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
/
Effective practices employed by superintendents' leadership teams that impact student achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
Effective practices employed by superintendents' leadership teams that impact student achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EFFECTIVE PRACTICES EMPLOYED BY SUPERINTENDENTS'
LEADERSHIP TEAMS THAT IMPACT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
by
Erica L. Hoegh
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Erica L. Hoegh
ii
DEDICATION
For my nieces Kate and Reagan Rogers, may this inspire you to continue
learning throughout your lives as your aunt, mom, dad, and grandparents have.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the many people that supported me over the past three
years to complete this dissertation and this entire Ed.D. learning process.
Sincere thanks to my dissertation committee, Dr. Castruita, Dr. Reed, and Dr.
Chidester all who provided me guidance and support. Dr. Castruita, as my chair
provided moral support and contacts along the way which provided me the fortitude
to persevere. I appreciate the additional knowledge and insights that I gained from
the coursework that I had the privilege of taking from Dr. Chidester.
I am also grateful to the superintendents and principals that I interviewed in the
course of my data collection. These professionals opened their offices to me, taking
time out of their busy schedule to share their passion for their work. Spending time
with them renewed my own passion for education and providing instructional
leadership for students.
I am indebted for the support, humor, encouragement, caring, and patience that
my friends Mary Bentley, Cecie Bertone, AnnMarie Simmons, Betsy Meehan, and
Mike Hawkes have shown me through writing this dissertation. You provided me
cheerleading, study breaks, laughs and confidence boosts when I needed them most.
You are all dear to me and I would not be the person I am without you!
iv
Thank you to my staffs at Eastshore and Westpark Elementary school who
supported me through this process and provided me encouragement over the past
three years.
Additionally, I thank my friend, colleague, and boss, Dennis Gibbs who
encouraged me to keep working on this study. I am very lucky to have him in my
court as a mentor and a friend. My own superintendent, Dr. Gwen Gross was a
source of information and inspiration on this journey as well. Her ability to inspire
people to work hard and reach for greater levels for students is stunning.
I am thankful for the support and confidence that my parents have
demonstrated in throughout my life. They have been a guide in my professional and
educational life.
v
ABSTRACT
For K-12 school districts to meet national and state accountability
requirements and see continual improvement in student achievement, each district
requires a strategy for improving instruction in the classroom. This strategy must be
district wide as the district office can create a plan, identify and spread best practices,
and develop leadership capacity at all levels. Superintendents must lead the way with
the district office strategy.
The purpose of this study was to document the use of district and
superintendent leadership teams and discover best practices and strategies to impact
student achievement. The following four research questions guided the study:
1) How has the role of the superintendent changed with regards to
student achievement in the areas of curriculum and instruction,
assessment and evaluation through the use of leadership teams?
2) How do district leadership teams work with and relate to site
leadership teams?
3) What structures and processes, if any, are in place to enable
leadership teams to impact and improve student achievement?
vi
4) What informal and formal leadership teams do superintendents
participate in?
Through one –on-one interviews with superintendents and principals,
observations, and analysis of written documents, common strategies of
implementation and effective practices for utilizing leadership teams and teamwork
and collaboration in general were discovered.
Evidence from the study shows the superintendents all found leadership teams
to positively impact student achievement in their districts. Regardless of how a
leadership team was used the superintendents all agreed that the use of the
collaborative culture and leadership teams did lead to increased student achievement
because it helped to focus on teaching and learning and instruction.
Additionally, a greater weight has been placed on data analysis and
evaluation due to the use of leadership teams. All of the interviewees shared that
there is an expectation that administrators and teachers participate in a cycle of
inquiry, examining student work and assessments to ensure that each student
achievement remains in the forefront and that intervention programs are meeting
student needs. Furthermore, there is an expectation that administrators,
superintendents included, are in classrooms examining teaching and learning on a
regular basis.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
Abstract iv
Chapter1: The Problem and Underlying Framework 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 10
Research Questions 11
Significance of the Study 11
Assumptions of the Study 13
Limitations of the Study 13
Delimitations of the Study 14
Definition of Terms 14
Methodology 15
Organization of the Study 16
Summary 17
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 18
Introduction 18
Brief History of the Superintendency 18
Current State of the Superintendency 20
Working with Stakeholders 22
Instructional Leadership 25
Factors that Promote Instructional Leadership 30
Leadership Teams for Student Achievement 33
Organizational Leadership 39
Leadership Frameworks 39
Summary 42
viii
Chapter 3: Methodology 44
Introduction 44
Research Questions 44
Research Design 45
Sample and Population 47
Instrumentation 50
Data Collection 51
Data Analysis 54
Validity Concerns 55
Ethical Considerations 56
Summary 56
Chapter 4: The Findings 58
Introduction 58
Purpose 59
Research Questions 60
Descriptions of Districts and Superintendents 61
Findings 70
Leadership Frameworks 94
Summary 96
Chapter 5: Conclusions 98
Introduction 98
Problem 98
Purpose 99
Research Questions 100
Methodology 100
Table 1: Alignment of Research Questions with Data Collection Instruments 101
Findings Related to Literature Review 102
Summary of Findings 109
Organizational Frameworks 111
Conclusions 113
Best Practices 114
Implications and Recommendations 116
Limitations 119
Summary 119
ix
References 122
Appendix A-Interview Protocol-Superintendent Interview Questions 128
Appendix B- Interview Protocol-Principal Interview Questions 130
Appendix C-Observational Protocol 132
Appendix D-Recruitment Letter 133
Appendix E-Statements of Consent 135
1
CHAPTER I
The Research Problem
Introduction
K-12 public education is in a critical period as it faces the challenges of the
global economy, internal and external political pressures, and the overall theme of
student achievement and accountability. Meeting the requirements of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) and continual improvement in student achievement requires a
strategy for improving instruction in the classroom. This strategy must be district
wide as the district office can create a plan, identify and spread best practices,
develop leadership capacity at all levels, and hold employees accountable for results.
(Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006) Superintendents must lead the way with the
district office strategy; it is not permissible to only be a manager at the top and leave
the curriculum work to coordinators and assistant superintendents.
Superintendents have always faced pressures associated with the position, but
these pressures are mounting as they are held more responsible for providing
instructional leadership to improve student achievement. While this may seem
obvious, providing this leadership is not easy in the context of the balanced
leadership the superintendent is required to provide. Research is fairly consistent in
its findings that balanced leadership amongst instructional and managerial tasks is
needed, but instructional leadership remains quite undefined. Bjork (2001) notes that
the work in instructional leadership has primarily focused on principals, but that
2
systemic reform in the late 1980s raised questions about the superintendents’
contributions to academic performance.
Successful superintendents that see improvement in their district’s student
achievement have a high level of involvement in curriculum and instruction. (Cuban,
1984) Providing leadership in curriculum and instruction in the most effective way is
a critical part of the superintendent’s role. Superintendents knowledgeable in
curriculum and instruction can provide positive leadership for the students and staff.
Districts are evaluated on a regular basis in a very public way through State
Accountability Report Cards and annual reports of Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
and the Academic Performance Index (API), and focused district leadership can
positively affect student achievement.
Houston (2001) notes that the successful superintendent of the 21
st
century is
one who is able to find a way to lead through sharing power and engaging members
of the organization in the process of learning. Engaging the organization in
leadership teams is not necessarily a new tactic, but its use has become more
strategic and intentional in today’s current political world of education in which
accounting for student achievement is in constant focus.
The Education Week 2005 Superintendent Survey shows that superintendents
believe that district level leaders are taking a more active role in providing direction
on instruction for teachers and schools. (Belden, Russonello, & Stewart, 2005) This
is also spurred by the call for greater accountability and testing associated with the
No Child Left Behind legislation.
3
The Institute for Educational Leadership (2000) notes that the roles of
principals, superintendents, and other education leaders have expanded during the
past decade to include a larger focus on teaching and learning, professional
development, data-driven decision making, and accountability. (King, 2002)
Education leaders today need to be curricular leaders that regularly gather to
collaborate in professional learning communities to improve curriculum and
instruction. (King, 2002) To do this well, superintendents and other administrators
recognize that they need to develop a broad base of knowledge in curriculum,
instruction, assessment and ongoing professional development. (Educational
Research Service, 1999 in King, 2002)
Educational leaders today create conditions in their schools and districts for
professional learning communities and leadership teams. Research findings
demonstrate that schools that employ learning communities and a team approach
produce higher student achievement. (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Newman &
Wehlage, 1995) Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2000) add that school leadership
is a distributed activity amongst people in different roles, a dynamic interaction
between multiple leaders in multiple contexts.
It is not easy to create these conditions in light of the demanding and complex
responsibilities a superintendent has to effectively maneuver. Kowalski, in the
American Association of School Administrators report (2006) identified all of the
following responsibilities for superintendents:
4
• To serve as the school board’s chief executive officer and educational
advisor in all efforts of the board to fulfill its school system governance
role
• To serve as the primary educational leader for the school system and
chief administrative officer of the entire school district’s professional
and support staff
• To serve as catalyst for district’s leadership team in proposing and
implementing policy changes
• To propose and institute long-range and strategic planning
• To keep all board members informed about school operations and
programs
• To interpret needs of the school system to the board
• To present policy options and recommendations to the board when new
policies or modifications are needed
• To develop a sound program of school/community relations in concert
with the board
• To oversee management of the district’s day to day operations
• To develop a description for the board of what constitutes effective
leadership and management of public schools
• To develop and carry out a plan for keeping the total professional and
support staff informed about the mission, goals, and strategies of the
school system and the roles all staff members play in realizing them
5
• To ensure that the school system provides equal opportunity for all
students
Cuban (1998) echoes the difficulties in creating the conditions for learning
communities and meeting the above multiple responsibilities in that superintendents
must navigate a leadership maze of three often conflicting roles: instructional,
managerial, and political.
As instructional leaders, they bear ultimate responsibility for improving
student achievement. As managerial leaders, they have to keep their districts
operating efficiently, with a minimum of friction, yet taking risks to make
necessary changes. As political leaders, they have to negotiate with multiple
stakeholders to get approval for programs and resources. (Cuban, 1998).
The recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) puts superintendents under even more increased pressure to keep districts on
track to meeting performance targets. It also heightens the superintendent’s
instructional role. (Lashway, 2002) Superintendents must have an in-depth
understanding of instructional strategies, coaching techniques and using data to
monitor and guide instruction. According to Hord (1990) district leaders are in the
most expedient position to lead instructional improvement.
Peterson and Barnett (2003), upon examining seven studies of superintendent
influence on instruction, concluded that by viewing curriculum and instruction as
6
their primary role, superintendents can influence the views of the school board and
others with regards to goals, vision, and mission for school districts.
While most reform efforts have focused on the school level, districts do play a
crucial role in improvement. Marsh (2000) notes that the district is the link with the
community, state, and individual schools for large scale reform so it is the crucial
agent to make major changes to impact student achievement. Superintendents can
impact student achievement by creating learning communities within their districts.
Focusing professional development on instructional issues rather than managerial
duties and basing principal evaluation on instructional improvement can help to
communicate the importance of learning teams or communities. (Lashway, 2002)
Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline defines the key elements of a learning
organization. These critical elements include systems thinking, mental models,
personal master, shared vision, team learning and dialogue. He notes that it is a
community of people, “working together in a sustained effort to ground the basic
learning discipline in day-to-day management practice.” (Senge, 2006, p. 236)
Shared vision, dialogue and coordinated action are all critical to working together as
a learning organization.
In some districts, both superintendents and principals are commonly found in
classrooms, setting the tone for teaching and learning. In others, the superintendent
sets the vision and goals and the principals carry out the instructional leadership. In
some cases the principal facilitates the school mission and goals and teachers are the
leaders. Regardless of the role of each member, research shows that the most
7
effective model is a team composed of all relevant stakeholders. The entire team
provides feedback, guidance, support and professional development to enable all to
do their jobs better. Researchers studying leadership are coming to view leadership
as a shared process that involves teachers, students, parents, and community
members. Effective leaders bring these groups together to accomplish meaningful
goals. (Policy Brief on Effective Leaders for Today’s Schools, 1999)
The Connecticut State Board of Education (2002) put forth a formal position
statement on the importance of leadership teams. It noted that the foundation for high
academic achievement is a strong collaborative leadership among the school district
team. (The Connecticut State Board of Education, 2002) Effective leaders invest and
share authority and power in others to accomplish a common goal. In an atmosphere
of collaboration, communication and trust, student learning is heightened. It is
imperative that superintendents concentrate their leadership teams to impact and
improve student achievement. Teams may also include school boards. A strong
board-superintendent relationship highly affects progress towards educational
reform. (Danzberger Kirst, & Usdan, 1992)
A new standard of leadership led by superintendents must move districts
towards becoming collaborative learning communities lead by leadership teams
focused on student learning. Leadership teams and learning communities have many
definitions; some are only school based, others are central office based, some are
very formal and some are informal and temporary. Superintendents gather multiple
stakeholders as part of his or her leadership team. These stakeholders may include
8
assistant superintendents, directors, coordinators, principals, teachers, and classified
staff, and even parents and community members. Ultimately the use of any or all of
these members of the leadership team affects student achievement. Defining and
determining the different types of teams/learning communities is important in
assisting superintendents lead their districts forward in teaching and learning.
Statement of the Problem
One can predict that student achievement will improve with a collaborative
approach to curriculum and instruction decisions. The desired outcome of a
successful leadership team will be improved and sustained student achievement. It is
anticipated that this study will find common traits among school successful
superintendents using leadership teams to improve and impact student achievement.
This study will define more clearly what a leadership team is for a superintendent
and how the different types of leadership teams assist him or her in leading his or her
district to improve and sustain student achievement.
The issue of accountability and student achievement has increased notably
with the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA), more commonly known as No
Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB and its accompanying media attention have
added pressures, responsibilities, and expectations on the superintendent. (Blumberg,
1995; Cook, 2004; Harvey, 2003) To meet the strain and stress of this accountability,
collaboration is needed at all levels of the school district.
9
The need for instructional collaboration on the part of the superintendent is
paramount. This collaboration can take on many forms, including meeting with other
staff to plan, design, and implement curriculum. Paul Bredeson (1995), in a study of
superintendents’ role in instructional leadership found that 21.8% of respondents in
his study participate in meetings and work teams to help plan, design, implement and
assess instructional programs and outcomes for students. Time constraints and role
overload in fact lead to collaboration as a major form of involvement in curriculum
development. Bredeson (1995) notes that complexities in instructional leadership in
school districts require superintendents to be versatile administrators, who
collaborate, carry out a vision and provide support as needed. Forming and
effectively using leadership teams is one manner in which a superintendent can
provide this vision and collaboration to lead a district effectively in the area of
curriculum and instruction, thus positively impacting student achievement.
To date there is not enough direct literature on superintendents’ effective
utilization of leadership teams to impact and improve student achievement. While
there is a great deal of research on leadership teams at the school site, as in
professional learning communities, the literature on superintendents utilizing
leadership teams is generally focused on the school board-superintendent team.
Management responsibilities often take the superintendent away from
focusing on instructional leadership. Houston (2001) notes that the superintendency
is fraught with difficulties because the job is impossible, the expectations are
inappropriate, the training is inadequate, and the pipeline is inverted. To meet these
10
challenges there must be a distributed system of leadership in, “which the skills and
the ability to make things happen and the accountability for whether they did happen
are spread across a wider spectrum. Under this model, the superintendent must be a
team leader and team developer.” (Houston, 2001, p. 432)
A question districts face is not whether district leadership teams and leaders
should be involved in instruction, but how this can best be achieved. Leadership
teams and learning communities are contingent on collaboration and communication.
As the educational leaders, the school superintendent must according to Dreher
(1996)
…assess a situation, bring people together, build consensus, and discover
solutions while drawing on the talents of everyone involved. The leader of
the 21
st
century is a facilitator, communicator, a team builder, who realizes
that our greatest natural resources are in our minds and hearts, together with
those of the people around us.
Superintendents utilize leadership teams on a continual basis.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the effective practices that are
employed by superintendents’ leadership teams to impact and improve student
achievement. Additionally the study will define how a superintendent uses a
leadership team and just what defines, or makes, a leadership team for public school
superintendent.
11
Case study analysis of contemporary superintendent practice with regards to
his or her leadership teams will provide information that may be beneficial to other
districts and superintendents that wish to employ similar practices to impact and
improve student achievement. Research does exist on the benefits of a
superintendent’s collaborative leadership style and recent research on the value of
professional learning communities/teams is gaining momentum. However, further
information is needed regarding the current practices of superintendents and their of
use leadership teams to impact student achievement and how these practices can be
more widely applied. An operational definition for a leadership team based on the
literature and need for a superintendent to be collaborative and communicative may
be a group of stakeholders working together for a common goal driven by a common
vision. This operational definition will be tested through the research questions and
data gathered.
Research Questions
The questions to be answered in this study relate to the issue of effective
practices that are employed by successful superintendents’ leadership teams that
impact and improve student achievement. The primary questions are:
1. How has the role of the superintendent changed with regards to student
achievement in the areas of curriculum and instruction, assessment and
evaluation through the use of leadership teams?
2. How do district leadership teams work with and relate to site leadership
teams?
12
3. What structures and processes, if any, are in place to enable leadership
teams to impact and improve student achievement?
4. What informal and formal leadership teams do superintendents participate
in?
Significance of the Study
The study examines effective practices that are employed by successful
superintendents’ leadership teams that impact and improve student achievement. As
research suggested, employing collaborative leadership teams leads to increased and
sustained student achievement. The study will also define and describe the different
types of leadership teams that superintendents participate and utilize; both formal
and informal.
Case study analysis of contemporary superintendent practice with regards to
his or her leadership teams will provide information that may be valuable to other
superintendents and districts that desire to employ like practices to improve student
achievement.
This study will enrich the body of knowledge for future superintendents and
preparation programs. It will benefit universities and alternative preparation
programs as they work to modify superintendent preparation programs. Utilizing best
practices from successful superintendents in preparation programs will help to ensure
that future superintendents can step into a district better prepared to lead, not just
manage a district. Furthermore, school boards can use the results as criteria for
identifying future superintendents through the selection process.
13
Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions are made:
1) That the chosen procedures and methods were appropriate.
2) That the superintendents that participated in the study were candid
in their responses based on their personal experiences and
perceptions.
3) That the data gathered will be sufficient to answer the research
questions posed and will be valid for the purposes of the study.
4) That the superintendents chosen are “successful” as defined by
district AYP and API reports
Limitations of the Study
1) The results of the study are limited to the superintendents chosen and may
not necessarily be generalized to a larger population.
2) Validity of the study depends on the reliability of the instruments.
3) Findings are limited to superintendents’ accuracy in responses and true
perceptions
4) The researcher is not a superintendent and is therefore evaluating the data
based on the researcher’s knowledge and experience.
14
Delimitations of the Study
1) The study only includes three California superintendents from K-
12 public school districts and one superintendent from a K-6 public
school district.
2) The superintendents selected for the personal interviews were
chosen by the researcher with recommendation and assistance from
her dissertation chair.
Definition of Terms
• Instructional leadership: The ability to impact the curriculum to
enhance teaching and learning
• Leadership team: Members of the school community that operate
along the following operates along five dimensions: (1) supportive
and shared leadership, (2) shared values and vision, (3) collective
learning and application of learning (formerly identified as
collective creativity), (4) supportive conditions, and (5) shared
personal practice to impact curricular decisions and improve
student achievement
• Superintendent: The highest ranking administrative position
within a school district
15
Methodology
Qualitative research design was employed to examine the research questions.
Qualitative research, according to Patton permits the evaluator to study “selected
issues, cases, or events in depth and detail; the fact that data collection is not
constrained by predetermined categories of analysis contributes to the depth and
detail of qualitative data.” (Patton, 1987, p. 9) Furthermore, qualitative designs are
naturalistic in that the evaluator does not manipulate the participants for the project;
the activities and processes are studied in their natural setting.
The study utilized three kinds of data collection including in-depth, open-
ended interviews, direct observations, and written documents. (Patton, 2002)
Multiple interviews were conducted with multiple stakeholders in the school districts
in order to get the clearest picture of the use of leadership teams and how the teams
impact and improve student achievement. This data collection leads to rich
description and detail that is required of the study. Interview instrumentation was in
the form of the interview guide approach and the standardized open-ended interview
approach.
Observational data from leadership team meetings was used to see
superintendents in action with their central leadership teams. This type of
observational data was invaluable because allowed the researcher to see first hand
the successful superintendent at work with his/her team; not just hear about it from
the source and other stakeholders.
16
A review of written documents allowed the researcher to gain a
broader perspective of the inner workings of the different school districts. A review
of these documents was sought to further define success as it relates to external
accountability as many of the documents reviewed included student achievement
data.
Specifically, the research method is based on case studies of four successful
suburban superintendents in Orange County, California districts and their leadership
teams. Case studies are appropriate here because, as Creswell (1987) notes, they are
useful when one needs to understand a situation in depth that can be learned from a
few exemplars of the phenomenon in question. Other stakeholders in the school
district were also interviewed. The dissertation chair assisted the researcher in the
purposeful selection of the case study subjects.
Organization of the Study
The dissertation is divided into five chapters. The first chapter provides an
overview of the study, broad picture of the problem, purpose of the study, research
questions, assumptions, limitations, and delimitations.
The second chapter is a literature review that will provide an overview of the
following areas: history and current state of the superintendency, traits of successful
superintendents, leadership teams, organizational leadership, and frameworks.
Chapter 3 is the methodology section of the dissertation. An overview of the
methodology along with the sampling used, data collection and analysis will be
covered.
17
Chapter 4 comprises the findings of the study.
The final chapter will present the conclusions, implications, and
recommendations. References and appendixes finalize the study.
Summary
The literature on successful leadership teams, superintendents, organizational
leadership, and instructional leadership is helpful in grasping the affect that
leadership teams can have on student achievement. A review of the literature in
Chapter Two provides illustration into the role of leadership teams and the
superintendent’s role on student achievement.
18
CHAPTER II
Review of the Literature
Introduction
Research was conducted to obtain information utilizing such sources as The
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Proquest, Lexis-Nexis, JSTOR,
AERA, and other search engines on the World Wide Web. This literature review will
begin with a historical overview of the superintendency and then move in to a review
of how the superintendent works with stakeholders and provides instructional
leadership. The final sections will examine leadership teams, organizational
leadership, and leadership frameworks. These topics are examined to provide
background into the superintendent’s role, how the superintendent works as a
manager and instructional leader, and how leadership teams can impact student
achievement.
Brief History of the Superintendency
There are approximately 14, 500 local school districts in the United States.
(Kowalski, 2006) School superintendents in these local school districts take on
many roles. Their roles and expectations have changed over the past 175 years as the
conceptualization and philosophy of the superintendent’s role evolved and changed.
From the period of 1837-1910, the superintendent of schools was seen as more
of an instructional leader and scholar than of the chief executive officer. (Townley,
1992) District superintendents were charged with implementing state curriculum and
19
supervising teachers. (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005) Furthermore the emphasis on
curriculum and teaching was highlighted through superintendents’ work in authoring
professional journal articles about teaching pedagogy. Many superintendents
ultimately became state superintendents, professors, and college presidents. (Cuban,
1988; Petersen & Barnett, 2003) The local school boards handled responsibilities
such as finance, maintenance and operations. Towards the end of this period, the
superintendent began to take less of an instructional leadership role and became
more involved in business responsibilities. This transition coincides with a transition
in society from more agrarian to more industrial. School districts became larger and
funding issues became more political. (Townley, 1992)
A new era of the superintendency began as the superintendent became more of
a business manager and less of an instructional leader. This period, broadly covering
1910-1956 also saw the rise of educational administration becoming a formal field of
study at colleges and universities. Budgets, personnel, facilities management and
standardization of operations were key roles that school boards insisted that
superintendents embrace. (Callahan, 1962) The amount and type of managerial
emphasis that a superintendent had to engage in, according to Glass (2003) had a
direct connection to the district’s size. Large, urban districts had a greater stress on
managerial tasks for the superintendent than did smaller enrollment rural districts.
Post World War II marks a period when the political nature of the
superintendency became more prominent and important to the success of educational
leaders. Bjork and Gurley (2003) observe that this period saw the superintendent as
20
having to function as an astute political strategist. This shift in role was partially due
to public school’s need to compete with other governmental agencies for state
funding. (Bjork & Gurley 2003)
Current State of the Superintendency
The current state of the superintendent seems to combine all of the
responsibilities of the previous eras into one. The modern superintendent is
responsible for the fiscal and maintenance operations along with the instructional
components that have dramatically increased with policy changes associated with
No Child Left Behind. Furthermore, the superintendent must be an adept negotiator
and politician. (Cuban, 1984; Townley, 1992) Also, the necessity of being a
strategic and skilled communicator is paramount. Kowalski (2005) puts this in strong
terms noting that normative communicative behavior specifies two-way interaction
for all school administrators and it is not just a competence, but a pervasive role
characterization. The concept of superintendent as communicator is critical to
modern educational reforms as virtually all reforms call on educators to work
collaboratively to pursue collective visions and paths for student achievement and
improvement.
Another characteristic of the current state of the superintendency is the
inconsistencies amongst states regarding licensing for superintendents. As recently
as 2003, Fesistritzer, in Kowlaski & Glass reported that 41 states require preparation
and licensing, but 15 of the 41 states allow or sanction alternative routes; in fact one,
21
Tennessee only requires the candidate to hold a bachelor’s degree. (Kowlaski &
Glass, 2002) The inconsistencies in licensing are a seeming disconnect with the
emphasis on teaching and learning and accountability for achievement and
proficiency standards.
Along with all of the above roles, responsibilities, and characteristics, the
educational reforms and emphasis on accountability has defined the 21
st
century
superintendent’s role as an instructional leader. The American Education Research
Association (AERA) formed a task force called Developing Research in Educational
Leadership to promote and encourage high-quality research in educational
leadership. In 2003 it released its report, What We Know about Successful School
Leadership. (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003) This report summarized what is known
about effective leadership related to improving student instruction. The report
summarizes five ways that leaders can impact student learning: (Bjork & Kowalski,
2005)
1. Distributing leadership; enacting moral, instructional and
transformation leadership roles; and establishing high academic
expectations
2. Setting directions, building the capacity of the school staff, and
developing the organization
3. Viewing accountability as a challenge and opportunity to align
practice with needs
22
4. Approach education of diverse groups by understanding
community context
5. Building trust, improving communication, providing parents with
knowledge and resources to succeed, and improving school
practices
The report underscores the need for effective superintendents of the 21
st
century to build collaborative processes and develop the organization grounded in
the view that the school is a professional learning community. (Leithwood & Riehl,
2003)
Communication skills, collaboration skills, strong instructional background
knowledge, strong managerial skills are all imperative if one is to be successful as a
superintendent today. Developing a cohesive plan for instructional improvement is
absolutely necessary for a successful superintendent, and doing it alone is not
possible. Forming collaborative, communicative teams is essential.
Working with Stakeholders
It is imperative that superintendents effectively work with all stakeholders in
the public school community in order to lead and manage a successful school
district. The influence of politics charges the superintendent with rallying political
support around curriculum changes and keeping abreast of legislation that will affect
the school district at the state and federal levels. (Glass 2000; Konnert & Augenstein
1995)
23
Working with the school board is one of the most important relationships for a
superintendent. If the superintendent and school board can develop a relationship of
shared responsibilities they can steer away from conflicts that keep them from
focusing on the ultimate goal of improving student achievement. (Price, 2001)
Without the board support the superintendent is virtually assured that any
educational reforms or priorities will fail. (Yee & Cuban, 1996) Heenan and Bennis
(1999) express that policy and administrative decisions between the superintendent
and school board need to be made collaboratively in the form of an executive
leadership team. Collaboratively school boards and superintendents can serve as
advocates that all children can learn and formulate district wide goals tied to the
community’s vision for student learning. (Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, & Glass, 2005)
Parents, community groups, public agencies, collective bargaining groups, site
administrators, other central office staff, teachers, classified staff, and students are
some of the other stakeholders that the superintendent must marshal for his or her
leadership team to be able to work in an effective manner to improve and sustain
student achievement. (AASA, 1993; Konnert & Augenstein, 1995 ) In order to
garner the support of stakeholders, the superintendent must articulate the vision of
the district and galvanize those involved to internalize the organizational goals.
(Konnert & Augenstein, 1995) Effective leaders help their school community
succeed, according to Blankstein (2004) by personally defining their core value and
purpose and continuing to clarify and focus on priorities that are aligned with that
purpose. Leadership teams comprised of key stakeholders, including teachers,
24
parents, students, and community members, can contribute continuity and stability to
the public-engagement process. These teams should include people who have
knowledge of the school district and who have access to top district leadership.
In a formal position statement on educational leadership, the Connecticut State
Board of Education (2002) released the Position Statement on Educational
Leadership: A Collaborative Effort to Improve Student Achievement which
specifically outlines and advocates for a collaborative leadership team with key
stakeholders in the education community. The position statement also delineates that
opportunities for leadership exist throughout the learning community. For example,
students must be involved in taking responsibility for their own learning and setting
personal goals. They should also have opportunities to share ideas with policymakers
and provide input into curriculum initiatives and school activities. Teachers should
have opportunities to lead instructional improvement initiatives and be instrumental
in setting the instructional and professional development agendas. Paraprofessionals
should have opportunities to identify and participate in professional development
programs. The school board, superintendent and school principals should understand
and respect their roles and work cooperatively to establish and implement the
district’s educational agenda.
By empowering members of the school district community to participate as
team members, the district and its schools can create a culture that promotes student
achievement. Teachers, students, parents and other school district stakeholders all
can be active in problem solving, decision making, resource building and curriculum
25
and instructional design. Then, boards, superintendents and school principals can
redefine a broad range and balance of responsibilities in support of the learning
environment. (Connecticut State Board of Education, Hartford, adopted December 4,
2002)
The Connecticut model specifically calls upon the superintendent to develop a
team to ensure that student achievement is the primary goal of the school district.
The Board of Education recognizes that the foundation for high academic
achievement and more productive schools and students is strong collaborative
leadership among the school district team: the local board, the superintendent,
principals, teachers, students, parents and community-based partners. (Connecticut
State Board of Education, Hartford 2002)
Again, developing a cohesive plan for instructional improvement is absolutely
necessary for a successful superintendent and doing it alone is not possible, forming
collaborative, communicative teams is essential.
Instructional Leadership
Successful superintendents that see improvement in their district’s student
achievement have a high level of involvement in curriculum and instruction. (Cuban,
1984) Work by Murphy, Hallinger, and Peterson (in Bjork 2003) and King (2002)
suggest that superintendents can impact instructional leadership by participating in
regular, collaborative, professional learning experiences to improve teaching and
learning. Additionally these superintendents develop instructional leadership by
creating conditions for professional learning by encouraging a community of learners
26
among teachers. Cuban (1984) advocates for the superintendent’s role and influence
in affecting student achievement, and in fact ignoring this role:
…ignores the pivotal role that school boards and superintendents play in
mobilizing limited resources, giving legitimacy to a reform effort and the crucial
interplay between the central office and school site that can spell the difference
between implementation success and failure.
Kevin McGuire (2004) in work with The New York State Council of School
Superintendents Leadership Academy developed the following seven disciplines for
strengthening instruction:
The Seven Disciplines for Strengthening Instruction, Developed by Kevin McGuire,
New York State Education Department (NYSED) Leadership Academy, 2004.
1. The district creates an understanding and a sense of urgency among
teachers and in the community for the necessity of improving all students’
learning, and it regularly reports on progress. Data are disaggregated and are
transparent to everyone. Qualitative data (for example, from focus groups and
interviews) as well as quantitative data are used to understand students’ and
recent graduates’ experience of school.
2. School leaders encourage a clarification of a widely shared vision of what
good teaching is, which is focused on rigorous expectations, the quality of
student engagement, and effective strategies for personalizing learning for all
students.
3. All adult meetings are about instruction and are models of good teaching.
27
4. There are well-defined standards and performance assessments for student
work at all grade levels. Both teachers and students understand what quality
work looks like, and there is consistency in standards of assessment.
5. Supervision is frequent, rigorous, and entirely focused on the improvement
of instruction. It is done by people who know what good instruction looks
like.
6. Professional development is primarily on-site, intensive, collaborative, and
job embedded, and is designed and lead by educators who model the best
teaching and learning practices.
7. Data are used diagnostically at frequent intervals by teams of teachers,
schools, and districts to assess each student’s learning and to identify the
most effective teaching practices. Schedules are designed to accommodate
the time for the shared work.
These disciplines for strengthening instruction are critical to a superintendent’s
success as an instructional leader. Exercising the disciplines for strengthening
instruction are facets of recent instructional and educational reforms. In order to be a
strong instructional leader, it is important that a superintendent must make the
disciplines part of his or her practices.
Since the 1990s those committed to educational reform have focused heavily
on school governance and leadership. (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005) In 1993, John
Hoyle, the Chairman of the American School Board Association on Standards for the
Superintendency was charged with publishing standards for district superintendents.
28
The standards covered leadership, ethics, and organizational management. The
standard focusing on instructional management, according to Peterson & Barnett
(2005) required superintendents to implement a system that would incorporate
research findings on learning outcomes and assessment to ensure students achieve at
high levels. This emphasis is still salient with the current emphasis on accountability
and testing. Many define a superintendent as a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), but
Doyle (1998) states that a true superintendent will be a CAO, or Chief Academic
Officer, as schools should be about academics first and last. Doyle emphasizes that
everything that is done in a school district should contribute to the school’s academic
mission.
The superintendent’s strength as an instructional leader is also exercised in his
or her deployment of staff resources. In a comparative case study of three Georgia
districts with demonstrated improvement in student achievement over three years,
Pajak and Glickman (1989) showed that superintendents and central office staff were
leading facilitators of school improvement and increased student achievement. The
study found that each superintendent exemplified the value that children came first
and that all district-level supervisors worked directly with teachers and principals.
The basic “how” for improvement in all three districts centered around three
dimensions, an instructional dialogue about improving instruction, an infrastructure
of support, and varied sources of instructional leadership. The instructional dialogue
took on a team approach emphasizing school department, grade level and system
meetings to plan implement and review curriculum and instruction. The
29
superintendent provided a strong organizational structure, ensuring that correct staff
was in the right roles for fostering discourse about curriculum and ensuring all
students achieve. (Pajak & Glickman 1989)
Waters and Marzano (2006) through the Mid-continent Research for Education
and Learning (McREL) conducted a meta-analysis of research on the influence of
school district leaders on student performance. The authors found four major
findings:
1. District level leadership matters-the research team found a positive
correlation of .24 between district leadership and student achievement
2. Effective superintendents focus efforts on creating goal-oriented
districts through collaborative goal setting, non-negotiable goals for
student achievement and instruction, board alignment and support of
district goals, monitoring goals for achievement, use of resources to
support achievement and instruction goals
3. Superintendent tenure is positively correlated with student
achievement
4. Defined autonomy
Specifically, effective superintendents include all building level administrators
in the goal setting process since these are the individuals that will be implementing
the articulated goals. The non-negotiable goals in achievement and instruction mean
that the district sets specific achievement targets for the district as a whole and action
plans are developed to meet those goals. Waters and Marzano explain that board
30
alignment with the goals for instruction and achievement is critical because it
ensures that other initiatives do not detract attention or resources from meeting the
district’s goals. Monitoring goals must be ongoing so that they are not more than
something just written in reports. When there is a discrepancy between goals and
practice arises, corrective action must be taken. Successful superintendents safeguard
the necessary time and resources and materials are aligned to accomplish the
district’s goals. A commitment to instructional leadership is absolutely essential to
those superintendents that are devoted to the strategy of leadership teams as a means
to instructional improvement.
Factors that Influence Instructional Leadership
A significant factor found in virtually every review of the literature on
instructional leadership is the superintendent’s vision. Morgan and Peterson’s (2000)
study observe that when the board members and principals in the district saw that the
superintendent articulated a clear vision for instruction, they perceived a significant
relationship between the vision and the planning and programs of the district. The
2003 study from the Council of Great City Schools underscored the importance of
the shared vision that a school board and superintendent must develop in order to
improve and sustain student achievement over time.
DuFour (1998, 2000, & 2004) and others show that a commitment to use of
data is another factor that influences a superintendent’s instructional leadership.
Superintendents activate their district teams to disaggregate data and teach principals
and teachers to use it to modify instruction.
31
Staff development with emphasis on principals’ supervisory skills and
teachers’ instructional skills is another critical element to solid instructional
leadership. The development of a structure and culture that encourage learning is
critical to an organization that promotes learning and achievement. Superintendents
need to contribute to quality staff development (Dufour, 2000). Dufour argues that
the most powerful form of staff development is job embedded in which it occurs in a
collaborative learning community where teachers work together in collective inquiry
and learn from one another. This type of staff development does not happen by
chance, superintendents can create opportunities for quality staff development when
they insist upon it.
An additional factor that is connected with superintendents and student
achievement is the promotion, support, and development of principals as
instructional leaders. Amalia Cudeiro (2005), a student in the Harvard University
Urban Superintendent Program, studied district leaders who had successfully headed
efforts to improve student achievement. Her research through interviews with the
superintendents and their leadership teams and principals in Chula Vista, California,
Providence Rhode Island, and Boston, Massachusetts concluded that superintendents
can have a positive impact on student learning, primarily through the promotion,
support, and development of principals as instructional leaders (Cudeiro, 2005). In
doing so, superintendents placed a focus on student learning by establishing district
wide vision and engaged principals in ongoing discussions about holding high
expectations for all students. Not only did they hold these discussions, but the
32
superintendents held the principals accountable by implementing site visits and
walk-throughs and followed up with written feedback.
Bredeson (1995) in a study entitled Superintendents' Roles in Curriculum
Development and Instructional Leadership: Instructional Visionaries, Collaborators,
Supporters, and Delegators, found that superintendents were able to work in the area
of curriculum and instruction by providing the financial and material resources that
teachers and principals needed to improve student achievement. Furthermore,
superintendents found success in curriculum and instruction through engagement in
instructional collaboration. Specifically, Bredeson (1995) described instructional
collaboration as superintendents getting personally involved in meetings and work
groups to design and implement curriculum and instructional work.
Because it is logistically difficult for superintendents to provide direct
instructional supervision of teachers, it is imperative that superintendents are in
close, constant contact with other district officials. To that end, successful
superintendents regularly discuss curriculum, instruction, and student achievement
with his or her principals and visit schools and classrooms whenever possible.
(Peterson, 2002). Leaders that articulate their vision, provide support to all
constituents, and collaborate as opposed to direct from the central office; these are
descriptors of leaders that exercise leadership in committee and teams; not isolation,
and thus support student achievement.
33
Leadership Teams for Student Achievement
The Education Week 2005 Superintendent Survey shows that superintendents
believe that district level leaders are taking a more active role in providing direction
on instruction for teachers and schools. (Belden, Russonello, & Stewart, 2005) The
Belden, Russonello, & Stewart communications group was commissioned by
Education Week to gain a better understanding of superintendents’ strategies in place
and district leaders’ opinion of particular policies. The results of the study showed
that superintendents believe that district-level leadership is best established in
districts by creating a common language on instruction, professional learning and
creating a system by which individuals can learn from each other using that common
language, and using to data to monitor and improve instruction.
Peter Senge (2006) describes a team as having commonality of direction in
which there is a shared vision and understanding of how to support one another’s
efforts. A team is a based on individual excellence and how well the individuals
work together. Successful superintendents gather these individuals to put together
leadership teams to move their districts forward. Senge’s definition of a team,
although not developed for public schools, is applicable for a school leadership team
model because it is based on a shared vision, innovation, shared influence of all team
members, and dialogue and discussion.
Coleman & LaRocque in a 1990 study found that successful superintendents
involved a, “high amount of team building and collaboration with building principals
and teachers. In their findings, they articulated that the most fundamental difference
34
between high-and low-performing district was the difference in the superintendent’s
personal judgment about the value of consensus and collaborative work of members
in the organization toward the academic achievement of students.” (Bjork &
Kowalski, 2005, p. 115-116)
Research conducted by the Michael A. Copland at the Center for Research on
the Context of Teaching on the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC)
showed that decisions made in the schools regarding identification of critical
problems, and the development of solutions should be made collectively and focus
on improving learning for all students. (Copland, 2002) This model of identification
and decision making should include a team of administrators, teachers, and other
professionals and community members. Copland (2002) describes that this approach
emphasizes that the school community creates and sustains a broadly distributed
leadership system; the responsibility for improvement is not owned by those at the
top of the organizational chart, but shared by the whole team.
There is a great deal of research about professional learning communities at
the school site. Professional learning communities (PLCs) have shared values (Hord,
1997; DuFour & Eaker, 1998) and shared leadership (Hord, 1997) and also are
characterized as collaborative with an emphasis on learning for both students and
adults (Hord, 1997). DuFour, Eaker, and Hord’s, (1997, 1998) research on
professional learning communities show that when schools are structured to promote
collaboration and shared leadership, efficacy on part of the teacher and student
increases. Hord (1997) describes that the shared responsibility enhances the teaching
35
and learning experience and thus student achievement. Teacher and administrator
learning is more complex, deeper, and more fruitful in a social setting where the
participants can interact, test their ideas, challenge their inferences and
interpretations, and process new information with each other. (Morrissey, 2000) In
this environment of shared responsibility, the structure of leadership at a school site
changes. Morrissey describes it as such:
Within professional learning communities, the traditional role of
omnipotent principal has been replaced by a shared leadership structure. In
such a model, administrators, along with teachers, question, investigate, and
seek solutions for school improvement. All staff grow professionally and
learn to work together to reach shared goals. Taken to the level of the district
office, the superintendent takes on the collaborative role as well, working
with his or her entire administrative team to make decisions to improve and
sustain student achievement.
Multiple educational organizations have endorsed PLCs including the
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and the National
Association of Secondary School Principals. Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs) and educators that embrace this leadership team notion believe that the basic
purpose of school is learning, not teaching. (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek,
2004) When this purpose is embraced, schools focus their energy on three critical
36
questions. Dufour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek define these questions as the
following:
1. What is it that we want all students to learn?
2. How will we know when each student has acquired the intended
knowledge and skills?
3. How will we respond when students experience initial difficulty
so that we can improve upon current levels of learning?
These questions, while directed at the building level, are equally as salient at
the district level. In the age of accountability associated with NCLB, the
superintendent is in the position to answer these same questions for all of his or her
schools and thus assembling professional learning communities/leadership teams to
answer these questions is necessary if the superintendent is to be successful.
Dufour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek (2004) describe a PLC as a collaborative
team that works interdependently to achieve common goals. The team is the engine,
and is results oriented with a continual focus on improvement. Shared vision, values,
and goals are critical to the team oriented process. Eaker and DuFour (2002) argue
that establishing a PLC collaborative leadership will allow a school or district to
answer the question about what kind of school or district that it wants to become and
how it will be behave in order to create the school and district it hopes to become. A
key to a strong PLC is that the goals are closely linked to the district and school
vision statements and that the goals are monitored closely. It is critical that data is
37
analyzed regularly to ensure that students are progressing towards goals and
intervention strategies are implemented when students are not progressing.
Collaborative data analysis and instructional planning is critical at all levels.
(Scheurich & Skrla, 2003) Administrators at all levels in a learning community are
part of an ongoing process dedicated to, as Scheurich & Skrla continue, to learning
as a group to get better. They go on to say that in the best districts it starts at the site
level team and goes on to the district level team so that district level leadership can
attend to school and district patterns and support teachers and students.
As school sites meet regularly in leadership teams to dialogue about student
learning and curriculum, the shared responsibility for student learning grows.
Meeting in leadership teams alone will not lead to increased student achievement.
McREL, in Helping School Leaders Develop the Capacity Necessary for Continuous
Improvement: McREL’s Balanced Leadership Framework (2004) identified salient
characteristics and conditions that are necessary to develop the purposeful leadership
community to increase student achievement. The characteristics required include a
consensus for working together, connections among key members of the community,
share leadership responsibility, consensus about the ways the team works together,
and the team building on strengths in addition to addressing weaknesses.
McREL (2004) also identified principal leadership responsibilities associated
with these characteristics. These characteristics included developing culture,
communicating ideals and beliefs, establishing strong lines of communication,
maintaining high visibility, involving input from many stakeholders, developing
38
relationships with teachers and staff, maintaining situational awareness, and
recognizing and affirming school accomplishments and failures. While these
characteristics and responsibilities for professional learning communities/leadership
teams relate to the school site and building principal, they can be applied to the
district level leadership team and superintendent as well.
Morrissey (2000) is able to sum up the power of a professional learning
community as a leadership team model in that rather than becoming a reform
initiative itself, a professional learning community becomes the supporting structure
for schools to continuously transform themselves through their own internal
capacity. Morrissey goes on to describe professional learning communities as a
balance between organizational structure and productive, substantive use of that
organization and time. Furthermore the principal’s role is a critical one, orchestrating
a delicate balance between support and pressure, encouraging teachers to take on
new roles while they themselves let go of old views regarding the role of school
administrator. Again, this same paradigm can be extended to the superintendent at
the district level.
The model of the professional learning community at the school site is
directly applicable to the district level. There is in fact room for both. On one level
the superintendent can utilize a larger professional learning community with his or
her district leaders and principals. At the school site the principals can use the same
level with teachers so that the commitment to impacting and improving student
achievement is pervasive throughout the organization.
39
Organizational Leadership
A successful leader is expected to create a common vision that is modeled
regularly and becomes the culture of the organization. (Senge, 1990) The culture that
is developed is that what the leader pays attention to and measures (Schein, 1992).
The Human Resources division’s organization and tactics is another component of
organizational leadership that is critical to a superintendent’s success. Collins in
Good to Great (2001) articulates this premise very well. It is critical that the
superintendent lead the charge to ensure that the right people are on the bus and that
the wrong people are off the bus. The ability of a superintendent to develop a
successful leadership team hinges on its members; therefore the superintendent needs
to safeguard that the right personnel are in place to provide quality instruction.
Collins goes on to explain that first the “who” are attended to and then the “what”
can be attended to in order to move the good to great organizational team forward.
Leadership Frameworks
Bolman and Deal, in Reframing Organizations, identify frames of leadership
that can be applied to organizations. These four frames of leaderships can be applied
to superintendents’ use of leadership teams as to how they apply the frames in their
leadership style. Critical to understanding the frames and superintendents’
application of the frames is discerning that the frames are not distinct of each other
and intersect depending on the situation. Bolman and Deal (2003) describe four
frames; structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. If one is focused on
improving student achievement, it is critical to address all four frames.
40
The structural perspective heralds a pattern of well-thought-out roles and
relationships. When designed properly, these formal arrangements can accommodate
both collective goals and individual differences. (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 45)
Leadership teams within a school district naturally have a structural element
fulfilling assumptions of Bolman and Deal’s structural frame in that it is essential
that there are, “appropriate forms of coordination and control to ensure that diverse
efforts of and individuals and units mesh.” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 45)
Furthermore, structures must be designed to fit an organization’s circumstances. As
was previously noted in the literature review, NCLB and pressures from
accountability measures have changed the circumstances that a school district must
respond to with regards to student achievement; thus a superintendent must pay heed
to the structural frame when designing and using leadership teams to impact student
achievement.
Teams can be formed within the structural frame in a number of ways. Bolman
and Deal describe this is how to allocate work and how to coordinate roles.
Coordinating roles and determining authority is of interest with regards to school
leadership teams. Lateral coordination in which matrix structures and network
organizations, and formal and informal meetings exist is more flexible than vertical
hierarchy bound systems. Leadership team performance depends heavily on the
structure and a critical ingredient of teams that perform well is an effective pattern of
roles and relationships focused on attaining common goals. (Bolman & Deal, 2003,
p. 95)
41
The human resource frame is based on core assumptions that are germane to
leadership teams that will impact student achievement. People and organizations
need each other and when the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both
suffer. (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 115) Relationships and fulfilling needs are critical
to the organization’s ability to affect change. Managing and leading teams requires
leaders to develop social skills and competencies to steer the relationships at work
(Bolman & Deal, 2003)
Additionally, superintendents operate in the political frame on a daily basis.
Bolman and Deal summarize the political frame, “politics is simply the realistic
process of making decisions and allocating resources in a context of scarcity and
divergent resources.” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 181) Often times, organizations, or
teams, are coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups. Groups determine
decisions by allocating scarce resources. Different districts thus determine what their
particular focus may be based on the needs for their students’ achievement. Bolman
and Deal note that sources of power are critical within the political frame. One
source is the access and control of agendas, it is noted that those that have a seat at
the table are well represented. The superintendent has direct influence over who has
these seats and how a team is represented or how individuals are represented.
The symbolic frame, as Bolman and Deal note, targets how we make sense of
the ambiguous. In the case of superintendents utilizing leadership teams it is how
they use symbolic concepts to team dynamics. Schools and school districts can use
language, ceremony, and symbolic forms to unite individuals into a successful team.
42
Bolman and Deal observe the following core assumption for the symbolic frame that
is pertinent with regards to using leadership teams to impact student achievement;
“culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people around
shared values and beliefs.” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 243) The symbolic frame is
about culture, symbols, and vision. Successful superintendents are able to articulate
their vision into purpose for the school district and guide the district forward.
Summary
The superintendency is a complex, multi-faceted position that requires the
superintendent to balance instructional, managerial, and political roles. Effective
teams are critical to student achievement. The current age of accountability requires
superintendents to be solid instructional leaders and provide fiscal management,
support services, and personnel effectively in order to meet the needs of the district’s
students.
Even though instructional practices are put into place in classrooms that may
be far away from central offices, the evidence suggests that superintendents are in
the best position to foster relationships, resources and establish teams to support
student learning and achievement. Superintendents and other district leaders must
develop and carry out a district vision with measurable goals, implement support
systems to support the vision and goals, and monitor progress on these goals.
(Elmore, 2000; Morgan & Petersen, 2002; Petersen 1999, 2002)
While most studies focusing on leadership teams are based on school sites, the
literature does begin to highlight the importance and influence the superintendent can
43
have on student achievement. The superintendent must articulate the vision of the
school district and marshal the school board, principals, teachers, and community
members to set and deliver policies and programs to ensure high levels of
achievement for all students.
44
CHAPTER III
Methodology
Introduction
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis of the proposed study. The purpose of this study is to
examine the effective practices that are employed by superintendents’ leadership
teams to impact and improve student achievement. Additionally the study will define
how a superintendent uses a leadership team and just what defines, or makes, a
leadership team for a public school superintendent.
Research Questions
The superintendent and key members of the leadership team of four school
districts participated in two interviews to address the following research questions:
1. How has the role of the superintendent changed with regards to student
achievement in the areas of curriculum and instruction, assessment and
evaluation through the use of leadership teams?
2. How do district leadership teams work with and relate to site leadership
teams?
3. What structures and processes, if any, are in place to enable leadership
teams to impact and improve student achievement?
4. What informal and formal leadership teams do superintendents participate
in?
45
Research Design
After reviewing the literature and defining the problem to be studied, the
researcher determined that qualitative research was the most appropriate method to
complete the study. Qualitative research design was employed to examine the
research questions. Qualitative research, according to Patton (1987) permits the
evaluator to study selected issues, cases, or events in depth and detail. Additionally
the fact that data collection is not constrained by predetermined categories of
analysis contributes to the depth and detail of qualitative data. (Patton, 1987)
Furthermore qualitative designs are naturalistic in that the evaluator does not
manipulate the participants for the project; the activities and processes are studied in
their natural setting.
The researcher relied intensely on the case study approach to qualitative
research. According to Merriam (1998) case studies incorporate disciplines such as
anthropology, sociology, educational psychology, and psychology. Comparative case
study analysis was used in this investigation of leadership teams because it allowed
the researcher to make comparisons across school districts.
Merriam states that a (1998), case study does not claim a particular method
of data collection or data analysis. Any and all methods of gathering data, from
testing to interviewing, can be used in a case study. Case studies focus on holistic
descriptions and explanations and are particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic. This
study was particularistic because it focuses on the specific topic of leadership teams
46
and superintendents in public education. It was descriptive because the narrative
description from the interviews, observations, and analyses of documents showed
how the teams influence student achievement and how different superintendents lead
their districts. It was hoped that the heuristic nature of the case study illuminated for
the reader the impact of leadership teams on student achievement and thus increasing
its potential applicability. (Merriam, 1998)
In concert with the comparative case study method, the study involved four
superintendents using varied sources of data; interviews, observations, and a review
of district documents. Additionally four principals were interviewed, one from each
district. The case studies were drawn from the above data to develop a detailed
description of each case. As Merriam (1998) states, in a multiple case study, there
are two stages of analysis, within-case analysis, continued by a cross-case analysis.
The within-case analysis consists of gathering data about each case in and of itself.
Data are gathered so the researcher can learn as much as the variables that may have
a bearing on the case. (Merriam, 1998, p. 194) After reviewing each case, the cross-
case analysis was completed. According to Yin, (1994), the researcher in cross-case
analysis is seeking to build general explanations that will fit each of the individual
cases even if the details of the individual cases vary. The researcher is ultimately
looking for patterns and lessons about superintendents’ use of leadership teams from
the analyses of the two cases. Miles and Huberson, in Merriam (1998, p. 195),
summarize the power of cross-case analysis, “The researcher attempts to see
processes and outcomes that occur across many cases to understand how they are
47
qualified by local conditions, and thus develop more sophisticated descriptions and
more powerful solutions.”
In-depth interviewing was the primary methodology for gathering data in
order to probe beyond superficial characteristics of leadership teams. Through the
interviews the researcher was able to examine the structure of the leadership teams,
governance models, student intervention models, and student assessment models.
The responses that the superintendents supplied allowed the researcher to gain a
greater understanding of leadership styles and use of leadership teams to move
student achievement ahead in this age of accountability. Interviews with a principal
in each district supported the connection between the district and site based
leadership team.
The majority of the questions in the interview protocol focused on experience
and behavior type questions. The interview questions probed for very examples of
actions that superintendents took with their leadership team that led to greater
student achievement. The interviews were designed to extract superintendents’ and
principals’ beliefs and their philosophy for their actions and roles surrounding the
use of leadership teams.
Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling was utilized to select the superintendents for this study
as a means to developing a deeper understanding how leadership teams are used to
increase student achievement. Purposeful sampling focuses on selecting information-
rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions under study. (Patton, 2002, p.
48
230) Information rich cases were chosen in order to develop a comprehensive
narrative that will illuminate the use of leadership teams to improve student
achievement. This study is limited to three unified K-12 districts and one K-6 school
district in Southern California. The four superintendents and principals of these
school districts provided the information rich cases that helped determine how
leadership teams help to lead to greater student achievement. “The validity,
meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative inquiry have more to do
with the information richness of the cases selected and the observational/analytic
capabilities of the researcher than with the sample size.” (Patton, 2002, p. 245)
The superintendents/districts met the following criteria: The
superintendents/districts selected were chosen from high performing school districts
that had tenure of at least two years. To be considered high performing the school
district had to show consistent progress as measured by the California Academic
Performance Index (API) and Federal Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) assessment
progress reports. Pseudonyms/coding were developed for the four school districts
and superintendents and principals to protect their anonymity.
District A is a unified K12 district and is located in South Orange
County, California and educates a diverse student population numbering over 24,000
(K-12), in 22 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 4 comprehensive high schools,
and 1 continuation high school. District A is growing, but very modestly. It has a
district base API of 887. Superintendent A is a female in her second year in the
district after serving as superintendent in three other school districts.
49
District B is a unified K12 district and is located in South Orange
County, California and is the county’s fourth largest school district. Its ADA is
35,000 (K-12) and has an attendance area encompassing over 95 square miles. It has
26 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 4 comprehensive high schools, 2
continuation high schools, and one special education high school. District B is
currently facing declining enrollment issues. It has a district base API of 833.
Superintendent B is a male in his third year in the district.
District C is a K-6 district and is located in North Orange County,
California and educates a very diverse population of 7,000 students. Four of every
ten students receive primary language support as part of their English-language
transition. District C has nine schools, five on a traditional calendar schedule and
four on a single-track year round schedule. It has a district base API of 743.
Superintendent C is a male in his fourteenth year in the district.
District D is a unified K-12 district in Orange County, California. The
district encompasses 28 square miles of territory, serving seven cities. District D has
70 schools, 47 elementary, 10 intermediate, 7 high schools, 2 continuation schools, 2
adult education centers, and 2 special education schools. The district is the third
largest among 28 public school districts in Orange County with 48,604 students,
ranks 12th in size of more than 1,000 school districts in California, and is the 88th
largest school district of 14,800 in the U.S. It has a base API of 766. Superintendent
D is a female in her ninth year as the district’s superintendent. She has 34 years
experience as an administrator in the district.
50
Instrumentation
Interviews, review of documents, and observations all assisted the researcher
in addressing the research questions. Direct observations and interviews allowed the
researcher to collect data for research question # 2: How do leadership teams work
with and relate to site leadership teams. Document analysis and interviews assisted
the researcher in determining answers to research questions #1 and #3, how has the
role of the superintendent changed with regards to student achievement in the areas
of curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation through the use of
leadership teams? And what structures and processes are in place, if any, to enable
leadership teams to impact and improve student achievement? Interviews,
observations, and written documents allowed the researcher to collect data for
research question #4: What formal and informal leadership teams do superintendents
participate in?
An interview protocol was formulated to target the research questions in
order to determine leadership teams’ impact on student achievement. The researcher
used a semi-structured interviewing technique. The researcher utilized a set of semi-
structured questions that were followed up with probes as needed to clarify or probe
to gather more information. (See Appendix A) The questions were reviewed by the
dissertation chair and field tested by principals using leadership teams at the site
level. The respondents were supplied the questions (Appendix A) ahead of time in
order to give the respondents time to review and prepare their responses and make
best use of the interview sessions. Questions were field tested with principals using
51
site leadership teams to evaluate for question efficacy and timeliness. An observation
protocol (Appendix C) was utilized for the observations in each district.
Data Collection
The data collection of data involved three main components:
1. In-depth interviews with the superintendent and one or more members of the
district and or school leadership team from each of the two school districts
2. A review of archival data from each school district that was germane to
leadership teams
3. Observations
Interviews
The in-depth interview process allowed the researcher to probe the thoughts and
experiences of the superintendents and other leadership team members. The
interviews allowed for purposeful person-to person encounters, eliciting information
not readily observable. (Merriam, 1998) The researcher utilized a semi-structured
format to allow for consistency yet also elicit unexpected information. Interviewees
allowed the researcher to tape the interviews.
Review of Documents
Documents that were opportune to the investigation of leadership
teams included board meeting agendas, leadership meeting agendas, superintendent
memos, school site agendas and memos, and documents outlining district
organizational structure, student achievement data. Analyzing these documents
52
allowed the researcher to gain a greater understanding of the importance of district
and site leadership teams to student achievement for each school district.
Observations
The researcher, as an observer participant, was able to participate in
observation of school board meetings and other meetings in order to gain a greater
understanding of how the district and school site participants worked together. Other
data gathered during these observations included what brought these people together,
how many people were in the respective groups, and what were their relevant
characteristics? Additionally, the researcher collected data concerning the nature of
the interaction between members of the teams, what norms (if any) existed, how
conversations were structured, who talked to whom, who dominated conversations,
etc. The researcher took notes and used a tape recorder to back up note taking during
the observations.
The researcher’s dissertation chair helped in contacting and securing
appointments with the superintendents. After permission was granted by the
University of Southern California and the IRB Board, letters of introduction and
personal contact was made to the four superintendents. The letters outlined the
purpose of the study and permission to conduct the study in each district.
(Appendixes D and E) Superintendents were asked to participate and to choose a
date and time convenient to be interviewed.
53
The researcher used Taylor and Bogdam’s (1984) following
recommendations as guidelines for interview parameters to set the stage for the
interviews:
1. The investigator’s motive and intentions and the inquiry’s purpose
2. The protection of respondents through the use of pseudonyms
3. Deciding who has final say over the study’s content
4. Payment (if any)
5. Logistics with regard to time, place, and number of interviews to be scheduled
The superintendents were each interviewed for approximately 45 minutes to an
hour. The superintendents were interviewed by the researcher in the superintendents’
office. The researcher followed the semi-structured protocol, probing and following
up where the predetermined protocol questions did not provide enough information.
All interviews were tape-recorded so that the researcher could ensure accuracy of all
quotes for transcription at a later time.
Interviews with a principal in each district were also conducted to gather data to
answer the research questions. These interviews were structured around the same
interview question protocol and also were conducted either at the school district
offices or school site.
54
Data Analysis
The researcher compiled the data from the in-depth interviews to
identify themes and strategies that superintendents used to model and develop solid
leadership teams that led to successful student achievement. After each interview the
researcher transcribed the audio-tapes and identified recurring ideas and concepts
that would eventually lead to categories and trends.
Initial categories were developed on four variables derived from the literature
review: working with stakeholders, instructional leadership, leadership teams, and
student achievement. The following coding was used to categorize the variables:
• “S” (Stakeholders) The way in which the superintendent and other
members of the leadership team work with other stakeholders in the
school district
• “IL” (Instructional Leadership) The way in which the superintendent
and other members of the leadership team define actions that the
superintendent take that influence instruction; not just management
tactics
• “LT” (Leadership Teams) The description of leadership teams at the
district and school levels
• “SA” (Student Achievement) Student academic growth as identified
by federal, state, and local assessments
55
In addition to the above, the following category emerged and was coded as
follows:
• “C” (Communication) How the superintendent communicates with the
organization as to the leadership teams’ function and importance
The archival data and data from the observations were also analyzed
to determine strategies, processes, and structures that influenced the leadership teams
and student achievement in the school districts.
As far as the process of analyzing the data was concerned, the researcher
approached it as an iterative or simultaneous process. (Merriam, 1998) The
researcher gathered data and did some rudimentary analysis along the way so that the
next interview would provide as much meaningful data as possible.
Validity Concerns
Validity and reliability is critical to qualitative research. Employing
triangulation is one way to ensure validity. Patton (1990) discusses using multiple
researchers, multiple perspectives for interpreting the data, or using multiple
methods to study a single problem as means to ensure triangulation.
In this study the researcher chose to use a variety of data sources; including
conducting and comparing the interviews, observations, and archival data. Prior to
each of the interviews, the researcher accessed information about the district,
community, superintendent and organization through the district’s website. Direct
observation during the interviews also provided information to the researcher. The
use of methodological triangulation; in-depth interviews, archival data retrieval, and
56
direct observations the researcher gained a comprehensive perspective of the
superintendents’ use of leadership teams. Additionally the researcher used data
triangulation, the use of a variety of data sources, (Patton, 2002) by interviewing
superintendents and others on the leadership teams with different points of view.
Employing triangulation allowed the researcher to validate findings.
Ethical Considerations
Confidentially and ethical considerations were of the utmost concern
to the researcher. The IRB process was followed per the University of Southern
California guidelines for human subjects. All of the data that was collected was kept
secure and locked at all times and none was disseminated. The superintendents
interviewed had access to the data collected and final reports and could review them
before the final report was published to check for accuracy.
All participants in the observations were aware of the researcher’s presence at
all times. The documents that the researcher analyzed for the study were public
records and thus open to anyone. As previously mentioned, pseudonyms were
developed for the two school districts and superintendents to protect their anonymity.
Summary
In this chapter, the researcher has described the research methods used in this
study, including a description of the research design; the sample, including an
overview of the superintendents/districts studied; data collection instruments and
57
techniques; and data analysis used in conducting the case study. Analysis and
research findings will be explored in the next chapter.
58
CHAPTER IV
Findings
Introduction
K-12 public education is in a critical period as it faces the challenges of the
global economy, internal and external political pressures, and the overall theme of
student achievement and accountability. Meeting the requirements of No Child Left
Behind and continual improvement in student achievement requires a strategy for
improving instruction in the classroom. Superintendents must lead the way with the
district office strategy; it is not permissible to only be a manager at the top and leave
the curriculum work to coordinators and assistant superintendents. (Childress,
Elmore, & Grossman, 2006) Houston (2001) notes that the successful superintendent
of the 21
st
century is one who is able to find a way to lead through sharing power and
engaging members of the organization in the process of learning. Furthermore,
education leaders today need to be curricular leaders that regularly gather to
collaborate in professional learning communities to improve curriculum and
instruction. (King, 2002) To do this well, superintendents and other administrators
recognize that they need to develop a broad base of knowledge in curriculum,
instruction, assessment and ongoing professional development. (Educational
Research Service, 1999 in King, 2002) Research findings demonstrate that schools
that employ learning communities and a team approach produce higher student
achievement. (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Newman & Wehlage, 1995)
59
Superintendent leadership practices and behaviors shape the district’s instructional
program and leadership teams.
This chapter redefines the purpose and methodology of the study followed by
the findings that arose out of the data gathered by the researcher. An analysis of the
discussion of data collected and findings for each research question is included in
this chapter. The data is arranged and presented by each of the four research
questions to demonstrate how superintendent leadership practices and behaviors help
to shape the instructional program, leadership teams, and focus. Discussion and
findings relative to superintendents’ use of Bolman and Deal’s frameworks is also
included.
The literature review gives evidence that superintendents and principals are
in solid positions to provide a lasting impact on student achievement. Work by
Murphy, Hallinger, and Peterson (in Bjork 2003) and King (2002) suggest that
superintendents can impact instructional leadership by participating in regular,
collaborative, professional learning experiences to improve teaching and learning.
Superintendents that provide strong curriculum and instruction support can directly
support the progress of students in their school districts. A superintendent at the
district level or a principal at the site level cannot do this alone.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the effective practices that are
employed by superintendents’ leadership teams to impact and improve student
achievement. Additionally the study defined how a superintendent uses a leadership
60
team and just what defines, or makes, a leadership team for a public school
superintendent.
Case study analysis of contemporary superintendent practice with regards to
his or her leadership teams provided information that may be beneficial to other
districts and superintendents that wish to employ similar practices to impact and
improve student achievement.
Case study research was used to gather the data to explore the impact of
leadership teams on student achievement. Case study research is, according to
Merriam (1998) a suitable design when one is interested in process and
understanding the significant factors characteristic of a phenomenon. Thus
undertaking comparative case studies of four superintendents allowed the researcher
to glean the characteristics of what makes a successful leadership team and how
these teams have the ability to affect student achievement. To complete the case
studies, in addition to reviewing district documents, the superintendent of each
district, along with at least one principal in each district was interviewed as to his/her
use of leadership teams.
Research Questions
The major research questions that steer this research are the following:
1. How has the role of the superintendent changed with regards to student
achievement in the areas of curriculum and instruction, assessment and
evaluation through the use of leadership teams?
61
2. How do district leadership teams work with and relate to site leadership
teams?
3. What structures and processes, if any, are in place to enable leadership
teams to impact and improve student achievement?
4. What informal and formal leadership teams do superintendents participate
in?
Interviews with four suburban/urban superintendents and four principals from
their districts provided the data to answer the research questions above. Interviews
were completed with each superintendent in their offices with follow-up questions
via phone as needed. Interviews with principals were also completed in principals’
offices with follow up questions either via phone or email correspondence. All four
principals interviewed had at least five years experience at the site level.
Before the findings are provided, a description of the districts and their
superintendents is provided to frame the findings for each research question.
Description of Districts and Superintendents
District A
District A is a unified K12 district and is located in South Orange County,
California and educates a diverse student population numbering over 25,000 (K-12),
in 22 elementary schools, five middle schools, four comprehensive high schools, and
62
one continuation high school. When examining student group demographics, district
A is comprised of the following students:
• 0.6% American Indian or Alaskan Native
• 39.6% Asian
• 0.4% Pacific Islander
• 2.4% Filipino
• 7.7% Hispanic of Latino
• 2.2% African American
• 41.6% White (not Hispanic)
• 5.4% (Multiple or No Response)
Of its almost 26,000 students, District A provides 2,550 students Special
Education services, primarily in the areas of Speech and Language Impairment
(1,128 students) and Specific Learning Disability (457 students). The disability
category of Autism (363 students) is a growing category placing a great challenge on
district staffing and resources
District A has an average class size of 28.4, slightly below compared to the
Orange County average of 28.8, but above the California state average of 26.77.
Only 12.6% of District A’s students are classified as English Learners. District A
educates these students with a pupil to teacher ratio of 22.8, 99.7% of which are fully
credentialed. This percentage of fully credentialed teachers is above both the Orange
County percentage (96.9%) and California state percentage (95%). District A has
63
6.5% of its students on Free of Reduced Price Meals, far below the Orange County
average (39.3%) and California State average (50.7%).
District A is growing, but very modestly. It has a district base Academic
Performance (API) of 887 points. The mission of District A is to “provide the highest
quality educational experience we can envision.” This vision statement is supported
by the district’s Continuous Improvement Efforts that outline the district’s vision
statements and targets in all curricular areas. These targets are updated annually with
a curriculum council team composed of teachers, coordinators, principals, directors,
and assistant superintendents. Superintendent A is a female in her second year in the
district after serving as a superintendent in three other school districts. In addition to
her thirteen years as a superintendent, she has been an elementary and middle grades
teacher, a principal, Director of Operations and faculty member at universities in the
Midwest and West Coast. Superintendent A is active in many community and
professional organizations and has held leadership positions in many of them,
particularly with the Association of California School Administrators where she has
chaired the New Superintendents Symposium, and has served on the State
Superintendent's Committee.
64
District B
District B is a unified K12 district and is located in South Orange
County, California and is the county’s fourth largest school district. Its ADA is
34,000 (K-12) and has an attendance area encompassing over 95 square miles. It has
26 elementary schools, five middle schools, four comprehensive high schools, two
continuation high schools, and one special education high school. When examining
student group demographics, district B is comprised of the following students:
• 0.4% American Indian or Alaskan Native
• 7.2% Asian
• 0.4% Pacific Islander
• 2.7% Filipino
• 23.5% Hispanic of Latino
• 2.2% African American
• 62.9% White (not Hispanic)
• 0.8% (Multiple or No Response)
Of its almost 34,000 students, District B provides 3,140 students Special
Education services, primarily in the areas of Speech and Language Impairment (1215
students) and Specific Learning Disability (840 students). Like District A, the
disability category of Autism (331 students) is a growing category placing a
challenge on district staffing and resources.
65
District B has an average class size of 29.8, above the Orange County average
of 28.8, and also above the California state average of 26.77. Only 11.5% of District
B’s students are classified as English Learners. It educates these students with a
pupil to teacher ratio of 23.2, 92.6% of which are fully credentialed. This percentage
of fully credentialed teachers is below both the Orange County percentage of 96.9%
and the California state percentage of 95%. Only 13.5% of District B’s students are
on Free of Reduced Price Meals, well below the Orange County average (39.3%) and
California State average (50.7%).
District B is currently facing declining enrollment issues. It has a district base
Academic Performance (API) of 833 points. According to District B’s Strategic Plan,
the district’s mission is to provide all students with a “high quality education in a
safe and nurturing environment, supported by the partnerships of school, home and
community, that will instill the knowledge, skills and values necessary for all
students to reach their full potential and to become contributing and compassionate
citizens in the world community.”
Superintendent B is a male in his third year in the district. He previously
served as superintendent in a suburban school district and a deputy superintendent in
a large urban district.
District C
District C is a K-6 district and is located in North Orange County,
California and educates a very diverse population of 7,000 students. Four of every
ten students receive primary language support as part of their English-language
66
transition. District C has nine schools, five on a traditional calendar schedule and
four on a single-track year round schedule. When examining student group
demographics, district C is comprised of the following students:
• 0.2% American Indian or Alaskan Native
• 10.7% Asian
• 1.1% Pacific Islander
• 2.7% Filipino
• 68.2% Hispanic of Latino
• 3.1% African American
• 11.7% White (not Hispanic)
• 2.2% (Multiple or No Response)
Of its almost 6,500 students, District C provides 654 students Special
Education services, primarily in the areas of Speech and Language Impairment (269
students) and Specific Learning Disability (124 students).
District C has an average class size of 23.4, below the average class size when
compared to the Orange County average of 28.8, and also below the California state
average of 26.77. District C is a K-6 school district however, participating in Class
Size Reduction at four grade levels, contributing to its low class sizes. Over half of
District C’s students (58.1%) are classified as English Learners. Of its 6,500
students, only 13.1% are considered Fluent English Proficient. It educates these
students with a pupil to teacher ratio of 19.9, One hundred percent of which are fully
67
credentialed. This percentage of fully credentialed teachers is above the Orange
County percentage (96.9%) and California state percentage (95%). Sixty two percent
of District C’s students are on Free of Reduced Price Meals, well above the Orange
County average (39.3%) and California state average (50.7%).
It has a district base Academic Performance (API) of 743 points. In addition to
focusing student learning performance on reading, writing and mathematics, the
district emphasizes character education, utilizing the Character Counts! program
district wide.
Superintendent C is a male in his fourteenth year in the district. Superintendent C
is retiring at the end of this year. Superintendent C was selected as the “2006
Superintendent of the Year” for Orange County and as “Superintendent of the Year”
for the State of California by the Association of California School Administrators
(ACSA). According to the district’s website, the award was presented “in recognition
of the outstanding performance and achievements of an individual in the public
school system. The selection criteria included commitment to educational quality and
student achievement, leadership in managing school programs, and creativity and
innovation in dealing with issues and challenges facing public education.”
68
District D
District D is a unified K-12 district in Orange County, California. The
district encompasses 28 square miles of territory, serving seven cities. The district is
the third largest among 28 public school districts in Orange County with 48,604
students, ranks 12th in size of more than 1,000 school districts in California, and is
the 88th largest school district of 14,800 in the U.S. It has a base API of 766.
When examining student group demographics, district D is comprised of the
following students:
• 0.2% American Indian or Alaskan Native
• 29.6% Asian
• 1.0% Pacific Islander
• 1.2% Filipino
• 53.0% Hispanic of Latino
• 1.0% African American
• 13.9% White (not Hispanic)
• 0.1% (Multiple or No Response)
Of its almost 49,000 students, District D provides 4,738 students Special
Education services, primarily in the areas of Speech and Language Impairment (1407
students) and Specific Learning Disability (1924 students).
69
District D has an average class size of 28.8, right at the Orange County average
of 28.8, but above the California state average of 26.77. Nearly half of District D’s
students (46.5%) are classified as English Learners. Of its 49,000 students, 24.6%
are considered Fluent English Proficient. It educates these students with a pupil to
teacher ratio of 23.0, 98.1% of which are fully credentialed. This percentage of fully
credentialed teachers is above the Orange County percentage (96.9%) and California
state percentage (95%). Sixty one percent of District D’s students are on Free of
Reduced Price Meals, well above the Orange County average (39.3%) and California
state average (50.7%).
The Board of Education and District staff is committed to providing an
educational program focusing on student achievement, high standards, and
opportunities for all students to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to live a
productive life. District D is invested in classroom and students, devoting only four
percent of its budget to administrative salaries and a greater share of budget to direct
classroom services than any district in the state.
The district is proud of its academic progress, claiming the largest number of
Title 1 Academic Achievement Schools in Orange County. Additionally, the district
was the recipient of the 2004 Broad Prize for Urban Education, the annual award
honoring the nation’s finest urban school system. This award honors school districts
that are able to raise test scores and reduce achievement gaps across ethnic lines and
between high and low income students.
70
Superintendent D is a female in her ninth year as the district’s superintendent.
She has spent her entire 34 years experience as an administrator in the district. She
began in fact as a student teacher in the district. Under her tenure, the district has
made great strides in improving student achievement among its diverse student
population, which includes 80 percent non-native English speakers and 65 percent
who receive free or reduced-price lunch.
Findings
A summary of findings for each district’s case will be presented along with
the overall findings amongst the cross case analyses.
Findings: Research Question #1
The first research question was, “How has the role of the superintendent
changed with regards to student achievement in the areas of curriculum and
instruction, assessment and evaluation through the use of leadership teams?”
District A has moved from a more managerial to more leadership based
superintendency. The superintendent has high expectations for her principals to lead
the site based leadership teams in the areas of instruction, assessment and evaluation
and models this herself through her work at the district level and in her visits to
school sites.
Superintendent B has institutionalized the process of utilizing Professional
Learning Communities throughout the school district, sending district and site teams
71
to professional development in this area. Additionally, he has made extensive use of
his elementary and secondary directors as a key leadership team to meet regularly
with site leaders to ensure that conversations stay focused on assessment and
instruction and not mundane managerial tasks.
In District C, the superintendent and district became much more collaborative
with the use of leadership teams, literally meeting in a circle at the district level
instead of the superintendent at front with district and site staff in rows. This
symbolic change was coupled with the use of academic study teams that included
stakeholders from every level of employee who weighed in on instruction,
assessment, and evaluation decisions.
District D’s use of district level teams focused on the district’s two main goals
that only focus on student achievement allow the schools to remain targeted on
fidelity to instructional programs, data analysis, and improving instructional
practices. The centralized nature of the district and support that comes out of the
district’s leadership teams ensures that the schools have the resources that they need
to stay centered on instruction, assessment, and evaluation.
Data gathered from the four districts show that the school districts have had to
continue to shift their focus from a more managerial focus to the primary focus on
curriculum and instruction. The superintendents interviewed noted that strategic
planning was a critical piece of using leadership teams to focus on assessment,
evaluation and instruction with regards to student achievement. This was noted in the
personal interviews and through the review of documents.
72
For example, a review of District B’s written document, the Strategic Plan
explains that in September 2004, District B “initiated a strategic planning process
that began with a two-day workshop of school community stakeholders.
Approximately 135 people attended the workshop including teachers, principals,
district administrators, classified staff, parents, high school students, and board
members. The workshop provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to voice their
ideas on how we take our district from good to great and move toward the
development of a three-year strategic plan. As a result, district staff and the
superintendent worked with the Board of Education to refine and develop several
goals, strategies, and measurable targets. Strategic planning gave the district a work
plan and vision for the future.” The strategic plan outlines the district’s mission
statement, vision statements, and district goals for meeting the needs of all students.
It is significant that the process of working together as a team to develop the team is
specifically outlined in the document. The district goals specifically outlined
“inspiring professional learning communities,” parent and community involvement,
and a commitment that all students will learn and succeed. District A and B have
both made a commitment to professional development in the area of Professional
Learning Communities, sending district and site staffs to formal training in
Professional Learning Communities put on by leaders in the industry, as referenced
in the literature review, DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker and the County Department of
Education.
73
In general, the use of leadership teams has led to favorable results, both from
a student achievement result with regards to student test scores, but also from the
standpoint of administrator affect. Superintendent D, who comes from a centralized
district model, commented that her experience using leadership teams has been,
“Very positive. I think that it is the most effective way to move a school and district
forward. With true team play, there is greater likelihood for success, greater depth in
perspective, and effective plan development.” (Superintendent D, personal
communication, February 20, 2008)
The role of the school district has also changed with regards to student
achievement in the areas of curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation
through the use of leadership teams because the superintendents studied have
changed the way they meet with their principals and changed the expectations for
their principals.
Superintendent B talked extensively about his use of his elementary
and secondary directors as a leadership team to get information to his principals in
addition to his site visits to work personally with his principals. He has decided to
meet one-on-one with the leadership teams of the schools in Program Improvement
status to hear of their plans for improvement so that the entire staff knows that he
cares and is on board with their efforts to improve student achievement.”What you
touch gets attention.” (Superintendent B, personal communication, February 8, 2008)
74
In his meetings with the elementary and secondary directors he focused his
conversations solely on student achievement, leaving management issues to his
assistant superintendents of personnel and business.
He shared some of the conversations that they have: “We had a high school
that dropped eighteen Academic Performance Index (API) points in one year, and it
was not so much the API, but it was asking the team was it symptomatic of other
things? I liken it is how as a superintendent to how you spend your time, who you
meet with, the questions you ask, do your principals and organization people see you
only in management and business but engaged in conversations in curriculum and
instruction and improving student achievement.” (Superintendent B, personal
communication, February 8, 2008)
As mentioned above, the expectations for principals have definitely changed
with the use of leadership teams. Superintendents have brought their principals into
the loop more in decision making, sent them to Professional Learning Community
staff development training, and heightened the expectation for how principals meet
with their teachers for data analysis. All of the superintendents studied talked of how
important their principals are to their overall leadership team because they were, as
one described his principals, “The generals in the trenches.” (Superintendent B,
personal communication, February 8, 2008) All four desired their principals to be
leaders, not managers, and described with frustration the few principals that were
still operating in a management role. Superintendent C was pleased that, “only one
really functioned as a manager on his leadership team anymore. Instituting conscious
75
consciousness and focusing on the one thing in the district, ‘It’s All about Student
Learning’ has made the difference in encouraging principals to focus on teaching and
learning instead of facilities and budgets.” (Superintendent C, personal
communication, February 22, 2008)
Superintendent B described his principals with this quote, “they have to be
seen as experts, seen as those that see needs of the students under their charge, and
be the one to help their teachers get the training and materials and support that they
need to move those students instructionally. When I was a principal you were
evaluated based on whether the superintendent ever got a call about you, now it is
that the principal builds a relationship with parents, teachers, and students and is the
person on campus and is the one that drives the instructional program. They have to
understand the needs of the student population that they serve along with the teachers
and parents at their site as a team to meet their students needs.” (Superintendent B,
personal communication, February 8, 2008)
Superintendent A shared a similar viewpoint and expects all of her own
principals to develop their own teams and use the Professional Learning
Communities (PLC) concept. It is her expectation that, “Principals are to be in the
classrooms. They need to be there. They must have a pulse of what is going on. I
find it fascinating how people describe their schools. I can tell if a principal is keyed
in to teaching and learning by how he or she describes his or her school and how the
rest of his or her team describes the leadership. This is how I know that the students
76
are going to progress and that the team is working or not.” (Superintendent A,
personal communication, February 4, 2008)
Superintendent A was fervent in her belief and passion for principals’ role in
affecting student achievement and her own connection to the individual sites and
principals. “I am a teacher at heart, a principal at heart…I look back and think those
were the best years and know that is hard, hard work. It is my job to pass on a legacy
and make sure I validate principals…it is lonely at times…administration jobs are
not always appreciated by parents. But you can’t do the job without the team I have.
It goes from here to site leaders to teachers and I want them to know. I really try
really hard to get to schools. The principal is the best person to lead, so I want to
reflect with the principal, come to principals meetings, and visit schools regularly.”
(Superintendent A, personal communication, February 4, 2008)
Additionally the role of the district has changed with regards to the kinds of
regular conversations that occur. Superintendent B “Meets weekly with pupil
services, elementary, secondary, and the special education divisions. We talk about
all curriculum issues weekly. I also meet with director of second languages and will
bring her more in to the loop next year. From school level the directors are the key.
The elementary director does readings with her 26 principals. There is always a
small group reading a particular book or article talking about what is going on in
curriculum and instruction. They form groups to share what is working and best
practices on API or standard based assessment and share with others on how they do
it.” (Superintendent B, personal communication, February 8, 2008)
77
“The previous two superintendents had a focus on management, so what
happened, it was more important to make the community happy, so when we
changed to conversations about instructional learning with principals, it has not
always been easy. To change this I have thrown money to staff development on PLC,
I helped to shape principals meeting agendas with staff development, book talks, site
visits, and asked them to change the principal evaluation process so that there is
more feedback on what are principals doing towards moving the instructional agenda
and what are they doing to change it.” (Superintendent B, personal communication,
February 8, 2008)
Superintendent C also commented that reading groups have become part of
the district culture with his leadership teams. “The emphasis on student achievement
is carried out in leadership readings. We read and dialogue about readings. Last year
the entire team, principals, assistant superintendents, etc. read The Five Dysfunctions
of a Team. We read it and talked about how that looks at site and district. It is
important to discuss how comfortable are you with our team and challenging each
other in order to move students forward and sustain student achievement.”
(Superintendent C, personal communication, February 22, 2008)
Superintendent D commented that her centralized model allows her principals
to focus on instruction and assessment because the district leadership teams take the
burden of many of the decisions off the principals’ plate. Principals are free to work
with their teachers on fidelity of program and data analysis. For example, there is a
strong district expectation from the district leadership team that all teachers commit
78
to the language arts program. This expectation has led to consistent gains in student
achievement. Site visits by the district leadership team center on how each school is
progressing towards major district goals for student achievement. Staff development
is focused on the district goals all centered on student achievement. The district
leadership team that focuses on student achievement supports the school sites by
providing benchmarks, staff development and coaching in data analysis. There is a
great deal of support for continuous improvement along with, “monitoring and
ensuring the effective implementation of the base program, the school plans, research
based instructional strategies and providing the necessary materials and trainings.”
(Superintendent D, personal communication, February 20, 2008)
An emphasis on leadership as opposed to management was an overarching
theme with regards to how districts have changed through using leadership teams to
improve student achievement. Collaborative efforts of district teams and site teams
keep the efforts focused on student achievement and curriculum and instruction
instead of day to day management issues. Expectations for superintendents and
principals to be in the classrooms regularly examining student work, teacher
practices and evaluating instruction have also increased with the use of leadership
teams. This awareness and expectation has increased because the dialogues within
the teams demand that these types of behaviors occur in order to have conversations
that meet the needs of pressing accountability measures.
Findings: Research Question #2
79
The second research question investigated was, “How do district leadership
teams work with and relate to site leadership teams?”
In District A district leadership teams work together in the pursuit of instituting
Professional Learning Communities across the district. The superintendent makes
use of many different types of leadership teams and makes a point of ensuring that
information from these teams is communicated to site based teams on a regular basis.
She also expects regular meetings of site and district teams to ensure stakeholder buy
in of district initiatives and commitment to a continual focus on ensuring that each
student reaches his/her academic potential.
District B’ site and district teams are really extensions of each other. The
extensive use of the Professional Learning Communities culture in the district has
connected the district and site leadership teams.
The Academic Study Teams and “Conscious Consciousness” that
Superintendent C instituted has led to District C’s teams looking very similar at the
district and site level. All teams are expected to include all stakeholders, from
classified to certificated to administrative staff and a strong commitment to the
district’ tenets as they move forward in their mission that “It’s All about Student
Learning.”
Both the principal and superintendent in District D also reported that the
district and site teams were models of each other, emphasizing the same commitment
to district goals, with differences of size and scope at the district and site level.
80
A review of district documents and websites exhibit a commitment to site
based leadership teams. Cross-case analysis shows that all four districts in fact have
a dedication to site based leadership teams. District C’s schools’
School Accountability Report Cards all contain sections on the importance of shared
school leadership responsibility, listing different committees and specifically the
“School Leadership Team” responsible for strategic planning, school climate, and
monitoring the school’s instructional programs. District A’s schools have begun to
implement formally Dufours’s Professional Learning Communities and the United
States Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded National Technical
Assistance Center on Positive Behavior and Intervention Supports (PBIS) programs
that encourage, and actually require site based leadership teams to function.
In the interview with both the principals of District A and B, they
mentioned that the site based leadership teams were expected to be models, or
extensions of the district leadership teams. They felt that the culture that their district
modeled; that is of inclusive decision making, inspired them to do the same at the
school site. Principal A, in her implementation of Positive Behavior and Intervention
Supports (PBIS) and Response to Intervention (RTI) explained that, “It is imperative
that I use my leadership team on a weekly, almost daily basis. I meet with grade
level representatives to dialogue about how our students are progressing, what
assessments we are going to use, what curricular pieces are working, what aren’t, etc.
Without the team approach we would never have gotten these initiatives off the
ground. There was a lot of anxiety about implementing them in the first place and
81
getting buy in from the constituents closest to the kids, the teachers, was the only
way to get things to work.” (Principal A, personal communication, January 24, 2008)
Principal B talked of the work her school has done in the realm of the PLC
culture. She has worked hard to implement the core features of the PLC concept that
has in turn helped her meet the achievement goals of the district and set strategies to
hit the API growth targets for her school.
Principal C shared that his school leadership team that discusses strategic
planning and monitors the school’s educational program operates in a manner
consistent with a culture that is essentially an extension of the district’s mantra that it
is all about student learning. Superintendent C instituted the concept of “Conscious
Competence” into the organization to focus the group on sustained refinement of
student achievement and learning. The school leadership team focuses on this
conscious competence just as the district leadership team does so that
organizationally, from top to bottom, all are focused on the same thing, student
learning.
Principal D shared that essentially, the teams at the site level are “the same
and work together, they are just different in size and scope. We have the same types
of teams, School Site Council for oversight similar to a School Board, consultants as
needed in curricular areas much like curriculum coordinators, and Department
Chairs.” (Principal D, personal communication, February 5, 2008)
82
All of the principals and superintendents shared that the site and district teams
work with and relate together in the area of data review and analysis. All four
districts mentioned time and again the commitment to training both site and district
teams in the use of data analysis so that teachers and administrators were reflecting
on practice in order to improve student learning and teaching. District C spoke
specifically of the use of the gap analysis process. This started from the district
leadership team; training principals first and then next training site based leadership
teams.
Findings: Research Question #3
The third research question asked was, “What structures and processes, if
any, are in place to enable leadership teams to impact and improve student
achievement?”
The principal structures and processes in place to enable leadership teams to
impact and improve student achievement in District A are the commitment to
continual review of the goals of the district and its strategic initiatives and data
review of student achievement. The district reviews its goals, known as the
Continuous Improvement Efforts with a large leadership team composed of district
staff, site staff and parents. Broad stakeholder inclusion ensures buy in to academic
goals and a focus by all on student achievement. Leadership teams at the district and
site level review student achievement data on a regular basis to evaluate the
instructional program.
83
In District B sharing best practices is a process that is employed by district
and site leadership teams to move student achievement forward. Sharing best
instructional practices amongst school sites helps to ensure that school sites do not
remain stagnant. Additionally, instituting a data management system to begin a more
systematic process of data review and cycle of inquiry has helped district and site
leadership teams impact student achievement.
A district wide commitment to the district tenets is one of the dominant
processes which enable District C’s leadership teams to impact student achievement.
Every member of District C, from bus driver to superintendent knows the district
tenets and revisits them annually. The constant review of the mission of the district
and the district tenets keeps everyone focused on student achievement. Additionally,
superintendent C cited the use of data review and the gap analysis process as a
critical strategy in his district’s leadership team’s ability to know exactly what
students know and what they need to know to keep moving forward.
District D breaks its leadership teams up into small groups to meet individual
needs. Meeting in study groups on particular topics, leadership teams can tackle
specific instructional issues that are targeted at moving student achievement forward.
Additionally, principal Rookie Groups support new principals in their ability to lead
site based leadership teams in fidelity to instructional program, best practices, and
data analysis.
For all four districts, research findings show that the primary structures in
place to enable leadership teams to impact and improve student achievement are the
84
districts’ mission and vision, strategic plans, staff development, and the use of data
analysis and cycle of inquiry.
District C’s vision and mission is “It's All about Student Learning; to be one
of the best school districts in educating students for success today and for the twenty-
first century.” Teamwork, a commitment to staff development, and support of
students for learning are basic tenets of the school district. District C’s tenets spell
out these principles; “Support of students for learning is our first priority. All
children can learn and should have equal opportunities for learning: we view
students as responsible citizens of a learning community. Teamwork is promoted and
manifested at all levels throughout the District (staff, parents, students, Board,
community). [District C] is a "we" district, we succeed as a team; no one wins at
another's expense.” The tenets are literally seen and heard everywhere. The tenets are
visible on multiple walls in the district office building and at the school sites. District
employees are all part of the “leadership team,” that live and breathe these tenets.
Waiting to see the superintendent I asked the receptionist about them and he could
articulately explain them; the message is carried by the entire organization. When
superintendent C came to the district he felt it necessary to develop this culture of
teamwork to develop and carry out a message that teamwork bred student
achievement. Accordingly the tenets were developed by a group that included all
district constituents, administrators, certificated, classified, and parents. He describes
the process of developing the tenets as follows: “When I came here I had a really
strong belief in teamwork and collaboration. When I came here we worked through
85
the groups (employee groups, community members, board, and so on) statement of
beliefs about how we operate. Not only a sense of direction about how we operate,
but tell people it is a yardstick to see if we are measuring up and living up to way we
should operate.” (Superintendent C, personal communication, February 22, 2008)
Districts A’s “Continuous Improvement Efforts” and “Strategic Initiatives”
are structures and processes that support the district’s and site leadership teams in
impacting student achievement. Analysis of District A’s Continuous Improvement
Efforts, which are developed by a leadership team composed of teachers, principals,
curriculum coordinators, directors, assistant superintendents, and the
superintendents, describe the district’s annual curriculum goals and ensure success
for all students. The document claims in its introduction, “To meet the vision of
commitment to excellence, we continuously evaluate and improve our current
practices. This document is intended as a roadmap, helping the district "provide the
highest quality educational experience we can envision." It is all based on the
district’s vision statement: “The commitment to excellence is the hallmark of the
[District A]. As a school and community partnership, our promise is to provide the
highest quality educational experience we can envision.”
The “Strategic Initiatives” describe the behaviors that the superintendent and
leadership teams will work in to carry out the vision. The district is clear about the
values the teams must uphold to, “integrity, empowerment, collaboration,
trustworthiness, and learning.” Both principal and superintendent A talked of how
this document is reviewed regularly with various leadership teams to ensure that it is
86
not just a document on a shelf, but exercised in the way the teams behave and
collaborate. Principal A noted however that it was not done as often as probably
should be at the school site and with the impending budget crisis, would be a good
exercise when working as a team to prioritize needs to focus on teaching and
learning for students, not adult needs.
Sharing best practices was another process in place to enable leadership
teams to impact and improve student achievement.
Superintendent B shared that his elementary principals and director formed a
leadership team to share best practices that are going on at their school sites. Schools
that are showing growth in student achievement share with others that may be
stagnant. Additionally, principals regularly read articles and books profiling best
instructional practices that have proven to impact student achievement. These
instructional strategies are best shared in a leadership team atmosphere, not in
isolation and thus impact student achievement in a broad fashion. High school
leadership teams meet to share the training they have gained in Professional
Learning Communities thus spreading best practices about student learning,
achievement, and leadership teaming itself.
Superintendent C shared that his entire leadership team did shared readings
on a regular basis. Functioning in a smaller district, this is easier than in the other
three districts to do district wide, but it is still a solid practice regardless of
leadership team size.
87
Superintendent D shared that her principals met in smaller leadership teams
to share best practices that are going on at their school sites to sustain and move
student achievement. Furthermore these principals met in study groups to see best
practices and what was working to keep the core program working for all students.
Additionally, District D had a leadership team composed of rookie principals to
support the rookie principals in meeting the district’s goals for student achievement.
Supporting staff development was another area that the four superintendents
committed resources and leadership team support. Leadership teams in the case of
staff development tended to consist of coordinators, directors, and assistant
superintendents delivering professional development in the areas of language arts
supporting the core program and in the area of data analysis and cycle of inquiry for
student assessments.
The use of data analysis and continually monitoring the instructional program
is a structure and process that superintendents across all four districts have used to
impact student achievement. The superintendents use California Standards Test
(CST) results and other district benchmark results to galvanize district and site
leadership teams to look at student assessment scores in a cycle of inquiry to make
curricular decisions to improve teaching and learning and improve student
achievement. For example in District D they instituted the “Strategy Academy,” a
leadership team in which the team reviews the student data by department and then
determines best instructional strategies and makes recommendations for common
88
school wide practices that will affect the best output for improved student
achievement.
In District C, the Assistant Superintendent of Student Learning challenges the
principal leadership team to use the gap analysis process. Student progress and
assessments are formally taken through the entire gap analysis process. He worked
individually with principals to learn the process. Superintendent C shares, “If you
were to talk with him about what we were doing five years ago, it was nothing to
what we are doing now in data analysis. At the sites teachers and principals are
working in teams to continue this.” (Superintendent C, personal communication,
February 22, 2008)
In District B the superintendent brought in a data management system
because one did not exist prior to his tenure. This allowed his leadership team to
provide staff development in the area of data analysis more efficiently and spread the
message that it was important to the district’s mission and vision.
Findings: Research Question #4
The last research question explored was, “What informal and formal
leadership teams do superintendents participate in?”
Superintendent A participates in a number of leadership teams on a daily
basis. Superintendent A makes use of external and internal constituents on a regular
basis and includes them in her leadership teams. For example, she includes employee
groups, city officials, business groups, curriculum specialists, and parents on any
89
number of teams. Her teams are very situational, and are formed as needed based on
district needs. The Board of Education is a very key leadership team for
superintendent A and she spends a great deal of time on this relationship, allowing
her to keep the board focused on student achievement and instructional program as
opposed to managerial details.
Superintendent B makes great use of his elementary and secondary directors
to form his district curriculum leadership team. He meets with these two regularly
and relies on them to carry the message to the site principals where the work of the
district is done. The Board of Education is also an important leadership team, and he
places a great deal of time and importance on the two way communication that they
share.
Like District A and B, in District C, the team that the superintendent
participates with the Board of Education is crucial to staying the course on focusing
on student achievement. Superintendent C has had great success with getting his
Board to buy in to the district’s tenets and culture of inclusion and collaboration. In
its current search for a new superintendent and superintendent C retires, the Board is
looking for someone with the same commitments to collaboration and the tenets as
superintendent C. This culture did not exist before superintendent C came to the
district, so his participation and commitment to leadership teams has made a positive
impact. The academic study teams developed in district C are incredibly critical to
the impact the superintendent can have on student achievement because all relevant
90
stakeholders have decision making ability regarding curriculum and assessment
decisions.
Similar to District B, in District D the directors of elementary and secondary
education are very key leadership teams the district and superintendent participates
in to impact student achievement. The team relationship with the Board of Education
is also critical, with a focus on the superintendent working as a team with the Board
to committing to professional development for staff in instructional strategies.
Analysis of district documents and district websites of all four districts
studied revealed that superintendents participate in a number of community
leadership teams including, but not limited to Parent Teacher Association (PTA),
legislative action coalitions, city council groups, and public school foundations.
Work with the Board of Education is a critical leadership team for all of the
superintendents. It was interesting for the researcher how the different
superintendents spoke of their board. While the interview questions did prompt for
discussion on this point, some launched right into a discussion regarding the board.
For example, District A’s superintendent talked early about her relationship with the
board. She shares an open, positive relationship with the board. This is reflected in
the district’s website, where it is shared that the board is “known for its open
communication.” Analysis of this relationship may be attributed to her relative short
tenure in the district and superintendent A’s ability to implement instructional
reforms such as Response to Intervention (RTI) with little or any interference from
the Board.
91
Superintendent A shared this about her relationship with her school board:
“One of the most important things is to first work with the school board…to make
certain in establishing goals with them for what they expect me to accomplish. It is
imperative that they weigh in on instruction and leadership so there is a team on
vision and mission. So there is a foundation on big picture and the board buys in and
when I speak on behalf of the board you can say district’s goals and objectives are all
on student learning. And you can say this is what we stand for as a school district.”
(Superintendent A, personal communication, February 4, 2008) For her the school
board is a very important part of her leadership team, committed to student
achievement.
Superintendent B also saw his board as part of his team, but more as a
communication agent, sharing updates with regards to the API and weekly updates
from each division of the school district. He did note however that he made a point
that those updates were not just hot buttons, for example facilities and budget issues,
but curricular issues such as the current science adoption.
Superintendent D talked of how her board is committed to supporting
professional development and the district goals for student achievement and focusing
on long term instructional strategies and the core program through professional
development and ongoing support in the area of data analysis.
Superintendent C shared that he has a great deal of support from his board for
the tenets that are the mantra of his school district. When he was hired they were
looking for someone that would embrace collaboration, a departure from the
92
previous administration. “One of the tenets has to do with teamwork and how we
operate as teams. And so when we started working together, creating teams to do that
as teams it was the idea that there is not one great brain somewhere with all the
answers and understanding everything, it is listening to various view points, and
bringing expertise together. All together we are better.” (Superintendent C, personal
communication, February 22, 2008) Now that he is retiring the board is looking for
someone that will continue this legacy.
As far as the specific teams are concerned, Superintendent B shared that the
larger leadership team composed of district office staff and principals met as needed.
Cabinet meets regularly and is composed of himself and his assistant
superintendents’ and directors. He has an extended cabinet but it “barely ever
meets.” When needed the whole management team meets as needed for an hour for
“big things-as in the current budget crisis.” (Superintendent B, personal
communication, February 8, 2008) He described site based teams as School Site
Councils, PLCs, and PTAs.
Superintendent C, operating in a smaller district, talked fondly of the teams
that he developed upon coming to his district. “Early on when I came to the district
we created academic study teams-consisting of a representative from each school on
math, reading, PE, history, study, so on. I wanted rep from school and someone who
liked the particular curricular area. The other thing was that when I came to [District
C] was that it was a ‘district that said that,’ it needed to change that. People did not
feel heard. My practice as a principal and assistant superintendent was to incorporate
93
all those view points. So by starting the study teams, those people made decisions, so
I loved that when I visited schools, I could say that ‘you made the decision.’ Then
my leadership team meetings are really different than before. We sit in a circle,
instead of the superintendent in front. The conversations are about what we are
doing. And the model goes to what should happen at sites. It cascades down. Site
leadership teams are rep of grade levels. They are vehicles for input, planning,
teaming. Site leadership teams are very critical for site plans and gap analysis. Each
grade level does gap analysis and contributes to site plan.” (Superintendent C,
personal communication, February 22, 2008)
Superintendent D sees her Directors of Elementary and Secondary Education
as her key teams when it comes to keeping the focus on student achievement. She
shared how both of these women, although very different in style, work to keep the
focus with their principals on the district’s main goals and data driven decision
making. All of the principals have a new data binder that includes data on all
students. This coupled with site based goals forms conversations as a site and district
team to determine value added curriculum decisions to decide how to best move
teaching and learning forward to meet the needs of all students.
Superintendent A sees herself working with many different kinds of
leadership teams. “When I first came I reviewed the teams. You need to include your
constituents. The public schools foundation, PTA Council, the PTA presidents, they
are a huge group, I carefully craft my conversations with them-I need them to tell
people what I say. The finance committee for [the CFO] they look at our books, our
94
plans. Also I include the budget roundtable and our employee groups. I meet with
them all the time. I seek out relationships-so they can say I meet with
[Superintendent A] every two weeks. Teams don’t have to be big-they can be a team
of two. Teams with unions are huge. With the union 90% of conversation is not even
about school-just talking.” (Superintendent A, personal communication, February 4,
2008)
Leadership Frameworks
As noted in the literature review, superintendents need to function in
all four frames. All four superintendents interviewed made reference, even if not
explicitly, to the frames of leadership in their working with teams. When forming
their teams they took on a structural frame. For example, when establishing a team
for working with assessment and data analysis roles are defined for the particular
team, but individuals have the ability to cross over into different boundaries
depending on what work had to be done. Thus they were working within the
structural frame with lateral coordination.
Teams were more successful when they were able to reorganize the structure
of the team to fit the particular need or situation. Specifically this was exemplified in
District A. For example, when implementing RTI, schools that had taken the PLC
concept reorganized leadership teams to function strictly as grade levels instead of
who had taken the PLC training due to the nature of the district’s commitment to
language arts grouping at grade level instructional level. The re-grouping was part of
95
the key to increased student achievement. Again, as noted in the literature review, a
successful team includes a pattern of roles and relationships focused on
accomplishing the same goals. All four superintendents noted that this single focus
on the same goals was crucial to the success of their teams.
Also as noted in the literature, working within the political frame is
making decisions and allocating resources based on interests and needs.
Superintendent D noted that uses her leadership team at the district level to gather
the resources that her teachers and administrators need so that they can focus on
teaching and learning. The centralized approach that she works in allows her site
based leadership teams to focus solely on student results. Another superintendent,
Superintendent A, mentioned finding herself operating in the political realm on a
daily basis working many coalitions such as the teachers union, the city, public
schools foundation, chamber, police, and legislators to get her initiatives in place.
A district’s culture manifests itself in its ability to affect and impact
student achievement. All four superintendents noted the use of the symbolic frame
through sharing the district vision and mission with all constituents on a regular
basis. As noted in the literature, vision turns an organization’s sense of purpose into
an image of what the future might become. (Bolman and Deal, 2003) Superintendent
C talks about the legacy of culture and vision: “I hope the impact is that the things
about culture and beliefs of student learning are here when I am gone. If the culture
is about teamwork and student learning and respect of our tenets, that is what you
96
want to build on, when you select a superintendent, that is what you want to look
for.” (Superintendent C, personal communication, February 22, 2008)
Finally, all four superintendents function in the human resources
frame in that they shared that it is so crucial to build relationships. Superintendent A
sums this up well, “Personal relationships are most important because when things
are not good, you at least have that. When you don’t have that the issues can get
blown out of proportion. Build solid relationships.” (Superintendent A, personal
communication, February 4, 2008)
Summary
I found leadership team use amongst the four superintendents to be much
diversified. While all used them to deliver district news and information, and all used
them in a culture of collaboration and teamwork, some used their leadership teams
directly as vehicles to deliver their instructional messages while others saw different
leadership teams as means to collaborate with many different stakeholders and
constituents within the school district and throughout their city. Regardless of how a
leadership team was used, or whether a school district operated in a centralized of
decentralized fashion, the superintendents all agreed that the use of the collaborative
culture and leadership teams did lead to increased student achievement because it
helped him or her focus on teaching and learning and instruction. Additionally
whether it is a team of two or 100 their teams impacted the way the superintendents
97
did business with regards to leading their districts towards student achievement, not
just managing their district.
This chapter was a review of the findings and interpretation of the data of the
data collected for the research study. Discussion also revealed superintendents’ and
principals’ use of and place within Bolman and Deal’s structural frameworks. A final
summary, conclusions, implications, and recommendations of the research study are
found in the next and final chapter.
98
CHAPTER V
Conclusions
Introduction
This chapter restates the problem, purpose and the methodology, followed by
findings and conclusions for each research question. The last section of the chapter
describes recommendations for practice and future research.
The conclusions presented in this chapter will be framed around the primary
research questions, with each conclusion emerging from the data with that particular
research question in the previous chapter. Additional conclusions not necessarily tied
to the four main research questions will also be shared along with conclusions and
recommendations associated with Bolan and Deal’s four frames of leadership.
The Problem
Meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind and continual improvement
in student achievement requires a strategy for improving instruction in the
classroom. This strategy must be district wide as the district office can create a plan,
identify and spread best practices, develop leadership capacity at all levels, and hold
employees accountable for results. (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006)
Superintendents must lead the way with the district office strategy; it is not
permissible to only be a manager at the top and leave the curriculum work to
coordinators and assistant superintendents. Superintendents and principals cannot
work in isolation; Houston (2001) notes that the successful superintendent of the 21
st
99
century is one who is able to find a way to lead through sharing power and engaging
members of the organization in the process of learning.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the effective practices that are
employed by superintendents’ leadership teams to impact and improve student
achievement. Additionally the study defines how a superintendent uses a leadership
team and just what defines, or makes, a leadership team for a public school
superintendent.
Case study analysis of contemporary superintendent practice with regards to
his or her leadership teams provides information that may be beneficial to other
districts and superintendents that wish to employ similar practices to impact and
improve student achievement. Research does exist on the benefits of a
superintendent’s collaborative leadership style and recent research on the value of
professional learning communities/teams is gaining momentum. However, further
information is needed regarding the current practices of superintendents and their use
of leadership teams to impact student achievement and how these practices can be
more widely applied.
100
Research Questions
The primary research questions that guided the study were as follows:
1. How has the role of the superintendent changed with regards to student
achievement in the areas of curriculum and instruction, assessment and
evaluation through the use of leadership teams?
2. How do district leadership teams work with and relate to site leadership
teams?
3. What structures and processes, if any, are in place to enable leadership
teams to impact and improve student achievement?
4. What informal and formal leadership teams do superintendents participate
in?
Methodology
Qualitative research design was employed to examine the research questions.
Qualitative research, according to Patton permits the evaluator to study “selected
issues, cases, or events in depth and detail; the fact that data collection is not
constrained by predetermined categories of analysis contributes to the depth and
detail of qualitative data.” (Patton, 1987, p. 9) The study utilized three kinds of data
collection including in-depth, open-ended interviews, direct observations, and
written documents. (Patton, 2002) Multiple interviews were conducted with
superintendents and principals in the school districts in order to get the clearest
picture of the use of leadership teams and how the teams impact and improve student
101
achievement. Interview instrumentation was in the form of the interview guide
approach and the standardized open-ended interview approach.
The following table provides a graphical illustration of the alignment of the
research questions with the data collection instruments. It illustrates which questions
aligned with the researcher’s ability to draw the conclusions that will be presented
later in this chapter.
Table 1-Alignment of Research Questions with Data Collection Instruments
Research Questions:
1. How has the role of the superintendent changed with regards to student
achievement in the areas of curriculum and instruction, assessment and
evaluation through the use of leadership teams?
2. How do district leadership teams work with and relate to site leadership teams?
3. What structures and processes, if any, are in place to enable leadership teams to
impact and improve student achievement?
4. What informal and formal leadership teams do superintendents participate in?
Alignment of Research Questions with Data Collection Instruments
Case 1-District A Alignment
Questions Data Collection Instruments
Interview Questions Observation Written Documents
Q1 X X
Q2 X X
Q3 X X X
Q4 X X X
Case 2-District B Alignment
Questions Data Collection Instruments
Interview Questions Observation Written Documents
Q1 X X
Q2 X
Q3 X X
Q4 X X X
Case 3-District C Alignment
Questions Data Collection Instruments
Interview Questions Observation Written Documents
Q1 X
Q2 X X
Q3 X X
Q4 X X X
102
Table 1, Continued- Alignment of Research Questions with Data Collection Instruments
Alignment of Research Questions with Data Collection Instruments
Case 4-District D Alignment
Questions Data Collection Instruments
Interview Questions Observation Written Documents
Q1 X X
Q2 X X
Q3 X X X
Q4 X X X
Findings Related to Literature Review
Working with Stakeholders
As noted in Glass (2000) the influence of politics makes it imperative that the
superintendent rally political support around curriculum changes. Additionally a
superintendent must stay on top of legislative action to advocate for his/her school
district. All four superintendents studied note the importance of this aspect. They
would remark time and again that working with legislators would be a primary focus
in the coming years with the fiscal challenges that all school district are facing. All
four superintendents note the importance of their school board as part of their
leadership teams. It was refreshing to hear the superintendents speak so favorably of
their school boards; emphasizing that they work on the relationship of “teamness”
with the board as opposed to an adversarial relationship. This team relationship is
consistent with what the literature supports as necessary for moving reform efforts
for student achievement forward and tying the district wide goals for student learning
with the community’s vision together. (Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, & Glass, 2005)
103
Working with parents and community members is another stakeholder group
that is indicated in the literature review (AASA, 1993) as crucial to superintendent
success and ability to get things done in a team atmosphere. Two of the
superintendents and principals, in districts A and B, emphasize the relationships that
they have developed with parents and community groups. These two school districts
receive a great deal of fundraising dollars from their parents and community groups
and thus must foster and grow these leadership teams in order to continue these
relationships.
Instructional Leadership
The review of the literature shared that successful superintendents that
see improvement in their district’s student achievement have a high level of
involvement in curriculum and instruction. (Cuban, 1984) Work by Murphy,
Hallinger, and Peterson (in Bjork 2003) and King (2002) suggest that
superintendents can impact instructional leadership by participating in regular,
collaborative, professional learning experiences to improve teaching and learning.
All four of these superintendents indicate that they spend a great deal of time at
school sites and in classrooms and with their curriculum specialists in order to
prioritize curriculum and instruction. As superintendent C repeats, “We repeat our
mantra all the time; ‘It's All about Student Learning’.” (Superintendent C, personal
communication, February 22, 2008) The success that these school districts and
superintendents have had can be attributed to the emphasis on curriculum and
instruction.
104
All did note that it is not easy, however and that there are times when the
management pieces make it difficult to keep their emphasis on the student
achievement piece.
Factors that Promote Instructional Leadership
Salient points in the literature review with regards to the study’s research
conclusions are the use of data, staff development, and the superintendent’s vision.
Morgan and Peterson’s (2000) study observe that when the board members and
principals in the district saw that the superintendent articulate a clear vision for
instruction, they perceive a significant relationship between the vision and the
planning and programs of the district. In the interviews with the principals and
superintendents, all of the men and women articulate the need to keep their vision at
the forefront of the message that they spread to their constituents on a regular basis.
It was critical that the vision is shared in written district and site documents as well
as voiced regularly at board meetings, leadership team meetings, cabinet meetings,
community forums, site council meetings, PTA meetings, and staff meetings.
Another area consistent with all four superintendents and in turn principals was
the emphasis on utilizing data. DuFour (1998, 2000, & 2004) and others show that a
commitment to use of data is another factor that influences a superintendent’s
instructional leadership. The principals note that the emphasis on standardized
testing had made this a paramount need at their sites. As is noted in the literature
(DuFour) superintendents must activate their district teams to disaggregate data and
105
teach principals and teachers to use it to modify instruction. The development of a
structure and culture that encourage learning is critical to an organization that
promotes learning and achievement.
To support this use of data, superintendents need to contribute to quality staff
development. (Dufour, 2000) Dufour argues that the most powerful form of staff
development is job embedded in which it occurs in a collaborative learning
community where teachers work together in collective inquiry and learn from one
another. All of the superintendents note that it has been an ongoing learning process
to get teachers and principals to utilize data effectively. One of the superintendents
notes that when he came to the district that there was not a data management system
in place and thus having the necessary resource initially stood in the way. He has
since provided the resource and is moving ahead with staff development and the
expectation that it be used as this is part of his vision and commitment to student
achievement. Providing resources as exemplified above is in keeping with what the
literature has shown to be a mark of a successful superintendent; superintendents that
are able to work in the area of curriculum and instruction provide the financial and
material resources that teachers and principals need to improve student achievement.
(Bredeson, 1995)
Leadership Teams for Student Achievement
Coleman & LaRocque in a 1990 study found that successful superintendents
involved a “high amount of team building and collaboration with building principals
and teachers. In their findings, they articulated that the most fundamental difference
106
between high-and low-performing district was the difference in the superintendent’s
personal judgment about the value of consensus and collaborative work of members
in the organization toward the academic achievement of students.” (Bjork &
Kowalski, 2005, p. 115-116) I conclude in my review of district documents,
observations, and interviews that these superintendents all have a high degree of
commitment and passion for collaborative work and team building. They take this
“job” seriously; making time for team building on a formal and informal basis. Each
superintendent goes about it differently, mostly based on style and individual
preference.
All four districts have worked to some degree with the professional learning
community concept (PLCs). As is noted in the literature, DuFour, Eaker, and Hord’s,
(1997, 1998) research on professional learning communities show that when schools
are structured to promote collaboration and shared leadership efficacy on part of the
teacher and student increases. Three of the districts share that they have put district
resources into formal Professional Learning Community (PLC) training through the
DuFours. This professional development is very systematic and takes the school and
district leadership teams through the process to acquire the knowledge, skills, and
tools they need to develop and sustain a Professional Learning Community.
Specifically this training helps leadership teams answer the following questions:
Why is everyone talking about Professional Learning Communities? Why should
you and your leadership team implement this culture of collaboration at your school?
Are you willing to "learn by doing" to improve student achievement? Critical to the
107
professional development piece is working with the site and district leadership teams
to learn how to sustain the change process after training ends, through use of
embedded professional learning community practices.
The principals interviewed especially found that utilizing the Professional
Learning Community (PLC) concept allows them to marshal their teachers and
support staffs to answer the questions about what we want students to learn, how will
we know when they have learned it, and how will we respond when they have not
learned it? The superintendents articulate that they have been able to use the PLC
concept to focus efforts on intervention strategies. Superintendent A, for example has
been able to use the concept to start a new district-wide initiative aimed at reading
intervention that has required a culture shift and necessitated new leadership teams.
Organizational Leadership
Consistent with solid organizational leadership is hiring the best people. As
noted in the literature review, it is critical that the superintendent lead the charge to
ensure that the right people are working in the organization. The ability of a
superintendent to develop a successful leadership team hinges on its members;
therefore the superintendent needs to safeguard that the right personnel are in place
to provide quality instruction. Collins, in Good to Great goes on to explain that first
the “who” are attended to and then the “what” can be attended to in order to move
the good to great organizational team forward. Without exception, all of the
superintendents studied mention the solid staff that they had in place to support their
vision and mission for student achievement. As a follow up question I was able to
108
query the superintendents on using teams to hire staffs. All four emphasize that team
hiring was a part of the process in their districts. However it was more of a part of
the culture in district A and B due to the nature of the greater degree of
decentralization that these districts share.
Leadership Frameworks
While not all of the superintendents and principals overtly mentioned Bolman
and Deal’s four frames, all of them operate in the frames. As is remarked in the
literature, critical to understanding the frames and superintendents’ application of the
frames is discerning that the frames are not distinct of each other and intersect
depending on the situation. If one is focused on improving student achievement, it is
critical to address all four frames. (Bolman & Deal, 2003)
Bolman and Deal note that there are “appropriate forms of coordination and
control to ensure that diverse efforts of and individuals and units mesh,” (Bolman &
Deal, 2003, p. 45) within and among leadership teams. When describing their teams,
the superintendents and principals all noted that the various types of teams had
various levels of controls and levels of formality depending on situation. It cannot be
concluded that one level is better than another, but can be said that the best level
depends on the particular situation. For example, one superintendent described her
Finance Committee in which strict coordination and control was needed versus the
Coalition of Legislative Action where a more free flowing idea think tank type of
team was needed.
109
All of the superintendents and principals operated in the human resource and
political frame daily. There was not one interview in which a superintendent did not
speak extensively about the need to develop and nurture relationships. Leadership
team performance depends heavily on the structure and a critical ingredient of teams
that perform well is an effective pattern of roles and relationships focused on
attaining common goals. (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 95)
Only one superintendent overtly mentions the symbolic frame, although they
all operate in this frame as well. I see this evidence in my observations and review of
documents. For example, superintendent C continually talked about “returning to our
tenets” and showing them throughout the district. (Superintendent C, personal
communication, February 22, 2008) The district tenets and mantra have become a
symbol for the culture of student achievement that is now pervasive in his district.
Summary of Findings
The findings based on the four research questions were disclosed through
data collected in this research study. These findings are briefly summarized below.
Research Question One
Question number analyzes how the role of the superintendent changes with
regards to student achievement in the areas of curriculum and instruction, assessment
and evaluation through the use of leadership teams. Research data shows that a more
collaborative approach exists with all of the superintendents and in all of the school
districts. Transparent communication in all areas with regards to student achievement
110
is now part and parcel of all of the school districts; although this can also be
attributed to the emphasis on accountability with No Child Left Behind.
Additionally, a greater weight is placed on data analysis and evaluation due to the
use of leadership teams. All of the superintendents and principals share that there is
an expectation that administrators and teachers participate in a cycle of inquiry,
examining student work and assessments to ensure that each student achievement
remains in the forefront and that intervention programs are meeting student needs.
Furthermore, there is an expectation that administrators, superintendents included,
are in classrooms examining teaching and learning on a regular basis.
Research Question Two
The second research question investigates how site leadership teams work with
district leadership teams. Data from the principal interviews is very illuminating for
this question. Research data shows that the superintendents and principals see the site
leadership teams as extensions of the district leadership teams. This was especially
true when interviewees were speaking specifically of the Professional Learning
Community concept.
Research Question Three
Research question number three analyzes what structures and processes are in
place to enable leadership teams to impact and improve student achievement. Data
from the interviews, observations, and review of documents shows that the primary
structures in place to enable leadership teams to impact and improve student
111
achievement are the districts’ mission and vision, strategic plans, staff development,
and the use of data analysis and cycle of inquiry.
Research Question Four
The last research question analyzes what informal and formal leadership
teams superintendents participate in. Research data shows that superintendents
participate in many different types of leadership teams and these teams range from as
many as 100+ to as little as two members. The different types of teams are formed
and developed for many different reasons. Some are formal and others informal. All
four superintendents, for example, have a “cabinet” that is formal and comprised of
assistant superintendents and directors. All four extend this group with an “extended
cabinet,” although one has not met in two years. One superintendent talks of looking
at all encounters as a team, commenting to the researcher that in the interview, “We
are a team of two now.” (Superintendent A, personal communication, February 4,
2008)
Organizational Frameworks
Through this research, it is clear that just as developing different types of
teams depending on the situation or need is necessary, superintendent and principal
use of organizational frameworks are critical to impacting student achievement.
Utilizing a different perspective for different times and situations or needs is
beneficial. As Bolman and Deal note, a structural process may be in order at times,
as when a “rational process focused on gathering and analyzing information data is
112
needed,” (p. 309). Other times a human resources approach is appropriate, as when
one needs to develop a power base to implement a curricular change process.
Successful instructional leaders must be able to choose the correct frame or
combination of frames in order to enact the curricular changes that they feel are
critical to raising student achievement.
The leaders that I interviewed all have commitment and passion for
student success, employing the human resource and symbolic frame to marshal their
constituencies to work to meet student needs. Without the energy of these leaders,
the teachers in the trenches would not implement the curriculum and the vision of the
leaders would fall flat.
However, in needing to meet the needs of their school boards, the
superintendents all have to employ the structural frame to prove that the decisions of
their leadership teams are technically correct and sound. Many times new curricular
decisions, as in the case of the Response to Instruction initiative in district A call on
the superintendent and principals to establish a coordinated leadership team that will
carry out the mission and vision of the district in a manner that will be consistent
with best practices and district resources.
The sustained commitment to student achievement calls on an
accomplished superintendent to be able to successfully navigate the political frame
as well. Gathering all the different constituents together that make up a leadership
team and keeping them all together and moving forward takes political skill.
Ensuring that the right folks have a seat at the table and allocating resources
113
accordingly is critical. This aspect of the organizational framework will continue to
become more and more crucial as the superintendents studied, and indeed all in
California, navigate the state’s budget difficulties.
Conclusions
Upon analyzing the four questions and findings several conclusions
emerged along with some best practices. Following are the conclusions and best
practices, implications and recommendations.
Research Question #1
How has the role of the superintendent changed with regards to student
achievement in the areas of curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation
through the use of leadership teams?
It is imperative that the superintendent use his/her leadership team to provide
guidance in the area of data analysis and providing resources for professional
development.
Research Question #2
How do district leadership teams work with and relate to site leadership
teams?
The superintendent must use his/her district level leadership teams as models
for site based leadership teams and where appropriate allow site based teams to meet
with district level teams to share best practices for teaching and learning.
114
Research Question #3
What structures and processes, if any, are in place to enable leadership teams
to impact and improve student achievement?
Articulating the vision and mission is one of the paramount structures and
processes to impacting student achievement for a superintendent. Committing to an
on-going cycle of inquiry of student assessment and student work is essential for
district and site leadership teams to improve student achievement.
Research Question #4
What informal and formal leadership teams do superintendents participate in?
There is no right or wrong definition of a leadership team and can be made of
two to 100+ members. Leadership teams are situational and may last a week or for
the lifetime of a district. It is important that superintendents evaluate their usage for
efficacy on a regular basis and ensure that the correct constituents are represented for
the particular use.
Best Practices
The nine “best practice” conclusions for superintendents that emerged from
this study with regards to superintendent behavior and use of leadership teams are as
follows:
1. A superintendent must have a clear vision centered on student achievement
for the district and must work with the board of education and district staff
to set the vision, goals and objectives for the district. The vision is tied to
115
the district tenets, state accountability measures, a commitment to data
analysis. Following, he or she articulates the vision on a regular basis with
all constituents and allocate necessary resources to the programs that will
meet the needs of the students.
2. A superintendent should communicate regularly with his/her stakeholders.
The communication is open in a culture of trust and collaboration.
3. Superintendents must be committed to allocating time and resources to
staff development. When resources are aligned with curriculum and
instruction the commitment to student achievement is solid.
4. Superintendents should be committed to data analysis combined with the
use of technology in a cycle of inquiry model to ensure that each student is
progressing. District progress toward achievement and instructional goals
remains the driving force behind all of the district’s actions.
5. Superintendents must be committed to collaboration and the concept of
teams; both fixed teams that meet regularly and ad hoc teams that are
formed as situations arise.
6. Superintendents must be committed to acting as an instructional leader,
ensuring that he/she knows that his/her most important job is to make sure
that students are learning and achieving at high levels. He/she stays current
about best instructional practices.
116
7. Superintendents should build solid teams of internal leaders to meet the
challenges facing public education, initiate reform, and assess efforts along
the way to sustain the reform.
8. Superintendents need to coach their building principals to be the central
envoys of change as site principals can have the greatest direct impact with
teachers and in turn students in raising student achievement.
Superintendents can have a positive impact on student learning, primarily
through the promotion, support, and development of principals as
instructional leaders. (Cudeiro, 2005)
9. Superintendents should encourage professional readings and study groups
amongst their principals and leadership team members to sustain individual
and group professional development and emphasis on best practice in quest
for sustained student achievement.
Implications and Recommendations
This study investigated the use of leadership teams to affect student
achievement. The interviews with superintendents and principals have left no doubt
that the leader at the top of the organization, both at the district and school level,
does indeed have a great impact on the culture of the organization and student
achievement. The findings and conclusions of the study lead to the following
implications and recommendations:
With the emphasis on Professional Learning Communities and the
recognition that building principals are more than just managers but the architects of
117
student achievement at the site level, it is recommended that there be an increase in
staff development at the district and site level. Smith and Andrews (1989) suggest
that in order to improve the quality of schools, the professional practice of principals
must be addressed through defining instructional leadership and supporting
principals in instructional leadership roles. Positive examples exist include the
reading groups in districts B and C, and the Principal Rookie Group in district D.
Models such as these plus the use of the ACSA academy should be part of a required
on-going professional development program for principals so that they can continue
to lead in curriculum and instruction at the site level.
Staff development at the site level in the area of data analysis to continue the
leadership team concept of cycle of inquiry with data analysis and emphasis on
noting the progress of each student’s achievement is needed for all levels of a
district’s staff to sustain student achievement progress. This type of commitment to
student achievement and staff development must come from the superintendent’s
vision.
Continue to educate school boards on maintaining the focus on student
achievement. Managing fiscal resources and facilities are important, but hire the
right people and those will take care of themselves; the number one vision and
mission is student achievement, and that is what the superintendent must focus on.
The superintendents comment on the positive relationships that they enjoy with their
boards. These relationships and models can serve as a model for others. The
118
superintendent, in setting the mission and vision for the school district must keep
programs and policies that connect to student achievement at the forefront.
Similarly, school boards can look to hire superintendents that see student
achievement and a culture of teaming and collaboration as job one.
The ability to work as a team does not come easy, those aspiring to be
superintendents need training in Professional Learning Communities and working in
teams.
School board members should have formal training in PLC concept and
working as teams so that they can be part of district team culture.
Include community groups, PTAs, business groups as part of teams as
appropriate as part of leadership teams. Leadership teams focused on student
achievement are fluid and will include district, site, and external groups depending
on the nature of the group and timing.
Future research is recommended for schools and districts using the
Professional Learning Community concept. It is recommended that a school/district
that goes through formal training be studied to show how the culture of the school
changes with regards to the concept of teaming and collaboration. It is recommended
that the school and district be followed for three to five years to see how student
achievement is sustained and the impact of the team concept impacts the culture of
the school and district.
119
Limitations of the Study
Every effort was made for the study to be conducted without bias, but
there is the possibility that the biases of the researcher may have gotten in the way of
the data analysis. The professionals interviewed were inviting and open towards
answering questions.
The research study was framed as a positive study, focusing on
successful superintendents, so the superintendents and principals tended to share
optimistic and positive outcomes for the most part, although they did share
challenges; primarily related to working in teams in fiscal crises.
Because the researcher is a principal herself and involved with
collaborative teamwork, some preconceived conjecture about the responses may
have preceded the responses. However, the researcher kept an open mind and
attempted to use direct quotes from the interviewees to maintain objectivity.
Summary
Superintendent behaviors do have an impact on the instructional program.
Superintendent use of leadership teams therefore makes a statement about a district’s
commitment to collaboration. Successful superintendents establish a solid support
base around them, developing a team or teams that support their visions and sustain
and move forward the vision and mission of the school district. Successful
superintendents have to be able to deal with the details of the school district while
maintaining a focus on the big picture that is sustained student achievement.
Successful superintendents can bring stakeholders together for many different
120
reasons; sometimes situational, for example fiscal crises, and other times focused on
the overall mission of the school district-in the case of all four studied-student
achievement. This ability to coalesce stakeholders is indeed a measure of how the
superintendent will ultimately be judged because he or she cannot increase and
sustain student achievement alone. Maintaining a strict adherence to an overall
district focus to student achievement was noted over and over by all four
superintendents.
While not directly a research question or focus of this research study, all four
superintendents emphasized the importance of communication in their ability to
impact student achievement. Whether it be marshalling a leadership team at the
district or site level, leading a board meeting, or communicating student achievement
results to parents, the superintendent’s ability to communicate clearly and
confidently is critical to his/her ability to be seen as efficacious in his/her position.
Because the nature of leadership teams is so dependent on the relationships between
and among the members of the team, it is vital that trust is developed. The
superintendents and principals emphasize the critical nature of trust and
communication when building and sustaining a team that is able to work well
together.
All of the conversations demonstrate that despite the long hours at work,
budget crises, days of salary negotiations, and the like, these instructional leaders
studied are passionate and on the whole optimistic about what they do. These
leaders do feel that they can impact student achievement and the culture of their
121
organization. All four superintendents are optimistic that working in a culture of
collaboration in a spirit of teamwork they can meet the needs of their students and
see sustained student achievement.
122
REFERENCES
Belden, Russonello, & Stewart. From the top: superintendents on instructional
leadership (July 2005). Washington D.C.: Belden, Russonello, & Stewart
Research and Communications.
AASA (1993). Professional Standards for the Superintendency. Arlington, VA:
American Association of School Administrators.
Bjork, L. G. (2000). Introduction: Women in the Superitendency-Advances in
research and theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 5-17.
Bjork, L. G., & Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Contemporary Superintendent. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Bredeson, P. V. (1995). Superintendents' roles in curriculum development and
instructional leadership: instructional visionaries, collaborators, supporters,
and delegators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Brunner, C. C., & Grogan, M. (2003, April). AASA national survey of women in the
superintendency and central office: Preliminary results. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago.
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social
forces that have shaped the administration of public schools. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, M. D. (1990).
Organization and control of American schools (6th ed.). Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school
districts [Electronic version]. Harvard Business Review.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: Harper Collins.
123
Copland, M. A. (2002, September). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining
capacity for school improvement in the Bay Area School Reform
Collaborative.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: effective schools research,
policy, and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2),
129-151.
Cuban, L. (1988). Teachers College Record. How Schools Change Reforms:
Redefining Reform Success and Failure, 99(3), 453-477.
Cuban, L. (1998). The superintendent contradiction. Education Week, 18(7).
Cudeiro, A. (2005). Leading student achievement: a study finds superintendents
affecting instructional gains through their strong relationships with principals.
School Administrator, 62(11), 16-19.
Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools.
Washington D.C.: The Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc.
Dufour, R. (2000). The superintendent as staff developer. School Administrator,
57(8), 20-24.
Dufour, R. (2004). What is a "professional learning community"? Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes, how
professional learning communities respond when kids don't learn.
Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National
Education Service.
Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (2005). On common ground. The power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Eaker, R., Dufour, R., & Dufour, R. (2002). Getting Started. Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
124
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Glass, T. (2000). Where are all the women superintendents? The School
Administrator, 57(6), 28-32.
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L. G., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American
superintendency 2000: A look at the superintendent in the new millennium.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Grogan, M. (2005). Women leading systems: what the latest facts say about women
in the superintendency today. School Administrator, 62(2), 46-51.
Heenan, D., & Bennis, W. (1999). Co-leaders: the power of great partnerships. New
York: John Wiley.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: it's not just a job, it's a
calling. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 428-433.
Hoyle, J. R., Bjork, L. G., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). Superintendent as CEO.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Cowin Press.
Kelleher, P. (2002). Core values of the superintendency. School Administrator,
59(2), 28-31.
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8),
61-63.
Konnert, M. W., & Augenstein, J. J. (1995). school superintendency: Leading
education into the 21st century. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school superintendent communicator.
Journal of Communication in Education.
Lashway, L. (2002, September). The superintendent in age of accountability.
Clearinghouse on Educational Policy Management. Retrieved 02/12/2007,
from ERIC database.
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school
leadership. Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.
125
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers' professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757-798.
Marsh, J. A. (2003, April). ) Connecting Districts to the Policy Dialogue: A Review
of Literature on the Relationship of Districts with States, Schools, and
Communities. Center for the Teaching and Policy.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Matthews, J. (2001). Nontraditional thinking in the central office. The School
Administrator, 6-24.
McCracken, J. G. (1973). Building community acceptance for innovation.
Educational Leadership, 30(6), 519-522.
McGuire, K. 7 Disciplines for Strengthening Instruction. Retrieved February 12,
2007, from New York State Council of School Superintendents Web Site:
http://www.nyscoss.org
Merriam, S. B. (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, C., & Peterson, G. (2000). The role of the district superintendent in leading
academically successful school districts. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Annual Conference for the University Council of Educational
Administration. Albuquerque, NM.
Morrissey, M. S. (2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing
exploration. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Austin, TX.
Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the
study of instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 10(2), 117-139.
Newman, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring.
Madison: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring
of Schools.
Orr, M. T. (2006). Learning the superintendency: socialization, negotiation, and
determination. Teachers College Record, 106(7), 1362-1403.
126
Pajak, E. F., & Glickman, C. D. (1989). Dimensions of school district improvement.
Educational Leadership, 46(8), 61-64.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Petersen, G. J. (2002). Singing the same tune: Principals' and school board members'
perceptions of the superintendents' role in curricular and instructional
leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(2), 158-171.
Peterson, G. J., & Barnett, B. G. (2003, April). The superintendent as instructional
leader: history, evolution and future of the role. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Peterson, G. J., & Barnett, B. G. (2005). The superintendent as instructional leader.
In L. G. Bjork & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The Contemporary Superintendent
(pp. 107-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Price, W. J. (2001). Policy governance revisited. School administrator, 58(2), 46-48.
Rallis, S., Tedder, J., Lachman, A., & Elmore, R. (2006). Superintendents in the
classrooms: from collegial conversation to collaborative action. Phi Delta
Kappan, 87, 537-545.
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2006). The 38th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll
of Public's attitudes. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1).
Ruebling, C. E., Stow, S. B., Kayona, F. A., & Clarke, N. A. (2004). Instructional
leadership: an essential ingredient for improving student learning. The
Educational Forum, 68(3), 243-253.
Scheurich, J. J., & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Schomburg, G. (2006). Superintendent in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 546-
550.
Senge, P. M. (2006). Fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning
organization (Rev. ed.). New York: Doubleday.
127
Smith, W., and Andrews, R. (1989), Instructional Leadership: How principals make
a Difference. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical
evidence. School Leadership and Management. 22(1), 73-91.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2000). Investigating school leadership
Practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-27.
Taylor, S.J., & Bogdan, R., (1984) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods.
(2
nd
ed.) New York: Wiley.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts
can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington
DC: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum and Development.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006, September). School district leadership that
works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. A
working paper. McREL.
Witherspoon, P. (1997). Connecting leadership: An organizational perspective.
Needham Heights, NH: Allyn & Bacon.
Yee, G., & Cuban, L. (1996). When is tenure long enough? A historical analysis of
superintendent turnover and tenure in urban school districts. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32, 615-641.
128
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol-Superintendent Interview Questions
• Among the various responsibilities of superintendents is instructional
leadership. What are the most important things you do as superintendent in
the area of curriculum development and instructional leadership? What do
you spend the most time on?
• What describes your administrative responsibilities in the area of curriculum
and instruction?
• What is the role of curriculum and instruction in your annual review by the
school board? What does this have to say about student achievement in your
district?
• What measure or method do you use for evaluating student achievement?
• What are the various stakeholders that make up a learning
community/leadership team?
• Share with me a typical agenda of one of your leadership team meetings.
129
• What are the differences, if any, between the leadership team at the district
level and the site level?
• What roles do you want principals to play in curriculum and instruction?
• Could you please give an example of an experience of using your leadership
team to impact/improve student achievement?
• What structures and processes are in place to enable leadership teams to
impact student achievement?
• Which policies and practices are in place in your district to improve teaching
and learning?
130
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol-Principal Interview Questions
• Among the various responsibilities of principals is instructional leadership.
What are the most important things you do as principal in the area of
curriculum development and instructional leadership? What do you spend the
most time on?
• What describes your administrative responsibilities in the area of curriculum
and instruction?
• What is the role of curriculum and instruction in your annual review by your
supervisor? What does this have to say about student achievement in your
district?
• What measure or method do you use for evaluating student achievement?
• What are the various stakeholders that make up a learning
community/leadership team?
• What are the differences, if any, between the leadership team at the district
level and the site level?
• What roles do you feel your superintendent wants principals to play in
curriculum and instruction?
• Could you please give an example of an experience of using your leadership
team to impact/improve student achievement?
• What has been your experience with using leadership teams to impact student
achievement?
131
• What happens once a team determines that achievement has dipped?
• What structures and processes are in place to enable leadership teams to
impact student achievement?
• Which policies and practices are in place in your district to improve teaching
and learning?
• Have you gone through any formal training with your teachers on the use of
leadership teams; e.g. the Professional Learning Communities process? If so,
how did this affect the culture of your school?
132
APPENDIX C
Observational Protocol
Demographic information (date, time, place, district)
Topic/Meeting
Descriptive Notes
Reflective Notes
133
APPENDIX D
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Dear Superintendent:
You are invited to participate in a research study by Erica L. Hoegh and Dr. Rudy
Castruita from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. You were selected because of your district’s proven track record of
student achievement and your leadership in that area. I am currently in the
dissertation stage of my doctoral program and seeking assistance from such
successful superintendents. Your participation is voluntary
The purpose of the study is to examine the effective practices that are employed by
superintendents’ leadership teams to impact and improve student achievement.
Additionally the study will define how a superintendent uses a leadership team and
just what defines, or makes, a leadership team for public school superintendent.
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to take to part in a face-to-face
interview. I will supply the interview questions ahead of time to maximize your time.
134
Questions will center on your use of leadership teams, how you evaluate student
achievement, and the role of curriculum and instruction amongst your leaders at the
district and site levels. Interview time should take approximately 45 minutes.
There are no anticipated risks to your participation. There are no direct benefits to
your participation; however your participation may help provide strategies
educational leaders can use to impact and improve student achievement in the future.
If you have any questions of concerns regarding participating in this study, please
contact me at hoegh@usc.edu or via telephone at (949) 509-6649. Thank you very
much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Erica L. Hoegh
Erica L. Hoegh
hoegh@usc.edu
949-509-6649
135
APPENDIX E
Statement of Consent
(Participant’s Copy)
I have read this consent letter and I fully understand the contents of the document
and voluntarily consent to participate in this research study. I acknowledge that I
have been informed of, and understand, the nature and purpose of this study, and
freely consent to participate. I acknowledge that I have received a copy of this
consent form.
Please check here if you consent to participate: ________
Print Name: ____________________________________
Signature: _____________________________________
Please check here if you would like a copy of the study results sent to you: ________
136
Statement of Consent
(Researcher’s Copy)
I have read this consent letter and I fully understand the contents of the document
and voluntarily consent to participate in this research study. I acknowledge that I
have been informed of, and understand, the nature and purpose of this study, and
freely consent to participate. I acknowledge that I have received a copy of this
consent form.
Please check here if you consent to participate: ________
Print Name: ____________________________________
Signature: _____________________________________
Please check here if you would like a copy of the study results sent to you: ________
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
For K-12 school districts to meet national and state accountability requirements and see continual improvement in student achievement, each district requires a strategy for improving instruction in the classroom. This strategy must be district wide as the district office can create a plan, identify and spread best practices, and develop leadership capacity at all levels. Superintendents must lead the way with the district office strategy.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent
PDF
The impact of parental involvement on student achievement
PDF
The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study
PDF
Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement
PDF
The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies
PDF
Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males
PDF
Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement
PDF
Leading the way: the effective implementation of reform strategies and best practices to improve student achievement in math
PDF
Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement
PDF
Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions
PDF
An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement
PDF
How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement
PDF
Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents
PDF
Defined autonomy: how superintendents work with principals to create the defined autonomy at schools necessary for improved student achievement
PDF
Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males
PDF
Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hoegh, Erica L.
(author)
Core Title
Effective practices employed by superintendents' leadership teams that impact student achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/17/2008
Defense Date
03/03/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
leadership teams,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning communities,superintendent
Language
English
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy M. (
committee chair
), Chidester, Margaret (
committee member
), Reed, Margaret (
committee member
)
Creator Email
hoegh@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1140
Unique identifier
UC178403
Identifier
etd-Hoegh-20080417 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-58685 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1140 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Hoegh-20080417.pdf
Dmrecord
58685
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Hoegh, Erica L.
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
leadership teams
professional learning communities