University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

(USC Thesis Other)

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A NEW ERA OF LEADERSHIP:
PREPARING LEADERS FOR URBAN SCHOOLS & THE 21
ST
CENTURY

by

Sunday C. Abbott
_____________________________________________________________________

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

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Sunday C. Abbott

ii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Roberts Burns. I
want to thank the both of you for the sacrifices you made so I could have a better life.
You taught me the fundamental morals I needed to succeed. Mama, I thank you for
always being there and sometimes giving me your last. Your knowledge, wisdom and
life’s lessons will always be with me. From you I learned the importance of education
and I attribute my educational success to you. Daddy, your strength and hard work were
instrumental in getting me through this dissertation process. I wish you could have stayed
around a little longer to see me finish. From you I learned to enjoy life and celebrate
success. I know both of you would be proud of me. May you both rest in peace.
This is also dedicated to my husband. You are my biggest fan and I thank you for
your love, support, friendship and sacrifice. To my Mom and sisters, thank you for
allowing me to be me. Your unconditional love and support means the world to me. This
is also dedicated to all my friends and colleagues that supported me and gave me
encouraging words throughout this process. Your friendship ROCKS!
To all the educators out there, we will continue to Fight On!

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my Dissertation Committee Chair, Dr. Margaret
Reed, for her leadership throughout this process. Her patience, teachings and knowledge
were invaluable. To my Dissertation Committee Members: Dr. Kathy Stowe and Dr.
Pedro Garcia thanks for your positive feedback and perspective.
A very special acknowledgement to Paula Libby. I still recall the day we decided
to apply to USC. We had no idea what we were getting ourselves into, but I was so glad I
had a friend that would be supportive and make sure we completed the program. Your
encouragement, collaboration, commitment and patience meant so much to me. I would
like to acknowledge my Dissertation Thematic Group members. You guys are intelligent,
strong, committed educators that I had the pleasure of spending the last year with. The
world is waiting for you! Thank you to Karina Martir for making the first two years of
the program such a blast, and reminding me of my own self-efficacy.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the principals, teachers and professional
development staff of Davis Independent School District. Thank you for opening your
doors and allowing me to conduct my research at you school sites. I appreciate your
hospitality, your kindness and your commitment to kids. Thanks for giving me an
opportunity to see another district that is committed to the reform of our educational
system.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

Abstract ix

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Chapter One Introduction 1
Leadership Frameworks 3
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 7
Research Questions 8
Significance of the Study 9
Conceptual Framework 10
Delimitations 12
Limitations 13
Assumptions 14
Definition of Terms 16
Chapter One Organization of the Study 17

Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Chapter Two Introduction 18
The Urban Context 19
Standards-Based Accountability and Reform 22
New Directions for School Leadership 22
Leadership Theory 24
Leadership Defined 24
Leadership Effects 25
Marzano’s 21 Responsibilities 27
Instructional Leadership 28
Transformational Leadership 31
Learning-Centered Leadership 35
Leadership for Social Justice 38
Leadership Capacity-Building: Effective Program Components 41
Davis Achieves and Davis Principal Coaching Initiative 43
Leadership Support Structures 45
Mentoring and Coaching 46

v

Chapter Two Summary 47
Chapter Two Organization of the Study 48

Chapter Three: Methodology 49
Chapter Three Introduction 49
Intervention: Davis Achieves and Davis Principal 49
Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
Design of the Study 51
Sample and Population 52
Selection Criteria 53
Gaining Access to Participants 55
Data Collection Procedures 56
Instrumentation Overview 58
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) 58
Interviews 62
Observations and Documents 65
Data Analysis Procedures 66
Formative Data Analysis Procedures 66
Summative Data Analysis 66
Validity 68
Ethical Considerations 70
Chapter Three Summary 71
Chapter Three Organization of the Study 71

Chapter Four: Research Findings 72
Chapter Four Introduction 72
Davis Principal Coaching Initiative 73
Case Study One ~ Washington High School 74
Case Study One Location and Demographics 74
Case Study One Culture and Climate 75
Case Study One Teacher Profiles 76
Principal Parks 76
Case Study One Findings 78
Case Study Two ~ Bancroft Leadership Academy 104
Case Study Two Location and Demographics 104
Case Study Two Culture and Climate 106
Case Study Two Teacher Profiles 106
Principal Matthews 107
Case Study Two Findings 108
Cross-Case Analysis 138
Chapter Four Summary 139

vi

Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Recommendations 140
Chapter Five Introduction 140
Chapter Five Statement of the Problem 140
Chapter Five Purpose of the Study 142
Chapter Five Research Questions 143
Chapter Five Methodology 143
Summary of Findings and Theoretical Implications 144
Implications for Future Research 153
Implications for Policy and Practice 153
Limitations 154
Chapter Five Conclusion 156

References 158

Appendices:
Appendix A: Letter of Support from Chief Administrative Officer 163
Appendix B: Approval to Collect Data from Chairperson 164
Research Office
Appendix C: Invitation Letter to Principals 165
Appendix D: Preintervention Principal Interview Protocol 166
Appendix E: Postintervention Principal Interview Protocol 167
Appendix F: Preintervention Teacher Interview Protocol 169
Appendix G: Postintervention Teacher Interview Protocol 167
Appendix H: Pre/Post Observation Protocol 170
Appendix I: Document Analysis Protocol 171
Appendix J: Informed Consent Letter 172
Appendix K: Washington HS Professional Development Agenda 175
Appendix L: Washington HS Bell Schedule 177
Appendix M: Washington HS Master Schedule 178
Appendix N: Bancroft Plc Template 179
Appendix O: Bancroft School Brochure 180
Appendix P: Bancroft Vertical Team Agenda 181
Appendix Q: Principal Matthews Val-Ed Report 183

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Instructional Leadership Behaviors 29
Table 2: Transformational Leadership Behaviors 33
Table 3: Distinctions Between a Good Leader and a Social Justice Leader 40
Table 4: Davis Achievement Results, 2008-2009 55
Table 5: DPCI Core Components Alignment Matrix 64
Table 6: Triangulation Table 66

Table 7: Data Collection Timeline 68

Table 8: Washington High School Achievement Data 2008-2009 75

Table 9: Bancroft Leadership Academy Achievement Data, 2008-2009 106

Table 10: Summary of Core Component Scores 132
Table 11: Summary of Key Processes Scores 133

Table 12: Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement 136

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Proposed Study 10
Figure 2: Learning-Centered Leadership Framework 36
Figure 3: Sample VAL-ED Survey 60
Figure 4: VAL-ED Results, Principal Matthews September 2009 135

ix

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of principal participation
in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative, an executive leadership capacity building
development program, on leader practice and professional practice of teachers. This
mixed-method comparative case study investigated the following five research questions:
(1) How does participation in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) prepare
principals to become effective instructional leaders? (2) How does the DPCI influence the
knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of urban school principals? (3) How does an
urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures and processes that
promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes? (4) What leadership
support structures enable leader practice? And, (5) How can the VAL-ED instrument
serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Quantitative data were collected from the results of the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey, an instrument that provided a summary of
the principals, teachers and supervisors’ perceptions on the principal’s leadership
behaviors (Murphy et al. 2006). Qualitative data were collected from pre-post interviews,
observations and document analysis.
Key findings revealed that the DPCI provided the principals with professional
development that increased their capacity as instructional leaders; and the coaching
structure helped the principal implement district initiatives, and provided the principals
with moral and daily support at the school site. Findings also indicated that the principals
displayed instructional and learning-centered leadership behaviors, such as monitoring

x

and evaluating the instructional program, creating a positive organizational culture and
defining and communicating the school goals.

1

CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Chapter One Introduction

In 2001 the United States Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
Act (ESEA) and renamed it the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” (NCLB). NCLB
(2001), like its predecessor and other school reform models, was developed because of
the gap between the performance of American students to those from other countries, and
widespread perception that American students were not prepared for a 21
st
century global
society (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003). Prior to NCLB (2001), the Equality in
Educational Opportunity (Coleman et al. 1966) report, which is better known as the
“Coleman Report,” and A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) were two of the most
influential documents ever written about the failure of America’s public educational
system. These reports noted that (a) our schools did not do much to lessen the
achievement gaps between subgroups, (b) our schools were mediocre, and (c) there was a
lack of attention to higher order skills and concepts. Since the release of these reports, our
educational system improved tremendously, and NCLB (2001) helped to raise standards
and accountability; however, many educators, policymakers and the general public
question whether our schools and our students are prepared for the 21
st
century.
One of the major changes in the new reform model is the emphasis on outcomes
and accountability. In addition, the NCLB (2001) model is broader in scope than the

2

Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) and is considered one of the most ambitious
reform initiatives ever proposed (Stecher et al., 2003). Under NCLB (2001) public
schools across the nation are required to prepare all students to be proficient in Language
Arts and Math by 2013-14, and to close the achievement gap between disadvantage and
minority students and their White and Asian peers (Stecher et al., 2003). The cornerstone
of NCLB (2001) is test-based accountability where educators are judged on student
performance; and if schools and districts fail to meet their adequate yearly progress
(AYP), they face harsh consequences (Stecher et al., 2003).
The federal government did not stipulate a specific way to reach these ambitious
goals, but expects educators to be innovative with finding ways to increase student
achievement. As a result, many states responded to this legislation by raising standards,
mandating student testing and demanding school accountability. Although the federal
government is clear about its goals for all students, it makes the false assumption that
schools across the nation are equipped with the personnel, resources and finances to lead
the reform process (Cuban, 2001; Stecher et al., 2003).
Urban districts, for example, are expected to use the same resources and meet the
same expectations as their counterparts in nearby suburban districts (Cuban, 2001).
Schools in urban communities face different challenges than schools in suburban
communities, and require a different set of resources (Cuban, 2001; Noguera, 1996).
Teaching and learning in the urban context, for example, requires educators to pay more
attention to the settings, which are characterized by diversity of race, ethnicity, gender,
class, culture, language abilities and violence. Leaders in the urban settings are often

3

unprepared and unwilling to deal with the school conditions that are connected to the
communities (Cuban, 2001). The issues and challenges of the urban context call into
question whether or not urban schools are equipped with leaders that have the knowledge,
skills, and habit of practice needed to reform and meet the expectations of NCLB (Cuban,
2001).
Districts across the nation have reported a shortage of highly qualified principal
candidates that have the ability to meet NCLB (2001) standards (Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007; Vandeharr, Munoz, & Rodosky, 2006). In
addition, as the recruitment for highly qualified principals continues, the knowledge and
skill requirements for the position increases. Many practitioners continue to argue that the
job requirements far exceed the capacities of one person (Darling-Hammond et al. 2007;
Levine, 2005). Higher standards for student achievement, increased accountability, the
urban context and increased responsibilities for principals have forced the education
community to rethink how leaders are prepared and supported through the reform
process.
Leadership Frameworks
In order to challenge the status quo, and meet the needs of all students, schools
and the community, a new type of leadership is essential. Principals will need to rethink
their leadership approach based on the school context (Hallinger, Bickman & Davis,
1996). There are four major leadership frameworks that have prevailed in recent
decades—instructional, transformational, learner-centered, and social justice leadership
models. Under the instructional leadership model, leaders implement instructional

4

leadership behaviors such as framing school goals, coordinating curriculum, enforcing
academic standards and monitoring student progress (Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985; Heck, 1992). On the other hand, transformational leaders develop
structures to foster participation in school decisions, build collaborative cultures, provide
intellectual stimulation and offer individualized support (Hallinger, 1992; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2000, 2005). Marks and Printy (2003) argued for an integration of the two models
to see the power of leadership shared by individuals throughout the school to improve
school performance.
The learning-centered leadership framework proposed by Murphy, Elliot,
Goldring, and Porter (2006) is a more recent framework that urban leaders can draw
upon. Learning-centered leadership is based on research findings that indicate student
outcomes are indirectly influenced by leader practice (Hallinger et al.,1996; Hallinger &
Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Youngs & King, 2002).
The leadership behaviors under the learning-centered model integrate behaviors from the
instructional leadership and transformational leadership models. The learning-centered
model also takes risks in introducing constructs from social advocacy—ethics and
diversity. There is a gap in the literature concerning the extent to which social justice
research has been conducted; as a result more studies are needed in this area.
Although social-justice advocacy is important to education, it lacks research
grounding and a set of well-defined leadership traits that “enact justice” (Murphy et al.,
2006; Theoharis, 2007, p. 222). Theoharis (2007) defined social justice leadership “to
mean that these principals make issues of race, class, gender, disability, sexual

5

orientation, and other historically and currently marginalizing conditions in the United
States central to their advocacy, leadership practice, and vision” (p. 223). In order for
educational leaders to become leaders for social justice, they will need to examine their
personal beliefs and analyze their professional behavior (Brown, 2006).
The four leadership frameworks presented here give principals roadmaps to
different leadership approaches they can use for the reform process; begin to challenge
the status quo, and redefine the leader’s role. Each framework embodies different
behaviors of effective school leaders that influence student achievement through their
direct impact on teacher practice and organizational structures.

Statement of the Problem
Though there is a growing body of evidence and consensus that principals
influence student achievement by supporting and developing effective teachers, and
implementing effective organizational processes (Hallinger et al., 1996; Leithwood et al.,
2004; Murphy et al., 2006) more research is needed to determine the impact and
importance of these leadership behaviors in key areas such as curriculum, assessment,
and adaptation to local contexts (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson,
2005). Most empirical research in this area focuses on the structures, processes and
methods used to prepare principals, but more empirical research is needed to help
understand how principals develop the capacities that influence how schools function and
what students learn (Davis et al., 2005).

6

Leading researchers including Darling-Hammond et al. (2007), Jackson and
Kelley (2002), and Levine (2005) identified elements of leadership capacity-building
programs that are aligned with effective principal practice; however, what is still
unknown within this body of research are the specific program features and practices that
influence the organizational culture and student outcomes (Davis et al., 2005; Hallinger
& Murphy, 1985; Leithwood et al., 2004). More research is needed to understand how
key elements of current leadership capacity building programs such as (a) pedagogy, (b)
rigor, (c) curricular coherence, (d) connection between theory and practice, and (e)
support structures such as mentoring and coaching, influence leader practice (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Levine, 2005; Southern Regional
Education Board, 2007). In fact, Levine’s (2005) study concluded that the principal
preparation programs in most education schools across the nation were the weakest of all
their preparation programs.
Also missing from the literature is a theory of school-based social justice, and an
understanding of how social-justice leadership can inform leadership preparation
programs (Brown, 2006; Capper, Theoharis, & Sebastian, 2006; Theoharis, 2004). Urban
school leaders require additional training beyond the normal course of study that current
leadership capacity building programs offer. The unique challenges of urban schools
require the leader to have knowledge and a heightened sensitivity about race, class and
culture (Cuban, 2001). Brown (2006) argued “if current and future educational leaders
are expected to foster successful, equitable, and socially responsible learning and
accountability practices for all students, then substantive changes in educational

7

leadership preparation and professional development program are required” (p. 705).
Preparing and supporting leaders in the urban context to address the adaptive challenges
of urban schooling, requires preparation programs to connect theory to practice, and to
actively engage in transformative learning (Brown, 2006).

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to contribute to the literature regarding
effective components of leadership capacity building programs and support structures,
which enable and sustain urban school leader practice. Specifically, it investigated the
impact of principal participation in a fully developed, research and standards-based,
executive leadership development program on leader practice and professional practice of
teachers. The study identified principals in the Davis Independent School District that
participated in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI), and took a comprehensive
look at the practices they enacted, which have the potential to lead to attainment of the
Texas core standards and district leadership goals and outcomes. Each case study
focused on how the DPCI program prepared leaders to create organizational structures
and practices that promote effective leader practice and professional teacher practices that
have the potential improve student outcomes in the urban context.
This study also sought to expand the knowledge base in regards to components of
effective leadership support structures at the school and district levels, which enable
principal’s leadership practice in creating and sustaining the conditions for effective
teacher practice and promote a more equitable and effective student learning environment

8

in the urban school setting. Qualitative as well as quantitative data (mixed-methods) was
collected to determine the leader’s change in practice and how these factors have been
shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences in the DPCI program over time.
Research Questions
This research study sought to understand which elements of leadership capacity
building programs influence leader practice and can better prepare leaders for the urban
context. The study looked specifically at how these leaders create organizational
structures and processes that influence teacher practice and promote improved outcomes
for students. The study focused on the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) prepare
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of
urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student
outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?

9

Significance of the Study
This study will be significant to various stakeholders in the field of education.
First, this study will add to the knowledge base on the impact of leadership behaviors on
how schools function and what students learn. This information will be crucial to leaders
in the urban context because they often lack the leadership behaviors that lead to effective
teacher practices and improved student outcomes. Second, this study will add to the
understanding of specific components of leadership capacity building programs and
support structures, which enable and sustain urban school leader practice. Policymakers
will benefit from this knowledge because they are responsible for deciding the standards
for leader practice, which influence program components and the certification
requirements. In addition, developers of leadership capacity building programs will
benefit from this new knowledge by using it to redesign the structure, curriculum, and
entrance and exit requirements of leadership capacity programs. Finally, it will add to the
knowledge base on how leaders enact social justice and how social justice leadership
theory can inform leadership capacity programs.

10

Conceptual Framework
The following graphic represents the conceptual model that guided this study.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework for Proposed Study

This conceptual framework argues that the urban context and No Child Left
Behind (2001) impact all variables included in this model. This model is based on
Pitner’s (1988) antecedent-effects model, which argued that principal leadership
behaviors are largely influenced by (a) the principals’ background, which includes their
values and beliefs; experience; knowledge and personal characteristics, and (b) the school
context, which includes the demographics, school size, parental involvement and the
community at large (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996). For example, a principal that
has a strong background and wealth of experience developing curriculum and monitoring
instruction will behave differently than a principal that has a wealth of experience with
discipline and management of facilities.

11

The next part of this conceptual model deals with how the principal is prepared.
This study argued that the leadership capacity building programs and support structures
should be informed by the learning-centered leadership framework because (a) the
learning-centered framework combines instructional and transformational behaviors, and
(b) the learning-centered framework embarks on the social-justice framework, which
ensures principals promote the success of all students in each of their decisions. By
developing behaviors from both frameworks, the leader gains “large repertoires of
practices and the capacity to chose from that repertoire as needed” (Leithwood et al.,
2004, p. 10). It is the job of the leadership capacity-building programs and support
structures to prepare the leader with these behaviors, and provide them with support as
they learn to monitor and adjust their leadership approach.
Adjusting their leadership approach gives leaders an opportunity to understand
others’ perspectives, even if they seem inappropriate, and helps the leader to begin
deciphering the situation and how they should best respond (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Learning and leading from multiple perspectives is the practice of reframing (Bolman &
Deal, 2003). A frame is a “coherent set of ideas that enable you to see and understand
more clearly what goes on day to day” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 41). When a leader
reframes, they take the current situation they are challenged with and look at it through
different lenses, or frames, with the goal of gaining clarity, generating new ideas, or
problem-solving.
The leadership approach (e.g., instructional, transformational, learner-centered,
social-justice) principals take to address day-to-day challenges, develop organizational

12

structures and influence teacher practice represents the frame, or lens. Depending on the
context, principals will look through their instructional, transformational and social-
justice frame. This integrated approach requires leaders to be knowledgeable about
behaviors from each model, and how to implement those behaviors. Principals will
develop these behaviors and learn to implement them through the leadership capacity
program and support structures provided.
The next section of this conceptual framework deals with the indirect and direct
effects of leadership. The ultimate goal of the leader is to improve student outcomes.
Leaders indirectly influence student outcomes by the organizational structures they create
and their influence on teacher practice, while teacher practice and organizational
structures have a direct impact on student outcomes (Hallinger et al., 1996; Hallinger &
Heck, 1996; Youngs & King, 2002). Therefore, it is the leader’s responsibility to ensure
that he or she creates effective organizations and influences the classroom through
teacher practice. Adapting behaviors from the learner-centered framework will best
prepare leaders to accomplish these goals.

Delimitations
The researcher limited the focus of this study to the impact of leadership capacity
programs on leader practice. This study did not look at the impact of leader practice on
student outcomes. Participants in this study were limited to secondary principals in the
state of Texas that participated in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI).

13

Although the focus of the study was on principals that participated in the DPCI, this study
was not an evaluation of the DPCI program.
Since the urban context was the setting for this study, the participants were
limited to principals and teachers that work in urban public schools. In addition to the
delimitations cited that involve the sample and population, the limited amount of time to
collect data for the study was also a limitation. The study took place over a six-month
period, which limited the likelihood of the researcher observing substantial changes in
leader practice. In addition, the researcher had limited face-to-face access to the
participants because the study took place in another state.

Limitations
1. Length of the Study: The principals in the study were assigned to work with their
coaches at the beginning of the school year. This limited the amount of time for
observation of interaction between the principals and the coaches to six months. The
postassessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively soon after the pre-assessment
(approximately five months); therefore, limiting the degree in which it could fully
measure the principal’s growth in the areas assessed. In addition, time for the
fieldwork was limited to six months.
2. Pre-Test Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of the
VAL-ED has inherent issues of validity because the changes reflected in the second
administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors other than the
participants’ participation in DPCI.

14

3. The “halo effect”: Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED (ratings of
self and colleagues) participants may have the tendency to assume specific traits of
behaviors based on general impression. However, to mitigate against this
phenomenon, by design, the VAL-ED survey required that raters identify the primary
source of evidence for their rating on each item (, personal observation, documents,
etc.).
4. Quantitative data collected from the VAL-ED survey was limited because both
schools did not complete the pre-post survey. Washington High School did not
participate in the VAL-ED survey, which prevented the researcher from completing a
cross case analysis, and limited how the data could contribute to the overall findings.
Bancroft Leadership Academy only completed the pre VAL-ED survey, which
prevented the researcher from comparing pre-post data to determine change in leader
practice.

Assumptions
There were five key assumptions that framed this research study. First, was the
belief that leadership is a key variable in the process of improving outcomes for students.
Second, was the belief that the context within which leadership is practiced matters as
well and determines the actions leaders take. Third, leadership was defined as “the
process of influencing others to achieve mutually agreed upon purposes for the
organization” (Patterson, 1993, p. 3). Embodied within this definition is the notion that
leadership is not a personal trait or characteristic of an effective school leader. As a

15

process, effective leadership practice can be taught (Northouse, 2007). The exercise of
leadership involves influence. As such, it requires interactions and relationships among
constituents. Leadership involves purpose while focused upon helping organizations and
constituents reach identified goals.
Fourth, this study conceptualized the effects of principal leadership in promoting
and sustaining valued outcomes in terms of the antecedent with indirect-effects model
(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood et al., 2004; Silins, 1994).
Leadership behavior is shaped by four major conditions: (a) the previous experiences of a
leader (e.g., experience as a curriculum coordinator in a district office will likely lead to
the use of behaviors different than those featured by a leader who has had considerable
experience as an assistant principal); (b) the knowledge base the leader amasses over
time; (c) the types of personal characteristics a leader brings to the job (e.g., achievement
need, energy level); and (d) the set of values and beliefs that help define a leader (e.g.,
beliefs about the appropriate role for subordinates in decision processes), (Murphy,
Goldring, Cravens, Elliott, & Porter, 2007, p. 2). Leadership effects occur indirectly
through the principal's behaviors that influence teacher practice and organizational
structures and processes (Hallinger et al., 1996; Murphy et al., 2007). A principal’s
practice of effective leadership behaviors is situated within the learner centered
leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2007).
Finally, the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative is an effective leadership capacity
building program. The major components of this leadership development program align
with those found in the literature (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007) to develop skilled

16

leaders. These programs have (a) have well-articulated goals rooted in theory of
leadership; (b) use preparation strategies that maximize learning, transfer of learning, and
leadership identification; and (c) provide strong content and field experience during
leadership preparation.

Definition of Terms
1. AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress. This is the federal government’s accountability
measure used under NCLB (2001). Each year states, districts, and school are given a
target growth that they much meet in order for everyone to reach the common Math
and ELA proficiency goal.
2. ISLLC: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. National standards for
administrators.
3. Leadership Capacity Programs: University-based, private, or district sponsored
professional development programs that prepares administrators.
4. NCLB: No Child Left Behind Act (2001) is the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. It is the current federal government reform and
accountability model for education.
5. DPCI: Davis Principal Coaching Initiative. This is the executive leadership
development program that will be used in this study.
6. VAL-ED Survey: The data collection instrument that will be administered to DPCI
participants. The survey is based on the ISLLC standards and developed by Joseph
Murphy at Vanderbilt University.

17

Chapter One Organization of the Study
The dissertation was organized into five chapters. Chapter One gave an overview
of the problem being studied. Chapter Two reviews empirical and non-empirical
literature on effective leadership practices, the evolution of contemporary leadership
theories, and the current practices of leadership capacity building programs and support
structures. Chapter Three outlines the research methodologies including the design of the
study, sample selections, data collection and analysis procedures. Chapter Four will
present and analyze the findings from the case studies. Chapter Five will summarize the
findings for the cases studies and give implications for further research, practice and
policy.

18

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter Two Introduction
This study investigated specific elements of leadership capacity-building
programs and support structures, which enable and sustain leader practice. Specifically, it
investigated the impact of principal participation in an executive leadership development
program on leader practice and professional practice of teachers. Chapter One established
that there is a gap between the skills and knowledge learned in leadership preparation
programs to the actual skills needed to be an effective leader in an urban school. This
chapter reviewed the literature regarding leadership theory as it relates to the
development of effective school leaders who can influence professional practice and
student learning outcomes in the urban context. This review focused on instructional,
transformational, social justice, and learning-centered leadership theories.
In addition, literature regarding effective leadership capacity building and support
structures was reviewed to gain an understanding of how comprehensive leadership
development programs prepare leaders to change the status quo and create the conditions
for improved outcomes for students and for professional practice. The study for this
research focused upon an exemplary, standards-based leadership capacity building
program, the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI). A detailed description of this
executive leadership development program will be discussed, in the context of the

19

literature on effective leadership preparation programs. And finally, the literature on
leadership support structures that enable principal practice was reviewed.
This chapter will begin by defining the “urban context” in order to understand the
external and internal conditions under which leaders work and how this context
influences leader practice. This will be followed by a description of the mandates for
schools under the federal No Child Left Behind (2001) educational accountability model,
a review of achievement patterns for urban school students under this model, and the
urban school principal’s role within this high stakes standards-based environment.
Following this, the definition of “leadership,” which lies at the foundation of the
conceptual framework for this study, will be discussed. To gain perspective on how
leaders influence student outcomes, a review of the antecedent with mediated effects
model will be discussed. Next, this chapter will review literature on effective school
leadership theories. The last two sections will discuss the components of effective
leadership capacity building programs and how they prepare leaders and influence leader
practice, and the support structures, which enable and sustain leader practice.

The Urban Context
Low-income, welfare dependency, violence, substance abuse, teen-pregnancy and
language barriers typically characterize the urban context (Noguera, 1996). Urban
community needs often surpass their resources, and are neglected by policymakers and
politicians that have the power to change their conditions (Noguera, 1996). The
challenges that confront urban schools are “inextricably linked to and affected by the

20

urban environment” which policymakers have direct influence on (Noguera, 1996, p. 1).
In many urban communities, the public school is one of the few institutions that remain
intact and provide some sense of stability for the community (Noguera, 1996). Families
depend on the school because they lack personal and institutional resources, and schools
have traditionally provided these resources for families (Cuban, 2001). For example,
residents of urban communities often turn to schools for counseling, child care, clothing,
medical services, transportation, food and college application assistance. Urban public
schools are the only service institutions required to serve young people regardless of
whether they are homeless, undocumented, sick or even hungry (Noguera, 1996).
Most urban educational systems today are large organizations with diverse student
populations and various needs (Cuban, 2001). For example, New York City, the largest
school district in the country, serves over one million students and employs over 135,000
employees (United States Department of Education, 2005-2006). With such a large
population, this organization is certain to face some of the same challenges as its
community. This is illustrated by the large amounts principal and teacher turnover in
urban schools; large bureaucratic systems; insufficient resources; second language
learners, and a greater attention to personal and social problems of the students (Orr,
Byrne-Jimenez, McFarlane, & Brown, 2005; Resnick & Glennan, 2002). The
complexities of the urban context along with the challenges of the educational systems
present ongoing challenges for leaders that are trying to reform urban schools.
The leaders in urban settings are often unprepared and unwilling to deal with the
school conditions that are connected to the larger social context (Darling-Hammond,

21

LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, Cohen, 2007; Levine, 2005). Urban school leaders require
additional training beyond the normal course of study that current leadership preparation
programs offer. The unique challenges of the urban school require the leader to have
knowledge and a heightened sensitivity about race, class and culture, and how these three
factors have led to years of minority students being marginalized in society and within
the educational institution (Cuban, 2001). The issues of the urban context call in to
question whether urban schools are prepared and equipped with leaders that have the
knowledge and skills needed to reform schools. Cuban (2001) and Noguera (1996)
argued that leaders must extend urban school reform to the urban communities in order to
see improvement. Cuban (2001) suggested the development of social, medical, cultural
and recreational activities and services that are tied to larger goals for youth beyond
raising test scores. In addition, Cuban (2001) recommended local civic, business and
educational leaders to endorse and support local schools effort to move “beyond
vocational preparation” (p. 10).
Under “No Child Left Behind” (2001), urban districts across the country are
expected to use insufficient resources, but meet the same expectations as their
counterparts in nearby suburban districts. The problem with the reform expectations of
NCLB (2001) is that it ignores the challenges of urban communities by expecting a one-
size-fits-all leadership approach (Cuban, 2001). Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and
Wahlstrom (2004) found that urban schools are impossible to reform without effective
leadership acting as the catalyst. In order to provide America’s urban schools with leaders
that are prepared to reform schools, leadership capacity building programs will need to

22

change the way they prepare urban leaders to meet these challenges head on. The
following section will explain how federal and state accountability policies influenced the
role of leadership in American schools, which accounts for the current focus on leaders,
their practice and how they were prepared.

Standards-Based Accountability and Reform
The “No Child Left Behind Act” of 2001 seeks to address the achievement gap
between the “haves” and “have-nots” in the United States as well as to raise the
performance of American students to be more competitive with other countries. NCLB
(2001) is based on four key principles: (a) greater accountability for student performance;
(b) increased local control and flexibility; (c) high-quality teachers using scientifically
based practices; and (d) expanded options for parents (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez,
2003). Schools across the country must make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in order to
reach the national goal of having all students proficient in reading and math by 2014.
Under NCLB (2001), each state is required to develop content standards to
establish expectations in reading and writing. The federal government does not set
requirements on how strict the standards should be, what concepts and skills they should
cover, or the format of the content standards. However, each state must develop state
assessments that judge the mastery of those standards (Stecher et al., 2003). The results
of these assessments are translated into performance standards, which are then used to
determine the school’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards the national goal.
Although every state is required to meet the same national

23

target, the variation of state content standards and assessments makes it impossible to
compare students in each state directly (Leithwood et al., 2004; Steecher et al., 2003;).
In order to meet AYP, schools must meet the testing target for every significant
subgroup (e. g., ethnicity, special education, English learners, and economically
disadvantaged). Schools that receive Title I funds are the schools that are most affected
by this accountability model. Title I schools traditionally serve low-income, minority
students and English learners. They receive additional funds from the government
because of the challenges presented by their demographics. When schools receive these
funds, they also agree to escalating sanctions every year they fail to meet AYP. These
sanctions range from being labeled as “in need of improvement” to receiving technical
assistance from an outside agency to being completely restructured.
New Directions for School Leadership
The overarching assumption of NCLB (2001) is that districts and schools have the
resources and personnel to lead this type of large-scale reform. Principals are the center
of this accountability problem because they are charged with leading the reform process
at the site level. In the past, principals were responsible for “managing the schools” and
maintaining the status quo. Today, principals are responsible for reforming the
organization and promoting powerful teaching and learning for all students (Peterson,
2002, as cited by Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr & Cohen, 2007; Levine,
2005). In addition, modern school principals are expected to be educational visionaries,
change agents, instructional leaders, curriculum and assessment experts, budget analysts,
facility managers and community builders (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Levine,

24

2005). However, the new role of principals requires a new set of knowledge and skills.
Today’s principals are being educated and prepared for positions that no longer exist
(Levine, 2005).

Leadership Theory
Leadership Defined
The concept of leadership has been studied using both qualitative and quantitative
methods with different contexts and groups (Northouse, 2007). This research yielded a
variety of theoretical approaches and definitions of leadership. Some experts see
leadership as a trait or characteristic that one is born with, while others view leadership as
a process. The literature reveals that most definitions of leadership have more similarities
than differences. Most definitions of leadership serve two functions: providing direction
and exercising influence (Leithwood et al., 2004; Northouse, 2007). James Burns (1978),
founder of modern leadership theory, defined leadership as “leaders inducing followers to
act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivations—the wants and needs,
the aspirations and expectations—of both leaders and followers” (p. 19).
Both Northouse (2007) and Patterson (1993) defined leadership as a process of
influencing others to reach a common goal, which builds on Burns’ (1978) definition. By
defining leadership as a process, Northouse (2007) and Patterson (1993) challenged the
idea that leadership is a trait. Both argued that leadership behaviors can be observed and
learned. According to Northouse (2007), there were two forms of leadership: assigned
and emergent leadership. Assigned leadership occurs when someone is assigned to a

25

position that has traditionally been labeled as a leadership position, such as an
administrator, plant manager or department head. Emergent leadership occurs when
someone has been identified as the most influential person in the group regardless of their
formal position. Northhouse (2007) argued that whether you are assigned to be the leader
or emerges as the leader, you are engaged in the process of influencing others to reach a
common goal, which is a behavior that can be learned.
Elmore (1999-2000) defined leadership as the process of distributing responsibility
and authority among teachers and administrators with the common goal or task of
improving instruction to improve student learning. His model of “distributed leadership”
has two main tasks: One involves describing the ground rules that leaders would have to
follow in order to carry out large-scale improvement; the other describes how they would
share responsibility. Elmore’s (1999-2000) leadership approach seeks to bring teachers
and principals’ ideas and decisions together for the benefit of student learning.
In sum, the concept of leadership is based on the interactions between leaders and
followers. For the purpose of this study, leadership will be defined as the process of
influencing others to reach a common goal (Northouse, 2007). The next section of this
chapter will discuss the literature on leader effects on student outcomes.
Leadership Effects
In spite of higher expectations, increased accountability measures and
implementation of various reform models, urban schools are still struggling. For example,
they have difficulty maintaining highly qualified administrators and teachers; large
bureaucratic systems that are frustrating for employees and the community; insufficient

26

resources; teaching second language learners, and they spend a great amount of time on
the personal and social problems of the students (Orr, Byrne-Jimenez, McFarlane &
Brown, 2005; Resnick & Glennan, 2002). The research shows that effective leadership is
key to the success of these failing schools and districts, but there is a shortage of highly
qualified leaders in American schools (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Research also
shows that the “demonstrated effects of successful leadership are considerably greater in
schools that are in more difficult circumstances (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 5). Studies
identified leadership as second only to classroom instruction among the variables that
contribute to what students learn in school (Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005). Principals influence student learning by the organizational structures
they establish and their interactions with teachers (Youngs & King, 2002; Hallinger,
Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1996). The indirect effect that principals
have on student achievement supports the widespread interest in improving leadership
(Leithwood et al., 2004).
After analyzing 35 years of research, Marzano (2003) identified three indirect
factors that leaders should focus on that will influence student achievement: (a) school-
level factors, (b) teacher-level factors, and (c) student-level factors. School-level factors
are defined as the organizational practices and policies that have been established.
Teacher-level factors are the variables teachers have control over, such as classroom
management and instructional strategies. The student-level factors represent the students’
backgrounds, which include their home environment and motivation. Principals influence

27

each of those factors by the organizational structures they establish (Hallinger et al.,
1996; Youngs & King, 2002).
Marzano’s 21 Responsibilities
In another study, Waters, Marzano, and McNultuy (2003) conducted a different
meta-analysis of quantitative research to determine the impact of leader practice on
student achievement. Their findings yielded a correlation of .25 between leadership and
student achievement. These findings suggested that if a principal is at the top percentile
of leadership behaviors and leads an average school, over time student achievement will
increase. From their body of research, Waters et al. (2003) identified 21 leadership
behaviors that are significantly correlated to student achievement, and a knowledge
taxonomy that can be applied to the 21 leadership behaviors. Some of the key behaviors
identified in this study were: (a) situational awareness, (b) flexibility, (c) monitoring and
evaluating, (d) culture, (e) knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment, and (f)
change agent (Waters et al., 2003, p. 4). Most of the 21 behaviors can be categorized
under Leithwood et al. (2004) “basics” of effective leadership: “setting directions,”
“developing people,” and “redesigning the organization” (Leithwood et al., 2004;
Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005).
The knowledge taxonomy makes up the other half of Waters et al.’s (2003)
balanced leadership framework. This taxonomy is a tool used to organize the four types
of knowledge leaders need to apply to each behavior or responsibility. The balanced
leadership framework is based on the idea of leaders not only knowing what (declarative
knowledge) to do, but knowing when (contextual knowledge), how (procedural

28

knowledge), and why (experiential knowledge) to do it. This framework gives specific
strategies and tools leaders need to positively impact student achievement. The
knowledge taxonomy is based on the idea that a principals’ knowledge of a leadership
behavior is not adequate. The principal needs to know how to implement and practice that
behavior. The knowledge taxonomy outlines the skills principals’ need to effectively
implement the behaviors.
The next section of this chapter will discuss key empirical leadership theories.
Instructional Leadership
In the early 1980s the American educational system found itself focused on
performance standards, and principals were the center of attention for this new wave of
accountability and school improvement. During this time, there was little reference made
to teachers, department heads or assistant principals as instructional leaders because the
principal was expected to fill that role (Hallinger, 2005). This form of leadership was not
a distributed or shared function as Elmore (1999-2000) described leadership.
Instructional leaders were described as leaders that were involved in the curriculum and
instruction, unafraid to work with teachers on the improvement of teaching and learning,
and were strong, directive leaders who had been successful in turning schools around
(Hallinger, 1992, 2005; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Marks & Printy, 2003). Table 1,
below, gives an overview of the instructional leadership behaviors.

29

Table 1

Instructional Leadership Behaviors
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Behaviors Descriptions
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Defining the school mission Frame and communicate school goals

Manages instructional program Supervises & evaluates instruction; coordinates curriculum; monitors
student progress

Promotes positive school climate Protects instructional time; promotes professional development;
maintains high visibility; provides incentives for teachers and
students; enforces academic standards
Source: Hallinger & Murphy (1985).

The instructional leadership model most referenced and used in empirical studies
is the model proposed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985). In this model, the instructional
leadership role is divided into three dimensions and each dimension is divided into
leadership functions. The three dimensions are: defining the school mission, managing
the instructional program and promoting a positive learning climate (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985). Defining the school mission involves framing school goals and
communicating school goals. Using past and current data on student achievement, the
instructional leader determines where the areas of improvement are and establishes goals
for that school year. The principal then uses formal and informal methods to
communicate the established goals to the teachers, students and parents (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985).
Managing the instructional program is the second dimension of the instructional
leadership model. Under this dimension, the principal works directly with teachers in
areas related to curriculum and instruction. One of the main tasks of supervising and
evaluating instruction is making sure the school goals are integrated into practice. This

30

may involve training teachers on classroom objectives, providing instructional support
and monitoring instruction through frequent classroom visits. The principal is also
responsible for coordinating the curriculum, which will require interaction among
teachers within the same department and grade level. The last function under this
dimension requires the principal to monitor student progress. Principals provide teachers
with current student data, test results, and opportunities to analyze and discuss the data.
They will also use the data to assess the school’s progress with meeting the current
school year goals and the creation of new goals (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
The last dimension of the instructional leadership model is promoting a positive
school climate. Under this dimension the principal’s primary responsibility is to create
policies and practices that will affect the attitudes of students and teachers in a positive
way. Principals can influence teacher and student attitudes by creating a reward system
that reinforces student achievement and the development of clear academic expectations.
Protecting instructional time and maintaining high visibility increase classroom learning
time and interactions between staff and students (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
The instructional leadership model dominated the 1980s, but in the mid-1990s
attention shifted from instructional leadership to concepts such as “restructuring” and
“transformational leadership” (Hallinger, 2005). This shift was a result of the
“hierarchical orientation” of the instructional leadership model that conflicted with the
restructuring movement of the 1990s (Marks & Printy, 2003, p. 372). Under the
instructional leadership model, the principal was seen as the primary source of
educational experience (Hallinger, 1992), which was seen as a weaker element compared

31

to the transformational model where teachers were also seen as educational experts.
Leithwood et al. (2004) also argued that the instructional model did not have well-defined
leadership behaviors. In addition, teachers, department heads and assistant principals did
not have the authority to make instructional and curricular decisions (Hallinger, 2005;
Marks & Printy, 2003).
Transformational leadership on the other hand focused on problem solving and
collaboration with all stakeholders (Hallinger, 1992). This meant teachers, teacher leaders
and other site leaders needed to participate in the restructuring of the school. The
instructional leadership model was in direct conflict with this new approach. To
accomplish the new focus for reform, educators turned to the transformational leadership
model.
Transformational Leadership
Key reformers during the 1990’s suggested decentralizing the authority of
curricular and instructional decisions from the district to the site level, which increased
the participation of teachers and other stakeholders in the decision-making process
(Hallinger, 1992). They suggested that teachers were the experts and needed to have a
role in identifying the needs of students and improving student achievement. Under the
transformational leadership model, the fundamental goals included: helping staff
members develop and maintain a collaborative and professional culture; fostering teacher
development and helping them solve problems more effectively (Hallinger, 1992;
Leithwood, 1992; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood et al., 2004).

32

Bass (1990), a major contributor to the earlier model of transformational
leadership, suggested a two-factor theory of transformational leadership:
transformational and transactional. Transactional leadership occurs when there is an
exchange, or transaction between the leader and the followers. The leader provides the
follower with a set of directions or tasks to be completed and compensates the follower
upon completion. Transformational leadership is concerned with invoking organizational
change, encouraging participants to reach their fullest potential, and motivating its
followers (Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978). Bass (1990) argued that transformational and
transactional leadership practices compliment each other and the best leaders are both
transformational and transactional (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).
A major criticism of Bass’ (1990) model was his underdevelopment of
transactional leadership. Leithwood and Jantzi (2000, 2005) added to Bass’ (1990) two-
factor theory and further developed the transactional factor. They developed a series of
studies that focused on the effects of different forms and sources of leadership using two
large databases. Initially, they identified three core principles of transformational
leadership: (a) setting directions, (b) developing people, and (c) redesigning the
organization. The fourth dimension, (d) transactional and managerial, was created in
response to criticisms about Bass’ underdevelopment of transactional behaviors.
Leithwood and Jantzi (2000, 2005) referred to their model as transformational leadership
behaviors (TLBs). Table 2 , below, gives an overview of the transformational leadership
behaviors.

33

Table 2

Transformational Leadership Behaviors
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Behaviors Descriptions
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Setting Directions Builds the school vision & goals; demonstrates high performance
expectations

Developing People Provides intellectual stimulation; offers individualized support;
symbolizes professional practices and values

Redesigning the Organization Develops structures to foster participation in school decisions; builds
collaborative cultures; builds productive relations with parents &
community

Transactional/Management Develops contingent reward system; establishes effective staffing
practices, provides instructional support, and monitors school
activities
Source: Leithwood & Jantzi (2000, 2005).
Like the instructional leadership model, establishing a vision and setting goals are
important functions of the leader; however, the transformational leadership model
describes this as a group or shared process among stakeholders. Setting directions is
aimed at creating and identifying the vision, goals and expectations for the organization.
Developing people refers to the leaders’ ability to build the capacity of the staff members
and provide them with the necessary support to be successful. This function requires the
leader to have knowledge of “what” is required to improve the quality of teaching and
learning. Redesigning the organization is the key behavior of the transformational
leadership model, which the instructional model lacks. Under this function, the principal
works to strengthen the school culture by modifying organizational structures and
building collaborative practices (Leithwood et al., 2004). The instructional model lacked
the focus on reshaping and restructuring the school’s organization. The structure of the
organization is important in urban schools. Bolman and Deal (2003) identified four

34

properties of organizations that make them more challenging to lead: (a) complex, (b)
surprising, (c) deceptive, and (d) ambiguous. These characteristics are present in urban
schools and their communities. Transformational leadership places a focus on problem
finding and problem solving because it assumes that schools face “complex, idiosyncratic
problems that are frequently hostile to routine solutions” (Hallinger, 1992, p. 6). Smith,
Montagno and Kuzmenko (2004) argued that transformational leaders are best suited for
environments where employees are empowered with greater responsibility and are
encouraged to be innovative and take risks. The unique challenges of urban schools
encourage leaders to be creative and original in the organizational structures, policies,
and processes that will promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes.
Similar to the instructional leadership model, there are also weak elements of the
transformational leadership model. Although the model focuses on restructuring the
organization, transformational leadership lacks an explicit focus on curriculum and
instruction (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998; Marks & Printy, 2003). Marks and Printy
(2003) argued that although the principal is successful in creating a collaborative culture
that encourages teachers to contribute to leadership and expertise in teaching and
learning, the principal’s role with instruction is central and needs to be explicit. They
further argued that successful principals are more successful when they work
simultaneously on transformational and instructional tasks (Marks & Printy, 2003). The
learner-centered framework accomplished this goal and will be discussed in the next
section.

35

Learning-Centered Leadership
The learning-centered leadership theory has core elements of the instructional and
transformational leadership models. Murphy, Elliot, Goldring and Porter (2006) research
on learning-centered leadership was gathered from empirical studies of effective schools,
school improvement, and principal and superintendent instructional leadership. Most of
their work is qualitative and focuses on a single or small group of leaders. Their work is
based on five core findings about leadership: (a) leadership matters, (b) in difficult times,
leadership matters more, (c) in periods of significant organizational transition, leadership
is the major controllable factor in exploring organizational performance, (d)
instructionally focused and change-oriented leadership are especially effective frames for
education; and (e) team leadership seems to offer promise for enhancing organizational
performance (Murphy et al., 2006).
The learning-centered model for leadership argued that the leader is critical to
providing quality education in the K-12 setting; therefore, it is also critical in finding the
right leadership approach (Murphy et al., 2006). The learning-centered leadership
framework is aligned with research findings that argue leaders influence teachers and the
organization, which in turn influence student outcomes (Hallinger et al., 1996; Hallinger
& Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2004; Youngs & King, 2002). Figure 2, below, gives an
overview of the larger framework.

36

Figure 2
Learning-Centered Leadership Framework

Source: Murphy et al. (2006).
As seen in figure 2, leader behaviors is influenced by knowledge, values and beliefs,
experience and personal characteristics (Murphy et al., 2006). Like Marzano’s (2003)
research findings, the learning-centered leadership framework argued that leadership
behaviors impact factors at the school level and classroom level, which influences student
outcomes.
The leadership behaviors under the learning-centered leadership framework fall
under eight dimensions: (a) visions for learning, (b) instructional program, (c) curricular
program, (d) assessment program, (e) communities for learning, (f) resource acquisition
and use, (g) organizational culture, and (h) social advocacy. Like instructional and
transformational leadership, creating a school vision that reflects high standards for
learning is a common and important behavior for leaders.

37

Learning-centered leaders set ambitious goals that require them to move beyond the
status quo. They make sure the goals are focused on student learning, are clearly defined
and communicated to everyone around and in the organization (Murphy et al., 2006).
The instructional, curricular and assessment dimensions under the learning-centered
framework are similar to dimension 2 of the instructional leadership model, managing the
instructional program (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). The learning-centered principal is
deeply involved in monitoring and observing the instruction and giving teachers
feedback; they work directly with the teachers in designing the curricular program, and
they ensure teachers have the time, resources and funding to understand data analysis
(Murphy et al., 2006). The second set of behaviors under the learning-centered model,
communities of learning, resource acquisition and use and organizational culture, have
some of the core functions of the Leithwood’s et al. (2004) transformational model.
These dimensions focus on creating learning organizations; assisting the faculty and staff
with becoming more productive; locating and securing additional resources for the school
and creating a positive school culture (Murphy et al., 2006).
One of the strengths of the learning-centered leadership framework is that is brings
the instructional and transformational leadership models together. Marks and Printy
(2003) argued that the principal is more successful when they integrate instructional and
transformational leadership behaviors. Murphy et al. (2006) also acknowledged the
weaknesses of the framework, which are present in dimension seven, organizational
culture, and dimension eight, social advocacy. These two dimensions lack the research of
the first six dimensions.

38

The learning-centered leadership framework has also gained great credibility by
becoming the framework for the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
(VAL-ED) survey, a tool designed to assess the effectiveness of school principals. The
learning-centered leadership framework also takes risks in introducing constructs from
social advocacy—ethics and diversity, which have not been researched extensively. The
learning-centered leadership framework saw the need for social advocacy, but lacked the
empirical research needed to establish it as a worthy construct. Leadership for social
justice, which will be discussed in the next section, attempts to develop and work towards
a theory for social justice leadership.
Leadership for Social Justice
The social justice leadership theory is one of the leadership frameworks that is still
being developed (Theoharis, 2004), but is seen as an essential element that is missing in
leader practice and leadership capacity building programs (Brown, 2006; Theoharis,
2007). While there is a wealth of literature on social justice and leadership, a gap still
exists in developing a theory of school-based social justice (Theoharis, 2004). Theoharis
(2007) defined social justice leadership “to mean that these principals make issues of
race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other historically and currently
marginalizing conditions in the United States central to their advocacy, leadership
practice, and vision” (p. 223). He developed a three-pronged conceptual framework of
resistance that defines how leaders enact social justice.
The three-pronged framework was based on (a) the resistance principals enact
against historical marginalization of particular students, (b) the resistance principals face

39

as a result of their social justice agenda, and (c) the resistance or resilience these
principals develop as a result of facing constraints to their work (Theoharis, 2004). Based
on his study of seven principals that believed in promoting social justice, Theoharis
(2004) found that principals first enacted resistance by (a) raising student achievement,
(b) improving school structures and (c) re-centering and enhancing staff capacity and
strengthening school culture and community. Some of the principals’ behaviors included
(a) eliminating pullout and segregated programs, (b) increasing learning time, rigor, and
access to educational opportunities, (3) addressing issues of race, (4) developing staff
investment in social justice, and (5) reaching out to the community and to marginalized
families (Theoharis, 2004).
That Theoharis’ (2004) framework was based on the resistance that principals will
face as they enact social justice, speaks to the process and development principals will
need to undergo to be social justice leaders. Brown (2004) argued that principal
preparation programs will need to rethink the content, delivery, and assessment of their
programs in order to foster a transformative learning experience where principals feel
they have the ability to challenge social oppression. Capper, Theoharis, and Sebastian
(2006) further argued that social-justice leaders need to “embody a social justice
consciousness within their belief systems or values” (p. 213). There are specific skills
that leaders require to enact social justice (Capper et al., 2006) that others may argue is
“just good leadership” (Theoharis, 2004). Table 3, below, shows a few of the distinctions
between the behaviors of “good leaders” and “social-justice leaders.”

40

Table 3

Distinctions Between a Good Leader and a Social Justice Leader
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Good Leaders Social Justice Leaders
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Works with subpulics to connect to community Places significant value on diversity, deeply learns about
and understands that diversity, and extends cultural respect

Speaks of success for all students Ends segregated and pull-out programs that prohibit
emotional and academic success for marginalized children

Empowers staff and works collaboratively Demands that every child will be successful but
collaboratively addresses the problems of how to achieve
that success

Uses data to understand the realities of school Sees all data through a lens of equity

Works long and hard to make a great school Becomes intertwined with the life, community, and soul of
the school
Source: Theoharis (2007).

In order for leaders to enact social justice, their behaviors will have to move beyond
the status quo of “good leadership” and move towards an awareness of social oppressions
and consciousness that will allow them to enact social justice (Brown, 2004). This type of
preparation begins with leadership capacity building programs that are not moving in this
direction. Traditionally, leadership preparation programs have been reluctant to change
curriculum and pedagogy and insist on preparing leaders for non-urban educational
environments (Brown, 2004). As a result, principal preparation programs lack a focus on
the inequities of our society that also exist in our urban schools (Brown, 2004). The
following section will discuss the effective components of leadership capacity building
programs which serve to build leader capacity to change the status quo.

41

Leadership Capacity-Building: Effective Program Components
One of the main purposes for this case study was to investigate specific elements of
leadership capacity building programs, which enable and sustain leader practice. Though
prominent researchers (Hallinger et al., 1996; Leithwood et al., 2004; Marzano et al.,
2005) have established the impact of leadership on student outcomes and the role of
principal responsibilities increased (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007), the preparation
programs for principals remained the same (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Levine,
2005). This section will review the literature about effective leadership capacity building
programs and their components.
Major critiques of principal preparation programs included (a) misalignment
between program content and student needs, (b) lack of field-based experiences, (c)
failure to link theory to practice, (d) incoherent and lack of rigor, and (e) missing
curriculum topics including: effective teaching and learning, designing professional
development and the organizational design (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Levine,
2005). The need for highly skilled leaders and the changing role of the principal brought
the concerns about leadership preparation program to light. If school leaders are to be
successful with their new responsibilities, it is the job of leadership preparation programs
to make sure they are prepared (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Levine, 2005).
In designing the curriculum for leadership preparation programs, universities and
organizations have to look to their state and national standards for leadership practice.
Over the years, different organizations including the National Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the American Association of School

42

Administrators developed standards for administrators (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). In
1996, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed national
standards that provided common expectations for the knowledge, skills and dispositions
of school leaders (Davis et al., 2005). More than 41 states adopted some variation of the
ISSLC standards (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). The ISLLC standards also provide the
foundation for the learning-centered leadership framework and the Vanderbilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey, which are all key elements of
this study. Joseph Murphy co-authored the ISLLC standards and then worked with
Vanderbilt University to develop a valid and reliable leadership evaluation tool—the
VAL-ED survey (Murphy et al., 2007).
The ISSLC standards played a key role in developing some of the more effective
leadership capacity programs by providing standards for leadership practice. Based on
their leadership capacity study, Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) developed a list of
effective program elements. These elements fit under the broader categories of (a)
content, (b) methods, and (c) structure. The content of the program should be researched-
based reflecting the areas of leadership, management and instructional leadership. The
content should also have curricular coherence that links goals, learning activities, and
assessments to a set of shared values, beliefs and knowledge. Effective programs are also
designed in a cohort structure and provide participants with field-based internships,
problem-based learning, and mentors. The last characteristic of effective leadership
capacity building programs includes the collaboration between the university programs
and school districts.

43

The Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) study identified eight different programs that
met their sampling criteria, and shared the effective program elements. Some of the
programs included the partnership between the Educational Leadership Development
Academy (ELDA) at the University of San Diego and the San Diego Unified School
District. Their partnership included a pre-service and in-service program that developed
the leaders within the context of the district’s instructional reform. On the other side of
the continuum is the Jefferson County Public Schools approach. They developed their
own leadership development program that is tailored to the needs of the principals
working in the district. Their comprehensive approach begins from the initial preparation
to the induction to ongoing support of their principals.
Davis Achieves and the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative
Davis Achieves: Leadership Institutes, which was the focus of this study, is another
district sponsored leadership development program that is focused on building the
capacity of school leaders. Davis Achieves is the Davis ISD initiative to become the best
urban school district in America by developing effective teachers, empowered principals,
campus-focused services, engaged parents and guardians, and a supportive community.
Davis Independent School District works in collaboration with the Institute for Learning
at the University of Pittsburgh (IFL). Over the past four years, Davis ISD and IFL
established 17 leadership institutes designed for principals, assistant principals, associate
principals, instructional coaches and other leadership positions. The content of these
leadership institutes focused on the IFL’s Principles of Learning (POLs), and professional
development evaluation using Learning Walks, Nested Professional Learning

44

Communities and Disciplinary Literacy. The following POLs built the foundation for the
leadership institutes: organizing for effort, accountable talk, clear expectations, fair and
creditable evaluations, socializing intelligence, recognition of accomplishment, self-
management of learning, academic rigor in a thinking curriculum, and learning as
apprenticeship. Along with the professional development principles receive from the
Davis Achieves Leadership Institute, principals also receive support from experienced
coach through the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI).
The Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) provides a standards-based
capacity-building curriculum (IFL) and principal support through a leadership coaching
structure. The DPCI is designed to provide each of the 14 principal participants with an
instructional leadership coach who provides at-elbow coaching and conferring to enhance
instructional leadership development and build leadership capacity to ensure improved
academic success for students. Principals and coaches participate in professional
development focused on data analysis, goal setting related to academic achievement,
leadership practice and establishing systems and structures to support improved teacher
practice and student learning.
While these programs changed the way they design the curriculum and structure of
their programs, there are a small number of education schools across the country that
made these types of changes (Levine, 2005). Furthermore, there is little empirical
evidence on how specific program elements influence leadership behaviors, job
performance and student outcomes (Davis et al., 2005).

45

The research (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Levine, 2005) identified key
components of leadership capacity-building programs, but another key question is what
support structures exist for principals at the school and district level once they complete
their leadership training which enable their practice in creating and sustaining
organizational structures and processes that promote effective schools? The next section
will review the literature on effective leadership support structures.

Leadership Support Structures
According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2007), the challenges of recruiting strong
principals can be attributed to the fact that principals are ill prepared and inadequately
supported to take on the challenge of school reform. They are often put in a “sink or
swim” situation and do not receive on-going mentoring or coaching (Spiro, Mattis, &
Mitgang, 2007). In an era where the principal’s role is evolving, the new principal needs
a support structure that will increase and develop their capacities and skills needed to
sustain their practice. Providing this support is one of the essential functions of leadership
development programs, but most programs lack this element.
Some leadership capacity-building programs such as the Davis Independent
School District and Jefferson County Public School system have integrated a principal
mentoring or coaching component into their leadership development program (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007; Spiro et al., 2007). Other successful programs such as Delta State
University do not have a mentoring component, but have strong partnerships with local
districts that provide mentors to Delta State’s graduates (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).

46

The DPCI has both training and a coaching component. While there is a limited amount
of empirical evidence on the impact that mentoring and coaching has on increasing
student achievement, it is clear that effective leadership capacity programs see this
support structure as a key component of developing leadership practice (Neufeld &
Roper, 2003; Spiro et al., 2007)
Mentoring and Coaching
Coaching and mentoring are a part of a school-based professional development
system that provides support to principals on instruction, school based-resources, content
areas, use of data and any other school challenges the principals may face (Neufeld &
Roper, 2003). The two concepts will be used interchangeable. From their research on
mentoring programs, Spiro et al. (2007) developed five guidelines states, districts and
leadership capacity program can use to strengthen or establish a mentor program:
1. High-quality training for mentors should be a requirement and should be provided
by any state of district with mentoring
2. States and districts that require mentoring should gather meaningful information
about its efficacy
3. Mentoring should be provided for at least a year, and ideally two or more years
4. State and local funding for mentors should be sufficient and enough to attract
participants to continue mentoring
5. The primary goal of the mentoring should be focused on leaders who are ready for
change and have the courage to move forward in the face of resistance (p. 7-9).
In addition to the guidelines for establishing mentoring and coaching programs, there are

47

key behaviors and duties for coaches and mentors including (a) helping principals recruit
teachers that can help him/her build capacity, (b) assisting the principal in building
capacity for shared decision making, (c) modeling leadership skills for principals, (d)
assisting with scheduling, and (e) assisting principals in organizing and managing their
time (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).

Chapter Two Summary
The urban context and the evolving role of school leadership present difficult
challenges for leaders that are charged with reforming schools and improving student
achievement. Most leaders begin their first day of school unprepared to deal with the
many challenges, and they lack the knowledge, skills and support structures to overcome
them. In order to adequately prepare school leaders for the unique challenges of the urban
context, leadership capacity building programs need to rethink the way they prepare
leaders. There are national standards for leadership behavior (ISLLC), but unless the
preparation programs align their content and program structure around these standards,
leaders will continue to be unprepared.
Researchers (Leithwood et al., 2004) have argued that leaders need to develop a
wide range of leadership capacities to choose from including instructional and
transformational leadership behaviors. A one-size-fits-all approach will not prepare urban
leaders for the complexities of the urban school setting. In addition, urban leaders need to
be prepared to challenge social oppression, which is often seen in urban schools, and be
prepared to enact social justice. Educators, policymakers and developers of leadership

48

capacity programs and supports structures are responsible for transforming the current
system to one that can adequately prepare leaders to develop effective organizations and
influence teacher practice in order to improve student outcomes.

Chapter Two Organization of Study
Chapter three outlines the research methodologies that were used in this case study
including the design of the study, sample selection, data collection, and analysis
procedures.

49

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY

Chapter Three Introduction
This chapter will describe the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection,
and data analysis processes that were used in this study. The purpose of this case study
was to fill in the gaps in the literature regarding effective components of leadership
capacity building programs and support structures, which enable and sustain urban school
leader practice. Specifically, it investigated the impact of principal participation in a
fully developed, research and standards-based, executive leadership development
program on leader practice and professional practice of teachers.
Intervention: Davis Achieves & Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
This study was conducted by the University of Southern California in partnership
with the Davis Independent School District through a grant sponsored by the Meadows
Foundation, a local private philanthropic foundation in the Davis area (Appendix A).
Davis Achieves is a district leadership development program that is focused on building
the capacity of school leaders. Davis Achieves is the Davis ISD initiative to become the
best urban school district in America by developing effective teachers, empowering
principals, campus-focused services, engaging parents and guardians, and a providing a
supportive community. Davis Independent School District works in collaboration with
the Institute for Learning at the University of Pittsburgh (IFL). Over the past four years,
Davis ISD and IFL established 17 leadership institutes designed for principals, assistant

50

principals, associate principals, instructional coaches and other leadership positions. The
content of these leadership institutes focused on the IFL’s Principles of Learning (POLs),
and professional development evaluation using Learning Walks, Nested Professional
Learning Communities and Disciplinary Literacy. The following POLs built the
foundation for the leadership institutes: (a) organizing for effort, (b) accountable talk, (c)
clear expectations, (d) fair and creditable evaluations, (e) socializing intelligence, (f)
recognition of accomplishment, (g) self-management of learning, (h) academic rigor in a
thinking curriculum, and (i) learning as apprenticeship. Along with the professional
development principals received through the Davis Achieves Leadership Institutes, 14
principals also participated in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI).
The Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) provides a standards-based
capacity building curriculum through the support of outside consultants from The
Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh (IFL), and principal support through a
leadership coaching structure. The DPCI was designed to provide principals with a
principal coach who provides “at-elbow” coaching and conferring to enhance
instructional leadership development and build leadership capacity to ensure improved
academic success for students. Principals and coaches participate in professional
development focused on data analysis, goal setting related to academic achievement,
leadership practice and establishing systems and structures to support improved teacher
practice and student learning.

51

Design of the Study
This case study identified two principals that were participating in the DPCI, and
focused on how the DPCI program prepared them to create organizational structures and
practices that promote effective leader practice and professional teacher practices that
improve student outcomes in the urban context. The study took a comprehensive look at
the leadership practices enacted that have the potential to lead to attainment of the Texas
core leadership standards and district leadership goals and outcomes: (a) the relationship
between principal participation in the DPCI program and their leadership practice, and
(b) if the practice of the two principals varies, what accounts for that variation. The study
also sought to contribute to the knowledge base on effective leadership support structures
at the school and district levels. These structures enable a principal’s leadership practice
in creating and sustaining the conditions for effective teacher practice, and promote a
more equitable and effective student learning environment in the urban school context.
Qualitative as well as quantitative (mixed-methods) data were collected in a
preintervention and postintervention design to determine the leader’s change in practice
and how these factors have been shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences in
the DPCI program over time.
The case study design was appropriate for this study because it is particularly
suited to situations in which it is impossible to separate the phenomenon’s variables (e.g.,
leadership practice, leader knowledge, etc.) from context (Yin, 1984) as is the case in the
study of leadership practice in schools. In case study research, data collection usually
“involves all three strategies of interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents”

52

(Merriam, 1997, p.136). Patton (2002) argued that multiple sources of information are
sought and used because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a
comprehensive perspective. By using a combination of observations, interviews and
document analysis the researcher was able to use different data sources to validate and
cross-check findings. This study was designed to address the following research
questions:
1. How does participation in the Davis ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of
urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student
outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?

Sample and Population
The unit of analysis for this study was urban school leadership practice. Non-
probability sampling, specifically, purposeful sampling, was the strategy used to identify
participants for this study. This strategy was appropriate for this study because the intent
was to discover and gain a better understanding as well as insight into the nature of

53

leadership practice. Therefore, it was important to identify a sample from which the most
can be learned.
Patton (2002) further contended that, “the logic and power of purposeful sampling
lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are
those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the
purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling” (p. 230).
Selection Criteria
For this multicase, comparative, mixed-methods study, the first level of sampling
involved selection of the “case.” Two schools that met predetermined criteria were
identified for participation in the study. The intent was to explore variation between the
two principals and what accounts for that variation. Schools identified for participation
and each case study school were purposefully selected based on the following criteria:
1. Percent minority population is greater than or equal to 50%
2. Percent low income student population is greater than or equal 50%
3. Percent English language learner is greater than or equal to 5%
4. School level is secondary
5. Percent of minority population proficient in math and reading is less than or equal
to 50%
6. Gap in math and reading proficiency among student groups is greater than or
equal to 20%
7. Principal participation in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)

54

To strengthen the validity of the study, teacher participants identified for the
within case sampling were randomly identified. Each participant, principals and their
teachers were asked to participate in a pre-intervention and postintervention interview
and observation data collection activities. A minimum of five teachers who taught high
stakes accountability subjects, math, reading, science or social studies were identified for
this level of sampling.
Participants in this study were recruited from among K-12 urban Davis public
schools serving an ethnically diverse student population and substantial numbers of low-
income families. Davis ISD had a 2008 student enrollment of 155, 949 (EC-12) students
who were served in 248 schools (Texas Department of Education). The 2008 student
demographics in Davis were: 28.7% African American, 4.7% White, 1% Asian, 65.4%
Latino/Hispanic, and 84% low-income.
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) is the state’s
standardized testing program that is administered to students in grades 3-10 and exit level
annually. The TAKS assessment was designed to measure the proficiency level of
students at each grade level, and is directly aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills (TEKS). In order to graduate from a Texas public high school, all students are
required to pass four subject-area tests: English language arts, mathematics, science, and
social studies. Student results are reported as either met standard or commended.
Disaggregated student achievement data in English language arts and mathematics at the
secondary level on the TAKS during the 2008-2009 school year is illustrated in Table 4,
below. Though the percentage of students meeting the English language arts standards is

55

at least 70% in each subgroup and grade level, the math data reveals significant gaps
between the number of students meeting the standard at the middle school level and high
school levels, as well as the Black and White subgroups.

Table 4

Davis Achievement Results, 2008-2009
_________________________________________________________
Student 6
th
RDG % 7
th
RDG % 8
th
RDG % 9
th
RDG % 10
th
RDG % Exit Level
Group Met Std Met Std Met Std Met Std Met Std Met Std

All 87.8% 77.3% 90.7% 76% 80.0% 86.6%
Black 84.1% 74.1% 89.3% 73.4% 77.5% 85.9%
Hispanic 88.9% 77.9% 90.9% 75.9% 80% 85.8%
White 93.3% 89.9% 96.2% 92.1% 93% 96.9%
Low SES 86.8% 76.3% 90.2% 74.3% 78.1% 85%
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Student 6
th
Math % 7
th
Math % 8
th
Math % 9
th
Math % 10
th
Math % Exit Level
Group Met Std Met Std Met Std Met Std Met Std Met Std

All 73.8% 64.5% 77.2% 44.7% 50.8% 75.1%
Black 63.2% 54% 68.8% 35.5% 41% 70.3%
Hispanic 77.3% 68.5% 80.3% 47.4% 53% 75.5%
White 84.3% 74.8% 89.1% 70.5% 77.8% 92.9%
Low SES 72.6% 63.7% 76.6% 42.5% 48.2% 73.3%
Data retrieved from the Davis Independent School District Website
http://www.Davisisd.org/inside_disd/depts/evalacct/evaluation/index.htm

Gaining Access to Participants
In August 2009, the Davis ISD Chief Administrative Officer contacted my
dissertation chair and expressed interest in working with The University of California
graduate researchers that were a part of her Leadership Capacity Building and Support
thematic group Cohort. They were interested in using the VAL-ED survey as a potential
principal evaluation tool, which was one of the primary data collection instruments used
in the researcher’s study. Once the researchers agreed to include Davis ISD as their study
site, the Davis ISD research department approved the researchers to begin their data

56

collection process (Appendix B). In September 2009, my dissertation chair presented an
overview of the research proposal to key Davis ISD personnel. Davis ISD then identified
the principals (N = 14) that would participate in the study. Researchers sent follow-up
letters via email to each principal (Appendix C) to introduce themselves, give an
overview of the study, and overview of the data they would be collecting in Davis.
Follow-up phone calls were made to school principals to plan and confirm schedules.
Principals were also asked to identify a lead teacher to assist in maintaining the
anonymity of all teacher participants from their schools. This person was responsible for
distributing survey access codes to all teachers and securing a list of teachers from which
to randomly select case study participants. All participants in the study were given
pseudonyms to maintain their anonymity.

Data Collection Procedures

This study utilized a mixed-methods, comparative case study design. In general,
case studies focus on discovery and exploration rather than hypothesis testing and the
development of deductive inferences (Merriam, 1997). Case studies are most appropriate
in situations where the researcher has little control over the events in the context
surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Therefore the focus of this study centered
around descriptive questions, which reveal information about the “hows” and “whys” of
changes in principal leadership behavior through participation in the DPCI program as
well as the impact of the leader’s practice on teacher practice and organizational
structures.

57

Yin (1984) defined a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used” (p. 23). For this study it was important to analyze the phenomenon of
educational leadership in a real-life context to gain a better understanding of what factors
about the context seemed to influence principal behavior. As such, a multiple case study
design was the best methodological approach for this study. Not only would a
comparative case study design contribute to the strength of the study, it would contribute
to the base of knowledge supporting the importance of context change in professional
practice.
According to Patton (2002), “multiple sources of information are sought and used
because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective on the program” (p. 306). The combination of observations, interviews, and
document analysis gave the researcher different data sources to validate and crosscheck
findings. In addition, Patton (2002) also pointed out that each type of data source has its
strengths and weaknesses. Triangulation (the use of multiple data sources) increases
validity because the strengths of one approach can compensate for the weaknesses of
another approach.

58

Instrumentation: Overview
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For both case
studies the following sources were used to gather descriptive data: pre-post intervention
interviews with each principal and a sub-set of their teachers; pre-post intervention
observations of the principal interacting with teachers, and classroom observations of
teachers interacting with their students; and a collection of documents and artifacts
generated by the school site, and were relevant to the study.
In addition, data was collected from the administration of the online version of the
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey to one principal,
the principal’s supervisor and her teachers. The first administration took place prior to the
principal’s interaction with their DPCI principal coach in fall of 2009. The
postintervention survey took place in the spring of 2010.
Data collected in response to each research question were triangulated to
facilitate the data analysis process and substantiate any inferences made with regards to
changes in leader practice and teacher professional practice.
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
The VAL-ED (Murphy, Goldring, Elliot, & Porter, 2007) is a standards-based
survey of educational leadership that is closely aligned with the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and the Texas core leadership standards.
Learning-centered leadership theory was the framework for the VAL-ED. The learning
centered leader is one who (a) establishes a clear vision, (b) exhibits instructional
proficiency, (c) aligns the curriculum to assessment, (d) personally knows his or her staff,

59

(e) implements a culture of learning for adults and children, (f) encourages a safe and
orderly environment, and (g) communicates with all actors in the teaching and learning
process. It is through this leadership perspective that the behaviors for this instrument
were developed.
The survey was composed of 72 items, which were broken down into six core
component subscales and six process subscales. The six key processes were: (a) planning,
(b) implementing, (c) supporting, (d) advocating, (e) communicating, and (f) monitoring.
The six core components were: (a) high standards for student performance, (b) rigorous
curriculum, (c) quality instruction, (d) culture of learning and professional behavior, (e)
connections to external communities, and (f) systemic performance accountability. The
VAL-ED was funded by a grant from the Wallace Foundation and developed by a team
of well-respected researchers in educational leadership (Murphy et al., 2007). Survey
respondents indicated their perceptions of how well the principal engages in actions (the
key processes) that impact effective school activities supported by research (the core
components). The survey respondents were also asked to identify the source(s) of
evidence that supported these perceptions.
The instrument was designed to provide a 360-degree evidence-based assessment
of leadership. It was designed for completion by the principal, supervisor and teachers at
the school. Respondents rated the perceived effectiveness of the principal on a scale of 1-
5 (1= Ineffective to 5= Outstandingly Effective) for each of the 72 items. Parallel forms
of the assessment were used to measure growth over time, from the pre-intervention
assessment to the postintervention period. Both principal and teacher surveys were

60

designed to take from 30 to 45 minutes to complete. The VAL-ED survey was designed
to yield both criterion-referenced and norm-referenced scores. Figure 3, below, illustrates
a sample of the VAL-ED survey.
Figure 3

Sample VAL-ED Survey

Although the VAL-ED is a new instrument in the research of educational
leadership, it has gone through extensive field-testing to establish high standards of
content validity and reliability. The conceptual framework for the VAL-ED survey was
based on the literature on school leadership effects on student achievement (Porter,
Murphy, Goldring, Elliott, Polikoff, & May, 2008). The developers completed a nine-
school pilot test in the fall 2007 to establish both face and content validity. Estimated

61

reliability coefficients for each of the twelve subscales were also established as a result of
this pilot. Overall, the investigation revealed high reliability coefficients for the seventy-
two-item scales (α = >.98). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to investigate
data fit to the conceptual model. The factor analytic model was designed to parallel the
conceptual framework for the VAL-ED by incorporating higher-order factors for core
components, key processes, and an overall score (Porter et al., 2008).
Because each item contributed to both a core component and a key process, the
factor analytic model was split into two separate analyses: one on core components and
the other on key processes. Results from the confirmatory factor analyses revealed that
both the core components and the key processes models fit the data very well, having
goodness of fit indices between .96 and .99. A primary source of validity evidence is the
core component and key process intercorrelations. The correlations were high, both for
core components and for key processes, though they appeared somewhat higher for key
processes. For core components, correlations ranged from a low of .73 (Connections to
External Communities and High Standards for Student Learning) to a high of .90 (Quality
Instruction and High Standards for Student Learning). For key processes, correlations
ranged from a low of .89 (Supporting and Monitoring) to a high of .94 (Monitoring and
Communicating). Correlations of core components and key processes with total score
were all quite high, with none lower than .9. These high intercorrelations, along with the
factor analysis results described above, suggested that the instrument was measuring a
strong underlying construct, principal leadership. In the winter of 2008 a 300-school field
test was completed. The purpose of this test was (a) to replicate reliability and validity

62

tests from the initial nine-school pilot in the fall of 2007, (b) to conduct differential item
functioning to determine biases, and (c) to establish norms (Porter et al., 2008).
For this study, all survey respondents took the on-line version. All respondents
were assigned a unique ID to protect the confidentiality of each participant. The
distribution survey IDs by a lead teacher identified by the researcher in cooperation with
the principal (responsible for providing the master list of teachers and their contact
information) avoided the possibility of retaliation against teachers for their responses.
Through this process, the exact responses of all participants and their contribution to the
overall survey results remained unknown to the principal.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each principal (N = 2) and a
subset of teachers (N=5) from each principal’s school site. Principal and teacher
interview protocols had a mixture of predetermined as well as open-ended questions. The
pre-intervention principal interviews (Appendix D) took place in the fall of 2009 prior to
participation in the DPCI for approximately 45 minutes with principals and 20 to twenty-
five minutes with teachers. The postintervention principal interviews (Appendix E) took
place in the spring of 2010. In addition, probing questions were asked when the responses
required more elaboration or clarification. The interviews were recorded and later
transcribed for analysis.
Teachers were randomly selected from the master teacher list secured with
principal cooperation based on whether or not they taught math, reading, science or social
studies. A minimum of five teachers participated in both pre-post intervention interviews

63

(Appendices F-G) at each school. The interview protocols were designed to elicit
responses which could provide evidence for a change in principal and teacher practice in
alignment with the outcomes of value to this study which were aligned with the Texas
Core Leadership standards, the outcomes and goals of DPCI, and the learning-centered
leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2008). Table 5, below, illustrates the alignment of
outcomes across these three guiding frameworks.

64

Table 5

DPCI Core Components Alignment Matrix

Core Texas State-wide
Leadership Standards
Addressed
Davis Achieves Leadership Development
Curriculum (IFL) & Leadership Institutes
*Murphy’s Learning-Centered
Framework
(8 Dimensions)
Standard #1
The leader has the
knowledge and skills to think
and plan strategically
creating an organizational
vision around personalized
student success.
Transforming Our Public Schools (TOPS)

Develop Vision and Goals
• Institute for Learning (IFL) Institutes & IFL’s
Leadership for Learning: A Theory of Action
for Urban School Districts*
• District design principles and theory of change
• District Initiatives and Procedures

Vertical Learning Communities
• Learning Walk within and across feeder
patterns
• Book studies and article discussions
• Sharing artifacts that impact student
achievement
Standard #2
The leader is grounded in
standards-based systems of
theory and design and is able
to transfer that knowledge to
his/her job as the architect of
standards-based reform in
the school.
IFL’s Leadership for Learning:

A Theory of Action for Urban School Districts
• District design principles and theory of change
• Foundation of Effective Learning: The
Principles of Learning
• Disciplinary Literacy/Academic Rigor
Standard # 3
The leader knows how to
access and use appropriate
data to inform decision-
making at all levels of the
system.
Leading for Results
• Learning Walks
• Focus on Data Analysis
• Nested Professional Learning Communities
• Leadership Instructional Conferring/Coaching
and Reflective Practice Strategies

Vision for Learning
A. Developing vision
B. Articulating vision
C. Implementing vision
D. Stewarding vision

Instructional Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Hiring and allocating staff
C. Supporting staff
D. Instructional time

Curricular Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Expectations, standards
C. Opportunity to learn
D. Curriculum alignment

Assessment Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Assessment procedures
C. Monitoring instruction and curriculum
D. Communication and use of data

Communities of Learning
A. Professional development
B. Communities of professional practice
C. Community-anchored schools

Resource Acquisition and Use
A. Acquiring resources
B. Allocating resources
C. Using resources

Organizational Culture
A. Production emphasis
B. Accountability
C. Learning environment
D. Personalized environment
E. Continuous improvement

Social Advocacy
A. Stakeholder engagement
B. Diversity
C. Environmental context
D. Ethics
Source: Porter, Murphy, Goldring, Elliott, Polikoff, & May, 2008.

65

Observations and Documents
In addition to interviews, pre-post classroom observations (Appendix H) were
conducted at each school to gather additional data. Observational data was necessary to
strengthen data obtained through interviews and the VAL-ED. Interview and survey data
were based solely on individual perceptions. Observations and document analysis
(Appendix I) provided additional data that was somewhat removed from individual
perceptions and, in some cases, bias of those working at the school site. Additionally,
observational data added to the strength of the study as they provided another source of
data for triangulation. Observations included the following:
1. Principal and teacher interactions in various settings ( staff meetings,
professional learning community meetings)
2. Teachers instructing students in math, reading, social studies or science
3. Principal interactions during day-to-day responsibilities
4. School level professional learning opportunities in which the principal was
guiding the learning process
In total, one day was devoted to collecting qualitative data during both the pre-
intervention and postintervention period at each school site. Reflective field notes from
these observations was recorded and transcribed for analysis. Table 6, below, details the
triangulation of data in relation to each research question identified at the beginning of
this chapter.

66

 
 
Table 6

Triangulation Table

Research Questions Data Collection Instruments
VAL-
ED
Observations
(Pre/Post)
Principal & Tchr.
Interviews
(Pre/Post)
Artifacts/Documents
(Pre/Post)
Research Question 1:
How does participation in the Davis ISD
Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
prepare principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
X X

X
Research Question 2:
How does DPCI influence the knowledge,
beliefs and leadership practices of urban
school principals?
X X X

X
Research Question 3:
How does an urban school principal create
and sustain organizational structures and
processes that promote effective teacher
practice and improve student outcomes?
X X X

X

Research Question 4:
What leadership support structures enable
leader practice?

X X
Research Question 5:
How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as
a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?
X X X

X
Triangulation table demonstrating the sources of data used to address each research
question

Data Analysis Procedures
There is no single, accepted approach to analyzing qualitative data, although
several guidelines exist for this process (Creswell, 2003). Data collected for this study
were analyzed in accordance with two levels of analysis, formative and summative. To
protect the integrity of each case study, each case was fully analyzed ( coding, pattern
matching, organization by themes, and summative data analysis) prior to the cross case
comparative analysis. Once the data for the two case studies were individually analyzed,

67
data from both cases were analyzed again in search of patterns and themes that helped to
make inferences regarding the variation between the two cases.
Formative Data Analysis Procedures
A formative data analysis of this study was completed utilizing Creswell’s (2003)
generic six-step process:
1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis which involves transcribing interviews,
field notes, and reviewing documents.
2. Read through all the data in order to obtain a general sense of the information and
to reflect on its overall meaning.
3. Begin detailed analysis with a coding process—organizing the material into
chunks or categories.
4. Use the coding process from Step 3 to organize the categories into themes for
analysis and look for connections between the themes.
5. Define how the themes will be represented in the qualitative narrative.
6. Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data (Creswell, 2003)
Summative Data Analysis
To determine if there was a change in perception of leader behavior and its impact
on teacher practice and organizational structures, the data from this study was analyzed
through the lenses of the literature discussed in Chapter 2 of this dissertation, while also
emphasizing the theoretical implications from the conceptual framework for each
research question. For the quantitative data collected from the VAL-ED survey, the mean
from the pre administration of the assessment were used. These data was triangulated

68
with the qualitative data and used to further support the descriptive analysis of the case
study data.
This research study was conducted over a six-month period of time. Below is a
table illustrating the timeline for the study:
Table 7

Data Collection Timeline
____________________________________________________________________
Task Timeline
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Proposal Development & Planning August/September 2009

Recruitment of Study Participants August/September 11, 2009

Pre-Intervention Qualitative Data Collection on-site September 28-29, 2009

VAL-ED Survey Online Administration (Pre-Intervention) September & October 2009

Formative and Summative Data Analysis November & December 2009

Postintervention Qualitative Data Collection on-site January 4-5, 2010

VAL-ED Survey On-line Administered (Postintervention) February 2010

Formative and Summative Data Analysis February & March 2010
Timeline for the research project

Validity

Validity strategies were used to determine the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba,
1985 as cited in Creswell, 2003) and accuracy of interpretations and findings. The
accuracy and credibility of the findings of this study were established using the following
validation strategies: data triangulation and peer debriefing. Triangulation was the
process of corroborating evidence from various individuals, sources and methods. Data
collected in this study came from a variety of individuals (, principals, supervisors, and
teachers), sources and methods (, survey, interviews, observations, and review of
artifacts). Peer debriefing was also utilized through a process of identifying a colleague to

69
whom responsibility for reviewing and asking questions about the interpretations and
findings. Through this process, it was anticipated that clarity was gained from someone
other than the researcher.
Though various limitations and delimitations of the study were addressed in
Chapter One, it is important to recognize additional threats to validity. Some potential
threats to internal validity are outlined below:
1. Length of the Study: Time for collecting qualitative data from fieldwork for this
study was limited to six months.
2. Both principals did not have sufficient time to assimilate their learning gained
from the DPCI.
3. The fact that the postassessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively soon after
the pre-assessment (approximately six months) limits the degree to which it fully
measured the principal’s growth in the areas assessed.
4. Pre-test Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of the
VAL-ED had inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected in the second
administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors other than the
participants’ participation in the DPCI.
5. The “halo effect”: Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED (ratings
of self and colleagues), participants may have a tendency to assume specific traits
or behaviors based on a general impression. However, to mitigate the effect of
this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-ED survey requires raters to identify the

70
primary source of evidence for their ration on each item ( personal observation,
documents, etc.).
6. Quantitative data collected from the VAL-ED survey was limited because both
schools did not complete the pre-post survey. Washington High School did not
participate in the VAL-ED survey, which prevented the researcher from
completing a cross case analysis. Bancroft Leadership Academy only completed
the pre VAL-ED survey, which prevented the researcher from comparing pre-post
data to determine change in leader practice.

Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
policies and procedures for conducting research was utilized in the development of this
research design. Prior to participation in this study each participant was given an
explanation of the purpose, procedures, and scope of the study. In addition, each principal
participant was given an informed consent letter (Appendix J), which outlined the nature
of the study, to read and sign indicating his or her voluntary participation. To protect the
anonymity of each participant, pseudonyms were assigned to the principal and teacher
participants. In addition, the names of the schools with which the participants were
associated were changed to avoid any possible association that might lead to the
identification of participants in this study. All data was stored in a secure location with
restricted access to the data to the researcher only. The proposal for this study went
through the rigorous approval process for the conduct of human subjects research through

71
the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), and approved,
prior to the start of data collection in the fall of 2009.

Chapter Three Summary

In summary, this chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and the research
methodology that was used to accomplish that purpose. Justification for the use of a
descriptive qualitative analysis to address the research questions was given in the
beginning of the chapter. The research design included a detailed description of the
sample and how the individual cases were selected for study. Data collection and analysis
procedures were explained as were instrumentation considerations. Due to its infancy and
limited use in research of educational leadership to date, a brief review of the VAL-ED
survey and its psychometric properties was given to assure readers of its validity and
reliability in assessing leader behavior in this study. Other topics covered in this chapter
included ethical considerations of the study.

Chapter Three Organization of Study
The following two chapters, four and five, will present and analyze the findings
from the case studies, summarize the cases studies, and give implications for further
research, practice and policy.

72
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS

Chapter Four Introduction
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of principal
participation in a fully developed, research and standards-based, executive leadership
development program, the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI), on leader practice
and the professional practice of teachers. Chapter Four will present and analyze the data
collected for the two case studies discussed in chapter three, and report the findings for
each research question presented. During the 2009-2010 school year for a six-month
period, multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in both case studies, including
(a) pre-post intervention interviews with each principal and five teachers, (b) pre-post
observations of the principal interacting with teachers, (c) classroom observations, (d)
results from the online Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
survey, and (e) a collection and analysis of documents and artifacts generated by the
school site.
This chapter will present each case study and its findings independently and then
compare the two case studies to see how the results vary and discuss what might account
for that variation. It will begin with a description of each case study school, including the
principal; a brief discussion of the components of the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative
(DPCI); an analysis of the findings for each research question through the theoretical
frameworks discussed in chapter two, and finally, the chapter will conclude with a

73
comparison of the findings for each case study school, and an analysis of the variations
between the two with a discussion relating to the possible cause(s) for those variations.
The following research questions were the focus of the study:
1. How does participation in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of
urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve
student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals
to become effective instructional leaders?
Davis Principal Coaching Initiative
The Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) provides a standards-based
leadership capacity building curriculum and principal support through a leadership
coaching structure. The DPCI was designed to provide principals with a principal coach
who provides at-elbow coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership
development and build leadership capacity to ensure improved academic success for
students. Principals and coaches participate in professional development focused on data
analysis, goal setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice and
establishing systems and structures to support improved teacher practice and student

74
learning. Through a partnership with the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning
(IFL), consultants led professional development workshops focused on (a) the Principles
of Learning (POLs with a focus on academic rigor), (b) Learning Walks (a monitoring
strategy focused on classroom instruction), (c) Nested Professional Learning
Communities (focused upon teacher collaboration), and (d) Disciplinary Literacy (content
focused instructional practices).

Case Study One ~ Washington High School
Case Study One Location and Demographics
Washington High School is located on the southern side of Davis, Texas. This
area of Davis has a population of 18,731 and of that number 85.3% is African American,
11.8% Hispanic and 6.8% White. The median age of this part of the city is 34 and the
average household income is $16, 043, which is $25, 951 less than the US average. The
number of boarded houses and businesses that surround Washington High School is an
indicator of the large number of people living in poverty. Fifty-two percent of the
families and individuals are living below the poverty line, which is over five-times the
national average of 9.2 for families and 12.4 for individuals
(http://www.brainyzip.com/zipcodes/75/75215.html). The educational attainment is also a
challenge for the residents in this area. Of the residents that are 25 and older, 53.6% has a
high school diploma and 6.4% has a bachelor’s degree. This is significantly lower than
the national average of 80% for high school graduates and 24.4% for bachelor’s degree.

75
Washington High School serves 1,256 students in grades 9-12 and has 97
teachers. The school demographics are reflective of the immediate area as well as the
larger Davis metropolitan area with 81% African-American and 19% Hispanic. Eighty-
four percent of the students is eligible for free/reduced lunch and 7% is designated as
Limited English Proficient students (Washington High School Scorecard). Eighty-one
percent of the teachers at Washington High School is African-American, 14.5% White,
2.1% Hispanic, and 2.1% Asian (Texas Educational Agency Campus Profile). Table 8,
below, gives an overview of Washington High School’s achievement data on the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), the state’s standardized testing program,
AP exams, the ACT, SAT and graduation rates.
Table 8

Washington High School Achievement Data 2008-2009
_______________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Criteria Percentage/Score
% of Students Meeting the Standard in Math 52%
% of Students Meeting the Standard in ELA 82%
% of Students Meeting the Standard in Science 57%
% of Students Meeting the Standard in Social Studies 89%
% Scoring 3 or higher on AP Exams 6%
% of Students Grad. In 4 yrs 67%
Average SAT Score 753
Average ACT Score 15
Washington High School Scorecard
Case Study One Culture and Climate
Washington High School started the 2009-2010 school year with a drastic change.
The previous principal of over ten years was replaced after the first two weeks of school
by Mr. Parks, which he said, “has left some of the teachers a little upset…unfortunately,
the only person they have to put their anger on is me at this particular point.” According
to Mr. Parks, the departure of the previous principal has prompted him to be “observant,

76
and I just make sure I’m dotting my I’s and crossing my T’s…because you really don’t
know how people are taking you.” The culture and climate of the school was interrupted
by the assignment of a new leader, and the faculty is trying to figure out a way to adjust.
Although the school is going through an adjustment period, Mr. Parks believes the
students and staff have potential. He contended that:
the teachers that are here are here because they love Washington High School.
They are fully knowledgeable of the community that they serve. A lot of them
have great skill in dealing with difficult clientele…my teachers know my kids.
They know them well.

Mr. Parks argued that once “they get to know me, if you give me a chance” then
Washington High School will “Rock and Roll.”
Case Study One Teacher Profiles
There were a total of three teachers interviewed from Washington High School.
Mr. Booth, an African-American Math teacher, was serving his first year as the Math
Department Head and his second year as a Math teacher. He taught Algebra I and
Geometry. Ms. Hess was a Government-Economics and AP US history teacher and
current History department chair. She was beginning her sixth year teaching. Last, was
Mr. Winston, an African-American Science teacher, who was beginning his third year
teaching Chemistry.
Principal Parks
Mr. Parks is an African American male beginning his 16
th
year in education. He
started as a math teacher in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and continued his teaching career in
Davis, Texas. He then worked his way up the ladder where he became an assistant
principal for six years, associate principal for two years and this school year marks his

77
third year as head principal. Mr. Parks began his participation in the DPCI in the 2008-
2009 school year.
Mr. Parks is faced with numerous challenges as the new principal of Washington
High School. One of those challenges is inherent in the urban context, which is
characterized by low-income, welfare dependency, violence and broken family
relationships. Washington High School is located in one of Davis’ most poverty stricken
neighborhoods. Second, rebuilding the culture and climate of the school, as a result of the
sudden leave of the previous principal, and the faculty’s charge to familiarize themselves
with Mr. Parks and his practices as a principal. Third, Mr. Parks inherited a school in
Title 1 School Improvement Stage 3 ~ Math.
Case Study One Findings
RQ #1: How does participation in the Davis ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the DPCI prepared Mr. Parks to
become an effective instructional leader. The data was analyzed from the research results
of the leadership capacity study completed by Darling-Hammond et al. (2007). As
mentioned in the introduction, the DPCI was designed to provide principals with a
principal coach to enhance instructional leadership development, build leadership
capacity and to ensure implementation of the Davis Achieves Initiatives. To determine
how the DPCI prepared Principal Parks’, a variety of instruments were used to collect
data: pre-post interviews of Principal Parks, observation of him facilitating a professional

78
development day, and document analysis (Davis Achieves Executive Summary 2009,
Professional Development Agendas, and Master Schedule).
Key finding: Coaching structure prepares principals. This is Mr. Parks second
year participating in the DPCI. Although he was unable to keep his coach from the
previous year, Principal Parks volunteered to be in the program for another year. He
wanted the additional support because as he shared in his preinterview (fall, 2009), he is
“all about learning, growing and just building relationships with people who’ve been
down there…I’m new. This is much more challenging than I thought.” At the time of the
preinterview, Mr. Parks had not met his DPCI coach for the 2009-2010 academic year.
He was only able to discuss his relationship with his coach from the previous year. At
that time, he admitted that he did not know what to expect this year; however, as he
reflected upon last year’s activities he shared, “but I know when I worked with my coach
last year, we did a lot of one-on-one things, along with the IFL activities that we had to
do with disciplinary literacy and its applications.”
Mr. Parks and his coach worked under the DPCI’s elbow-to-elbow coaching
model, which means the coach and principals met and worked face-to-face instead of on
the telephone. They used reflective and conferring strategies during their coaching
sessions. In the postinterview, Mr. Parks said he met his coach every Tuesday from 8-
2pm, and their coaching sessions consisted of observing classes together, facilitating
faculty meetings and discussing what they had observed. In addition to their site
activities, they attended the Davis Achieves: Leadership Institutes where they were
trained on the Principles of Learning (POLs), with a focus on Academic Rigor and

79
Accountable Talk. The content of these trainings also included professional development
on implementing school and classroom Learning Walks, Professional Learning
Communities, and Disciplinary Literacy (Davis Achieves Executive Summary, 2009)
In Mr. Park’s postinterview (spring, 2010), he discussed more about his
relationship with his new coach. He stated:
He basically listens to my needs. He allows me to vent, but at the same time, I
ask of him to take an objective look at my campus and to see what comes out,
some areas that he sees that I need to address or suggestions…he brings to me a
wealth of knowledge and he also helps me in the fact that he understands the time
constraints that I’m under and he is initiating some of the projects that I wanted or
he’s giving me those resources that I’ve been looking for.

An example of the resources that Mr. Parks referred to in his postinterview is the staff
retreat that he has been trying to organize. His coach helped to secure a sponsor to fund
his staff retreat. Mr. Parks was thankful that his coach had “contacts and connections” to
help him. He also explained the benefits of having a coach that is a former principal. He
said, “the good thing is that he understands my time and how stressed out we are.” His
coach helped him with his time management and how to find some balance with the
various responsibilities of a principal. Based on the pre-post interviews, the structure of
his coaching sessions from last year was similar to his current coaching sessions. Like his
sessions from last year, Mr. Parks met with his coach once a week. His coach would stay
at his school all day and they would meet “in passing,” and before the coach would leave
for the day, they would debrief the day’s occurrences.
Key finding: Professional development prepares principals. When asked about
the type of training he received on the Davis ISD initiatives, Mr. Parks explained that he
received extensive training on Disciplinary Literacy and the Principles of Learning

80
(POLs), specifically Academic Rigor, Accountable Talk and Socializing Intelligence. His
problem with these trainings he explained, “is that there’s not a lot of reflection time…I
just haven’t had time to absorb it all.” He expressed that it felt like he was only getting
thirty to forty percent of the content during these trainings. Mr. Parks explained that he
did not feel comfortable enough to train his teachers on these concepts because he was
still trying to make sense of them. In fact, during the fall district-wide professional day
Mr. Parks had two of his instructional coaches present to the staff on Disciplinary
Literacy and Academic Rigor (Professional Development Agenda, Appendix K)
During the postinterview, Mr. Parks was asked, “How do your teachers use the
Principles of Learning in developing their lesson plans?” Mr. Parks explained that he had
not seen those initiatives present in the classrooms. He questioned the efforts that were
made by the previous administration. He further explained:
But if it (POLs) was there, I would not have to have that staff development I’m
having today because it’s really just a part of it and it’s really not there. You’re
not going to see any of that Disciplinary Literacy, not at this point…And it kind
of goes back to my same thinking about the core values; they should be evident.
Same thing with Disciplinary Literacy and the rest of them. You should have
seen them. Shouldn’t have to ask.

The classroom observation data validated Mr. Parks’ argument about the POLs. Both pre
and post classroom observation data revealed that teachers were not using concepts such
as Disciplinary Literacy, Accountable Talk and Academic Rigor in their lessons. Mr.
Parks believed the lack of implementation of these initiatives attributed to why he is
focused on monitoring and raising expectations. He knew that the district spent millions
of dollars on these initiatives and expected to see them implemented in the classroom.

81
Analysis of findings. Prominent researchers (Hallinger, Bickman & Davis, 1996;
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005;)
established the impact of leadership on student outcomes, the evolving role of the
principal, and the increase of principal responsibilities (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe,
Meyerson, & Orr, 2007), but the content and structures of principal preparation programs
remained the same, and are preparing principals for roles that no longer exist (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007; Levine, 2005). One of the purposes of the Darling-Hammond et
al. (2007) study was to investigate specific elements of principal preparation programs,
which would support and sustain leader practice. Based on this study, Darling-Hammond
et al. (2007) developed a list of effective program elements focused upon: (a) content, (b)
methods, and (c) structure.
The content of the program should be research-based reflecting areas of
leadership, management and instructional leadership. In addition, the content should have
curricular coherence that links goals, learning activities and assessments to a set of shared
values, beliefs and knowledge. The structure of these programs included providing the
principal with a mentor/coach. There are two components of the Davis Principal
Coaching Initiative. The first component was designed to provide principals with a coach
who provides at-elbow coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership
development and build leadership capacity to implement the district-wide Davis Achieves
improvement initiatives. The second was to provide the principal and the coach with
professional development that was focused on data analysis, goal setting related to
academic achievement, leadership practice and establishing systems and structures to

82
support improved teacher practice and student learning (Davis Achieves Executive
Summary, 2009).
During his second year in the DPCI, the relationship that Mr. Parks developed
with his coach was very supportive. He helped Mr. Parks reflect on his practices; offered
a different perspective about the conditions of Washington High School, and provided
him with a few new networks that could assist Mr. Parks with his future goals. There is
some evidence that the structure of their relationship is casual and informal and
sometimes mirroring a father/son relationship. Mr. Parks described his relationship with
his coach during the preinterview:
I love the mentor/mentee relationship. And I don’t want to go off and say
father/son, but these gentlemen have been there, done that. They’re older than
me; they’re wiser than me and I just like that. They give me wisdom.

The casual relationship that Mr. Parks has with his coach calls into question the extent to
which his coach supported him in becoming an instructional leader. Leading researchers
argued that although some mentoring is better than none and both the mentor and mentee
seem to be satisfied with the experience, the coaching/mentoring relationship should
“embrace a larger vision—beyond a buddy system that merely helps new principals adapt
to a flawed system” (Spiro, Mattis, & Mitgang, p. 4, 2007). Based on the pre-post data
collected, Mr. Parks receives moral support from his coach that benefits him, but there is
little evidence to show that his coach supported him with becoming an instructional
leader.
Mr. Parks valued the coaching program as demonstrated by his having
volunteered to be a part of it for a second year, and he valued his coach’s opinion. For

83
example, he often asked his coach to give him an “objective” perspective on areas that he
felt that Mr. Parks needed to improve. When Mr. Parks stated, “He basically listens to my
needs. He allows me to vent,” shows some evidence that his coach provides him with
moral support and helps him put his everyday frustrations in perspective. His coach
helped him initiate a few programs, such as an outside mentoring program for students,
and organized and sponsored a staff retreat.
The professional development on Disciplinary Literacy, and the POLs gave Mr.
Parks the additional knowledge he needed to manage an instructional program, however,
he admitted that these areas have not trickled down to all teachers and all classrooms,
which the classroom observation data validated. In addition, he acknowledged during his
preinterview that he still struggles with the concepts and did not feel comfortable training
his staff. At this point in their coaching relationship, there is little evidence that
demonstrates how Mr. Parks’ coach assists him to develop a stronger foundation around
these concepts so that he could train his staff. There is some evidence, however, that
some of the work he does with his coach is focused on ensuring the district initiatives are
implemented into the classrooms. For example, they observed classes together, they
engaged in follow-up discussions, and facilitated faculty meetings together. These
activities will help Mr. Parks and his coach determine to what extent teachers are
implementing the district initiatives and identify areas where they still need to improve.
The DPCI established the initial structure for a coaching model—providing the
principal with a coach, professional development and district expectations regarding
outcomes. However, the day-to-day accountability between Mr. Parks, his coach, and the

84
work they complete is missing. There is little evidence that a system or structure is in
place to monitor how the coach assists Mr. Parks, and how he is developing as an
instructional leader and to what extent. Although the coach and Mr. Parks received
professional development on the Principals of Learning, it is unclear what type of support
the coach provided to help the principal implement what he learned. The research argued
that districts should gather information and monitor how the coaching is contributing to
the development of leadership behaviors that are needed to implement school reform
(Spiro, Mattis, Mitgang, 2007). Based on the data collected, it is not transparent how the
Davis ISD monitors the relationship between Mr. Parks and his coach.
RQ #2: How does the Davis ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) influence the
knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban school principals?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the DPCI influenced Mr. Parks
practice in implementing the District’s reform initiatives. To determine the value added
from participation in the DPCI, the data was analyzed from the instructional leadership
framework proposed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985). While one component of the
DPCI was designed to provide the Davis principals with a coach, the other component
provided the principal and coach professional development to enhance the instructional
leadership development of principals. To establish how the DPCI influenced Mr. Park’s
knowledge, beliefs and daily leader practice, the following data sets were used: pre-post
principal and teacher interviews, observation of Principal Parks facilitating a professional
development day, and document analysis (Davis Achieves Executive Summary 2009,
Professional Development Agendas, Master Schedule, and Bell Schedule).

85
Key finding: Monitoring student progress. In his preinterview (fall, 2009),
Principal Parks’ said that his plan for closing the achievement gap at Washington High
School was to implement school wide formative assessments. He explained:
I’m a big fan of formative assessments…it really makes us open our eyes to
what’s actually taking place, and not waiting six to twelve weeks at a time to see
how you are doing…formative assessments leads to instructional conversations
that have to take place.

He would like to begin formative assessments in the Math department because
Washington High School did not meet their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) because of
their test scores in Math. During the professional development day, Mr. Parks
demonstrated to his teachers how to analyze the Math AYP data and why it would be a
focus for the year (Professional Development Agenda). Mr. Booth, Ms. Hess, and Mr.
Winston, the three teachers that were interviewed as a part of this study, implemented
different strategies in their respective content areas to assist with the Math skills. Mr.
Booth, a Math teacher, and Mr. Winston, a science teacher, used daily “bell ringers” to
start the class, and Mr. Booth stated that the Math department was beginning to create
common assessments. Ms. Hess, a history teacher, also used “bell ringers,” but focused
on “maps and charts exclusively, to support that skill for Math and Science.”
The postinterview (spring, 2010) revealed that Mr. Parks made progress with
implementing formative assessments in the Math department. He described his progress:
Math has been very substantial, meaning that they’ve embraced it and I’ve gotten
multiple common assessments from it. So we have multiple sets of data and we’re
taking that data and we’ve been able to have some nice instructional
conversations related to that data.

86
Mr. Parks believed these conversations to be important because the data tells everything
and will drive the direction of those discussions among teachers. Mr. Booth, the math
teacher, stated in the postinterview that these discussions were beginning to take place
during the PLC meetings. Teachers were talking about data on a regular basis and
collaborating with other teachers to change their instruction.
Key finding: Supervise and evaluate instruction. In addition to monitoring
student progress, Principal Parks believed he needed to increase the amount of time he
spent observing and evaluating the instructional practices of his teachers. So far, Mr.
Parks explained, “I haven’t had an opportunity to observe as many classes as I would like
to in this building.” He would like to increase the amount of time he spends in the
classrooms to 60%. He claimed, “I have three other APs here that I’m working with. So,
we all, collectively, can do sixty percent.” Mr. Parks felt that his day is so busy and so
many people want his time, he finds it hard to visit the classrooms, but with the help of
his leadership team the goal seems reasonable to achieve. Although he has not observed
many classrooms, Mr. Parks was clear about his plan for giving teachers feedback when
he does visit. He preferred to use a “feedback form” that included a check-off list and a
comment section (form was not provided for this study). Mr. Parks explained other
methods of giving feedback besides using a form:
Feedback can also be in the form of a group setting. This is another thing I like to
do. When I have multiple teachers teaching the same thing, same concept area, I
like to go in one classroom, spend two or three minutes, then go to the next
classroom and spend two or three minutes…Then when we have our collaborative
meeting, I like to discuss verbally, and give feedback collectively to the whole
group.

87
Mr. Parks used this strategy because he believed that, “if we’re doing formative
assessment, everyone needs to be closely tied together so we’re not all over the place.”
When asked about his leadership style, Mr. Parks described himself as “mixed-
methods” and finds himself “tearing away to get to that instructional piece…I know that
if I’m not monitoring certain things, its going to fall by the wayside. You have to get in
and monitor the instructional piece.”
Washington High School was on a 90-minute block schedule (Bell Schedule,
Appendix L) prior to Mr. Parks’ arrival. He supported block scheduling and planned to
leave the current schedule in place; however, he did “plan on looking at those 90 minutes
that those teachers have and making sure that they are actually teaching for 90 minutes.”
Mr. Parks’ plan for monitoring instruction included formative assessments and
observations, but also the lesson design of teachers to ensure they are taking advantage of
the time the block schedule has to offer. To address how teachers used the block schedule
time, Mr. Parks used his spring professional development day (Professional Development
Agenda) as an opportunity to train teachers on how to effectively use the 90-minute
block.
Key finding: Defining the school’s mission. The core values of Washington
High School were safety, student achievement and continuous professional development.
When Mr. Parks was asked about these core values he proclaimed:
Those are generic. You pick any school in the United States and I’ll bet 90% of
them will have the same goals. I’m looking for something that is going to be more
specific to Washington High School…I think that when the time is right, I think
as a staff we’re going to have to all agree that we need to change those mission
statements and goals.

88
As Washington High School continues to grow and develop, Mr. Parks will revisit the
core values and get his staff on board to personalize their mission statement.
During the postinterview, Mr.Parks was asked if he had worked on revising the
goals and vision, he responded, “No, and there’s a method to my madness on that one.
And I’m not going to until the beginning of next school year, if I’m still employed...” His
explained that he wanted to work on team building and collaboration among his teachers
first. He believed his staff was not “connected like we should be as a staff”; therefore, he
decided to put that process aside for next year.
Analysis of findings. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) described an instructional
leader as one who clearly defines the school mission, manages the instructional program
and promotes positive school climate. Specifically, those behaviors included (a) framing
and communicating school goals, (b) supervising and evaluating instruction, (c)
coordinating curriculum, (d) monitoring student progress, (e) protecting instructional
time, (f) promoting professional development, (g) maintaining high visibility, (h)
providing incentives for teachers and students, and (i) enforcing academic standards.
Based on the pre-post interviews, observations and documents, Mr. Parks has plans to
implement these behaviors, and by the second visit, he had begun to implement some.
The data, however, are inconclusive as to his level of success and how his participation in
the DPCI influenced his knowledge, beliefs, and practices.
Framing and communicating goals is a process the principal uses to determine
areas of improvement and then communicates these goals to the teachers, student and
parents. The mission of Washington High School as it is currently stated is not driving

89
nor influencing Mr. Parks’ practices because he referred to them in the preinterview as
“generic”; however, he does recognize the importance of having goals, but believes it
should be a school-wide process and personalized. In the postinterview, Mr. Parks stated
that he had not begun the process of revising the mission statement, and was not going to
work on it until the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. He said, “I’m trying to
empower the teachers. I’m trying to expose them to things. I’m trying to open their eyes
to things because I think that most of the teachers that I’ve come in contact with here
have blinders on.” At this time, the school’s mission and vision are not at the top of Mr.
Parks’ priority list, but as an instructional leader it should be. It is through an established
school-wide vision where instructional leaders identify areas of improvement and
establish measurable goals for the school year (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
The implementation of formative assessments, increasing classroom observations,
and professional development supports the instructional leadership behaviors of
managing the instructional program and promoting a positive school climate. These are
also practices that are supported by the Davis Achieves Initiatives. At the time of the
preinterview, Mr. Parks had only been at the school site for three weeks, but these were
his goals. The postinterview and observation of the professional development day
revealed that Mr. Parks had begun to implement some of these practices. First, his Math
department implemented formative assessments, and he was working directly with
teachers on the curriculum and data analysis, as this was the content area that prevented
Washington High from meeting their AYP. Second, he increased his classroom
observation time to 40%. One of his strategies was to make the last fifteen minutes of his

90
CILT team meetings devoted to observing classrooms. Last, his professional
development day focused on Effective use of the Block Schedule, which is an area that
Mr. Parks wanted to take a closer look at, and provide teachers with the strategies they
need to effectively use their instructional time.
The training that Mr. Parks received on the POLs, Disciplinary Literacy, Learning
Walks and Professional Learning Communities focused on accountability, data-driven
decision-making and professional development. Mr. Parks emphasized formative
assessments and classroom observations in his pre-post interviews. However, it is unclear
if his focus in these areas is a direct influence of his participation in the DPCI, or is it a
result of his previous experiences. For example, when asked about the support he
receives with trying to develop his staff, he stated, “80% is coming from me.” Although
he sees the professional development from the DPCI as helpful, he does not credit the
DPCI completely for his development into an instructional leader. Although he was
having a difficult time absorbing the concepts from the professional development, he was
still knowledgeable and aware of the areas he needed to improve in, and was displaying
some behaviors of an instructional leader.
RQ #3: How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes?
Question three is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
strategies that Principal Parks put into place to create and sustain organizational
structures and processes to promote effective teacher practice and improve student
outcomes. The researcher collected data from the following data sets: pre-post interviews

91
with Principals Parks and three teachers, observations of Principal Parks and two
teachers, and documents (Professional Development Agendas, Master Schedule and Bell
Schedules). The data sets were analyzed through the learning-centered framework
proposed by Murphy et al. (2006) and Marzano’s (2003) 21 leadership responsibilities
framework. These researchers and others (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Hallinger
& Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004) established that
principals have the ability to directly influence practices at the school level (organization)
and the classroom level (teacher practice) by creating structures and processes that can
potentially have a positive influence on student outcomes.
Key finding: Instructional and assessment program. In the preinterview (fall,
2009), Mr. Parks was asked about the instructional priorities of Washington High School.
He responded:
I haven't had an opportunity to observe as many classes as I would like in this
building. But I can tell you right now, what I have seen is there's a lot of good
teaching going on, but it's all about teaching and learning…You can have a
beautiful lesson, and I think that a lot of lessons are. They're sound, they're
structured, the content is there, the delivery is there. But the kids are not getting it.
We have to take a step back and say, why.

At the time of the preinterview, the instructional practices he observed prompted Mr.
Parks to increase the amount of time he spent in the classroom. His observations thus far
revealed that teachers had great lesson plans, but they were not effectively using the 90-
minute block period, and students were not learning. Mr. Parks believed that 60% of the
administrator’s time should be spent evaluating and monitoring the instructional piece to
determine why students are not learning, and how to help teachers make better use of
their time. With the assistance of his assistant principals, he planned to put this

92
monitoring structure in place. Pre-post interviews from the teachers and Mr. Parks
revealed that classroom observations at Washington High School could come in the form
of Learning Walks or colleagues using their conference to observe each other.
When the teachers were asked about the instructional priorities of the school, Ms.
Hess, a history teacher, and Mr. Winston, a science teacher, both stated that math was the
priority. Both teachers explained in the postinterview (spring, 2010) that focusing on
math impacted their teaching because now they are required to plan across the
curriculum, and work more closely with the Math teachers. Mr. Winston and Ms. Hess
implemented “bell ringers” at the start of their class that focused on using math skills but
in their respective content areas. Mr. Booth, the math teacher, stated in his preinterview
that the priority was making sure students were using their critical thinking and higher
order skills through the use of bell ringers and open-ended questions math questions.
The postinterviews from the teachers and Mr. Parks revealed that the instructional
priorities of Washington High School moved from more specific focus areas such as
math to larger school-wide concepts such as quality instruction, student engagement,
academic rigor and excellence (Professional Development Agenda). Mr. Booth explained
why student engagement was now the focus:
There have been several accounts where administration has walked in on teachers
or did observations or Learning Walks, and there was very little or no student
engagement at all. It was a lot of lecture and they felt that just lecturing all the
time is not going to yield the results that are desired for TAKS. And so by the
administration clearly emphasizing student engagement, they are guaranteed there
will be some success in learning and on TAKS because they want to trigger
students to think on a higher level, which will yield rigor for the students.

93
In addition to the instructional priorities changing, during the postinterview teachers said
that administration was more visible in the classrooms, assessable to the teachers and
communicated to teachers what they expected to see in the classroom. For example,
during the postinterview, Ms. Hess and Mr. Booth both said they were observed by
administration on a weekly basis, and they saw the administrators in the hallways going
in and out of classrooms unannounced to teachers. During this interview (spring, 2010),
Ms. Hess stated that Mr. Parks articulated to everyone that he wanted to see “teaching
bell to bell. He wants to see students engaged. He wants to see the class objective up on
the board, student work up, print rich.”
The instructional program at Washington High School was influenced heavily by
the state and school’s assessment program. The pre (fall, 2009) and post (spring, 2010)
interviews and classroom observations revealed that many teachers used the results and
objectives of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) to inform their
daily planning and collaborative time. For example, Mr. Booth, the math teacher, stated
that the math department created common assessments that were based on TAKS
objectives only, analyzed the results of that data and then used the results to plan their
instruction. Mr. Winston, the science teacher, recalled that his department received
training on how to use TAKS assessment questions on their department’s common
assessments. Mr. Booth further explained how the math department used its collaborative
time:
It ranges from creating common assessments to using various teaching strategies
to employ a particular concept, to employing a TAKS objective and what we
teach, which in turn employs a, what we call, laying the foundation, which is a
pre-AP/AP strategy within the sub-core area.

94
 
In addition, all three teachers said they were using “bell ringers” that were developed
from TAKS objectives to start each instructional period.
As a “big fan of formative assessments” Mr. Parks believed that formative
assessments should inform the school’s instructional program and professional
development plan, and argued that implementation would close the achievement gap at
Washington High School. Mr. Parks stated in his preinterview:
Once I get a strong foundation in formative assessment across the board, that's
going to put a major dent in the achievement gap. That should put us up in the 70
and 80%. That's what I'm guessing, if it's done right. Oh, formative assessment
leads to instructional conversations that have to take place. It leads to them,
because it's an eye-opener.

During the postinterview, Mr. Parks rated himself a “C+” for progress with implementing
formative and common assessments because so far he had only been successful in the
math department. As a result, he said, “we’ve been able to have some nice instructional
conversations related to data…I’ve been more hands-on with them,” but he regretted not
spending as much time in the other departments such as science. He proclaimed that his
goal for second semester would be more devoted to assisting the science department with
their assessments (preinterview). Ms. Hess, a history teacher, also noticed the time Mr.
Parks devoted to the math department, she explained during the preinterview (fall, 2009),
“He’s really, really involved in the plan to get math reorganized, and science. I hear about
that a lot. They’re working very hard with math and science.”
Key finding: Organizational culture. There are key structures in place at
Washington High School that Mr. Parks believed would assist him with closing the
achievement gap; however, he still felt that these structures and people within them

95
needed more development. For example, each department has a collaborative time, also
referred to as a Professional Learning Community (PLC), built into the master schedule
(Master Schedule, Appendix M) along with the teachers’ individual planning time.
During this time, the whole department can meet, or the sub-core areas have an
opportunity to discuss instructional strategies, develop common assessments, analyze
data and plan lessons. Mr. Parks admitted (postinterview) that the purpose and goals of
this time are strong, but he said, “an administrator has to be there to monitor it.” The
department heads are currently charged with monitoring these meetings and holding
teachers accountable, but Ms. Hess, the history department chair, questioned her ability to
do so stating, “why am I held accountable for the PLC and I have no authority over
them?” Mr. Parks acknowledged that his department chairs were “still a little
deficient…they’re not as knowledgeable as I would like for them to be.” He continued:
If my Department Chairs are not effective, I got a problem. If they don’t know
how, or if they’ve never been asked to mentor correctly or to give suggestions or
give feedback, or help a new teacher or struggling teacher because they don’t
have the tools to help them, then I have some issues and that’s something else that
I’m battling with. And that’s where that leadership capacity at the instructional
level comes in. 
 
He would like to work on building their leadership capacity so they can be more
successful with the authority given to them. He planned to do this with professional
development and through discussions with his Campus Instructional Leadership Team
(CILT) team and department heads.
Another key aspect of Washington High School’s organizational culture was the
CILT. This team consisted of the department chairs, head counselor, administration and
instructional specialists. This team acted a liaison between the teachers and

96
administration, and provided support for teachers as they implemented school and district
goals and initiatives. Although the functions of this group were clear, some of Mr. Parks’
administrators were uncomfortable working with the department heads and the
accountability roles they were given. Mr. Parks explained:
I’m getting very positive feedback from them [teachers] because a lot of time,
teachers are not given that type of authority to become leaders; to actually use
your own creativity without having someone looking over you and dictating or
telling you what to do. That’s just how I work. I firmly believe in having strong
people under me… I think that some of the other administrators are probably not
used to that. You know, you’re giving away too much power.

Principal Parks valued the work of his CILT, and he planned to help his department heads
and administrators understand the importance of building leadership capacity among all
leaders, and how a “strong foundation is much more solid” when everyone had authority
and was successful with using that authority.
Analysis of findings. Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter’s (2006) learning-
centered leadership theory has core elements of the instructional and transformational
leadership models. Their work was based on five core findings about leadership: (a)
leadership matters, (b) in difficult times, leadership matters more, (c) in periods of
significant organizational transition, leadership is the major controllable factor in
exploring organizational performance, (d) instructionally focused and change-oriented
leadership are especially effective frames for education, and (e) team leadership seems to
offer promise for enhancing organizational performance. Under this framework, the
leaders’ behaviors are influenced by their knowledge, values and beliefs, experience and
personal characteristics. These leadership behaviors directly influence factors at the

97
school level and classroom level, and indirectly influence student outcomes (Murphy et
al., 2006).
The learning-centered framework argued that successful leadership behaviors
should fall under the following eight dimensions: (a) visions for learning, (b)
instructional program, (c) curricular program, (d) assessment program, (e) communities
for learning, (f) resource acquisition and use, (g) organizational culture, and (h) social
advocacy. The data from research question three was viewed through these dimensions to
understand how Principal Parks created and sustained organizational structures and
processes at Washington High School.
A principal that is implementing a successful instructional and assessment
program under this framework can be described as one who: is knowledgeable and
directly involved in hiring and allocating the staff; supporting the staff; protecting
instructional time, assessment procedures; monitoring instruction and curriculum, and
understands the importance of and use of data (Murphy et al., 2006). There is some
evidence that Mr. Parks is making progress in most of these areas. His increased focus on
classroom observations prompted him and his administrative team to closely monitor
how teachers use their instructional time. Teachers said that the visibility of the
administrators “keeps them prepared and on their feet” and some teachers are a little
worried that the administrators will visit their classrooms unannounced, so they are trying
to make sure they are always prepared. Mr. Parks explained how he got his CILT team
involved in this process:
I have incorporated my CILT Team into the observations also with the Learning
Walks. Whenever I attend a CILT meeting, we take 15 minutes to go into the

98
classrooms and we come outside and we discuss those classrooms, which I really
plan to increase this semester also. But it was a charge to the CILT and also to
the remaining administrators that we were going to increase that because it’s all
about monitoring. 
 
In addition, he was more involved in the decision-making of the math and science
departments. He was instrumental in helping them develop units of instruction and
common assessments for each unit. Mr. Parks is focused on monitoring the instructional
and assessment program at Washington High School, which is also influencing the
culture and climate of the school, specifically accountability.
The Professional Learning Community (PLC) at Washington High School is
designed for departments and grade levels to discuss instructional strategies, develop
assessments, lesson plan, analyze data, and observe classroom instruction. The problem
with this structure, as stated by Ms. Hess and Mr. Parks was accountability. Building a
strong PLC at Washington High School will help build a strong internal accountability
system at the school site. The learning-centered leader is concerned with the external
(TAKS) and the internal (PLC) accountability systems (Murphy et al., 2006). Whereas
Mr. Parks’ goal is to build leadership capacity in his department heads and assistant
principals, and the continuous improvement of their knowledge and skills, the current
practices under these structures are working against Principal Parks’ beliefs. For
example, the history department head explained in her postinterview that she feels
powerless, and the assistant principals complained to Mr. Parks that the department heads
have too much power. Though he admitted (postinterview) that his department heads still
need to develop their coaching and leadership skills, he firmly believed that they were
key in helping him monitor the instructional and assessment program and to ensure

99
internal accountability at Washington. They were his “first line of defense” and they
should be the “experts” on campus.
Mr. Parks’ strategy for addressing these issues with his PLC is his Campus
Leadership Instructional Team (CILT). Because the CILT team has the department heads
and administration working side by side, Mr. Parks used this time to model and coach
both parties at the same time. His first step has been the classroom observations. By
ending every CILT meeting with classroom observations, he is exposing the APs and
department heads to the importance of being in the classroom, giving teachers feedback
and the discussions that come afterwards. Mr. Parks explained in his preinterview how
one of his administrators was accustomed to doing discipline only, and Mr. Parks
explained to this AP that his presence in the classroom was just as important as
discipline.
Mr. Parks is using his knowledge, values, beliefs, and experiences to influence
key personnel at Washington High School. By Principal Parks monitoring instruction
through classroom observations; working directly with the teachers in developing
assessments, and helping to build leadership capacity in his administration and
department heads, he begins to create structures and processes that have the potential to
positively impact the organization of the school, the culture and climate, and teacher
practice. The learning-centered leadership theory argues that the organization and the
classroom impact student outcomes directly (Murphy et al., 2006). If this is the case, the
key structures and systems that are in place have the potential to impact student
outcomes.

100
RQ #4: What leadership support structures enable practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and
teacher levels) that enabled leader practice and subsequent movement in the direction of
implementation of the district’s and the school’s improvement initiatives. Pre-post
principal interviews, observations and documents (Davis Achieves Executive Summary,
2009) were the primary data sets used for this question. The data was analyzed through
the results of the Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) study and Murphy et al. (2006)
learning-centered leadership framework.
Key finding: Davis principal coaching initiative (DPCI). As explained in the
introduction, the DPCI was a district-wide coaching program that provided principals
with a principal coach who provided elbow-to-elbow and telephone coaching. Most of
these coaches were retired principals or other part-time employees that committed to
supporting active principals. The Meadows Foundation funded the program, which is a
Davis area private philanthrophic foundation. The purpose of this program was to
enhance the instructional leadership development among principals, and to build
leadership capacity with the goal of improving student outcomes. In addition to the
coaching component, principals and their coaches participated in professional
development that was designed by the IFL and focused on providing principals with the
skills they need to initiate reform (Davis Achieves Executive Summary, 2009). For the
2009-2010 school year, fourteen principals had an opportunity to participate in the
program. This was Mr. Parks second year participating in the DPCI.

101
Key finding: School site support. Most secondary schools within the Davis
Independent School District have two structures in place that Mr. Parks depends on. First,
they have an associate principal and an assistant principal. Mr. Parks described the
associate principal “like an associate professor… has a little more clout” than the
assistant principal. The associate principal was responsible for instruction and curriculum
only, while the assistant principals were responsible for discipline. Although they were
on the same level on the district’s organizational chart, the associate principal was
normally at an advantage when it came to promotional opportunities because of their
instructional experience. Mr. Parks explained that his associate principal played a key
role in developing and organizing the professional development for teachers, such as the
two district professional development days (Professional Development Agendas).
The second structure was the Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT). The
CILT team consisted of a principal, associate and assistant principals, head counselor, the
instructional coaches for math and language arts and the department head from each
department. As a leadership team, they discussed data, instruction, school-wide issues
and oftentimes determined the focus areas for the school (Davis Achieves Plan for
Student Achievement, 2009). During the postinterview (spring, 2010), Mr. Parks
explained how he incorporated his CILT team into the Learning Walk process because he
was trying to build their leadership capacity in order to have a more solid foundation for
his leadership team.
Analysis of findings. As mentioned in research question one, the purpose of the
Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) study was to investigate specific elements of principal

102
preparation programs, which will support and sustain leader practice. One of the key
elements of this study was the structure of the program, which suggested that principal
preparation programs have a cohort structure that includes field-based internships,
problem-based learning and mentors. Although the DPCI had fourteen participants for the
2009-2010 school year, based on the data collected, it does not appear that Mr. Parks
participated in a structured cohort. A cohort-structured program is a group of participants
that begin and end a program together. They take courses together and engage in some of
the same learning experiences (Preis, Grogan, Sherman, & Beaty, in press). Participants
in the DPCI were picked for various reasons, and the range of experience was from new
principals to twenty-year veterans.
Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) argued that a cohort-structured program created
opportunities for collaboration, teamwork and mutual support among principals. Based
on data collected, Mr. Parks did not have other formalized opportunities to interact with
the other thirteen principals other than the Davis Achieves Leadership Institutes.
Futhermore, there is little evidence that Mr. Parks collaborated or worked on projects
with the other DPCI participants during this professional development time or on their
own time. In addition to the cohort model, the Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) study
suggested that principal preparation programs have formalized mentoring or coaching
from expert principals that supports modeling, questioning, observations of practice and
feedback. Based on the pre-post interview data from Mr. Parks, his DPCI coaches were
experienced principals that modeled and provided support and feedback. Although it is
unclear if the DPCI has a targeted audience and lacks a cohort model, the DPCI does

103
provide current principals with a coach to assist them in enhancing their leadership skills,
which is a component that research suggests should be included in principal preparation
programs.
Under the learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2006), leaders
are focused on creating learning organizations and assisting the faculty and staff with
becoming more productive. Mr. Parks’ CILT and admin teams were responsible for
monitoring the instructional program and making key school-wide decisions. As a part of
Mr. Parks’ leadership team, they also were helping to promote a learning organization
and staff cohesion. As they assist with the development of the staff, they are also building
leadership capacity within themselves. These are key behaviors of learning-centered
leaders.
RQ #5: How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?
At the start of the 2009-2010 school year, Mr. Parks was transferred to serve as
the principal of Washington High School just as the DPCI study was getting underway.
As a result, the Davis ISD administration determined that although this school could
volunteer to participate in the qualitative data collection portion of this case study, having
the school participate in the VAL-ED survey portion of this study would be premature.
Mr. Parks participated in the online survey during the orientation to the study just prior to
his move to his new school; however, his supervisor and the teachers at his new school
assignment did not complete the survey.

104
The instrument was designed to provide a 360-degree evidence-based assessment
of leadership. It was designed for completion by the principal, supervisor and all teachers
at the school. Respondents rate the perceived effectiveness of the principal on a scale of
1-5 (1 = Ineffective to 5 = Outstandingly Effective) for each of the 72 items. Survey
respondents indicate their perceptions of how well the principal engages in actions that
impact effective school activities. This data could have been used as a tool to inform Mr.
Parks and his DPCI coach of the areas to focus their coaching by providing them with a
percentile rank for each leadership performance standard; overall performance level as a
principal; a comparison of the teachers, supervisor and self-ratings, and a list of specific
leadership behaviors for possible improvement.

Case Study Two ~ Bancroft Leadership Academy
Case Study Two Location and Demographics
Bancroft Leadership Academy is located on the southern side of Davis, Texas.
This area of Davis has a population of 9,343 and of that number 84% is African
American, 15.4% Hispanic and 6.5% White. The median age of this part of the city is 29
and the average household income is $15, 058, which is $26, 936 less than the US
average. Fifty-seven percent of the families and individuals is living below the poverty
line, which is over six-times the national average of 9.2 for families and 12.4 for
individuals (http://www.brainyzip.com/zipcodes/75/75215.html). The educational
attainment is also a challenge for the residents in this area. Of the residents that are 25
and older, 42.6% has a high school diploma and 3.1% has a bachelor’s degree. This is

105
significantly lower than the national average of 80% for high school graduates and 24.4%
for bachelor’s degree.
Bancroft Leadership Academy is a public all girls’ college preparatory school that
focuses on science, technology, engineering, math, leadership development wellness and
service learning. Students go through an application process where the admission criteria
include: (a) grade point average of 80 or above, (b) 40% or above on norm-referenced
tests in math and reading, (c) submission of graded student work samples, (d) parent and
student interviews, (e) on-site math and essay writing assessment, and (f) two letters of
recommendation. Bancroft Leadership Academy receives most of its funding from the
Foundation for the Education of Young Women.
Bancroft serves 396 students in grades 6-12 and has 34 teachers. The school
demographics are 66% Hispanic, 24% African-American, and 8% White. Sixty-nine
percent of the students are eligible for free/reduced lunch and 3% is designated as
Limited English Proficient students (Bancroft Leadership Academy Scorecard). Forty-
seven percent of the teachers at Bancroft Leadership Academy is White, 38.2% African-
American, 11.8% Hispanic, and 2.9% Other (Texas Educational Agency Campus
Profile). Table 9, below, gives an overview of Bancroft Leadership Academy’s
achievement data on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), the state’s
standardized testing program, AP Preparation, and College Readiness.

106

Table 9

Bancroft Leadership Academy Achievement Data, 2008-2009
___________________________________________________________________________________
Assessment Criteria Percentage/Score
% of Students Meeting the Standard in Math 98%
% of Students Meeting the Standard in ELA 100%
% of Students Meeting the Standard in Science 98%
% of Students Meeting the Standard in Social Studies 100%
% of Students Taking a Pre-AP Course 100%
% of Students on Track 1yr After Leaving This School 92%
% of Students who made expected Gains on TAKS Math 90%
% of Students who made expected Gains on TAKS ELA 98%
Bancroft Leadership Academy Scorecard
Case Study Culture and Climate
When walking on Bancroft Leadership Academy’s campus, the first distinct
characteristic was that it is an all-girls school. There was a faint chatter in the hallways by
girls dressed in uniforms walking to their next class. Most of the teachers were in their
classrooms preparing for the next period. The campus appeared to be clean and orderly.
When asked about the culture and climate of Bancroft during the preinterview (fall,
2009), Ms. Matthews used a basketball analogy. She explained:
My teachers are like Kobe Bryant & Shaquille O’Neil. Everyone wants to shoot,
but no one wants to pass the ball. They are high achievers and I have to remind
them to pass the ball. I try to teach them to empower their colleagues to help them
lead. It’s all about dedication, hard work and nurturing the girls.
 
Principal Matthews said she understood this about her staff, but would need to work with
them to help them understand that everyone on campus needed to be nurtured.
Case Study Two Teacher Profiles
There were two teachers that participated in the pre-post interviews from Bancroft
Leadership Academy. First, was Ms. Smith, a sixth grade Science teacher. The second

107
teacher was Ms. Williams. She taught 6
th
-grade math and this was her fifth year teaching
and fourth year at Bancroft Leadership Academy.
Principal Matthews
Ms. Matthews is an African American female and has been in education for 30
years. She started teaching in 1980 and was in the classroom for 12 years. She was an
assistant principal for four years and has been a principal for the past 14 years. Thirteen
of the 14 years was spent being an administrator at a Montessori Magnet school. She was
the first principal at Bancroft Leadership Academy where she had the privilege of
opening the school and hiring the staff. Bancroft Leadership Academy graduated their
first class in 2009.
Principal Matthews’ main challenges are maintaining a high level of academic
excellence and ensuring that all students attend a four-year university. As the principal of
a small school with high achieving students, there are a number of activities and events
that students and teachers participation that requires her involvement also. Although the
Bancroft Leadership Academy were calm and orderly, Principal Matthews day-to-day
activities were fast paced and constant. She was constantly moving from one meeting to
the next, and to one classroom to the next. Everyone seemed to need her attention, and no
matter how busy she was she made an effort to address everyone’s needs.

108
Case Study Two Findings
RQ #1: How does participation in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Research question one is a discussion and analysis of how the DPCI prepared
Principal Matthews to become an effective instructional leader. The data sets for this
question were analyzed from the research results of the leadership capacity study
completed by Darling-Hammond et al. (2007), the learning-centered leadership
framework proposed by Murphy et al. (2006), and Marzano’s (2003) leadership
responsibilities. To determine how the DPCI prepared Principal Matthews, the following
instruments were used to collect data: pre-post interviews of the Principal Matthews and
two teachers, observation of her facilitating several meetings, and documents (Davis
Achieves Executive Summary, 2009, Professional Development Agenda, PLC Template
and Vertical Team Agenda).
Key finding: Coaching structure prepares principals. This was Ms. Matthews
first year participating in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI). She volunteered
to be a part of the program because she says she wanted to “become a better principal.”
During her preinterview (fall, 2009) Ms. Matthews explained that her goals for working
with her coach included: (a) to help her better facilitate the common planning period she
has with teachers, (b) help her give feedback to her teachers in a timely manner that
would validate and support their work, and (c) because most of Ms. Matthews experience
has been in elementary and middle school, she felt like she needed more assistance with

109
growing her high school. Ms. Matthews met her DPCI coach for the first time on the day
of the preinterview.
During the postinterview (spring, 2010) with Principal Matthews, she was able to
give more details about the work that she and her coach completed because they met in
September. When asked about the structure of her coaching sessions and some of the
work they do, Ms. Matthews explained:
My coaching sessions take place once a week and it’s usually anywhere from an
hour to an hour and a half. And basically what my coach and I discuss are those
issues or concerns that I have that I would like for her to give me some feedback
on or some direction. We have gone on a Learning Walks together. She’s assisted
on a Learning Walk and we have gone into some common planning period
meetings and we have done some informal classroom observations, just kind of
walking through.

Ms. Matthews further explained that once they complete the observations, her coach gave
her feedback on what she saw. Her discussions with her coach were driven by their
observations and the goals that Principal Matthews set for herself.
In the postinterview (spring 2010), Principal Matthews was asked how supportive
her DPCI coach had been since September, 2009 and she discussed how her coach had
more experience in high school, which was an area Ms. Matthews needed assistance:
My background is basically elementary and middle school and I know that her
[coach] background is a combination of all three and a lot of high school. So I’ve
really, really bounced some ideas off of her in terms of some ideas I’ve had about
how to possibly grow my high school and to maybe come up with a pathway
theme, and she’s been very receptive and has given me some feedback in terms of
how I might want to approach that. And she has even offered to meet with me
with those teachers to help me through those meetings and to maybe answer any
questions that they may have about creating a pathway here.

Ms. Matthews continued to explain how her coach gave her some tips she could use when
working with high school teachers. Ms. Matthews explained:

110
She had shared with me that when you meet with and talk with high school
teachers about areas where they need to grow or where the school needs to grow,
you need to present data. You’ve got to show them concrete data; you just can’t
go in and just talk about it. They have to see it. And that has been an approach
that I plan to put into place.

Principal Matthews valued and took advantage of the experience and knowledge that her
DPCI coach had with high school, and planned to use this knowledge to help grow and
develop her high school teachers.
Although Ms. Matthews benefited from the work she completed with her coach,
she believed the knowledge and skills she developed to this point in her career were
shaped by her experience. She claimed her participation in the DPCI only gave her
additional support. Ms. Matthews explained in her postinterview (spring, 2010) how her
past experiences assisted her:
Because this is not as though this is new for me. This is probably my eighteenth
or nineteenth year in administration and I think a lot of my knowledge and skills
have just naturally transferred from my background from being elementary and
middle school…But I think for me it’s (DPCI) just having someone on a weekly
basis that I can share frustrations or celebrations with to say, “Okay, Gwen, that’s
a good approach,” or “Have you thought about doing A, B, C, D?”

Key finding: Professional development prepares principals. Principal
Matthews participated in professional development on the Principles of Learning (POLs)
and Disciplinary Literacy. When asked about her understanding of Disciplinary Literacy,
Ms. Matthews defined it as, “identifying in each content area what “it” looks like. This is
what it should look like for your content and your content.” When looking for evidence
of Disciplinary Literacy in the classroom, Ms. Matthews said she looks for the
connections that students are making. Principal Matthews believed that she could train
her staff on Disciplinary Literacy, but is not sure how in depth she could go. She

111
explained that she has a lot of pieces of information from the trainings, but that she is just
putting them together herself (preinterview).
During the preinterview, Ms. Matthews was asked, “How do your teachers use the
Principles of Learning in developing their lesson plans?” Ms. Matthews discussed how
the POLs are always a focus for her teachers:
For three years the Principles have been the focus; all POLs are the focus for this
year. On any given day, my teachers are working on four to five POLs per day.
They are trying to make them their own. They are looking at how the different
levels of rigor impact the students.

Ms. Matthews determined how well and to what extent teachers were implementing the
Principles of Learning by observing their delivery of instruction. She said, “When I walk
into a classroom and the teachers are engaged, the students are engaged; it’s obvious that
there are clear expectations. It’s obvious also to see the level of rigor.” Although Ms.
Matthews questioned the extent to which she had the ability to train her staff, there is
some evidence that teachers internalized the Principles of Learning as part of their daily
lesson plans. Ms. Williams, a math teacher, and Ms. Smith, a science teacher, confirmed
the use of the Principles of Learning when she explained how Learning Walks work.
During the postinterview (spring, 2010), Ms. Williams explained what happens during a
Learning Walk:
The way they’ve formatted them in the past has been administrator, usually
someone from the content area that you’re going to be observing—which is really
nice because they can have them give insight into what you’re seeing in the
classroom—and then usually a couple of other people, so usually four of us.
We’re looking for specific things with Academic Rigor, Accountable Talk, those
Principles of Learning.

Ms. Williams then explained that they look for all of the Principles of Learning, and she

112
gave an example of what they look for with Accountable Talk and Disciplinary Literacy.
In her post interview, Ms. Smith explained how they are accountable for implementing
the Principles of Learning:
I can say that they’re always on our lesson plan. We look at those things and we
say, okay, we’re already doing this. This is something that goes on in our
classroom, Accountable Talk…So Principles of Learning is pretty simple at our
school and it’s just common grounds that if a principal’s going to walk in, they’ve
got to be able to see it.

It appeared that both teachers internalized and embraced the district initiatives, and were
able to give examples (pre-post interviews) of what these concepts and ideas should like
in the classroom. In addition, the data collected from pre-post classroom observations
confirmed that teachers were using the POLs, Academic Rigor and Accountable Talk in
their daily lessons.
During the preobservation (fall, 2009), Ms. Matthews went to each department to
communicate the expectations for the Professional Learning Communities (PLC).
Strategies for developing and supporting PLCs was one of the areas where the district
focused its efforts at building principal capacity to design organizational structures that
had the potential to reshape their school culture. Some additional capacity building areas
of focus included: creating a Learning Walk schedule, a CILT notebook, share and
discuss successful lessons, discuss Learning Walk data, review lesson plans and maintain
a positive and professional environment (PLC Template, Appendix N). The principal
gave each teacher a template, which explained the expectations, and further expanded on
the purposes of the PLC.
Analysis of findings. The relationship that Ms. Matthews developed with her

113
coach was professional and supportive; however, as a 20-year veteran administrator, Ms.
Matthews’ attributed most of her current knowledge and skills to her experience. The fact
that Ms. Matthews brings a wealth of knowledge as a result of her years of experience,
makes it difficult to determine if her behaviors are a result of her experience or her
participation in the DPCI. The Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) study argued that
principals beyond their initial years need support to develop more “sophisticated skills
that require differentiated approaches to professional development, and depending on
their own backgrounds and prior experiences, as well as school contexts in which they
work, different principals need different kinds of supports” (p. 7). Based on the pre-post
interviews and the Davis Achieves Executive Summary (2009), it is not clear what
criteria was used to assign Principal Matthews’ a DPCI coach, and if the coach had been
assigned based on the needs and experiences of Principal Matthews. Ms. Matthews’
coach has been very supportive, but it does not emerge that Ms. Matthews’ coach was
assigned to her with specific knowledge on working with veteran administrators.
There is evidence that illustrates Principal Matthews’ coach is supporting her in
the area of implementation of district initiatives such as Learning Walks, Professional
Learning Communities, and helping her to build the capacity within her high school staff
to co-lead this work. Ms. Matthews explained in the postinterview that her coach has
gone on Learning Walks and to some of the PLC meetings. They debrief about these
meetings and her coach gave her feedback and direction on her next steps. Principal
Matthews learned the importance of data when working with high school teachers. The
implementation of Learning Walks, Professional Learning Communities and data

114
decision-making supports Davis ISD’s goal of increasing and enhancing the instructional
leadership of their principals (Davis Achieves Executive Summary, 2009).
There is some evidence that the professional development Ms. Matthews
participated in through the Davis Achieves Leadership Institutes has filtered down to her
teachers and the classroom. Ms. Matthews sees evidence of the Principles of Learning
when she observes classes, and teachers are very knowledgeable of them even though
Principal Matthews questioned the extent to which she was able to train her staff.
Teachers use the Principles of Learning when developing their daily lesson plans and
each department has a professional learning community. In addition, the principal sets the
expectations for the work of the Professional Learning Communities throughout each
department.
The data collected at Bancroft Leadership Academy provides evidence to support
the progress that Davis ISD is making through its school improvement initiatives to
reform their schools by developing stronger instructional leaders through professional
development and a support structure. These findings are also aligned with findings from
prominent researchers such as Murphy et al. (2006) and Marzano (2003) who argue that
leadership behaviors, which are formed by experience, knowledge, values, beliefs and
personal characteristics, directly influence school level factors (Learning Walks and
Professional Learning Communities) and classroom factors (teacher daily lesson plans),
which could have a positive influence on student outcomes.
RQ #2: How does the Davis ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) influence the
knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban school principals?

115
Research question two will discuss and analyze how the DPCI influenced
Principal Matthews’ leadership practice in implementing the District’s reform initiatives.
To determine the value added from participation in the DPCI, the data were analyzed
from the instructional leadership framework proposed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985).
To investigate the degree to which the DPCI influenced Ms. Matthews’ knowledge,
beliefs and daily leader practice, the following data sets were used: pre-post principal and
teacher interviews, observation of Principal Matthews facilitating several meetings and
documents (Professional Development Agenda, PLC Template, Vertical Team Meeting
Agenda, and School Brochures).
Key finding: Frames and communicates goals. Bancroft’s mission is to ensure
all students are prepared for college, are responsible leaders and to develop wellness life
skills (School Brochure, Appendix O). The teachers and staff focused on these areas at
all times and these core concepts influenced the decisions they made. When Principal
Matthews was asked (preinterview, fall 2009) about the process that was used to develop
these core concepts, she explained how they initially started:
We actually borrowed a few of them from our sister school in Harlem, The Young
Women Leadership School. As time has passed, a team of teachers and
consultants has changed the mission to reflect the needs of our school. Our three
key focus areas include: instruction, leadership and student wellness. When we
are looking to develop something new, even if it is a club, it has to focus on one
of these three key strands.

During the pre (fall, 2009) and post (spring, 2010) interviews, Ms. Smith and Ms.
Williams reiterated the importance of these concepts when they were asked about the
instructional priorities at Bancroft Leadership Academy. Ms. Smith said that their goal
was make sure all of their girls were college ready. Ms. Williams echoed this when she

116
said the goal was “to make sure that the students are mastering the material that we're
teaching at a high level so that the students are ready to advance to the next grade level.”
Ms. Williams also explained how she had to change the students’ focus from the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) to college readiness:
I would say we’re all about college readiness. We’re all about getting the
students to college, whether it’s at sixth grade we’re talking about college, at
eighth grade, at senior level. And so that’s always the focus. Most of my
students come in and they’re all about the TAKS test. That’s what they’ve been
trained. And so I tell them, “I don't care about that silly test in April. I care about
how well you’re going to do when you get to calculus and how well you’re going
to do when you get to college.

In addition to communicating and implementing the school’s mission, Ms.
Matthews made it a practice to communicate the goals and expectations of other school-
wide structures. During the pre-post observations, Ms. Matthews facilitated a common
planning period meeting and a vertical team meeting, which are a part of their
Professional Learning Community (PLC). During these meetings, Ms. Matthews
provided templates that outlined the goals and expectations of the PLCs (PLC Template;
Vertical Team Meeting Agenda, Appendix P). Principal Matthews asked teachers about
their lesson plans for the week; how often they used the online resources, and their
Learning Walk schedule. Her expectation was that they plan at least three Learning
Walks per semester. She also asked them about the agenda for their upcoming planning
days, and how they planned to use the time on this day. Each department was required to
send her an agenda. She ended the meeting by asking them what their concerns were at
the moment and to rate it on a scale of 1-3.

117
Key finding: Supervises and evaluates instruction. Principal Matthews
supervises and evaluates instruction through classroom observations, Learning Walks,
and data collected from the PLC and vertical team meetings. During the preinterview,
Ms. Williams and Ms. Smith said they were observed by Ms. Matthews and the associate
principal several times. Ms. Williams explained the different types of observations she
received:
They've both observed me several times, and it's usually fairly informal feedback.
They're both kinds of observations. I get the formal observations, where thy come
and give me very specific notes about what they've seen. And then some informal,
where they were just like, “Hey, good job. I like what you were talking about.” Or
they'll ask specific question about what I was teaching. Ms. Davis actually came
in and sat in for an entire lesson the other day and was part of the class, so it was
great that she was doing that. It seems to be good, because I always seem to get
some positive feedback from them either way.

Ms. Williams said the observations by the administrators were used to hold teachers
accountable for implementing higher order thinking skills. Ms. Smith said she had been
observed twice a month, but never saw any feedback. The number of classroom
observations by Ms. Matthews and her associate principal conducted increased by the
post interview. Ms. Smith explained how often she is observed (postinterview):
I’m observed all the time. I’m going to say there’s not a week when somebody
just doesn’t pop in. There’s not a week that we don’t have visitors coming in or
people from the Foundation and they’re asking us questions…When Miss
Matthews comes in, she’ll usually leave me a letter or format of this is what I saw,
this is what you were teaching, this is what I liked, this is what I see. So she gives
us feedback.

In addition to the regular classroom observations, the staff also participated in Learning
Walks. Ms. Williams explained the structure of the Learning Walks during the
postinterview:

118
The way they’ve formatted them in the past has been administrator, usually
someone from the content area that you’re going to be observing—which is really
nice because they can have them give insight into what you’re seeing in the
classroom—and then usually a couple of other people, so usually four of us.
We’re looking for specific things with Academic Rigor, Accountable Talk, those
Principles of Learning.

Ms. Matthews said that her DPCI coach assisted her on Learning Walks also and they
discussed the data afterwards.
Another practice Principal Matthews used to evaluate and supervise instruction
was through the PLC and vertical team meetings. Ms. Smith explained in the
preinterview that they met in their PLC three days out of the week. They discussed
curriculum, data, lesson plans, improvement areas for the department, equipment they
need, and professional development. During the pre-post observations, Ms. Matthews
visited each department’s PLC and reiterated what the expectations were for the meetings
and the documents that they were accountable for turning into her (Appendices N & P).
Each department was required to email her the agenda, minutes, and attendance
verification every Friday. During the Vertical Team Meeting, teachers were presented
with a case study that was based on a real situation at Bancroft Leadership Academy.
Teachers were required to answer essential questions, create a mission statement and
develop an action plan for their department to address this school-wide issue. This action
plan would then be used for the remainder of the year to hold departments accountable
for how they would address this issue at Bancroft.
Key finding: Promotes positive school climate. The pre-post interviews of the
teachers revealed that Principal Matthews was very supportive of her teachers,

119
encouraged them to go to professional development workshops and provided incentives
and support for students as well. When Ms. Smith was asked about the support she
received from Ms. Matthews, she gave several examples of how Ms. Matthews helped
her to grow professionally. She explained:
There's always training, and I like the fact that our training deals in how we can
improve ourselves. Not really just sitting down in staff development, but really
applying it to us. A few years ago we did a training on leadership, what kind of
leader you are, and that really opened our minds to realizing, “Oh, no wonder she
gets upset when I do that.” It really helped our team in sixth grade work more
efficiently because I know what is her pet peeve. I know her personality, and I
think we learn character, our leading style, and it's important for us to know that
because then, again, we can use that to our benefit. That was something that Ms.
Matthews did that was very instrumental.

Ms. Smith went on to explain how Ms. Matthews listens to what the teachers have to say
and was open to their suggestions. She felt very fortunate to have a principal that not only
listened to them, but also used individual teacher talents and strengths to help the school.
Ms. Williams, the math teacher, also provided examples of how Ms. Matthews helped
her. She said, “if I come to her with an idea and say, ‘This is what I want to do and this is
how it's going to help me in the classroom,’ she's always very positive about finding a
way to make that happen.” When Ms. Williams wanted to attend a workshop sponsored
by the local university, Ms. Matthews encouraged Ms. Williams and provided the
funding for her.
Motivating the students and supporting their social struggles seemed to be a
priority for the teachers and Ms. Matthews. Ms. Matthews explained in the postinterview
that prior to the Winter break a group of teachers came to her with the idea of rewarding
the students that had done really well by giving them a free day and a recognition

120
assembly. Ms. Matthews was a little hesitant with the idea, saying, “this kind of goes
against my Montessori training but sometimes we have to look at incentives, what could
we possibly dangle out there in front of them to maybe get them a little bit more
motivated?” Principal Matthews said she realized that for some students it takes a little
more. Ms. Williams also explained the importance of the sixth grade advisory and how it
gave the teachers an opportunity to support the girls as they adjusted to a new
environment, physical changes and developing new friends.
Analysis of findings. As mentioned in the first case study, an instructional leader
is one who clearly defines the school’s mission, manages the instructional program and
promotes positive school climate (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). There is evidence that
Principal Matthews’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices are aligned with those of an
instructional leader, but it is unclear to what extent those behaviors were influenced by
her participation in the DPCI. For example, the core concepts of college readiness,
leadership and student wellness drives everything that Bancroft Leadership Academy
does. Ms. Matthews explained that if the activity, club or workshop they wanted to
implement or attend, did not promote one of those core concepts, then they would not
adopt it. According to the research provided by Hallinger and Murphy (1985), Leithwood
and Jantzi (2000, 2005), and Murphy et al. (2006) creating and implementing a vision
and mission statement is one of the most important behaviors of a leader. However, based
on the data collected, this was a practice of Principal Matthews prior to her participation
in the DPCI.

121
Principal Matthews supervises and evaluates instruction through her classroom
observations, Learning Walks, vertical team meetings and Professional Learning
Communities. These are behaviors that are also aligned with the instructional leadership
framework, and the Davis ISD goals and initiatives. Her DPCI coach was also a part of
these Learning Walks and some of the meetings. In addition to supervising and
evaluating instruction, Ms. Matthews played a key role in promoting a positive school
culture and climate. She understands the value of supporting her teachers and
encouraging them to grow professionally. When asked about the culture and climate of
the school, Ms. Matthews explained the importance of nuturing:
I have to stay vigilant in terms of reminding them (staff) that we need to make
sure that we are a school that nurtures everyone. Whether it’s another teacher,
whether it’s a teacher assistant or a custodian or cafeteria worker, we should be
about the business of nurturing everyone here on this campus at all times.

There is significant evidence that Principal Matthews is implementing district goals and
displaying behaviors of an instructional leader; however, there is little evidence that
points to who or what influenced her. It is inconclusive to what extent the Davis Achieves
Leadership Institutes, and her participation in the DPCI informed and prepared her on
how to promote a positive school culture, supervise and evaluate instruction and frame
and communicate school goals.
RQ #3: How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes?
Question three is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
strategies that Principal Matthews put into place to create and sustain organizational
structures and processes to promote effective teacher practice and improve student

122
outcomes. The researcher collected data from the following data sets: pre-post interviews
with Principals Matthews and two teachers, observations of Principal Matthews and
documents (Master Schedule, Professional Development Agenda, PLC Template,
Vertical Team Meeting Agenda and School Brochure). The data sets were analyzed
through the learning-centered leadership framework proposed by Murphy et al. (2006)
and Marzano’s (2003) 21 leadership responsibilities framework. These researchers and
others (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004) have established that principals have the ability to
directly influence practices at the school level (organization) and the classroom level
(teacher practice) by creating structures and processes that can potentially have a positive
influence on student outcomes.
Key finding: Organizational culture. There were several different structures in
place at Bancroft Leadership Academy to promote effective teacher practices and
improve student outcomes: common planning period, also referred to as the Professional
Learning Community (PLC), vertical teams, and a student advisory period and tutorials.
When asked about the time teachers have to collaborate, both Ms. Smith and Ms.
Williams cited their Common Planning Period or PLC as a time when they discussed
curriculum, training, student progress, looked at data, created rubrics and even looked at
their grading policies. They tried to focus on a different topic each day they met. For
example, one day they discussed interventions and enrichment, and go through student
work folders to determine what the focus will be for the enrichment. Another day they
discussed technology and how it was being used. During the preinterview (fall, 2009),

123
Ms. Williams emphasized the important of that time explaining, “We just try and kind of
structure those times that we do meet, so that they're good time. It's fruitful time, not just
sort of sitting around talking about what we did over the weekend.” For example, during
the time of the preinterview (fall, 2009), Ms. Smith explained that for the past week they
used the common planning period to plan the science fair, where they worked on picking
the judges and determining how they would judge the projects. Both teachers also
explained that they use this time to analyze the data from assessments and then plan next
steps.
During the postobservation (spring, 2010) Ms. Matthews helped facilitate several
vertical team meetings. The vertical team meetings included all of the teachers from one
content area at every grade level. These meetings were designed to bridge the gap
between the middle and high school campus. For example, the middle school teachers
discussed what they are doing in the lower level science classes, and the high school
teachers discussed what they are doing in the upper level sciences such as chemistry and
biology. Teachers said these meetings gave teachers an idea if they needed to add to their
curriculum to make sure the students were prepared for the next level of science (pre-post
interviews). It also validated if teachers were on the right track in terms of the rigor, the
types of assignments, and their skills. These meetings took place every six weeks. Ms.
Smith explained in the post0interview that these meetings were harder to coordinate
because the high school teachers were on a different schedule than the middle school
teachers. She explained that they tried to plan the vertical team meetings on days that had
whole staff development.

124
The last structure in place that primarily dealt with increasing student outcomes
was the student advisory period and tutorials. When asked about the programs and
interventions in place for struggling students, Ms. Smith and Ms. Williams both
discussed the advisory period and student enrichment (pre-post interviews). Every
student was assigned an advisory teacher. These teachers were in constant
communication with the students, their families, and the students’ other teachers to
ensure they received the support they need. If the student was sick or struggling
academically, the advisory teacher would inform the other teachers. Ms. Smith explained
the reason they did this was because “students sometimes tend to talk to one teacher
versus another, so sometimes having that open communication helps to be able to
understand where the child is coming from.” Ms. Smith described how the 6
th
-grade
advisory time worked:
They (the students) come in without having that friend or that person to rely on
that they'd seen in fifth grade, in fourth grade, in third grade. A lot of the factors
that we work on are those: how do we build friendships, a community, a sorority?
So, we have advisory that helps us with those communication skills,
organizational skills. At sixth grade, our teachers are very aware of the students
that are going to struggle, simply because we know that there are certain things
that they're going to come in already needing help with. Advisory helps us. We
have an advisory curriculum that is specific for our sixth grade students where we
work on communication, organization, how to make friends, how to get to know
our teachers, how to be a better student. Every six weeks it changes, so we focus
on different things throughout the year.

In addition to the advisory period, every teacher held tutorials either before school or
after school. Ms. Williams explained how the tutorials worked:
On Tuesdays, they (Math Students) have an hour and 20 minutes where our
seventh grade math teacher tutors sixth, seventh, and eighth-graders. So, they're
students that we've targeted who are having some problems, so they get extra one-
on-one tutoring on Tuesdays. We also try and do a lot of tutoring. I do before

125
school tutoring, after school tutoring. A lot of what I do is just one-on-one
tutoring. It seems to be really helpful.

Ms. Smith said that Bancroft started the student enrichment program this academic year
and believed it to be working.
Key finding: Internal accountability. Teachers at Bancroft Leadership
Academy were held accountable by the administration and each other. One of the most
common ways was by classroom observations from the administrators and the outcomes
of the PLC meetings. Principal Matthews explained in the postinterview (spring, 2010)
that she expected to see teachers and students engaged in a rigorous curriculum and to see
teachers using the principles of learning. Ms. Williams reiterated this when she explained
how they looked for evidence of Academic Rigor and Accountable Talk during Learning
Walks. During the common planning period, Principal Matthews asked teachers about
their lesson plans for the week, how often they used the online resources, and have they
arranged a Learning Walk schedule. She explained to them she expected them to
schedule at least three Learning Walks per semester. She also asked them about the
agenda for their upcoming planning days, how they planned to use the time, and
requested that they send her an agenda. The template she used to facilitate the common
planning meeting outlined her expectations of how the common planning meeting times
should be facilitated and used.
Ms. Smith also explained how teachers held each other accountable during the
common planning period and vertical team meetings. She explained during the
preinterview:

126
There's only three of us, so we have to make sure that if you didn't cover it, I need
to cover it, and there's no excuse for the kids saying, “Well, Miss Williams never
said that.” Because we know. And then, we also have meetings with the high
school department, getting to know, making that bridge, what did we learn in
middle school, what does high school need. That's there, so I think that's why the
school is as successful as it is. I think there's a lot of communication.

When the teachers discussed data during the common planning period, Ms. Williams
explained how the data did not lie and the teachers had to take responsibility. For
example, she described a time when they were looking at math data and the analysis
helped her to determine where she needed to focus her instruction:
We sat down during our common planning period and looked at what is the data
telling us, what objectives are they low on, what objectives are they good at. The
test that I gave was a fifth grade test, so it was a test that they should have done
well at, and I was able to see really easily that this one particular objective, every
single class was low on algebra. All of them were low on algebra. So, that told me
right off the bat, I need to make sure that I'm spending a bit more time on that. So,
we do a lot of comparing data because we need to be able to see, OK, what can
we help each other with, especially as a team.

Both Ms. Smith and Ms. Williams said that if a teacher did not teach a particular skill, the
common planning period was an opportunity for them to explain why, so the next teacher
would make sure they covered the missed concept or skill.
Analysis of findings. Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, and Porter’s (2006) learning-
centered leadership framework defines organizational culture by five themes: (a)
production emphasis, (b) accountability, (c) continuous improvement, (d) safe and
orderly learning environment, and (e) personalized community. There is evidence of
these five themes at Bancroft Leadership Academy. Principal Matthews communicates
her concern for and interest in staff performance and student achievement by establishing
clearly defined academic standards and expectations. She does this through the

127
establishment and monitoring of the PLC and vertical team meetings. The structures
themselves promote continuous improvement for teacher professional development, and
give teachers an opportunity to accomplish activities that otherwise might have been
impossible to complete. Teachers understand the expectations and goals of the meetings
and are expected to provide Principal Matthews with an overview of those outcomes.
Murphy et al. (2006) further argue, “Learning-centered leaders address
personalization by forging structures and mechanisms that allow students to form ties to
the school and to appropriate adult role models (e.g., the use of teacher advisors and
structures to support the advisory process).” The advisory period and tutorials at Bancroft
Leadership Academy promotes a personalized community. These structures promote a
positive culture among students and staff, while providing students with the additional
academic assistance they need. Principal Matthews’ behavior is also supported by
Marzano’s (2003) 21 leadership responsibilities framework, which argued that school-
wide structures in place will influence teachers, who directly influence student outcomes.
RQ #4: What leadership support structures enable practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and
teacher levels) that enabled leader practice and subsequent movement in the direction of
implementation of the district’s and the school’s improvement initiatives. Pre and post
principal interviews, observations and documents (Davis Achieves Executive Summary,
2009) were the primary data sets used for this question. The data was analyzed through

128
the results of the Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) study and Murphy et al. (2006)
learning-centered leadership framework.
Key finding: Davis principal coaching initiative (dpci). The DPCI was a
district-wide coaching program that provided principals with a principal coach who
provided elbow-to-elbow and telephone coaching. Most of these coaches were retired
principals or other part-time employees that committed to supporting active principals.
The Meadows Foundation, a Davis-area private philanthropic foundation, funded the
program. The purpose of this program was to enhance the instructional leadership
development among principals, and to build leadership capacity with the goal of
improving student outcomes. In addition to the coaching component, principals and their
coaches participated in professional development that was designed by the IFL and
focused on providing principals with the skills they need to initiate reform (Davis
Achieves Executive Summary, 2009). For the 2009-2010 school year, 14 principals had
an opportunity to participate in the program. This was Principal Matthews first year
participating in the DPCI.
Key finding: School site support. Every secondary school in the Davis ISD had
a Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT). The CILT team included the principal,
associate and assistant principals, head counselor, the instructional coaches for math and
language arts and the department head from each department. As a leadership team, they
discussed data, instruction, school-wide issues and oftentimes determined the focus areas
for the school (Davis Achieves Plan for Student Achievement, 2009). During the
postinterview (spring, 2010), Ms. Smith explained how well Principal Matthews worked

129
with the CILT team and how they collaborated as a team. Ms. Matthews also explained
during the postinterview how she depended on her CILT team to attend professional
development workshops and bring the material back to Bancroft Leadership Academy
where they trained the rest of the teachers.
Key finding: Allocation of funding resources. Bancroft Leadership Academy
was funded by the Foundation for the Education of Young Women. Although it was a
Davis public school, The Foundation had a partnership with Davis ISD and other Texas
districts where they planned to open a total of six all girls public schools by 2010. The
Foundation was committed to providing inner girls with skills in math, science, and
technology with an emphasis on leadership. They also wanted to ensure that 100% of
each graduating class attended a four-year university (School Brochure, Appendix P).
The Foundation was cited numerous times in the teacher and principal pre-post
interviews as the monetary support source that afforded them a lot of their opportunities.
For example, The Foundation provided Bancroft Leadership Academy with enough
laptops for every student. Also, when Ms. Smith was asked about the allocation of
resources at her school, she explained:
Again, we're a special school, and we have a wonderful foundation that provides
funding for us for the great things that we need. So, at the beginning of the school
year, Ms. Matthews mentioned that we still have money left for our Vernier
probes, which is our new technology equipment that we bought this year that
we've been very excited about using. Now we're looking into do we want to attend
training, where do we want to go, do we want to stay here, do we want to buy
more products, how are we going to do that, how much money is available, and
what's our timeline…I know at other schools it doesn't work that way. I've worked
at those schools, and that's an issue. But it's a different world at this school,
sometimes. We walk in, and it's just different that way. We are really blessed to
have that foundation.

130
Both Ms. Smith and Ms. Williams said that Principal Matthews found a way to get the
funds they needed to attend professional development trainings, conferences and
equipment. Principal Matthews explained in the postinterview (spring, 2010) that the
district was their primary source of funding, but their magnet school status prevented
them from receiving certain types of federal and state funds. When that occurred,
Principals Matthews said she asked the foundation to assist them with attending
workshops and buying additional equipment.
Analysis of findings. Participants in the DPCI were picked for various reasons,
and the range of experience is from new principals to 20-year veterans, such as Principal
Matthews. Ms. Matthews volunteered to be a part of the DPCI for the first time this
school year by way of email. She said she just responded to the email and she made the
decision because she wanted to “become a better principal.” One of the key findings of
the Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) study was the structure of the principal preparation
programs, which suggested that principal preparation programs have a cohort structure
that includes field-based internships, problem-based learning and mentors. Although the
DPCI had fourteen participants during the 2009-2010 school year, it does not appear
Principal Matthews was a part of a structured cohort. A cohort-structured program is a
group of participants that begin and end a program together. They take course together
and engage in some of the same learning experiences (Preis, Grogan, Sherman, & Beaty,
in press).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) argued that cohort-structured programs create
opportunities for collaboration, teamwork and mutual support among principals. Based

131
on the data collected, Principal Matthews did not have formalized opportunities to
interact and work on projects with other DPCI participants. Furthermore, there is little
evidence that Ms. Matthews collaborated and worked on projects with other DPCI
participants during the professional development time or on their own time. In addition to
the cohort model, the Darling-Hammond et al. study suggested that principal preparation
programs have formalized mentoring or coaching from expert principals that supported
modeling, questioning, observations of practice and feedback. Coaches from the DPCI
received formal training on the elbow-to-elbow coaching strategy and have scheduled
meeting times with their principals. These are experienced coaches that model, provide
instructional support and feedback to the principals (Davis Achieves Executive
Summary, 2009). Although it is unclear how the DPCI targeted their audience, and that it
lacks a cohort model, the DPCI does provide current principals with a coach to assist
them in enhancing their leadership skills, which is component that research suggested
should be included in principal preparation programs.
Principal Matthews also displays qualities of a learning-centered leader in the
ways she finds and allocates resources for her school. She constantly encouraged the
teachers to grow professionally and made sure she has the funds to support them. Murphy
et al. (2006) argued that learning-centered leaders are skillful at gathering and using
resources to meet their school goals. They are especially particular about hiring quality
teachers and garnering resources to allow their teachers to strengthen their skills through
professional development. They further argued that leaders at high performing schools,

132
such as Ms. Matthews, are more successful than their peers at locating and securing
additional resources for their schools (Murphy et al., 2006).
RQ #5: How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership Practice (VAL-ED) survey that Principal Matthews, her supervisor and
teachers completed. The findings were limited to the presurvey because Bancroft
Leadership Academy staff did not complete the postsurvey that was administered in
February 2010. The findings discussed how this leadership assessment instrument could
be used as a tool to inform coaching that is designed to promote effective instructional
leadership. The data was analyzed from the learning-centered leadership perspective
(Murphy et al., 2006), which is the leadership framework that was used to design the
VAL-ED survey.
The VAL-ED focused on leadership behaviors defined by six components and six
key processes that were known to influence student achievement. The six core
components were (a) high standards for student learning, (b) rigorous curriculum, (c)
quality instruction, (d) culture of learning and professional behavior, (e) connections to
external communities, and (f) performance accountability. The six key processes were (a)
planning, (b) implementing, (c) supporting, (d) advocating, (e) communicating, and (f)
monitoring. The VAL-ED survey addressed the questions of (a) who responded, (b) what
evidence was used to evaluate the principal, and (c) what do the results say about the
principal’s current leadership behaviors.

133
Key finding: Overall results of the assessment. Twenty-eight out of 38 teachers
from Bancroft Leadership Academy completed the VAL-ED survey administered in
September 2009. Principal Matthews and her supervisor also completed the survey.
Principal Matthews’ overall effectiveness score was Basic, which was defined as a leader
that “exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are
likely to influence teachers positively and that result in acceptable value-added to student
achievement and social learning for some sub-groups of students, but not all” (VAL-ED
Report, Appendix Q). Her mean score was a 3.56 and her percentile rank against other
principals was 45.6. Tables 10 and 11, below, give a summary of Principal Matthews’
scores on the core components and key processes.
Table 10

Summary of Core Component Scores
Mean Performance
Level
Percentile
Rank
High Standards for Student
Learning

3.72

Proficient

54.7
Rigorous Curriculum 3.61 Proficient 52.9
Quality Instruction 3.47 Basic 26.4
Culture of Learning &
Professional Behavior

3.57

Basic

28.7
Connections to External
Communities

3.74

Proficient

75.7
Performance Accountability 3.25 Below Basic 26.0
VAL-ED Report, Principal Matthews September 2009

Table 11

Summary of Key Processes Scores
Mean Performance
Level
Percentile
Rank
Planning 3.49 Basic 40.1
Implementing 3.68 Proficient 58.8
Supporting 3.71 Proficient 46.5
Advocating 3.55 Basic 52.0
Communicating 3.48 Basic 32.3
Monitoring 3.44 Basic 37.4
VAL-ED Report, Principal Matthews September 2009

134
Another variable that was used to calculate Principal Matthews’s overall VAL-ED
score were the sources of evidence the teachers and supervisor cited. The sources of
evidence that were cited the most by the principal, teachers and the principal’s supervisor
were personal observations and school documents. Sixty-five percent of the time teachers
used their personal observations to help determine the principal’s behavior whereas the
supervisor relied on personal observations fifty-five percent of the time. Forty-three
percent of the time teachers relied on school documents to determine Principal Matthews’
behaviors while her supervisor relied on school documents 75% of the time.
Key finding: Leadership behaviors for possible improvement. The areas of
improvement that were identified from the VAL-ED survey represents an integrated
summary of the principal’s strengths and areas for growth based on the mean item scores
for the intersection of core component and key process. Each intersection was given a
performance standard of below basic (BB), basic (B), proficient (P) and distinguished
(D). Intersections that were identified as below basic, were also identified as the areas of
growth for the Principal Matthews. Figure 4, below, gives an overview of the matrix.

135
Figure 4
VAL-ED Results, Principal Matthews September 2009

The key processes and core component that were identified for possible
improvement included (a) communicating quality instruction, (b) monitoring quality
instruction, (c) monitoring culture of learning and professional behavior, (d) advocating
connections to external communities, (e) supporting performance accountability, and (f)
advocating performance accountability. The results of this matrix generated a list of
suggested leadership behaviors that Principal Matthews could implement for each area
identified (Table 12, below). Although there were more leadership behaviors than the
ones listed, the behaviors that were listed represented the behaviors that were actually
assessed on this version of the VAL-ED.

136
Table 12
Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement
Supporting Performance Accountability
• Allocates time to evaluate faculty for student learning.
• Allocates time to evaluate student learning.
Advocating Connections to External Communities
• Challenges teachers to work with community agencies to support students with low achievement.
• Promotes mechanisms for reaching families who are least comfortable at school.
Advocating Performance Accountability
• Advocates that all students are accountable for achieving high levels of performance in both
academic and social learning.
• Challenges faculty who attribute student failure to others.
Communicating Quality Instruction
• Discusses instructional practices during faculty meetings.
• Communicates with faculty about removing barriers that prevent students from experiencing
quality instruction.
Monitoring Quality Instruction
• Evaluates how instructional time is used.
• Evaluates teachers' instructional practices.
Monitoring Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior
• Monitors the participation of every student in social and academic activities.
• Assesses the culture of the school from students' perspectives.
VAL-ED Report, Principal Matthews September 2009
Analysis of findings. The learning-centered framework (Murphy et al. 2006)
proposed that school leadership assessments (VAL-ED) include measures of the
intersection of two dimensions—core components and key processes. What principals
must accomplish to improve academic success for all students are the core components,
and how they create those components are the key processes (Goldring, Porter, Murphy,
Elliott, & Cravens, 2007). An example of this intersection is included in Figure 4. The
results of Principal Matthews VAL-ED survey identified seven intersections that she
could improve (See Table 12, above).
Providing a principal and a principal’s coach with this type of data can provide
much needed information which can be used to both improve leadership practices and
provide information for accountability purposes (Goldring et al., 2007). For example, the
VAL-ED survey results identified seven areas for Principal Matthews to improve in, but

137
also identified specific behaviors, if implemented, would help her improve her practice.
The coaches within the DPCI could use the VAL-ED survey to help the principal
determine to what extent is the principal implementing the core components and how.

138
Cross-Case Analysis
Both case studies yielded some of the same findings. There was evidence to
support that Principal Parks and Principal Matthews implemented leadership practices
that were aligned with the instructional leadership framework. They created and
implemented structures to manage and evaluate the instructional and assessment
programs. Both principals were working towards implementing the district initiatives
such as Learning Walks, Professional Learning Communities and the Principles of
Learning. Their experiences with the DPCI coach revealed that the relationships were
supportive on a moral and professional level.
The difference in leadership practices between the two case study principals existed
primarily because of the dynamics and characteristics of the school sites. For example,
Principal Matthews had a smaller student body and staff; the students had to apply to
attend the school; it was funded by a private foundation, and it was an all girls’ school.
These characteristics allowed Ms. Matthews to participate and facilitate meetings and
professional development on a regular basis, and interact with her students more. Mr.
Parks was over a large comprehensive high school with 1,200 students that were not
hand-selected. His students came from a neighborhood that was plagued by violence and
poverty. This was also his first year as Washington High School’s principal and was
taking over a position where the previous leader had been in place for over 12 years. Both
principals exhibited some of the same leadership practices, but Principal Parks was faced
with more challenges in implementing these practices. The staff, student demographics

139
and overall dynamics of the school sites contributed to the ease or challenges of their
leader practice.
Chapter Four Summary
In sum, the findings revealed that both principals had a positive experience with
their DPCI coach, and displayed instructional leadership behaviors. The data was
inconclusive as to how much the DPCI prepared and influenced them to be instructional
leaders in comparison to their previous experiences. The final chapter will summarize the
findings and discuss the implications for future research, policy and practice.

140
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS

Chapter Five Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the purpose of the study, the key research
questions and the methodology that was used. In addition, it provides a summary of the
findings and implications for policy and practice. Last, this chapter offers suggestions for
future research in the area of leadership capacity building and support structures.

Chapter Five Statement of the Problem
While there is a growing body of evidence and consensus that principals influence
student achievement by supporting and developing effective teachers, and implementing
effective organizational processes (Hallinger et al., 1996; Leithwood et al., 2004; Murphy
et al., 2006) more research is needed to determine the impact and importance of these
leadership behaviors in key areas such as curriculum, assessment, and adaptation to local
contexts (Davis et al. 2005). Most empirical research in this area focuses on the
structures, processes and methods used to prepare principals, but more empirical research
is needed to help understand how principals develop the capacities that influence how
schools function and what students learn (Davis et al., 2005).
Leading researchers including Darling-Hammond et al. (2007), Jackson and
Kelley (2002), and Levine (2005) identified elements of leadership capacity building
programs that are aligned with effective principal practice; however, what is still

141
unknown within this body of research are the specific program features and practices that
influence the organizational culture and student outcomes (Davis et al., 2005; Hallinger
& Murphy, 1985; Leithwood et al., 2004). More research is needed to understand how
key elements of current leadership capacity building programs such as: (a) pedagogy, (b)
a lack of rigor, (c) curricular coherence, (d) connection between theory and practice, and
(e) support structures such as mentoring and coaching, influence leader practice (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007; Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Levine, 2005; Southern Regional
Education Board, 2007).
Also missing from the literature is a theory of school-based social justice, and an
understanding of how social-justice leadership can inform leadership preparation
programs (Brown, 2006; Capper et al., 2006; Theoharis, 2004). Urban school leaders
require additional training beyond the normal course of study that current leadership
capacity building programs offer. The unique challenges of urban schools require the
leader to have knowledge and a heightened sensitivity about race, class and culture
(Cuban, 2001). Brown (2006) argued “if current and future educational leaders are
expected to foster successful, equitable, and socially responsible learning and
accountability practices for all students, then substantive changes in educational
leadership preparation and professional development program are required” (p. 705).
Preparing and supporting leaders in the urban context to address the adaptive challenges
of urban schooling, requires preparation programs to connect theory to practice, and to
actively engage in transformative learning (Brown, 2006).

142
Chapter Five Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to contribute to the literature regarding
effective components of leadership capacity building programs and support structures,
which enable and sustain urban school leader practice. Specifically, it investigated the
impact of principal participation in a fully developed, research and standards-based,
executive leadership development program on leader practice and professional practice of
teachers. The study identified principals in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative
(DPCI), and took a comprehensive look at the practices they enacted, which have the
potential to lead to attainment of the Texas core standards and district leadership goals
and outcomes. Each case study focused on how the DPCI program prepared leaders to
create organizational structures and practices that promote effective leader practice and
professional teacher practices that improve student outcomes in the urban context.
The study also sought to expand the knowledge base in regards to what
components of effective leadership support structures at the school and district levels,
which enable principal’s leadership practice in creating and sustaining the conditions for
effective teacher practice and promote a more equitable and effective student learning
environment in the urban school setting. Qualitative as well as quantitative data (mixed-
methods) was collected to determine the leader’s change in practice, and how these
factors were shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences in the DPCI program
over time.

143
Chapter Five Research Questions
This study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) prepare
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of
urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student
outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?

Chapter Five Methodology
This study utilized a mixed-methods comparative case study design. The focus of
this study centered around descriptive questions, which reveal information about the
“hows” and “whys” of changes in principal leadership behavior through participation in
the DPCI program as well as the impact of the leader’s practice on teacher practice and
organizational structures. By using a combination of observations, interviews and
document analysis the researcher was able to use different data sources to validate and
crosscheck findings.

144
The unit of analysis for this study was urban school leadership practice.
Participants in this study were recruited from among K-12 urban Davis public schools
serving an ethnically diverse student population and substantial numbers of low-income
families. Non-probability sampling, specifically, purposeful sampling, was the strategy
used to identify participants from two different schools for this study. The intent was to
explore variation between the two principals and what accounts for that variation.
For both case studies the following sources were used to gather descriptive data:
pre (fall, 2009) and post (spring, 2010) intervention interviews with each principal (N =
2) and a sub-set of their teachers (N = 5); pre-post intervention observations of the
principal interacting with teachers, and classroom observations of teachers interacting
with their students; and a collection of documents and artifacts generated by the school
site that were relevant to the study. In addition, pre (fall, 2009) intervention data were
collected from the administration of the online version of the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey to Principal Matthews, her supervisor and her
teachers.

Summary of Findings and Theoretical Implications
Research Question 1: How does participation in the Davis ISD Principal Coaching
Initiative (DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Findings and theoretical implications. Both case study schools yielded some of
the same findings: coaching structure prepares principals and professional development
prepares principals. Mr. Parks and Ms. Matthews both received professional

145
development from the DPCI on Principles of Learning (POLs), Disciplinary Literacy,
Learning Walks and Professional Learning Communities (PLC). However, both
principals stated they did not feel they could adequately train their teachers on these
concepts. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the DPCI coaches were assisting the
two principals to gain a stronger foundation on these concepts so they could train their
teachers. Although both principals received professional development on the Principles
of Learning, Bancroft Leadership Academy was the only school that demonstrated
evidence that the POLs had trickled down to the classroom level and teachers were using
them to develop their lesson plans. Mr. Parks on the other hand asserted that he had not
observed the POLs at the classroom level and the pre-post classroom observation data
confirmed his argument. There are several reasons that could explain this variation. The
teachers at Bancroft Leadership Academy teach higher performing single gendered
students; class sizes are smaller; the teachers hold each other accountable through PLC
meetings, and their number one goal is to ensure that all of their girls are prepared for
college.
The relationships the principals developed with their coaches were supportive;
and there was evidence that both coaches helped the principals implement district
initiatives such as Learning Walks. There was little evidence, however, to explain how
the DPCI coaches were monitoring the principals’ growth, and the day-to-day
accountability between the coach and the principals appeared to be missing. It is also
unclear how both principals were recruited to be a part of the DPCI and how their
coaches were assigned to them. For example, Principal Matthews is a 20-year veteran

146
administrator, but there was no evidence that suggested that her coach was trained to deal
specifically with the needs of a veteran administrator.
Spiro, Mattis, and Mitgang, (2007) argued that the mentor and mentee
relationship should embrace a larger vision that goes beyond a buddy system, and
districts should collect data to monitor how the coaching is contributing to the
development of the behaviors that are needed to implement reform. Also, the Darling-
Hammond et al. (2007) study argued that different principals need different support, and
leadership capacity building programs should have selection criteria for principals and
coaches. Based on current research and the data collected from these two case study
schools, there are two areas of the DPCI that can be the focus for improvement. First,
there needs to be established criteria for how participants are identified for the program.
Study findings suggest that criteria should exist for recruiting principals and coaches. The
coaches should be assigned based on the needs of the principals such as the case at
Bancroft Leadership Academy (e.g., Principal Matthews), and there should be a targeted
group of principals. Random selection and assignment of principals and coaches made it
difficult to monitor how effective the DPCI was with preparing principals. Second, there
should be a system or structure in place to monitor and account for the relationship
between the coach and principal. If a system is not in place, there is no data to determine
(a) the effectiveness of the coach supporting the principal and (b) to what extent is the
principal developing into an instructional leader.
Research Question 2: How does DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership
practices of urban school principals?

147
Findings and theoretical implications. Based on the data collected, both
principals demonstrated some instructional leadership and learning-centered behaviors
such as supervising and evaluating instruction, monitoring student progress, and
promoting a positive school climate (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Murphy et al., 2006).
However, it was unclear and difficult to determine if these practices existed prior to their
participation in the DPCI. Both principals also implemented some of the district
initiatives. For example, both principals implemented Learning Walks and Professional
Learning Communities, two district initiatives that principals had been trained on through
the Davis Achieves Leadership Institutes. These practices were also aligned with the
behaviors of an instructional leader. While Principals Parks and his teachers focused on
implementing formative assessments and analyzing data, Principal Matthews and her
staff worked diligently to create a positive culture and climate by supporting teachers;
encouraging them to attend professional development and motivating students through
the use of incentives, which was aligned to the learning-centered framework (Murphy et
al., 2006). Due to the limited time frame for data collection, the data are inconclusive as
to who or what influenced these practices.
One key difference between these principals was their beliefs around the role the
school’s mission and vision statement play in implementing school reform, which the
instructional and learning-centered frameworks promoted (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985;
Murphy et al., 2006). For example, Principal Matthews’ and her teachers relied on their
school’s mission and vision statements to inform and drive their practices. Their mission
statement includes college readiness, developing responsible leaders and wellness life

148
skills, and every practice or new club that is put into place is required to support one of
those goals. Principals Parks on the other hand believed Washington High School’s
mission statement to be generic. He acknowledged that it needed to be revised, but was
not in a rush to revise it this school year. This difference could be attributed to the fact
that Bancroft Leadership Academy is partly funded by a private foundation that already
had a mission established for Bancroft Leadership Academy.
Principal Matthews and Principals Parks both demonstrated some behaviors of the
instructional and learning-centered leadership frameworks as defined by Hallinger and
Murphy (1985) and Murphy et al. (2006), which was a major goal of the DPCI. Based on
the data collected from these principals and their schools, it was difficult to determine if
the DPCI was a direct influence on their knowledge, beliefs and leader practice, or if it
was a result of previous experiences. As a result, the researcher suggests the Davis ISD
implement (a) a system or tool to determine if the principal’s practices indicate the need
for a coach, (b) if the coach is needed, there should be clearly established goals and
outcomes specific to that coaching relationship, and (c) there should be a tool to monitor
the progress of the principals in meeting those goals and outcomes.
Research Question 3: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
Findings and theoretical implications. There were several similar findings from
the two case studies under this research question. Both principals demonstrated evidence
of learning-centered behaviors (Murphy et al., 2006). For example, both principals used

149
their Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT) and Professional Learning
Communities (PLC) to assist them with managing the instructional and assessment
program and providing professional development for the staff. Mr. Parks focused heavily
on implementing formative and summative assessments to monitor instruction and create
some sense of accountability among the teachers. Ms. Matthews used PLCs and vertical
team meetings to assist her with monitoring the instructional program.
Both case study principals demonstrated their commitment to creating
organizational structures (PLC, CILT, Vertical Teams) to impact teaching in order to
have a positive impact on student outcomes, which is aligned with the learning-centered
framework proposed by Murphy et al. (2006). Although these practices were being
implemented by both principals and were aligned with the district’s goals and initiatives,
it is unclear as to how the initial structures were created, and to what extent they were
successful with creating and implementing them. What is missing are clearly articulated
measurable objectives for these structures, and an evaluation tool to determine how
successful the structures were with helping teachers and improving student outcomes.
There was some evidence to suggest that these structures were maintained through the
use of regularly scheduled meeting times.
Research Question 4: What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
Findings and theoretical implications. There were two structures at both case
studies schools that Principal Parks and Principal Matthews used to enable their practice:
the DPCI and school site support. Both principals were a part of the DPCI. This was
Principal Parks second year in the program and Principal Matthews first year. Although

150
both principals said they volunteered to be a part of the program, and found their coach to
be supportive, it was unclear how the 14 principals as a group were targeted for this
program. For example, some principals volunteered while others were assigned. Some
were beginning principals while others were veteran. This made it difficult to determine
the effectiveness of support the principals received from their coach because it was not
clear as why the principal was a participant in the first place and what their needs were.
In addition to the DPCI, both principals depended on their Campus Instructional
Leadership Team (CILT) to help them with monitoring instruction, providing
professional development and assisting with school-wide decisions. The CILT team is a
district structure that exists at every secondary school. In addition to the district structures
that were in place, Principal Matthews also depended on the private foundation that helps
to fund Bancroft Leadership Academy.
Although there is evidence that the principals received support from their coaches,
the structure of the DPCI, specifically the selection criteria made it difficult to determine
to what extent the coaching structure was successful. For example, Principal Matthews is
a 20-year veteran administrator, and although she has her own personal goals, it was
unclear as to how the DPCI was intended to assist someone with her level of experience.
Also, it did not appear that Principal Parks and Principal Matthews had opportunities to
collaborate with other principals in the DPCI program, which current research supports.
The results from the Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) study argued that the cohort
structure for leadership capacity building programs create opportunities for collaboration,

151
teamwork and mutual support among principals. The study furthered argued that coaches
and mentors should be assigned based on the needs of the principals.
As a result of the data collected, there are several suggestions for the DPCI to
improve it support structure. First, there needs to be a clear recruitment process for
coaches and principals. There may also be a need to group principals in a cohort based on
the number of years of experience and their overall background experiences to ensure
they are able to collaborate and provide support for each other based on their similar
needs. In addition, there needs to be a system or structure in place to determine the
success of the DPCI as a support structure. Currently, the district does not have a
monitoring system in place evaluate how and to what extent the coaching structure is
successful.
Research Question 5: How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Findings and theoretical findings. Due to the unanticipated changes in this
study, sufficient evidence to address this question is lacking. Mr. Parks was transferred to
serve as the principal of Washington High School just as the DPCI study was getting
underway. As a result, the Davis ISD administration determined that having the school
participate in the VAL-ED survey portion of this study would be premature. Mr. Parks
participated in the online survey prior to his move to his new school; however, his
supervisor and the teachers at his new school assignment did not complete the survey.
Ms. Matthews, her supervisor and teachers only completed the pre intervention survey.

152
As a result, the researcher was unable to complete a pre-post and cross case study
analysis for the VAL-ED data.
The foundation of the VAL-ED survey is based on the Learning-Centered
Leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2006), which is also aligned with the Texas Core
Leadership Standards. Neufeld and Roper (2003) identified key behaviors and duties for
coaches and mentors including: (a) helping principals recruit teachers that can help
him/her build capacity, (b) assists the principal in building capacity for shared decision
making, (c) model leadership skills for principals, (d) assists with scheduling, and (e)
assists principals in organizing and managing their time. The VAL-ED survey can
provide the principal and principal’s coach much needed information to implement the
practices stated above. For example, the results of the VAL-ED gives the principal
specific learning-centered behaviors they could implement to improve their practices.
However, in order to see the value in such a tool, it is important for the district to hold the
principal, supervisor and teachers accountable to completing the survey. In addition, it
could be used as a tool to initiate discussions between the DPCI coach and the principal.

Implications for Future Research
The recruitment for highly qualified principals continues to be a challenge for
districts across the country, especially as the knowledge and skill requirements for the
position increases. The need for highly skilled leaders and the changing role of the
principal have brought the concerns about leadership preparation program to light. In an
era where the principal’s role is evolving, the new principal needs professional

153
development and a support structure that will increase and develop their capacities and
skills needed to sustain their practice. Providing professional development and support
are essential functions of leadership development programs. This case study concluded
positive experiences for both principals that participated in the Davis Principal Coaching
Initiative. However, there remain further implications for future research in the area of
capacity building and support structures for principals. The following are possible
research topics needed to enhance current literature on leadership capacity building,
effective coaching practices and structures and their impact on leader practice:
1. How does the relationship between the coach and principal impact the
development of the principal?
2. What type of selection criteria should be used to (a) select coaches, (b) recruit
principals, (c) match principals with coaches, and (d) assign principals to a
cohort
3. Development of a tool to monitor and determine the success and areas of
improvement for the coaching structure, and to what extent the principal
develops as an instructional leader
4. What role does social justice play in leadership capacity building programs?

Implications for Policy and Practice
The DPCI is designed to provide principals with a coach who works with them to
enhance their instructional leadership development and build leadership capacity to
ensure improved academic success for students. Based on the data collected form the two

154
case study schools, several components of the DPCI continued to be of concern. This
raised several questions and possible implications for future policy and practice. First,
there was a lack of monitoring of the coach and principal’s relationship. As a missing
component, how will the district determine the success of the coaching relationship, the
extent of the principal’s success in becoming an instructional leader, and the extent of the
principal’s success in implementing district initiatives? Second, the DPCI lacked a
specific and well- articulated recruitment and assignment process for coaches and
principals. This also raised several questions to consider: (a) How did the district
determine if the principal needed a coach? Was it based on need or if a principal wanted
to participate? (b) How were the coaches assigned to the principals? Did the district take
into consideration that different principals had different needs, and their coaches needed
to be assigned accordingly? Third, it was not transparent that the DPCI trained the
principals to deal with the social challenges of urban schools and helped them to develop
leadership skills for social justice. Lastly, there was limited evidence that principals were
assigned to a cohort to ensure they were given opportunities to collaborate and give each
other mutual support.

Limitations
There were several unforeseen limitations that the researcher encountered that
may have impacted this case study:
1. Quantitative data collected from the VAL-ED survey was limited because
both schools did not complete the pre-post survey. Washington High School

155
did not participate in the VAL-ED survey, which prevented the researcher
from completing a cross case analysis. Bancroft Leadership Academy only
completed the pre VAL-ED survey, which prevented the researcher from
comparing pre-post data to determine change in leader practice.
2. English language arts and math teachers were not always available during the
two-day visit
3. Scheduling conflicts decreased the number of teachers to be interviewed from
three to two teachers at Bancroft Leadership Academy.
4. Length of the Study: Time for collecting qualitative data from fieldwork for
this study was limited to six months, which did not give principals sufficient
time to assimilate their learning gained from the DPCI.
5. The fact that the postassessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively soon
after the pre-assessment (approximately six months) limits the degree to
which it fully measured the principal’s growth in the areas assessed.
6. Pre-test Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of
the VAL-ED had inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected in the
second administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors other
than the participants’ participation in the DPCI.
7. The “halo effect”: Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), participants may have a tendency to assume
specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression. However, to
mitigate the effect of this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-ED survey

156
requires raters to identify the primary source of evidence for their ration on
each item (personal observation, documents, etc.).

Chapter Five Conclusion
With a new President and new Secretary of Education promising education
reform; the 2014 goal of every student being proficient looming over educators, and a
record number of educators losing their jobs, the public still questions whether our
schools and our students are prepared for the 21
st
century, and how will we go about
preparing them. Research illustrates the importance of teachers and leaders in creating
positive student outcomes, but the preparation of those leaders and teachers and the
support structures that are in place appears to be inadequate. The challenge of preparing
students for a global society is further complicated in urban environments that are
characterized by crime, broken family structures and poverty. As a result, there continues
to be a shortage of highly qualified leaders that are willing to take on the number of
challenges presented to them in urban public schools.
The Davis Achieves and the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) are
taking a systemic approach to reform their teaching and learning system. Specifically, the
DPCI is attempting to develop a pool of principals that are equipped with the leadership
skills and capacity needed to take on system-wide reform. As a program in its infancy,
naturally there are logistical concerns that still need to be improved; however, this case
study illustrates that if the correct structures and systems ( coaching, professional

157
development, professional learning communities, and accountability) are in place it not
only eases some of those challenges, but gives hope for that community.
If the goal of the US is to prepare students to compete in a global society, a new
type of educational leadership is essential. This means it is necessary for districts and
schools to be given the tools and resources they need to develop, train, and support
principals in a 21
st
century fashion.

158
REFERENCES
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share
the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2003). Third Edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice
and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, K. M., (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a
transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly,
42, 700-745.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G. & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing
leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44, 209-224.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfield,
F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington,
DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Cresswell, J. (2003). Second Edition. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership—different in
kind and degree. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Leadership.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school
leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development
programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership
Institute.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson. (2005). School leadership
study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

Elmore, R. F. (1999-2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The American
Educator, 23, 1-9.

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

Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to
instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Education Administration, 30,
35-49.

159

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy
that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 221-239.

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and
student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-549.

Hallinger, P. & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on
school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73, 126-151.

Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 217-247.

Heck, R. (1992). Principals' instructional leadership and school performance:
Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
14, 21-34.

Jackson, B. L. & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 192-212.

Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49, 8-12.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38, 112-129.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership
research 1996—2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational
Improvement, University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, University of Toronto.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education School
Project.

Marks, H. & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-397.

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

160

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Merriam, S. B. (1997). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Micheaux, D. (2006). Dallas achieves plan for student achievement: Educational theory
of action and summary of initiatives and strategies. Dallas, TX: Dallas
Independent School District.

Micheaux, D. (2009). Dallas achieves: Leadership development initiatives executive
summary. Dallas, TX: Dallas Independent School District.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. (2006). Learning—centered leadership:
A conceptual foundation. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

Murphy, J., Goldring, Cravens, X., Elliott, S. & Porter, A. (2007). The Vanderbilt
assessment of leadership in education: Measuring learning—centered leadership.
East China Normal University Journal.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Neufeld, B. & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional
capacity. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Noguera, P. A. (1996). Confronting the urban in urban school reform. The Urban Review,
28, 1-19.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Fourth Edition. Leadership—theory and practice. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

Orr, M. T., Byrne-Jimenez, M., McFarlane, P., & Brown, B. (2005). Leading out from
low-performing schools: The urban principal experience. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 4, 23-54.

Patton, M. C. (2002). Third Edition. Qualitative research & evaluation methods.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Patterson, J. L. (1993). Leadership for tomorrow’s schools. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

161
Pitner, N. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In N. Boyan (Ed.),
Handbook of research in educational administration. New York: Longman.
Porter, A., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Elliott, S., Polikoff, M., & May, H. (2008).
Vanderbilt assessment of leadership in education: Technical manual. New York,
NY: The Wallace Foundation.

Preis, S., Grogan, M., Sherman, W., & Beaty, D. (in press). What the research say about
the delivery of educational leadership preparation programs in the United States.

Resnick, L. B., & Glennan, T. K. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for
urban school districts. School Districts and Instructional Renewal.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant
leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 10, 80-91.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2007). Good principals aren’t born—they’re
mentored: Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need: Atlanta,
GA: The Wallace Foundation.

Spiro, J., Mattis, M., & Mitgang, L. (2007). Getting principal mentoring right: Lessons
from the field. Atlanta, GA: The Wallace Foundation.

Stecher, B., Hamilton, L. & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind—Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory
of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 221-258.

Theoharis, G. (in press). Toward a theory of social justice educational leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly.

United States Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Vanderhaar, J. E., Munoz, M. A., & Rodosky, R. J. (2006). Leadership as accountability
for learning: The effects of school poverty, teacher experience, previous
achievement, and principal preparation programs of student achievement. Journal
of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 19, 17-33.

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

162

Yin, R. K. (2003). Third Edition. Case study research: design and methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Youngs, P. & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to
build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643-670.

163
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

164
APPENDIX B
APPROVAL TO COLLECT DATA FROM CHAIRPERSON RESEARCH OFFICE

165
APPENDIX C
INVITATION LETTER TO PRINCIPALS

166

APPENDIX D
PREINTERVENTION PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

167
APPENDIX E
POSTINTERVENTION PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

168

APPENDIX F
PREINTERVENTION TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

169

APPENDIX G
POSTINTERVENTION TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

170

APPENDIX H
PRE/POST OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

171

APPENDIX I
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOL

172

APPENDIX J
INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

173

APPENDIX J, CONT.

174

APPENDIX J, CONT.

175

APPENDIX K
WASHINGTON HS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

176

APPENDIX K, CONT.

177
APPENDIX L
WASHINGTON HS BELL SCHEDULE

178

APPENDIX M
WASHINGTON HS MASTER SCHEDULE

179
APPENDIX N
BANCROFT PLC TEMPLATE

180

APPENDIX 0
BANCROFT SCHOOL BROCHURE

181
APPENDIX P
BANCROFT VERTICAL TEAM AGENDA

182

APPENDIX P, CONT.

183

APPENDIX Q
PRINCIPAL MATTHEWS VAL-ED REPORT

184

APPENDIX Q, CONT.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of principal participation in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative, an executive leadership capacity building development program, on leader practice and professional practice of teachers. This mixed-method comparative case study investigated the following five research questions: (1) How does participation in the Davis Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders? (2) How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of urban school principals? (3) How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes? (4) What leadership support structures enable leader practice? And, (5) How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school

PDF

Building capacity for leadership in urban schools

PDF

Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative

PDF

The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools

PDF

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

Preparing leaders for the urban school context: a case study analysis for effective leadership

PDF

The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

PDF

Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement

PDF

The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

A case for change: building leadership capacity in urban high schools

PDF

Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context

PDF

Principal leadership succession: developing the next generation of leaders

PDF

Building the next generation of leaders in K–6 institutions

PDF

Liberation through preparation: building capacity to lead America's urban schools

PDF

Building leadership capacity: Practices for preparing the next generation of Catholic school principals

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

The role of the school district toward preparing students for the 21st century

PDF

Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals

Asset Metadata

Creator Abbott, Sunday C. (author)

Core Title A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/23/2010

Defense Date 04/07/2010

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

Tag effective instructional leadership,leadership capacity building program,leadership support structures,leadership theory,learning-centered leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal capacity building programs,principal coaching,VAL-ED instrument

Place Name Texas (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Reed, Margaret (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email sabbott@lbschools.net,sabbott@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3148

Unique identifier UC181059

Identifier etd-Abbott-3724 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-354746 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3148 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Abbott-3724.pdf

Dmrecord 354746

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Abbott, Sunday C.

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