proposals
• Training in Intraspace Bargaining provided to all members of negotiation teams
• Negotiation team goals tied to District Master Plan goals and objectives

Superintended Dulles led a transition from group-centric negotiations to a
managed, ongoing negotiations system with oversight by one department to build
consistency in process. The Director of Employee and Labor relations led all
negotiation teams, which were established with three members on each side.
Training was provided to all negotiation team members in order to build capacity for
reaching consensus. Specific training in Intraspace Bargaining helped prevent
stalemates and kept groups focused on Board adopted District goals.
The Superintendent participated in the negotiations process as requested by
the negotiations team in order to address an impasse or receive formal agreement
proposals. The Superintendent’s contact with union leadership was largely conducted
outside of the negotiations process, allowing team leaders space to do their work. Dr.
Dulles made headway with regards to his goal to insert student achievement data into
the negotiations and evaluation processes throughout the system. These efforts
resulted in increased union leader appreciation for the performance-based Balanced
155

Scorecard used by the Board and resulted in bringing the teacher’s union on board
with the Superintendent’s pay for performance incentive program.
Table 34: Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.5
Current Quality
3.0
Level of
Implementation
Relationships, Communications
and Trust
3 3
3
Negotiation Principles and
Objectives
1 3
Strategies for Negotiation 1 3
Fair and Equitable Outcomes 1 3

A score of 3.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. The strongest aspect of the
reform initiatives relating to labor relations had to do with the Superintendents
success in gaining union support for the pay for performance program. Without
union support, this plan would not have had the success that it has with regards to
District efforts to reallocate human capital to support student learning. That said, the
negotiations teams have maintained some processes, which contributed to impasse.
These scores reflected a moderate level implementation of a moderate quality reform
strategy.

156

Family and Community Engagement
Table 35: Rubric Scoring of Family and Community Relations
House Elements Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Family and
Community
Engagement
2 4 From mistrustful relationship
between schools and the
community to a system in
which families and
community business leaders
are encouraged to participate
in district decisions.
• Conducted listening tour; provided
opportunity for community input
• Spoke throughout the community;
promoted “Children Come First”
vision
• Placed parent liaisons and parent
resource rooms at each school site
• Created Pre-K programs at 67 high-
poverty school sites during first year.

Shortly after his arrival, Dr. Dulles brought in a community and family
relations expert to coordinate programs that increase parent engagement and child
advocacy. Dr. Wilma Spence, Chief of Student Services, described strong parent
organizations that were in place in the district at the time of Dr. Dulles’ arrival.
However, this was the case at only 30% of the district schools, typically those in the
more affluent areas of the community. Spence described a fragmented approach to
family and community engagement in the District, where each school promoted their
own events and provided opportunities for parental involvement that were
disconnected from a District-wide plan.
When we came, there was no comprehensive, systemic approach toward
coordinating services and really engaging parents and the community in the
process…We found maybe 30 percent of our schools had a formal parent
organization. We knew that just having a formal parent organization was not
enough. You've got to have parents participating…there's got to be a reason.

The active parent organizations were isolated in the more affluent schools
across the District and resulted in a serious lack of equity in the distribution of
human and fiscal resources, specifically in terms of how the District responded to
157

parent advocacy. Low levels of parent involvement and strong gate keeping activities
at high poverty schools contributed to a system that disadvantaged struggling
learners in underperforming schools. Site administrators were isolated and found
advocating for their school programs to be difficult without the high rate of
participation by parents. This reality was one of the factors that contributed to the
high turnover of site- and District-level leadership and, ultimately, to the State
takeover of school system.
Table 36: Addressing Change in Family and Community Relations
Strengths Challenges
• Strong parent organizations at 30% of the
schools
• Parents and community desired changes that
would benefit students
• Fragmented approach to parent engagement
• School promoted their own programs
• Low parent involvement at low SES schools
• High levels of mistrust for District leadership
Strategies
• Early communication of District vision centered on student achievement and parental involvement
• Community and Family Relations expert hired as member of the Superintendent’s executive staff
• Established parent organizations and placed parent liaisons at every school site across the District
• Promoted opportunities for parental involvement in classroom activities at all site
• Established expectations for parent and community investment in the education of each child
• Parents actively recruited for and placed on District advisory committees; increasing parental activism
• Regular feedback provided to the community regarding progress on the District Master Plan goals and
objectives

Since assuming leadership of the Eastern Seaboard Public School District
system in 2006, Dr. Dulles has consistently communicated a vision that identifies
five core beliefs, including “Children Come First” and “Parents are our partners”.
This began with a comprehensive “listening tour” initiated immediately upon entry,
in order to provide opportunity for community input. These efforts resulted in a
marked shift from a mistrustful relationship between schools and the community to a
setting in which families and community business leaders were encouraged to
participate in District decision making processes.
158

Early efforts to promote initiatives including parent education and child
advocacy training led to the establishment of parent resource rooms and PTA/PTO
organizations at all school sites. To further these efforts, Dulles placed a full-time,
trained parent liaison at each school site, with an additional bilingual liaison at
schools with high EL populations. Dr. Spence described the Parent Liaison position:
This person's job was to teach parents how to navigate the school system and
how to navigate the county, state, and local government systems…to teach
parents about all of the services we have for children and then how to go
about obtaining services...why they need to have their kids in Advanced
Placement classes...why they need to make sure children are involved in
extracurricular activities.

Parents were actively recruited from the community to serve on district-wide
committees that provide input in policy development and feedback on district
progress towards meeting the goals outlined in the Master Plan. Dr. Dulles also
established Pre-K programs at 67 high-poverty school sites during his first year,
citing the need to engage each child’s parent in the school program beginning in the
very early years of a child’s life.
Table 37: Family and Community Engagement Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
2.0
Current Quality
4.0
Level of
Implementation
Parenting 1 5
4
Communication 3 3
Volunteerism 1 3
Learning at Home 1 5
Decision Making 3 5
Collaboration with the
Community
3 3

159

A score of 4.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 4 was provided for the level of implementation. These scores reflected a
moderate-high level implementation of a moderate-high quality reform strategy.
District efforts to engage the local community, including parents and business
leaders, was well received and served to reverse the negative impression held of the
schools in the local community. The District struggled with racial and
socioeconomic issues that present a divide within the community. Given time, this
reform strategy is likely to continue to increased positive pressure for change.
Other House Model Elements
In Eastern Seaboard County, systemic change was initiated and facilitated
through multiple reform strategies implemented by the Superintendent and his
executive team. An organizational assessments and auditing process was used to
build a case for large-scale reform that countered the historical power structures in
place within the system. By focusing on the academic achievement of students and
tying all decisions to the Board adopted goals and objectives outlined in the Bridge
to Excellence Master Plan, Dr. Dulles made significant gains in terms of developing
good will among parents and teachers alike. A Human Resource audit provided
information to support the Superintendent’s assertion that the quality of the district is
directly tied to the quality of the executive staff, the proficiency of site principals,
and the availability of highly qualified teachers in each classroom.
More significantly, the Superintendent and Board agreed to a concrete
Theory of Action that would reward performance and utilize accountability
160

structures that incorporated both tight and loose controls and were tied to specific,
measurable outcomes. To encourage innovation, schools that were successful in
raising student achievement and closing the achievement gap were offered increased
flexibility in terms of how programs are implemented on site. Schools that continued
to struggle were held to stricter accountability, yet provided greater access to
centralized support and fiscal resources. The budgeting system and resource
allocation procedures were also tied back to the Master Plan and specific
performance outcomes.
When considering the specific reform strategies that were used to drive
academic achievement, outside of the key ten identified by the Urban School
Leadership Foundation and detailed in Chapter 3, several rise to the surface. The
elements are briefly described and key aspects of the reform strategy are emphasized
below. Each reform strategy was evaluated using the Levels of Implementation
Rubric (Appendix E) and given a score of 1 (low), 3 (medium) or 5 (high),
representing the level of progress the Superintendent made with regard to full
implementation of each reform strategy.
Plan of Entry
Dr. Dulles developed and implemented a three phase plan of entry that
addressed five goals relating to board governance, student achievement, public trust,
organizational efficiency, and continuous improvement. Clearly this document had
implications beyond structuring the thinking of the district leader as he assumed the
new position. The effect of the Superintendent’s plan of entry was clearly evident in
161

the structure and tone of the Board adopted Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, as
well as a prominent component of the district’s promotional materials. The core
beliefs and strategies found in the plan of entry were consistently used to drive
District efforts to promote reform and were embraced by staff and community
members alike. The effort of the Superintendent to implement a plan of entry as a
reform strategy geared towards raising student achievement was rated a 5 (high).
Organizational Assessment and Audits
Following his arrival in ESPSD, Superintendent Dulles restructured the
Assessment Division into two distinct departments; a structure that was unique in the
State of Maryland. The Assessment Department monitored student achievement and
reported results to the schools for use in data driven decision making processes. The
Evaluation Department played a key role in monitoring program implementation and
measuring program effectiveness. The Superintendent initiated formal, external
audits of the Human Resources and Communications Divisions immediately upon
entry into the new position. Internal audits were initiated in the areas of instruction
and professional development. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement
organizational assessments and audits as a reform strategy were rated a 3 (medium).
Leadership Team Effectiveness
Each member of the ESPSD leadership team had a clearly articulated work
plan that was tied directly to the District’s Master Plan and aligned to and supportive
of the core values established by the Board. All executive team members (including
those with responsibilities for non-instructional divisions) spent the equivalent of one
162

full day in classrooms each week and actively participated in monitoring student
achievement goals. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement systemic reform
to enhance leadership team effectiveness were rated a 5 (high).
Organizational Chart
The ESPSD organizational chart was re-drawn to emphasize systemic support
for the work in classrooms. The regional district offices were transitioned from
holding responsibility for compliance oversight and accountability to structures that
provide direct support to the instructional program. The communications office was
consolidated and the assessment office was split, in order to better support District
goals and objectives. The effort of the Superintendent to utilize the organizational
chart structure as a reform strategy were rated a 3 (medium).
Standards
Academic content standards were developed at the State level and distributed
electronically to the classroom teachers. These standards were supported by well-
aligned textbooks and benchmark assessments. The District created high-quality
pacing guides and daily lesson plans that support standards-based instruction. The
efforts of the Superintendent to implement standards as a reform strategy,
particularly as it applied to implementing standards-based instruction, were rated a 5
(high).
Instruction
Recent efforts to improve the professional capacity of ESPSD teachers had a
positive effect on student achievement in reading and math. Training of principals as
163

instructional leaders improved classroom monitoring and resulted in raised levels of
accountability at the school sites. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement
instructional reform as a strategy to drive student achievement gains were rated a 3
(medium).
Program Effectiveness
Dr. Dulles divided the Assessment Division into two departments; one
focused on student achievement and the other monitored program implementation
and effectiveness. This action supported the program evaluation processes, while
maintaining focus on the impact of programs on student achievement. The new
structure of the division provided support for measuring effectiveness of District
action on achieving Master Plan goals and objectives. The efforts of the
Superintendent to implement program effectiveness evaluation as a reform strategy
were rated a 3 (medium).
Focus on Lowest Performers
The focus of the District’s pay for performance program on low performing
schools incented highly qualified teachers and experienced administrators to the
lowest performing schools in ESPSD. A needs-based formula funding model
supported efforts to allocate District resources to schools with the most challenging
student populations. The efforts of the Superintendent to refocus the work of the
District towards supporting the lowest performers, particularly as reform strategy to
improve student achievement and close achievement gaps, were rated a 5 (high).

164

Student Support Services
Academic intervention programs were available to students both during and
after school and target students with the greatest needs. Availability of these
programs on each site was determined by student achievement data at each school.
24-hour online academic support was provided via the Internet to students from
school, home, and/or public libraries. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement
student support services-related reform strategies were rated a 3 (medium).
Resource Alignment
A needs-based formula funding model was implemented to support efforts to
reallocate District resources to schools with the highest populations of struggling
students or large groups of student whose education requires access to special
services. Schools with low performing students or high ELL and/or special education
populations were provided additional resources beyond base allocations. The efforts
of the Superintendent to implement resource alignment as a reform strategy were
rated a 5 (high).
Facilities
Several school buildings were re-tasked to support small school programs
such as special learning academies (e.g., French and Spanish immersion, fine arts,
technology, Montessori, etc.). The efforts of the superintendent to implement
facilities-related reform strategies to drive student achievement were rated a 3
(medium).

165

Performance Management Systems / Accountability Plan
The ESPSD Master Plan called for the use of a Balanced Scorecard by the
Board and the Superintendent’s Cabinet as a tool to drive decision-making processes.
The District’s administrative team members had student performance goals built into
their annual performance evaluations. Teacher evaluations also incorporated student
achievement data. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement a performance
management system and accountability plan as reform strategies were rated a 5
(high).
Business Services
All funding was tied to the performance goals outlined in the District Master
Plan. The Superintendent’s Cabinet completed biannual benchmark measurements.
Progress is measured and reported formally to the Board each year and is used to set
annual budgeting priorities. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement reform
strategies related to business services were rated a 3 (medium).
Other Operational Services
District operational goals were tied to the District Master Plan, including
linkages to improving student achievement. District divisions made strong
connections to supporting the work of the classrooms. The efforts of the
Superintendent to implement reform strategies related to other operational services
were rated a 3 (medium).

166

Political Relationships
Superintendent Dulles met regularly with city and county political leaders
and reported effective relationships with State leadership. Board politics continued to
be volatile and polarized. There is a persistent perception that the Superintendent
does not understand the community; evidence that underscores the impact of racial
issues within the community. The efforts of the Superintendent to leverage political
relationships as a component of his overall reform strategy were rated a 3 (medium).
Philanthropic and Institutional Partnerships
The Superintendent was successful in increasing the amount of foundational
giving to the District and there were established relationships with local institutions
for higher learning. The Superintendent was active in the local business community
and a strong advocate for the school system. The efforts of the Superintendent to
leverage philanthropic and institutional partnerships to support District reform
strategies tied to improving student academic achievement were rated a 3 (medium).
Constituent Service
In order to increase parent involvement and investment in the local schools,
the Superintendent established a Parent Resource Centers at every school; staffing
each center with a full-time parent liaison. The Superintendent spent a good amount
of time in the local community, promoting the District vision and providing
opportunities for constituents to have input. The efforts of the superintendent to
implement constituent services as a reform strategy were rated a 3 (medium).

167

Sustainability
Because State law prohibits districts from raising funds through taxation, the
District was forced to rely on State funding and limited county monies to support
school programs. The District relied heavily on foundational giving and Federal
grant programs to fund special programs (e.g., the small schools initiative and the
pay for performance program). Reliance on grant funding places important district
reform initiatives at risk when funding runs out and places the sustainability and,
consequently, the long-term impact of these programs into question. The efforts of
the Superintendent to implement sustainability as a reform strategy were rated a 3
(medium).
Superintendent’s Contract
Superintendent’s contract was a year-to-year agreement with specific
benchmarks for evaluation. Components of the contract included the right to hire and
fire executive leadership and select and place site administrators without obstruction
from the Board. The effort of the Superintendent to leverage his contract as a
strategy to drive reform was rated a 5 (high).
Discussion
The findings presented in this study were developed and presented by
reviewing the data collected in the context of the conceptual framework of the House
Model. The purpose of this section was to make sense of the findings in ways that
provide purpose and meaning to the actions under study.

168

Systemic Change and the System Leader
With the increasingly intense focus on external accountability, districts such
as Eastern Seaboard are engaging in work that is relatively new to public school
administrators. School systems and system leaders must engage in a reflective
continuous improvement process with all stakeholder groups focused on the quality
of the educational experience of students (Elmore, 2002; Fullan et al, 2004). While
scholars have identified effective classroom teachers and schools that are finding
strong results, there remain few examples of organizations that have taken these
reform strategies to scale across an entire district, especially in urban school settings
(Reeves, 2005; McDermott, 2000; MacIver & Farley, 2003). At the same time,
researchers are demonstrating the important role that districts plays in driving change
throughout the organization (MacIver & Farley, 2003; Anderson, 2003).
Key focal points of Dr. Dulles’ efforts to drive change in Eastern Seaboard
schools were clearly aligned to the school and district reform research (Togneri,
2003; California Department of Education, 2007; Shannon & Blysma, 2004). These
included:
1. Developing effective governance practices
2. Alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessments
3. Effective fiscal operations
4. Comprehensive parent and community engagement
5. Efficient human capital management
6. Use of data systems to monitor achievement
169

7. Targeted professional development
Specifically, in Eastern Seaboard, the Board and Superintendent collaborated to
create a culture of change where it was equally as safe to talk about poor
performance as it was to speak of potential solutions. By establishing clear goals and
expectations, staff knew where the targets were and what strategies would be
implemented to achieve them. Dr. Dulles worked with the Board to develop policies
and procedures that supported instructional improvement. Dulles also transformed
the central and regional offices to represent an organization tasked with extending
support to the school sites (MacIver & Farley, 2003), reversing a trend to view the
District office with a compliance orientation.
Superintendent Dulles’ Plan of Entry demonstrated a clear understanding of
the change process and placed focus on the organizational structures that were
inhibiting progress in Eastern Seaboard. His stated vision and goals evidenced a
belief in the power that districts (and the system leader) possess to support
educational reform (Anderson, 2003; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2006;
McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). The Superintendent quickly worked to adapt the
structure of the district to align with the new vision and goals and sought to establish
coherence between those goals and objectives and the activities in which all
departments of the District engaged (Applebaum, St-Pierre, & Valero, 1998; Fullan
et al, 2004; Childress et al, 2006; Laboratory for Student Success, 2002). Anderson
(2003) calls the lack of coherence in a system “organizational confusion” and speaks
to the negative impact such disorientation can have on the work of a District. Fullan
170

et al (2004) defines coherence as when “the elements of a school district work
together in an integrated way to implement an articulate strategy” and identifies five
organizational elements that must work in an integrated way if articulated goals are
to be achieved. Those include culture, structures and systems, resources,
stakeholders, and environment.
Figure 5: System Coherence Model

One example of Dulles’ drive for coherence was in found in his work with
school building administrators. During the external human resources audit, a
misalignment was identified between the current job description and hiring process
for principals and the focus of the District goals and objectives for improving student
171

achievement through increased classroom monitoring. Superintendent Dulles rewrote
the principal’s job description and required each building administrator to re-
interview for the position. This strategy not only refocused the work of the building
administrators, it served to ensure that each leader had engaged in a one-on-one
conversation with the new superintendent who was able to articulate the new vision
and goals of the district and invite the principal to “join him” in the endeavor. Those
who did not embrace the new direction were terminated, offered retirement, or
supported in finding a new assignment.
Dulles also used a coherence model to address the poor linkages between the
adopted curriculum and what was occurring in classrooms across the District. Poor
instructional coherence is tied to poor student performance and its’ resolution is a
key to successful school reform (American Institute for Research, 2003). Anderson
(2003) speaks to the negative impact on student achievement where there exists poor
alignment (coherence) between the adopted curriculum and what is implemented into
classroom practice. Dulles sought to resolve this disconnect through increased
classroom monitoring and alignment of the District’s professional development
activities to District instructional objectives. This included ceasing of trainings (e.g.,
whole language workshops) that had been in place - and very popular with teachers
in the District - for years, even though the curricular plan had moved focus
elsewhere.
Eastern Seaboard’s Strategic Plan defined the district’s mission, goals, and
vision; assigned performance indicators and work plans to each of the district’s
172

primary goals; and, served as the guiding document for district decision-making and
priority-setting processes (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Shannon & Blysma, 2004).
As the literature suggested, the process of creating and implementing a strategic plan
built common understandings and laid a foundation for common commitments to a
set of goals and strategies; thereby focusing the district’s intellectual, human, and
fiscal capital on one coherent pathway (Childress et al, 2006; McLaughlin et al,
2002; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). This systemic change model is diagramed below
figure 6.
Figure 6: Systemic Change Model in Eastern Seaboard

This type of systemic change is best facilitated through transformational
leaders who possess the ability to actively involve others in the process of
accomplishing shared goals (Bjork et al, 2005; Eiter, 2002; Neff & Citrin, 2005).
Richard Elmore (2003b) adds that this type of powerful leadership works best when
it is distributed throughout the system, particularly in the case of driving instructional
173

change. Elmore states, “Powerful leadership is distributed because the work of
instructional improvement is distributed” (p. 10). Dr. Dulles possessed and
articulated an explicit theory of what good instructional practice looks like, as well
as a commitment to focus the work of the district on bringing that work into contact
with students. The Superintendent embodied seven key dimensions of leadership;
including, being a strategic thinker and driver of change, modeling a teachable point
of view, possessing the skills of a coach, embracing the concept of culture building,
being unafraid to make decisions, and holding to a laser-like focus on results (Eiter,
2002; Elmore, 2000). More importantly, he took specific steps towards seeing those
characteristics developed in leaders throughout the organization (Shannon &
Blysma, 2004; Elmore, 2003b).
Capacity Building as a Theory of Action
Developing coherence in a system requires both capacity and leadership at all
levels of the organization (American Institute for Research, 2003). As Elmore and
Fuhrman (2001) point out, “Schools, no matter what their demographic
characteristics or prior performance, must do different things, not just do the same
things differently…new things require new knowledge and skills.” The ESPSD
Theory of Action stated; “Our theory of action builds on our beliefs about how
children learn, the conditions that best promote learning, and the policies,
management systems, and culture that best promote the commitment and high
performance of adults…high performance requires capacity,” demonstrating the
organizational belief that it is both the responsibility and within the capacity of
174

District personnel to achieve the student achievement goals. The ESPSD Theory of
Action embraced the concept of accountability, as viewed through the lens of
empowerment.
Principals and teachers cannot fairly be held accountable for student
achievement if they do not have significant control over their work.
Accountability therefore requires empowerment. By empowerment we mean
placing decision-making authority at the lowest possible level consistent with
effectiveness and efficiency. Some decisions belong in central office, some in
regional offices, some in the principal’s office, and some in the classroom.
Some decisions belong with educators, some with parents and students.
Striking the right balance between accountability and empowerment is an on-
going responsibility of the board/superintendent team. But maximum
empowerment for school communities, principals, teachers, and parents,
within the boundaries of effective and efficient operations, is the goal; for
empowerment builds ownership and stimulates innovation, and balanced with
accountability for results, it creates a performance culture.

This belief is supported by the research (Elmore, 2002; Elmore, 2003; Childress et
al, 2006) and is clearly evident in the work plans and accountability structures at play
in the District. This is reminiscent of the “reciprocity of accountability and capacity”
as described by the Institute for Education Leadership (2006) in which each
individual has developed the professional capacity in order to play their particular
role in supporting systemic reform and, by extension, promoting efforts to improve
student achievement.
Dr. Dulles did not seek to control the improvement processes in ESPSD so
much as to guide them and provide direction to the persons responsible within the
accountability plan. In such a manner, he modeled the role of an instructional leader
and held the expectation that site administrators would embrace that same role for
themselves (Elmore, 2002; Byrd et al, 2006). Monitoring of instruction is a critical
175

piece of any effort to improve student achievement. However, to have a lasting
effect, the knowledge for improved instructional practice ultimately must reside not
in the monitors, but rather in the teachers who deliver the instruction (Elmore, 2000).
To build this professional capacity, Dr. Dulles established district structures to
provide support for developing strong curriculum and instructional practice,
strengthened the recruiting and training processes for principals and teachers,
dedicated resources towards building staffs’ understanding of data-based decision
making, and developing structures to support classroom teachers in responding to
student assessment data (MacIver & Farley, 2003).
Building professional capacity requires experienced adults to change
embedded practices while people look on and measure success. Each change in
system function may not be experienced in similar ways by all members of the group
to which the change is required. Because this is true, systems leaders must consider
the implications of the change for the individuals that are required to carry it out
(Waters & Marzano, 2006; Waters & Cameron, 2007). Dr. Dulles’ efforts to provide
principal mentors and teacher coaches were founded in current research and
contributed to the reported quick transitions from “old” to “new” ways of doing
things in ESPSD.
Central to these efforts was the district’s embracing of the Professional
Learning Community practices of Richard Dufour and Robert Eaker (Eaker et al,
1998). Activities such as collective inquiry, working in collaborative teams, and
action-based research are all part of the work patterns identified in the interviews.
176

Each was embedded into a culture that places high value on being results-orientated
and committed to the continuous improvement process (Institution for Education
Leadership, 2006; Bjork et al, 2005). More importantly, these practices were found
in each division of the organization. The ESPSD vision statement and goals were
commonly referred to in the interviews with District staff and are prominently
featured on all district marketing materials. Dr. Dulles led a district where shared
decision making and expert knowledge were fostered and valued. Staff worked
collaboratively to solve problems and multiple ideas were brought to the table in the
process. A distributed leadership model ensured that these desired traits of a learning
organization were fostered at all levels of the organization (Bjork et al, 2005;
Harvey, 2003).
Sustained improvement is a function of time and coherent action to build
professional capacity across the organization (Shannon & Blysma, 2004; Elmore,
2000 and 2003b). Dr. Dulles brought important capacity building initiatives into play
throughout the system, including those that build collaborative relationships within
and among district divisions, deliver high-quality teaching and learning experiences
for students and adults, and establish processes for supporting system wide program
improvement. Working with the ESPSD Board of Education, Dr. Dulles enhanced
these efforts by establishing the requisite policies and procedures to point district
fiscal and human resources towards achieving specific and measurable goals relating
to enhancing student achievement.

177

All Eyes on the Classroom
The act of dividing the Accountability Department into two branches
represented one example of how Dr. Dulles refocused the work of the District on
performance objectives and measures. This attention to the effective use of data led
to the reallocation of fiscal and human resources, as well as time, to ensure that “all
eyes” were focused on work in being done in classrooms. These efforts, combined
with attending to policy and program coherence, ensured systemic support for
district-wide improvement goals and objectives (Shannon & Blysma, 2004; Elmore
2003b). Additional efforts to focus District work on teaching and learning were
found in the expansion of the use of collaborative learning groups by teachers,
redefining of the role of principal as an instructional leader, and managing the impact
of external forces on the work of the schools.
Dr. Dulles led District staff in a coordinated effort to reduce distractions to
principals and teachers and to reallocate resources to provide direct support to their
work with students. At the same time, Dulles promoted increased levels of
accountability for results (i.e., student achievement); beginning with his own
performance evaluation and extending into all divisions or the organization.
Each district department attended to specific and measurable work goals, which
specifically related to, and were measured by, student achievement objectives found
in the District’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan. A shared vision and clearly
articulated goals and objectives enabled individuals and departments in the District
178

to move together in a common direction, while maintaining accountability for their
own work.
Figure 6: The Role of Data as a Driver of Change

Inside of the classroom, the work was focused delivering high-quality
instruction at all grade levels and for all learners. Structures were put into place to
drive high levels of performance by classroom teachers, including opportunities for
in-class mentoring and support, just-in-time access to student achievement data,
instructional monitoring by site administrators and coaches, embedded professional
development, and curriculum that was aligned to the State standards and benchmark
assessments. These processes were not yet completely fleshed out in Eastern
179

Seaboard. Time will tell if the demonstrated positive impact to student achievement
can be sustained over time.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings based on the data collected in the case
study and was followed by a detailed analysis and discussion of how those findings
relate to the research questions and their roots in the relevant research presented in
Chapter 2. The chapter considered the level and quality of implementation of the
reform strategies selected by the superintendent to improve student achievement and
made connections between those levels and student achievement gains. The findings
presented in this study were based on multiple data sources, which served to
strengthen their validity. The summary, conclusions, and implications of this study
were presented in Chapter 5.
180

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Growing demand for accountability regarding student achievement has
changed the environment in which system leaders exert leadership, establishing
consequential ties between the superintendent’s work plan and student performance.
There is much to be learned about how change is enacted by urban school district
leaders in this high-stakes accountability environment and how superintendents are
best prepared for leveraging the various dimensions of reform toward improving the
academic achievement of all students. Each district holds a particular history,
including distinctive strengths and unique challenges, which shape how efforts for
reform are agreed upon, implemented, and evaluated. System leaders must navigate
these systemic realities to initiate change strategies aimed at positively impacting
student achievement. Despite the complexity of the job, research shows that
superintendents do have an impact on student achievement, whether that impact is
positive, negative, or inconsequential. It is critical to understand what effective urban
school superintendents do to initiate systemic change, what impact those decisions
have on student achievement, and how specific choices made by superintendents are
tied to the personal and professional background of the leader.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the actions superintendents take to
initiate change to positively impact student achievement in large urban school
districts. This study focused on ten reform strategies in order to determine how
181

superintendent action impacted the levels of quality and implementation of the
actions. This study built upon a Phase I study conducted by Takata, Marsh, and
Castruita (2007), which sought to compare the actions taken by large urban school
superintendents to initiate change related to raising student achievement. Consistent
with Phase I methodology, the Phase II study used the House Model as a conceptual
framework to understand how the unique context of the district influences system
leaders in terms of ten key reform strategies they engage upon entry into the role of
superintendent.
The study explored the entry of one superintendent into a large urban school
district, including how they assessed the strengths and challenges of the district, how
district characteristics related to the development of a strategic entry plan, how the
superintendent determined the specific actions to be taken to initiate reform targeted
towards improving student achievement, and how those choices related to the unique
context of the district and their own personal and professional background. To this
end, one research question and three sub-questions defined the limits of this study.
These research questions were:
1. How are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban school
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective
district?
a) How does the quality and implementation of ten key reform strategies
correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district when the
superintendent took office?
182

b) What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do they
correspond to the elements of the House Model?
c) How does the choice and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?
Methodology
The purpose of the study suggested that qualitative methods be used within
an analytical case study format in order to secure rich descriptors and grounded
explanations of the processes in place within a localized environment (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Establishing which reform strategies are effectively implemented
by large urban school district superintendents in order to improve student
achievement is a complex issue. A case study approach provided the best opportunity
to develop and establish a rich description of each component under study (Patton,
2002). Determining which key reform strategies contributed most significantly to
improving student academic achievement represented a significant task. Case study
methodology provided a means for investigating the complexities of educational
programs by incorporating the explicit experiences of participants and supported
evaluation rooted in a localized context (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 1998; Patton,
2002). More specifically, the case study approach permitted the research team to
follow the data and explore findings as they became apparent.
Interviews were selected as the key data gathering tool in that they would
provide the vehicle for describing individual perceptions regarding the selection and
183

implementation of ten key reform strategies engaged by an Urban School Leadership
Institute (USLI) superintendent in efforts to positively impact student achievement in
one large urban school district. The USLI is an innovative superintendent preparation
program funded by the Urban School Leadership Foundation. The specific findings
that emerged through this in-depth, multi-perspective case study analysis produced
qualitative data that defined and delineated the effectiveness of each reform strategy
engaged by the one USLI superintendent in their respective district. The unit of
analysis is this study was one large urban school district, the district superintendent,
and other relevant key players.
Sample
One large urban school district superintendent was purposefully selected for
this study in order to provide a means for investigating the reform strategies engaged
in efforts to leverage district reform to improve student performance. This process
provided deep insight into the actions taken by the superintendent to raise student
achievement and how their personal and professional background may have
informed those decisions and processes. Case study participants included the district
superintendent, two key players, and multiple strategy-specific persons, including the
deputy superintendents, executive staff, district-level administrators, principals,
board members, and members of the local community.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data for the study were collected during June of 2008. The conceptual
framework selected as a basis for the study, the House Model, was developed as a
184

component of the Urban School Leadership Foundation’s Framework for District
Success. The House Model is a visual model of effective reform strategies that is
advocated by the USLF and used as a foundation for training within the Leadership
Institute. The “house” is divided into several levels, which are represented by three
foundations, three rooms, and a roof. Several reform strategies have been identified
and incorporated into each area of the House Model. For the purpose of this study,
ten strategies were identified, including; strategic plan, assessment, curriculum,
professional development, HR systems and human capital management, finance and
budget, communications, governance and board relations, and labor relations and
contract negotiations, and family and community engagement.
Five instruments were developed and provided a foundation for data
collection and analysis:
1. Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A) that correlated each
interview question to the related research question, outlined the
superintendent interview process, established a process for coding
interview data, and defined processes for identifying artifacts and
documents that were collected from each district;
2. Key Player Interview Guide (Appendix B) that correlated each interview
question to the related research question, outlined the key player selection
and interview process, established a process for coding interview data,
and created linkages to artifacts and documents collected from each
district
185

3. Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C) that
correlated each interview question to the related research question(s),
outlined the participant selection and interview processes, and established
a procedure for recording and coding interview data.
4. Quality Rubric (Appendix D) measured the quality of relevant actions for
each of the ten key reform strategies, utilizing a 5 point Likert scale
indicating high (5), moderate (3), or low (1) quality. The components in
the HR Systems Rubric, for example, included; recruitment and selection
of new administrators, placement of site administrators, recruitment of
highly qualified teachers, classroom teacher evaluations, teacher support
and development, use of incentives, and salaries, wages, and benefits.
5. Implementation Rubric (Appendix E) was designed to measure how each
reform strategy was implemented utilizing a 5 point Likert scale
indicating high (5), moderate (3), or low (1) levels in terms of four
criteria including; 1) the external challenges to full implementation; 2) the
extent that each component of the reform strategy is fully implemented in
practice; 3) the level of shared understanding, values, and expectations;
and, 4) the sustainability of staff and fiscal resources.
In order to support validity, a variety of data collection tools and a diverse
group of study participants were engaged to support methodological and data
triangulation from multiple sources.

186

Selected Findings
The data collection processes relating to the research question produced
several key findings. This section summarizes those findings and relates each finding
to the instrumentation and primary sources of data collected.
Research Question 1: Ten Key Reform Strategies
Research question 1 asked “How are the ten key reform strategies being used
by large urban school superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her
respective district?”
The following section summarizes the findings relating to each of the ten key reform
strategies. Interviews and district documentation were the primary sources of data
collected for analysis. This process was supported by the Superintendent Interview
Guide, the Key Player Interview Guide, and the Strategy Specific Interview Guide.
With regards to development of a strategic plan, the district transitioned from a
state-mandated template to a coherent plan tied to Board goals and objectives and an
adopted Theory of Action (Managed Performance Empowerment) that allowed
management to incorporate both tight and loose coupling strategies. Strategic plan
development committees included members from multiple stakeholder groups and
resulted in the identification of five key goals to which all district actions are aligned
and evaluated. This process, as articulated in the superintendent’s Children Come
First vision, was embraced by the Board of Education and is central to the
superintendent’s governance and board relations reform strategy. The School Board
member training, accessed through partnership with the Urban School Leadership
187

Foundation, was critical to bringing all players on board with a common vision,
clearly defined goals and objectives, and specific performance objectives tied to
measurable student performance goals. Board goals and performance objectives also
drove the District’s finance and budget processes, which transitioned from a
percentage increase formula model to outcomes-based funding under Dr. Dulles’
direction. Performance-based budgeting supported alignment of District goals and
resource allocation, established clear ties between budget decisions and strategic
planning, and provided evidence of Dulles’ drive for system coherence. In terms of
assessment as a strategy for reform, data suggest movement from a data management
focused strategy to a data-driven decision making model. The change in focus
supported a shift in district from a compliance centered culture to a managed
performance environment. The division of the accountability department into two
branches provided a means to support assessment of student learning, while
establishing consistency with regards to program evaluation efforts with data
benchmarks aligned to strategic plan goals and objectives.
The curriculum strategy engaged by Dr. Dulles supported a move towards
managed instruction that incorporated aligned curriculum, pacing, and assessment
with consistent monitoring and focus on results. Efforts were made to increase the
number of Advanced Placement classes available at the high school level and to
develop articulated curriculum maps that support a differentiated curriculum for
English language learners and special education students in grades K - 8. The role of
the principal was refocused on instructional leadership and professional
188

development activities supported building the capacity of teachers and principals for
delivery and monitoring of a high-quality instructional program in all classrooms.
Following an external audit, the HR division implemented changes to district HR
system and human capital management policies and procedures that have resulted
in an increase of the percentage of highly qualified teachers in the district from 46
percent in 2005 to 76 percent in 2008. Student achievement data drove decision
making regarding placement of principals and new teachers at all district schools.
The FIRST pay for performance incentive program incented experienced teachers
and administrators to the district’s most difficult to staff schools. These efforts within
the HR department were supported by effective labor relations and contract
negotiations, which data indicated have become increasingly more collaborative and
productive since Dr. Dulles’ arrival. This represents a shift from a group-centric
negotiations process in which each negotiations process worked independently to a
managed, ongoing negotiations strategy with goals aligned to the district master plan.
Two of the most comprehensive reform efforts in Eastern Seaboard Public
School District related to communications and family and community engagement.
Dr. Dulles initiated a communications audit upon arrival in Eastern Seaboard that
resulted in significant changes to how the district utilized their substantial
communications resources. Data demonstrated a shift from a department whose sole
aim as to deflect negative press to a division strategically retooled to communicate
the district’s vision and promote positive, student-centered news to the media. Dr.
Dulles’ comfort with the media and his commitment to transparency with the
189

community re-established a trusting relationship that had been damaged by previous
district leaders. Significant district resources, including time, money, and materials,
were also directed towards supporting increased family and community
engagement. Dr. Dulles’ listening tour, conducted during his 90 day entry period,
was well received by the community and provided a venue through which to promote
the Children Come First vision. The creation of Pre-K programs at each of the high
poverty elementary schools and establishment of parent liaison offices at all ESPSD
school sites served to engage the parent community to supporting the work of the
district in raising student achievement.
Research Question 1a: Strengths and Challenges of the District
Research question 1a asked “How does the quality and implementation of ten key
reform strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district when the
superintendent took office?” The strategies implemented by Dr. Dulles to improve
student achievement were closely aligned to the district master plan and took into
consideration both the strengths and challenges of the district at the time he arrived.
In some ways, the Superintendent was fortunate to enter the picture during a time of
unrest following a State take-over of the district due to low performance and fiscal
mismanagement. The State appointed Board of Education was tasked with restoring
budget stability, improving student achievement, and ensuring enforcement of State-
mandated curriculum and assessment policies. External audits were ordered relating
to communications and human resources and several consulting firms had been
brought into the district in order to conduct a wide-scale needs assessment. Although
190

the district experienced some measurable growth in student academic performance, a
clear achievement gap persists. Caucasian students from high socioeconomic
households consistently outscored students of color and those from families in
poverty. Dr. Dulles’ assessment of the situation reflected a belief that the curriculum
in place was of very high quality, but that the consistency of implementation and
level of instructional proficiency was very poor across the board. The fact that the
curriculum was in place and was aligned to the state assessments allowed the
Superintendent to focus on improving the human capacity of the teaching staff and
the monitoring proficiency of site administration. At the time of Dr. Dulles’ arrival,
the Board had accumulated a large fund balance, which the new Superintendent used
to fund several large-scale reform initiatives. Those systemic initiatives ranged from
the restructuring of the regional management system to support the development of
teacher and principal capacity to reorienting the system towards data-driven decision
making from the Board room to the classroom.

191

Figure 7: Creating a Culture of Change

The community of Eastern Seaboard had been introduced to five
Superintendents over the span of six years. Community leaders and parents were
eager to see strong leadership and embraced the need for a plan of action to address
the issues of equity and accountability throughout the system. Superintendent’s Entry
Plan included strategies to engage the local community in owning the district’s
vision that Children Come First. To communicate the new vision of the district and
drive advocacy with community and parent groups, Dr. Dulles engaged the district
communications staff to share the vision with all stakeholders. The Superintendent
went into the community and spoke at every venue that would give him time,
including churches, service clubs, and local political advocacy groups. Dr. Dulles’
high profile in the community and open access policies were contrary to the stance of
192

the district during previous administrations and served to build bridges of support for
important change initiatives in the schools.
With the parents and community behind him, the new Superintendent was
able to hold to the plan, while navigating the resistance presented by entrenched
teachers and central office administrators and prepare for a transition from the state-
appointed Board that hired him to the elected Board of Education that took over six
months after his arrival. The District’s efforts to address the achievement gap
relating to poverty and language diversity included efforts to improve parental
involvement in their student’s education, initiate pre-kindergarten programs at all
high poverty elementary school sites, place parent liaisons and parent resource rooms
at all schools, and increase the language and academic support structures for parents
that do not speak English. Interviews and district documentation were the primary
sources of data collected for analysis. This process was supported by the
Superintendent, Key Player, and Strategy Specific Interview Guides, as well as the
various strategy-specific Quality and Level of Implementation Rubrics.
Research Question 1b: Other Reform Strategies
Research question 1b asked “What additional reform strategies (if any) were
used? How do they correspond to the elements of the House Model?” Systemic
change was initiated and facilitated through multiple reform strategies implemented
by the Superintendent and his executive team. The organizational assessment and
auditing processes were used to build a case for large-scale reform that countered the
historical power structures in place within the system. By focusing on the academic
193

achievement of students and tying all decisions to the Board adopted goals and
objectives as outlined in the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, Dr. Dulles made
significant gains in terms of developing the good will of parents and teachers alike.
The human resource audit provided information to support the Superintendent’s
assertion that the quality of the District was directly tied to the quality of the
executive staff, the proficiency of site administrators, and the availability of highly
qualified teachers in each classroom.
The Superintendent and Board agreed on a Theory of Action that rewarded
performance and utilized accountability structures, which incorporated both tight and
loose controls that were tied to measurable outcomes. Schools that evidenced gains
in student achievement and closing the achievement gap were offered increased
flexibility in terms of how programs were implemented on site. Schools that
continued to struggle were held to stricter accountability, yet provided greater access
to centralized support and fiscal resources. The budgeting system and resource
allocation procedures were also tied back to the master plan and specific
performance outcomes. Interviews and district documentation were the primary
sources of data collected for analysis. This process was supported by the
Superintendent Interview Guide, the Key Player Interview Guide, and the Strategy
Specific Interview Guide.

194

Research Question 1c: Relationship to the previous Background/Experience of
Superintendent
Research question 1c asked “How does the choice and implementation of the
ten key reform strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?” Dr. Dulles came to Eastern Seaboard Public School District
following successful superintendencies in California and Rhode Island. His previous
work as a teacher, principal, and district-level administrator provided a wide range of
experiences from which to draw seasoned expertise. When questioned about how he
would rate his previous experience, Dr. Dulles indicated that he felt strong in the
areas of assessment, professional development, human resources, communications,
and governance and board relations. This experience is noted in his early efforts to
address the issues within the human resources department and his use of the
communications department to build public support for the Bridge to Excellence
Master Plan goals and objectives. Dr. Dulles’ strategic dividing of the assessment
department into two divisions represented a creative approach to monitoring program
effectiveness through a dual evaluation processes. The assessment division tracks the
impact of program components on student achievement, while the evaluation
division monitors the quality and fidelity of program implementation across the
system. Superintendent Dulles felt less prepared to managed change related to
strategic planning, curriculum, and working with labor unions. In our interviews,
some attention was given to the support provided by the Urban School Leadership
Institute, particularly as it relates to supporting the strategic planning process.
195

Interviews and district documentation were the primary sources of data collected for
analysis. This process was supported by the Superintendent Interview Guide.
Conclusions
Based on the data collected and as a result of the methodologies utilized, the
study resulted in the following conclusions relating to the superintendent and the
strategies that were implemented to improve student academic performance. Data
established clear links between the District’s “all eyes on the classroom” vision to
the improved quality of the instructional program. Interview data identified three
overarching strategies that were implemented in 2006 and have remained central to
the change process advocated and pursued by the superintendent. These include: 1)
ensuring equity of resources to all schools and to all students; 2) finding the right
people and empowering them to do their jobs; and, 3) sticking to “the plan”. Five
specific actions taken by the new Superintendent have had a significant impact on
the direction of the District, including;
1. District vision that advocates a commitment to the youth of the
community
2. Strategic hiring and placement of school and central office staff
3. A laser-like focus on achievement via instructional improvement
4. Promoting autonomy zones that provide increasing freedom to site
leaders based on student achievement results
5. Strong ties between District action to Master Plan performance objectives
and specific, measurable student achievement outcomes.
196

The key factor is found in the Superintendent’s commitment to a coherent
strategic plan that links all District activities to measurable outcomes and ensures
resources (e.g., time, money, people, and materials) are targeted towards activities
that support student achievement objectives. This overall strategy was undergirded
by systemic use of achievement data to target students for support and intervention,
to identify holes in curriculum and instruction, and to inform Master Plan evaluation
and budget planning activities. The walls of the executive cabinet conference room
were covered with charts that delineated each strategic initiative in play, identifying
the responsible executive staff member(s), and stating the measurable outcome
against which performance would be evaluated. Shared and individual ownership of
and accountability for student achievement was the central focus of all District
activity. The following are offered as evidence of the “all eyes on the classroom”
orientation implemented by Dr. Dulles and staff during the first year following his
arrival:
1. The job descriptions of principals were rewritten to support master plan
objectives relating to instructional improvement in all District classrooms.
2. Hiring processes were implemented to ensure staff possessed the
professional capacity to implement the plan and then stood accountable
for results.
3. Regional offices were restructured to support development of teacher and
principal capacity with data-driven decision making.
197

4. Middle schools were provided access to a data coach who assists with
building local capacity for effective data-driven decision making at the
site and classroom level.
A wide range of activities that support improved quality of instruction in
classrooms at all grade levels were emphasized in the interview and artifact data;
particularly the increase of the number of highly qualified teachers in ESPSD
classrooms and the impact that this system-wide effort had on the quality of
classroom instruction and student learning. Participants emphasized the role that the
Superintendent’s pay for performance incentive initiative played in drawing strong
teachers and effective principals to the District’s lowest performing schools. Union
support of the pay for performance program was critical. Efforts to ensure
negotiating teams understood their role in supporting the student learning outcomes
identified in the Master Plan lowered the level of resistance and facilitated speedy
implementation of Board adopted objectives.
Although much of the interview data trended towards District action in
classrooms, data also highlighted the role that results-based budgeting played in
ensuring that District resources were targeted towards programs that support student
achievement. The Superintendent’s contract and performance evaluation were also
tied to specific Master Plan objectives, including student performance outcomes.
Findings suggested that the Data Dashboard, which linked all District action to
specific, measurable student performance outcomes, was a valuable tool for
monitoring Master Plan implementation and ongoing program evaluation.
198

Several externally-oriented strategies implemented by the Superintendent
were linked to efforts to drive improved student achievement. For example, the
Superintendent’s outspoken advocacy of the district’s Bridge to Excellence Master
Plan (specifically the five common beliefs outlined in the plan) was key to promoting
the District’s vision and objectives to the community. In a similar fashion, the
Superintendent’s accessibility and advocacy of the “Children Come First” and
“Parents are our Partners” vision led to increased levels of parental involvement in
the school program and increased community stakeholder participation in the
planning and evaluation processes. By providing greater access to online support
resources to students and parents and placing community liaisons at each school site
to support families in understanding how to become involved in their students’
learning, Dulles leveraged his strongest advocacy group – parents – to support
student learning at school and at home.
By generating a results-oriented culture and conversation throughout the
organization, Dr. Dulles moved the District towards significant change in a short
period of time. The comparisons of the implementation quality rubrics showed a
moderate to high level of quality when considering the various components of
reform strategies. However, the level of implementation for many of the components
in each initiative received a rating of medium. Data suggest that although strong
reform efforts have been put into place, full implementation of the reform strategies
had yet to be achieved. Although there was anecdotal evidence of a positive impact
to student achievement, it remained unclear if those strategic initiatives could be
199

sustained in such a way as to maintain positive growth trends over time. Results were
positive in raising student achievement, as measured by the number of students
performing at a proficient or advanced level on State benchmark assessments.
Growth at the middle school level, in particular, was impressive in math and English
language arts. However, what had yet to materialize was significant progress towards
closing the achievement gap between Anglo students and students of color at all
grade levels. The gap between high economic status students and their peers in high
poverty families continued to be persistent and challenging.
The Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, the performance-based budgeting
processes, and the system-wide focus on results and data analysis hold promise in
ensuring that District actions and resources are aligned to meeting the needs of all
students. For example, ongoing budget monitoring produced resource reallocations
designed to address the issues of inequity between schools in high poverty
neighborhoods and those in the more affluent areas of the District. The pay for
performance program showed great promise for addressing the poor quality of
teachers and administrators at low performing, high poverty schools. This program,
which was supported by revised human resource allocation policies and procedures,
ensured that strong teachers and effective administrators were incented towards
underperforming students and high-need schools. The human resources, assessment,
and curriculum departments were working collaboratively to align district action to
student learning needs. While these efforts were not fully developed, the structures in
place held promise for future dividends.
200

This progress hinged on a theory of action that embraced the concepts of
managed performance and continuous improvement. The continuous improvement
cycle (Figure 6) outlines the process, as well as the belief, that change takes time and
requires active reflection in order to have a lasting impact. Dr. Dulles’ personal
traits, his professional background, and his time in the Urban School Leadership
Institute all contributed to the development of this model and influenced his work in
the Eastern Seaboard Public School District.
Figure 8: The Continuous Improvement Cycle

Implications for Practice
As the superintendency transitions from a managerial-focused position to one
responsible for instructional leadership, it is critical that system leaders have both the
skills and knowledge necessary to redirect multi-dimensional district-wide action
towards a single objective: improving student achievement. The findings and
conclusions from this study can provide instructive guidance to those responsible for
201

student achievement, as well as those who are vested in the outcomes of public
education. The implications listed below are presented as they relate to specific areas
of responsibility, including implications for school and district administrators, local
community stakeholders and school board members, and policy makers and
superintendent preparation programs
School and District Administrators
1. A research-based theory of action, embedded in a well-developed
strategic plan, can increase the level of coherency between district vision
and actions across the organization. Embracing a common plan and
developing the requisite structures to ensure alignment of district action
and resources (fiscal, human, and material) supports systemic reform and
increases the likelihood of sustainability over time.
2. The use of a data dashboard provides structural support for the program
evaluation process and ties action to personnel in ways that enhance
stratified or shared accountability (ownership of one’s work and
responsibility for predetermined outcomes) throughout the organization.
Shared accountability is essential for performance management.
3. Effective instructional reform requires a continuous improvement model
that is supported by the alignment between district action and allocation
of resources. District personnel must develop the professional capacity to
create (curriculum developers), distribute (teachers), and monitor
202

(principals and program evaluators) the level and fidelity of
implementation of the curricular program at all levels of the organization.
4. Data-driven decision making should guide program evaluation processes
across the organization. Eastern Seaboard’s innovative approach for
monitoring instructional improvement considers two perspectives when
measuring program effectiveness: 1) is the curriculum/instruction having
the right effect (student achievement gains) and, 2) is it the right
curriculum/instruction strategy (efficiency) as compared to other
available curriculum/instruction approaches.
Local Community Stakeholders and School Board Members
1. The relationship with the school board demands a large amount of the
superintendent’s time each week. Board training programs assist
members in understanding their role in the school system and focus work
where it will be most effective in supporting the District vision and goals.
2. Superintendent turnover is counterproductive to promoting continuous
improvement. The quality of relationships between the superintendent
and the school board is a significant variable in relation to superintendent
turnover. Efforts to improve the quality and functionality of board-
superintendent relations could pay large dividends over the long haul.
3. Understand the positive and negative impacts that internal and external
political powers and processes put on District efforts to enhance student
learning. The use of a strategic planning process that engages all internal
203

and external stakeholder groups may serve to mitigate these factors and
allow for reform initiatives to take hold in a shorter period of time.
4. The community plays an important role in moving the district vision
forward. The involvement of stakeholder groups in the development of
the district strategic plan increased the likelihood of community support
when difficult decisions (e.g., school closures, resource realignment,
confronting issues of equity across the district) needed to be made in the
implementation process. Successful school-community partnerships
provide opportunities for cross-pollination by which important initiatives
can be pursued to mutual benefit.
Policy Makers and Superintendent Preparation Programs
1. Understand the role that mentoring and practicum experiences play in
adult learning. Because the job of the superintendent is rapidly changing
from a managerial focus to that of an instructional leader, it is imperative
that candidates experience the world of the district leader prior to
assuming the role themselves. Programs that provide practicum
experiences and/or allow time to develop collaborative solutions for
problems of practice support the development of critical skill sets
required of new system leaders.
2. The role of superintendent can be isolating, increasing the importance of
maintaining access to professional coaches and/or mentors and continued
training opportunities through which sitting superintendents can
204

collaborate and glean from the experience of other district leaders. The
Urban School Leadership Foundation has provided access to these
services to USLI graduates, although participation is not required. It is
recommended that these services be routinely scheduled during the first
24 months of employment in order to support transition and increase the
superintendents’ contact with external support structures.
Recommendations for Future Research
Throughout the data collection and analysis processes, indications for future
research emerged in several areas:
1. The study was limited to the actions in one large urban school district
after the superintendent had been in the position for two years. Because of
this, it was difficult to attribute student performance gains to practices not
yet fully implemented at the time of the study. It is suggested that this
study be replicated following after three years, allowing time for full
implementation of the key strategies, to determine the sustainability and
impact of the actions over time. Utilization of the Quality and Level of
Implementation Rubrics, generated within this study, would provide
consistent measurement tools and enhance the validity of future findings.
2. This qualitative study examined the relationship between the strengths
and challenges of the district at the time of the superintendent’s arrival to
the strategies selected by the leader to drive reform. Further examination
of the district with a quantitative review of student achievement data in
205

relation to the efforts for systemic reform would provide a more robust
analysis of the effectiveness of reform strategy and establish a statistical
relationship between district action and student learning.
3. This study was one of ten independent research projects that utilized
common data collection tools and analysis processes. A meta-analysis of
the findings from the ten districts would provide a deeper understanding
of the impact that the ten key reform strategies had across varied school
systems and environments. Establishing common themes in the research
would provide important data to superintendent preparation programs as
well as serve to inform the work of current district leaders.
4. The district’s FIRST pay for performance incentive program was held by
all study participants as key to their instructional improvement strategy.
Because the program was in the initial phases of implementation, it was
not possible to accurately measure the impact of the program in terms of
incenting experienced teachers and administrators to the district’s under-
performing schools. A follow-up study should focus on this one reform
effort to document the effectiveness of the program in drawing expert
staff to these hard to staff schools through voluntary means, while
comparing student achievement at the participating schools to those
schools in the district that are not participating in the incentive program.

206

References
Ainsworth, L. (2007). Common formative assessments: The centerpiece of an
integrated standards-based assessment system. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the
curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp.79-
101). Bloomington, ID: Solution Tree.

American Institutes for Research (2003). California's public schools accountability
act (PSAA): Evaluation findings and implications [Report]. Palo Alto, CA:
American Institutes for Research.

Anderson, S. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of the
literature [Electronic Version]. International Center for Educational Change.
Retrieved December 8, 2008 from
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~icec/workpaper2.pdf.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R.
E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational
objectives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Applebaum, S. H., St-Pierre, N., & Glavas, W. (1998). Strategic organizational
change: The role of leadership, learning, motivation, and productivity.
Management Decision. 36(5), 289-301.

Applebaum S. H., Molson, J., & Valero, M. (2007). The crucial first three months:
An analysis of leadership transition traps and successes. The Journal of
American Academy of Business, 11(1), 1-8.

Bauch, P. & Goldring, E. (1995). Parent involvement and school responsiveness:
Facilitating the home-school connection in schools of choice. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 1-21.

Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2005). Learning theory and
research: A framework for changing superintendent preparation and
development. In L. Bjork & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary
superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 71-106). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Young, M. D. (2005). National education reform
reports: Implications for professional preparation and development. In L. Bjork
& T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice
and development (pp. 45-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
207

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., & Eide, E. R. (2008). The role of economics in
education policy research. In H. F. Ladd & E. B. Fiske (Eds.) Handbook of
Research in Education Finance and Policy (pp. 23-41). Oxford: Taylor &
Francis.

Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute (2003). Better leaders for
America's schools: A manifesto. Los Angeles: The Broad Foundation.

Brown, O. S. & Peterkin, R. S. (1999). Transforming public schools: An integrated
strategy for improving student academic performance through districtwide
resource equity, leadership accountability, and program efficiency. Equity and
Excellence in Education. 32(3), 37-52.

Byrd, J., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors impacting superintendent
turnover: Lessons from the field. Education Leadership Review, 7(2).
Retrieved January 3, 2008 from http://cnx.org/content/m14507/latest/.

California Department of Education (2007a). Overview of California’s 2006-07
accountability progress reporting system. Retrieved December 19, 2007 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov.

California Department of Education (2007), Blueprint for district assistance and
intervention. Retrieved March 13, 2008 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/documents/daitblueprint.doc

Carlsmith, L. & Railsback, J. (2001). The power of public relations in schools.
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Carnoy, M. & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student
outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
24(4), 305-331.

Carr, J. F. & Harris, D. E. (2001). Succeeding with standards: Linking curriculum,
assessment, and action planning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.

Chappuis, S. & Chappuis, J. (2008). The best value in formative assessment.
Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14-18.

208

Chappuis, S., Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Assessment for
learning: An action guide for school leaders. Portland, OR: Educational Testing
Service.

Chatterji, M. (2002). Models and methods for examining standards-based reforms
and accountability initiatives: Have the tools of inquiry answered pressing
questions on improving schools? Review of Educational Research 72(3), 345-
386.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school
districts. Harvard Business Review, November, 1-14.

Childress, S., Elmore, R.F., Grossman, A. S., & Johnson, S. M. (Eds.). (2007).
Managing School Districts for High Performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.

Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A., & King, C. (2007). Note on the PELP
coherence framework. Public Education Leadership Project, January, 1-14.

Chrispeels, J., Gonzales, M., & Edge, K. (2006). Uniting in reform: The power and
importance of bringing all stakeholders to the table. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting in San
Francisco, CA.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Council of the Great City Schools (2006). Review of human resource operations in
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City
Schools.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, December). Teacher quality and student achievement:
A review of state policy evidence. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Retrieved December 13, 2008 from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LDH_1999.pdf

Dembo, M. H. & Marsh, D. D. (2007). Developing a new Ed.D.. program in the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California.

209

Dorn, S. (1998). The political legacy of school accountability systems. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 6(1), Retrieved November 28, 2007, from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n1.html.

Eaker, R., Dufour, R., & Burnette, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, ID: National
Education Service.

EdSource (2004). No child left behind in California? The impact of the federal
NCLB act so far. Retrieved February 25, 2008 from http://www.edsource.org.

EdSource (2005). Holding school districts accountable. Retrieved February 25, 2008
from http://www.edsource.org.

EdSource (2007). California's school accountability system under the federal no
child left behind act (NCLB). Retrieved November 28, 2007 from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_edfct_ayp.cfm.

Education Data Partnership (2007). California student trends. Retrieved December
17, 2007 from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us.

Education Policy and Leadership Center (2006). Strengthening school leadership:
Preparing and supporting superintendents and principals. Harrisburg, PA: The
Education Policy and Leadership Center.

Education Trust (2005). Stalled in secondary: A look at student achievement since
the no child left behind act [Electronic Version]. Retrieved December 7, 2008
from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/77670E50-188F-4AA8-8729-
555115389E18/0/StalledInSecondary.pdf.

Eiter, M. (2002). Best practices in leadership development: Lessons from the best
business schools and corporate universities. In M. Tucker & J. Codding (Eds.),
The principal challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of
accountability (pp. 99-122). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elmore, R. F. (1996).Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership [Electronic
Version]. Washington DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved December
18, 2007 from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf.

210

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement
[Electronic Version]. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved
December 18, 2007 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/bridging.pdf.

Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-
10.

Elmore, R. F. (2003b). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and
performance-based accountability. NGA Center for Best Practices. Retrieved
February 25th, 2008 from www.nga.org/cda/files/0803KNOWING.PDF

Elmore, R. F. (2005). Essays: Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum.
69(2), 134-142.

Elmore, R. F. & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teaching learning. In Darling-
Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (Eds.), Teaching as a Learning Profession (pp. 236–
91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elmore, R. F. & Fuhrman, S. H. (1990). The national interest and the federal role in
education. Publius, 20(3), 149-162.

Elmore, R. F. & Fuhrman, S. H. (2001). Research finds the false assumption of
accountability. The Educational Digest, 67(4), 9-14.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large scale reform. Journal of Educational Change,
1, 1-23.

Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for districtwide reform:
Effective leadership for change at the district level has 10 components.
Educational Leadership. 61(7), 42-46.

Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey J., Immerwahr J., & Winder, A.
(2003). An impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair.
Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Gallagher, C. W. & Ratzlaff, S. (2008). The road less traveled. Educational
Leadership, 65(4), 48-53.

211

Gilbert, S., Hightower, A., Husbands J., Marsh, J., McLaughlin, M., Talbert, J., &
Young, V. (2002, April). Districts as change agents: Levers for system-wide
instructional improvement. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association in New Orleans, LA. Retrieved December 12,
2007 from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/InProgress/AERA-
DistrictsAsChange.pdf

Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2002). The study of the American school
superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new
millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Goldberg, B. & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-nect: Purpose, accountability, and
school leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership Lessons from
Comprehensive School Reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gregory, G. H. & Kuzmich, L. (2004). Data driven differentiation in the standards-
based classroom. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press.

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Guskey, T. R. (2007). Using assessments in to improve teaching and learning. In D.
Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform
teaching and learning (pp.15-29). Bloomington, ID: Solution Tree.

Guskey, T. (1999). Apply time with wisdom. Journal of Staff Development, 20(2),
10-14.

Hannaway, J. & Rotherham, A. J. (2006). Collective bargaining in education:
Negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.

Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose
teachers. The Journal of Human Resources, 3(92), 326-354.

Harvey, J. (2003). The urban superintendent: Creating great schools while surviving
on the job. Orlando, FL: Council of the Great City Schools.

Henderson, A. T. & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of
school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

212

Hess, F. M. & West, M. R. (2006). A better bargain: Overhauling teacher collective
bargaining for the 21st century [Electronic Version]. American Enterprise
Institute and the Brookings Institution. Retrieved December 8, 2008 from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/BetterBargain.pdf

Hewitt, P. (2007). Bargaining within the school culture. Leadership, 36(5), 26-30.

Howlett, P. (1993). The politics of school leaders, past and future. The Education
Digest, 58(9), 18-21.

Ingram, M., Wolfe, R. B., & Lieberman, J. M. (2007). The role of parents in high-
achieving schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and
Urban Society, 39(4), 479-497.

Institute for Education Leadership (2006). A detailed review of the research on
leadership and student achievement. Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Education.

Jacob, B. A. (2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers.
The Future of Children, 17(1), 129-153.

Jentz, B. & Murphy, J. T. (2005). Starting confused: How leaders start when they
don't know where to start. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 736-744.

Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A Meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on
minority children’s 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. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Johnson, S. (1996). Leading to change: The challenges of the new superintendency.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1998). Student achievement through staff development.
White Plains, NY: Longman.

Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs
for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Karoly, L. A. & Panis, C. W. A. (2004). The 21st century at work: Forces shaping
the future workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
213

Laboratory for Student Success (2002). A synthesis of educational leadership
literature. Philadelphia: Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory.

Leithwood, K. (1995). Effective school district leadership: Transforming politics
into education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S. & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders [Electronic Version]. Washington DC:
The Education Schools Project. Retrieved December 8, 2008 from
http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Final313.pdf.

Levine, A. & Dean, D. R. (2007, August). Deleting the doctorate: And other vestiges
of outmoded preparation [Electronic Version]. The School Administrator.
Retrieved February 3, 2008 from
http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticlesdetail.cfm.

Lunenburg, F.C. & Irby, B.J. (2002). Parent involvement: A key to student
achievement [Electronic Version]. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the
National Council of Professors of Educational Administration in Burlington,
Vermont. Retrieved December 12, 2007 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/00000
19b/80/1a/62/f7.pdf.

MacIver, M. A. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). Designing a comprehensive approach to classroom
assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to
transform teaching and learning (pp.103-123). Bloomington, ID: Solution Tree.

Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McDermott, K. A. (2000). Barriers to large-scale success of models for urban school
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 22(1), 83-89.

214

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2003, September). Reforming districts: How districts
support school reform [Electronic Version]. Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy Research Report. Retrieved December 12, 2007 from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/ReformingDistricts-09-2003.pdf.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, A. M. & Huberman, M. B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Miller, D. C., Sen, A., & Malley, L. B. (2007). Comparative indicators of education
in the United States and other G-8 countries: 2006 (NCES 2007-006). National
Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education.

Mojkowski, C. & Bamberger, R. (Eds.) (1991). Developing leaders for restructuring
schools: New habits of mind and heart. A report of the national LEADership
network study group on restructuring schools. Washington, DC: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Programs for the Improvement of
Practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 330 078).

Murphy, J. & Vriesenga, M. (2006). Research on school leadership preparation in the
United States: An analysis. School leadership and management, 26(2), 183-195.

National Center on Education and the Economy (2007). Tough choices or tough
times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American
workforce. Washington, DC: The National Center on Education and the
Economy.

National School Boards Foundation (2001). Improving school board decision
making: The data connection. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards
Foundation.

National School Public Relations Association (2002). Raising the bar for school PR:
New standards for the school public relations profession. Rockville, MD:
National School Public Relations Association.

Neely, R. O., Berube, W., & Wilson, J. (2002). The entry plan. School
Administrator, 59 (9), 28-30.

Neff, T. J. & Citrin, J. M. (2005). You’re in charge—now what? The 8 point plan.
New York, NY: Crown Publishing Company.
215

Norton, J. (2002). Preparing school leaders: It's time to face the facts. Atlanta, GA:
Southern Regional Education Board.

O’Day, J., Bitter, C., Kirst, M., Camoy, M., Woody, E., Buttles, M., Fuller, B., &
Ruenzel, D. (2004). Assessing California’s Accountability System: Successes,
Challenges, and Opportunities for Improvement. PACE Policy Brief, 4(2).
Retrieved December 10, 2008 from
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgse
.berkeley.edu%2Fresearch%2FPACE%2Freports%2FPB.04-2.pdf&images=yes

Odden, A. R. & Picus, L. O. (2008). School Finance: A policy perspective (4th
Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Perie, M., Moran, R., & Lutkus, A.D. (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic
progress: three decades of student performance in reading and mathematics
(NCES 2005–464). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Petersen, G. J. & Short, P. (2001). The school board president's perception of the
district superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social style.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 533-570.

Quinn, T. (2007). Preparing non-educators for the superintendency. The American
School Administrator, 64(7), 22-29.

Reeves, D. B. (2000). Accountability in action. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning
Press.

Reeves, D. B. (2005). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and
beyond. In J. Flood & P. A. Anders (eds.), Literacy development of students in
urban schools: Research and policy, (pp. 362-387). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Reeves, D. (2007). Challenges and choices: The role of educational leaders in
effective assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of
assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp.227-251). Bloomington, ID:
Solution Tree.

216

Ruzzi, B. B. (2006). International education tests: An overview, 2005 [Electronic
Version]. Paper prepared for the New Commission on the Skills of the
American Workforce. National Center on Education and the Economy.
Retrieved December 12, 2007 from
http://www.skillscommission.org/pdf/Staff%20Papers/International%20Tests.pd
f.

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Shannon, G. S. (2004). Characteristics of improved school districts: Themes from
Research. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and
Improvement.

Shannon, G. S. & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of improved school districts:
Themes from Research [Electronic Version]. Olympia, WA: Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction. Retrieved on December 12, 2007 from
http://www.k12.wa.us/research/pubdocs/DistrictImprovementReport.pdf.

Shatkin, G. & Gershberg, A. (2007). Empowering parents and building communities:
The role of school-based councils in educational governance and accountability.
Urban Education, 42(6) 582-615.

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006).
Reclaiming education's doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational
Researcher 35(3), 25-32.

Smolley, E. (1999). Effective school boards: Strategies for improving board
performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies
of how urban schools systems improve achievement. Washington, DC:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Snipes, J., Williams, A., Horwitz, A., Soga, K., & Casserly, M. (2007). Beating the
odds: An analysis of student performance and achievement gaps on state
assessments – Results from the 2005-2006 school year. [Electronic Version].
Council of Great City Schools. Retrieved December 8, 2008 from
http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/BTO7_Analysis.pdf.

Stiggins, R. (2004). New Assessment Beliefs for a New School Mission. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(1), 22-27.

217

Swanson, C. B. & Stevenson, D. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice:
Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEO state
assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(1), 1-27.

Takata, J., Marsh, D., & Castruita, R. (2007). The broad superintendents academy
qualitative report: Final report. Report presented to the Broad Foundation.

Teitel, L. (2005). Supporting school system leaders: The state of effective training
programs for school superintendents. Cambridge, MA: Center for Public
Leadership, Harvard University.

The Broad Academy Website (2007). Accessed February 25, 2007 at
http://www.broadacademy.org.

Togneri, W. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve
instructional and achievement in all schools - A leadership brief [Electronic
Version]. Learning First Alliance. Retrieved December 8, 2008 from
http://www.learningfirst.org/lfa-web/rp?pa=pa=doc&docId=62.

U.S. Department of Education (2004). Innovative pathways to school leadership
(ED-01-CO-0012). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschul, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The
foundation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first
century. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.

Warner, L. (2002). Family involvement: A key component of student and school
success. Chicago: Voices for Illinois Children.

Waters, T. & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting
vision with action. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning.

Waters, J. T., Marzano, R.J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-
continent Research for Education and Learning.

Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

218

Watkins, M. (2004). The first 90 days: critical success strategies for new leaders at
all levels. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

White, S. (2007). Data on purpose: Due diligence to increase student achievement. In
D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform
teaching and learning (pp.79-101). Bloomington, ID: Solution Tree.

Wong, H. K. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and
improving. NASSP Bulletin, 88(684), 41-58.

Worthen, B. R. & Sanders, J. R., (1989). Educational evaluation. New York:
Longman.
219

APPENDIX A

Please log: Name, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to be
obtained after the interview, part of the interview guide that were not fully covered,
digital tape location.

Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 1

Q# Question RQ:

1

Describe the overall status of the district when you assumed your
position as Superintendent?

What were the major strengths of the district? (ask for 3 most
salient)

What were the major challenges facing the district? (ask for 3
most salient)

What was the overall academic profile of the district?

1a

1a

1a

1a

2

Considering the context of the district when you arrived, what
strategies did you use to improve the overall condition of the
district?

What specific strategies did you employ to improve student
achievement within your district?

Which participants were significantly involved in these
strategies?

How would you describe the level of implementation you
have achieved for each strategy used?

1a/b

1a/b

1a/b

1a/b

220

APPENDIX A, Continued

Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 2

Q# Question RQ:

3

Please describe key aspects of your previous
background/experience
(Probe: Rate top 3 experiences in terms of importance)

How did your preparation and experience help you to select and
implement appropriate reform strategies designed to improve student
achievement?
(Probe: TBA experience, non-TBA experience, K-12 background,
degree programs, work experience, etc.)

1c

1a/b/
c

4

Please rate your previous professional experience with the
following reform strategies [On a scale from 1 = limited to 3 =
extensive].
(Reform Strategies: Strategic Plan, Assessment, Curriculum,
Professional Development, HR System and Human Capital
Management, Finance and Budget, Communications, Governance
and Board Relations, Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations, and
Family and Community Engagement)
(Probe: Identify her/his rationale for each rating)

1c

221

APPENDIX B

Please log: Name, title, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to be
obtained after the interview, part of the interview guide that were not fully covered,
digital tape location.

Key Player Interview Guide

Q# Question RQ:

1

Describe the overall status of the district when the Superintendent
arrived (or when the key player arrived if after the Superintendent)?

What were the major strengths of the district? (ask for 3 most
salient)

What were the major challenges facing the district? (ask for 3
most salient)

What was the overall academic profile of the district?

1a

1a

1a

1a

2

Considering the context of the district, what strategies did the
Superintendent use to improve the overall condition of the district?

What specific strategies did the Superintendent employ to
improve student achievement within the district?

What was your involvement in these strategies?

How would you describe the level of implementation
achieved for each of the reform strategies used?

(Note: Request documents mentioned).

1b

1b

1b

1b

222

APPENDIX C
Please log: Names, titles, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to
be obtained after the interview, parts of the interview guide that were not fully
covered, and digital tape location.

Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide

Q# Question

1

In this whole discussion, we want to focus directly on (the specific
dimension)

What is your district currently doing with regard (name the
dimension)? What has been the superintendent’s specific strategies
regarding this dimension?

Is your current strategy at all linked to improving student
achievement—please explain?

What has been your success in getting your current reform in this
dimension actually implemented and what challenges do you now
face in this regard?

How does your current effort for this dimension differ from what you
were doing prior to when the current superintendent came to this
district?

For your prior approach, to what extent was that approach fully
implemented?

223

APPENDIX C, Continued

Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes)

Questions
Strategic Plan:

What is your district currently doing with regard to (name the dimension)? What has
been the superintendent’s specific strategies regarding this dimension?

Is your current strategy at all linked to improving student achievement—please
explain?

What has been your success in getting your current reform in this dimension actually
implemented and what challenges do you now face in this regard?

Assessment:

What strategies or does your district have in place in regards to summative and
formative assessment to improve student performance?

What assessment practices are carried out both at the district-level and school-site
level to improve student achievement?

How does your district ensure that assessment policies and practices are carried out
throughout the district?

224

APPENDIX C, Continued

Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes), Continued

Questions
Curriculum:

What steps does the district take to ensure that the curriculum provides all students
with opportunities to access content and learning standards, (e.g., under-performing
students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners)?

What steps does the district take to ensure fidelity of implementation of the
curriculum across all schools and classrooms?

What steps does the district take to review and update the curriculum and adopted
materials for alignment to learning standards and student learning needs?

Professional Development:

Describe how the district’s professional development plan includes emphasis on
improving student achievement, building teacher effectiveness, maintaining high
standards, and promoting continuous learning to enhance intellectual and leadership
capacity?

How are resources specifically designated and available to support the district's
professional development plan?

To what extent does the district's organizational structure and policies ensure the
implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of the professional development plan?

225

APPENDIX C, Continued

Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes), Continued

Questions
HR System and Human Capital Management:

What structures are in place to support the recruitment, selection, and placement of
new teachers and administrators?

What district policies and practices are in place to ensure teachers and administrators
build collective capacity to understand and respond to student achievement data?

How are incentives used to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and strong
administrators for hard to staff schools?

Finance and Budget:

Prior to the superintendent’s tenure, did the districts mission, vision, and value
statements align resources to the districts instructional goals and priorities?

Describe the process used to create an organizational culture which includes all
stakeholders in the development of district-wide budget and spending priorities?

What effective controls are in place to ensure the district’s resources are managed
properly, including financial reports for fiscal management and decision-making?

226

APPENDIX C, Continued

Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes), Continued

Questions
Communications:

What structures are in place to support communication of the district's vision to the
key stakeholder groups: (e.g., students, staff, and community members)?

What district policies and practices are in place to ensure district personnel build
collective capacity to "tell the story" concerning policies, activities, and events
employed to improve student achievement?

How is the communication plan used to inform the community of district interests and
activities?

Governance and Board Relations:

Describe how the districts’ vision, mission, value, and priorities are focused on the
achievement and needs of all students providing a coherent "road map" to success?

What procedures are in place and guide how the governance team
(superintendent/board members) works together to establish systems and processes to
monitor student achievement while communicating the information to the larger
community?

What district-wide policies, culture and practices are currently utilized which reflect a
commitment to implementing systemic reform, innovative leadership, and high
expectations to improve student learning and achievement?

227

APPENDIX C, Continued

Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes), Continued

Questions
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations:

What processes are in place to build trust, foster relationships and ensure open
communication between the District and labor union negotiating teams?

What are the procedures for establishing principles and objectives for the negotiating
process?

What strategies are employed by the negotiating teams to ensure accountability and
fair and equitable outcomes for the District’s employees?

Family and Community Engagement:

How does the district support capacity building and encourage parents and
community members to participate in governance and advisory roles?

Please describe the district’s process for gathering information about
parent/community needs related to supporting their children’s education and how the
district responds to this information?

What kind of training or support is provided to administrators, teachers, and other
school staff in working with parents as equal partners in student academic
achievement?

228
APPENDIX D
Quality Rubric - Strategic Plan

Definition: The strategic plan defines the district’s vision, mission, and goals. It also assigns the performance indicators and work
plans to each of the districts goals and serves as the guiding document for the district decisions and priorities.

Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Vision

□
□
□

The district’s vision is well articulated in the
strategic plan. It expresses the ethical code,
overriding convictions, and the moral
convictions of the district
□
□
□

The vision represents the personal values of
those vested in the organization and is easily
understood
□
□
□
The district’s vision is somewhat articulated
in the strategic plan. To some extent it
expresses the ethical code, overriding
convictions, and the moral convictions of the
district
□
□
□

Vision somewhat represents the personal
values of those vested in the organization and
is moderately understood
□
□
□
The district’s vision is not articulated in the
strategic plan. It does not express the ethical
code, overriding convictions, and moral
convictions of the district
□
□
□

Vision does not represent the personal values
of those vested in the organization and is not
easily understood
Mission

□
□
□

The mission statement is a clear and concise
expression of the district’s identity, purpose,
and means
□
□
□

The mission statement is a bold declaration of
what the district will be and is known and
understood by most in the district
□
□
□
The mission statement is somewhat an
expression of the district’s identity, purpose
and means
□
□
□

The mission statement somewhat states what
the organization will be and is known and
understood by some in the organization
□
□
□
The mission statement is a not clear and lacks
concise expression of the district’s identity,
purpose and means
□
□
□

The mission statement, to a limited extent, is
declaration of what the organization will be. It
understood by few people in the organization
Objectives
(Goals)

□
□
□

Objectives clearly commit to achieve specific,
measurable results
□
□
□

Objectives are very closely aligned with the
mission statement and they are district
objectives that are measurable and observable
□
□
□
Objectives moderately commit to achieve
specific, measurable results
□
□
□

Some objectives are aligned with the mission
statement; they are district objectives
moderately measurable and observable
□
□
□
Limited commitment to achieve specific,
measurable results
□
□
□

Few objectives are aligned with the mission
statement and few are district objectives that
are measurable, demonstrated, and observable
Strategies

□
□
□

Full commitment to deploy any and all of the
districts resources-people, facilities, equipment
and funding- to execute the strategies to meet
objectives is clearly articulated
□
□
□

The strategies strongly indicate the districts
priorities and standards
□
□
□
Some commitment to deploy districts
resources-people, facilities, equipment and
funding- to execute the strategies to meet
objectives
□
□
□

The strategies indicate moderate commitment
to the districts priorities and standards
□
□
□
Limited commitment to deploy districts
resources-people, facilities, equipment and
funding- to execute the strategies to meet
objectives
□
□
□

Few strategies indicates the districts priorities
and standards

229
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric - Strategic Plan (continued)

Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Action Plan □
□
□

Specific reference to the strategy it supports
□
□
□

States the objective of the action plan itself
□
□
□

Has a detailed description of each step
required to complete the plan.
□
□
□

Indicates assignments and responsibilities
□
□
□

Includes a timeline for plan
□
□
□
Some reference to the strategy it supports
□
□
□

States some of the objectives of the action
plan
□
□
□

Has some description of steps required to
complete the plan.
□
□
□

Indicates some assignments and
responsibilities
□
□
□

Includes some timeline for plan
□
□
□
Limited reference to the strategy it supports
□
□
□

Objective of the action plan not clearly stated
□
□
□

Has a little description steps required to
complete the plan
□
□
□

Indicates few assignments and
responsibilities
□
□
□

Timeline for plan very limited
Theory of Action □ Superintendent has a written “theory of
action” that clearly articulates structure;
specifies what is tightly managed and what
decisions should be left to school leaders
□ It is aligned with district context, capacity, &
system leader’s beliefs
□ Superintendent has a “theory of action” that
loosely articulates what is managed by
district and what decisions should be left to
school leaders
□ It is loosely aligned with district context,
capacity, & system’s beliefs
□ Superintendent does not have a “theory of
action.” What is managed by district and
decisions school leaders
□ It is aligned with district context, capacity, &
sups. belief system
Data Dashboard □ District has clearly identified several key
indicators that give district’s pulse
□ Indicators are aligned with district’s strategic
plan; accountability plan assigns
responsibility for achieving district goals to
specific people/depts.
□ District has some indicators that give
district’s pulse
□ Indicators somewhat aligned with strategic
plan; accountability plan assigns some
responsibility for district goals to specific
people/depts.
□ District has few indicators that give district’s
pulse
□ Indicators not aligned with district’s
strategic plan; accountability and
responsibility for achieving district goals not
clearly defined

230
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Assessment

Definition: Assessment activities enable districts to know whether students are learning what they are supposed to learn (i.e., the
standards). Common, regularly-scheduled district-wide assessments should connect directly with standards, curriculum, pacing
guides, and professional development.

Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Summative
Assessments

Full district-wide implementation of state
standardized assessments.
Full compliance to state and federal (NCLB)
requirements.
Moderate implementation of state
standardized assessments.
Compliance to state and federal (NCLB)
requirements.
Low district-wide implementation of state
standardized assessments
Low or no compliance to state and federal
(NCLB) requirements.
Formative
Assessments

District-wide use of standards-based
common benchmark and curriculum-
embedded assessments.
Common rubrics to review student work.
Assessment schedule and pacing guides
developed and utilized.
Moderate district-wide use of common
benchmark assessments.
Some common rubrics to review student
work.
Assessment schedule and pacing guides
developed.
Low or no district-wide use of formative
assessments.
Low or no use of common rubrics to review
student work.
No or unclear assessment schedule and/or
pacing guides.
Data Management,
Information, and
Reporting
System/Technolog
y
District-wide (Internet-based) infrastructure
system for assessment data collection,
management, and reporting.
Data collection every 6-8 weeks.
Easy system for entry/retrieval of
assessment data and results/reports.
User friendly data reports.
District/school staff technology trained,
supported and proficient.
Moderate infrastructure for assessment data
collection, management, and/or reporting.
Periodic data collection.
System for entry/retrieval of assessment
data and reports.
District/school staff technology trained.
Low or no infrastructure for assessment data
collection, management, or reporting.
Low or no periodic data collection.
Limited or no district/school staff
technology trained, supported or proficient.

231

APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Assessment (continued)

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Analysis,
Interpretation,
and Utilization of
Assessment Data

District-wide analysis, interpretation, and
utilization of assessment data to improve
instructional practices, decision-making, and
support for learning.
Meaningful feedback to identify areas of focus
and needs for student mastery of standards.
District-wide schedule for data analysis to
plan and improve curriculum, instruction, and
student achievement.
Moderate district-wide analysis,
interpretation and/or utilization of
assessment data.
Moderate feedback to identify areas of
focus and student needs.
Intermittent schedule for data analysis.
Low or no district-wide analysis,
interpretation or utilization of assessment
data.
Limited or no schedule for data analysis.
Professional
Development (PD)

District-wide plan to ensure all district/school
staff have knowledge and receive support in:
District-wide assessments (summative and
formative)
Effective utilization of data
management/reporting system
Analysis/interpretation of assessment data,
student achievement and meeting of standards
Collaborative data teams to analyze/interpret
data and design next steps improve
instruction and student performance aligned
to proficiency of standards.
Moderate district-wide plan for
district/school staff to receive training and
support in:
District-wide assessments
Utilization of data management/ reporting
system
Analysis/interpretation of student
assessment data and student achievement
Limited or no district-wide plan for
district/school staffs to receive PD and
support on district-wide assessments.
Limited or no PD for the utilization of data
management/reporting system.
Limited or no PD for the
analysis/interpretation of student assessment
data.
Fiscal Support and
Resources

District-wide fiscal policies and resources
support systematic assessment plan and
implementation aligned to state and federal
accountability measures for student
performance.
Fiscal resource allocation and policies
support district-wide assessment plan.

Limited or no district-wide fiscal policies
and resources in support of systematic
assessment plan and/or implementation.

232
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Curriculum

Definition: Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach. Classroom materials (e.g., textbooks, worksheets, pacing guides, etc.)
should address the scope and sequence of the district’s learning standards.

Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Alignment to
Learning
Standards &
Assessments

□ The district has adopted and implemented a
curriculum that is based upon content standards
and frameworks, and is aligned to required
assessments of student learning
□ The district curriculum contains all of the
essential knowledge and skills students need
master the state and district learning standards
□ District provides pacing plans in all content
areas that assist teachers in delivering required
content during the academic year, aligned to
periodic assessments of student learning
□ The district has an adopted curriculum that is
based upon content standards and
frameworks, and is partially aligned to
required assessments of student learning
□ District curriculum contains some of the
essential knowledge and skills students need
to master state and district learning standards
□ The district provides pacing plans in some
content areas that assist teachers in delivering
the required content during the academic year
□ The district does not have has an adopted
curriculum that is based upon content
standards and frameworks, or aligned to
required assessments of student learning
□ The district curriculum contains little of the
essential knowledge and skills students need
master state and district learning standards
□ The district does not provide pacing plans
that assist teachers in delivering the required
content during the academic year

Equal Access to
Learning
Standards
□ The district curriculum optimizes all students’
opportunities to access content and learning
standards, including under-performing students,
students with disabilities, and ELs
□ The district curriculum provides many
students with opportunities to access content
and learning standards
□ The district curriculum provides few
students with opportunities to access content
and learning standards
Fidelity in
Implementation
□ The district communicates the required
curriculum clearly and systematically with all
stakeholders, especially site administrators,
teachers, students, and parents
□ The district provides adequate funding for
schools to support professional development
and full implementation of the curriculum
□ The district demonstrates a systemic
commitment to long-term implementation of the
curriculum
□ The district communicates the required
curriculum with site administrators, and
teachers
□ The district provides some funding for
schools to support professional development
and implementation of the curriculum
□ The district demonstrates some commitment
to long-term implementation of the
curriculum
□ The district does not fully communicate the
required curriculum to site administrators,
teachers, or other stakeholders
□ The district provides little or inadequate
funding for schools to support professional
development and implementation of the
curriculum
□ The district demonstrates little or no
commitment to long-term implementation
of the curriculum

233
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Curriculum (continued)

Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Sufficiency of and
Appropriateness
of Materials
□ The district provides sufficient instructional
textbooks and curricular materials (including
intervention materials) for all students.
□ The district provides all schools with
abundant supplemental materials to support
and enhance implementation of the
curriculum in all subject areas.
□ The district provides curricular materials are
appropriate for and culturally relevant to all
students
□ The district provides instructional textbooks
and curricular materials for all students.
□ The district provides schools with some
supplemental materials to support
implementation of the curriculum in some
subject areas.
□ The district provides curricular materials are
appropriate for and culturally relevant to
many students
□ The district does not provide sufficient
instructional textbooks and curricular
materials for all students.
□ The district provides schools with few or no
supplemental materials to support
implementation of the curriculum.
□ The district provides curricular materials are
appropriate for and culturally relevant to
some students
Clear and regular
procedures to
review and update
the curriculum
□ There is a system in place that provides for
regular review of the adopted materials for
core subjects by district and site
administrators and teachers to verify
alignment and universal access
□ There is a system in place that provides for
district and site administrators and teachers
to adapt materials to ensure alignment and
access
□ There is a system in place that provides for
District and site administrators and teachers
to use assessment results to determine what
materials are needed to supplement the
adopted curriculum to ensure that all key
standards are mastered.
□ Key staff members periodically review the
adopted materials for core subjects to verify
alignment
□ Key staff members periodically adapt
materials to ensure alignment and access
□ Key staff members periodically use
assessment results to determine what
materials are needed to ensure that all key
standards are mastered.
□ Some district staff members may
occasionally review the adopted materials for
core subjects to verify alignment
□ Some district staff members may
occasionally adapt materials to ensure
alignment and access
□ Some district staff members may
occasionally use assessment results to
determine what materials are needed to
ensure that key standards are mastered.

234
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Professional Development

Definition: Professional development is any program or course intended to improve teacher or principal effectiveness. Successful districts
have an integrated professional development strategy that centers on enabling teachers to detect when students aren’t meeting certain standards
and to adjust their instruction accordingly, or enables principals and teachers to improve their knowledge and skills in areas of district focus.

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Designing
Professional
Development

LEA includes budgeted, coherent PD activities
that reflect the best available research-based
strategies for improved student achievement
and focus on standards-based content
knowledge.
PD supports the district’s long-term plan and
identified goals.
Plan includes needs assessment process and
goals include: improving all students’ learning,
improving teacher effectiveness, setting high
standards for teachers, promoting continuous
staff learning, and enhancing staff intellectual
and leadership capacity.
Resources are designated and available to
support PD plan and specific personnel stay
abreast of and incorporate best practices into
teaching, learning, and leadership.
LEA includes PD activities but they do
not reflect the best available research-
based strategies and may focus on
standards-based content knowledge.
PD minimally supports the district’s
long-term plan.
Plan may include a needs assessment
process may include two or less of the
following: improving all students’
learning, improving teacher
effectiveness, setting high standards for
teachers, promoting continuous staff
learning, and enhancing staff intellectual
and leadership capacity.
Resources are available to support PD
plan and few personnel stay abreast of
best practices.
The LEA has little or no connection to PD
activities which do not necessarily focus on
standards-based content knowledge.
PD plan is not in alignment with district’s
long-term plan.
The plan does not include a needs assessment
process and goals of PD include one or none
of the following: improving all students’
learning, improving teacher effectiveness,
setting high standards for teachers, promoting
continuous staff learning, and enhancing staff
intellectual and leadership capacity.
Minimal resources are available to support PD
plan and little or not effort has been made to
identify personnel stay abreast of best
practices in teaching, learning, and
leadership.
Implementing
Professional
Development

Organizational structures and policies support
the implementation of PD activities on the
individual, collegial, and organizational levels.
PD is integral to the district culture and
promotes inquiry.
PD plan includes “coaching model” and all
staff receives coaching support.
LEA ensures that resources remain available to
organize and implement PD.
Most organizational structures and
policies support implementation of PD.
PD is inconsistent across the district and
may promote inquiry and improvement.
Plan includes the “coaching model” and
participation is sporadic.
Some resources available to support PD.
□ Minimal number of the organizational
structures and policies support the
implementation of PD.
□ PD is disconnected to classroom practices
and does not support and promote teacher
effectiveness in the classroom.
□ Plan does not include “coaching model.”
□ Minimal resources are available to support
PD.

235
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Professional Development (continued)

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Evaluating and
Improving
Professional
Development

LEA uses PD design goals to determine
evaluation measures and standards for
success. Personnel for collecting, analyzing,
and reporting data and for facilitating the
“PD next steps” decisions are clarified.
Evaluation findings are used to make
improvements in PD plan and criteria
include: 1) improved teaching, improved
student learning, 3) narrowing of student
achievement gaps.
LEA has a process for monitoring and
documenting the alignment of the school
improvement plan(s), professional
development activities, and teacher and
student outcomes.
LEA has a plan to determine PD evaluation
measures but lacks clarity and specifics as to
what measures will be used as standards for
success. Minimal personnel are selected for
collecting, analyzing, and reporting data and
developing next steps (lacks depth).
Evaluation findings exist but are not used to
make improvements in PD plan.
Lack of alignment in the school
improvement plan(s), PD activities, and
teacher and student outcomes.

□ Little or no connection between PD design
goals and evaluation process. Personnel have
not been identified to collect and analyze
data.
□ Little or no connection between evaluation
findings of make improvements in PD plan.
□ The process for monitoring and
documentation of the school improvement
plan(s) exists but lacks alignment between
PD activities, and teacher and student
outcomes.
Sharing
Professional
Development
Learning

LEA has a plan to document professional
development learning (challenges and
successes) changes in order to sustain
excellence when major changes in personnel
occur.
Records are kept to guide future PD
decisions.
Implementation materials are organized and
available to serve as models of effective
practice. This strategy is essential for
keeping staff, administrators, parents,
students, and community moving in the
same direction.
□ LEA has moderate documentation of PD
learning (challenges and successes).
□ Records are kept.
□ Some implementation materials are
organized and available to others to serve as
models of effective practices. Therefore,
most of the staff, administrators, parents,
students, and community all moving in the
same direction.
□ LEA lacks documentation of PD challenges
and successes.
Few or no records are kept to guide future
PD decisions.
Little or lack of evidence to support that
implementation materials are organized and
available to others to serve as models of
effective practices.

236
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – HR System and Human Capital Management

Definition: Research indicates that teacher quality is perhaps the primary influence on student achievement, yet many districts do
a poor job of attracting, selecting, and managing talent, whether at the teacher, principal, or central office level. Improving the
recruiting and hiring processes for teachers and principals, developing attractive compensation packages, and processing
applications and payments quickly—which a good HR system should be able to do—can greatly improve the quality of instruction
in schools and classrooms across the district. Districts then need to develop clever support and retention strategies to keep talent in
the district. Most importantly, districts can proactively improve their capacity for providing a quality education by examining and
refining their selection process.

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Recruitment,
selection and
placement of new
administrators
□ Achievement data, demographics, staffing,
and culture of the district are used to define
qualities of new administrators
□ District program in place to recruit
outstanding teachers as administrators
□ Achievement data, demographics, staffing,
and culture of each school are used to
develop a customized set of required
principal skills at all sites
□ Strongest principal leaders are placed at the
most underperforming schools
□ Some criteria are used when identifying
potential school leaders during the
administrator hiring process
□ Informal referral process is in place to
encourage in-house recruitment
□ Placement of principals is determined by
district personnel
□ Strong principals are encouraged to take on
underperforming schools
□ Hiring decisions have little to no connection
to student achievement
□ In-house recruitment program is nonexistent
or inconsequential
□ Placement is driven by availability or other
criteria
□ Performance of school is not considered in
placement
Recruitment of
highly qualified
teachers
□ Quarterly report to community regarding the
percentage of classes with HQTs
□ Compensation incentives are used to recruit
HQTs
□ District and employee organizations work
collaboratively to recruit HQTs from high-
performing schools to teach in
underperforming schools within the district
□ Annual HQT reporting is completed as
required by law
□ Incentives limited to few curricular areas or
special circumstances
□ Strong effort made by district, without union
support, to encourage HQTs from high-
performing schools to teach in
underperforming schools
□ No reporting policy in place or inconsistent
reporting to community
□ No incentive policy in place to support
recruitment of HQTs
□ No or inconsistent efforts to recruit HQTs
from high performing schools to teach in
underperforming schools in the district

237
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – HR System and Human Capital Management (continued)

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Teacher support
and development
□ All teachers have access to ongoing PD that
is targeted at district achievement goals and
delivery of standards-aligned curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
□ District has established a new teacher support
system the promotes high-quality support
and resources
□ PD activities are strongly tied to board-
adopted district goals and objectives
□ District collects data to measure the
effectiveness of PD as it related to improved
student achievement
□ Some teachers have access to ongoing PD
that is targeted at district goals and delivery
of a standards-aligned curriculum and
instruction program
□ District provides some site-level support for
new teachers through formal and informal
processes
□ PD activities are generally supportive of
district goals and objectives
□ Teachers are encouraged to measure the
effectiveness of PD as related to student
achievement
□ There exists little evidence that PD activities
are tied to district achievement goals or
specific curriculum objectives
□ New teachers receive the majority of support
through university teacher preparation
programs
□ No evidence of ties between PD and district
goals and objectives
□ No effort is made by the district to measure
the effectiveness of PD or impact on student
achievement
Salaries, wages,
and benefits
□ District and employee organizations work
collaboratively to ensure salaries, wages, and
benefits are sufficiently competitive to attract
and retain HQTs with an emphasis on math,
language arts, reading, and teaching ELs
□ District conducts quarterly analyses of
recruitment and retention data
□ The district has negotiated competitive
salaries, wages, and benefits as compared to
surrounding school districts
□ District conducts annual analyses of
recruitment and retention data
□ No evidence suggests a collaborative effort
on the part of the district and employee
organizations to attract and retain HQTs in
math, language arts, reading, and teaching
ELs
□ No evidence suggests analysis plans exist in
the district
Use of incentives □ Compensation incentives are used to recruit
HQTs and administrators to work in hard-to-
staff schools
□ Incentives include: extra compensation,
opportunities for collaboration, reduced class
size, and recognition programs
□ Compensation incentives are used to recruit
HQTs in certain content areas at hard to staff
and/or underperforming schools
□ Limited monetary and non-monetary
incentives in use by the district to attract and
retain HQTs and strong administrators
□ Compensation incentives are not used to
attract HQTs / administrators to hard to staff
and/or underperforming schools
□ Incentives are not in place or in use to attract
and retain HQTs and/or strong administrators

238
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric - Finance & Budget Rubric

Definition: While student achievement is the ultimate bottom line, more superintendents are fired for poor financial management
than for poor student achievement results. In addition to ensuring that their budget is balanced and sustainable, superintendents
should closely align their budget with instructional priorities. Some districts have adopted innovative budgeting approaches such as
“zero-based budgeting” and weighted student funding to bring their budgets into closer alignment with their priorities.

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Strategic Budget
Planning
□
□
□

Strategic plan is linked to the
superintendent’s goals and priorities,
incorporates measurable objectives and
outcomes, and is used as the basis of budget
planning.
□
□
□

The budget is closely aligned to the district’s
mission, goals, and operational activities and
identifies who is accountable
organizationally for specified outcomes.
□
□
□

School budget is explicitly tied to the
district’s instructional goals and priorities.
□
□
□

Changes in district priorities are reflected in
the budget in a timely fashion.
□
□
□

Fiscal team understands the district’s past
fiscal issues, problems, challenges, and
accomplishments in order to gain perspective
on how to guide the district in the future.
□
□
□

District goals and priorities, outlined in the
strategic plan, are found in budget priorities,
but the links between the strategic plan and
the budget process are not evident.
□
□
□

There is some evidence of the district’s
instructional goals and priorities in the
budget.
□
□
□

Changes in district priorities are reflected in
the budget, but not in time to make
meaningful decisions.
□
□
□

The budget is somewhat aligned to the
district’s mission, goals, and operational
activities but organizational accountability is
not clear.
□
□
□

The district’s past fiscal issues, problems,
challenges, and accomplishments are not
considered in planning process.
□
□
□

Strategic plan is not referenced in budget
planning.
□
□
□

Changes in district priorities are not reflected
in the budget.
□
□
□

The budget is not understood by
stakeholders.
□
□
□

Fiscal team has no historical perspective of
past fiscal issues.

239
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric - Finance & Budget Rubric (continued)

Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Organizational
Culture
□
□
□

Expands participation in budget process to
include stakeholders and secure buy-in by
constituencies.
□
□
□

Presents audit findings & corrective action
plans to Board.
□
□
□

Establish a clear process to solicit input from
Local District personnel, principals, and
others on the annual budget process and to
pilot-test ideas before they are rolled out to
the field.
□
□
□

Participation in budget process limited to
upper and middle management.
□
□
□

Board is made aware of audit findings.
□
□
□

Processes for input from Local District
personnel, such as principals, is not clearly
established.
□
□
□

Little participation in budget process outside
of fiscal.
□
□
□

Audit findings are not sun-shined.
□
□
□

Input from Local District personnel,
principals, and others on the annual budget
process is not solicited.
Operational
Procedures
□
□
□

Establishes effective controls to ensure that
the district’s resources are managed properly,
including monthly financial reports for fiscal
management & decision-making.
□
□
□

Uses the district’s annual external audit to
improve district operations, including— the
timely review and follow-up of findings,
development of corrective action plans, and
implementation of corrective actions.
□
□
□

Establish uniform comprehensive financial
procedural manuals for school sites, Local
Districts, and central offices and conduct
appropriate training for users.
□
□
□

Controls to ensure that the district’s
resources are managed properly, including
periodic financial reports for fiscal
management & decision-making, are
restricted to few district personnel.
□
□
□

District’s annual external audit is discussed
only when produced and not revisited in
planning process.
□
□
□

Financial policies are not readily available to
school sites, Local Districts, and central
offices.
□
□
□

Financial reports for fiscal management &
decision-making are only produced, or made
available to decision-makers, in times of
crisis.
□
□
□

District’s annual external audit is not used to
inform decisions or future policy.
□
□
□

No formal financial procedural manuals
are available.

240
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Communications

Definition: Effective school districts need to showcase the great stories in their district and to counteract misinformation or
negative news. Developing a public relations or communications office staffed with experts on dealing with the media can enable
the district to communicate its vision to the public or proactively build support for an important initiative.

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Communications Plan □ Communications plan is aligned with
district’s strategic plan
□ Communications plan actively supports
district mission and vision
□ Communications plan tailored to reflect
diversity of district schools
□ Communications plan designed to seek
community input
□ Communications plan is up to date
□ Communications plan is understood by
district office and school staff
□ Communications plan addresses needs of all
stakeholders
□ Communications plan is out of date or
missing
□ Schools are unaware of district
communications plan
□ Schools contact district office when
communications issues arise
Communications
Office
□ Communications office is integral part of
district decision making
□ Communications office maintains close
liaison with community
□ Communications office routinely consults
with district schools to ensure reporting of
“great stories”
□ Communications office is adequately
staffed
□ Communications office consulted for input
in decision making
□ Communications office contacts schools
and community stakeholders with news of
events and decisions
□ Communications office is not functioning
□ Communications office is inadequately
staffed
□ Communications office not routinely
informed of decisions affecting community
stakeholders
Communication of
district vision to the
community
□ District meets with community leaders to
discuss district vision
□ Multiple interactive means are used to
disseminate district vision
□ District employees take a proactive
approach to telling honest district message

□ District communicates vision via periodic
releases in local newspapers
□ District notifies community organizations of
district vision
□ School leaders are required to maintain
coherence of district vision with school
goals
□ District vision is not communicated to the
community
□ Mission and vision are displayed on district
home page
□ School bulletins and newsletters relay
district vision to homes

241
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Communications (continued)

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Build support for
district initiatives
□ Family and community members are
engaged as decision makers in
communicating district initiatives
□ District initiatives are communicated and
understood by community
□ District notifies community organizations of
initiatives
□ Key community leaders are informed of
district initiatives
□ School leaders are encouraged to
communicate information regarding district
initiatives with key personnel
□ Community is unaware of district initiatives
□ Schools are given information concerning
district initiatives to send home in
newsletters
Two way
communications with
community
□ District and community feel involved and
engaged in their public schools
□ Focus groups and town hall meetings
inform community of district interests and
activities
□ Staff members are involved in community
groups and organizations
□ Information concerning proposed legislation
that affects schools and communities are
tracked and disseminated by district
□ District publishes calendar and
transportation schedules in local newspapers
□ Community organizations are routinely
notified of district events
□ Key community leaders are routinely
notified of district events
□ School leaders are encouraged to
communicate school activities via
newsletters and letters home
□ Community events and activities are
disseminated through schools
□ Community is unaware of district events
□ District communicates to community
primarily through schools
□ Community does not communicate
activities with district
□ Parents receive letters and newsletters from
their school announcing special district
events

242
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Governance/Board Relations

Definition: Most districts are governed by boards elected from the local population; others answer to appointed boards. In either
case, school boards are responsible for setting the policy direction for the district; superintendents can take a supporting role in
developing policy but are mainly charged with executing it. Winning the support of board members, especially elected ones, is a
time-consuming but critical task for most superintendents.

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Setting the
Direction for the
Community’s
Schools
□ The District’s vision, mission, value, and
priorities are focused on achievement and
the needs of all students are clearly known in
the school community.
□ The vision, mission, values, and priorities
are described in the LEA plan and visible at
all district sites and described as measurable
goals.
□ The District’s goals are measurable and
achievable being evaluated annually to
improve instruction and close the gap
between high and low achieving students.
□ The District’s vision, mission, value and
priorities may lack clear focus and not
necessarily focused on student achievement
and the needs of all students are not well
known at all district sites.
□ The District’s goals are measurable and
possibly achievable but not evaluated
annually nor may be part of the LEA plan.
□ The instruction is not necessarily closing the
gap between high and low achieving
students.
□ The District’s vision, mission, value, and
priorities lack focus or are non-existent.
□ There is very little to no information
available at any district site or in the LEA
plan.
□ The goals are not measurable or non-existent
and are not reviewed.
Establishing an
Effective and
Efficient Structure
for the District
□ The Board has established an organizational
structure that fully supports the district’s
vision while empowering the superintendent
and staff.
□ The Board approves policies and sets the
direction for adopting the curriculum.
□ The Board establishes budgeting priorities
on-time and consistent with the vision and
goals.
□ The Board has established an organizational
structure that partially supports the District’s
vision and may not fully empower the
superintendent.
□ Board policies are not adopted or approved
in a timely manner and there is little input in
the curriculum adoption.
□ The budget may not fully reflect the
priorities and is not consistent with the
vision and goals.
□ The board has established an organizational
structure that may not support the district
vision and may not empower the
superintendent and staff.
□ Board policies are not adopted or approved
and there is little to no input in the
curriculum adoption.
□ The budget does not reflect the priorities and
is not consistent with the vision and goals.

243
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Governance/Board Relations (continued)

Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Providing
Support and
Resources
□ The Board supports the superintendent and
staff and acts in a professional demeanor
modeling the District’s belief and vision.
□ The budget allocation aligns resources based
on instructional priorities and student needs
and there is concentrated evidence of
providing additional support to reform efforts
that directly impact student achievement.
□ Board may support the superintendent and staff
and sometimes acts with professional demeanor
modeling the District’s beliefs and vision.
□ The budget partially aligns resources to
instructional priorities and student needs and
there is some evidence of additional support to
reform efforts that directly impact student
achievement.
□ The Board rarely supports the
superintendent and staff and seldom models
the District’s belief and vision.
□ Budget allocation does not align resources
based on instructional priorities or student
need and there is no evidence of providing
additional support to reform efforts that
directly impact student achievement.
Ensuring
Accountability
to the Public
□ The Board establishes systems and processes
to monitor student achievement and
communicates the information to the school
community.
□ The Board evaluates the superintendent and
sets the policy for the evaluation of all
personnel.
□ The Board monitors program effectiveness
through assessments and requires changes to
protect scarce resources and monitors
effectiveness through self-evaluation.
□ The Board may have established systems to
monitor student achievement while
communication lacks consistency to the
community.
□ The Board evaluates the superintendent but may
not set policy for the evaluation of all personnel.
□ The Board may monitor program effectiveness
through assessments and seldom requires changes
to protect resources and there may be evidence of
monitoring through self-assessment.
□ The Board has not established systems to
monitor student achievement and rarely
communicates any information to the
community.
□ The Board marginally evaluates the
superintendent and does not set policy for
personnel evaluations.
□ The Board rarely monitors program
effectiveness to protect resources and there
is no evidence of its’ effectiveness through
self-evaluation.
Actions as
Community
Leaders
□ The Board has involved the community in
appropriate, meaningful ways to allow for
feedback from stakeholders.
□ There is clear communication to community
members regarding district policies, district
educational programs, and the financial
condition of the district and progress of local
goals or bond information.
□ The Board allows the superintendent to share,
as appropriate, information with local
constituency groups.
□ The Board infrequently involves the community
in meaningful ways allowing for feedback from
stakeholders.
□ There may be clear communication to the
community regarding policies, programs and the
financial condition of the district but it is not
consistent.
□ The Board sometimes allows the superintendent
to share, as appropriate, information with local
constituency groups.
□ The Board has generally not involved the
community in any meaningful way and does
not readily accept feedback from the
community.
□ There is no clear communication to the
community and generally, district
information can be obtained only at district
sites.
□ There is generally no sharing of information
with local constituency groups.

244
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Labor Relations/Negotiations

Definition: In addition to teachers unions, superintendents often need to build relationships and negotiate with several other unions
to which various district staff belong. Success in working with unions requires an upfront investment in building relationships and
understanding the priorities of union leaders. The content of contracts also requires close attention. Contract language can restrict
or expand the superintendent’s options for replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly crucial with teacher contracts, as
teacher quality is one of the most significant influences on student achievement.

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Relationships,
Communications
and Trust
□ Both teams have solid trusting relationships,
credibility, political savvy, and model ethical
behavior by establishing core values
□ All bargaining members are provided with a
continuous meaningful training on
traditional, interest-based and core values
bargaining
□ All key stakeholders informed of planning,
updates, modifications to proposals and
strategies, and tentative and final agreements
□ Both teams have moderate relationships,
credibility, political savvy, and model ethical
behavior by establishing core values
□ All bargaining members are provided with
some training on interest-based and
traditional bargaining
□ Some information is disseminated regarding
planning, updates, modifications to
proposals and strategies, and tentative and
final agreements to some stakeholders
□ Teams have limited skeptical relationships,
lacking credibility, political savvy, and
ethical behavior need for core values
□ There is a need for meaningful training on
traditional, interest-based and core values
bargaining
□ Only a few stakeholders are informed of
negotiation process and limited information
is distributed about tentative and final
agreements
Negotiation
Principles
and Objectives
□ Both teams have secure, established roles
and responsibilities
□ All teams use strategic plans, mission
statements, major goals and core values to
develop objectives
□ Teams work together collaboratively to
review existing contract language, to identify
problem areas, articulate community
concerns, and discuss the impact of current
language on student achievement and district
operations
□ Only one team has secure, established roles
and responsibilities
□ The district and other teams have limited
access to strategic plans, mission statements,
major goals and core values to develop
objectives
□ Each team works in isolation to review
existing contract language, and identify
problem areas, that impact of current
language on student achievement and district
operations
□ Both teams have secure, established roles
and responsibilities
□ All teams use strategic plans, mission
statements, major goals and core values to
develop objectives
□ Existing contract language is not considered
or discussed in reference to the impact of
current language on student achievement and
district operations

245
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Labor Relations/Negotiations (continued)

Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Strategies for
Negotiations

□ Bargaining goals and objectives are
developed in relation to the importance of
the district mission and bargaining success,
district verifies the proposal against district
philosophy, core values, financial resources,
community support and impact of student
achievement
□ District and union work together to
determine an overarching approach to
negotiations with considerations for
distributive or integrative bargaining or a
combination of the two
□ There is a solid plan for impasse: meditation,
fact finding and post fact finding
negotiations
□ Bargaining goals and objectives are
somewhat developed in relation to the
importance of the district mission and
possible bargaining success
□ District determines an overarching approach
to negotiations with considerations for
distributive or integrative bargaining or a
combination of the two
□ Impasse results in breakdown in
communication, the district does not have a
plan for this process
□ Bargaining goals and objectives are
developed in relation to the importance of
each parties individual interest; the district
philosophy, core values, financial resources,
community support and impact of student
achievement are not the main consideration
□ Each group determines an overarching
approach that benefits self-interest in
negotiations
□ There is a solid plan for impasse: meditation,
fact finding and post fact finding
negotiations
Fair and Equitable
Outcomes
□ Equitable distribution of rights in
evaluations, assignments, health plan,
calendars, staff development, schedules,
retirement etc.
□ A high value placed on all employees and
fully recognizes their impact on the successes
of district students
□ Within the context of core values and fiscal
ability, settlement provides a fair and
equitable compensation package

□ In many cases, management rights override
the distribution of rights in evaluations,
assignments, health plan, calendars, staff
development, schedules, retirement etc.
□ Some value placed on employees and there
are small attempts to recognize their impact
on the success of district
□ At times, different groups consider core
values and fiscal impacts when negotiating
settlements and compensation packages
□ Power struggles exist when deciding the
rights in evaluations, assignments, health
plan, calendars, staff development,
schedules, retirement etc.
□ Employees perceive that they are not
recognized for their impact on the successes
of district
□ Regardless of core values and fiscal impact,
groups demand unreasonable, unaffordable
compensation packages

246
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Family and Community Engagement

Definition: All residents of a school district’s jurisdiction can be considered its stakeholders, so ensuring everyone’s satisfaction
can be difficult. Districts should offer several ways for the community and families to interact with the district, from coordinating
volunteer opportunities for parents to partnering with local organizations in support of student success. It is also important to
gather feedback from the public on the district’s performance. Several districts take surveys of parents of children and of the
community in general to determine how they view the district and what their priorities for improvement are. These surveys should
be closely linked to the district’s performance management system and data dashboard. Increasing stakeholder satisfaction can lead
to greater support for bond measures for the district, significantly increasing its financial resources.

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Parenting □ The district provides coordinated trainings,
at all levels, based on parent needs and local
context.
□ The district has a system or process in place
for appropriate and quality referrals.
□ The district ensures and supports schools in
educating all staff in working with parents as
equal partners, coordinates parent programs,
and builds ties between parents/ community
and the schools.
□ Schools organize trainings for parents on a
scheduled basis.
□ Schools provide appropriate referrals.
□ The district or school offers staff trainings in
how to work with the parents/community.
□ Schools plan trainings upon request by
parents.
□ Schools provide referrals.
□ Schools receive little support from the
district in planning trainings for staff with a
focus on working with parents/community.
Communication □ Information is provided in a language and
format that ensures participation for those
parents who lack literacy skills or whose
native language is not English.
□ A district-wide expectation of consistent and
effective two-way communication between
the home and school exists.
□ Schools provide key information concerning
the school program and its activities, as
feasible, in a language that ensures
participation for those parents whose native
language is not English.
□ Schools encourage consistent and effective
two-way communication between the home
and school.
□ Schools are inconsistent in providing
translated notifications. Few resources or
options are available for schools that need
translation assistance.
□ Schools do not regularly emphasize the
importance of communication between the
home and school.

247
APPENDIX D, Continued
Quality Rubric – Family and Community Engagement (continued)

Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Volunteerism □ The district and school parent involvement
policy informs parents about opportunities
for volunteers and the rights for parents to be
involved in school and classroom
activities/events.
□ The district delineates specific measures that
are taken to increase parental involvement
and addresses various barriers.
□ The district and school parent involvement
policy informs parents about opportunities
for volunteers and the rights for parents to be
involved in school and classroom
activities/events.
□ The district and schools address major
barriers, such as language, transportation,
and need for childcare.
□ The district and school parent involvement
policy informs parents about opportunities
for volunteers and the rights for parents to be
involved in school and classroom
activities/events.
□ The district and schools do little to address
barriers to parent/community participation.

Learning at Home □ The district supports schools in providing
techniques and strategies that parents may
use to improve their children’s academic
success and help their children in learning at
home.
□ Schools provide techniques and strategies
that parents may use to improve their
children’s academic success and help their
children in learning at home.
□ Schools rely on teachers to work with
individual families on a as needed basis.
Decision Making □ Parents are encouraged and actively
recruited to participate in undertaking
governance and advisory roles..
□ The district organizes opportunities for
parents/ community to be involved in the
joint development of the LEA plan, parent
involvement policies, parent needs
assessments, and school-parent compacts.
□ Parents are encouraged to participate in
governance and advisory roles.
□ Parents/community are involved in some
components of the development of LEA
plan, parent involvement policies, parent
needs assessments, and school-parent
compacts.
□ Schools do not have active parent
committees, and are provided little support
for taking corrective measures.
□ Parents/community are not consulted in the
development of the LEA plan, parent
involvement policies, parent needs
assessments, or school-parent compacts.
Collaboration with
the Community
□ Community organizations and/or institutions
are highly involved in district and/or school
activities, working in collaboration with the
district.
□ Community organizations and/or institutions
are minimally involved in district and/or
school activities.
□ Community organizations and/or institutions
are not involved in district and/or school
activities.

248

APPENDIX E:
Implementation Rubric (All Levers)

Dimension High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Challenges &
Concerns
The external
challenges to full
implementation and
the concerns/ thoughts
of key players
□ No serious obstacle or
challenge.
□ Staff focused on
improving full use of
lever and its impact on
student performance
□ Common commitment
to approach
□ Some obstacles and/or
challenges to
implementation.
□ Staff focused on
thought and actions
needed to improving
lever
□ Majority of staff
showing commitment
to approach
□ Serious external
obstacles to
implementation
□ Staff focused on
whether approach to
lever is best design or
is feasible
□ Possible strong
disagreement about
best direction
Fully Implemented
in Practice
The extent that each
component of the
change lever is fully
implemented in
practice.
□ Full implementation of
all components of the
lever across the district
□ Best practices have
been established and
are communicated in
coordinated manner
□ Practice is reflected in
policy and procedures
□ Uneven and/or
inconsistent
implementation of the
lever across the district
□ Best practices are being
collected-with plans for
communicating these
across the district
□ Possibly some good
ideas about
implementation of the
change lever
□ Little actual
implementation of the
lever beyond minimal
bureaucratic
requirements
Common Culture:
Data, Reflection,
& Continuous
Improvement
Shared understanding,
values, and desired
expectations,
including active use of
data, reflection and
continuous
improvement of the
change lever itself.
□ Extensive use of data
and reflection about the
change lever—its
design, implementation
and effectiveness in
supporting student
achievement.
□ Common and clear
expectations across
district
□ Extensive work on
continuous
improvement
□ Use of data and
reflection guides
decisions about the
change lever
□ Expectations
communicated across
the district
□ Moderately effective
continuous
improvement efforts
□ Little common
understanding of the
change lever
□ No/little data
collection regarding
lever
□ No/little reflection
about how to improve
implementation of
change lever
Sustainable Use:
Resources, Staff,
Regularization
Ad hoc vs. stability of
staff and fiscal
resources and a fit
with the ongoing
organization.

□ Strong possibility of
sustainability
□ Strong and ongoing
staff and fiscal resource
commitment
□ Shared expertise and
capacity building
□ Inclusion in regular
way the district
operates
□ Moderate possibility of
sustainability
□ Moderate staff and
fiscal resource
commitment
□ District support and
expertise

□ Very tenuous
approach to
implementation of
change lever
□ Little chance of
sustainability in terms
of staffing, resources,
or regularized patterns

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement

PDF

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

PDF

Sustainable reform: a follow-up case study on one urban superintendent’s efforts to improve student achievement

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

Reform strategies used by system leaders in education to impact student achievement: a case study

PDF

Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts

PDF

How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

PDF

Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents

PDF

An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement

PDF

Improved math achievement in an urban high school: a case study of a high school in the Vista Unified School District

PDF

Secondary school reform and improved math achievement: a case study of site efforts at Mission Valley High School

PDF

Traditional and nontraditional urban school superintendents in the age of accountability

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

High school math reform and the role of policy, practice and instructional leadership on math achievement: a case study of White Oak Tree High School

Asset Metadata

Creator Haglund, David E. (author)

Core Title Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/13/2009

Defense Date 03/04/2009

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

Tag accountability leadership,Broad Academy,continuous improvement,data dashboard,district action,district-level reform,entry plan,human capital management,instructional leadership,instructional management,large urban school district,non-traditional superintendent,OAI-PMH Harvest,performance management,professional development,program coherence,resource alignment,school reform,strategic plan,strategic planning,student achievement,superintendent preparation,superintendent preparation programs,system coherence,system leader,systemic change,traditional superintendent,urban school leadership,urban school systems

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy M. (committee chair), Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member)

Creator Email dhaglund@usc.edu,hagdogusc@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2029

Unique identifier UC197389

Identifier etd-Haglund-2714 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-212374 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2029 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Haglund-2714.pdf

Dmrecord 212374

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Haglund, David E.

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