Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Building capacity for leadership in urban schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Building capacity for leadership in urban schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
BUILDING CAPACITY FOR LEADERSHIP IN URBAN SCHOOLS
by
Pamela Houston
____________________________________________________________
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
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Pamela Houston
ii
DEDICATION
God has blessed me with a wonderful family and it is to them that I dedicate
this dissertation.
To my late parents, Alonzo and Eleanor Simon, who provided me with a
loving, happy childhood, encouraged me to be an independent thinker, and taught me
in countless ways.
To my late Aunt Dee, the best aunt in all creation! And to my uncles, all of
whom were special to me and made me feel part of a strong, deeply rooted, extended
family.
When you are an Army brat, leaving friends, changing schools and moving
every three years, your siblings are your constants, who journey along with you.
And so, I also dedicate this work to my brothers, James “Butch” and Reggie, who
have always been there and whose love and support I cherish.
And finally, to my beautiful daughters – Naiyma and TaShanna. I am
inspired by you and love you both. This is for you.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This was quite an endeavor and could not have been done without the help and
support of the following people:
Dr. Margaret Reed, my committee chair, who was so resourceful and helpful in
shaping the final product of this work. Thank you for paving the way in
Pennsylvania and for guiding and supporting me through the process.
Committee Member – Dr. Kathy Stowe, the “cheerleader” in the background, who
was also resourceful and so supportive throughout the entire dissertation process,
from the very beginning through the day of my oral defense.
Committee Member – Dr. Richard Vladovic, who graciously joined my committee at
a crucial time and provided such enthusiastic support.
Dr. Dennis Hocevar, my first committee member, who was so helpful with the
methodology and who was such a calming presence during the proposal phase.
My Thematic Group Cohorts - Darnise, John, Jon, Shawna, Stacey and especially
Kim and Helena for their generosity and moral support.
iv
Chris Conrad, for her sense of humor and thorough transcription of my “old school”
mini interview tapes.
Editor extraordinaire, Dr. Shantanu Duttaahmed, not just for his editing, but for his
invaluable coaching and friendship throughout this endeavor.
I am deeply grateful to all of the participants in this study, including the
Pennsylvania Site Region Coordinator and the teachers at the two case study schools.
My deepest gratitude goes to the two case study principals, whose dedication to the
field moved them to be so open and generous with their time, their thoughts, and
their feelings, providing the rich data to make this dissertation possible. I marvel at
what you do, daily, for the children at your schools, and salute you both.
To the friends and relatives who went through this process with me, encouraging me,
prodding me to finish (Chapter 4), and giving me space when I needed it - from the
day I took the GRE to the day I defended - I am so appreciative! You were
instrumental in my successful completion of this work.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………….. ...ii
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………… ...iii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………... ...vii
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………… ...viii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………. ...ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study …………………………………………… ...1
Chapter Two: Literature Review ……………………………………………….. ...9
Chapter Three: Methodology ………………………………………………….. ...45
Chapter Four: Findings ………………………………………………………... ...69
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications and Recommendations ………………....186
References …………………………………………………………………….. ...209
Appendix A: Interview Guide: Principals - Fall 2008 ……………………….. ...213
Appendix B: Interview Guide: Principals - Spring 2009 …………………….. ..215
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Guide - Fall 2008 ………………………….. ...217
Appendix D: Teacher Interview Guide - Spring 2009 ……………………….. ...219
Appendix E: Interview Guide - Region Site Coordinator, Pennsylvania ……. ...221
Department of Education
Appendix F: Observation Protocol …………………………………………... ...223
Appendix G: Document Review Protocol …………………………………… ...225
Appendix H: Informed Consent ……………………………………………… ...226
vi
Appendix I: Informed Consent-Teacher Participants ………………………... ...231
Appendix J: Informed Consent-PIL ………………………………………….. ...236
Appendix K: Principal Letter ………………………………………………… ...240
Appendix L: PIL-USC Joint Letter …………………………………………... ...242
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Data Collection Triangulation Matrix ………………………………... ...49
Table 2. NISL Course#1 – Pennsylvania Leadership Standards Alignment ….. ...55
Table 3. VAL-ED Sample Respondent Items …………………………………. ...62
Table 4. VAL-ED Performance Level Descriptors ……………………………. ...63
Table 5. Interview Participants …………………………………………………...71
Table 6. Demographic Information for Case Study Schools ……………………..72
Table 7. Sinclair 2008 Disaggregated PSSA Data- Percentage Proficient ……. ...78
Two Year Trend
Table 8. VAL-ED Core Components and Key Processes ……………………... ...95
Table 9. Summaries of Core Component and Key Processes Scores for ……… ...96
Benjamin Adams
Table 10. The Eight Dimensions of Learning-Centered Leadership ………….. ...98
Table 11. Lopel School 2008 PSSA Disaggregated Data Percentage Proficient...123
Two Year Trend
Table 12. Summaries of Core Component and Key Processes Scores for ……...145
Stephanie Swanson
Table 13. Alignment of NISL Courses, Pennsylvania Leadership Standards .. ...169
and Learning-Centered Leadership Dimensions
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Sample VAL-ED Report of Mean Ratings on Core Components …... ...63
Figure 2. VAL-ED Sample Report of Mean Ratings on Key Processes ……… ...64
Figure 3. Conceptual Model ……………………………………………………...67
Figure 4. Factors Involved in the Creation of Conditions for Social Justice … ...164
at Sinclair and Lopel Schools
ix
ABSTRACT
This was a mixed-methods, pre-intervention, multi-case study of urban
school leadership. Two Kindergarten through eighth grade schools in a large urban
school district were studied to examine: 1.) factors involved in principals’ ability to
create the conditions for social justice; and 2.) how a state-adopted leadership
development program, using the National Institute for School Leadership (NISL)
curriculum, might strengthen principals’ capacity to influence the practice of their
teachers.
Qualitative data were collected from interviews, observations, and existing
documents. Additionally, the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
(VAL-ED) was used to collect survey data on the principals’ leadership practices.
A major finding of the study was that moral purpose must be accompanied by
the active promotion and stewardship of a strong vision of achievement in order to
create the conditions for social justice in urban schools. Another key finding, related
to the state-adopted leadership training, was that principals’ attitudes and
expectations regarding the training evolved over time and was influenced by their
peers as well as by specific information pertaining to the course content. A third
major finding of this study was that the training facilitators’ job-alike experience in
the principalship, strengthened the NISL content and was a critical element in
building urban principals’ leadership capacity.
Implications that arose from the study pertained to principals spending
quality time setting directions at their schools, the dissemination of information
x
regarding principal training and the benefit of carefully selecting leadership
development trainers who have had experience in the principalship. Additionally,
while it was not the focus of the study, an implication regarding principals’ response
to high-stakes accountability also arose.
1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“Moral purpose of the highest order is having a system where all students learn, the
gap between high and low performance becomes greatly reduced, and what people
learn enables them to be successful citizens…The role strategically placed to best
accomplish this is the principalship.” (Michael Fullan)
Introduction
United States Census data on poverty reveal disparities between racial and
socioeconomic groups. According to the Census Bureau’s annual survey of 100,000
households throughout the nation, the official poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3% or
36.5 million people. During the same year, the Bureau reports much higher rates of
poverty for African Americans and Latinos, reporting that 24.3% of “Blacks” and
20.6% of “Hispanics” live in poverty in this country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).
Empirical research from many fields of study continue to show that the poor
experience adverse health, inadequate housing conditions, and are more directly
affected by greater instances of violent crime. The integral and complex effects of
poverty on children have also been extensively documented. Rothstein (2004) writes
that low-income children have greater problems with vision, asthma, hearing
problems, lead exposure and are more likely to have toothaches. Brooks-Gunn and
Duncan (1997) also found that poor children have more health, emotional and
behavioral problems than non-poor children. Given the general health insurance
2
problem in the United States, the poor are also overwhelmingly less likely to have
health insurance (DeNaves-Walt et al., 2007).
Since the extant conditions of poverty affect all aspects of a person’s life,
even in childhood, it is not surprising that the extensive data from the field-research
on student achievement also reveal clear and distinct discrepancies between the same
groups noted in the census data. The National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) regularly assesses 4
th
, 8
th
and 12
th
grade American students to determine
what they know and what academic skills they are able to perform at specific periods
in their education. NAEP, therefore, serves as a barometer of how our nation’s
children are performing, academically. Fourth grade NAEP scale scores show
slightly greater gains among African Americans, Latinos and poor students than
students overall between 1998 and 2005, in the areas of reading and mathematics.
However, even with these gains, gaps between demographic groups remain intact.
2005 fourth grade NAEP scores indicate persistent gaps between White students and
their African American and Latino counterparts. The achievement gaps between
poor and non-poor fourth graders are persistent, as well. The average overall
reading scale score in 2005 was 217. It was 199 for African Americans, 201 for
Latinos and 203 for poor students. These scores represent gaps of 29, 27, and 27
points for African American, Latino, and poor students, respectively. The same
trends are evident in the area of mathematics (Education Trust, 2006).
One way of combating these statistics is through education. Brewer,
Hentschke, Eide, Kuzin and Nayfack (2007) write that education levels and earnings
3
have a strong, positive correlation that sustains over one’s lifetime and that education
levels and social benefits, including improved health, are strongly, positively
correlated. This would indicate that education matters in the context of quality of
life.
In addition to revealing the disparities between demographic groups,
research, such as the work of DeNaves-Walt, Proctor, and Smith (2007) indicates
that many of those living in poverty also correspondingly reside in metropolitan
areas and that 52.4% of the poor in metropolitan areas also live in principal cities or
urban areas. Not surprisingly, comparison data between urban and suburban schools
indicate children in urban schools are not achieving at rates that are equal to those of
their suburban counterparts (Thirunarayanan, 2004). These data are by no means
recent or unexpected revelations. Knowledge of the discrepancies in student
achievement that exist between suburban and urban schools has propelled decades-
long efforts to reform urban schools; however, as the field data continue to reveal,
the gaps in achievement still persist.
There has been a proliferation in the literature on leadership theories
(Northouse, 2003). This work would clearly seem to indicate, that the leadership
capacity of the school principal is critical in urban school reform. A great deal has
been learned about the positive influence that certain behaviors and leadership
attributes of the principal have on student outcomes (Marzano et al., 2005). Thus, it
can be argued, that principals are critical to the success of a school. However, the
best teachers can rise to the ranks of the principalship but not have the knowledge or
4
skills to positively impact student learning; that level of expertise requires
specialized training. In this regard, once again, research conducted by Davis,
Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005) indicates that heretofore, the
training has not been sufficient for principals who lead urban schools. Or, even
when the training has been sufficient, once on their own, graduates do not have the
necessary support systems to expand their leadership capacities (Davis et al., 2005).
The factors described above are related to race and class, which are critical
aspects of the context of urban schools. Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy (2005)
assert that a consciousness about the impact of race and class on schools and
students’ learning is at the forefront of social justice, and lament that leadership
preparation programs do not adequately prepare school leaders to address such
issues. They describe social justice as relating to moral values, justice, respect, care
and equity. Certainly, if the statistical data on race and class in our country are to
change, principals of urban schools need preparation and support systems that will
enable their practice to ensure that social justice prevails for all students.
Statement of the Problem
Many urban school principals are knowledgeable of and skillful in the broad
categories of effective practices that are presented in the literature and implicit in
professional leadership standards. Those broad categories as synthesized by
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson and Wahlstrom are: Setting Directions, Developing
People, and Redesigning the Organization (Leithwood, 2004). However, the
achievement gaps between racial groups as well as between the poor and non-poor
5
remain. Additionally, urban schools are disproportionately represented among
schools identified as failing to meet high stakes accountability targets. Various
elements in urban schools contribute to social inequities that perpetuate the
achievement gap.
Leaders are not adequately prepared to meet the challenges inherent in urban
schools. What needs to be known is how principals can use what they learn in
leadership preparation programs to prevent social inequities and thereby close the
achievement gap.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study will be to examine how principals create the
conditions for social justice, and how the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Initiative
(PIL), which uses curriculum developed by the National Institute for School
Leadership (NISL), might strengthen the leadership capacity of practicing principals
in ways that subsequently have an influence on the practice of teachers they lead in
urban settings.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How and why do urban principals create the conditions for social justice
in their schools?
2. What are the expectations and attitudes of principals regarding the PIL
training?
6
3. How is the PIL executive leadership curriculum designed and delivered to
build the capacity of urban school principals?
Significance of the Study
As a result of this study, policymakers and developers of leadership
preparation / development programs will gain knowledge of specific features that are
effective in building and sustaining leaders’ capacity to close the achievement gaps
that are so prevalent in our nation’s schools. Additionally, it will provide the
participants in the study with empirical data that they can use as a compass to guide
their journey of empowering their urban students through the implementation of
promising leadership and teacher practices.
Assumptions
Certain assumptions have been made regarding this inquiry. One assumption
is that the data collected from interviews, observations, existing documents and
survey responses will reflect honest and accurate depictions of the experiences of the
participants. Another assumption is that the principals in the study will complete the
PIL training as scheduled, including attending the workshops and fulfilling all
required online assignments. Finally, it is assumed that principals who complete PIL
will have the authority to enact the leadership practices espoused in the PIL training.
Definitions of Terms
Some terms frequently used in the study have connotations that may differ
from those in the common domain. The following operational definitions are offered
to provide clarity of meaning:
7
Academic achievement. Academic achievement is demonstrated achievement
on grade-level standards, at levels sufficient to prepare students to perform
proficiently in subsequent courses and on high-stakes tests.
Moral purpose. Having moral purpose relates to being driven and guided by
a sense of purpose based upon what one values and perceives as being morally right,
rather than being driven by other factors.
NISL. NISL is an acronym for the National Institute for School Leadership,
which is an executive development program for school leaders.
Novice principal. A novice principal is a principal in the first or second year
of service.
PIL. PIL is an acronym for the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Initiative,
which has two components: the NISL curriculum and a mentoring component for
first-year principals.
Social justice. Social justice refers to the condition in which all children,
regardless of their racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or
other marginalizing factors are treated with care, respect and dignity, and experience
an educational program which ensures they acquire and maintain academic
achievement, as defined above.
Urban school. The term urban school(s) refers to a school, or schools,
located in a metropolitan area, with a diverse population and a high percentage of
poor and minority students.
8
VAL-ED. VAL-ED is the acronym for the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education, which is an assessment tool used to determine the
effectiveness of principals’ learning-focused leadership behaviors.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation study is composed of five chapters.
Chapter One provides an overview of the study and contains an introduction,
the statement of the problem, the purpose and significance of the study, research
questions posed in the study, as well as assumptions and a list of the definitions of
terms utilized in the study.
Chapter Two presents a review of the literature related to leadership theories,
educational leadership preparation programs, and the context of urban schools.
Chapter Three describes the research methodology used in the study, which
includes an overview of the design and descriptions of the participants,
instrumentation and procedures.
Chapter Four contains a report and discussion of the research findings, as
well as reflection and insight into their meaning.
Chapter Five, the final chapter, presents the implications of the study. This
final chapter also addresses how this study contributes to the knowledge of principal
preparation and support in the urban context and will identify and discuss needs for
future research.
9
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
“An effective principal is not all that is required for an effective school, but it is very
difficult to have a good school without a good principal.”
(www.wallacefoundation.org)
Introduction
What is a good principal? More specifically, what skills, knowledge,
behaviors, and beliefs does an effective urban school principal need in order to
improve professional practice, organizational performance, and outcomes for
students? Is being a skillful manager, with instructional expertise and a strong belief
that all students can learn, enough? Or does a successful urban school principal also
need to have a sense of moral purpose and the ability to lead others in a way that
results in social justice for all children? And to further complicate our inquiry, how
does one adequately define “social justice,” why is it important in urban education,
and how do school leaders gain the ability to ensure it exists for all students? Are
principals adequately prepared and supported for such an endeavor – leading for
social justice?
Darling-Hammond, LaPoint, Meyerson, Orr and Cohen (2007) contend that
the frequency in which principals have not been adequately prepared is a
contributing factor related to a shortage of qualified administrators willing to work in
the nation’s most challenging communities. Having found that most principal
10
preparation programs were outdated and out of touch with the realities and demands
of the principalship, Darling-Hammond and her colleagues (2007) conducted a study
of eight exemplary principal preparation programs for the purpose of adding to the
knowledge base on the content, features and financial aspects of developing and
sustaining the leadership capacity of principals.
This chapter will examine the extant literature, including that of Darling-
Hammond et al. (2007), that focuses on effective strategies that build the capacity of
principals to provide leadership which results in improved learning and high
achievement for all students. It will do so through a synthesis of the literature on
those leadership theories which show promise for urban school leaders: 1.)
leadership for social justice, 2.) instructional leadership theory, 3.) transformational
leadership theory and 4.) learning-centered leadership theory. Additionally, the
literature review will present an analysis of research on educational leadership
preparation programs and structures designed to promote change, as well as the role
of professional learning communities in improving schools and districts. As this
research study is specific to the capacity building of urban school principals in a high
stakes, standards-based, accountability environment, the context of urban schools
will also be examined in this chapter. The review of the literature is conducted in
order to develop a conceptual framework for successful leadership practice in urban
school environments.
11
Leadership Theories
The Nature of Leadership
Leadership is a complex, universal concept that has been studied and
discussed throughout the ages. Bass (cited in Marzano et al., 2005) writes that
evidence of discussions about leadership can be found in ancient works and across
all cultures. While the notion of leadership can be distilled into cogent, precise
definitions, its nature manifests in various ways and has been conceptualized in
numerous models and theories. What seems to be a consensus among scholars is that
the leader’s ability to influence is the critical attribute of leadership. Scholars also
agree that goal attainment is integrally involved with leadership issues. Indeed,
according to Northouse (2007), leadership occurs when a group is influenced toward
accomplishing a goal.
In Leadership: Theory and Practice, Northouse (2007) writes of two
leadership perspectives – trait and process. Leadership is viewed by some as being
determined by a set of innate characteristics or talents: qualities such as one’s
physical stature, personality and/or natural abilities. This trait perspective of
leadership is restrictive in that, depending on the identified traits, one either has the
characteristics of a leader or one does not. In this point of view, leadership traits are
considered to be inborn and therefore cannot be learned or acquired. Leadership
development or preparation programs would seem to have no place within this
perspective. Additionally, such an approach to leadership is culturally specific, in
that a set of traits that may be valued by one particular culture may not have the same
12
value in another. For example, Americans have been characterized as loving
“aggressiveness” the so called “go getter” attitude, but in some cultures,
aggressiveness is perceived as being rude and arrogant.
Northouse (2007) describes another view of leadership as process. The
process perspective sees leadership as a phenomenon that occurs in context and can
be learned. Therefore, it is not restricted, but is available to everyone. This
becomes important when considered in the context of preparing school leaders to
promote school improvement, reshape the culture of their schools, and build capacity
among their teachers.
In addition to the different perspectives of leadership, Northouse (2007)
distinguishes between two of its forms. He writes of assigned leadership as that
which has been attained through one’s position in an organization. Examples of
assigned leaders are supervisors, department heads, and directors. Assigned leaders
have authority, but not necessarily influence. The other form of leadership described
by Northouse (2007) is emergent leadership. Emergent leadership belongs to the
person who is most influential in the group. This kind of leadership emerges over
time as group members respond to the individual’s behavior with support and
acceptance.
Transformational Leadership Theory
Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership practice that has
garnered much attention and study. Scholars often refer to the classic works of
James MacGregor Burns (1978) and Bass (1985 and 1990) when discussing the
13
theory of transformational leadership. Burns and Bass’ works are rooted in the
economic phenomena of the 1980s and 1990s when downsizing and globalization
created distress in many industries (Leithwood, 2005). Burns writes of a reciprocal
relationship between leaders and followers and depicts transformational leaders as
those who connect with their followers in ways that result in both the followers and
the leader actualizing their fullest potential (as cited in Northouse, 2007). The
leader changes, or becomes transformed, through the process of transforming his/her
followers.
Transformational leadership is sometimes described as being synonymous
with House’s theory of charismatic leadership (Northouse, 2007). A crucial element
of similarity is that both theories hold that this type of leadership taps into the values,
emotions and motives of followers. There is a moral component as well, especially
as it relates to organizational goals. House posits that leadership of this type is
particularly effective in stressful situations when members look to the leader to guide
them in a way that unsnarls them from their troubled predicament (as cited in
Northouse, 2007).
Building on the works of House (1976) and Burns (1978), Bass (1999)
expanded the concept of transformational leadership by contending that
transformational leaders influence their followers to reach high expectations by
raising their levels of consciousness about the importance and value of
organizational goals. House (1976), Burns (1978), and Bass’ (1999) principles of
leaders connecting with followers’ values, emotions and moral sensibilities to propel
14
them toward meeting idealized organizational goals provide a foundation for the
concept of educational leadership, which will be developed in the next section.
Educational Leadership
The literature on educational leadership defines leadership in similar terms as
those cited about leadership in general. In Educational Leadership: A Review of the
Research, Kenneth Leithwood (2005) defines leadership in much the same way as
does Northouse (2007). Leithwood (2005) states that leadership has two core
functions – setting directions and exercising influence – and that those two core
functions can be carried out in different ways, using various models.
Transformational leadership and instructional leadership are the two most prominent
models found in the literature on educational leadership. Transformational
leadership, as described above, is rooted in the downsizing and globalization of the
1980s and 1990s. By contrast, the concept of instructional leadership is rooted in the
1970s and 1980s, when prominent concerns about the nation’s cities called for
strong, hands-on, hero-leaders to turn inner city schools around (2005). According
to Leithwood, instructional leaders focus on the “core technology” of schooling –
teaching and learning – and work within three categories of practice: defining the
school’s mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive
school climate (2005).
Effective Leadership Practice: Creating a Shared Vision, Mission, and Goals
Hallinger (2003) found that the most influential instructional leader activities
were those related to developing and executing the school mission. Leithwood,
15
Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) agree, stating that of the three leadership
basics – setting directions, developing people, and redesigning the organization -
setting directions has the most impact, as it involves developing a sense of purpose
or vision. They describe practices that carry out this leadership function as
promoting vision, fostering acceptance of goals, and creating high expectations. It
would stand to reason, then, that today’s urban principal must have the knowledge
and skills needed to exercise leadership in developing a school vision.
Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, and Porter (2006) also cite vision for learning as
being a key dimension of leadership in education. Their theory of learning-centered
leadership posits that the vision should reflect high standards and expectations, but
add that it should be developed by all stakeholders and contain student-centered
goals. This gives credence to the notion that principals might also need to be skilled
in sharing important organizational work with others. Additionally, Murphy et al.
(2006) state that a key responsibility of the school leader is to articulate the vision by
modeling and communicating it in a variety of ways. In Leadership for Learning: A
Research-Based Model and Taxonomy of Behaviors, Murphy et al. state that the
school leader is the “keeper and promoter of the vision” (Murphy et al., 2006, p.6).
One would argue, therefore, that in addition to having the capacity to lead in the
development of the vision, an effective principal must also exemplify behaviors that
promote the vision among all stakeholders.
Practices related to school vision are undoubtedly critical aspects of
successful school leadership. As such, they are elaborated upon in the first of the
16
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, also known as the
CPSELs, which addresses the facilitation, development, articulation, implementation
and stewardship of a vision of learning (West Ed, 2003).
The CPSELs were generated from the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) standards. Adopted in 1996, the ISLLC standards are national
standards for school leaders. They present a common core of knowledge,
dispositions and performances that are based on research which finds links between
educational leadership, productive schools and outcomes for children (Interstate
School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 1996). Because the CPSELs are so closely
aligned to the ISLLCs, the CPSELs are useful throughout the country in any of the
many states that use or have adapted the ISLLCs (West Ed, 2003). ISLLC Standard
1 also addresses the development, articulation, implementation and stewardship of
the vision (Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 1996).
Instruction
The CPSELs also point to the instructional program as something educational
leaders must nurture and sustain (2003). Marzano et al. (2005), Leithwood et al.
(2004), Leithwood (2005) and Murphy et al. (2006) all concur that attending to
certain elements of instruction are key practices for school leaders. Marzano,
Waters, and McNulty (2005) identify knowledge of curriculum, instruction and
assessment, as well as, involvement in curriculum, instruction and assessment as two
of twenty-one leadership behaviors that are statistically significant in terms of their
correlation with student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). Murphy et al. (2006),
17
whose writings tend to fall in the category of instructional leader/core technologist,
state that school leaders must be strong in pedagogy and instructionally hands-on in
their practice. They further elaborate in their writing that leaders should spend time
in classrooms and time with teachers. According to Murphy et al., most of the
effective school leader’s time is spent on instructional activities. Murphy and his
colleagues (2006) outline eight dimensions of learning-centered leadership, three of
which are directly related to instruction: Instructional Program, Curricular Program
and Assessment Program. Each of these three dimensions has four functions that
leaders fulfill in the practice of exhibiting effective behaviors. Hiring excellent
teachers is one function of the Instructional Program dimension. Others are:
supporting them by removing barriers that impede the work, protecting their
instructional time from interruptions, and providing feedback on their performance.
Leithwood and his colleagues also highlight instruction by writing of the importance
of monitoring performance and paying attention to instructional practice (Leithwood
et al., 2004). Elmore (2003) does as well, and holds that schools that do well in high
stakes accountability systems have a process for monitoring instructional practice
and providing feedback. In an effective urban school, then, one would expect to find
the principal regularly interacting with teachers on matters of instruction, curriculum,
and assessment, providing feedback and development on their practice, both
formally and informally.
18
Culture
Leithwood et al. (2004), Leithwood (2005), Murphy et al. (2006), Marzano et
al. (2005) and the CPSELs also agree that organizational culture falls under the
purview of school leaders. Marzano et al. list culture as one of their twenty-one
school leadership responsibilities (Marzano et al., 2005.) Murphy and his colleagues
write of it as well, emphasizing the importance of schools having high levels of
personalization, whereby each student is well-known, cared for, and feels valued and
important (Murphy et al., 2006). Leithwood links culture to organizational structures
and writes of strengthening culture through a redesign of the organization
(Leithwood et al., 2004) (Leithwood, 2005). An implication of this concept in the
context of the current study would be that an urban principal must be knowledgeable
of the kinds of structures that are needed in her school and skillful in creating them.
Redesigning the Organization
Redesigning the organization is characterized by Leithwood (2005) as being
one of three basic responsibilities of leadership. According to him, all leaders,
regardless of context, must have the capacity to do this. Leithwood (2005) calls for
developing a collaborative school culture and creating structures to enhance shared
decision making and productive community relationships. The purpose of
organizational structures, Leithwood (2005) writes, is to facilitate the work of the
people within the organization.
Leithwood’s (2005) model of school leadership is more transformational than
instructional, in that it relies on the leader exercising influence through the utilization
19
of the members’ values and emotions. He writes of tapping into the workers’ values
and emotions to foster a personal commitment to the goals of the organization as
well as to develop their capacity. The theory is that increased commitment and
capacity will lead to more effort and productivity, resulting in better performance.
Leithwood et al. (2004) found that the practices associated with
transformational leadership can be distributed throughout an organization. They cite
Gronn (2002), who identified two forms of distributed leadership: additive, in which
everyone is a leader, and holistic, which connotes more interdependence.
The concept of interdependence is relevant to teams, as teams of people are
interdependent of each other to achieve goal attainment. It follows then, that
redesigning an organization in a way that provides for a structure of teams is a
method school leaders can employ to enhance the distribution of certain leadership
practices. As Leithwood (2005) argues, teamwork allows for people to learn from
each other and share in decision making. This in turn fosters a greater commitment
to the organization’s goals.
Murphy et al. (2006) also write of the importance of using structures to
nurture informal learning through shared decision making. They specify structures
that enable common planning time, team leadership and collaboration. Distributed
leadership practice, as described by Harris and Spillane (2008) would suggest that
structures of this type provide teachers with opportunities to emerge as leaders and
encourage one another to reflect on their practice.
20
The CPSELs refer to structure, as well, in the context of infrastructures to
support a learning-support system (West Ed, 2003). Structures, therefore, are tools
school leaders can create or redesign to strengthen culture, commitment and
ultimately improve performance.
Transformational Leadership in School Settings
Before leaving the subject of distributing transformational leadership
practices through redesigned school structures, it is important to note Leithwood’s
(2005) findings about transformational and distributed leadership. In his review of
the educational literature, Leithwood (2005) states that while transformational
leadership has been widely discussed, there is little evidence about its effects in
schools. However, all of the available evidence finds that transformational
leadership is a suitable model to employ in schools that are challenging and in need
of change (Leithwood, 2005). The logical conclusion of this finding is that like the
distressed 1990s workers facing the possibility of downsizing, teachers in
challenging schools in the current era of high-stakes accountability look to their
principals to deliver them from the inherent threat of sanctions.
Additionally, some of the leadership characteristics Marzano et at. (2005)
identify as being correlated to improving schools in need of deep, dramatic change –
2
nd
Order Change – are transformational in nature. Those characteristics are using
intellectual stimulation, being an optimizer, and leveraging ideals and beliefs. It
seems clear, then, that a transformational leadership approach is appropriate for
leaders of troubled schools.
21
The other point that needs to be made is that while Leithwood (2005) sees
value in the practice of distributed leadership, which he defines as a state in which
the leadership practices of influence are enacted by more than one person, he
indicates that more evidence of its nature is needed. For example, Leithwood and his
fellow researchers found that some leadership roles, such as influencing peers to
reflect on their practice, are well-suited for emergent leaders in the organization,
while others, such as vision building, are better left to the assigned leader
(Leithwood et al., 2004). For this reason, he cautions those developing leaders to be
conservative about the concept of distributed leadership until more is known about
its effects (2004). This has been considered in the course of the present study, which
does not heavily rely on distributed leadership theory as part of its conceptual
framework.
Equity, Diversity
Murphy et al. (2006), Leithwood et al. (2004), Leithwood (2005), and the
CPSELs all address the issue of equity. Equity, in terms of schooling, means to
ensure the success of all students, through the provision of a high-quality education
(McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004). Murphy et al. (2006) write of the leader’s role in
social advocacy and ensuring the opportunity of each student to learn. They
elaborate on the meaning of “ethical” as it is presented in the professional leadership
standards as treating all with fairness, dignity and respect. They affirm that school
leaders must embrace diversity, be ethical and establish expectations that others be
accepting of diversity and act ethically, as well. Murphy et al. (2006) write that
22
effective leaders are more cognizant of their personal values and beliefs than are
others and thus are driven by professional ethics. The CPSELs also address the
leader’s personal beliefs and state that the school leader should be responsive to
diverse community interests and model a personal code of ethics (West Ed, 2003).
Leithwood (2005) writes of the context in which leaders work. By “context”
he means the roles they assume, the policies they are required to uphold, and the
characteristics of the children they serve. When elaborating on student-related
context, he argues that leaders of diverse student populations must ensure that
practices and policies are implemented equitably. Additionally, he and his
colleagues hold that leaders have an ethical and moral obligation to work toward
equity for all students (Leithwood et al, 2004).
Conclusion – Educational Leadership
The writings of Murphy et al. (2006), Leithwood et al. (2004), Leithwood
(2005), Marzano et al. (2005) and the CPSEL standards illuminate qualities and
responsibilities associated with effective educational leaders. One can deduce from
their writings that good principals must have the capacity to build, nurture and
sustain vision and mission; make meaningful use of members’ motives, values and
emotions to foster their commitment of idealized goals; redesign the organization in
ways that strengthen culture through teamwork and enhance opportunities for
members to increase capacity; and lastly, model and promote moral purpose for the
work.
23
Leithwood et al. (2004) and Leithwood (2005) contend that educational
leadership is indirect. Principals influence improvements in teacher practice, which
enhances student learning. They also write that the context of the work is important.
The primary context for this study will be that of urban settings. It is appropriate,
then, to explore the nature of schools in such settings in the section that follows.
Urban School Settings
Many scholars contend that context is an important consideration when
determining appropriate and effective approaches to leadership in schools.
Leithwood (2005) writes that diverse student populations present a unique context
for school leaders, in that they bring about the necessity of going beyond leadership
fundamentals to ensure social justice for all students. Hallinger also points to the
critical nature of school context and suggests it presents both opportunities and
constraints for principals (Hallinger, 2003). In alluding to the unique opportunities
an urban context presents, Cuban states that the context of urban schools can
sometimes work to create successful leaders because they must find creative ways to
navigate the political, instructional and managerial waters inherent in such
environments (Cuban, 2004).
Culture, Climate and Resources
Courtland Lee paints a picture of the urban environment in Urban School
Counseling: Context, Characteristics, and Competencies, an article that explores the
nature of counseling in urban schools (Lee, 2005). Lee characterizes urban areas as,
among other things, having more crime, higher rates of poverty, and more air
24
pollution than other areas. Additionally, he cites inequities in the educational and
legal systems, along with inadequate access to health care as being the norm.
Finally, urban demographics reflect a high concentration of people of color as well
as a high concentration of recent immigrants. Lee also asserts that urban areas have
a lack of community connectedness. Lee holds that schools reflect the characteristics
of their communities and goes on to identify several issues that are more profound in
urban schools than in their suburban and rural counterparts. Some issues he
identifies are related to school climate and include reports of weapons, fights,
absenteeism and a lack of parental involvement (Lee, 2005).
Others have also written of the unique context of urban schools. Like Lee,
Cuban cites overcrowding, a higher risk of students dropping out of high school and
a lack of stability as being characteristics of urban schools (Cuban, 2004). In regard
to the issue of instability, urban principals are sandwiched middle-managers in the
sense that they must adjust to instability both at their school sites— in terms of the
difficulty of filling teaching positions with qualified staff, and in leadership at the
district level – in terms of the high turnover of urban superintendents. Cuban (2004)
and Lee (2005) also address the issue of financial resources in their separate
depictions of urban schools. Lee asserts that urban schools have less per pupil
spending, inadequate facilities, a lack of instructional materials (including
textbooks), a lack of technology needed to enhance instruction and greater financial
mismanagement. Cuban addresses most of the same issues and states that indeed
25
urban leaders are expected to make greater gains with fewer resources (Cuban,
2004).
High Stakes Accountability
One cannot comprehensively address the challenges urban school principals
face without mentioning the impact of high stakes accountability, including that of
H.R. 1 – The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). While NCLB was
promoted as being a vehicle that would close the achievement gap by bringing
educational equity, high achievement and assistance to failing schools, it has resulted
in unforeseen externalities, possibly because it was so hastily conceived and ushered
through Congress. Most of NCLB’s unforeseen complications are related to
sanctions, or the threat of sanctions associated with the legislation. Under NCLB, if
schools do not make what is termed Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two
consecutive years, they are placed in Program Improvement (PI) status and incur
sanctions which range from notifying parents of their rights to transfer their children
to other schools, to reconstituting schools by replacing principals and teachers.
NCLB sanctions become progressively more severe with each subsequent year of PI
status. In essence, PI schools are publicly considered to be failing schools and are
often referenced with that label.
Functioning under this punitive cloud—the possibility of having one’s school
publicly identified as failing under NCLB, is particularly relevant to the urban school
context. Data indicate that urban schools are disproportionately affected by NCLB
sanctions. According to the Center on Education Policy (CEP), almost half of the
26
schools in Program Improvement are in urban districts. CEP’s published report on
the effects of NCLB after five years of implementation states that in the 2005-2006
school year, 47% of schools in PI status were in urban districts, as compared to 22%
in suburban and 11% in rural areas (Center on Education Policy, 2007).
Findings from a study conducted by Diamond and Spillane (2004) are
instructive in articulating the unique set of challenges many urban principals
encounter. The study also depicts some of the unanticipated effects of high stakes
accountability policies like NCLB. Diamond and Spillane’s study was of four urban
elementary schools in the Chicago area. Chicago was selected because of its highly
regarded accountability policy, which contained the possibility of reconstitution for
probationary schools that did not turn around. Two of the selected schools in the
study were on probation, due to student performance on standardized tests, while the
other two were not. The purpose of the study was to see how the schools responded
to the high stakes accountability policies. Interviews and observations focused on
the school leaders’ goals and agendas regarding improvement efforts related to the
accountability policy. The researchers found that the schools responded according to
their accountability status. Probationary schools, whose major goal was to get off of
probation, had a narrow focus. They were motivated by the negative incentives of
sanctions and thus concentrated their efforts on grade levels, subjects and individual
students; efforts that were calculated to increase their test scores. Testing grade
levels and subjects received greater attention, as did students who were already close
to meeting benchmarks. Students who were not close to benchmark did not receive
27
the extra instructional time and help they needed. The high performing schools, on
the other hand, focused on improving the learning of all of their students, in all grade
levels and curricular areas.
An important finding in the study was that probationary status was
accompanied by immediate pressures, sometimes in the form of high stakes, external
partners who visited the schools in a role that could be characterized as
monitor/consultants. These outside actors were perceived by the school leaders as
applying pressure to make cosmetic changes, with a focus on student behavior,
classroom management and the level of student engagement, rather than on deep,
meaningful change in instructional practice. In efforts to impress these outside
actors, the school administrators used threats of sanctions to pressure their teachers
into compliance. Data collected in their study suggest the probationary school
teachers were depressed and demoralized as a result. Perceived pressures from the
external observer/consultant/managers, led to the school leaders’ subjugation of their
decision rights and resulted in superficial responses to the high stakes accountability
policy in the probationary schools. Diamond and Spillane are not alone in finding
urban school principals navigating the political waters of outside stakeholders.
Cuban (2004) and Lee (2005) also referred to outside political forces (district
administrators, union officials, city government members, etc.) as sources of
pressure on urban principals.
Diamond and Spillane concluded from their Chicago study, that context is
important in how schools respond to the externalities of high stakes tests. According
28
to them high stakes accountability policies marginalize low-performing students and
present equity issues, in that they increase stratification rather than decrease it, as
was the stated intention of NCLB (Diamond & Spillane, 2004). Since urban
districts are overrepresented in regard to the proportion of schools in NCLB PI
status, it can be argued that such pressures and equity issues are another unique
element of the urban school context.
Based on the characteristics described above, one can conclude that urban
schools are more likely than their suburban counterparts to have: disciplinary issues
that involve violence, more at-risk students, less stable personnel, demoralized
teachers, fewer financial resources, a greater chance of facilities being in disrepair, a
greater likelihood of incurring the inherent pressures of NCLB Program
Improvement, and a greater challenge to ensure equity for all students.
Moral Leadership
Why do principals stay in such challenging positions? Interestingly and
relevant to this study, Cuban (2004) infuses the concept of a moral purpose
throughout Meeting Challenges in Urban Schools, the article in which he describes
the context of urban school leadership. He asserts that urban principals are often
driven by a concern for social justice and that they must set a moral example for
students, teachers and parents as they lead instructionally and as they manage the
school (Cuban, 2004). Fullan (2003) also writes of moral purpose and states that the
principal is strategically placed to accomplish it.
29
This drive and ability to infuse a moral imperative into the work of the school
can serve urban principals well as they exercise influence. It can help develop and
enhance the moral purpose of their teachers, by tapping into the teachers’ altruistic
values to gain greater commitment to meet school goals for increased student
achievement. This type of behavior on the part of principals is a manifestation of
transformational leadership, which as previously stated, has been found to be
effective in schools in need of change.
Need for a Unique Knowledge Base
Many urban school principals are knowledgeable of and skillful in the broad
categories of effective practices espoused by scholars such as Leithwood (2005),
Murphy et al. (2006), Marzano et al. (2005) and the CPSEL (2003) and ISLLC
(1996) standards. However, as the NCLB data implies, they have not resulted in
widespread success. In spite of the unprecedented response to the NCLB legislation,
the achievement gaps between racial groups and between the poor and non-poor
remain. In fact, Diamond and Spillane (2004) question the ability of high stakes
accountability to bring about equity among racial groups because, as stated above, it
perpetuates stratification.
It would seem then, that perhaps, principals of urban schools also need to
possess knowledge and skills related to social justice (Capper, et al., 2006), which
may influence teachers’ practice and result in improved learning for all students.
The concept of preparing school leaders to ensure social justice will be explored in
the following section.
30
Social Justice
One of the descriptions of practice for the California Professional Standards
for Educational Leaders depicts an exemplary school leader as one whose actions
demonstrate a commitment to promoting and assuring every student’s right to equal
access to a quality education. It explicitly states, “The leader influences the
professional culture of the school to infuse the values of fairness, justice, service, and
integrity among all adults” (WestEd, 2003, p.43). Enacting social justice, then, is a
professional standard about which aspiring principals must be aware.
The term “social justice” can connote various impressions, depending on the
context in which it is discussed. George Theoharis, writing of social justice in the
context of school leadership, defines it as making race, class, gender, disability,
sexual orientation, and other marginalizing conditions central to one’s advocacy,
leadership, practice and vision (Theoharis, 2007).
Many scholars, including, Theoharis (2007), McKenzie and Scheurich (2004),
Capper, et al. (2006), Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy (2005), and Rusch (2004)
address the need for leadership preparation programs to become more effective in
building the capacity of their students to lead schools for social justice. Rusch
(2004) found, in a quantitative study of 114 professors of educational administration
at 61 UCEA-affiliated institutions, that there is fear and avoidance of discourse about
equity in school leadership preparation programs. Responses to her 18-item, forced-
choice questionnaire, indicated that leadership faculty have limited knowledge,
interest or commitment to prepare educational leaders for their work with culturally
31
and linguistically diverse populations. Rusch writes that as a result, once in the
workplace, graduates do not feel prepared when confronted with race and gender
issues (Rusch, 2004).
Theoharis (2007) had a similar finding; all of the principals in his qualitative
study of seven public school leaders, felt their leadership preparation programs did
not prepare them to lead for social justice. The following quote from a participant in
his study is illustrative of that sentiment:
I never got that feeling [leading for social justice was part of my job] in my
program. Dealing with race, disability, ELL, etc. were not a priority. If
leading for social justice wasn’t a part of you when you entered, you weren’t
going to learn it in the ed. admin. program. (p. 242)
It is fine to write of the need for leadership programs to prepare principals to
prevent and respond to issues that prevent equity for students, but what is the nature
of the challenges they will face? Some of these challenges, such as blatant
discrimination, are easily identifiable, but others are underlying attitudes of which
one must be aware in order to recognize and address them in the act of leading for
social justice.
McKenzie and Scheurich describe certain patterns of thinking principals
might encounter in schools and provide a construct for professors in principal
preparation programs to use with their leadership students so they will be able to
identify, understand and implement strategies to avoid them (McKenzie &
Scheurich, 2004). In a qualitative study of eight experienced White elementary
teachers located in a large urban city, McKenzie and Scheurich inadvertently
32
discovered patterns of thinking, which they have termed “equity traps.” Purposeful
sampling was used in the study, which was originally conceived to examine the
teachers’ perceptions of their students of color, their own racial identity and the
relationship between the two. During the process of analyzing the data from in-
depth interviews, journals, and audio tapes, however, four distinct themes or ways
the teachers thought about their students emerged. The four equity traps identified
and labeled by the researchers are: 1.) A Deficit View, which attributes attitudes
about schooling to generational issues and a culture of apathy, 2.) Racial Erasure,
which denies race and embraces a colorblind society point-of-view, 3.) Avoidance,
and Employment of the Gaze; Avoidance refers to the fact that some teachers prefer
to work in schools with high percentages of minority students as being a way of
avoiding parents and administrators who demand compliance to rigorous standards.
Employment of the Gaze refers to a way of expressing disapproval of peers (other
White teachers) who articulate less-biased ways of thinking. 4.) The fourth equity
trap identified by the researchers is Paralogical Beliefs and Behaviors, which
represent false-reasoning and self-deception, such as blaming the students for their
(the teachers’) mistreatment of them. McKenzie and Scheurich assert that these
equity traps prevent schools from successfully educating their students of color and
propose several strategies principals can employ to combat them. They suggest,
among other things, that principals promote teacher collaboration and propose that
schools will have to restructure the way they are organized to become equitable.
33
Theoharis (2007) as well as Cambron-McCabe and McCarty (2005) also write of
changing organizational structures to enact social justice.
Principals clearly need a vehicle or tool they can employ to facilitate the
work of enacting social justice. As Leithwood (2005) has suggested, the purpose of
principals changing school structures, or redesigning the organization, is to facilitate
the work of the organization. Murphy (2006) proposes that principals make
structural changes to improve student achievement and Cambron-McCabe and
McCarthy (2005) assert that structural changes must be made to enact social justice.
One phenomenon that has the promise of changing teacher practice through the
change of school structures and school culture is the development of professional
learning communities. Fullan (2003) holds that moral purpose, which he defines
partly as narrowing the achievement gap, should drive the building of professional
learning communities. The following sections will explore the nature of professional
learning communities and how or whether principal preparation programs build
capacity for principals to create and sustain them.
Professional Learning Communities
Groundbreaking Research
While the term “Professional Learning Communities” was coined by Richard
DuFour and Robert Eaker in Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best
Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement (1998), the early research on their
impact on teaching and learning can be traced to a study conducted by McLaughlin
and Talbert (1993) through the Center for Research on the Context of Secondary
34
School Teaching (CRC) at Stanford University. This important research was done in
Michigan and California from 1987 through 1992. Data were garnered from surveys
and interviews. Participants included 877 teachers from 16 high schools, 7 school
districts and 4 metropolitan areas. Other key personnel, including administrators,
were interview participants, as well. Purposeful sampling was used in the study;
specifically, embedded sampling strategy which resulted in 2 to 3 schools within a
district being selected.
This research was done in part as a result of the national education goals,
which were developed in 1989, by then President George Bush. As a result of the
new national goals, teachers where challenged with higher standards and more
rigorous curricula. Simultaneously, the demographics of their students were rapidly
changing. The changed student context was much like that described in the Urban
Settings section of this chapter: high absenteeism, gang violence, high mobility,
different cultures, languages and attitudes about school. The CRC researchers found
that teachers responded to this changed context in three different ways. Some clung
rigidly to traditional practices, which resulted in student failure and left both the
teachers and their students cynical and frustrated about the education process.
Others responded by changing their expectations – expecting less of students and
“watering down the curriculum.” This response was no more effective than the first,
and left the students and teachers bored and disengaged. The third response was
changing teaching practices to meet the needs and interests of students. Teachers
who responded in this way sought learning activities that were more engaging, less
35
traditional, and less teacher-centered. This third pattern of responses resulted in
student success with the rigorous content, increased learning, and most interesting, as
it relates to the current study, equity.
Most significant was that, the teachers who effectively adapted to the
challenges had one commonality – all were part of a professional community that
encouraged and enabled them to transform their practice (McLaughlin & Talbert,
1993). Additionally, the researchers found that the quality of the professional
communities made the difference in the ways the teachers responded to the changing
student demographics (McLaughlin, 1992). A significant finding in the CRC
research was that teachers construct meaning of policy goals in their professional
communities. Their professional community is a social system in which they focus
the goals of the state, district or school, on their own students and their own teaching.
Otherwise, one might infer, the goals remain abstract.
McLaughlin and Talbert found that strong professional communities establish
a context for professional development through the acts of reflecting, examining,
experimenting and ultimately changing teacher practice (McLaughlin & Talbert,
1993). They also found that not all professional communities work effectively.
Indeed they contend that reflection, feedback and problem-solving are important
elements of professional communities and caution that teachers must have the
capacity for engaging those practices or their professional communities will result in
resisting change and holding onto entrenched beliefs and practices.
36
McLaughlin (1992) emphasizes the importance of teachers having collective
responsibility, a high level of collegiality, using information about students to
inform their teaching, critically reflecting, and constantly revising their practice.
Louis and Kruse (1993) and Bryk, Camburn, and Louis (1997) had similar findings;
de-privatization, reflective dialogue, and teacher collaboration were essential
elements of professional communities. They also agree that school structures and
supportive leadership must be in place for them to thrive. Louis and Kruse (1993)
found that structural conditions do not ensure the growth of professional
communities but their absence can impede them. They posit that certain structural
conditions are necessary: time for teachers to meet and talk, physical proximity and
interdependent teaching roles. That is important in the context of the current study
because as has been established and inferred from the leadership theories, in
redesigning their organizations, principals must ensure that structures are in place to
facilitate the work of moving toward social justice and academic achievement for all
students.
Professional Learning Communities in Practice
Most contemporary discussion about professional learning communities
revolves around the work of Richard DuFour (1998, 2006), who also emphasizes the
need for structures to be created to support the work of interdependent, collaborative
teams, focused on achieving common learning goals. Like McLaughin and his
colleagues before him, DuFour (1998) writes that collaboration will not result in
changed practices and higher student achievement unless those collaborating are
37
focused on the right issues. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006) suggest that
teams use the following questions to guide their collaboration: What do we want our
students to learn? How will we know when they have learned it? What will we do
for those who have learned it? And, most significant to this study, “What will we do
for those who have not learned it?”
One would argue that schools engaged in collaboration around the last
question, "What will we do for those who have not learned it?” would be better
positioned to address the learning of all students and therefore more likely to achieve
social justice. The first two questions, however, imply that teacher teams will have
the capacity to identify what is critical for students to learn and that they will be
skilled in developing assessments and analyzing resultant data to guide their work.
Bryk et al. (1993), Louis and Kruse (1993) as well as DuFour and Eaker (1998) all
point to the important role school principals play in fostering and maintaining such
work. Do principal preparation programs build the capacity of principals to flourish
in that role? The following section will explore the literature on leadership
preparation programs in an attempt to provide insight in that regard.
School Leadership Preparation Programs
Needed Content and Approaches
Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005) address
improving the preparation of school principals. The purpose of their literature
review, which preceded the Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) related research project
on leader preparation, was to inform policymakers and leadership preparation
38
program administrators of the existing research. While they describe key findings
which represent a consensus of scholars in the field, they report, as do Preis, Grogan,
Sherman, Beaty (2007) and Hess and Kelly (2007), that there is little empirical
evidence to confirm suggestions offered by the literature. The findings from Davis,
et al. (2005), are instructive, however, and thus are presented here.
Davis (2005) and his colleagues found that the literature suggests principals
influence student achievement in two ways: by developing and supporting effective
teachers and by implementing effective organizational processes. This is consistent
with findings previously described by Murphy and Leithwood. Davis et al. (2005)
elaborate, writing of important aspects of the principal’s role, which they report are
also reflected in the ISLLC standards. Those critical aspects call for principals who
have a deep understanding of how to support teachers, have knowledge and skills to
manage the curriculum in ways that promote learning, and are able to transform
schools into effective organizations in which powerful teaching and learning occur.
It should be noted that these aspects are also critical for principals in establishing and
sustaining professional learning communities.
Additionally, findings from the Davis et al. (2005) literature review, suggest
that preparation programs should be research-based, have curricular coherence,
provide participants with authentic experiences, have cohort groupings and
collaborate with area schools. Furthermore, they found that preparation programs
should develop principals’ abilities to incorporate collaborative decision-making,
apply distributed leadership, develop and nurture a culture of collegiality and
39
community, provide ethical leadership, be concerned with issues of diversity and
race, and provide opportunities for reflection (Davis et al. 2005).
Davis et al. (2005) also report that there are various pathways to prepare
principals and that school context determines the unique competencies a principal
will need to have developed. The four general types of preparation programs they
describe are: university-based, district-initiated, third-party programs and programs
operating under stakeholder partnerships.
In their complementary study of eight exemplary principal development
programs, Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) found the programs to have common
features, including: alignment with state and professional standards, most
particularly the ISLLCs, an emphasis on instructional leadership, an integration of
theory and practice, knowledgeable faculty, cohort structures and formalized
mentoring, targeted recruitment and selection of candidates, and well-designed
internships. Additionally, they found that graduates of these programs felt
significantly more prepared than those in the comparison groups for all aspects of
principal practice, including developing a schoolwide vision (p.<.001), and building
a professional learning community (p.<.001).
Traditional Content and Approaches
Preis et al., (2007) report on the findings of a joint task force from the
University Council for Educational Administration and the Teaching in Educational
Administration Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research
Association. Factors they describe as influencing program delivery are state policies,
40
universities, state licensure requirements and the market, which responds to
convenience factors. It should be noted that these factors are outside of the set of
needs Davis (2005) and others report as being critical to preparing effective
principals.
In that regard, some studies indicate that traditional programs are not
adequately preparing principals. Hess and Kelly (2007) conducted a study of the
content of principal preparation programs throughout the country. The purpose of
their study was to examine what candidates are taught in principal preparation
programs. They used a stratified sample, selecting programs that trained the most
candidates, were regarded as the most prestigious, and more typical. Data collection
was completed between February and December 2004. Fifty-six programs were
studied, focusing on the course week as the unit of analysis. The 31 sets of syllabi
they systematically coded yielded 210 syllabi and 2,424 course weeks. Only 2% of
the course weeks addressed accountability in the context of school management or
school improvement. And while lessons on equity and social justice were included
in the studied syllabi, they were part of a category which represented just 12% of the
course weeks (Hess & Kelly, 2007). Hess and Kelly concluded that programs may
not be adequately preparing principals to lead 21
st
Century schools. They question
whether principal preparation programs are keeping pace with current realities and
needs of schools.
Barnett (2004) also argues that leadership preparation programs must
undergo major reforms in order to prepare their participants for the realities they will
41
encounter in the workplace. His findings were based on survey data of
administrators’ perceptions of how effective their university graduate programs
prepared them to meet the ISLLC standards. Respondents indicated the ISLLCs
reflect their daily work activities, but their perceptions were that the graduate
preparation programs did not prepare them for those activities. Barnett asserts a
need for more authentic learning and assessment features, including opportunities to
work with experienced administrators of effective schools. Brown-Ferrigno and
Muth (2004) also recommend collaborative partnerships between university
programs, school districts, and practitioners with school districts, as well as
mentoring, to support the socialization process of novice principals.
The literature clearly exposes a need to reform principal preparation
programs. Certainly, urban school leaders need the capacity to set directions,
influence others and redesign their schools in ways which will facilitate the critical
work of ensuring social justice and academic achievement for students. The
following section of this chapter examines a leadership preparation program that
purports to meet that challenge.
The National Institute for School Leadership
Created in 2001, the National Institute for School Leadership (NISL) is a for-
profit executive development program for school leaders. Leaders with expertise in
a wide range of areas – education, business and the military – contributed to its
unique curriculum. NISL’s principal’s program is based on the premise that
instructional leadership is at the heart of a school principal’s role. NISL is uniquely
42
designed to prepare principals to meet the challenges inherent in the current era of
high stakes accountability and is targeted to train leaders of low-performing, high-
poverty, urban schools (NISL, 2008). NISL is a one and a half to two-year program,
delivered via workshops, seminars and online instruction.
While it is based on the ISLLC standards, NISL does not fulfill requirements
for licensure (NISL, 2008). Key themes in the NISL program are related to
instructional and social justice leadership, which are of interest to this study. The
NISL program consists of fourteen units within four courses. Course titles are:
World-Class Schooling: Vision and Goals, Focusing on Teaching and Learning,
Developing Capacity and Commitment, and Driving for Results.
NISL purports to deepen local capacity by collaborating with states and
school districts in efforts that result in the incorporation of strategies and approaches
to leadership, valued by policymakers, in the principal’s training program. The
program is designed to train entire states or districts in cohorts, focusing on
leadership practice and instructional leadership (NISL, 2008). This approach could
be a promising one based on the findings of McLaughlin (1992) who reported that
professional communities were stronger when they operated in the context of reform
policy. One could expect then, that a leadership program infused with the values of
its participants’ system’s policymakers would have more promise of developing their
capacity to set directions, influence people and redesign their schools in ways that
would promote their larger system’s reform efforts.
43
Because NISL is a relatively recent enterprise, formal research evaluating the
program is lacking. However, the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at
the University of Pennsylvania has been granted funding to formally assess the NISL
program’s effectiveness on leadership practices. This study is underway and will
provide valuable insight into NISL’s approach to leadership development.
Additionally, the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership program (PIL) has incorporated
the NISL curriculum, in conjunction with a mentoring component, to be utilized in
its mandated statewide principal leadership training.
Conclusion
The literature reviewed in this chapter has much to offer in the support of the
proposed study. Murphy et al. (2006), Leithwood et al. (2004), Leithwood (2005),
Marzano et al. (2005) and others have illuminated theories of educational leadership
and have described specific practices one would expect to find school leaders exhibit
in their daily work. Cuban (2004), Lee (2005), Diamond and Spillane (2004) have
provided insight on the context of urban schools; high expectations and pressures to
make greater gains with fewer resources, social issues contributing to school culture,
and equity issues being exacerbated by high-stakes accountability.
Additionally, this chapter has established that moral purpose can serve
principals in their exercise of transformational leadership by appealing to teachers’
altruistic values to garner support for and adherence to the school’s vision and goals.
The social justice literature has informed us of urban school principals’ uniqueness
in their need to possess knowledge and skills related to social justice, while studies
44
on professional learning communities indicated that they can thrive and serve as
vehicles to bring about social justice for urban children, if structures and school
culture are fertile enough to nurture and sustain them.
This chapter has reviewed literature that points to the urgent need to reform
principal preparation programs. The field research strongly suggests that traditional
programs must be redesigned to prepare urban principals to meet the challenges they
will encounter in the quest to transform their schools. How are urban principals to
develop, hone, refine, and sustain the leadership behaviors espoused by the
professional standards articulated by Murphy (2006), Leithwood (2005), Marzano
(2005) and others? We have seen that new types of leadership development
programs might offer some promise in that regard and that NISL, which is focused
on building instructional practice and social justice leadership of urban school
principals, might be such a program.
The literature reviewed herein, has laid the groundwork to study how
principals can use what they learn in NISL to prevent social inequities and thereby
close the achievement gap. How does NISL build the capacity of urban principals
who are already in service? What is their response to the prospect of participating in
training mandated by the state? What support structures enable their practice, and
how do they positively influence teacher practice, which will ultimately improve
student learning?
The following chapter will describe the research design that will be employed
in the proposed study, including the sample selection, methods and procedures.
45
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter will describe the research methodology used for the study. In
addition to reviewing the research questions that guided this study, the chapter
provides an overview of the design, as well as in-depth descriptions of the
participants, instrumentation and procedures.
Purpose of Study
Marzano (2005) and others have established that school leadership has a
critical, albeit indirect, effect on student achievement. Principal behaviors influence
teacher practice, which in turn influences student outcomes. Traditional leadership
preparation programs offer curricula that inform principals’ knowledge and develop
certain skills needed to provide school leadership, but they have not been effective in
meeting the unique needs of urban school principals. Urban school leaders must
have the capacity to readily adapt to the inherent challenges that are part of the
contextual landscape in which they work.
The purpose of this study was to examine how principals create conditions
for social justice in their schools and how a state-sponsored principal leadership
development program, the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Initiative (PIL), which
uses curriculum developed by the National Institute for School Leadership (NISL),
might strengthen their capacity in ways that subsequently have an influence on the
practice of teachers they lead in urban settings.
46
The critical importance of this study was the contribution it made to the
knowledge base about building the capacity of principals to lead urban schools in
ways which result in equity and increased learning outcomes for all children.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. How and why do urban principals create the conditions for social justice
in their schools?
2. What are the expectations and attitudes of principals regarding the PIL
training?
3. How is the PIL executive leadership curriculum designed and delivered to
build the capacity of urban school principals?
Design Overview
This study utilized a mixed-methods, pre-intervention, multiple case study
design. The general nature of the study was qualitative for several reasons.
Qualitative research is used when an issue needs to be explored in a manner wherein
the context is critical in gaining in-depth understanding (Creswell, 2007). As
discussed in Chapter Two, the need for a different approach to preparing urban
principals has already been addressed and expressed in the field literature. A
qualitative research design allowed for a detailed exploration of a more
contemporary, research-based approach to leadership development, in this case – the
Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Initiative (PIL), using the National Institute for
School Leadership (NISL) curriculum. The research questions enabled observations
47
that emerged from an in-depth, detailed and meaning-derived exploration of the
influence PIL has on school leadership. A qualitative design also provided policy
and decision-makers with nuanced information regarding program quality and
implementation (Patton, 1987). Validating quantitative data was triangulated with
the qualitative data during the analysis and interpretation phase, thereby resulting in
a mixed methods approach.
Additionally, according to Creswell (2007), there are five approaches to
qualitative research design: narrative, phenomenology, grounded theory,
ethnography and case study. The appropriate qualitative approach for this research
was the case study. Case study was the most appropriate approach in this instance,
because this study involved the exploration of an issue within clearly established
boundaries and involved multiple sources of data collection and analysis. The unit
of analysis for this study was the school because focus on the school provided
information on how PIL builds leadership capacity in its participants.
Data Collection
Data for this study was collected as follows:
1. Semi-structured interviews
a. Pennsylvania Department of Education Region Site Coordinator
b. Principal participants
c. Teacher group and individual interviews
48
2. Observations
a. PIL training
b. Principals’ routine interactions with staff and students
c. A teacher collaboration meeting
d. Classroom observations
e. Observations of organizational culture at each school
3. Existing documents
4. Closed-ended questionnaire (VAL-ED survey of principals)
The data-collection period for this study extended from fall 2008 to spring
2009. Site interviews and observations were conducted in fall and spring. The
principals’ VAL-ED surveys were taken in December 2008. Observation of the
PIL/NISL training and the NISL facilitator’s interview were conducted in spring
2009. Documents were collected throughout the data collection period.
Table 1 depicts the way in which the study’s design addressed the research
questions and triangulated the data.
The findings of the study were validated through triangulation of the data.
49
Table 1. Data Collection Triangulation Matrix
Research
Questions
Observation
PIL/NISL
Training
Fall/
Spring
Interview
Principals
Fall/
Spring
Interview
Teachers
Fall/Spring
Observations
Principals
Teachers
Classrooms
Schools
Interview
PDE
Region Site
Coordinator
VAL-ED
Principals
Existing
Documents
(Collected for
all three
research
questions)
1. How and why
do urban
principals create
the conditions for
social justice in
their schools?
Fall
Items 2-5,
8-11
Spring
Items 6,7,
8,10,11
Fall
Items 1,2,
10-14
Spring
Items 1,
3-19
Items 1-
72
2. What are the
expectations and
attitudes of
principals
regarding PIL
training?
Fall
Item 13
Spring
Items 1-5,
9, 11
Item 2
3. How is the PIL
executive
leadership
curriculum
designed and
delivered to build
the capacity of
urban school
principals?
Items 1-6
School
newsletters,
daily/ weekly
bulletins,
meeting
agendas,
minutes and
notes,
action plans,
school
improvement
plan
PIL/NISL
training
documents
Participants and Settings
There were two cases in this study, which had boundaries that required the
employment of purposeful sampling. The principals in the two cases were selected
using criterion sampling. Each principal must have been a novice principal in the
first year of PIL training. Additionally, the principals must have been assigned to
urban elementary schools, with ethnic minority student bodies (percentages of
minority students greater than 40%) and high poverty rates (greater than 40%).
Additionally, each school was to have had total enrollments within 150 students of
50
each other. The teachers in the study were those working full-time at each
principal’s school.
Pennsylvania was selected as a setting because the NISL curriculum had been
adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Education to meet requirements
specified in Pennsylvania Public School Act 45 (2007), which called for school
administrators to participate in professional education activities that were aligned to
the state’s leadership standards and focused on practices that would positively impact
student achievement. Participants in this study were drawn from among rural and
urban Pennsylvania public schools serving ethnically diverse student populations and
substantial numbers of children from low-income families. In 2006-07, there were
1,821,383 students in the state-wide school system, 74.2% White, 6.8% Latino,
16.2% African American and 2.6% Asian/Pacific Islander. Participants were
selected initially by the State for the statewide (N=3,019 schools) mandated
intervention, with priority given to schools based upon school performance criteria,
from rural and urban public schools serving ethnically diverse and low
socioeconomic status (SES) students. Per Pennsylvania ACT 45, participation in
PIL/NISL training was mandated for all school administrators hired on or after
January 2008. Additionally, it fulfilled the ACT 48 requirement for continuing
professional education hours all administrators hired prior to January 2008 are
mandated to complete.
The Pennsylvania Accountability Plan had four designations for schools that
did not meet AYP targets: School Improvement I, School Improvement II,
51
Corrective Action I and Corrective Action II. These levels corresponded to the
number of consecutive years schools had not met their AYP targets. Schools in
School Improvement I status had not met the target for two consecutive years, while
Schools in Corrective Action II had not met the target for five or more consecutive
years. Some schools had been in Corrective Action II for one year, while others
were in Corrective Action II for their fifth year, meaning they had not met the
Pennsylvania accountability target for ten consecutive years. The state also had a
“Warning” designation for schools that were subject to enter Corrective Action if
they did not meet their AYP targets in the current year.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) identified a cohort of 120
principals of schools in Corrective Action or Warning status to have first priority for
participating in the PIL/NISL training beginning in the fall of 2008. The two
principal participants for this study were selected from that initial cohort. Region
Site Coordinators in the PDE assisted in identifying and gaining access to
participants who fell within the above stated boundaries of this study.
Access to the Sites and the Participants
The dissertation chair for this study was instrumental in securing access to
the districts and schools across the eight regions in Pennsylvania. Through a
research proposal designed to have graduate student researchers from the University
of Southern California (USC), to study the impact of the PIL program on leader
practice, teacher practice, and student learning outcomes, the Pennsylvania State
Department of Education awarded USC a grant to put a longitudinal study into place
52
beginning in the fall of 2008. The Pennsylvania Secretary of Education drafted a
letter of support for the project and encouraged district superintendents to support the
project as well.
Each of the eight regions scheduled PIL/NISL executive leadership training
beginning in the summer of 2008. Region 1 was composed of five geographical
Intermediate Units, and scores of school districts, including The School District of
Philadelphia, a large urban district.
The original time frame for the Region 1 training was within the timeframe
for the study, thus the two case study schools were located in Region 1. The
principals were originally scheduled to begin the PIL/NISL training in October 2008
and complete it in January 2009. However, during the first data collection in
September 2008, it was discovered that they both changed their training schedules to
a training beginning in March 2009. As a result, the methodology for this study also
had to be changed – from a pre/post intervention, mixed-methods case study to a pre-
intervention, mixed-methods case study.
In late August 2008, informed consent letters were drafted and sent to all PIL
principal participants from Region 1, who were within the stated boundaries of the
current study, inviting them to participate in the study. Principals who expressed an
interest received a second informed consent letter for their teachers, which provided
information on the purpose of the study, details of the school’s agreement to
participate in the study and their obligations should they consent to participate.
Principals for both cases in the study were accessed in this way.
53
Case Study School One – Wesley Sinclair School
Wesley Sinclair School was a K-8 school with an enrollment of 596 students;
61.2% African American, 26.8% Latino, 9.2% Asian, .5% White and 2.2% Other. In
addition to the principal, assistant principal, office staff and other support personnel,
Sinclair had 43 teaching staff members.
Case Study School Two – James Lopel School
James Lopel School was a K-8 school with an enrollment of 461 students;
96.1% African American, 1.7% Latino, 1.1% White, .4% Asian, and .7% listed as
Other. In addition to the principal, office staff and other support personnel, Lopel
School had 34 teaching staff members.
The Intervention
The Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Initiative focused on leadership to
improve student achievement. Utilizing curriculum from NISL, delivered through a
regional collaboration, the state engaged in building capacity in school leaders by
focusing on what they needed to know and be able to do in order to provide the
guidance and direction of sustained instructional improvement leading to higher
student achievement. NISL’s four courses, Course #1 - World-Class Schooling:
Vision and Goals, Course #2 - Focusing on Teaching and Learning, Course #3 -
Developing Capacity and Commitment, and Course #4 - Driving for Results, were
aligned with the Pennsylvania Leadership Standards and were experienced by
principals, assistant principals and other administrators via their participation in
workshops, seminars and the completion of assignments online. Additionally, the
54
PDE partnered with the Principals Leadership Induction Network to provide
mentors for novice principals hired after January 2008. Each novice principal was
assigned a mentor to support implementation of the NISL training. The program
matched new principals with experienced school administrators who mentored them
for one year via monthly visits and weekly e-mail, telephone, or fax contacts.
The specific intervention related to this study involved being trained in the
four units of Course 1 of NISL’s two year program. The principals of the case study
schools were to have participated in the training beginning in March 2009 and
continue throughout the remainder of the school year. The four units for Course 1
are: Unit 1: The Educational Challenge, Unit 2: The Principal as Strategic Thinker,
Unit 3: Elements of Standards-Based Instructional Systems and School Design, and
Unit 4: Foundations of Effective Learning. Table 2 depicts the Pennsylvania
Leadership Standards alignment with NISL Course #1.
55
Table 2. NISL Course#1 – Pennsylvania Leadership Standards Alignment
NISL Course #1
Curriculum Pennsylvania Leadership Standards
Unit 1 – The Educational
Challenge
Unit 2 – Principal as
Strategic Thinker
Unit 3 – Elements of
Standards-Based
Instructional Systems and
School Design
Unit 4 – Foundations of
Effective Learning
Core Standards 1 & 2
1. The knowledge and skills to think and plan
strategically to create an organizational vision around
personalized student success
2. An understanding of standards-based systems
theory and design and the ability to transfer that
knowledge to the school or system leader’s job as the
architect of standards-based reform in the school
Corollary Standards 3 & 5
3. Collaborating, communicating, engaging and
empowering others inside and outside of the
organization to pursue excellence in learning.
5. Advocating for children and public education in
the larger political, social, economic, legal and
cultural context
Interview Methodology
Instrumentation and Procedure
Interviews were included in the study design for the purpose of gathering
data on various participants’ perspectives on leadership capacity building:
specifically, how leadership practices influence teacher practice and how and
whether they promote social justice. Additionally, interviews with the principals and
56
the regional site coordinator provided data related to the nature of the PIL/NISL
training and principals’ attitudes and expectations about it.
Semi-structured interviews were held in fall 2008, with the principals. The
purpose of this early interview was to capture data on perceptions prior to the
principals engaging in beginning-of-the-school year-activities at their schools. The
principals were asked about their thoughts and feelings regarding their influence on
teacher practice, social justice and student achievement. They had the opportunity to
describe specific practices they employed related to setting directions – namely:
vision and goals, expectations, pedagogy, curriculum, and school culture. They were
also asked about organizational structures that could potentially enhance the work of
the professionals at their two schools. Additionally, the principals were asked about
school improvement plans for the coming school year and about their expectations
regarding the PIL/NISL training. The principals were interviewed a second time in
spring 2009. Questions in the spring interview focused on their expectations and
attitudes regarding the training, specifically as they related to their implementation of
the Pennsylvania Leadership Core Standards 1 and 2 and Corollary Standards 3 and
5. The principal interviews were conducted at the school sites and lasted between 45
minutes to one hour.
Interviews of teachers from each school were conducted at the beginning of
the school year and again in spring 2009 at one of the schools. The plan was to
interview focus groups, consisting of one teacher per grade level, on the same topics
as those posed to the principals. The principals were asked to select the teachers
57
whom they felt had the knowledge and experience to provide accurate information
about the school’s leadership practices and organizational structures. The selected
teachers were interviewed in small groups of two to three or individually, depending
on the availability of personnel to release them from their classrooms. In each case
teachers from a range of grade levels and assignments were interviewed. The
teacher interviews were conducted at the school sites, each lasting between 45
minutes to one hour.
A region site coordinator from the Pennsylvania Department of Education,
who functioned as a PIL/NISL training coordinator, was also interviewed for this
study. Questions to the region coordinator pertained to the intended outcomes for
NISL participants, his perceptions on how NISL’s approach to leadership capacity
building results in changes in practicing principals’ knowledge, beliefs and practices,
as well as his thoughts on how NISL is particularly well-suited for building capacity
of leaders of urban schools. The interview with the region site coordinator
extended to 30 minutes and was held in spring 2009.
All interviews were audio taped, given participants’ permission, with
reflective notes taken immediately after each interview. The audio tapes were
transcribed to written text by a professional transcriber, subsequent to the
interviews, with the researcher's reflective notations added. Guidelines for
interviewing in this case study were taken from Michael Quinn Patton’s third edition
of Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (2002). In it, Patton suggests that
the researcher distinguish among six possible types of questions that can be asked in
58
order to provide clarity on what is being asked and to assist those being interviewed
to answer the questions posed. Interview guides for the proposed case study can be
found in the appendices.
Observations
Observational data was collected to confirm data gathered from the
interviews. Like the interviews, observations focused on how leadership practices
influenced teacher practice, as well as how and whether they promoted social justice.
Three extended observations were made during the field work for this research study.
One observation was during a two-day NISL training, one of the Course #1 Unit 4
trainings conducted in Pennsylvania. The purpose of being an observer in the
training was to gather first-hand data on the exact nature of the training and to
informally discuss it with participating principals and assistant principals. The
remaining two observations were both formal and informal observations at the
school sites; one in fall 2008 and one in spring 2009. Formal observations were
made of the principals interacting with individual teachers and students at their
schools, as well as with a teacher grade group, in the case of one principal. Informal
observations were made of the schools’ environments with an eye focused on school
culture, through the lenses of settings, activities, and people, as these various
components related to social justice issues. Additionally, classroom observations of
teachers’ classrooms were made in fall and spring at each of the two schools.
Written reflective field notes were taken during and after the observations. Michael
59
Patton’s guidelines for observations, as described in the third edition of Qualitative
Research and Evaluation Methods (2002) were followed.
Existing Documents
As the NISL training the principals receive in Course#1 is related to the
concept of “vision and goals,” school documents were analyzed for this research
study with a focus on gathering data on how the vision and goals were developed and
which stakeholders were involved in the process. Additionally, evidence of whether
and how the principals promoted and protected the school vision was also sought.
Existing documents were also analyzed for evidence of a communication of high
expectations for student learning, as well as for modeling and communicating values
of fairness, care and respect for all students. Documents that were analyzed included
school newsletters, daily and/or weekly bulletins, memos from the principal, records
of principal conferences with individual teachers and/or grade level teams, grade
level team meeting notes and agendas, action plans based on disaggregated data,
achievement data kept by the principals and teachers, as well as the school
improvement plans.
Survey
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) was
administered to provide a summary of the effectiveness of the two principals’
learning-focused leadership behaviors. The VAL-ED is a 360 degree instrument,
designed to be administered to principals, as well as to their corresponding teachers
and supervisor. The purpose of administering the instrument to three types of
60
respondents is to develop a more complete picture of a school leader’s relative
strengths and weaknesses. This study design called for the VAL-ED to be
administered to the principals and their teachers, but not their supervisors. In the
actual study, the VAL-ED was administered to each principal and two teachers in
one of the cases and no teachers in the other case. Seventy-two items, measuring
behaviors along six core components and six key processes of leadership, are
contained in the VAL-ED. A lead teacher was asked to coordinate administration of
the survey, with the principal’s support, at each of the school sites. Further
discussion of the administration of the surveys will be made in Chapter 4.
Learning-centered leadership theory is the framework for the VAL-ED. The
six core components measured by the survey are based on research and reflect the
characteristics of schools that support student learning and teacher effectiveness.
They are: high standards for student performance, rigorous curriculum, quality
instruction, culture of learning and professional behavior, connections to external
communities, and systemic performance accountability.
VAL-ED’s key processes address the ways in which school leaders develop
the above stated core components. The six key processes are: planning,
implementing, supporting, advocating, communicating, and monitoring. When
completing the VAL-ED survey respondents are indicating how well the principal
engages in actions (the key processes) that impact effective school characteristics
supported by research (the core components).
61
Some sample VAL-ED questions are presented below to provide the reader
with a sense of the content and purpose of the survey. The examples address the
core component High Standards for Student Learning. Each item poses a question
related to one of the six key processes for ensuring that appropriate leadership
characteristics are in place.
1. How effective is the principal at ensuring the school plans rigorous
growth targets in learning for all students? (Planning)
2. How effective is the principal at ensuring the school creates buy-in
among faculty for actions required to promote high standards of learning?
(Implementing)
3. How effective is the principal at ensuring the school supports teachers in
meeting school goals? (Supporting)
4. How effective is the principal at ensuring the school challenges low
expectations for students with special needs? (Advocating)
5. How effective is the principal at ensuring the school communicates
rigorous goals for student learning to faculty? (Communicating)
6. How effective is the principal at ensuring the school monitors student
learning against high standards of achievement? (Monitoring)
In addition to responding to each question on an effectiveness rating scale of
1 = ineffective, 2= minimally effective, 3 = satisfactorily effective, 4 = highly
effective and 5 = outstandingly effective, each respondent must indicate the source of
evidence for the rating as follows: reports from others, personal observations, school
62
documents, school projects or activities, other sources or no evidence. Table 3
(VAL-ED, 2008) provides a sample of how respondents rate leadership effectiveness
while providing evidence sources.
Table 3. VAL-ED Sample Respondent Items
Completion of the VAL-ED by all three respondent groups results in a Total
score and 12 subscale scores – six on the Core Components and six on the Key
Processes of the leader’s behavior. These scores provide a percentile rank based on a
nationally normed sample. Additionally, the rubric is utilized to provide
performance levels; overall and for each of the 12 subscales. The VAL-ED (2008)
performance standards are depicted in Table 4.
63
Table 4. VAL-ED Performance Level Descriptors
Below Basic Basic Proficient Distinguished
Leadership behaviors
of core components
and key processes of
insufficient
effectiveness and
consistency that over
time are unlikely to
influence teachers to
bring the school to a
point that result in
acceptable value
added to student
achievement and
social learning.
Leadership behaviors
of core components
and key processes of
sufficient effectiveness
that over time are
likely to influence
teachers to bring the
school to a point that
results in acceptable
value-added to student
achievement and social
learning for some sub
groups of students but
not all.
Leadership behaviors
of core components
and key processes of
sufficient
effectiveness that over
time are likely to
influence teachers to
bring the school to a
point that results in
acceptable value-
added to student
achievement and
social learning for all
students.
Leadership behaviors
of core components
and key processes at
levels of effectiveness
that over time are
virtually certain to
influence teachers to
bring the school to a
point that results in
strong value-added to
student achievement
and social learning for
all students.
The resultant composite scores provide a descriptive analysis, norm-
referenced profiles and criterion-reference profiles. Figures 1 and 2 are sample
VAL-ED (2007) reports of mean ratings of a principal’s effectiveness on core
components and key processes, respectively.
Figure 1. Sample VAL-ED Report of Mean Ratings on Core Components
64
Figure 2. VAL-ED Sample Report of Mean Ratings on Key Processes
Porter, Polikoff, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott and May (2008) conducted a pilot
test of the VAL-ED in an urban school district during the spring of 2007. Nine
schools – three elementary, three middle schools, and three high schools –
participated in the pilot test, during which internal consistency reliability was
estimated. Results were high reliabilities for all scales. Using Cronbach’s Alpha,
the pilot study indicated almost perfect reliabilities for the 12 subscales and high
reliability, >.98, for the overall total scores. Following the pilot test, plans were
made to field test the VAL-ED in 300 schools, located in over 50 urban, suburban
and rural school districts, to replicate reliability and construct validity from the pilot
test as well as to yield national norms.
Procedures for VAL-ED
The VAL-ED’s developers indicate that the survey is completed within 20
minutes by most respondents. VAL-ED surveys for this study were completed
65
online. The two principals in the study were asked to take the survey themselves and
to have their respective teachers take it as well. A lead teacher was identified at each
school to facilitate the process and asked to have the surveys completed in October
or November 2008. The lead teachers were provided access codes for the staff along
with explicit directions for the survey administration. The access codes were
provided to ensure confidentiality in the completion of the surveys. The principals
were not provided with the teachers’ access codes.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Comprehensive data analysis and interpretation required that a systematic
process be planned and followed. The following steps, adapted from Creswell
(2003), were taken to prepare, analyze, and represent the data collected during the
study, so that a meaningful interpretation of it could be presented:
Step 1 – Organize and Prepare the Data
All field notes and transcriptions from observations and interviews were
typed. The data was then organized by type (observations, interviews, VAL-ED
survey results, school documents) and source (principal, teachers, NISL training).
Step 2 – Read Through the Data
After preparing and organizing the data, the researcher read through all of it
to develop a general sense of its overall meaning. The researcher recorded these
thoughts about what the data revealed, generally, as well as in terms of ideas and
tone.
66
Step 3 – Organize and Code the Data
The next step was to organize the data into categories. Each category was
color-coded and labeled.
Step 4 – Identify and Analyze Themes
After organizing, color-coding and labeling the data categories, the researcher
developed detailed descriptions of people, places and events that were captured
during the fieldwork. These descriptions resulted in themes which were then
identified and coded. The themes were analyzed and are presented under separate
headings as major findings of the study.
Step 5 – Represent the Descriptions and Themes
The major themes were described in narrative form.
Step 6 – Data Interpretation
The final step in this process was to make meaning of the data. Lessons were
learned by spending time observing, listening to and surveying the participants in
this case study. The interpretation of the meaning of the data enabled the researcher
to articulate lessons learned as well as to present paths for future inquiries. This was
done by comparing the findings with the information presented in the literature. The
researcher’s own personal experiences as an elementary principal in an urban school
also contributed to her interpretation of the data.
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model for the study (see Figure 3) depicts the potential for
leadership preparation to impact principal behaviors, which indirectly affect student
67
outcomes via their direct effect on teacher practice. Framed by theory and
professional standards, it illustrates the way in which transformational leadership
practices such as emphasizing moral purpose and tapping into teachers’ values,
emotions and motives, might result in organizational structures that enhance
collaboration, which can lead to social justice. Additionally, the figure depicts
learning-centered leadership as having a central role in preparing and supporting
principals. The support of a mentor is also illustrated. As is the case in actual urban
school settings, the many challenging issues that help perpetuate the achievement
gaps in urban schools are in the background, not completely visible, but nevertheless
there. Finally, the model illustrates the reciprocity of social justice and improved
student outcomes.
Figure 3. Conceptual Model
Achievement Achievement Gap Gap - - Perpetuates Social Inequities Perpetuates Social Inequities
Poor Facilities Poor Facilities
Crime Crime
Poverty Poverty
Inadequate Housing Inadequate Housing
Outside Stakeholders Outside Stakeholders
Racial Discord Racial Discord
Absenteeism Absenteeism
Lack of Social Capital Lack of Social Capital
Inadequate Funding Inadequate Funding
Violence Violence
Gangs Gangs
Health Issues Health Issues
High Stakes High Stakes
Accountability Accountability
Equity Traps Equity Traps Under Under - -qualified Staff qualified Staff
Mental Maps Mental Maps
NCLB Unexpected Externalities NCLB Unexpected Externalities
Urban School Context Urban School Context
PIL/NISL
Principal ’s
Knowledge
Skills
Beliefs
Teacher
Practices
Improved
Student
Outcomes
Moral Purpose
Values
Emotions Motives
Support Structures:
Mentor
State/District
Internal Factors
Use structures to
enhance
Collaboration
Inquiry
Social
Justice
for all
Students
Bass Burns House
Murphy Leithwood Marzano
Social Justice Leadership
Learning- Centered
Leadership
Transformational
Leadership
ISLLCs CPSELs
Conceptual model of the potential for leadership preparation an d support to change urban schools, even with the many, challengi ng background Issues in play.
Instructional
Leadership
68
Delimitations and Limitations
It is important to note one delimitation and three limitations of the study. The
delimitation was that the sample was purposeful and therefore the results might not
be generalizable to a different population. Limitations were as follows:
1. The fact that the VAL-ED survey was not completed by 100% of the
teachers in each case limited the degree to which it could fully measure
the principals’ growth in the areas assessed.
2. Time for the fieldwork in this study was limited to four months.
3. Another limitation is the “halo effect.” Due to the nature of the measures
used in the VAL-ED (ratings of self and colleagues), participants may
have had a tendency to assume specific traits or behaviors based on a
general impression.
Ethical Considerations
Several ethical considerations guided the design and execution of this study.
Primarily, all University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
guidelines and procedures were strictly followed, as well as those of the school
district in Pennsylvania. Additionally, the security of the VAL-ED surveys was
maintained, as was the confidentiality of all of the participants in the study.
Informed consent was acquired from all participants, meaning that prior to
consenting to participation in the study all participants were informed of the nature
and purpose of the study, as well as any obligations assumed by them.
69
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
“Education is the fundamental civil right.” (Roland Fryer, Harvard University)
The purpose of this chapter is to 1) present and analyze the data collected for
this study; and to 2) report on the findings for each research question presented in the
study. The primary data for this research were collected through interviews with the
two case study principals; self-assessment surveys from the two case study principals
and their respective teachers; interviews with teachers from both case study schools;
observations at the case study schools of principals’ leadership behaviors, teacher
practices and organizational culture; observations of the Pennsylvania Inspired
Leaders (PIL) NISL Course 1 training; interview with a Pennsylvania Department of
Education Region Site Coordinator; documents from each school site; and PIL
training materials and documents. Table 1, which depicts the data collection
instruments utilized for each research question, is presented below.
The purpose of the study was to explore how and why principals create
conditions for social justice and how a leadership training program, sponsored by the
state and aligned to the state’s leadership standards, might further build their capacity
in that regard. Additionally, the study sought to discover what were the expectations
and attitudes of principals regarding the PIL training. A Mixed-methods, case study
research methodology was used to collect the data that are presented and analyzed in
this chapter.
70
Table 1. Data Collection Triangulation Matrix [Repeated from Chapter Three]
Research
Questions
Observation
PIL/NISL
Training
Fall/
Spring
Interview
Principals
Fall/
Spring
Interview
Teachers
Fall/Spring
Observations
Principals
Teachers
Classrooms
Schools
Interview
PDE
Region Site
Coordinator
VAL-ED
Principals
Existing
Documents
(Collected for
all three
research
questions)
1. How and why
do urban
principals create
the conditions for
social justice in
their schools?
Fall
Items 2-5,
8-11
Spring
Items 6,7,
8,10,11
Fall
Items 1,2,
10-14
Spring
Items 1,
3-19
Items 1-
72
2. What are the
expectations and
attitudes of
principals
regarding PIL
training?
Fall
Item 13
Spring
Items 1-5,
9, 11
Item 2
3. How is the PIL
executive
leadership
curriculum
designed and
delivered to build
the capacity of
urban school
principals?
Items 1-6
School
newsletters,
daily/ weekly
bulletins,
meeting
agendas,
minutes and
notes,
action plans,
school
improvement
plan
PIL/NISL
training
documents
The study focused on the following three research questions:
1. How and why do urban principals create the conditions for social justice
in their schools?
2. What are the expectations and attitudes of principals regarding the PIL
training?
3. How is the PIL executive leadership curriculum designed and delivered to
build the capacity of urban school principals?
Creswell (2007) instructs that providing a detailed description of the setting is
an important component of case study reporting. Patton (2002) concurs that
71
presenting rich descriptions for the purpose of taking the reader into the setting is a
foundational element of qualitative reporting. Additionally, Chapter Two of this
study refers to scholars’ contention that context contributes to the determination of
appropriate and effective leadership practices. Therefore, prior to addressing the
research questions, brief descriptions of each case will be presented, in order to
provide the reader a sense of the context in which the two case study principals lead.
It should, again, be noted that no actual names or other identifying
information connected to any person, school or region are used in this study. Names
of the case study schools – Wesley Sinclair School and James Lopel School; the
principals – Benjamin Adams and Stephanie Swanson; the region site coordinator –
Tom Davis; and the teachers are all pseudonyms. Thirteen participants were
interviewed for the study. Their pseudonyms and positions are listed in Table 5.
Table 5. Interview Participants
Pseudonym Position
Benjamin Adams Principal – Wesley Sinclair School
Sheila Murphy 8
th
Grade Math Teacher – Sinclair School
Natasha Wilson 6
th
Grade Language Arts Teacher – Sinclair School
Shannon Walsh 5
th
Grade Teacher – Sinclair School
Megan Reid 5
th
Grade Teacher – Sinclair School
Donald Stewart 7
th
Grade Math Teacher – Sinclair School
Leslie Hubbard 3
rd
Grade Teacher – Sinclair School
Tom Davis PDE Region Site Coordinator
Stephanie Swanson Principal – James Lopel School
Anne Fenster Pseudo-Assistant Principal – Lopel School
Lisa Monico 8
th
Grade Math/7
th
Grade Reading Teacher – Lopel School
Yvette Smith Special Education Resource Teacher –Lopel School
Rebecca Borden Language Arts Prep Teacher – Lopel School
72
The two case study schools, Wesley Sinclair School and James Lopel School,
were both K-8 schools with poverty rates and minority populations over 40%. In the
spring prior to the study, Sinclair School was in Year 4 of Correction Action II and
Lopel School had made Adequate Yearly Progress. The principals of both schools
were in their second year of service. Table 6 depicts demographic information for
the case study schools.
Table 6. Demographic Information for Case Study Schools
Wesley Sinclair School James Lopel School
Kindergarten – 8
th
Grade Kindergarten – 8
th
Grade
596 Students
• 61.2% African American
• 26.8% Latino
• 9.2% Asian
• .5% White
461 Students
• 96.1% African American
• 1.7% Latino
• 1.1% White
• .4% Asian
85.5% Free/Reduced Lunch 60.8% Free/Reduced Lunch
43 Teachers 34 Teachers
Year 4/Corrective Action II Met AYP
Second Year Principal Second Year Principal
Case Study School: Wesley Sinclair School
Context: The Surrounding Community
My first visit to Wesley Sinclair School is on a weekday morning in
September. A picture of the community in which the school is located and serves,
begins to develop as soon as my rental car exits the Interstate. At approximately
73
7:45 a.m., the wide boulevard (one might actually call it a thoroughfare) is busy with
expected rush-hour vehicular traffic. The street is lined, mainly, with residential
structures, large houses – some wood-framed, some brick, some stucco, some a
combination of materials. Many look to be in disrepair and in need of painting.
There are occasional businesses as well – small corner stores, a few eateries, gas
stations. At first all of the people on the street, pedestrians and folks leaving their
front doors to enter their automobiles are African American. That changes as I drive
closer to the street my map has directed me to use, to exit the boulevard and enter the
neighborhood surrounding the school. Now, I see evidence of more diversity: a
Latino man walking with a young girl who looks to be approximately 8 years old; a
Latina, in her thirties, pushing a stroller with two young boys jaunting next to her; a
building prominently displaying the word “Iglesias” indicating it’s a church where
Spanish-speakers worship.
Almost as suddenly as I change course and turn off of the main street, the
terrain also changes - shockingly so. While the drive along the boulevard had
revealed a probable struggling, working class neighborhood, some would call this
“urban blight.” Whole city blocks have been leveled. Where buildings of some sort
apparently used to be, there are now tall, grassy, weeds – no buildings at all, with the
exception of one lone, abandoned, narrow, three-story structure approximately 30
yards from the street, surrounded by weeds with no visible ease way for access.
Cement barricades, approximately 8 inches deep and two feet high, surround these
uninhabited blocks. This is the scene for a few hundred yards, until I reach a
74
neighborhood made up of small, “Victorian-style” row houses, many painted in
bright, vivid colors. The houses are old, most with various objects in their tiny front
yards, some with trash on the steps leading to the front doors. There is trash along
the curbs, too – lots of it. I notice that the curbs, themselves, are not just cracked
from harsh weather, but are actually run down. I recall wondering how that could
happen.
I see a school on the approaching corner. It is large, imposing, made of
stone. This is not Sinclair, however. Apparently, this school was not large enough
to accommodate the growing number of children in the neighborhood, so Sinclair
was built eleven years ago to ease the overcrowding.
I drive another block or two, make a right turn, then a left. I cannot readily
identify the style of the houses on this street, but they seem to be in slightly better
condition than the Victorian replicas described above. The street is not as littered.
The curbs are not noticeable in any way. A few of the cars parked along the street
and in driveways are newer models than those in the adjacent neighborhood. Still, it
is no where near affluent or even middle class. It is a poor neighborhood, just a little
better cared for than the one a few blocks over.
A large, three-story, modern-looking red and tan brick building is on the
corner. This is Sinclair. It is surrounded by a wrought iron fence enclosing children
seemingly engaged in the kinds of morning greetings and play one would expect to
find at a Kindergarten through eighth grade school before classes begin. A
gentleman, later to be identified as the school police officer, is directing and
75
apparently screening cars, as they enter a driveway that leads to a parking lot. I tell
him that I am there to meet with Mr. Adams. “Mr. Adams?” he asks “Is he
expecting you?” Hearing an acceptable answer, he directs me to another parking lot
entrance on the other side of the building.
First Impressions
What was initially striking about Sinclair School was the warmth of the
people who worked there. Everyone I encountered on the morning of my first visit -
from the food service worker who let me in through a rear entrance of the building,
to the maintenance engineer who walked me to the front office – was genuinely
welcoming. I also discerned what might have been a sense of pride. It was a big day
for Wesley Sinclair School. A year prior the school ranked as one of the 70 lowest-
performing schools in the district. It was in Year 4 of Corrective Action II, which, in
Pennsylvania, means that it had not met state or federal academic achievement
standards for eight years. Results of the 2007-2008 Pennsylvania System of School
Assessment (PSSA) however, indicated that Sinclair did well on the spring 2008
PSSA, meeting all 21 of its 21 targets. As a result, the school moved to the state-
designated status of “Making Progress.” If all targets were to be made during the
2008-2009 school year, Wesley Sinclair School would be out of Corrective Action,
quite a turnaround for what had been considered and indeed labeled a troubled
school.
A visual scan of the front office and main foyer provided a sense of the
school’s focus on motivation and improvement. There was a trophy on the office
76
counter, “Most Improved Staff Attendance 2008” presented by the Regional
Superintendent. There was also a framed certificate, “Most Improved Student
Achievement in Region” and a trophy awarded for “1
st
in Math Achievement.” The
foyer prominently displayed a “Unity Chain,” made in part by every student and
staff member, a “Train to Success,” which displayed African Americans and Latino
Americans who made major historical and cultural contributions to the United States,
a painted mural of the life of Wesley Sinclair, the national leader for whom the
school was named, as well as data on benchmark assessments; names of students
who scored between 75 and 100% on math and reading benchmarks and of those
who improved by at least 10%, along with encouraging phrases, such as “We’re
reaching for the stars” to motivate students to meet school goals.
Staff
At the time of this study numerous adults were on the Wesley Sinclair faculty
and staff. In addition to the principal, the office staff consisted of an assistant
principal, the secretary, a school operations support staff person and a school
community liaison. In addition to the K-8 teachers, there were three Head Start
teachers at Sinclair. There were 25 general education teachers in grades one through
eight, as well as nine Special Education teachers. They were supported by specialist
teachers in the areas of physical education, English Learners, computer science,
science (for lower grades), music and art. Additionally, there was a Reading First
Coach, a math coach, a literacy coach and a counselor. Classified staff included the
school policeman, six supportive services assistants, four noontime aides, four Head
77
Start classroom assistants, 14 Special Education classroom assistants, seven food
services workers and five members of the building maintenance staff.
Demographics
When the current study began, Wesley Sinclair School served Kindergarten
through eighth (K-8) grade students. Five Hundred Ninety-six students were
enrolled: 61.2% African American, 26.8% Latino, 9.2% Asian, .5% White and 2.2%
Other. Six and one-half percent of Sinclair’s students were English Learners.
Almost 21% were in Special Education, while .8% were identified as Mentally
Gifted. Eighty-five and one-half percent of the students qualified for free or reduced
price lunch. That figure was above the district average of 76.1%, reflecting the fact
that compared to the district, the poverty rate at Sinclair was relatively high. Indeed,
observations of the surrounding area suggested the school was located in a poor
neighborhood.
Attendance and Mobility
Attendance at Sinclair improved from an average daily attendance of 91.5%
in the 2003-2004 school year to one of 93.2% during 2007-2008. In terms of
mobility, during the 2007-2008 school year, 111 students entered after the first day
of school and 132 withdrew.
Behavior
The total number of students suspended during the 2007-2008 school year
was 92; 47 fewer than the 139 suspended the previous year.
78
Performance Data
Spring 2008 PSSA data indicated Sinclair’s staff and students made progress
on academic achievement. As mentioned, the school met 21 out of 21 of the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets. One was an
attendance target, 10 were test participation targets and 10 were academic
performance targets. The 10 academic performance targets were met via “Safe
Harbor.” NCLB allows schools to meet AYP targets even if the established
percentage target of students scoring proficient or above was not achieved. In “Safe
Harbor” if a school reduces the total percentage of students in the below proficient
categories by 10% or more, it meets AYP. Sinclair School did not meet the state
targets of 63% proficient or above in reading and 56% proficient or above in math,
but as Table 7 indicates, gains were made overall and with each significant subgroup.
Table 7. Sinclair 2008 Disaggregated PSSA Data- Percentage Proficient Two Year
Trend
Student Group
Proficient in
Reading
Change from
Previous Year
Proficient in
Math
Change from
Previous Year
Overall 43% +12.4 47.8% +14.2
Latino 36.7% +17.9 44.3% +13.7
African American 42.5% +7.9 46.3% +13.5
Special Education 8% +8 13.7% +11.4
Economically
Disadvantaged
12.6% +12.6 48.4% +14.8
79
The Principal
Benjamin Adams, the principal of Sinclair, joined the staff in the 2007-2008
school year. At the time of this study he was in his second year at the school and his
second year as a principal. Prior to becoming principal, Mr. Adams taught for seven
years and then became what he calls a “disciplinarian” for three years.
I was fully released out of the classroom where I ran the eighth grade of
about three hundred and fifty students. I was responsible for the discipline,
the instructional piece, just helped the administration to monitor instruction,
developing programs and activities for the students.
Mr. Adams is African American and at the time of the study appeared to be
in his early thirties. He seemed to be a strong, gentle man. Based on observations of
his demeanor and interviews during which he revealed his goals for Sinclair, two
words come to mind when describing Mr. Adams: quietly determined.
Research Question One
How and why do urban principals create the conditions for social justice in their
schools?
Data to answer Research Question One came from interviews, observations,
existing documents, and the VAL-ED survey of the principal and two of the 43
teachers.
Report of the Data
Principal’s Fall Interview Data
The principal was interviewed in the fall of 2008 and again in spring of 2009.
Topics in the principal’s fall interview pertained to: causal factors related to his
80
practice and to his teachers’ commitment to school goals; the way students were
treated by staff; and his role in the areas of curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Mr. Adams’ responses to the interview questions expanded the topics to include
issues of performance data and his expectations.
It was important to discern the motivating factors that drove Mr. Adams to
engage in his work at Sinclair, so after discussing the challenging nature of urban
schools, the researcher asked Mr. Adams, What drives you to do this work?
He responded by telling the researcher that during the summer break between
his freshman and sophomore years in college he was so moved by an episode of the
Oprah Winfrey show that he changed his major from electrical engineering to
education when he returned to school in the fall. The life-changing “Oprah” episode
was one that addressed the need for more males in education. He spoke to the
researcher of being driven by a desire to instill hope in children and to provide them
with an education that could improve the circumstances of their lives. His comments
addressed thoughts about the community, as well:
What drives me is knowing that these children have hope and they see that
the hope combined with action can change their current condition and they
move on in life to become very successful.… the school can really begin to
affect the community, and if you’re re-instilling the hope and you’re showing
children that they can do their absolute best…then five or ten years later the
community begins to change…I think that in some urban communities it’s
like the hope has been destroyed… you know when they [students] say
ghetto, ghetto, ghetto, ghetto... like oh its ghetto-fabulous, but how can it be
ghetto and fabulous at the same time? The two words contradict one another.
The whole purpose is that you can get an education so that you can improve
the condition. That’s really what motivates me. I want to see these children
ten to fifteen years from now in college, in a trade school where they have a
plan because if they don’t have a plan the streets have a plan. I want them to
81
break the cycle of hopelessness and despair. There’s a way you can get out;
education.
In response to a related question about what he thought drove his teachers to
commit to the school’s goals, Mr. Adams said that his teachers wanted to be part of a
successful school. According to him, the teachers were motivated by the prospect of
maintaining the success they had recently experienced on the state’s standardized
test:
They saw that, with the current PSSA data, that it was possible. It’s like a re-
instilled hope in them and they say ok! I’m going to do it. We made it and
we did it in one year, and it was part of my efforts that helped this! I’m
gonna give my all!
When the interview turned to the subject of Sinclair’s students Mr. Adams
was asked how he thought students would respond if asked about how teachers and
other staff members interacted with them. He began by sharing his thoughts that
students would have varied comments about their teachers, but that he would be
surprised if any of the students said the teachers were unfair. Then he shifted his
comments to reveal conversations he had had with staff members about his
expectations in that regard, saying that when he arrived at the school the previous
year, he was distressed about the way students were treated by teachers and other
staff. He told the researcher that he began to address the issue, directly, and that the
school climate had begun to change:
… I asked the teachers, I said would you want your child to sit in your class
for a hundred and eighty days? The same way you treat your child should be
the same way you treat your school children and you want to treat them with
dignity and respect as well as they treat you.
82
Following up on his response, the researcher asked, You’ve talked to them
about that? The principal replied affirmatively and added that he and his assistant
principal also monitored teachers’ treatment of students and established a behavioral
academy [after school workshops on appropriate classroom management strategies]
as a result of some of the things he had seen the previous year, related to how staff
members interacted with children.
It was important for the researcher to know how the principal interacted with
students and teachers on matters of instruction, curriculum and assessment, so she
asked Mr. Adams what she would see in that regard if she shadowed him for a week.
He shared that he visited classrooms, daily and engaged students in conversations
about what they were learning. He also mentioned that he provided feedback to
teachers and students after seeing outstanding lessons.
Principal’s Spring Interview Data
The principal’s spring interview produced more data about Mr. Adams’
leadership practices. He spoke of leading by example, expressing his expectations,
being a courageous leader and using organizational structures to enhance student
achievement. The topic of performance data also arose during the spring interview,
sometimes unsolicited.
The researcher engaged Mr. Adams in a question pertaining to
personalization and nurturing of students. When asked, What do you feel your role is
in that [personalization and nurturing], in terms of making sure you’re not the only
one who’s doing that? He responded that he tried to lead by example and that he
83
admonished teachers to think about the learning conditions they would want for their
own children:
I try to lead by example. I ask teachers to ask themselves… Would I want
my child or my grandchildren in this classroom and in this school? If no,
what do we need to do to make it that way? Leading by example…. I
mean…you have to nurture these children…
Recognizing that leading by example in the way the principal described
might be challenging, the researcher asked him the following question: Does it take
courage to do what you need to do for your kids at this school? He responded
affirmatively and when asked to elaborate said the following:
…I came here and the school was in Corrective Action to year four. It took a
lot of courage to create a sense of urgency. Coming in as a younger
administrator…I really had to be courageous enough to set the goal, monitor
the goal, and if its not monitored take the supportive action by which to
correct it… they know I expect the absolute best and nothing but a hundred
and ten percent because that’s what I expect of myself.
The interview led to a discussion about Sinclair teachers’ growing
sophistication with using the school district’s interactive assessment system to
download their students’ performance data. The principal reported that teachers
brought their data to what were called grade group meetings [small groups of
teachers of two consecutive grades, i.e.,
third and fourth grade teachers] and used it
to finalize lists of students in need of small group intervention. The researcher asked
Mr. Adams to clarify if he meant that the teachers were gaining sophistication with
the data system and …how it works or are they more concerned with implementing
certain instructional strategies?
84
Mr. Adams’ response was related to his teachers’ alignment of instructional
strategies to performance data, particularly the PSSA. “They’re concerned with how
the instructional strategies tie to the standardized tests. So when they look at the data
and they pair the PSSA data with the benchmark data… they know how to better
instruct them [their students]”.
When the principal was asked to talk about organizational structures that he
was using to insure that students were succeeding and that there was equity, he also
spoke of the performance data, “The structures that we’ve set up here are a direct
result of looking at the data and making sure that children have an opportunity to get
more instruction before school and after school and even on weekends.”
Teachers’ Interview Data
Four teachers were interviewed in the fall of 2008 and two additional
teachers were interviewed in the spring of 2009. The following are pseudonyms and
contextual information for the Wesley Sinclair School teachers who were
interviewed for this study:
Interviewed in the fall:
• Sheila Murphy was an 8
th
grade mathematics teacher who had taught for
35 years. Her experience included teaching 2
nd
, 4
th
and 6
th
grades. She
was previously a teacher in the local Archdiocese and had also done
substitute teaching in suburban schools. At the time of the interview, she
had been teaching in the school district for 21 years.
85
• Natasha Wilson was a veteran, 6
th
grade language arts teacher. She
worked at Sinclair during the previous principal’s tenure there.
• Shannon Walsh was a 5
th
grade teacher who was studying to become a
principal at the time of this study.
• Megan Reid was the school’s math lead teacher. As such, she taught
math to all grade levels in the school’s computer lab, coordinated the
math program and coached teachers in the area of mathematics.
Interviewed in the spring:
• Donald Stewart was a 7
th
grade math teacher. At the time of this study,
he had taught in the school district for two years; one at Sinclair. Prior to
that, he taught in a southern state for 12 years.
• Leslie Hubbard was 3
rd
grade teacher. She had been at Sinclair for two
years, when this study was conducted. Prior to teaching at Sinclair, she
taught in another state for two and one-half years.
Teachers’ Fall Interview Data
The teacher interviews provided data about Mr. Adams’ leadership practices -
specifically his visibility, his expectations for teacher practice and student
achievement, and his relationships with the students. Also, regardless of the question
that was posed, the Sinclair teachers often spoke of the standardized test or
benchmark performance data.
Sheila Murphy said the following while answering a question about the
principal’s role in ensuring that all students were learning:
86
I’ve never seen a principal like this. He visits classrooms everyday –
sometimes twice. He’s in the yard before school, after school, during recess.
He knows the kids – calls their families. He knows who teaches and who
doesn’t. He is visible – not checking on you. Seeing the kids. Taking their
hoods off. He’s very hands on … Everyone knows he’s coming around, so
you’d better do what you’re supposed to.
When Ms. Murphy was asked to tell about the systems she had available to
help her address the needs of students who were not doing well academically, she
described the process the school used to identify students who were having learning
problems, then quickly began to talk about the PSSA performance data:
The PSSA is important. Kids here apply to high school. There’s a high
school fair at the university. All the schools are there – private schools,
charter schools, the good magnets. If they get above 1500, they’re eligible
for any school.
While answering the same question about systems that were in place to
address the needs of students who were not doing well, Megan Reid said, “Data is
very important. Since Mr. Adams came into our school they [classroom teachers]
are really data driven and I think our teachers do a very good job at monitoring their
students and how they’re doing. They’re also held accountable.”
Also, regarding the use of performance data, when asked to describe her
process for analyzing data, Natasha Wilson replied:
For the past few years, we’ve had data walls [charts in the conference rooms
listing students’ PSSA and benchmark scores in reading and math] that we
review with grade groups. It gives us an idea of concepts they’re learning.
Are they improving? If not, we need to change strategies.
The researcher probed and asked, What role does the principal play in that?,
to which Ms. Wilson responded: “Mr. Adams is very active in analyzing the data.
87
He’s very active with the data. He makes sure they get interventions they need and
makes us accountable. If they don’t do well on the benchmark, he asks ‘why?’”
Along those same lines, Shannon Walsh described her process for analyzing
data to the researcher and added that, “Mr. Adams does set goals for every
benchmark.”
The teachers also spoke of Mr. Adams’ leadership practices related to
monitoring instruction. All mentioned his visibility. For example, after Ms. Wilson
described effective instructional practices she and her colleagues used, the researcher
asked her how the principal fostered those practices. She replied that he visited
classrooms to make sure they were implementing them.
Additionally, in response to the question, How do you feel about the way
instruction is monitored?, Ms. Walsh mentioned the weekly constructive response
assignments included in the district’s core curriculum. She explained that each
teacher kept the constructive responses in a bin which contained folders for each
student, “He’ll [Mr. Adams] see-, like he’ll come in and look for your bin, look at a
few students to make sure you’re using the rubric.”
The researcher asked if all schools in the district were required to assign the
constructive responses or if they applied only to schools in Corrective Action. Ms.
Reid responded that they had to be done, but that teachers could develop their own if
they chose not to use those provided by the district. Then Ms. Reid brought up the
standardized test by adding, “And its practice for the PSSA. You know if schools
aren’t doing it-, it’s not mandatory; it’s more preparing the students for that PSSA.”
88
Ms. Walsh mentioned the performance data as well as Mr. Adams’ visibility
and expectations when she was asked, What do you think about the efforts that the
school makes to foster high expectations among the students and the parents?, Her
reply was:
I think Mr. Adams coming in here has made a big deal about that. The
expectations for the teachers even have increased- Looking at the data is big.
You know when a benchmark comes if your kids didn’t improve they’re
gonna come to you and ask why.
Ms. Wilson’s response to the same question centered around Mr. Adams and
his interactions with students, “He plays instruments, basketball, table tennis. Kids
like him. He’s in the lunch room daily.”
Teachers’ Spring Interview Data
Mr. Steward and Ms. Hubbard were interviewed in the spring. Their
responses yielded the same topics as those from the fall teacher interviews and
referenced Mr. Adams’ expectations, visibility and the performance data.
During his interview, Mr. Stewart was describing the kinds of issues he and
his colleagues discussed in their grade group meetings, in particular meeting the
needs of their students. The researcher asked him, What is Mr. Adams’ role in that?,
to which Mr. Stewart replied:
He’s here all the time. The thing I like about Mr. Adams is he’s the type of
principal that is very visible. I mean you see him all the time. He’s always in
the classrooms observing, trying to make sure things are going-, you know
he’s always in the hallways. He’s not the type of principal that is laid back
and sits back in his office all day. He’s at the meetings and he’s active. He’s
proactive. He gets involved.
89
Mr. Stewart’s use of the phrase ‘he’s the type’ caused the researcher to probe
for elaboration. She followed-up with the question Is that different from other
principals with whom you’ve worked? Mr. Stewart responded:
I see him so much. It’s kind of unusual. To me it feels like its everyday and
he always pops in. He makes it a point to pop in your room if he can
everyday or every other day. He’s in the hallway. You’re gonna see him.
The researcher probed further, asking, How do you think that helps you as a
teacher in your quest to increase student achievement…the fact that he’s so visible?
Mr. Stewart’s reply was:
Because it makes the kids mindful that he’s gonna be watching. He’ll come
in the classroom and he’ll ask the kids, ‘What are you working on? What are
you doing today?’ Discipline wise it makes them mindful that they can’t
disrupt the class. It’s just an environment that’s positive. He breeds that and
his expectations are high and it makes it comfortable for me because I know
this is what he wants for the kids. He wants them to learn. He wants to make
sure everybody’s doing what they’re supposed to do.
The researcher again probed, How do you know his expectations are high?
Mr. Stewart:
Oh he talks about it all the time. He wants the kids to get the goals he wants-,
he wants to perform seventy-five percent or better-, he always talks about the
benchmarks. That’s what he’s always talking about and he lets the kids
know. He let’s the kids know, ‘this is what I expect, this is what I want. I
want you guys to exceed. I want you guys to do well. I want you guys to go
to college. I want you to go to the best high schools.’ He’s said that at staff
meetings. He has high expectations but not for just certain kids all the kids.
He wants them all to do well. He says it in staff meeting. He says it in these
meetings and he comes into the classroom and he’ll say it to the kids.
When Mr. Stewart was asked how the standards impact instruction, he
referred to the accountability policy:
90
You know sometimes you want to be real creative and do some different
things. You know with this No Child Left Behind you don’t have a whole lot
of room to do that or not a lot of time. You try to be creative but standards
dictate everything that we do.
The researcher followed with How do you know that? How do you get that
sense? Mr. Stewart elaborated, saying, “I guess we’re on the bubble because they
haven’t made AYP every year, or three straight years or whatever.”
Mr. Stewart spoke of performance data, again, when responding to a question
about the nature of the grade group meetings, “Everything’s about the data, the
benchmarks. This is basically the most important thing.”
The researcher followed with, How do you get your data from the
benchmarks? He explained that he retrieved his data from the Internet, and then
said:
I look at the problems and try to identify what they need to improve on. Then
I look at the areas that the kids did well in and then we review it and then I
move on. I try to keep a note that I need to review this again before we take
the PSSAs.
Mr. Stewart mentioned the PSSA, again, when he responded to the question
What are your expectations for you class for the rest of this year? His response was:
I know it’s asking a lot, but I want them to double their math score on the
PSSA from last year. I said, ‘I want that from you.’ I think this group here
scored thirty-three percent on the math as a sixth grade and that to me is not
acceptable.
When Ms. Hubbard was asked the question regarding the systems available
to help address the needs of students who are not doing well academically, she
discussed various programs the school had in place; computer software programs,
91
Saturday School, after school tutorials, and the morning pullout intervention. She
also spoke of Mr. Adams’ visibility and the impact it had on her teaching. When
asked, What role does Mr. Adams have in all of that?, she responded:
Mr. Adams is always around. I know like during intervention groups in the
morning he’s walking through the classrooms, making sure that the children
are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, but that the teachers are also
conducting the groups and things that they need to do.
When the researcher asked Ms. Hubbard, What does he [Mr. Adams] do that
causes you to be a better teacher?,she also spoke of his visibility:
Well I know he’s watching first of all. I know he’s watching… and I know
that his purpose in watching is that he wants to make sure that we’re doing
what we need to be doing; teaching the curriculum, doing our guided groups,
doing our interventions. I guess just him watching in general.
Observation Data of Principal and Organizational Culture
The researcher spent two days observing at Wesley Sinclair School, in part,
shadowing Mr. Adams. In the fall, she and Mr. Adams were walking the hallways
and classrooms, observing the academic intervention block that was implemented
every morning at Sinclair. They noticed a fifth grade student standing alone in the
hallway, crying. Apparently staff had been working with this boy, for quite some
time, on developing coping strategies. Mr. Adams walked up to the boy, put his arm
around his shoulder and began to gently talk to him. “Didn’t we talk about that –
that you’re in fifth grade now and that crying has to stop?”
Also in the fall, the schoolwide reading intervention was observed during the
first 35 minutes of the school day. Every available adult – coaches, counselor,
retired teacher, playground supervisors, etc. – worked in a hallway with a small
92
group of no more than five students. Mr. Adams walked every floor, monitoring the
intervention.
Performance data postings were observed in the office conference room
which had walls covered with poster-size charts – one for each class. The charts
contained the names of the students in the class, their PSSA results from the previous
year and their benchmark results for the current year.
When the researcher returned in the spring, she observed the principal
referring to students he encountered throughout the school by name. Additionally,
she observed him in classrooms, talking to students about their work, discussing the
standards that were on the pacing calendar for that week, telling them that
completing their class assignments would enhance their learning.
The researcher also sat in on a meeting of the principal with his instructional
team (Reading First Teacher, math coach, literacy coach) and observed the
following: The principal expressed dismay about the performance of Special
Education students on a recent benchmark assessment. He commented to the team
that he expected overall class scores to decrease when the Special Education
students’ scores were included, but not to the level they had done. He was very clear
to his team that his expectation was that the Special Education students were capable
of performing better than they had on the benchmark and instructed the team to
organize a meeting with the Special Education teachers that afternoon so he could
discuss it with them.
93
There was also a great deal of talk about the benchmark testing conditions for
Special Education students. This vein of the discussion revolved around the impact
that was noticed on the test averages after Special Education students’ scores were
factored into the class averages. During this discussion, Mr. Adams reiterated the
fact that they [he and the instructional team] used data to make every decision in the
building, including identifying students who will “get over the hump” on PSSA, for
daily small group instruction and Saturday School. Saturday School was open to
others but the team ensured that targeted students attend.
Mr. Adams also reminded the team that the PSSA would be in 35 days.
There was much discussion about scheduled meetings and initiatives that would pull
the principal and others away from the school the following week and the impact that
might have on the PSSA preparation and ultimately the results.
Everyone in the meeting was wearing a plastic-covered three by five card
attached to string around their necks, reminiscent of identification tags used at
conferences and for security at certain business establishments. The cards displayed
the PSSA Strategy of the Week, “t-charts.” The literacy teacher had distributed them
to every adult in the school that morning and would promote a different test-taking
strategy in the same fashion each week until PSSA began.
It was also apparent that the principal’s office had been rearranged since the
fall visit; furniture had been moved around and a musical keyboard was on his desk.
Mr. Adams explained that he had given some eighth grade students unlimited access
to his office for the purpose of making podcasts featuring PSSA strategies. The plan
94
was that once finished, students would download them to their iPods and MP3
players to aid in their review of test-taking strategies prior to PSSA.
Existing Document Review
Wesley Sinclair School documents that were reviewed for this study
included: school newsletters, meeting minutes and agendas, and the school plan.
Newsletters regularly recognized students by mentioning their names,
acknowledging their accomplishments, and featuring their writing. Expectations
regarding attendance and uniform compliance were consistently expressed through
the newsletter to students.
Grade group meeting agendas and minutes topics were on instructional
strategies and PSSA test preparation.
The contents and actions delineated in the school plan were strictly based on
data. The process described in the plan was to analyze data, determine the root cause
of the data results, and to plan for the implementation of research-based strategies.
Contents of the school plan were heavily weighted toward professional development
based on PSSA results and administrative monitoring.
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) Survey Data
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education or VAL-ED is
designed to provide a summary of effectiveness of a principal’s learning-centered
leadership behaviors during the current school year. The VAL-ED focuses on
leadership behaviors defined by six core components and six key processes known to
influence student achievement, which are illustrated in Table 8.
95
Table 8. VAL-ED Core Components and Key Processes
Core Components Key Processes
High Standards for Student Learning Planning
Rigorous Curriculum Implementing
Quality Instruction Supporting
Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior Advocating
Connections to External Communities Communicating
Performance Accountability Monitoring
While the study was designed to have the entire teaching staff complete the
VAL-ED Survey, only 2 out of 43 did so. Several requests were made to the
Reading First Teacher to coordinate the online administration of the VAL-ED. She,
in turn, provided the teachers with access codes and directions for taking the survey.
Additionally, she encouraged them by sharing the ease in which she completed the
survey and also by placing reminders in their mail boxes. It was finally suggested
that she have the teachers complete the survey in a staff meeting or in grade group
meetings so she could facilitate the process. In spite of repeated requests, it was not
done. Three teachers logged onto the survey, but did not finish it. The final
completion result was that the principal and two teachers took the survey. Because of
the limited participation rate, Mr. Adams’ VAL-ED results should be interpreted
with caution.
The data below represent Mr. Adams’ VAL-ED scores. He completed VAL-
ED Form A in fall 2008. His teachers completed Teacher Form A. Mr. Adams’
96
Overall Total Effectiveness score based on the averaged ratings of all respondents
was 4.16. Mean item ratings on the 6 Core Components ranged from a low of 3.99
for Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior to a high of 4.36 for Rigorous
Curriculum, on a 5 point effectiveness scale, with 1 being ineffective, 2 minimal, 3
satisfactory, 4 high, and 5 outstanding. His mean item ratings on the 6 Key
Processes ranged from a low of 4.01 for Advocating to a high of 4.28 for
Monitoring. Mr. Adams’ overall effectiveness mean score was 4.16, which was at
the 92.1 percentile rank and Distinguished performance level. Mr. Adams’ VAL-ED
scores are represented on Table 9.
Table 9. Summaries of Core Component and Key Processes Scores for Benjamin
Adams
Summary of Core Components Scores Summary of Key Processes Scores
Mean
Performance
Level
Percentile
Rank
Mean
Performance
Level
Percentile
Rank
High
Standards for
Student
Learning
4.32 Distinguished 95.7 Planning 4.06 Distinguished 89.4
Rigorous
Curriculum
4.36 Distinguished 97.6 Implementing 4.05 Distinguished 87.1
Quality
Instruction
4.09 Distinguished 83.0 Supporting 4.27 Distinguished 92.1
Culture of
Learning &
Professional
Behavior
3.99 Proficient 71.1 Advocating 4.01 Distinguished 88.4
Connections to
External
Communities
4.21 Distinguished 96.7 Communicating 4.26 Distinguished 94.4
Performance
Accountability
4.14 Distinguished 93.9 Monitoring 4.28 Distinguished 96.7
97
The evidence sources used by Mr. Adams to complete the VAL-ED survey
were as follows: Reports from Others – 2.78%; Personal Observations – 65.28%;
and School Projects or Activities 8.33%.
The evidence sources used by the Sinclair teachers to complete the VAL-ED
survey were: Reports from Others – 2.08%; Personal Observations – 77.78%; and
School Documents – 7.64%.
Analysis of the Data
Analysis of the data collected to answer Research Question One was done
through a framework derived from Murphy et al.’s (2006) Learning-Centered
Leadership model and the social justice frameworks of Cambron-McCabe and
McCarthy (2005) and Theoharis (2007). It is instructive to describe these
frameworks, prior to analyzing and interpreting the data for Research Question One,
How and why do urban principals create the conditions for social justice in their
schools?
According to Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy (2005), social justice
leadership embodies the following common themes: moral values, justice, respect,
care, and equity combined with a consciousness about the impact of race, class,
gender, sexual orientation and disability on schools and students. Theoharis (2007)
adds that raising student achievement is also a critical factor in social justice
leadership. These themes are relevant in analyzing the collected data.
The eight dimensions of the Learning-Centered Leadership model, as
espoused by Murphy et al. (2006) contain key leadership behaviors which are also
98
relevant in analyzing the data collected for Research Question One. What follows in
Table 10 is a depiction of the eight dimensions of the Learning-Centered Leadership
model.
Table 10. The Eight Dimensions of Learning-Centered Leadership
I. VISION FOR LEARNING
Developing vision
Articulating vision
Implementing vision
Stewarding vision
II. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM
Knowledge and involvement
Hiring and allocating staff
Supporting staff
Instructional time
III. CURRICULAR PROGRAM
Knowledge and involvement
Expectations, standards
Opportunity to learn
Curriculum alignment
IV. ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Knowledge and involvement
Assessment procedures
Monitoring instruction and
curriculum
Communication and use of data
V. COMMUNITIES OF LEARNING
Professional development
Communities of professional
practice
Community-anchored schools
VI. RESOURCE ACQUISITION AND
USE
Acquiring resources
Allocating resources
Using resources
VII. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Production emphasis
Accountability
Learning environment
Personalized environment
Continuous improvement
VIII. SOCIAL ADVOCACY
Stakeholder engagement
Diversity
Environmental context
Ethics
Two major themes and five sub-themes emerged from the data collected for
Research Question One. One major theme was the principal’s moral purpose. Sub-
themes to the theme of principal’s moral purpose were high personalization and high
99
expectations. The other major theme was the principal’s response to high-stakes
accountability. Sub-themes to that theme were the use of data, the principal’s
visibility and the principal’s active promotion of the school’s vision. An analysis of
these themes follows.
Principal’s Moral Purpose
As set forth in Chapter Two, scholars have recognized that there is a moral
component involved in leadership. Cuban (2004) asserts that urban principals are
often driven by a concern for social justice and must set a moral example for students
and teachers. Additionally, Northouse (2007) posits that transformational leadership
has a moral component as it relates to organizational goals. The Learning-Centered
Leadership model also asserts that leaders must be cognizant of their personal values
and beliefs and that leadership behaviors are derived, in part by the leader’s values
and beliefs (Murphy et al., 2006). Benjamin Adams was very much in touch with
what drove him, in spite of the challenging nature of his work. As he initially
explained, in his fall interview, “What drives me is knowing that these children have
hope and they see that the hope combined with action can change their current
condition and they move on in life to become very successful.” He elaborated
sharing his sentiment that “ …if you’re re-instilling the hope and you’re showing
children that they can do their absolute best and there are rewards for doing your
absolute best, then five or ten years later the community begins to change.” These
statements combined with others from his interview data seem to indicate that Mr.
Adams valued education and personally believed it could save people from a life of
100
despair. He wanted his students to know that, as well. His well-grounded, personal
vision extended beyond Sinclair’s students, however. His comment about practices
in the school impacting change in the community, “…the school can really begin to
affect the community” indicated that Mr. Adams was about community building and
believed that using positive outcomes from within the school could serve as a
foundation to empower the entire community.
High Personalization
The interview data further revealed that Mr. Adams had not kept this sense of
moral purpose to himself, but had extended it to his teachers through his actions and
conversations with them. For example, he stated in his fall interview that in addition
to discussing the need for staff to be more personable with the students, he and his
assistant principal monitored the teachers’ behavior in that regard and took action
when they sensed there was a need to intervene. “…we monitor that…we instituted a
behavioral academy… as a result of …the way the staff was dealing with and talking
to the children.”
These leadership behaviors are reflective of the maintenance of high
personalization for children espoused in the Organizational Culture dimension of the
Learning-Centered Leadership model (Murphy et al., 2006). Additionally, they
reflect justice and equity, which are prominent themes in the framework for social
justice leadership (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005).
Care and respect are also themes delineated by Cambron-McCabe &
McCarthy (2005) as important characteristics for social justice leaders to embody.
101
Data from the teacher interviews at Sinclair School were indicative of the principal’s
behaviors and reflected his drive to improve the lives of the students. Ms. Murphy,
Ms. Wilson and Mr. Stewart all spoke of the caring, respectful ways in which he
related to students. Ms. Murphy shared the fact that he knew the students and called
their families. Ms. Wilson described the ways he interacted with students during
their non-instructional time – playing table tennis, etc. Mr. Stewart spoke of Mr.
Adams’ creation of a positive environment in which he often imparted his high
expectations of the students’ success to them.
Additionally, the researcher’s field notes indicated that through his actions,
Mr. Adams provided a strong, male role model for his students and staff. The field
notes described the encounter between Mr. Adams and the crying, fifth grade student
in the hallway as being fatherly and having a warm feeling tone. [24 Sept. 2008 Field
Notes: Interaction between principal and student during the intervention block -
Warm feeling tone. Fatherly. Strong male role model]
Existing documents, such as the school newsletters which regularly
acknowledged students’ accomplishments, as well as grade group and staff meeting
minutes and agendas which revealed a focus on improving instruction to enhance
student learning also reflected Murphy et al.’s (2006) Social Advocacy leadership
behavior of promoting the success of all students.
High Expectations
Bass (1999) contends that transformational leaders influence their followers
to reach high expectations by raising their consciousness about the importance and
102
value of the organization’s goals. Additionally, Murphy and his colleagues (2006)
identify the creation of a culture of high expectations for self, staff and students as
being an important leadership behavior embodied in the Learning-Centered
Leadership model’s dimension of Organizational Culture. Mr. Adams’ interview
data revealed that his personal vision was embedded with high expectations which he
believed were important to exemplify to his staff. As he told the researcher, he led
by example and, “I expect the absolute best and nothing but a hundred and ten
percent because that’s what I expect of myself.” Confirming that, Mr. Stewart also
reported that Mr. Adams expressed his high expectations for all students to do well,
in staff meetings and to the students, themselves, “He wants them all to do well. He
says it in staff meetings. He says it in these meetings and he comes into the
classroom and he’ll say it to the kids.”
The spring observation data confirmed the principal’s high expectations when
he was observed discussing his expectation that the Special Education students were
capable of better performance than was exhibited on a recent benchmark assessment,
as well as his statements of concern after visiting a classroom in which the
instruction did not meet his standards.
Documents reviewed revealed high expectations as well. The school
newsletter consistently expressed high expectations for students regarding attendance
and uniform compliance, while meeting agendas and minutes reflected Mr. Adams’
expectation that instruction improve.
103
Mr. Adams’ VAL-ED data also confirmed his high expectations. The Key
Process of Advocating and the Core Component of High Standards for Student
Learning items yielded mean scores for Mr. Adams of 4.01 and 4.32, respectively.
Both scores placed him on Distinguished performance levels. The Key Process of
Advocating addresses the ways in which the principal promotes the diverse needs of
students within and beyond the school. Examples of Advocating questions on the
VAL-ED are: How effective is the principal at ensuring the school…challenges low
expectations for students with special needs?… challenges faculty to teach a rigorous
curriculum to students at risk of failure?… advocates for all students to regularly
experience effective instruction? The core component of High Standards for Student
Learning addresses individual, team, and school goals for rigorous student academic
and social learning. An example item is: How effective is the principal at ensuring
the school…communicates rigorous goals for student learning to
faculty?…encourages students to successfully achieve rigorous goals for student
learning? (Vanderbilt University, 2007).
Response to High-stakes Accountability
The data revealed that the entity the Sinclair staff was most focused upon was
the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment, referred to by the stakeholders as
PSSA. References to PSSA, benchmark assessments that provided information on
how well students were progressing toward doing well on it, or to the preparation for
it, came up, repeatedly, in interviews. Thoughts about PSSA were pervasive. The
teachers and principal referred to the PSSA and benchmark data even when
104
answering questions about other topics. As previously noted, when asked about
what drove his teachers to meet school goals, Mr. Adams mentioned in his fall
interview that the school’s PSSA performance indicators served to motivate his
teachers. He also stated that teachers concerned themselves with instructional
strategies that were aligned to the standardized test. Ms. Murphy referred to the
importance of PSSA data in regard to students’ acceptance at the more desirable high
schools. Ms. Wilson, Ms. Walsh and Ms. Hubbard mentioned it in their interviews
when answering questions about the nature of their grade group meetings. Ms.
Wilson specifically spoke of how the data helped her grade group determine if and
when they needed to adapt their instruction to meet the needs of their students. Ms.
Reid brought up PSSA when discussing the constructive response assignments and
Mr. Stewart mentioned PSSA, and benchmark data marking progress on it,
throughout his interview. It was evident that responding to this high-stakes test and
the accountability system supporting it (benchmarks, etc.), was a driving force in the
school.
Use of Data
Murphy et al. (2006) hold that learning-centered leaders promote data-based
decision making at their schools. Mr. Adams clearly enacted that leadership practice
at Sinclair. As he shared in his spring interview, he and his team created
organizational structures as a direct result of analyzing performance data to
determine the needs of Sinclair’s students. Furthermore, Mr. Stewart’s interview
confirmed the importance of performance data, when he stated that everything was
105
about the data and that it was the most important thing, “Everything’s about the data,
the benchmarks. This is basically the most important thing.” In fact, as indicated by
the examples above, Sinclair teachers seemed to view performance data as being
useful in several ways: 1.) to gain Sinclair students’ entry into the city’s more
desirable high schools, 2.) to guide instruction, 3.) to identify students in need of
intervention and 4.) to act as a barometer of how the students would perform on the
current school year’s upcoming PSSA.
In terms of leading for social justice, Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy
(2005) posit equity as an important theme in social justice leadership. Equity and the
response to performance data appeared to be linked by Mr. Adams, as indicated by
his statement, “Equity seems to be an issue when the administrator doesn’t set the
high expectations, where no accountability is involved. Our motto is data equals
accountability.”
The hovering presence of PSSA and the principal’s response to it were also
apparent in the researcher’s field work observations. Field notes on the observation
of the meeting with the principal and his instructional team during the spring
visitation have several references to PSSA; the timeline to it, impact other
obligations would have on preparation for it, and unique test preparation strategies
such as the “name tag PSSA Strategy of the Week” and the podcasts Mr. Adams had
directed his 8
th
grade students to create. The prominent display of data in the
conference room utilized by teachers during their grade group meetings was also
106
instructive of the importance the staff placed on PSSA and benchmark assessment
results.
Existing documents that were reviewed confirmed the interview and
observational data regarding the intense response to high-stakes testing. Minutes and
agendas from grade group meetings indicated PSSA test preparation to be a recurring
topic. Additionally, the contents of the school plan were heavily weighted toward
professional development based on PSSA results and administrative monitoring. An
item of example was found on page 28 of the school plan which described
professional development on constructive responses and cited “Frequent monitoring
by school leaders to insure implementation…” as a strategy to increase PSSA scores.
Principal’s Visibility
The Learning-Centered Leadership model identifies visiting classrooms,
being attentive to teaching, providing feedback and working with teachers on matters
of instruction as leadership practices which exemplify enactment of the Instructional
Program dimension (Murphy et al., 2006). All of the above practices involved and
resulted in principal visibility. Mr. Adams’ high visibility emerged as a pattern in
the interview data and was confirmed in the observation data, existing documents
and VAL-ED data.
In his fall interview Mr. Adams responded that if one shadowed him during a
typical week, one would see him visiting classrooms and interacting with children
daily. Ms. Murphy confirmed this leadership practice when she said, “He visits
classrooms everyday – sometimes twice!” Her interview data revealed her
107
impression that Mr. Adams’ visibility ensured appropriate instruction for the
students, “Everyone knows he’s coming around, so you’d better do what you’re
supposed to.” This sentiment was expressed by the Sinclair teachers time and again
in interviews. As previously presented, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Walsh, and Mr. Stewart all
commented about Mr. Adams’ visibility. Ms. Hubbard mentioned it when asked to
identify practices Mr. Adams enacted that caused her to be a better teacher, “Well I
know he’s watching first of all.” Ms. Walsh connected Mr. Adams’ high
expectations, visibility, and use of data and linked them to an improved instructional
program for Sinclair’s students when she expressed:
I think Mr. Adams coming in here has made a big deal about that. The
expectations for the teachers even have increased, Looking at the data is big.
You know when a benchmark comes if your kids didn’t improve they’re
gonna come to you and ask why.
Sinclair’s observation data confirmed the interview data that the principal
maintained extremely high visibility with his staff and students. During both of the
researcher’s visits to the school, Mr. Adams was only observed to be in the office
area, briefly – twice to conduct interviews with the researcher and once to meet with
his instructional team. He was out and about in the building for the overwhelming
majority of the time, walking through the office occasionally, but never settling in.
The document review also revealed patterns of the principal’s visibility. As
alluded to above, the school plan contained extensive references to administrative
monitoring, confirming interview and observational data regarding Mr. Adams’
visibility.
108
VAL-ED data also confirmed the principal’s visibility. His mean score for
the Key Process of Monitoring was 4.28, which is at the 96.7 percentile rank and the
Distinguished performance level.
Actively Promotes School Vision
According to Murphy et al. (2006) Learning-Centered Leaders devote a great
amount of energy to developing, articulating, implementing and protecting a vision
for learning. Leadership behaviors inherent in that include emphasizing ambitious
goals that are student focused and clearly defined. Murphy (2006) and his
colleagues also hold that learning-centered leaders articulate the vision through
modeling and communicating it throughout the organization. Additionally, they
monitor enactment of the vision and maintain a sense of optimism. All of these
stated behaviors were found to be in effect at Sinclair School. Interview data
collected from the principal and his teachers indicated he had established ambitious
goals for the Sinclair students. Observation data confirmed this. The conference
room postings of grade group action plans, displays in the school foyer encouraging
students to be successful and to attain 75% or greater on all of their assessments were
two examples noted in the researcher’s field notes. Additionally, the principal’s
VAL-ED scores in the Core Component of High Standards for Student Learning,
which posed questions related to a vision for learning, were on the Distinguished
performance level and 95.7 percentile rank.
109
Key Findings - Interpretations
The data sets found that Benjamin Adams enacted his internal values and
strong sense of moral purpose. He believed that education was critical in the
attainment of a successful life and was driven by his values to ensure the students at
Sinclair had access to a learning environment that was conducive to preparing them
to achieve at the highest academic levels. Mr. Adams’ high expectations for himself,
his staff and his students, as well as the high level of personalization he maintained
with Sinclair’s students are sub-themes of the major theme moral purpose. In
addition to personally knowing, caring about and nurturing the students, he modeled
that personalization and insisted that the other adults in the school develop it, as well.
Mr. Adams’ response to high-stakes accountability, in the form of PSSA, resulted in
a more coherent, focused instructional program for Sinclair’s students. The keen
focus on data drove instructional decisions, professional development decisions, and
the use of organizational structures. Teacher interview data collected from Ms.
Murphy, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Walsh, Ms. Reid, Ms. Hubbard and Mr. Stewart indicated
his visibility in classrooms was also influential, in that it motivated the teachers to
implement the agreed upon instructional program and the curriculum that had been
embraced by Mr. Adams and his instructional leadership team.
As has been posited by Leithwood (2005), Leithwood et al. (2004) and
Murphy et al. (2006) in Chapter Two of this study, the school leader’s practices
affect students indirectly. That being accepted, in the case of Wesley Sinclair
School, Mr. Adams’ moral purpose of ensuring fair, caring treatment of students
110
coupled with learning environments that provided them with the opportunity to learn,
had to be manifested through his teachers and other staff members if conditions for
social justice were to flourish. This manifestation was in evidence because 1.) Mr.
Adams influenced his teachers to treat children with dignity and care through his
modeling of such behavior. A high level of personalization was in effect for the
students at Sinclair because the principal modeled it and motivated his staff to follow
his lead. Modeling and compelling speech were not sufficient inducement for all
staff members, however, so significantly, Mr. Adams compelled those recalcitrant
few by directly responding and taking action when he became aware that they had
not met his expectations to do so. 2.) Additionally, Mr. Adams took advantage of the
school’s status in the high-stakes accountability arena and utilized it to generate a
sense of urgency among his staff to change their institutionalized behaviors.
Teachers were more cognizant of performance data, and used it to inform their
instruction and motivate their students. This heightened knowledge and attained
skill, working in concert with Mr. Adams’ high visibility in their classrooms, led the
Sinclair teachers to implement the adopted curriculum, which was standards-based.
3.) Mr. Adams promoted and actively protected a focused vision of learning at
Sinclair School. He used performance data to measure progress toward the vision
and to also guide decisions that impacted the realization of the vision. The staff at
Sinclair was aware of the vision and worked in concert to achieve it. The result was
that, based on the trends in PSSA performance data, in contrast to the situation in
111
previous years, there was a greater opportunity for students at Sinclair to attain high
academic achievement, during the time this study was conducted.
The above key interpretations contain several constructs which are described
here:
Moral Purpose refers to the principal’s drive to make a difference for
individuals, the school, the region and society (Fullan, 2003).
Models Personalization is the enactment of Learning-Centered Leadership
behaviors that ensure each student is well-known, cared for and feels valued
(Murphy et al., 2006).
Maintains High Expectations is also a Learning-Centered Leadership
behavior and refers to the enactment of high expectations in policies and practices,
and separates biosocial characteristics from high expectations for achievement
(Murphy, et al., 2006).
Uses Data refers to the promotion of data-based decision making and the
alignment of instruction and assessment (Murphy et al., 2006).
Maintains High Visibility is a Learning-Centered Leadership construct that
involves the principal being attentive to teaching, visiting classrooms, working with
teacher groups on matters of instruction, and providing feedback (Murphy et al.,
2006).
Actively Promotes School Vision refers to the principal’s emphasis of
ambitious goals as well as to making vision central to daily work, modeling and
112
communicating the vision, monitoring enactment of the vision and maintaining a
sense of optimism (Murphy et al., 2006).
Response to High-stakes Accountability refers to the principal’s and school’s
response to accountability policies that contain sanctions (Diamond & Spillane,
2004).
Research Question Two – What are principals’ expectations and attitudes
about PIL training?
Research Question Two addresses principals’ expectations and attitudes
regarding PIL training in order to provide insight on how effective it might be in
building their capacity. Clark and Estes (2002) hold that motivation is one of three
factors that influence work performance. Since PIL is a state-sponsored initiative, it
is worthwhile to explore how principals’ expectations and attitudes might influence
their motivation regarding it because that can determine how effective it might be in
building their leadership capacity. The framework for answering Research Question
Two, therefore, will be Clark and Estes’(2002) motivated performance model. The
instruments used to collect data for Research Question Two were: fall 2008 and
spring 2009 interviews with Benjamin Adams and an interview with Tom Davis –
Pennsylvania State Department Region Site Coordinator, conducted in spring 2009.
Report of the Data
Principal’s Fall Interview Data
Mr. Adams was interviewed twice about his expectations and attitudes
regarding PIL training; once in fall 2008 and again in spring 2009. As has been
113
noted in Chapter Three, Mr. Adams was originally scheduled to attend the training in
the fall, but he delayed going until spring.
In the fall Mr. Adams was asked, How do you feel about the upcoming
training, the PIL training? His response was:
I’m excited… every time that I learn something I think of a creative way to
bring it back to the staff and incorporate it in our everyday practices. I am
excited just being in a place where you have administrators from all over the
state, meeting, sharing ideas, engaged in professional development sessions
together, networking, it’s a win/win.
Principal’s Spring Interview Data
When asked about the training in his second interview, Mr. Adams elaborated
on how he first learned about the training and the specific reasons he postponed his
attendance. The researcher asked Mr. Adams, How did you first hear about PIL
training? He responded as follows:
I heard about it through other principals with whom I worked last year who
were in my region. They pretty much basically said that this is a good
program; you should go and take the coursework. It’s outstanding.
Originally I was scheduled for October but I wanted to push it back to March
so that we could really focus on the standardized testing so that we could get
out of corrective action.
Mr. Adams was asked, Are you in that category under Act 45 where you’re
required to take the training? His response was, “I think I may be required, because
I’m a second year principal I guess.” The researcher probed and asked, How do you
feel about it? Mr. Adams responded, thusly:
I’m looking forward to it. I mean [the region site coordinator] sent me the
information in the mail, you know pre-reading materials, The World is Flat
and a couple of other pamphlets and copies of reading material. Just the book
The World is Flat, because I’m somewhat familiar with that book; I’m really
114
looking forward to it because if that’s gonna be the base it’s gonna help me
grow into the twenty-first century as an administrator so I can come back and
turn it around to the students and help them be successful.
The researcher asked Mr. Adams, Is there anything about the training that
concerns you? Mr. Adams responded to that question as follows:
The two consecutive days. Being away from the building for the entire day.
We’ve put some measures in place….so pretty much we’ll be good to go. I
have the AP running the building in terms of operations, but I have my
instructional leadership team running the building based on the academics
and the curriculum that needs to continue in my absence.
Mr. Adams was then asked, Do you think going is going to benefit the school
in any way-, your going to the training? He responded as follows:
The more I learn the more I can give back to the students and the community so
me going to the meetings is going to teach me how to become a much more
effective and efficient administrator. In turn I’ll bring that back to the school and
the school will run a little more effectively and efficiently.
He then added, “I expect to gain some strategies that I can impart to the teachers.”
The researcher posed the following question regarding the alignment of the PIL
training to the state’s leadership standards: The course that you’re beginning in
March is aligned to some of the Pennsylvania Leadership Standards. Do you spend
time at the principals meetings talking about the Pennsylvania Leadership
Standards? The principal responded:
We don’t. We may if it’s totally infused in what we’re doing, but it’s not
mentioned like we’re working on this Pennsylvania Leadership Standard
during this principals meeting. Pretty much it’s just based on data in our
schools and the instructional practices that go on and supervision of
instruction. Those are the three main areas that we really discuss in the
principals meetings.
115
His response prompted the researcher to ask, Are principals aware that the state has
leadership standards? Mr. Adams responded, “I think maybe by taking the
coursework we’ll be informed, but I don’t think its been mentioned to us that the
state has particular leadership standards.”
The last question the researcher posed to Mr. Adams was, Is there anything
else that you’d like to tell me about your leadership practices or your thoughts or
your feelings about the training that I haven’t given you an opportunity to say in
these two interviews?
Mr. Adams responded that regarding the training, “I’m looking forward to
collaborating with other administrators throughout the state to see what best practices
they’re using and to see how I can fit those best practices into what Wesley Sinclair
is doing.”
PDE Site Region Coordinator’s Interview Data
As someone who has worked closely with PIL participants since its
inception, Tom Davis had unique insight on the participants’ attitudes and
expectations regarding the training. During his interview, he was asked about the
principals he had encountered in the trainings he had coordinated thus far, Do you
have any insight as to what their expectations and attitudes are?
In my communication with them privately, in things that I see and hear
before the session begins in the morning-, we get a number of early arrivers
and sometimes they’ll talk to me about what we did last time we tried that
and those kinds of things. I generally have seen our participants as anxious to
experience this, interested in experiencing this, wanting to know more and
see things a little bit differently. I find them eager in that respect. There is a
subset, because of the requirement, who are here against their will.
116
[However, with the newer principals] I find an eagerness and an idealism
there that seems to be voluntary even though they’re fulfilling requirements
too. It almost has a voluntary quality to it.
Analysis of the Data
Clark and Estes (2002) hold that there are three facets of motivated
performance in the workplace: Active Choice, Persistence and Mental Effort.
Active Choice involves doing something in active pursuit of a goal even if the goal
was selected by another person. Persistence refers to one’s continued pursuit of a
goal, in spite of distractions. Mental Effort refers to the amount of mental effort one
invests in a goal, and can be affected by one’s level of confidence.
It seemed from the interview data, that active choice regarding participating
in PIL training was not in place for Mr. Adams at the beginning of this study. His
interview data indicated that he had a positive attitude about the training, but moving
his school out of Corrective Action was a higher priority for him, so he delayed his
attendance until he felt he could attend without jeopardizing attainment of the major
goal of meeting the PSSA targets. By his spring interview he had made an active
choice to participate, by making certain everything would be in place at his school
during his attendance at the training. “We’ve put some measures in place so pretty
much we’ll be good to go…”Additionally, it appeared that his expectations that the
training would help him be a more successful leader would cause him to persist. “
I’m looking forward to collaborating with other administrators throughout the state
to see what best practices they’re using and to see how I can fit those best practices
117
into what Wesley Sinclair is doing.” Whether he would persist, however, could not
be known, until he actually began the training.
Clark and Estes (2002) posit that “effectiveness” is the primary motive that
drives humans to act. Viewing the situation through that lens, there was some
evidence to support the fact that Mr. Adams believed the training would increase his
effectiveness as a principal was a motivating factor that would enhance his
probability of persistence. As the interview data indicated, Mr. Adams had a
positive attitude regarding the training and expected it to enhance his leadership.
Key Findings – Interpretations
The interview data suggested that Mr. Adams expected PIL training to
increase his leadership capacity by providing him with information and strategies he
could apply at his school. His attitude regarding the training was positive and was
influenced by peers who expressed positive thoughts about the training and
encouraged him to attend. “I heard about it through other principals [who said] that
this is a good program; you should go and take the coursework.”
The introductory welcoming packet that Mr. Adams received from Mr. Davis
solidified his positive attitude and expectations regarding PIL training, mainly
because of the preview it gave him about specific reading material and thus,
presumably the kinds of topics they would cover. “Just the book The World is
Flat,… I’m really looking forward to it because if that’s gonna be the base it’s gonna
help me grow into the twenty-first century as an administrator…”
118
The data collected during the interview with Tom Davis, the Region Site
Coordinator indicated the participants in PIL training generally have had positive
attitudes about it. Additionally, his interview data indicated that the participants
expected to benefit from the training and thus continue to attend sessions.
Case Study School: James Lopel School
Context: The Surrounding Community
The drive to James Lopel School is quite scenic. While it is within the city
limits and part of the school district that governs this large urban city’s schools, I feel
almost transported to a different place and time as I navigate my way along a long
winding road, with the river on my left and a hillside of trees on my right. This is a
recreational area; a building sports a sign that indicates it is a rowing club, and on the
river, just beyond it, indeed, I see a large group of athletes rowing. As I near the
school, the area becomes more urbane in appearance. The street is wide with
substantial looking homes, made of stone or brick, on relatively large lots.
Compared to other areas in the city, this one looks rather affluent. I drive through
this enclave and enter the area immediately surrounding the school. I notice it is less
grand; more of a middle-class, residential neighborhood. Many of the houses have
decorative elements on their exteriors; garden flags, stained glass on front door
windows, window boxes full of plants. It seems like a quiet neighborhood (one
might call it quaint) with very little activity on a weekday morning, except for that
pertaining to the school. Parents and children are seen walking about. A crossing
guard on the corner is busy ensuring safe passage of children across the street.
119
School buses stop in front of the school and drop students off, as do parents in their
automobiles.
First Impressions
James Lopel School was built in 1928 and at the time of the study still had
many of the original architectural elements in the main building, including hallways
with marble tile floors and partially marble-covered walls, hardwood floors in the
classrooms, and stairwells encased with paned, dark wood doors. The school interior
was well-lit and had a light, airy feel. It was a large facility. The original brown
brick building was three stories high and sat up from the street on a slope. A red
brick building, an obvious addition to the original structure, was just behind it. There
was no grass in sight but there was a large blacktop area and a “playground” that had
great significance in the neighborhood. The playground was a joint-use project,
designed, built and maintained by a neighborhood organization, used by the students
during the school day, and open to neighborhood families in the evening, on
weekends and when school was not in session. It had a wood-chip ground cover,
two swing sets, slides, platforms where children could engage in conversational play,
as well as triangular-shaped, traveling monkey bars. The playground area seemed
well-maintained, while the blacktop area (which was maintained by the school
district) was noticeably cracked.
The Neighborhood
The neighborhood played a major role in influencing the behaviors of the
actors in this school. It was well represented during the interviews for principal
120
when the case study principal was selected two years ago. As she explained to the
researcher, principals are simply appointed to some schools in the district, “…but
…with a neighborhood like this, really the parents would be up in arms, and the
community, if they don’t get a say in who [leads the school].” The panel that
interviewed her for the position was composed of the Regional Superintendent,
parents, and 3 teachers, one of whom was also a community member. In fact,
according to the principal, many of Lopel’s teachers at the time of the study were
also long-time members of the local community:
A lot of my teachers live in the neighborhood…Rebecca’s kids went here.
Deborah went to this school as a student and has taught here for thirty-five
years. Janet’s children went here. Liz’s children went here. A lot of my
teachers have worked here a long time. They went here. Their kids went
here. They live in the neighborhood. It is very much a family feel.
While that was the case in years past, the situation had changed by the time
of the study. Many of the students who had enrolled in recent years did not live in
the neighborhood. Over time, that phenomenon had changed the demographics of
the school, making it fit into this study’s operational definition of “urban.” The
neighborhood was ethnically diverse and middle class, but 96.1% of the students
attending the school were African American and close to 61% were on the Free and
Reduced Lunch Program. For various reasons, some neighborhood parents had
opted to send their children elsewhere.
The principal elaborated, “Charter, private, the school declined. People
didn’t want to [send their children here].” As the data analysis will indicate, this was
a critical dynamic in terms of context for Lopel.
121
Staff
At the time of the study, the principal at James Lopel School led a staff of 52.
There were 24 classroom teachers, five of whom taught Special Education classes.
They were supported by specialist teachers in art, physical education, literacy,
computers and music. Additionally, there were two pre-Kindergarten teachers, four
Student Support Assistants, who worked with Special Education students, four
noontime aides, a librarian, food service workers, a school police officer and a
teacher released from the classroom with the title “Dean of Students,” who
functioned as a de facto assistant principal.
Demographics
James Lopel served 461 Kindergarten through eighth grade students. During
the year of the study, the student body was 96.1% African American, 1.7% Latino,
1.1% White, .4% Asian, and .7% listed as Other. The percentage of students on free
and/or reduced lunch was 60.8%. Almost 16% (15.8) were in Special Education,
8.2% were identified as Mentally Gifted and .2% were English Language Learners.
Enrollment had steadily declined in recent years, from 684 students in 2003-2004 to
the 2008-2009 enrollment of 461.
Attendance and Mobility
The average daily attendance was 92.5% in 2007-2008, down from 93.1% the
previous year. In terms of mobility, 45 students enrolled during the 2007-2008
school year and 55 students withdrew.
122
Behavior
Eighty-one students were suspended in 2007-2008. Fifty were one time
suspensions; 22 of the 81 students were suspended twice; 5 of the 81 were suspended
3 times; 4 were suspended more than 3 times.
Performance Data
James Lopel met all 17 of its AYP targets on the spring 2008 PSSA. One
target was for attendance; eight were for test participation; and eight were for
academic performance – four for reading proficiency and four for math proficiency.
The reading proficiency test performance targets for the Special Education, and
Economically Disadvantaged subgroups were met via Safe Harbor. The Special
Education subgroup target in math was also met through Safe Harbor. The three
remaining math targets were met by what are called the Confidence Intervals.
Confidence Intervals control for certain sampling and mobility factors. Schools and
subgroups that are close to the performance targets can sometimes be considered to
have met the targets using the Confidence Intervals, which have been approved for
Pennsylvania by the Federal Department of Education. 95% Confidence Intervals
can be used to meet state targets and 75% Confidence Intervals can be used to gain
Safe Harbor. Reading proficiency targets for Students Overall and for the African
American subgroup were met via Safe Harbor Confidence Intervals. At the time of
the study, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) considered Lopel to be a
school that had done well on the PSSA and anticipated all of its students would be
proficient in reading and math by 2014, if the school continued to stay on track.
123
Table 11 depicts Lopel School’s 2008 PSSA proficiency percentages with
indications of changes from the previous year.
Table 11. Lopel School 2008 PSSA Disaggregated Data Percentage Proficient Two
Year Trend
Student Group
Proficient in
Reading
Change from
Previous Year
Proficient in
Math
Change from
Previous Year
Students Overall 49.1% +3.7 53.9% +6.7
African American 49.7% +4.5 54.2% +6.9
Special Education 18.2% +9.3 26.8% +11.2
Economically
Disadvantaged
46.6% +9.6 50.7% +8.7
The Principal
Stephanie Swanson was the principal at James Lopel School during the
course of this study. 2008-2009 was her second year at the school and her second
year in the principalship. Prior to being a principal, she was a middle school math
teacher and an administrative intern at a K-8 school in the same school district.
Observations found Ms. Swanson to be high-energy, extremely personable and very
outgoing. She was white, of Jewish heritage, and appeared to be in her early thirties.
Based on her interview data and informal conversations, the researcher, got the sense
that Ms. Swanson imposed very high expectations on herself. She seemed driven.
124
Research Question One
How and why do urban school principals create the conditions for social justice
in their schools?
Report of the Data
Principal’s Fall Interview Data
The principal was interviewed in the fall of 2008 and again in spring of 2009.
During the fall interview, the researcher asked the principal, What drives you to do
this work?
Ms. Swanson responded by sharing that she believed in equity, and that all
students deserved to have a quality education, as she did as a child. She also spoke
of her previous experiences as a teacher in urban schools where some of the students
did not receive quality instruction or care from their teachers:
I grew up in a situation where I went to the best schools. I was very
fortunate. When I went into education, I strongly believe in equity and I
think that all kids deserve really good people. When I taught I taught in
tough, tough neighborhoods like housing projects and whatnot and I would
look around and I would see some of the kids and I would feel badly quite
frankly that they had to sit in that school with a lot of teachers who didn’t
care.
She continued, shifting her comments to Lopel School’s AYP status and how
hard she had worked the previous year:
Last year there were many days where I felt like I was just fighting an uphill
battle… I worked harder last year that I have in anything in my life…quite
frankly I killed myself last year. All I did was work; weekends, nights,
everything.
125
The researcher followed up by asking Ms. Swanson what drove her teachers
to commit to the school’s goals. Ms. Swanson responded by saying that the teachers
had pride and relationships; that they felt like a family.
The researcher then asked the principal how she used the knowledge of what
drove the teachers to enhance student achievement.
When Ms. Swanson responded, she spoke of her expectations and what she
had said to her teachers about them:
When I talk about the family, all the family, our parents, our community-,
when a teacher’s not meeting my expectation, I say to them I have to sleep at
night and I will not sleep at night if I have a class of thirty kids not getting
what they need. It’s not fair and you wouldn’t want it for your own child.
She later said, “You have to like kids to work here.”
The researcher probed for the principal to say more about that. Ms. Swanson
elaborated and shared a conversation that she had with a teacher who placed blame
for low test scores on the students:
Once a teacher said, she blamed the kids for low benchmarks, she said well
these kids, I said I don’t ever want to hear that come from your mouth. I said
there are schools in North Philly in the housing projects that make AYP and
we didn’t so don’t ever…We do not blame the kids in this building; they are
kids.
The interview turned to the subject of setting directions. In response to the
question Tell me about how you plan to set directions for the staff this year? Ms.
Swanson said that she had a veteran staff and that they knew what they were doing.
She said that she differed from the previous principal in that she did not hold her
126
teachers to be on pace with the district’s pacing calendar. According to her, the
pacing calendar was not meant for veteran teachers to follow:
I have said to them …you are veteran teachers; that is meant for first year
teachers. I don’t care what pages. I care about the skill or the objective …I
don’t care how you do it…do it the way that’s best for you. We have the
core curriculum materials, but you know what, if you like something else-.
One teacher came to me; I’d like to do novels. Go for it, just make sure
you’re teaching…I tell them...I don’t care what is being taught, I care what is
being learned.
The researcher probed for clarification, You want them teaching standards,
teaching the core curriculum, but you’re somewhat flexible at how they get there?
Ms. Swanson clarified, saying that certain teachers did not get freedom and that she
was selective about whom she allowed to vary from the pacing. She mentioned two
teachers who had done exceptionally well on the annual standardized test. One
wanted to use novels instead of the adopted curriculum and one wanted to do a unit
on mythology. She told the researcher that she was supportive of both because one
was a fabulous teacher and the other was thorough and knew what she was doing.
The researcher posed the following question about how the principal
typically interacted with her teaching staff, If I spent a typical week here observing
your interactions with teachers on matters of instruction, curriculum and
assessment, what would I see? Ms. Swanson’s reply was that she would be seen
working with performance data, tracking students’ progress. She also spoke of the
transparency of performance data:
…I am very good with data, and I would go through and I would look at
every class and see how they did on their benchmarks. I would look at every
kid. We would track our kids who were at basic. I’ve created a graph…a
127
teacher complained to the union rep….I am transparent with data and I tell
them this is public information. I sit at a meeting and your schools are
flashed on the screen which means I’m gonna flash it for everyone here.
Quite frankly I told the union rep, you can tell her that if she doesn’t like it, I
suggest she does better on the test.
During the interview, Ms. Swanson was asked to tell the researcher about the
process for developing the school vision.
She shared that a vision had been crafted, as part of the School Improvement
Plan process, but that one of her teachers had given her an idea for a different school
vision that would attract more neighborhood families back to the school:
In our School Improvement Plan we have to have a vision and a mission.
What I did was I had them work in groups, write things that they think should
be in it and then we did like a chalk walk, check off, you know see every
group and check off what we like the best and then that’s what I made as the
vision. One thing that I spoke about with one of my teachers, down the road
[is] really changing the vision of the school. I still want it to be a
neighborhood school, but one of the ideas that she had, she kind of gave me
an idea then I expanded on it, is in this neighborhood if we can get a hook it
would bring a lot of people back. We already got sixty people back so we’re
going in the right direction.
Principal’s Spring Interview Data
In the spring, the researcher revisited the subject of the school’s vision:
About the vision, is there a process that you’ve started?
The principal’s response was, “That’s what I wrote we need improvement on
[on her self reflection for her mid-year review]. We’re not quite there yet. We have
a vision but… .”
128
Another topic in need of clarification from the fall interview was the
neighborhood and students attending the school who did not live in the attendance
area. The following is an exchange regarding that topic:
Researcher: The impression I got when I was here in the fall was that a lot of
the students here are not from the neighborhood.
Ms. Swanson: “Not any more, not as many.”
Researcher: So the ones that are not from the neighborhood, are they here on
permits?
Ms. Swanson: “They lie about their addresses and I catch them.”
Seeking further clarification the researcher asked, Has the population in the
neighborhood declined or there are charter schools, private schools? Ms. Swanson
then spoke of the fact that families in the neighborhood had not been sending their
children to Lopel, but that some had enrolled the previous year. She was pleased that
neighborhood enrollment had increased and looked forward to gaining more
neighborhood children:
Charter, private, the school declined. People didn’t want to, now we’re on
the upswing. I’ve got sixty new families last year. Now, I mean I hate to say
it, but the economy’s horrible but I’m getting a whole crew. They can’t afford
private school anymore.
The researcher was aware from the fall interviews that Ms. Swanson was
active in community organizations and inquired about her role in the external
community: If I shadowed you throughout the year would I see you working with
other organizations in advocacy for your students? Tell me a little bit about what
you do. Ms. Swanson spoke at length about the various organizations with whom
she worked as principal of the school:
129
This year I’ve been doing a lot more with churches. Friendship Church
[pseudonym] adopted us years ago. They have a new director and he has
reached out and we really have started doing stuff. We ran a canned food
drive together and any of my families who needed it got baskets… they
invited some kids over if they wanted to watch the inauguration there. We’ve
really been trying to do stuff. For example this Saturday I’m going to a
luncheon, I was invited by a community, the Neighborhood Community
Center [pseudonym]. They’re having a luncheon and then a presentation by
the mayor and it was very nice of them to invite me. I have a town watch
meeting coming up.
The researcher probed, How does that help the school? The principal replied, “It
gets new families in.” and “We’re thought of for everything.” Ms Swanson was also
asked about creating a culture of personalization for the students at Lopel, Do you
ever feel that there’s more that you have to do to ensure that everyone is nurturing?
Ms. Swanson responded by saying, “That’s not really the issue here.” That
prompted the researcher to ask, What is the issue? Ms. Swanson then mentioned
instructional rigor, “I have to ensure that the instruction’s rigorous enough.” The
researcher probed by asking the principal, What do you do to press for that? The
principal then shared that infusing rigor was challenging for her because it was
difficult to define and because she had a veteran staff. Her solution was to provide
professional development that was interesting and would automatically result in
more effective instruction for students, if teachers attempted to use the strategies
presented:
That’s what I’m struggling with. It’s hard because it’s hard to define rigor.
That’s why I’ve been trying to give them, and especially the people who have
been teaching thirty-five years, I’ve been really trying to give them
interesting PD so they can try different things in their rooms. If you did a
choice board [after receiving professional development on it] there would
automatically be differentiation [of instruction in the classroom]. With
130
veteran staff, it’s not about forcing them to do something differently, but it’s
about showing them different ways of thinking of things and maybe they can
get something out of it. It’s hard. They know how to do it, and they’re good,
and it’s trying to get someone to try something different.
The researcher asked Ms. Swanson, How often do you get out into the classrooms?
Her reply was, “I try and do everyone every week. I definitely do like a first floor
sweep one day and I go in all the rooms, second floor, I have a big facility. So I do a
floor a day, and just rotate it.”
The researcher asked Ms. Swanson about organizational structures: I’m
interested in any organizational structures that you might use to enhance student
achievement and those social justice kinds of things. To that, Ms. Swanson
discussed the various structures the school had in place. She mentioned the
Comprehensive Student Assistance Program (CSAP) process. She related it to test
scores, sharing that one of the reasons the scores were as low as they had been was
that teachers were not identifying students for assistance because there were no
structures in place for them to do so. Also, she explained that there were no
interventions in place for students even if they had been identified. Ms. Swanson
told the researcher that they addressed those issues the previous year and that at the
time of the study there were several interventions in place, including an extended day
program for students who were not proficient. At the time of the study 100 students
were in the extended day program. Ms. Swanson said she had her best teachers
teaching the extended day program and that she was very pleased with it.
131
The interview turned to the subject of performance data: Tell me about the
process your grade level teams use to work with data. Ms. Swanson responded,
saying that she had a veteran staff and that she did not want them spending time
learning how to navigate the online assessment system. As she explained, “…by the
time I train them on how to use it they’d be retiring. I don’t mind doing it…” She
said that she printed the performance data for them to use in their grade group
meetings with protocols from the school district as well as one they created at the
school.
This response caused the researcher to ask about the grade group meetings,
How are the agendas for the grade group meetings generated? Ms. Swanson
answered, sharing that the grade group meeting agendas were developed by the
leadership team each week. She stated that the topics varied from week to week and
that she was supportive of the time being used for a variety of purposes, including
making parent calls or doing paperwork:
Last week what we did was an attendance push. You know anyone who had
eight or more absences-, they had to be CSAPed and all the teachers; we
wanted them to call. You know that was last week. It was, like I said, there
doesn’t have to be talking. It can really be a working hour. If they want to
use that time to call or do whatever or to fill out the paperwork I’m fine with
that. Last cycle was attendance. The cycle before-, anyone who failed a
class period had to be CSAPed. Then with the lower grades, because it’s not
A B C D, we determined what is going to be considered failure.
Probing further about the grade group meetings, the researcher asked, Is it formal,
Informal… are there notes taken? Ms. Swanson replied, “It’s informal. I try with
that (sigh) I try to let that be their time.”
132
Ms. Swanson was asked about fostering high expectations: Tell me what
you’ve done this year to promote high expectations for student learning? She
responded by telling the researcher about a survey that had been completed by her
teachers:
You know this weekend, I got a survey back…about basically how the
teachers feel about me, it was done by Central Office. The two areas that
stuck with me that I rated really high was on trust, that they felt that they
trusted me and they could go to me and that I was a strong instructional
leader. I rated above the district average on both of those.
Ms. Swanson continued, sharing with the researcher how she was affected by
reading the survey results:
It hit me; we’ve had a lot of pressure this year. Look, the reality is my school
doesn’t, you know we made improvement. I made AYP, like no one’s
coming after me basically. I really thought about it over the weekend, I was
torturing my [troubled] grade teachers and a lot of it was my own anxiety.
I’m like oh my God we have to make AYP. I don’t want to get moved. I
don’t want this, I don’t want that. When I was putting that together this
weekend I got really depressed on Sunday. I was talking with my friend and
I said to him, you know I’m becoming the kind of principal I don’t want to
be.
The researcher probed, by asking, Which is? Ms. Swanson continued:
I don’t want this building to be a test prep. I don’t believe in that. Good
instruction is the best test prep. Last year when I worked with my staff and
we made AYP, I wasn’t killing them to make AYP. I said we just have to do
better. Let’s work together-, because we’re low. We were at like forty
percent. You know I looked at these empowerment schools [schools in
Corrective Action] and they all had higher test scores than me. I’m like we
were very low. We did it by keeping morale up and by working together and
just trying to get better, not worrying about-. I felt like I was becoming this
principal that I wouldn’t want to be. We went to this other school and I
brought my [troubled] grade. Let me tell you, you go in there and it was
impressive, but I said to the teacher, and she agreed, I wouldn’t want my
school to be like that. You go in a room, and I ask a third grader, the
principal says what are you learning-, how to analyze and interpret non-
133
fiction text. Wow. I don’t want this building to be like that and my parents
wouldn’t want it like that.
This prompted the researcher to probe further, Why do you feel you’re becoming a
principal that you don’t want to be? Ms. Swanson explained:
Because I think that I actually am someone; look you’re in a doctoral
program and so am I. I had to take a test to get in. If you want to be a police
officer you have to take a test. If you want to be a teacher, so I think there is
value in test taking skills. Whether we like it or not it’s the way of the world.
I think we can get there without only focusing on that. I just was like oh my
God, oh my God we have to make AYP. Oh my God, oh my God. (Sigh)
We just have to do better.
Teachers’ Interviews
Interviews with James Lopel School teachers were conducted in the fall of
2008. Four teachers were interviewed for the study; three as a group and one
individually. The teachers interviewed were:
• Anne Fenster – Ms. Fenster was a teacher released from the classroom.
She functioned as a pseudo-assistant principal.
• Lisa Monico – Ms. Monico taught eight grade math and seventh grade
reading. She also functioned as the school’s mathematics specialist for
all grades.
• Yvette Smith – Ms. Smith was the Special Education Resource Teacher.
• Rebecca Borden – Ms. Borden was the language arts prep teacher. As
such she relieved classroom teachers, by conducting skills lessons with
their classes, so the teachers could have a preparation time. Ms. Borden,
the science teacher, the computer teacher and the counselor worked on a
134
rotating schedule so that grade level teachers could have common
planning time. Ms. Borden also coordinated the school’s Comprehensive
Student Assistance Program (CSAP) process.
Teachers’ Fall Interview Data
The researcher asked the teachers to, Tell me about the systems that you have
available here at Lopel to address the needs of students who are not doing well
academically? Ms. Fenster shared about the various interventions that were in place:
Well we have a tutoring program along with [a philanthropic group] where
one day a week a group of students goes out and gets tutored at a local
corporation. We have volunteers from the same organization that come in
and tutor our kids one day a week. We have volunteers from a local group;
actually it’s a retirement home that come in once a week and tutor some kids.
I have a meeting tomorrow with the local seminary. They want to send some
people over to tutor our kids. So we have lots of tutoring programs.
Corrective Reading program for our first and second graders.
Ms. Smith added:
We have [name of program] that comes in to do writing instruction for grades
six through eight. That’s a local college and they’re sending out student
teachers. We have an extensive Special Education program, which probably
ten percent of Houston’s population is in special education. We also have
CSAP.
The teachers also shared that some of Lopel’s students were assisted by civic
programs. Ms. Fenster shared, “…we have our after school Power Hour program.
It’s an after school tutoring-, that’s a city wide program.”
The researcher asked them the following; Tell me what you think about the
efforts that the school makes to foster high expectations among the students and their
parents? Ms. Fenster replied: “I think more than ever Stephanie is really trying to
135
get that message out there to keep your expectations high and make the students rise
to it, and she’s pretty upset with teachers who don’t do it.”
The researcher then asked the teachers to, Tell me about how you feel about
the way instruction is monitored. Ms. Smith responded first, saying:
I think Lopel is a veteran staff… I think it’s a staff that knows what they’re
doing and is comfortable with what they’re doing. Stephanie’s like the new
kid on the block here. She goes into classrooms and she monitors and she
keeps up. I mean she has to stay on certain teachers but I would say the
majority of the building has been doing this and just kind of goes with the
flow. They know the core curriculum. They know what their kids need to
know for tests. They know what kids need to know to go to the next grade
level. They know what they’re doing.
Then, Ms. Fenster added:
Stephanie looks at lesson plans every week so she makes sure that everybody
is at least putting in their lesson plans; what they’re supposed to be doing. I
think that she has a pretty good approach about it. She trusts and expects that
people are doing what they think is best for the class. I think this year she’s
loosening up a little bit. If teachers want to come off the exact pacing, not
pacing but the exact prescripted (sic) pages that you’re supposed to be on-, if
a teacher feels that they can do a better job teaching the same concept doing
something else then she’s let you run with it this year. This year several
teachers are going back to using a lot more novels, which is something-,
when we were a whole language school years ago everybody did novels all
the time. Then we moved out of that. Some people are wanting to go back to
it.
Ms. Monico said, “I think she’s [Ms. Swanson] supportive with whatever the
teachers want to do. She just finds ways to get the materials that they, like she has
enough faith and confidence in her staff and she supports everybody.”
The teachers were asked about performance data and how it is managed: Can
you tell me how your teachers analyze data, the process they use or what they do?
136
They shared that they completed forms after the benchmark assessments and turned
them into the reading teacher, who in turn submitted them to Ms. Swanson.
The researcher asked, What role does the principal play in all of that, that
process? They said that Ms. Swanson was quite knowledgeable of how individual
students were progressing and that she used the data to determine which students to
place in intervention groups. Ms. Fenster said, “She really looks at the data when
people turn it in.” Ms. Smith added, “Yeah, she knows Below Basic kids by heart. I
mean she knows which kids she wants to put into interventions.” Ms. Borden’s
response to the same question was:
She’s got bar graphs and pie graphs, I mean eighteen thousand different ways
of showing the data … and colors. She is so good with everything. I’ve
never met anybody like her… It wasn’t that she could just do it; she could
bring it down to the level of someone who doesn’t know statistics. She’s just
terrific.
She’s incredible. She’s absolutely incredible. She’s the most incredible
principal I have ever had and I have had a lot of them…She is so energetic,
so creative, so pro-kid, pro-people, pro-staff. She’s just amazing. I mean
she’s not perfect you know, but she tries to accommodate people. She’s just
an incredible person.
The researcher asked, How do you feel about the way achievement is
monitored? Their responses were as follows:
Ms. Fenster: “You know we try to identify the kids that are achieving well,
just student of the month or honor roll assemblies-”
Ms. Smith, “The mentally gifted program.”
The researcher asked Ms. Smith and Ms. Monico about their expectations for
their students: Tell me about the expectations you have for your kids for this year.
137
Ms Smith replied, “Mine are much different. Mine are really meeting their IEP
goals, so really individual instructional goals and a lot of behavioral goals as well.”
Ms. Monico said, “I’m drawing a blank. My goals are to just follow the curriculum
and prepare the eighth grade for high school and things like that.”
When the researcher inquired about social issues, What are some of the social
issues that you experience here? the teachers began to talk about the neighborhood.
Ms. Fenster began:
It’s a very interesting neighborhood. She [Ms. Swanson] does a lot with the
neighborhood groups; a lot. She attends watch groups. I don’t know if you
had a chance to look out in the back, but we have a gorgeous playground that
the neighbors all built a few years ago and she’s on that playground
[committee]-, I don’t know she’s always running out to one neighborhood
group or another.
The interview then took on a conversational tone among the three teachers: Ms.
Monico: “I think we have a good reputation, since Stephanie’s been here. She has
an open door policy which we really like because it allows the community to be
involved.” Ms. Fenster: “So the neighborhood wants to be involved in the
school…but yet if they have younger kids they’re not sending them here.” Ms.
Smith:
We do have a couple of parents though that are really becoming vocal about
living in the neighborhood and sending your kids to the neighborhood school
and they’ve lived by that practice. We have one family; all three of their
children come here.
Ms. Fenster:
With the economy the way it is we may get more back…Then the other thing
is that because of the location of our school, being near a bus line and the
train, we had a lot of kids using bad addresses to come to our school. So it
138
almost was like at one point it wasn’t a neighborhood school. Stephanie did a
lot to get those kids out of here… So this year, more than we’ve been in a
very long time, we are more of a neighborhood school.
Ms. Smith: “There’s a lot less parent buy-in when they live ten miles from
the school and they’re not within walking distance.”
Observation Data of Principal and Organizational Culture
Observations at James Lopel School were conducted for a total of two days;
one in the fall of 2008 and one in the spring of 2009. The observation protocol used
for this study had three sections: 1.) Content – the activity, the participants; 2)
Strategies – what the participants are doing; 3.) Alignment – how the behavior
relates to the CPSEL standards.
In the fall, the researcher observed Ms. Swanson in her office. A new
seventh grade student was brought in because she was upset about having problems
with peers. Ms. Swanson counseled the girl and provided her with strategies she
could use; phrases she could say in order to have better peer relations.
Ms. Swanson was also observed meeting with Ms. Fenster. They were
strategizing about PSSA outcomes. They were observed to strategize about the kinds
of interventions they should utilize for specific grade levels. They also discussed
which students needed to be in the interventions. Some students attending Lopel for
the purpose of participating in special programs would have their PSSA scores kept
by their home schools and not factor into Lopel’s overall PSSA data. Ms. Swanson
and Ms. Fenster were determining which students would count and which would not
as they planned who to place in interventions.
139
Ms. Swanson was also observed in a Kindergarten/First Grade teachers’
grade group meeting. Ms. Swanson facilitated the meeting process. She listened and
responded as each teacher discussed students about whom they had concerns. Ms.
Swanson displayed knowledge about the personal situation of every student brought
forward as an academic concern. She was aware of family issues, health issues,
siblings, etc.
Ms. Swanson was also observed at dismissal time, in front of the school,
holding brief conversations with students about their day. She also greeted parents
who came to pick their children up from school.
In addition to the above observations of the principal, the researcher walked
through the school and made observations of organizational culture in classrooms,
hallways and in the auditorium. A copy of the school’s vision statement was posted
in the auditorium on plain, white, letter-size paper. The vision reads as follows:
The James Lopel School Family is committed to nurturing respect for one
another. Our children will be active participants in developing their potential
for personal growth, academic achievement, and technological prowess in
order to become productive citizens in the future. Honorable, High
Achieving, Educated, Students and Staff
Also, in the auditorium, two students were engaged in a beginners’ instrumental
music lesson. The teacher was demonstrating how to handle the instruments. She
acknowledged to the boys that it was initially difficult, but that they would
eventually be able to do it with their eyes closed.
Two first grade, one second grade, one fifth grade, one sixth grade and two
8
th
grade classrooms were visited. Many teachers were observed sitting at their
140
desks while students engaged in seatwork. A few classroom observations found
teachers engaged in direct instruction or in the facilitation of active learning. Test
preparation posters containing test-taking tips and test-taking strategies were
observed posted in classrooms, including in first grade.
The following observations were made in the spring:
Handwritten rosters of intervention groups listing students by name along
with their performance data and the intervention groups to which they would be
assigned were posted on a working bulletin board in the principal’s office. The
cafeteria contained bulletin boards that referenced PSSA vocabulary preparation.
The principal was observed meeting with parents, several times throughout
the day, who came to the school unannounced, to discuss issues regarding their
children. She was also observed returning telephone calls to discuss parental
concerns as well as responding to students and teachers who briefly visited her office
throughout the day.
The principal was also observed talking with a maintenance worker regarding
snow plowing the parking lot and fixing the boiler, talking with technology workers
about troubleshooting the operation of SMART Boards, meeting briefly with an
older student to discuss his role in ensuring that technology needed later that day
would work, monitoring the cafeteria line during lunch time to cover for absent
noontime aides and responding to a call for help with discipline on the upper grade
floor of the building.
141
In addition to the above, Ms. Swanson was observed coaching and directing
primary grade students’ use of the PA system during morning announcements. She
was also observed interacting with students in the cafeteria during lunch time.
Younger students (all of whom she knew by name) ran up and hugged her. Several
older students were observed having informal conversations with her.
Ms. Swanson was also observed discussing eighth grade students’ academic
achievement with them, praising them for high achievement and encouraging them
regarding their high school application process. Students were seen walking into her
office freely, unannounced, to talk with her about various issues. Finally, Ms.
Swanson was observed in a Special Education classroom, intervening with a student
who was wandering, setting the student on her lap while they watched a television
monitor with the rest of the class.
Existing Document Review
The Learning-Centered Leadership model (Murphy et al., 2006), as
previously described in this chapter was the framework for the document review.
The purpose of the document review was to confirm findings from the other three
data sets; interviews, observations, VAL-ED survey. The school accountability
report card was reviewed prior to the data collection phase of this study and provided
demographic and performance data for context.
Documents reviewed included: The Principals Performance Appraisal 2008-
2009, Benchmark Data Analysis Protocol for Principals, a school developed
benchmark protocol for Lopel’s teachers, forms that facilitated the Comprehensive
142
Student Assistance Process (CSAP), a school newsletter, a school calendar, quick
visit observation form, a letter to parents regarding the 8
th
grade service project, a
memorandum from the principal to a teacher regarding lesson plans, opening school
teacher reminders of expected behaviors, student and parent handbook, professional
development agendas, a PSSA preparation binder for teachers, and the school plan.
The PSSA binder was developed by the principal for the teachers to use in
preparation for the yearly test. It was unique for each grade level and contained test-
preparation strategies, as well as descriptors of the grade level standards that students
would be expected to master on the PSSA. Additionally it contained suggestions on
how to teach the standards as well as descriptors that teachers could use to assess
their students progress on the standards. This binder was developed by the principal
in an effort to support teachers to prepare their students to do well on PSSA and was
a reflection of her enactment of the Assessment Program dimension of the Learning-
Centered Leadership model (Murphy et al., 2006), as it aligned instruction and
assessment.
The school plan presented an action plan based on the analysis of Lopel’s
PSSA data. It contained references to the utilization of school structures similar to
data gathered from interviews and observations. The school plan also contained
several references regarding actions the principal and teachers would take to improve
student results on PSSA.
The Principal’s Performance Appraisal 2008-2009 was a mid-year self-
assessment of the principal’s progress to improve student achievement, based solely
143
on PSSA data. The areas of growth Ms. Swanson identified were similar to those in
her interview data. Specifically, in this document, she identified addressing
instructional mediocrity as a challenge. This document reflected two of the Learning-
Centered Leadership (Murphy et al., 2006) dimensions. It was attentive to teaching
and therefore reflected the Instructional Program dimension. Additionally, based
solely on PSSA data, it addressed the Assessment Program dimension regarding
monitoring assessment data and aligning instruction and assessment.
The professional development agendas referenced external partners, PSSA
instructional priorities and classroom climate. They were reflective of several of the
Learning-Centered Leadership dimensions: Communities of Learning, Social
Advocacy, and Organizational Culture (Murphy et al., 2006).
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) Survey - Fall
During the initial visitation to James Lopel, in September 2008, a lead
teacher was identified to coordinate and facilitate the administration of the VAL-ED
Survey. The lead teacher served as the reading teacher at Lopel, coordinated the
CSAP process, and based on interview data appeared to be a valued member of the
principal’s leadership team. The lead teacher willingly accepted the responsibility of
coordinating the VAL-ED administration. Subsequently, the principal stated that she
was a good choice to do so. In October, access codes and directions for
administration were provided to the lead teacher via e-mail with a follow-up
telephone call for clarification. Her plan was to take approximately 30 minutes
during a portion of a staff development day scheduled in November to administer the
144
survey to the teachers. That did not occur, however. The principal communicated to
the lead teacher and to the researcher that administering the survey during that
particular professional development day would not be possible because of a district
mandate to cover a topic that would take the entire day. The principal told the
researcher that she could not ask the teachers to extend the day to take the survey
because she would have to pay them to do so. The principal did take the survey,
however.
The data below represent Ms. Swanson’s self-assessment as indicated on
VAL-ED Form A, which she took in the late fall of 2008. The evidence sources
used by Ms. Swanson to complete the VAL-ED survey were Reports from Others –
0.00%; Personal Observations – 100%; School Documents 98.61%; and School
Projects or Activities -100%. Ms. Swanson’s VAL-ED results should be interpreted
with caution because of the limited participation rate. The results of her self-
assessment are presented on Table 12.
145
Table 12. Summaries of Core Component and Key Processes Scores for Stephanie
Swanson
Summary of Core Components Scores Summary of Key Processes Scores
Mean
Performance
Level
Percentile
Rank
Mean
Performance
Level
Percentile
Rank
High
Standards for
Student
Learning
5.00 Distinguished 99.4 Planning 5.00 Distinguished 99.4
Rigorous
Curriculum
5.00 Distinguished 99.4 Implementing 5.00 Distinguished 99.4
Quality
Instruction
5.00 Distinguished 99.4 Supporting 5.00 Distinguished 99.4
Culture of
Learning &
Professional
Behavior
5.00 Distinguished 99.4 Advocating 5.00 Distinguished 99.4
Connections to
External
Communities
5.00 Distinguished 99.4 Communicating 5.00 Distinguished 99.4
Performance
Accountability
5.00 Distinguished 99.4 Monitoring 5.00 Distinguished 99.4
Review of Instruments to Collect Data for Research Question One – Case Two
Instruments used to collect data to answer the question How and why do
urban principals create the conditions for social justice at their schools? at James
Lopel School were: two interviews with the principal, interviews with four teachers,
two days observing at the school, the principal’s VAL-ED Survey results and
document review of the school plan, The Principal’s Performance Appraisal 2008-
2009, Benchmark Data Analysis Protocol for Principals, a school developed
benchmark protocol for Lopel’s teachers, forms that facilitate the Comprehensive
Student Assistance Process (CSAP), a school newsletter, a school calendar, quick
visit observation form, a letter to parents regarding the 8
th
grade service project, a
146
memorandum from the principal to a teacher regarding lesson plans, opening school
teacher reminders of expected behaviors, student and parent handbook, professional
development agendas, and a PSSA preparation binder for teachers.
Analysis of the Data
The interview data from James Lopel School indicated that the principal was
motivated by 1.) her personal belief in equity for all children, 2.) her strong work
ethic and 3.) the inherent pressures of high-stakes performance data. Additionally,
these data indicate she had high expectations for academic achievement, which she
verbalized to the staff and admonished them when she believed their expectations for
the students were not sufficiently high. There was also an indication that while the
principal had established and maintained a warm rapport with her veteran teaching
staff, they did present a challenge for her in terms of instructional delivery. Her
opinion was that instruction was not sufficiently rigorous. As she stated in her
interview, “I have to ensure that the instruction’s rigorous enough…That’s what I’m
struggling with.” She addressed this issue by using professional development to
improve teacher practice and organizational structures to increase student
achievement. She stated, “I’ve been really trying to give them interesting PD so they
can try different things in their rooms.” She also created an extended day program
for students who were not proficient and had her best teachers teaching it.
With respect to performance data, the interview data indicated it was
influential in the principal’s decision-making. As Ms. Smith said when referring to
147
Ms. Swanson and her use of performance data, “… she knows Below Basic kids by
heart. I mean she knows which kids she wants to put into interventions.”
Additionally, Ms. Swanson was much more involved with performance data
than were her teachers. As she said when explaining why she printed the data for the
teacher grade group meetings, “…by the time I train them on how to use it they’d be
retiring.” Ms. Borden also spoke of how knowledgeable Ms. Swanson was regarding
performance data, “She’s got bar graphs and pie graphs, I mean eighteen thousand
different ways of showing the data …” The representative teachers interviewed
provided no evidence regarding their personal involvement with performance data.
The interview data also revealed an active desire and courtship to regain
more neighborhood children at James Lopel School. Those efforts were reflected in
the principal’s open door policy, as well as her active engagement in community
organizations, and her plans to change the school’s vision. Ms. Monico spoke of the
fact that the teachers liked Ms. Swanson’s open door policy because it allowed the
community to be involved. Ms. Swanson indicated in her spring interview that her
community involvement would help bring in more families. Additionally, when
sharing her thoughts about developing a new vision for the school, Ms. Swanson said
“… in this neighborhood if we can get a hook it would bring a lot of people back.”
Lastly, there is some evidence from the interview data that a nurturing
environment existed for Lopel’s students. However, while the teachers professed to
care about Lopel’s students in a familial way, there was nothing in the interview data
to suggest there was a sense of urgency regarding student achievement among the
148
teachers. When asked how achievement was monitored, Ms. Fenster said, “You
know we try to identify the kids that are achieving well, just student of the month or
honor roll assemblies”, while Ms. Monico mentioned the mentally gifted program.
None of the representative teachers interviewed spoke of monitoring students who
were not achieving.
The observation data from James Lopel School confirmed the interview data
that 1.) the students experienced a high level of personalization modeled by the
principal and enacted by most staff members, 2.) the principal’s response to high-
stakes standardized test data, involved using benchmark data and organizational
structures to address the academic achievement of low-performing students, and 3.)
classroom instruction generally lacked rigor. Observation data also suggested that a
great deal of the principal’s time was utilized in response to issues, people or
incidents that occurred unexpectedly throughout the school day. Ms. Swanson was
observed to know students by name and to have a positive rapport with them. She
was also observed using performance data to establish intervention groups. Many
students were observed to be passive in classrooms; listening to their teachers read
aloud, rather than actively learning. Many of the teachers were observed to be sitting
at their desks during instructional time. Finally, Ms. Swanson was observed to
handle maintenance, discipline and other operational issues, such as filling in for
absent cafeteria workers.
The VAL-ED data for Ms. Swanson was solely from her self-assessments
and therefore must be viewed with caution. The data was instructive, however, when
149
viewed as the principal’s self-reflection of her leadership behaviors. Some of her
self- ratings confirmed the interview data regarding her high expectations and
implementing connections to the external community. However, there were
discrepancies in Ms. Swanson’s VAL-ED Survey as it compared to the interview and
observation data. For example, Item 55 asked, “How effective is the principal at
ensuring the school promotes mechanisms for reaching families who are least
comfortable at school?” Ms. Swanson rated herself a 5 (outstanding) on this item,
but that did not confirm the interview data which suggested a lack of compassion for
families whose children attended Lopel, but did not live in the official attendance
area. “They lie about their addresses and I catch them.” Discrepancies also seemed
evident on at least two of the items in the area of Rigorous Curriculum: Items, 16
and 20 which posed the following respective questions: “How effective is the
principal at ensuring the school implements a rigorous curriculum in all classes?”
and “How effective is the principal at ensuring the school challenges faculty to teach
a rigorous curriculum to students at risk of failure?” While Ms. Swanson gave
herself the highest ratings on these two questions, she said in her spring interview
that instructional rigor was an issue with which she struggled.
Some of the data contradicted each other. For example, as noted above VAL-
ED and interview data were contradictory regarding the implementation of a rigorous
curriculum. However, the interview, observation, and existing documents data did
indicate that the principal was motivated by 1.) her personal values and beliefs, as
well as by 2.) challenges presented by her veteran staff and 3.) the high-stakes
150
accountability data. Evidence for such was found in Ms. Swanson’s interview data,
“I strongly believe in equity and I think that all kids deserve really good people.”
Teacher interview data indicated that the teachers viewed themselves as veterans
who knew what to do and that Ms. Swanson supported their curricular and
instructional decisions. As Ms. Smith stated, “I think Lopel is a veteran staff… I
think it’s a staff that knows what they’re doing and is comfortable with what they’re
doing. Stephanie’s like the new kid on the block here.” Ms. Fenster also said when
asked about the way instruction was monitored, “I think that she [Ms. Swanson] has
a pretty good approach about it. She trusts and expects that people are doing what
they think is best for the class.” Ms. Swanson’s interview data indicated she
struggled to press for rigor and attempted to offer her teachers interesting
professional development offerings, hoping that they would try something new
because veteran teachers could not be forced to implement new strategies. The
challenges of the high-stakes accountability were evident in her interview data about
PSSA, in the mid-year review document, and in the observation of her strategizing
with Ms. Fenster when planning intervention groups.
Ms. Swanson’s actions in regard to the three motivating factors involved: 1.)
maintaining a level of high personalization for Lopel’s students, in addition to 2.)
using professional development and 3) using organizational structures to improve
student achievement.
Perhaps most importantly, the data collected from James Lopel School did
not provide evidence of a clear school vision. Murphy et al. (2006) assert in the
151
Vision for Learning dimension, that principals must emphasize ambitious goals,
make the vision central to the daily work, model and communicate the vision and
monitor the enactment of the vision. A thorough analysis of the data indicated that
there was no evidence that Ms. Swanson enacted those leadership behaviors. In fact,
her interview data indicated that she was not personally committed to the school’s
stated vision and had spoken to one of her teachers about changing it. Additionally,
she shared that when she reflected on her mid-year review she recognized vision as a
weak area, “We’re not quite there yet. We have a vision but … .” Also, the teachers
did not reflect evidence of ambitious goals in their interviews. When asked about
her expectations for her students Ms. Monico could not express any and instead said,
“I’m drawing a blank. My goals are to just follow the curriculum and prepare the
eighth grade for high school and things like that.” Furthermore, when asked about
the way achievement was monitored, Ms. Fenster and Ms. Monico said that they
attempted to identify students who did well academically, but no one mentioned
monitoring the achievement of students who were not at the high end of the
achievement continuum.
Three major themes and five sub-themes emerged from the data collected at
James Lopel School. Principal’s Personal Values and Beliefs was a major theme,
with the sub-themes of Maintaining High Personalization and Expressing High
Expectations. Another major theme was Challenges from Staff and High-Stakes
Accountability. Sub-themes were Use of Data, Professional Development and
152
Organizational Structures. The third major theme was Lack of a Clear Schoolwide
Vision.
Principal’s Personal Values and Beliefs
Ms. Swanson’s fall interview data indicated she valued education and
believed that all children were entitled to a high quality education. She inherited a
school that had a high level of personalization in effect for the students and she
maintained and modeled that personalization. That was important in terms of
ensuring students were treated with care and respect, which is one of the conditions
for social justice in schools. Additionally, the principal’s and teachers’ interview
data, as well as the VAL-ED, indicated Ms. Swanson had high expectations and
expressed them to her teachers, which was also an effective leadership practice. Ms.
Swanson’s mean score on the VAL-ED’s Core Component of High Standards for
Student Learning was 5.00, which placed her on the Distinguished level.
Additionally, Ms. Swanson shared in her interview that she appealed to her teachers’
sense of pride and family when she expressed her expectations for students’ learning
to them.
Challenges from Staff and High-Stakes Accountability
While the interview and VAL-ED data confirmed Ms. Swanson’s high
expectations for student learning, the interview data did not provide evidence that
she consistently monitored and held teachers accountable for holding high
expectations. Teachers said in their interview that they knew she had high
expectations, they knew she expected them to have them, they knew she “[got]
153
upset” when they didn’t have them, but nothing in the collected data indicated that
they had a sense of urgency to uphold and act upon Ms. Swanson’s high expectations
for all of the students to achieve. In fact, Ms. Smith expressed confidence that the
veteran staff was comfortable with their practices, went with the flow and referred to
Ms. Swanson as “the new kid on the block.”
The teachers did realize the school’s reputation had changed in the new era of
high-stakes accountability. Their solution to that was not to adapt their practices but
to change the school clientele and instructional practices to be more similar to what
they were in previous years. One teacher wanted to deviate from the standards-based
curriculum to teach novels; another to teach a mythology unit.
There is evidence that the staff enlisted Ms. Swanson in their efforts, perhaps
by leading her from behind. An example of this was evident in the interview data
that revealed she supported the efforts to deviate from the adopted curriculum and
revert to using novels, as they had done in the past. Another example was in Ms.
Swanson’s interview data that revealed the idea of changing the school’s vision, to
have “a hook” that would attract more neighborhood students, originated with a
teacher. In this regard, Ms. Swanson seemed to be responding to her staff, rather
than leading them. Murphy et al. (2006) do affirm that learning-centered leaders
empower others formally and informally in running the school. From that theoretical
perspective, Ms. Swanson was enacting some learning-centered leadership behaviors
when she provided teachers with a voice regarding curricular materials. However, in
regard to school vision, Leithwood et al. (2004) assert that while it is helpful to
154
distribute some leadership behaviors throughout the organization, the responsibility
of building a shared vision should be retained by leaders in formal positions of
authority.
At the same time, there were external pressures from the school district and
the neighborhood, as well as her self-imposed pressure to increase student
achievement as evidenced by higher PSSA scores. In a direct manner, Ms. Swanson
utilized performance data and organizational structures in attempts to ensure that
students who were not proficient received the academic assistance they needed.
Indirectly, she used professional development in an effort to enhance teacher practice
and ultimately student achievement.
Lack of a Clear Vision
Lopel School had a written vision statement that was crafted by school
stakeholders. It was posted in the auditorium. However, the principal held a
different vision for the school, which she wanted to pursue. As noted above, Murphy
et al. (2006) hold that Learning-Centered leaders must emphasize ambitious goals,
monitor the enactment of the vision, make the vision central to daily work, and
model and communicate the vision. A thorough analysis of the data collected did not
provide evidence that Ms. Swanson enacted the above leadership behaviors. The
only data that reflected goals for students were interview and observation data that
confirmed Ms. Swanson and the teachers communicated goals regarding eighth
graders’ acceptance at high schools. The principal did not act in ways that promoted
and fostered practices in keeping with a strong vision of student achievement.
155
Therefore, the teachers and students did not have a clear sense of schoolwide,
classroom, or individual academic goals. The exceptions seemed to be the older
students who were applying to the various high schools. This lack of a clear vision
for the school was perhaps the greatest impediment to ensuring the conditions for
social justice were in place for the students at Lopel.
The driving factors in play regarding Stephanie Swanson’s leadership
regarding the creation of conditions for social justice at James Lopel School were the
principal’s personal values and beliefs, as well as the challenges from staff and high-
stakes accountability. Leadership practices that were enacted in response to those
forces were the maintenance of high personalization; the expression of high
expectations; the use of data and organizational structures; and the provision of
professional development. The promotion of a clear school vision was not found to
be enacted.
Research Question Two – What are principals’ expectations and attitudes
about PIL training?
Report of the Data
Principal’s Fall Interview Data
Ms. Swanson was interviewed twice about her expectations and attitudes
regarding PIL training; once in fall 2008 and again in spring 2009. As has been
noted in Chapter Three, Ms. Swanson was originally scheduled to attend the training
in the fall, but she delayed going until spring.
156
In the fall interview, Ms. Swanson was asked, How do you feel about the
upcoming training, the NISL Inspired Leader’s training?
She responded that she was not sure about how she felt about the training.
She indicated that she was also enrolled in graduate school and that she had already
had quite a bit of leadership training. As she stated:
…honestly I’m doing it as a favor because [her previous supervisor]
recommended me to do it…I think that these programs like the ALPS
program I did [are] excellent. I just did it already. I think these programs are
important, but again you never know. Maybe there will be something that
wasn’t, that I haven’t covered in any of my courses.
Principal’s Spring Interview Data
During her second interview, Ms. Swanson was asked the following about the
PIL training, How did you first hear about the program? She reiterated that her
former superintendent recommended her for it, that she did not know much about it,
but that she was looking forward to attending:
I’m actually looking forward to it. A couple of people I’m friendly with are
doing it too to the point that where we said for the last one in Keithville
[pseudonym] we’re gonna get a hotel because that’s kind of far. I was like
Keithville? And then by the time it takes we’ll get a room and we’ll do our
homework, eat dinner and do whatever. She recommended me for it but now
I got a packet already in the mail so I’m actually kind of looking forward to
it.
This prompted the researcher to inquire, What was in the packet? Ms. Swanson
replied, “The book The World is Flat, two informational packets, not heavy duty
stuff. I truly was impressed with the choices and I’m looking forward to it.”
The researcher was aware that Ms. Swanson had postponed the training, so
she asked, Is there anything about the training that concerns you? Ms. Swanson
157
mentioned her prior studies and professional experiences and shared that her concern
was that the training would be on something she already knew. She mentioned the
required reading, again, and said that she was looking forward to the training:
I was concerned quite frankly that I would be bored because I took a leave of
absence from my doctoral program this semester, also because I was
recommended for an adjunct professor position at [local college] so I’m
going in to meet with them and teach-, you know there are other things that I
wanted to try out. I was also asked to take a more active role at the regional
office with the superintendent doing some PD for principals and working on
stuff. I was worried that it would be just monotonous and repeat, because I
do a lot of course work and PD on my own, that it would just be a repeat of
what I already know. I never read The World is Flat so I’m looking forward
to it.
The principal was asked, Do you think that attending will benefit the school
in any way? To that Ms. Swanson replied, “I think anytime I meet with other people
and get new ideas it does.”
Knowing that the training content had been aligned to the state’s leadership
standards, the researcher wanted to know if there would also be alignment between
what the principal would be exposed to at the PIL training and the information she
received via the principals’ meetings she attended. The researcher asked:
The course that you’re going to take is aligned to some of the Pennsylvania
Leadership Standards and I’m curious about how that aligns to what you’ve
been discussing at principals’ meetings? Do you spend a lot of time on the
Pennsylvania Leadership Standards?
Ms. Swanson shared the PA leadership standards were not discussed at her
principals’ meetings but that she had been attending a district leadership module for
new principals in which the ISLLC standards were addressed. She told the
158
researcher about that training module and shared the nature of the principals’
meetings, as well:
It’s for beginning principals, their first couple of years. It’s an evidenced-
based leadership and we use the ISLLC standards to guide exactly what
we’re doing. That is very specific. Regional meetings tend to be more
specific to what’s going on-, just we need to get this done, we need to get that
done, let’s review the School Improvement Plan, you know more nuts and
bolts things.
PDE Site Region Coordinator’s Interview Data
Tom Davis had unique insight on the participants’ attitudes and expectations
regarding the training because he had been involved in it since its inception. During
his interview, he was asked about the principals he had encountered in the PIL
trainings he had coordinated, Do you have any insight as to what their expectations
and attitudes are? Mr. Davis responded:
In my communication with them privately, in things that I see and hear
before the session begins in the morning-, we get a number of early arrivers
and sometimes they’ll talk to me about what we did last time we tried that
and those kinds of things. I generally have seen our participants as anxious to
experience this, interested in experiencing this, wanting to know more and
see things a little bit differently. I find them eager in that respect. There is a
subset, because of the requirement, who are here against their will.
[However, with the newer principals] I find an eagerness and an idealism
there that seems to be voluntary even though they’re fulfilling requirements
too. It almost has a voluntary quality to it.
Analysis of the Data
Clark and Estes (2002) hold that there are three facets of motivated
performance in the workplace: Active Choice, Persistence and Mental Effort. Active
Choice involves doing something to actively pursue a goal even if the goal was
159
selected by another person, as was the case with Ms. Swanson whose former
supervisor recommended that she take PIL training. Persistence refers to one’s
continued pursuit of a goal, even if distractions exist. Mental Effort refers to the
amount of mental effort one invests in a goal, and can be affected by one’s level of
confidence.
Ms. Swanson’s interview data seemed to indicate that active choice regarding
participating in PIL training was not in place for Ms. Swanson at the beginning of
this study. In the fall, she told the researcher that she was going to the training as a
favor to her former supervisor. She had not done anything in pursuit of the goal that
had been made for her, however. In fact, she did the inverse, by delaying her
participation. She made an active choice regarding the training sometime between
the fall and spring interviews, as evidenced by the fact that during the spring
interview, she told the researcher she was looking forward to it and most importantly
had made plans for it; lodging, doing homework, going to dinner, etc.
While she was loyal to her former supervisor, Ms. Swanson did not actively
pursue the PIL training until after she came to believe it might be enjoyable because
she would have a social support network there. As she said, “…I’m actually looking
forward to it. A couple of people I’m friendly with are doing it too… we’ll get a
room and we’ll do our homework, eat dinner and do whatever.” Additionally, she
was curious and seemed to be somewhat hopeful that the training would be
intellectually stimulating, which was an important factor for her. “I never read The
World is Flat so I’m looking forward to it."
160
Whether she would persist and expend sufficient mental effort while in the
training could not be determined at the time of this study. At the time of her spring
interview, however, prior to beginning the training, it appeared from the data that
Ms. Swanson was cautiously optimistic in her attitude regarding PIL training and
that her expectations about it remained vague. She did expect to gain something,
“…meet with other people…get new ideas.” However, it appeared that even she was
not clear on exactly what that would be.
Cross-Case Analysis
Given the operational definition of social justice and based on the data
presented in these two cases, it appeared that Ben Adams had created conditions for
social justice at Wesley Sinclair School through the enactment of his moral purpose
and the development and implementation of a strong vision. Additionally, the data
suggested that while high personalization, which is an important component of social
justice, was in effect at James Lopel School, Stephanie Swanson had more work to
do in order to solidify a socially just learning environment for the students there.
It might be instructive to begin with the similarities between the leadership of
the two case school principals. While they had different leadership styles, both
principals had either established and/or maintained a high level of personalization for
the students at their schools. In their conceptual foundation for Learning-Centered
Leadership, Murphy et al., (2006) describe high personalization as the condition in
which all students are well-known, cared for, feel valued and feel important.
Murphy (2006) and his colleagues also posit that a high level of personalization is an
161
important aspect of school culture. Another similarity between Mr. Adams and Ms.
Swanson is that both principals were motivated by their values and beliefs, which
provided a moral purpose for them to engage in the challenging work of the urban
principalship. This is also reflective of Learning-Centered Leadership which holds
that effective leaders are more cognizant of their personal values and beliefs than are
others and thus are driven by professional ethics (Murphy et al., 2006). Additionally,
Mr. Adams and Ms. Swanson both had high expectations for student learning. Both
also made use of performance data to further their efforts to increase student
achievement. Leithwood (2004) reminds us that effective leaders use organizational
structures to facilitate the work. Instructively, the data indicated that both Mr.
Adams and Ms. Swanson had redesigned their schools, to some degree, through the
use of organizational structures that allowed for teacher collaboration and student
interventions.
The differences between the two leaders might best be viewed through the
lenses of transformational leadership, instructional leadership and learning-centered
leadership. Leadership involves influence and goal attainment (Northouse, 2007).
Mr. Adams and Ms. Swanson had influence among their teachers, but Ms. Swanson
had not established clear goals for her staff to reach. In the vacuum that developed
as a result of her not establishing clear goals, her staff had established its own goal of
changing the school back to the way it was in years past, both in terms of the
clientele and the curriculum. Their goal was not related to improving the
achievement of the clientele they were responsible for serving at the time of the
162
study. At that time, less than 50% (49.1%) of Lopel’s students were proficient in
reading and just over 50% (53.9%) were proficient in mathematics. They were
interested in bringing more neighborhood children back to the school, who
presumably – based on their prior experience with the neighborhood children –
performed at higher achievement levels and did not have the same pressing need for
instructional rigor.
Transformational Leadership Theory
Transformational leadership as postulated by House (1976) and Burns
(1978), holds that the leader taps into the followers’ values, emotions, and motives to
reach established goals. The fact that clear goals had not been established at Lopel,
precluded the effectiveness of Ms. Swanson’s appeals to teachers’ sense of family to
work toward increasing student achievement. Bass (1999) goes further and posits
that leaders influence others to reach high expectations by raising their levels of
consciousness about the importance and value of organizational goals. Again,
because there were no clear goals in place at Lopel, the teachers had not developed a
sense of urgency about the need to increase student achievement, as those at Sinclair
had done.
Instructional Leadership Theory
We recall from Chapter Two that instructional leadership focuses on the core
technology of schools – teaching and learning. It involves defining the school’s
mission, managing the instructional program and promoting a positive climate
(Leithwood, 2005). While Ms. Swanson had regained a positive climate at Lopel,
163
she had not facilitated the establishment of a common mission. The data also
revealed that the instructional program at Lopel was not tightly managed, possibly
because so much of Ms. Swanon’s time was spent on operational issues such as
discipline and maintenance, whereas Mr. Adams spent the lion’s share of his time on
instructional issues – either in classrooms or meeting with teachers.
Learning-Centered Leadership Model
Finally, Murphy et al. (2006) hold that vision for learning is the key
dimension in educational leadership in their Learning-Centered Leadership Model.
Everything else follows. Goals are developed in pursuit of the vision. Expectations
are held up in the act of attaining the vision. Therefore, the lack of a clearly defined
vision was what prevented the conditions for social justice to take root at Lopel,
because Ms. Swanson’s other leadership qualities were not grounded by a purpose
that was known, held and sought after by her staff and students.
Figure 4 depicts the similarities and differences of the two principals in this
study.
164
Figure 4. Factors Involved in the Creation of Conditions for Social Justice at
Sinclair and Lopel Schools
Ben Adams
Wesley Sinclair School
Established clear goals for
student achievement: 75%-
100% proficient in reading
and math
Used progress on goals to
establish a sense of urgency
and fulfillment, which
motivated teachers and
students
Spent most of his time
managing the instructional
program
Actively promoted the
school’s vision
Stephanie Swanson
James Lopel School
Wanted achievement to
“just get better”
Teachers did not have a
sense of urgency
regarding student
achievement
Instructional program
lacked rigor
Spent a great deal of time
on organizational issues
Did not have a shared
vision to use as a guide for
staff and students
Moral
Purpose
High
Expectations
High
Personalization
Organizational
Structures
Data
165
Research Question Three
How is the PIL executive leadership curriculum designed and delivered to build the
capacity of urban school principals?
Research Question Three focuses on the training component of the
Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Initiative (PIL). Specifically, Question Three is
inquiring about factors of the training that address the leadership capacity building of
urban principals as they are aligned with the Pennsylvania Leadership Standards and
the Learning-Centered Leadership model of Murphy et al.(2006). The framework
for Research Question Three is derived from the findings on what exemplary
programs do in the leadership development study conducted by Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr and Cohen, in collaboration with Barber, Dailey, Davis,
Flessa, Murphy, Pecheone, and Tushnet (2007). Data collected to answer Research
Question Three consisted of an interview with a Pennsylvania Department of
Education Inspired Leadership Initiative Regional Site Coordinator, observation of
PIL training, and PIL training documents.
PIL Training – Background
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has two legislative acts that are relevant
to this study. Act 48 of 1999 required all certified educators to complete 180 hours
of continuing education every five years, effective July 1, 2000. Act 45 of 2007
requires principals and assistant or vice principals hired on or after January 1, 2008
to complete the Principals’ Induction Program within their first five years of
employment. The Principals’ Induction Program includes NISL/PIL programming as
166
well as a mentor. The mentors are assigned in the first year of participation in the
program. Act 45 also requires principals, assistant or vice principals, and other
system leaders to complete their 180 Act 48 hours of continuing education in PIL or
PIL approved courses, every five years.
The Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders Initiative training is conducted through
the eight regions throughout the state. The content of the training is the National
Institute for School Leadership (NISL) curriculum, which is composed of four
courses. Pennsylvania has aligned the NISL curriculum to its state leadership
standards, which in theory makes the training valuable to the application of
principals’ enactment of the standards. The curriculum is designed to be taken in
sequence: Course #1, followed by Course #2, Course #3, then Course #4. However,
state requirements only apply to Courses 1 and 4. Courses 2 and 3 are optional for
all administrators, even those in the Induction Program. Principals in the Induction
Program must take Courses 1 and 4, however. NISL is optional for those not in the
Induction Program. However, they may take the NISL training for the mandatory
Act 48 continuing education hours they must accrue every five years; many do.
Therefore, a typical PIL/NISL training cadre is composed of novice and veteran
administrators, ranging from assistant principals to high level district administrators.
Most participants, however, are site principals. Each PIL/NISL training is
coordinated by a PDE Region Site Coordinator. Two NISL trainers (referred to as
facilitators) work in concert to conduct each unit. Most NISL units last 2 days.
167
While the PDE has aligned the NISL curriculum to the Pennsylvania
Leadership Standards, it also addresses Murphy et al.’s (2006) eight Learning-
Centered Leadership dimensions. NISL Course#1 World-Class Schooling: Vision
and Goals addresses the PA Leadership Core Standards 1 and 2, and Corollary
Standards 3 and 5, which pertain to organizational vision, standards-based systems
and advocating for children. These standards are also aligned to the Learning-
Centered Leadership dimensions of Vision for Learning, Curricular Program and
Social Advocacy.
NISL Course#2 Focusing on Teaching and Learning is aligned to PA
Corollary Standards 1, 2, and 6, which address a culture of teaching and learning,
managing resources and professional growth. They are also aligned to the Learning-
Centered Leadership Dimensions of Instructional Program, Curricular Program,
Organizational Culture, Resource Allocation and Use, Communities of Learning, and
Vision for Learning.
NISL Course#3 Developing Capacity and Commitment is aligned to PA
Corollary Standards 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 which address a culture of teaching and
learning, collaborating with others inside and outside of the organization, equity,
advocating for children, and professional growth. They are also aligned to Murphy
et al.’s (2006) Organizational Culture, Vision for Learning and Social Advocacy
dimensions.
NISL Course#4 Driving for Results aligns to PA Core Standards 2 and 3, and
PA Corollary Standard 2. They address standards-based systems, data-based
168
decision-making and managing resources. The Learning-Centered Leadership
dimensions of Instructional Program, Curricular Program, Organizational Culture,
Vision for Learning, Communities of Learning, Assessment Program and Resource
Allocation and Use align to them as well.
Table 13 presents an alignment of the NISL courses, the Pennsylvania
Leadership Standards, and Murphy et al.’s Learning-Centered Leadership
Dimensions (2006).
169
Table 13. Alignment of NISL Courses, Pennsylvania Leadership Standards and
Learning-Centered Leadership Dimensions
NISL Course PA Leadership Standards Addressed
Learning-Centered
Leadership
Dimensions
Addressed
Course #1 – World-
Class Schooling:
Vision and Goals:
Unit 1 – The
Educational
Challenge
Unit 2 – Principal as
Strategic Thinker
Unit 3 – Elements of
Standards-Based
Instructional
Systems and School
Design
Unit 4 –Foundations
of Effective
Learning
Core Standards #1 & 2:
• The knowledge and skills to think and plan
strategically to create an organizational
vision around personalized student success.
• An understanding of standards-based
systems theory and design and the ability
to transfer that knowledge to the school or
system leader’s job as the architect of
standards-based reform in the school.
Corollary Standards #3 & 5:
• Collaborating, communicating, engaging
and empowering others inside and outside
of the organization to pursue excellence in
learning. Advocating for children and
public education in the larger political,
social, economic, legal and cultural
context.
Vision for Learning
Social Advocacy
Curricular
Program
Course #2 –
Focusing on
Teaching and
Learning:
Unit 5 – Leading for
Excellence in
Literacy
Unit 6 – Leading for
Excellence in Math
Unit 7 – Leading for
Excellence in
Science
Unit 8 – Promoting
Professional
Learning and Phase
I Simulation
Corollary Standards #1, 2, & 6:
• Creating a culture of teaching and learning
with an emphasis on learning.
• Managing resources for effective results.
• Supporting professional growth of self and
others through practice and inquiry.
Instructional
Program
Curricular
Program
Organizational
Culture
Resource
Allocation and Use
Communities of
Learning
Vision for Learning
170
Table 13, continued
Course #3 –
Developing Capacity
and Commitment:
Unit 9 – Principal As
Instructional Leader
and Team Builder
Unit 10 – Principal As
Ethical Leader
Corollary Standards #1, 3, 4, 5, 6:
• Creating a culture of teaching and learning
with an emphasis on learning.
• Collaborating, communicating, engaging
and empowering others inside and outside of
the organization to pursue excellence in
learning.
• Operating in a fair and equitable manner
with personal and professional integrity.
• Advocating for children and public
education in the larger political, social,
economic, legal and cultural context.
• Supporting professional growth of self and
others through practice and inquiry.
Organizational
Culture
Vision for
Learning
Social Advocacy
Course #4 – Driving
for Results:
Unit 11 – Driving for
Change
Unit 12 – Leading for
Results
Unit 13 – Culminating
Simulation
Core Standards #2 & 3:
• An understanding of standards-based
systems theory and design and the ability to
transfer that knowledge to the school or
system leader’s job as the architect of
standards-based reform in the school.
• The ability to access and use appropriate
data to inform decision-making at all levels
of the system.
Corollary Standard #2:
• Managing resources for effective results.
Instructional
Program
Curricular
Program
Organizational
Culture
Vision for
Learning
Communities of
Learning
Assessment
Program
Resource
Allocation and
Use
171
Instruments to Collect Data for Research Question Three
Instruments used to collect data for Research Question Three included an
interview with the Region Site Coordinator, observations of PIL/NISL Course #1
Unit 4 training, an Overview of NISL units, topics and themes, the Course #1 Unit 4
Participant’s Handbook materials and the region site coordinator’s debriefing
summaries of the Unit 4 training days.
Report of the Data
Interview Data
The interview conducted to explore PIL training was with Tom Davis,
Region Site Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Department of Education. He
coordinated the PIL training for one of the eight regions in the state. Mr. Davis
retired from the public school system after 33 years, 17 of which were as a principal.
After retiring, he taught college courses until he was encouraged to return as a region
site coordinator focusing on the PIL initiative. The interview was held at the
conclusion of a PIL/NISL training day.
The researcher asked Mr. Davis, When you think about the principals who
participate in this PIL training, what do you intend for them to gain as a result of
going through this? He responded that the intention of the training was to provide
participants with information that broadened their perspectives. He also discussed
the fact that the participants learned from each other and spoke of the value of the
training videos that are used:
172
…I would guess that we do a couple of things. We do provide additional
information. They do learn from each other which I think is hugely
important. When we do this well people I think walk away and say I never
thought about it that way before. I never thought I had the power to do that.
We show an extremely powerful video in the first unit about a principal who
took on some pretty major change in an assignment that she had and I think
everybody could identify with it. They said wow I really could do a number
of those things. I never really thought about my capacity to do something
like that, but yes it’s within my preserve, and more than that I should. I really
should. So I guess its beliefs, its information, all of those things at once.
Mr. Davis was asked, What’s different about this approach than the
approach that they did have at the university when they were working on their
certification? In answering this question, he spoke of the value of in-service training
in regard to participants being able to apply what they learn. He also spoke of the
PIL/NISL methodology, which used content as a vehicle for capacity building:
The fact that they’re doing it simultaneously with work I think is hugely
important because it makes the application connection of things
vibrant…with the pre-service They can’t see what’s coming… until you live
it I don’t think you can connect it…. Also …I think there’s a tendency for
them [college and university course] to be information bound. That’s
important…There is a need for that information, but as opposed to the
methodology that is used here where content is a vehicle, it’s not an end in
itself, I think that’s probably a good feature of it too.
During the interview, the researcher and Mr. Davis discussed the
requirements for the training facilitators, the NISL content, and the cohort nature of
the training. The researcher then asked Mr. Davis, Do you feel that the participants
gain support from hearing and talking to their colleagues about handling
challenging issues? Mr. Davis’ response addressed the peer network inherent in the
training, as well as the training content and tools the participants had available to
them in their handbooks:
173
They have each other; this network. I remember when we were doing the
Elements of Standards Based Instruction last time, five weeks ago here, and
we were talking about safety nets and one of the principals just stood up and
said this is my safety net. The network that they build here I think is really
important. I think the content itself gives them tools and entry points-. They
look at it as an insoluble problem and then all of a sudden somebody opened
the door a little bit and said you know you can kind of sidle into that this way
without having the door slammed in your face. You might be able to get
through and begin to make a dent there. We talk about improvement
opportunities and we say you can’t do it all. Pick an improvement
opportunity and then refine it. Here are some tools that you can use. The
participants’ handbook for almost every unit gives them tools that they can
take back and use with their faculty.
The interview turned to the topic of how PIL training addressed the unique
needs of urban principals. Mr. Davis was asked, When PIL training was first
conceptualized what were the thoughts about how it could be uniquely suited to
principals of urban schools? His response addressed the unique geography of the
state and the universal nature of some leadership issues:
Pennsylvania is a somewhat unique state …We have a very large rural
population and then concentrations of urban populations so it’s complicated a
little bit in that respect.
And I think the belief too that the kind of leadership issues that we’re dealing
with are not isolated to urban areas or suburban areas or rural areas, that
they’re really issues that cut across all.
Observation Data
In collecting qualitative data for this study, the researcher observed two
consecutive days of PIL training. The content of the observed training was Unit 4 of
NISL Course #1. Unit 4 is the last unit in Course #1 and serves as a transition
between Courses #1 and #2. The content and engagement exercises in Course #1
are focused on the role of the principal in a comprehensive sense: challenges, goals,
174
strategic thinking and standards-based systems are general topics. Course #2 covers
the principal’s role in specific instructional areas: literacy, mathematics and science.
Its focus is on what happens in the classroom and the principal’s role in that regard.
Unit 4 of Course #1, then, bridges those two spheres of knowledge by bringing into
focus for the participants the foundations of effective learning, through an in-depth
engagement in the principles of learning, teaching and curriculum.
The observed training was held in a former elementary school that had been
transformed into a training facility. It was a familiar setting for school
administrators: large windowed classrooms converted into training rooms, and
hallways containing boards decorated with pictures and artifacts from schools,
captioned by inspirational quotes from a variety of leaders in the educational field.
The participants had been attending training there two days each month for the four
months immediately preceding the sessions observed by the researcher, so even
though they came from a vast array of school districts, they had become cohort
members of a course and the observations indicated they respected each others’
insights and enjoyed one another’s company.
The first day of the training began with reflective journal writing and table
discussions regarding participants’ journal entries from the previous session. Mr.
Davis, the region site coordinator, directed this activity. All of the participants,
approximately 28, each with a NISL carry-all bag and a three-inch, three-ring binder
entitled “NISL Course One Participant’s Handbook”, were observed to be engaged.
The discussion was followed by a brief role play enacted by Mr. Davis and one of
175
the participants, a seasoned high school principal. The role play was a portrayal of a
conference between a principal and a teacher about the teacher’s instruction and was
met with some laughter by the participants who seemed to personally relate to the
experience. Mr. Davis then debriefed the participants and made connections
between the role play and their journal writing. One participant responded. Mr.
Davis probed. Others responded, sharing their thoughts and personal experiences.
The purpose of the role play was to open up the day and to focus the participants on
the unit’s learning objectives which were written on the agenda: “Upon completion
of this unit, the principal will know or be able to do the following: Discuss the
knowledge base underpinning effective learning in schools. Identify the implications
of the knowledge base for improving learning in schools.”
After referring to the agenda, Mr. Davis introduced the two training
facilitators for Unit 4. PIL has a number of trainers who pair up to conduct the
training units. Some trainers “specialize” in specific units. Therefore, participants
do not always have the same two trainers throughout a course. That was the case in
the training observed for this study. The two trainers for Unit 4 were known to Mr.
Davis, but were new to the group of participants. The trainers engaged the group in
an introduction activity which was non-threatening, expedient, and provided the
participants to learn a little more about each other, as the facilitators learned a little
about them. The facilitators also introduced themselves and made connections with
the participants by sharing the fact that they both had principal experience.
176
Mentioning adult learning theory, they also stated that their role was to facilitate the
learning experience of the participants and not to lecture them.
What followed was a varied approach to engaging the participants in the
Principles of Learning, the Principles of Teaching, and the Principles of Curriculum.
The remainder of the morning entailed table discussions on thought provoking
questions posed by the facilitators, whole group discussions, video clips viewed with
pre-explained viewing guides, reflective journal writing, and a group activity in
which the participants made creative expressions of the Principles of Learning. The
delivery of the curriculum described above, embodied two of the common features
Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) identified in their study of exemplary leadership
development programs. The discussions and group activities fostered peer
networking, which Darling-Hammond (2007) and her colleagues found to be a
common feature of exemplary programs. Also, the reflective journal writing
provided the participants with an opportunity to reflect on their leadership practice,
which was another common feature found in Darling-Hammond et al.’s study
(2007).
Several training factors of curriculum and delivery were notable during the
above mentioned session. The facilitators helped the participants make connections
to prior learnings, their roles and responsibilities as principals, the Pennsylvania
Leadership Standards and in particular the day’s learning objectives. This strategy
was reflective of the common feature of combined theory and practice that Darling-
Hammond et al. found to be inherent in the exemplary programs they studied (2007).
177
The sequencing of the learning activities was also instructive. The participants had
opportunities to internalize the content through discussions and journal writing prior
to engaging in the group presentation activity. These opportunities to reflect, with
peers and via journal writing, also incorporated Darling-Hammond et al.’s (2007)
finding that exemplary leadership development programs provided opportunities for
active reflection. The participants, themselves, were skillful conversationalists, very
open in expressing their thoughts, experiences and challenging issues they
encountered at their schools. The format presented ample opportunities for them to
listen to, reflect upon, and perhaps learn from one another. There seemed to be
integrity in terms of valuing the comments of others. Participants acknowledged
what others offered prior to offering a different perspective. Lastly, participants
were observed to be earnest and thoughtful in their reflective journal writing. They
were observed to utilize the time given and were focused intently on their writing.
An important aspect of the training was the quality of the facilitators, who
seemed very knowledgeable, not just of the content but of the underlying challenges
of a principalship. For example, one of the facilitators led a discussion about the
importance of courage as it applies to the sometimes difficult work of responding to
ineffective teachers. Additionally, he encouraged the participants by linking the
content of the unit to their application of it when they returned to their buildings,
telling them that it would not be easy, but infusing the ethical obligation of doing
what is best for children. This was supportive to the participants and reflective of the
178
Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) finding that exemplary inservice programs also
provided supports.
The afternoon was also engaging for the participants. It began with
information presented on the principles of teaching, followed by discussion, a brief
video clip regarding Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, a review of a Peter
Hill article on focused teaching, more discussion, references to a tool in the
participant’s handbook and a group activity completing a graphic organizer from the
handbook. References to the Pennsylvania Leadership Standards were made by the
facilitator throughout the afternoon. This was reflective of the alignment of the NISL
curriculum to the PA Core and Corollary Standards. At the end of the day, reading
Chapters 1, 5, and 6 of The Teaching Gap by James Stigler and James Hiebert, was
also assigned as homework. The participants were assigned pre-session work, some
of which was accessed online, prior to each unit, as well.
The second day of the training was similar in format to the first. Notable
observations included a discussion about the ethical obligation for principals to
become instructional leaders and address the variance in the class effects
phenomenon. In addition to being supportive of the Learning-Centered Leadership
dimension of Vision for Learning (Murphy et al., 2006), emphasis on the ethics
involved in the class effects phenomenon also addressed the social justice theme of
equity (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005). After discussions like these, there
was always a return to the purpose and application of the content. There was also a
group activity designed to provide the participants with opportunities to discuss the
179
reading assignment from the previous day’s homework. Additionally, participants
completed a self-assessment on the current and desired states of their schools in
regard to the principles addressed in the unit. The self-assessment was one of many
tools contained in their participant’s handbooks, which they were encouraged to use
with their teachers. Participants also viewed segments of Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TMSS) lessons, videotaped in Japan and the United
States, using observation sheets upon which they noted any of the 13 principles
addressed in the unit. Again, they discussed their thoughts in table groups as well as
in the large group. The participants received approximately one hour of concentrated
quiet time to work on completing a matrix on principles from the unit. The matrix
was specifically geared to the application of the learnings from the two day training;
what they would look for at their school sites and what they would ask teachers
about. Some of the participants worked on this individually. Most worked
cooperatively in quiet table groups. The training session ended with a journal
assignment, information about resources, and the distribution of certificates of
completion from the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
Document Review
Documents collected and reviewed to answer this question included: The
National Institute for School Leadership Overview of Units, Topics and Themes;
items from the NISL Course One Participant’s Handbook for Unit 4, and the region
site coordinator’s debriefing summary of Unit 4 which included summaries of the
daily program evaluation feedback.
180
The NISL Overview confirmed the interview and observation data that the
training curriculum contained content that was comprehensive and relevant to the
issues principals encounter in their schools.
The Unit 4 Participant’s Handbook materials provided a very detailed
account of the training content and processes. The pages in the handbook were
observed to be utilized by the participants as workshop handouts. They followed the
agenda carefully and had a space provided for notes. In that regard, the handbook
data confirmed the interview and observation data that the training content contained
theory, opportunities for reflection, opportunities to work with peers, and tools
participants could utilize at their schools to apply the content. A supplemental
readings list was also included in the handbook. Additionally, the handout referred
to the pre-session, computer-based work the participants were expected to complete
prior to each training day.
The Daily Program Evaluation Feedback summaries of Unit 4 training days
also confirmed the relevancy and applicability of the content. Ninety-three percent
of the participants responded that they would be able to use what they learned on
Day One of the training in practice at their schools. The response on Day Two to the
same question was 94%. The interview and observation data regarding the
effectiveness of the training facilitators were also confirmed in the feedback data.
On Days One and Two respectively, 93% and 97% responded favorably that the
instructors facilitated effective sessions that advanced their learning.
181
Analysis of the Data
The data collected for Research Question Three indicated that the PIL
executive leadership curriculum is designed and delivered to build the capacity of
practicing urban principals. First, the content is research-based and relevant to many
of the issues urban principals encounter, such as low expectations for poor and
minority students and the importance of principals having moral purpose for the
work. Secondly, it provides the participants with valuable opportunities to reflect on
the content in relation to their particular schools. Thirdly, it provides tools principals
can utilize with their teachers in the application of the content. An additional
strength of the training is that the facilitators are experienced principals who can
readily connect with and coach the participants because of their shared experiences.
Lastly, the collegiality of the training provides the participants with a supportive
safety net.
Additionally, Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) found that using mature and
retired principals as mentors was also a feature some districts used to provide support
to principals. While mentors were not featured at the two-day PIL/NISL training, the
principals in the Induction Program were assigned mentors who would provide
support to them as they returned to their schools to apply the lessons learned at the
training.
The training elements cited above are congruent with three of the four factors
of effective inservice programs Darling Hammond et al. (2007) found in their
landmark study on principal development programs. Their study found that
182
exemplary programs contained the following elements which the current study’s data
indicated were present in PIL/NISL training:
• combined theory and practice
• offered opportunities for participants to actively reflect on leadership
experiences, and
• fostered peer networking
Based on the data collected, and its analysis using the Darling Hammond et al.
framework, the NISL content, the opportunities for reflection, the built in application
component, and the collegial nature of the cohort training are design and delivery
factors that have the potential to build the capacity of principals, including urban
principals, participating in PIL training.
Discussion of the Findings
The two cases in this study presented insight about why and how conditions
for social justice are created in schools by exploring the motivating factors that guide
principals, as well as the specific leadership behaviors they employ to improve
academic achievement for all students while making sure all students thrive in a
caring, dignified environment. The study focused upon the case of Benjamin Adams
whose focused resolve and moral purpose enabled him to make changes in his
school’s culture that resulted in a more nurturing environment for Wesley Sinclair
School’s students, in which achievement gains were consistently made on each
benchmark assessment. The study also focused upon the case of Stephanie Swanson,
whose school was in a very different sector of the same city as Mr. Adams’, but
183
nevertheless had achievement indicators that did not markedly differ from his. Mr.
Adams’ school seemed to be on the right track, while the prognosis for Ms.
Swanson’s school was unclear. It was clear however that the conditions for social
justice were not firmly in place at Lopel.
Questions arise about the findings of these two cases: Why was Mr. Adams’
school clearly moving forward and why were we not clear about the direction Ms.
Swanson’s school was taking? Would the state’s training program provide
additional growth for Mr. Adams and an effective intervention for Ms. Swanson? If
so, would she benefit from it?
The leadership theories of transformational leadership, instructional
leadership and the learning-centered leadership model provided answers to one of the
questions. The clear vision that Mr. Adams promoted provided him with an anchor
upon which to ground his appeals to his staff’s values, emotions, and motives. Ms.
Swanson’s teachers had values, emotions and motives, too, but they were not
working in concert for the benefit of the students because there was no clear vision to
guide them. Many of the scholars reviewed in Chapter Two of this study cited vision
as being perhaps the most critical factor of school leadership.
Regarding the answer to the question on training, the state’s training
program, PIL using the NISL curriculum, provides its participants with knowledge,
strategies and tools they can use to create, promote and protect a strong vision in
their schools. The program has components that have been identified by Darling
Hammond et al. (2007) as being effective and present in exemplary principal
184
development programs. So, the potential for Mr. Adams to strengthen his leadership
skills and for Ms. Swanson to reflect upon and build her capacity to ensure that all of
the students in her school have the opportunity to learn was there, at the time of this
study.
That leaves the researcher and the reader with the question – would they
benefit from the training? We have studied their expectations and attitudes through
the lens of Clark and Estes’ (2002) model on motivation. We know through Clark
and Estes that the desire to be effective is primary in terms of motivation. Mr.
Adams and Ms. Swanson have moral purpose and are both high achievers. They
want to do well. Clark and Estes’ model is instructive in regard to the phenomenon
of confidence. One’s confidence level is a factor in how much mental effort he or
she expends toward a performance goal (2002). There is some evidence in the
findings from this study that Ms. Swanson might be over-confident about her
leadership knowledge and abilities. The challenge here was for PIL to meet her
needs as a learner. If the training was structured in a way that appealed to her
principles while acknowledging and stimulating her intellect she would benefit from
it, greatly, as would ultimately the children at her school.
Conclusion
This chapter has presented and interpreted the findings for the research
questions posed in this mixed-methods study. It provided the context in which the
case study principals led, and presented and interpreted the findings by research
question and by the instruments used in the data collection. It provided a discussion
185
of the findings, as well. The implications of the findings for policy practice and
research will be discussed in the next and final chapter.
186
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter will review the problem of practice, purpose of the study,
research questions and the methodology utilized in this research. Additionally, it
will summarize the findings and present implications for policy, practice, and future
research.
Statement of the Problem
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data have
demonstrated that while slight gains are being made, academic achievement gaps
persist between poor and non-poor students, as well as between African American
and Latino students and their White and Asian counterparts (Education Trust, 2006).
Because of enrollment demographics, these gaps are most prevalent in schools
located in urban areas.
The existence of the aforementioned achievement gaps represents a lack of
social justice for many students. It is just for all children to be treated with care and
dignity and to receive and maintain an education which sufficiently prepares them to
achieve grade-level standards, as well as to perform proficiently in subsequent
courses, as demonstrated on standardized norm and criterion-referenced tests.
Leadership becomes a critical factor in addressing this lack of social justice
in our schools, because it has been found to be second only to the classroom teacher
in regard to impacting student achievement (Leithwood, 2004). Leithwood (2004)
187
has also noted that the impact of leadership on student achievement is indirect.
While school principals are not charged with teaching their students, directly, they
are expected to develop the capacity of teachers and schools to improve educational
outcomes for all students (Darling-Hammond, et al. 2007).
However, Davis et al., (2005) contend that principals are unprepared for the
inherent challenges present in urban schools. Additionally, Cambron-McCabe and
McCarthy (2005), as well as Theoharis (2007), suggest that leadership preparation
programs have not prepared principals to effectively lead schools in ways that foster
social justice and improved learning for all students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine 1) the factors involved in
principals’ ability to create the conditions for social justice; and 2) how a state-
adopted leadership development program, using the National Institute for School
Leadership (NISL) curriculum, might strengthen the capacity of practicing principals
in ways that subsequently have the potential to influence the practice of the teachers
they lead in urban settings.
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. How and why do urban principals create the conditions for social justice
in their schools?
2. What are principals’ expectations and attitudes regarding PIL training?
3. How is the PIL executive leadership curriculum designed and delivered to
build the capacity of urban school principals?
188
Methodology
Data Collection and Analysis
This study used a mixed-methods, multi-case study design. Qualitative data
were collected from interviews, observations, and existing documents. Additionally,
the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) was used to
collect survey data from both principals and from 2 of the 43 teachers at Sinclair
School. The unit of analysis was the school because focus on the school provided
information about the leadership capacity of the principals. The process for
organizing the data for analysis and interpretation was adapted from Creswell
(2003).
Participants and Setting
Pennsylvania was selected as a setting because the Pennsylvania State
Department of Education (PDE) has mandated that all school leaders hired after
January 1, 2008, participate in a state-sponsored leadership development program
(PIL), which uses NISL’s curriculum. All other school and system leaders must
accumulate 180 hours of professional development in PIL or PIL approved courses
every five years.
The two cases in this study were bounded and selected using purposeful,
criterion sampling. The criteria and process resulted in the selection of Wesley
Sinclair School and James Lopel School. Both schools met the following criteria:
Each principal was a novice (first or second year) principal, scheduled to begin PIL
training during the school year concurrent to the study. Additionally, both principals
189
were assigned to urban elementary schools with ethnic minority populations and
poverty rates above 40%. Finally, the schools’ student enrollments were within 150
students of each other, which was also a criterion for the study.
Summary of Findings
Research Question One:
How and why do urban principals create the conditions for social justice
in their schools?
Major Finding
• Moral purpose must be accompanied by the active promotion and
stewardship of a strong vision of achievement in order to create the
conditions for social justice in urban schools.
The framework used to analyze the data for Research Question One was
derived from the social justice framework of Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy
(2005), Theoharis (2007), and the Learning-Centered Leadership model of Murphy
et al. (2006). Principals who lead for social justice emphasize moral values, justice,
respect, care and equity, while being cognizant of the impact race, class, gender,
sexual orientation and disability have on schools and student learning (Cambron-
McCabe and McCarthy, 2005). Student achievement is also an important factor in
social justice leadership. In fact, schools become more just when there is
improvement in the achievement of marginalized students (Theoharis, 2007).
Murphy et al. (2006) address the above constructs in the Learning-Centered
Leadership model, which encompasses improving student achievement as well as
190
treating students with dignity, care and respect, in its eight dimensions of leadership
behaviors.
Interview data collected from the case study principals and their teachers,
observation data collected at both school sites, existing documents, and VAL-ED
survey data collected from the two principals and two teachers were used to answer
Research Question One.
An analysis and interpretation of these data revealed that both case study
principals were motivated by their personal beliefs which manifested in a moral
purpose for their work. Both Benjamin Adams and Stephanie Swanson had an
altruistic intent. Additionally, and in some sense conversely, both were motivated by
factors resulting from high-stakes accountability. Ms. Swanson was also motivated
by challenges she encountered from her veteran, entrenched staff.
Wesley Sinclair School: Findings for Research Question One
The study found that the principal, Benjamin Adams, was driven by a moral
purpose, which was to improve the lives of his students and by extension the larger
community. This moral component embodied by Mr. Adams was illustrative of
Cuban’s (2004) finding that urban principals are often driven by a concern for social
justice and set a moral example for their teachers and students.
Theoharis (2007) found that one way leaders enact social justice is by
improving school structures. The findings of this study were that Mr. Adams did so
in response to the state’s standardized test (PSSA) and the school district’s
benchmark assessments, which combined to create another driving force at Sinclair
191
School. In response to these high-stakes performance data, Mr. Adams and his
instructional leadership team created organizational structures such as a daily reading
intervention, Saturday School and teacher grade group meetings, in efforts to
improve student achievement. They utilized the performance data to guide their
decisions regarding those organizational structures. Responding to and utilizing data
in this regard reflected learning-centered leader practices outlined by Murphy et al.
(2006) in the Assessment Program dimension of their leadership model.
Another finding was that Mr. Adams maintained a high level of
personalization for his students. He knew them well and treated them with care and
dignity. These behaviors were reflective of those espoused in the Learning-Centered
Leadership model (Murphy et al., 2006), which call for children to be well-known,
cared for and treated with dignity and respect. They also exemplified the themes of
care and respect set forth in the social justice framework of Cambron-McCabe and
McCarthy (2005).
It was also found that Mr. Adams’ personal vision was embedded with high
expectations. He maintained a culture of high expectations at Sinclair School by
consistently focusing staff and students on the school’s goals. By doing so, he
enacted a critical leadership behavior expressed in the Learning-Centered Leadership
model (Murphy et al., 2006), which asserts that learning-centered leaders create a
culture of high expectations for self, staff and students. Strengthening school
culture, as Mr. Adams was found to have done, is also a social justice leadership
practice (Theoharis, 2007).
192
Additionally, it was found that Mr. Adams created conditions for social
justice by being highly visible in his school. He was in classrooms daily, provided
feedback and worked with teachers on instructional matters, regularly. These were
Learning-Centered Leadership practices (Murphy et al., 2006) and also related to
Theoharis’ (2007) findings, that the enhancement of staff capacity is a practice social
justice leaders employ.
Finally, this study found that Mr. Adams spent time and energy developing,
articulating, implementing and protecting a vision for learning at Sinclair School.
This was aligned to Murphy et al. (2006) who maintain that effective, learning-
centered principals make the school’s vision for learning central to their daily work.
James Lopel School: Findings for Research Question One
One of the findings in case two was that Stephanie Swanson, the principal at
James Lopel School, was driven by her value of education and personal belief that all
children are entitled to a high quality education. In this regard, Ms. Swanson was
also reflective of Cuban’s (2004) assertion that urban principals are driven by social
justice concerns. Additionally, this finding was consistent with Murphy et al. who
hold that leaders are defined by their personal values and beliefs, which influence
their leadership practices (2006).
The study found that one of Ms. Swanson’s leadership practices was to
express high expectations regarding student learning to her staff. She did not accept
blame being placed on students for low achievement and made that known to her
teachers. This expression of high expectations for student learning was reflective of
193
Learning-Centered Leadership, as set forth in Murphy et al.’s Organization Culture
dimension (2006).
Another Learning-Centered Leadership (Murphy et al., 2006) practice Ms.
Swanson was found to exhibit was the maintenance of high personalization for her
students. She knew the students well and had established caring, respectful
relationships with them. They felt valued by her and were comfortable visiting her
office throughout the school day and approaching her on the school grounds to
engage in conversation. The high level of personalization Ms. Swanson maintained
with her students embodied the themes of respect and care, inherent in the social
justice framework of Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy (2005).
The study also found that Ms. Swanson enacted practices in response to the
high-stakes accountability policies, as well as in response to challenges of her
veteran staff. In response to high-stakes accountability, Ms. Swanson monitored the
assessment system, disaggregated the performance data, explained the meaning of
the data to her staff, and made decisions about organizational structures based on the
data. These were all learning-centered leadership practices as described by Murphy
et al (2006). In regard to meeting the challenges of her veteran staff, Ms. Swanson
provided professional development offerings in the hope that instructional rigor
would increase if the teachers tried the practices presented in them.
Finally, a thorough analysis of the data collected for James Lopel School did
not provide evidence that Ms. Swanson enacted the learning-centered leadership
practices that enable a vision for learning to thrive. Those practices as set forth by
194
Murphy et al. are developing, articulating, implementing and providing stewardship
of a vision for learning (2006).
Comparison of Case Study School Findings
Expressing care for students is a prominent theme in the social justice
framework of Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy (2005). Murphy et al. also place
import on ensuring that students are valued and cared for (2006). Additionally,
Theoharis (2007) asserts that raising student achievement is an aspect of social
justice leadership. While the two case study principals had similar motivations for
creating conditions for social justice, there was some variance in their leadership
practices. Both modeled high personalization for their students; both used
performance data to make instructional decisions; both utilized organizational
structures to enhance student achievement; and to varied degrees both expressed high
expectations for students to succeed. The major difference between the two
leadership practices was that Benjamin Adams actively promoted his school’s vision
while Stephanie Swanson did not. This allowed Mr. Adams to utilize the vision as a
beacon that focused his staff’s daily activities and efforts around improving student
achievement. School goals were clearly developed to achieve the vision and Mr.
Adams was able to establish a sense of urgency toward meeting the goals, as well as
a sense of gratification when goals were achieved. Additionally, the overwhelming
majority of Mr. Adams’ time was spent on activities that directly impacted
actualization of that vision. On the other hand, Stephanie Swanson, who had not
promoted and fostered a school vision of high student achievement, was unable to
195
establish a sense of urgency among her teachers to improve student achievement,
even though she had a strong sense of urgency, herself. Furthermore, her daily
activities were consumed by operational issues and the instructional program at her
school lacked coherence.
The major finding derived from the data collected to answer Research
Question One is that having moral purpose and altruistic views, while important, are
not sufficient for urban school principals to create conditions for social justice. They
must be accompanied by the active promotion and stewardship of a strong school
vision. This finding confirms the extant literature on educational leadership which
points to actions engaged in setting directions as being the most fundamental
leadership behaviors. Hallinger’s (2003) finding that the most influential
instructional leadership activities were related to developing and executing the
school mission were supported by Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom
(2004), who found that leadership behaviors involved in setting directions had the
most impact because they involved developing a sense of purpose or vision. Murphy
et al. (2006) also cite vision for learning as being a key dimension of instructional
leadership.
Research Question Two:
What are principals’ expectations and attitudes regarding PIL training?
Major Finding
• Principals’ expectations and attitudes regarding PIL training evolved over
time and were influenced by conversations with their peers regarding the
196
training, as well as specific information from the Pennsylvania Region
Site Coordinator regarding course content.
The framework used to answer Research Question Two was Clark and Estes’
(2002) motivated performance model. According to Clark and Estes, there are three
facets of motivation in play in the workplace. They are Active Choice, Persistence
and Mental Effort (2002). The aspect of Active Choice involves the active pursuit of
a goal and can be in effect even when the goal has been selected by another person
(2002). The construct of Persistence, in Clark and Estes’ model, refers to one’s
continued pursuit of a goal, even when confronted with distractions (2002). Mental
Effort, the third aspect in the model, refers to the amount of mental effort one invests
in a goal (2002). Clark and Estes hold that Mental Effort can be affected by one’s
level of confidence (2002). Additionally, Clark and Estes assert that the root motive
that influences human behavior is a desire to be effective and that, in the workplace,
people choose, persist and expend mental effort on goals that they judge will have a
positive impact on their personal effectiveness (2002).
Data were collected via interviews with the principals, Benjamin Adams and
Stephanie Swanson, and the PDE Region Site Coordinator, Tom Davis, to answer
Research Question Two.
Wesley Sinclair School: Findings for Research Question Two
The study found that Mr. Adams had a positive attitude about PIL training
and expected it to enhance his leadership. He spoke of looking forward to
interacting with other school administrators and learning about effective practices
197
they utilized. He planned to discern how he would be able to incorporate those
practices in his leadership at Sinclair School. The study also found that knowledge
about the content of the training had a positive effect on Mr. Adams’ attitude and
solidified his expectation that it would contribute to his leadership. Mr. Adams’
plans to utilize what he would learn at the training indicated that he had made an
active choice, as described by Clark and Estes (2002), to pursue the goal of
participating in PIL training.
James Lopel School: Findings for Research Question Two
The study found that over the course of time, Ms. Swanson developed a
cautiously optimistic attitude regarding PIL training and had expectations to gain
something from it. She expressed that she was looking forward to delving into the
required readings, especially The World is Flat, by Tom Friedman. Additionally,
while her expectations were not concrete, she said that she did expect to gain new
ideas in the course of meeting new people. She had made plans for the training
regarding lodging, doing the required homework and having dinner with friends who
would accompany her. These plans indicated that Ms. Swanson had made an active
choice to pursue PIL training, consistent with Clark and Estes’ (2002) motivated
performance model.
Cross Case Comparison
The data revealed that Mr. Adams and Ms. Swanson had generally positive
attitudes regarding PIL training that evolved over time. Mr. Adams was clearly
excited about the training, while Ms. Swanson was cautiously optimistic. These
198
attitudes mirrored those discerned by Tom Davis who found that the participants in
the training generally expressed positive attitudes about it. The data also found that
Mr. Adams and Ms. Swanson had expectations that they would benefit from the
training. An interesting finding derived from the interview data with the two case
study principals was that information from their peers and specific information about
the content of the training provided by Mr. Davis, the Region Site Coordinator,
contributed to positive attitudes and expectations regarding the PIL training. For
example, Mr. Adams was encouraged by colleagues who told him the PIL training
was valuable and that he should take it. Additionally, Ms. Swanson engaged in
actively pursuing the training after she found that some of her friends would be
attending the same sessions. Both were impressed that the book The World is Flat
was one of the required readings. In fact, the course content information they
received from Mr. Davis provided the principals with a sense that the training would
offer them new information that would contribute to their knowledge base and
thereby provide an opportunity for enhanced performance. This finding supports
Clark and Estes’ (2002) theory on “effectiveness” which holds that the primary
motive that drives humans to act is their desire to be effective.
199
Research Question Three:
How is the PIL executive leadership curriculum designed and delivered to build
the capacity of urban school principals?
Major Finding
• The PIL training facilitators’ job-alike experience in the principalship
strengthened the NISL content and was a critical element in building
practicing, urban principals’ leadership capacity.
The framework used to analyze Research Question Three was derived from
the school leadership study of exemplary leadership development programs
conducted by Darling-Hammond et al. (2007). In that study, Darling-Hammond and
her colleagues found that exemplary programs combined theory and practice; offered
opportunities for participants to actively reflect on their leadership experiences, and
fostered peer networking.
Data collection instruments used for Research Question Three included an
interview with Tom Davis, a Pennsylvania State Department Region Site
Coordinator, observations of PIL/NISL Course #1 Unit 4 training, and related
documents. These data revealed that the PIL training contains elements that build
capacity of practicing urban principals.
The NISL curriculum was found to couple research-based content relevant to
issues urban principals encounter, with tools and processes for applying that content
to their school sites. For example, the Course #1 curriculum addressed the fact that
some teachers hold low expectations for minority students’ achievement. This
200
related to the Social Advocacy dimension of Murphy et al.’s (2006) leadership
framework which holds that learning-centered leaders act as moral agents for
children, honor diversity and act in ways that promote the success of all students.
Furthermore, the social justice framework of Theoharis (2007) places achievement
for marginalized students at its core. In addition to the research-based content, each
NISL training session provided principals with ample opportunities for reflection on
how the content was particularly relevant to the conditions at their schools and how
they might apply it to resolve problems and strengthen the instructional program.
The collegial nature of the training, which allowed for participants to learn from each
other, was also found to be conducive to building capacity.
The above design and delivery elements confirm and support the following
findings of Darling Hammond et al. (2007) for exemplary inservice principal
development programs: 1) theory and practice, 2) opportunities for reflection and 3)
peer networking. Additionally, a major finding of this study, which contributes to
the literature on principals’ leadership development programs, is that the training
facilitators’ experience in the principalship was invaluable. It allowed the trainers to
provide the participants with concrete, personal examples they shared throughout the
training, thus enabling them to strengthen the NISL content with generalized
coaching.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Several implications for the reform of policy and practice arise from the
findings in this study. There is a need to ensure that all principals are spending
201
quality time setting directions at their schools thereby resulting in everyone working
in concert to ensure continuous improvement for all students. Additionally,
designers and sponsors of principal development inservice programs could
potentially benefit from carefully selecting trainers who have had experience in the
principalship. Another implication pertains to the way information about PIL
training is disseminated to prospective participants. Finally, while it was not the
focus of this study, the issue of high-stakes accountability and principals’ response to
it arose in such a way that it must also be addressed.
Visionary Site Leadership
While the two case study principals, Benjamin Adams and Stephanie
Swanson, shared certain qualities and enacted similar behaviors, Mr. Adams, who
promoted and protected a strong vision for learning was more successful in creating
conditions for social justice at his school. This presents implications for reform that
would begin at the district level.
NISL’s Course #1, Unit 2 addresses the development of a school vision and
the strategic planning needed for principals to promote and foster it. Certainly, this
type of training is essential for all practicing principals, not solely those in
Pennsylvania who participate in PIL training. Training itself, regardless of the
program, is not enough, however. Principals are faced with a myriad of issues on a
daily basis. Quite often, as in the case with Stephanie Swanson, they spend the bulk
of their time at the site responding to issues – some of which are initiated at the
school and some at the district level. An interesting finding in the interview data was
202
that neither principal in this study was familiar with the Pennsylvania Leadership
Standards. Mr. Adams and Ms. Swanson work in different regional areas and thus
do not attend the same principals’ meetings. Both reported, however, that their
principals’ meetings were mostly focused on operational issues – things they needed
to do at their sites, documents they needed to complete, etc.
The first Pennsylvania Core Leadership Standard addresses the creation of an
organizational vision, yet the principals in this study will not have had quality time to
engage in constructive thinking about vision with other principals until they have
attended the training. By then they will have completed almost two years in
leadership at their schools. As setting directions is a basic principle of leadership, it
would be beneficial to the students at all schools for their principals to have
developed that ability prior to the end of their second year of service, especially
when it is the first core leadership standard identified by the state.
Because vision is recognized by virtually all scholars and sets of leadership
standards as a critical component of leadership, an implication is that more import be
placed on it at the district level. This could be done by placing informational and
process items regarding a vision for learning on principals’ meeting agendas, and by
periodically inquiring during individual conversations about how principals are
modeling and promoting their school vision. Principals’ supervisors might also
make gauging the strength of school vision a priority during regular site visits. A
strong school vision is somewhat intangible and can be better ascertained through
203
observations and conversations with key players at the school site, than by reviewing
a statement on paper.
Prioritizing the importance of setting directions in the above ways would be
an effective way of aligning state, district and school efforts.
The Selection of Principal Development Program Trainers
Findings for this study indicate the quality and experience of the training
facilitators as well as the Region Site Coordinator were critical factors in making the
NISL content relevant to the participants. Because the trainers (and the coordinator)
had the experience of serving as site principals, they were readily able to empathize
and establish a rapport with the participants that created a safe environment in which
the participants could freely engage in the content and reflect on how it could best be
applied at their schools. Perhaps more importantly, the trainers were able to act as de
facto coaches for the participants, warning them about pitfalls they might encounter
and encouraging them to press through difficult situations in the pursuit of
establishing best practices for the children at their schools. The trainers’ “off-script”
and anecdotal comments were valuable contributions to the participants’ training and
were only possible because of their building experience. PIL trainers are currently
required to have principal job experience. Most are former principals, but there is a
precedent for a practicing principal to also be a trainer. The implication is that it is
critical for the Pennsylvania Department of Education to maintain that requirement
and for developers of principal development inservice programs elsewhere to
strongly consider enacting such a practice.
204
Dissemination of Information Regarding PIL Training
One of the findings in this study was that principals developed more positive
attitudes and specific expectations about PIL training as they had more contact with
the Region Site Coordinator. Conversations with colleagues regarding the training
also enhanced their attitudes about it. This was true for the two case study principals,
as well as for many of the participants in the observation group who enrolled in
Course #2 on the last day of the Course #1 training.
It seems that while PIL is a major initiative at the state level, there is a need
to provide prospective participants with information about it in ways that are
meaningful and intriguing to them. It might be helpful to market the training in a
way that makes use of technology coupled with testimonials of participants who
have found it to be beneficial to their leadership. Additionally, the State Department
of Education’s efforts to build principals’ capacity to implement the state’s core and
corollary leadership standards through PIL training could be strengthened if the
alignment between the Pennsylvania State Leadership Standards, district level goals,
school goals and NISL’s curriculum was made clear to building principals.
More Perils of High-stakes Accountability
Pennsylvania has many structures in place that increase a school’s probability
of meeting high-stakes accountability targets. The No Child Left Behind legislation
has a “Safe Harbor” provision that allows schools to make Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) without having met the established performance targets, as long as they
reduce the percentage of students scoring below proficient by 10% or more. In
205
addition to Safe Harbor, Pennsylvania has the Pennsylvania Performance Index
(PPI), which is a growth index that measures schools against established baseline
data to demonstrate significant growth. Pennsylvania also has Confidence Intervals
(C.I.). Confidence Intervals take demographic changes in schools into consideration
when calculating AYP. Schools can meet AYP using C.I. when they do not actually
meet their performance targets, but come close to doing so. Schools can meet their
proficiency targets using a 95% C.I. and can meet Safe Harbor targets using a 75%
C.I.
The two principals in this study were found to be caring professionals with
personal beliefs that all children have a right to high quality instruction. Yet, they
were both engaged, albeit to a limited degree, in strategies that resulted in a situation
where the academic needs of some children were slighted while others were
aggressively met. At Sinclair School students who were identified as having the
greatest potential to help the school meet its target were the ones who were actively
pursued to attend Saturday School. At Lopel School, students whose PSSA scores
would not be factored into the school’s overall average were referred to as “not
counting” when intervention lists were being created. This was reminiscent of
Diamond and Spillane’s (2004) study of the effects of high-stakes accountability in
urban schools – a stratification of students according to how much they will help the
school meet the high-stakes targets. The fact that such strategies are enacted by
caring principals, in a state that has taken measures to increase the likelihood of
schools meeting performance targets, presents a strong implication that policy
206
makers need to address the pressure the current high-stakes accountability
environment places on principals. Stephanie Swanson verbalized it when she shared
that she had become depressed because she was becoming the kind of principal she
did not want to be; pushing test prep and unduly pressuring teachers to make AYP
because she loved her school and was afraid she would be moved if they didn’t.
“…oh my God, oh my God we have to make AYP. Oh my God, oh my God.”
The fact that we are in an era of accountability for schools and school
districts is not in itself a bad thing. Educating our nation’s children is of the utmost
importance, so accountability is needed. Policymakers need to study the issue
however, to ascertain how much the sanctions-approach is hurting rather than
helping children. Some children are consciously being left behind. Perhaps an
incentive-approach that extends to the classroom teachers would be more beneficial
to the children most in need of educational policy reform.
Recommendations for Future Research
This pre-intervention, multiple-case study confirmed the research that
practices related to school vision are perhaps the most critical leadership behaviors.
Additionally, it confirmed the literature that high-stakes accountability policies
potentially further marginalize some students. The study added to the literature on
PIL training and the NISL curriculum. These findings and implications lead to the
following recommendations for future research:
• This was a study conducted prior to the case study principals’
participation in PIL training. Ethnographic studies of principals in the
207
course of their PIL training would provide valuable information about
PIL’s effectiveness in regard to principals’ application of the NISL
content.
• Comparison studies between principal development programs conducted
by trainers who have had principal experience and those conducted by
trainers who have not had experience in the principalship would be
instructive.
• Further research on how principals’ response to high-stakes
accountability policies affect students at all levels of achievement needs
to be conducted.
Conclusion
Leadership in urban schools is a critical factor in closing the achievement
gaps that are so prevalent throughout our nation between poor and non-poor children
as well as between African American and Latino children and their White and Asian
counterparts. This study found that urban school principals can create the conditions
for social justice in their schools through maintaining a moral purpose for their work
and promoting and protecting a strong vision for learning. Additionally, this study
found that the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Initiative’s training, which uses the
National Institute for School Leadership’s curriculum, has elements that have the
potential to strengthen the capacity of principals to lead in socially just ways. This
study’s findings led to implications for reform at national, state and district levels as
208
well as to recommendations for future research on PIL training, trainers of principal
development programs and site leadership.
209
REFERENCES
Barnett, D. (2004). School Leadership Preparation Programs: Are They Preparing
Tomorrow’s Leaders?. Education, 125(1), 121-9
Brewer, D., J, Hentschke, G.C., Eide, E.R., Kuzin, A., & Nayfack, M. (2007) The
Role of Economics in Education Policy Research. Prepared for Handbook of
Research In Education finance and Policy.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G.J. (1997). The Effects of Poverty on Children. The
Future Of Children and Poverty 7(2), 55-71.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership Mentoring in Clinical Practice:
Role Socialization, Professional Development, and Capacity Building.
Educational Administration Quarterly. 40(4), 468-494.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K.S. (1997). Professional Community in Chicago
Elementary Schools: Facilitating Factors and Organizational
Consequences. American Educational Research Association.
Capper, C.A., Theoharis, G., Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing
leaders for social justice [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational
Administration, 44(3), 209-223.
Cambron-McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. M. (2005). Educating School Leaders for
Social Justice. Educational Policy. 19(1), 201-222.
Center on Education Policy. (2007). Moving Beyond Identification: Assisting
Schools in Improvement. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved April 1,
2008 5:13 p.m.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A Guide to
Selecting the Right Performance Solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press
Creswell, J. W., (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among
Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V.L.P., (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
210
Cuban, L. (2004). Meeting Challenges in Urban Schools. Educational Leadership,
61(7), 64-7, 69.
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing
school Leaders for a changing world: Executive summary. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Davis, D., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D., (2005), School
Leadership Study: Developing Successful Principals. Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute
DeNaves-Walt, C., Proctor, B.D., & Smith, J. (2007). Income, Poverty and Health
Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-Stakes Accountability in Urban
Elementary Schools: Challenging or Reproducing Inequality? Teachers
College Record. 106(6), 1145-1176.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: A
Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work:
Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Education Trust (2006). Education Watch State NAEP Tables. Retrieved April 26,
2008. from www.edtrust.org
Elmore, R. (2003, November). A plea for strong practice [Electronic version].
Educational Leadership, 62(3), 6-10.
Fullan, M. (2003). The Moral Imperative of School Leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the Practice of
Instructional and Transformational Leadership. Cambridge Journal of
Education. 33(3), 329-351.
Hess, F.M. & Kelly A.P. (2007). Learning to Lead: What Gets Taught in Principal-
Preparation Programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-74.
211
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. (1996). Retrieved June 7, 2008
from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/isllcstd.pdf
Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K.S. (1993). Developing Professional Community in New
and Restructuring Urban Schools. University Council for Educational
Administration.
Lee, C. C., (2005). Urban school counseling: context, characteristics, and
competencies. Professional School Counseling.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational Leadership: A Review of the Research.
Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/lss
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of
research: How Leadership Influences Student Learning. Retrieved from
Blackboard
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School Leadership that Works:
From Research to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
McKenzie, K.B., & Scheurich, J.J. (2004). Equity Traps: A Useful Construct for
Preparing Principals to Lead Schools That Are Successful With Racially
Diverse Students. Educational Administration Quarterly. 40(5), 601-632.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1992). What Matters Most in Teachers’ Workplace Context?
Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Teaching. Stanford
University.
McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (1993). Contexts That Matter for Teaching and
Learning: Strategic Opportunities for Meeting the Nation’s Educational
Goals. Center for Research On the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
Stanford University.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A.C. (2006). Leadership for
Learning: A Research-Based Model and Taxonomy of Behaviors. Vanderbilt
University. Retrieved From Blackboard.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A.C. (2006). Learning-Centered
Leadership: A Conceptual Foundation. Vanderbilt University. Retrieved
from Blackboard.
NISL. Retrieved April 8, 2008 from http://nisl2.nislonline.org
212
Northouse, P.G., (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Patton, M.Q., (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Preis, S., Grogan, M., Sherman. W.H., & Beaty, D. M. (2007). What The Research
and Literature Say About The Delivery of Educational Leadership
Preparation Programs. [Electronic version]. Journal of Research on
Leadership Education, 2(2), (n.p.)
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and Schools. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy
Institute.
Rusch, E. A. (2004). Gender and Race in Leadership Preparation: A Constrained
Discourse. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 14-46.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social Justice Educational Leaders and Resistance: Toward a
Theory of Social Justice Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly,
43(2), 221-258.
Thirunarayanan, M.O., (2004). The “Significantly Worse” Phenomenon: A Study of
Student Achievement in Different Content Areas by School Location.
Education and Urban Society, 36(4), 467-481.
U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty: 2006 Highlights. Retrieved April 26, 2008 from
www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty06/pov06hi.html
U.S. Census Bureau. Historical Poverty Tables. Table 8. Poverty of People, by
Residence: 1959 to 2006. Retrieved April 26, 2008 from
www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov8.html
WestEd. (2003). Moving Leadership Standards Into Everyday Work: Descriptions of
Practice. San Francisco: WestEd.
213
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE: PRINCIPALS – FALL 2008
1. Tell me how you have set, or plan to set, directions for the staff this year?
Probe for: developing vision and goals
2. If I spent a typical week here observing your interactions with teachers on
matters of instruction, curriculum and assessment, what would I see?
Probe for: classroom visitations, providing feedback, grade level meetings,
individual conferences, staff meetings
3. If you and I visited your best 3
rd
grade classroom during language arts time, what
would you point out to me as being practices you feel good about?
4. What about during the math block - what do you look for in terms of quality
instruction?
5. What will it be important for you to do in terms of monitoring instruction this
school year?
Probe for: student achievement data, implementation of programs, quality
instruction, Interventions, feedback
6. Urban schools like yours can be challenging for a principal…What drives you to
do this work?
7. What drives your teachers to commit to the school’s goals? How do you utilize
that knowledge for continuous improvement of the school?
8. If I were to ask students about how teachers and other staff members interact
with them, what would they say?
Probe for: high personalization, caring, respect, principal’s role in fostering
positive culture
9. What kinds of structures do you think your school needs to have in place in order
to ensure that every student is cared for and feels valued?
Probe for: current status of such structures and principal’s plan to create or
change
214
10. Tell me about the ways your teachers collaborate.
Probe for: structures, topics, time, artifacts, interdependent roles
11. Would you want it to be different in anyway?
If you could have the most effective professional community in place now, what
would it be?
Do you have plans to bring that about?
12. Do your teachers or other staff members assume some of the leadership?
In what ways?
Who?
How?
13. How do you feel about the upcoming NISL training?
What do you hope to gain from it?
14. How long have you been a principal in the district?
What is the average length of time your colleagues have worked as principals in
the district?
215
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW GUIDE: PRINCIPALS – SPRING 2009
1. How did you first hear about the Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders program? How
did you feel about it? Is there anything about attending the training that concerns
you? Do you think that your attending will benefit the school in any way?
How?/Why not? (Q2)
2. The PIL Course that you are going to begin in March is aligned to some of the
PA Leadership Standards. I’m curious about how that relates to what is/has been
discussed at your principal meetings. Have you spent time on the PA Leadership
Standards…how, when, what, where, with whom? How will PIL relate to that?
(Q2)
3. If I were to ask your teachers about processes you’ve initiated that engaged them
in the collective development of a shared vision, what would they say? (Core
Standard#1)
Probe: What are your expectations about how or whether PIL training will
enhance that? (Q.2)
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, where would you say your teachers are in terms of being
standards-based? Why a ____? Are there things that you’ve done this year and
last to have them focused more on standards? How do you see your participation
in PIL enhancing that? (Q3) (Core Std.#2)
5. In September you mentioned your work with (Friends of _________) (Power
Hour). If I shadowed you throughout the year, would I see you working with any
other organizations in advocacy for your students? Do you have expectations of
addressing that sort of thing in the PIL course? (CCStd.#5) (Q2)
6. What, if anything, have you seen in classrooms that gives you pause regarding
students being treated equitably, respectfully, and with dignity?
Probe: What organizational structures have helped you address that? (Q1)
7. Tell me about any organizational structures that are in place here that you use as
a tool to enhance social justice and/or academic achievement for all of your
students. (Q1)
Probe: Created or existing?
216
8. What have you done this school year to promote high expectations for student
learning? How about to nurture and care for every student? (Q1)
9. How do you feel about the kinds of leadership behaviors some of your teachers
are assuming? How do you empower them? (CCStd.3) (Q2)
10. What or has anything changed in the way you monitor...
Student achievement
Implementation of programs
Instruction
Interventions
…in items you collect from teachers? …meetings/conferences you have with
teachers?
Probe: To what do you attribute those changes? (Q1)
11. What would you like to tell me about your leadership practices or your thoughts
or feelings about the PIL training that I haven’t given you an opportunity to say?
(Q1, Q2)
217
APPENDIX C
TEACHER INTERVIEW GUIDE - FALL 2008
1. Tell me about the systems you have available to help you address the needs of
students who are not doing well academically.
Probe…
2. If I visited one of your grade level meetings, what would I hear that would give
me an idea of how you work together as grade level teams to ensure that all
students are learning?
Probe…
3. Describe your process for analyzing data.
Probe for
Data analysis
Interventions
Inquiry
4. What role does the principal play in that?
5. How do you feel about the way instruction is monitored?
Achievement is monitored?
Implementation of program is monitored?
6. What are some of the most effective instructional strategies/practices you and
your colleagues use in language arts/math?
7. What kinds of things does the principal say and do to foster those practices?
8. Tell me about the expectations you have for your class this year.
9. What do you think about efforts the school makes to foster high expectations
among the students and their parents?
10. What are some of the social issues you experience at the school?
218
11. Do you think all students here have the same opportunities for learning?
Probe…
Principal’s role/practices/behaviors
12. Tell me about leadership roles any of you assume.
13. How does the leadership team function?
14. If you could envision the perfect school in terms of teachers working together to
ensure all students have equal opportunities and all students learn what would it
look like?
What will it take to actualize that vision?
15. Tell me about how various groups from the school community have been
involved in creating your school’s vision.
219
APPENDIX D
TEACHER INTERVIEW GUIDE - SPRING 2009
1. Tell me about the systems you have available to help you address the needs of
students who are not doing well academically. Have they changed since the
beginning of the year?
2. Probe…Principal behaviors/actions
3. How do the standards impact what you do as teachers? What is the principal’s
role in that?
4. When I was here at the beginning of the school year, I heard about your grade
group meetings. Has the nature of your meetings changed? In what ways? To
what do you attribute that? Probe…
5. What about data analysis – has it changed? Probe for Data analysis,
Interventions, Inquiry
6. What role does the principal play in that?
7. How do you feel about the way instruction is monitored? How is it different
from previous years, if at all?
8. Achievement is monitored?
9. Implementation of program is monitored?
10. Have you noticed any new leadership practices that have been employed that
have caused you to reflect on your teaching?
11. Who enacted those practices? The principal? Peers? Have you assumed that
role with your grade level peers? How? Why?
12. Tell me about the expectations you have for your class for the remainder of this
year.
13. Have changes been made in the efforts the school makes to foster high
expectations among the students and their parents?
14. How do you feel about the social issues you experience at the school?
220
15. Have things changed at all in terms of ensuring equity for all students, as it
applies to discipline? Academics?
16. Probe…Principal’s role
17. Do you think all students here have the same opportunities for learning?
Probe…Principal’s role/practices/behaviors
18. How is the leadership team functioning differently this year?
19. Is there anything you would like to tell me about how you feel about any changes
that have and are occurring this year?
221
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW GUIDE: REGION SITE COORDINATOR, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1. When you think about the principals who participate in the PIL training, what do
you intend for them to gain as a result of going through NISL?
Probe for:
Knowledge outcomes
Attitudes
Beliefs
2. Do you have any insight on what their expectations and attitudes are?
3. How does PIL differ from traditional educational leadership preparation
programs in its approach?
Probe for:
Process
Content
Social justice issues
Alignment to research on leadership
Use of military and business models
4. What evidence do you have, to date, that the training is resulting in the changes
you desire?
5. In the course of this research, I’ve been studying two current Region 1 principals.
Both are second-year principals who have made some reforms at their schools,
which have resulted in higher student achievement on last year’s PSSA. How
will the training further build their leadership capacity?
Probe for:
Changes in practice
Changes in knowledge
Changes in beliefs
222
6. When PIL/NISL training was first conceptualized, what were the thoughts about
how it could be uniquely suited to principals of urban schools?
Probe for:
Context
Social justice
Achievement gaps
Racial issues – staff, students, parents, principal
Language issues
Cultural issues
7. This question is for context. PIL is a relatively new initiative. What was your
professional role related to principal capacity building before it began? What is
your background as it relates to this?
223
APPENDIX F
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
1.) Content: What is the activity being observed? Who are the participants?
2.) Strategies: How are the participants being observed learning/practicing/applying
skills, knowledge and concepts? What are they doing?
224
3.) Alignment: How does the behavior correlate to the CPSEL Standards –
Descriptions of Practice?
CPSEL ____
Adapted from California Network of School Leadership Coaches 2007-2008
New Teacher Center @ University of California Santa Cruz
225
APPENDIX G
DOCUMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL
1.) Content: What is the document?
2.) Alignment: How does the document provide evidence of professional leadership
standard implementation?
CPSEL Standard ______
226
APPENDIX H
INFORMED CONSENT
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
********************************************************************
Leadership Capacity Building and Support
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by graduate student
researchers and Margaret Reed, Ph.D. (faculty sponsor) from the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. You have been invited to
volunteer for this study because you have been identified by the Pennsylvania State
Department of Education as a participant in Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL)
program starting October 2008. The results of this study will contribute to the
completion of graduate student dissertations. You must be at least18 years of age to
participate. A total of 12 subjects will be selected from among volunteers located in
Region 1 schools in Pennsylvania to participate in this study. Your participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything
you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as
much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it
with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign
this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore the changes in principal beliefs and practices
following their participation in an executive leadership development program for
principals through National Institute for School Leadership. The investigation seeks
to examine the effect of leadership preparation, support structures, and practice on
professional practice and student learning outcomes.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
227
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of participation in the PIL on
principals’ ability to adopt and implement research based leadership practices
associated with the National Institute for School Leader’s Executive Leadership
Curriculum. Over time, the study will also assess the effects of leadership practice
on teacher practice and student achievement. During the 2008-09 school year, all
PIL principals and their teachers will be asked to take an on-line survey.
Additionally, twelve principals will be invited to participate in case studies as an in-
depth part of the evaluation. You are invited to participate in the case study
component of this very important study.
If you volunteer to participate in the case study component of the study, you will be
asked to provide researchers with school documents (i.e., school improvement plan)
for review and to participate in one interview in September and one follow up
interview in February 2009. Interviews are anticipated to last for 45 minutes. In
addition to interviews, we would like to ask you to allow a University researcher to
shadow you two times (about two hours each time) during the year, fall and spring,
as well as make informal observations at the school (approximately two hours each
time). We would also ask that you participate in a survey (about 30 minutes)
administered in September 2008 and again in February 2009. And finally, we would
ask that you identify a select group of teachers (about 6) to participate in similar
interview, observation, and survey activities.
All information obtained through this study will remain confidential and will be used
solely for the purpose of program evaluation. Only members of the research team
will have access to the data associated with this study. Neither your name, names of
your teachers, nor that of your school will be used in the report of research findings.
Pseudonyms will be used to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable
information will be included in this study.
As a participant you will gain access to the results of the evaluation that can be used
to inform and to shape your practices as a site leader.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Though there are no substantial risks to you should you decide to participate in this
study, it is important to understand that the collection of data may cause an
inconvenience as it will place a slight demand on your time.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS/RISKS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation in this study will significantly contribute to the field of
educational leadership as it will provide insights about the phenomenon of
leadership. With a greater understanding of how educational leaders lead, the
training and preparation of such leaders can be tailored to better meet the needs of
new administrators entering the field.
228
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
As a token of appreciation for your participation in the first phase of this study, your
school will be awarded $1,000 at the conclusion of the study period in July 2009.
Only 12 schools will be selected for this stipend.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The Pennsylvania State Department of Education is funding the costs associated with
the completion of this research project.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. All data from interviews will be transcribed. All data from observations,
interviews and document analysis will be stored in a secured data analysis program
to which only the investigator has access. You name and that of the school to which
you are affiliated will not be used in the reporting of research findings. Pseudonyms
will be used to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable information
will be included in this study. The data will be stored for three years after the study
has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos,
or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity
will be protected or disguised.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. Though not anticipated, the investigator may withdraw you from this research
if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research
team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research
staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
229
Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Dr. Margaret Reed, Faculty Sponsor.
Margaret Reed: margarcr@usc.edu
EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
If you are injured as a direct result of research procedures not done primarily for
your own benefit, you will receive medical treatment; however, you or your
insurance will be responsible for the cost. The University of Southern California
does not provide any other form of compensation for injury.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have
been given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this
form.
□ I agree to be audio-taped
□ I do not want to be audio-taped
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject Date
230
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.
Pamela Houston
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date
231
APPENDIX I
Informed Consent-Teacher Participants
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
*******************************************************************
Leadership Capacity Building and Support (Teacher Participants)
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by graduate student
researchers and Margaret Reed, Ph.D. (faculty sponsor) from the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. You have been invited to
volunteer for this study because your principal has been identified by the
Pennsylvania State Department of Education as a participant in Pennsylvania
Inspired Leaders (PIL) program starting October 2008. The results of this study will
contribute to the completion of graduate student dissertations. You must be at least18
years of age to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before
deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read
the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If
you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a
copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore the changes in principal beliefs and practices
following participation in an executive leadership development program for
principals through the National Institute for School Leadership. The investigation
seeks to examine the effect of leadership preparation, support structures, and practice
on professional practice and student learning outcomes.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
232
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of participation in the PIL on
principals’ ability to adopt and implement research based leadership practices
associated with the National Institute for School Leader’s Executive Leadership
Curriculum. Over time, the study will also assess the effects of leadership practice
on teacher practice and student achievement. During the 2008-09 school year, all
PIL principals and their teachers will be asked to take an on-line survey.
Additionally, twelve principals will be invited to participate in case studies as an in-
depth part of the evaluation. You are invited to participate in the case study
component of this very important study.
If you volunteer to participate in the case study component of the study, you will be
asked to provide researchers with school documents (i.e., grade level meeting
agendas, notes) for review and to participate in one interview in September and one
follow up interview in February 2009. Interviews are anticipated to last for 45
minutes. In addition to interviews, we would like to ask you to allow a University
researcher to observe you two times during the year, fall and winter. We would also
ask that you participate in a survey (about 30 minutes) administered in September
2008 and again in February 2009
All information obtained through this study will remain confidential and will be used
solely for the purpose of program evaluation. Only members of the research team
will have access to the data associated with this study. Neither your name, names of
your teachers, nor that of your school will be used in the report of research findings.
Pseudonyms will be used to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable
information will be included in this study.
As a participant you will gain access to the results of the evaluation that can be used
to inform and to shape your practices as a site leader.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Though there are no substantial risks to you should you decide to participate in this
study, it is important to understand that the collection of data may cause an
inconvenience as it will place a slight demand on your time
.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS/RISKS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation in this study will contribute to the field of educational leadership
as it will provide insights about the phenomenon of leadership. With a greater
understanding of how educational leaders lead, the training and preparation of such
leaders can be tailored to better meet the needs new administrators entering the field.
233
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
As a token of appreciation for your participation in the first phase of this study, your
school will be awarded $1,000 at the conclusion of the study period in July 2009.
Only 12 schools will be selected for this stipend.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERES
The Pennsylvania State Department of Education is funding the costs associated with
the completion of this research project.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. All data from interviews will be transcribed. All data from observations,
interviews and document analysis will be stored in a secured data analysis program
to which only the investigator has access. You name and that of the school to which
you are affiliated will not be used in the reporting of research findings. Pseudonyms
will be used to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable information
will be included in this study. The data will be stored for three years after the study
has been completed and then destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If audio-tape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be
protected or disguised.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. Though not anticipated, the investigator may withdraw you from this research
if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research
team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research
staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
234
Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Dr. Margaret Reed, Faculty Sponsor.
Margaret Reed: margarcr@usc.edu
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have
been given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this
form.
□ I agree to be audio-taped
□ I do not want to be audio-taped
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject Date
235
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.
Pamela Houston
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date
236
APPENDIX J
Informed Consent-PIL
University of Southern California
INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
******************************************************************
Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders Program (PIL)
You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by graduate student
researchers under the direction of Margaret Reed, Ph.D. (faculty sponsor) from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. You have
been invited to volunteer for this study because you have been identified by the
Pennsylvania State Department of Education as a trainer of principals in the
Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) program. The results of this study will
contribute to the evaluation of the Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) program.
You must be at least18 years of age to participate. Your participation is voluntary.
You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your
family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form.
You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of participation in the PIL on
principals’ ability to adopt and implement research based leadership practices
associated with the National Institute for School Leader’s Executive Leadership
Curriculum and aligned with the State’s core standards for school leaders. Over
time, the study will also assess the effects of leadership practice on teacher practice
and student achievement.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things: During the 2008-09 school year, we ask that as a trainer of principals
participating in PIL, you participate in one interview, in which you will be
questioned about the nature and expected outcomes of the PIL training.
237
Additionally, we ask that you allow a graduate student researcher to observe two
training days, during which she will take notes and participate in informal
discussions with participants regarding their expectations and attitudes about
participating in the training.
All information obtained through this study will remain confidential and will be used
solely for the purpose of program evaluation. Only members of the research team
will have access to the data associated with this study. Neither your name, names of
trainees, nor the name of your Region will be used in the report of research findings.
Pseudonyms will be used to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable
information will be included in this study.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Though there are no substantial risks to you should you decide to participate in this
study, it is important to understand that the collection of data may cause an
inconvenience as it will place a slight demand on your time
POTENTIAL BENEFITS/RISKS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Your participation in this study will contribute to the field of educational leadership
as it will provide insights about the phenomenon of leadership. With a greater
understanding of how educational leaders lead, the training and preparation of such
leaders can be tailored to better meet the needs new administrators entering the field.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There is no compensation associated with participating in this study.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There are no potential conflicts of interest.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. All data from interviews will be transcribed. All data from observations,
interviews and document analysis will be stored in a secured data analysis program
to which only the investigator has access. Your name and that of the region with
which you are affiliated will not be used in the reporting of research findings.
Pseudonyms will be used to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable
information will be included in this study. The data will be stored for three years
after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
238
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. Though not anticipated, the investigator may withdraw you from this research
if circumstances arise which warrant doing so. You may withdraw your consent at
any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any
legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
If you have any questions about your rights as a study subject or you would like to
speak with someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions
about the research, or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please
contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research
Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-
5272 or upirb@usc.edu
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Dr. Margaret Reed, Faculty Sponsor by phone at 213-740-3458 or email:
margarcr@usc.edu.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have
been given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this
form.
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject Date
239
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.
Pamela Houston
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date
240
APPENDIX K
Principal Letter
August 11, 2008
Dear (Principal):
During the next three years, the University of Southern California will be supporting
the Pennsylvania Department of Education in evaluating the implementation of the
Pennsylvania Inspired Leaders (PIL) program. The purpose of this study is to
determine the effects of participation in the PIL on principals’ ability to adopt and
implement research based leadership practices associated with the National Institute
for School Leader’s Executive Leadership Curriculum. Over time, the study will
also assess the effects of leadership practice on teacher practice and student
achievement. During the 2008-09 school year, all PIL principals and their teachers
will be asked to take an on-line survey. Additionally, twelve principals will be
invited to participate in case studies as an indepth part of the evaluation. You are
invited to participate in the case study component of this very important study.
If you volunteer to participate in the case study component of the study, you will be
asked to provide researchers with school documents (i.e., school improvement plan)
for review and to participate in one interview in September and one follow up
interview in February 2009. Interviews are anticipated to last for 45 minutes. In
addition to interviews, we would like to ask you to allow a University researcher to
shadow you two times (about two hours each time) during the year, fall and spring.
We would also ask that you participate in a survey (about 30 minutes) administered
in September 2008 and again in February 2009. And finally, we would ask that you
identify a select group of teachers (about 6) to participate in similar interview,
observation, and survey activities.
All information obtained through this study will remain confidential and will be used
solely for the purpose of program evaluation. Only members of the research team
will have access to the data associated with this study. Neither your name, names of
your teachers, nor that of your school will be used in the report of research findings.
Pseudonyms will be used to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable
information will be included in this study.
As a participant you will gain access to the results of the evaluation that can be used
to inform and to shape your practices as a site leader. As a token of appreciation for
your participation in the first phase of this study, your school will be awarded $1,000
241
at the conclusion of the study period in July 2009. Only 12 schools will be selected
for this stipend.
If you are interested in participating in the case study component of this program
evaluation, please send me an email response at your earliest convenience. I will be
glad to answer any questions that you might have.
Sincerely,
Margaret C. Reed, Ph. D.
Principal Research Investigator
Associate Professor Clinical Education
margarcr@usc.edu
242
APPENDIX L
PIL-USC Joint Letter
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
333 MARKET STREET
HARRISBURG, PA 17126-0333
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
717-787-5820 FAX 717-787-7222 TTY 717-783-8445
June 16, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:
The Pennsylvania Department of Education fully supports the University of Southern
California’s (USC’s) proposal to undertake a three-year, longitudinal study of the
impact of the National Institute for School Leaders Executive Leadership
Development program on leadership practice, teacher practice and student
achievement in Pennsylvania public schools.
The Pennsylvania Public Law, Act 45 of 2007, requires school administrators to
participate in professional education activities that are focused on practices that have
the greatest impact on improving student achievement and which are aligned with
the Pennsylvania School Leadership Standards. The Pennsylvania Department of
Education has selected the National Institute for School Leaders’ Curriculum for this
purpose. Research demonstrates that effective school leaders have an impact on
student achievement. A focused program of continuing professional education can
help leaders develop the knowledge and skills they need to become more effective in
improving the learning environment for teachers and students.
We will encourage the proposed sample of participants and schools to participate in
the study and to provide the researchers with full access to the PIL program and the
information necessary to accomplish the evaluation study.
Sincerely,
Gerald L. Zahorchak, D.Ed.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This was a mixed-methods, pre-intervention, multi-case study of urban school leadership. Two Kindergarten through eighth grade schools in a large urban school district were studied to examine: 1.) factors involved in principals’ ability to create the conditions for social justice
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century
PDF
Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement
PDF
An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices
PDF
Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context
PDF
The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school
PDF
The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
A case for change: building leadership capacity in urban high schools
PDF
Co-constructing community, school, university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two
PDF
Liberation through preparation: building capacity to lead America's urban schools
PDF
Building leadership capacity: Practices for preparing the next generation of Catholic school principals
PDF
Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative
PDF
Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study
PDF
Leadership capacity building: promising practices in principal preparation
PDF
Building leadership capacity to support principal succession
PDF
Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals
PDF
A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school
PDF
An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors
PDF
The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: the first 90 days
PDF
Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school
Asset Metadata
Creator
Houston, Pamela
(author)
Core Title
Building capacity for leadership in urban schools
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/12/2009
Defense Date
04/29/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
learning-centered leadership,NISL,OAI-PMH Harvest,PIL,principals' capacity building,school leadership,Social Justice,urban principals,urban schools,VAL-ED
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Reed, Margaret (
committee chair
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
), Vladovic, Richard (
committee member
)
Creator Email
pamhou@verizon.net,phouston@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2347
Unique identifier
UC196279
Identifier
etd-Houston-3032 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-576019 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2347 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Houston-3032.pdf
Dmrecord
576019
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Houston, Pamela
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
learning-centered leadership
NISL
PIL
principals' capacity building
school leadership
urban principals
urban schools
VAL-ED