University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

FUTURE READY SCHOOLS: HOW MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS SUPPORT
PERSONALIZED AND DIGITAL LEARNING FOR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS
AT MID-SIZED URBAN MIDDLE SCHOOLS

A dissertation submitted in
partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Education

by

Angelica De La Rosa

University of Southern California

May 10, 2019

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
PREFACE .......................................................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... xii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. xiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................xv
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ....................................................................1
Background of the Problem ..........................................................................................3
Statement of the Problem ..............................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................................6
Research Questions .......................................................................................................6
Importance of the Study ................................................................................................7
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................7
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................8
Organization of the Study ...........................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................12
Historical Context .......................................................................................................13
Innovative Leadership ................................................................................................14
Personalized Professional Learning ............................................................................17
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment ...................................................................21
Technology, Networks, and Hardware .......................................................................24
Use of Space and Time ...............................................................................................26
Summary .....................................................................................................................29
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................30

iii

Restatement of Problem ..............................................................................................30
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................31
Research Questions .....................................................................................................32
Design Summary ........................................................................................................33
Participants and Setting ..............................................................................................34
Instrumentation and Protocols ....................................................................................34
Quantitative Instrumentation ...............................................................................35
Qualitative Instrumentation .................................................................................36
Data Collection Protocols ...........................................................................................36
Data Analysis ..............................................................................................................38
Summary .....................................................................................................................38
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS .................................................................................................39
Background .................................................................................................................39
Research Questions .....................................................................................................40
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................40
Participants’ Demographic Data .................................................................................42
Quantitative Survey Participants .........................................................................42
Qualitative Interview Participants .......................................................................47
Research Question 1 ...................................................................................................49
Findings: Survey Responses From Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals ....................................................................................49
Findings: Research Question 1 Interviews From Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals ............................................................54
The instructional environment—superintendent........................................55

iv

The instructional environment—high school principal .............................56
The instructional environment—middle school principal .........................57
Leadership strategies—superintendent ......................................................57
Leadership strategies—high school principal ............................................58
Leadership strategies—middle school principal ........................................59
Summary of Research Question 1 From Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals ............................................................60
Research Question 2 ...................................................................................................61
Findings: Survey Responses From Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals ....................................................................................62
Findings: Interviews From Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals ....................................................................................67
Teachers’ collaboration on 21st-century skills—superintendent ...............67
Teachers’ collaboration on 21st-century skills—high school principal ....68
Teachers’ collaboration on 21st-century skills—middle school principal 70
Professional learning networks (PLNs)—superintendent ..........................70
Professional learning networks (PLNs)—high school principal ...............71
Professional learning networks (PLNs)—middle school ...........................72
Summary of Research Question 2 From Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals ............................................................73
Research Question 3 ...................................................................................................75
Findings: Survey Responses From Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals ....................................................................................76

v

Findings: Interviews From District Superintendent, High School Principals,
and Middle School Principals ..............................................................................80
Innovative, adaptable culture and becoming connected educators beyond
their school community—superintendent ..................................................81
Innovative, adaptable culture and becoming connected educators beyond
their school community—high school principal ........................................81
Innovative, adaptable culture and becoming connected educators beyond
their school community—middle school principal ....................................82
Summary of Research Question 3 From Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals ............................................................83
Research Question 4 ...................................................................................................84
Findings: Survey Responses From District Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals ............................................................84
Findings: Interviews From District Superintendent, High School Principals,
and Middle School Principals ..............................................................................89
Use of time and resources—superintendent ..............................................90
Use of time and resources—high school principal ....................................91
Use of time and resources—middle school principal ................................92
Summary of Research Question 4 From District Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals ............................................................94
Research Question 5 ...................................................................................................95
Findings: Survey Responses From District Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals ............................................................96

vi

Findings: Interviews From District Superintendent, High School Principals,
and Middle School Principals ............................................................................101
Evaluation process of Future Ready Schools framework—
superintendent ..........................................................................................101
Evaluation process of Future Ready Schools framework—high school
principal ...................................................................................................102
Evaluation process of Future Ready Schools framework—middle school
principal ...................................................................................................103
Summary of Research Question 5 From District Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals ..........................................................104
Summary ...................................................................................................................105
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION .....108
Statement of the Problem ..........................................................................................108
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................109
Research Questions ...................................................................................................109
Methodology .............................................................................................................110
Findings ....................................................................................................................110
Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................110
Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................111
Research Question 3 ..........................................................................................112
Research Question 4 ..........................................................................................113
Research Question 5 ..........................................................................................114
Implications ..............................................................................................................115
Recommendations .....................................................................................................116

vii

Limitations ................................................................................................................117
Conclusion ................................................................................................................118
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................120
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...................................................................126
APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...............................................................130

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Quantitative Survey: FRS High School Principals, Middle School Principals,
and Superintendent Gender ...............................................................................................43
Table 2: Quantitative Survey: FRS High School Principals, Middle School Principals,
and Superintendent Level of Education .............................................................................44
Table 3: Quantitative Survey: FRS High School Principals, Middle School Principals,
and Superintendent Number of Years in Education ...........................................................45
Table 4: Quantitative Survey: FRS High School Principals, Middle School Principals,
and Superintendent Number of Years as Site Leaders .......................................................46
Table 5: Qualitative Demographic Data: School Characteristics ....................................48
Table 6: Q1-1 Personalize Leadership: The District’s Vision Establishes Personalized
Learning Through Technology as a Key Characteristic of Student Learning ...................50
Table 7: Q1-2 Personalize Leadership: Our District’s Leadership Programs Include
Capacity Building in the Effective Uses of Technology and Digital Learning ..................51
Table 8: Q1-3 Personalize Leadership: Teachers in Our District Are Provided Time to
Work Together to Redesign Lessons to Integrate 21st-Century Skills ...............................52
Table 9: Q1-4 Personalize Leadership: Leaders in the District Model Effective Uses of
Technology .........................................................................................................................53
Table 10: Q1-5 Personalize Leadership: All District Staff Have a Shared
Understanding of Digital Learning and Its Role in Student Learning ..............................54
Table 11: Q2-1 Personalized Professional Learning: My District Monitors Our
Progress in Implementing Digital Learning and 21st-Century Skills ...............................62
Table 12: Q2-2 Personalized Professional Learning: Our District Celebrates
Individual and Team Innovations That Advance Digital Learning and 21st-Century
Skills ...................................................................................................................................63
Table 13: Q2-3 Personalized Professional Learning: The Professional Learning
Opportunities Provided by the District Model a Range of the Effective Uses of
Technology .........................................................................................................................64
Table 14: Q2-4 Personalized Professional Learning: I Use Social Media (Twitter
Chats, EdCamps, Hashtag Searches, Professional Facebook Interactions) at Least a
Couple Times a Week, in Order to Stay Current in My Field............................................65

ix

Table 15: Q2-5 Personalized Professional Learning: In My District, the Leadership
Team Models Continuous Professional Growth, in Part Through the Use of Various
Technologies, Social Media, and Online Professional Learning Networks (PLNs)..........66
Table 16: Q3-1 Innovation Culture: Our District Has Developed Model Lessons That
Demonstrate How the 21st-Century Skills Should Be Integrated Into Each of the
Content Areas.....................................................................................................................76
Table 17: Q3-2 Innovation Culture: Teachers Are Provided Time to Work Together to
Redesign Lessons to Integrate 21st-Century Skills ............................................................77
Table 18: Q3-3 Innovation Culture: Teachers Are Provided the Resources and
Support Needed to Redesign Classrooms Into 21st-Century Learning Environments ......78
Table 19: Q3-4 Innovation Culture: In Our District, Students Are Empowered to Use
Social Media in Their Learning (e.g., Learn From Twitter Feeds, Blogs, Online
Interactions, and Collaborations via Texts, Tweets, or Other Social Media) ...................79
Table 20: Q3-5 Innovation Culture: Technology Is Used in Our District to Provide
Students With the Opportunity to Engage in Rich, Authentic Work Within Real-World
Contexts..............................................................................................................................80
Table 21: Q4-1 Use of Space and Time: Technology Will Play a Significant Role in
Ensuring That Students Are Able to Learn Anytime and Anywhere ..................................85
Table 22: Q4-2 Use of Space and Time: Policies and Procedures in My District
Remain Significant Barriers to Achieving Flexible, Anytime, Anywhere Learning in the
Schools ...............................................................................................................................86
Table 23: Q4-3 Use of Space and Time: Students Get to Decide What Type of Media
(e.g., Video, Text, Audio, Animation, Simulation) They Will Use to Learn About the
Things They Are Studying in Class ....................................................................................87
Table 24: Q4-4 Use of Space and Time: Students Have Some Options for How They
Learn (e.g., Individually or Collaboratively, Through Various Types of Digital
Content)..............................................................................................................................88
Table 25: Q4-5 Use of Space and Time: In Our District, School and/or Community
Centers Are Open Beyond School Hours to Provide Extended Work Time for Student
Projects ..............................................................................................................................89
Table 26: Q5-1 Evaluate Resources: Our District’s Network and Access to the Internet
Is Consistently Fast and Reliable ......................................................................................96
Table 27: Q5-2 Evaluate Resources: Our District Has a Responsible Use Policy That
Is Supported by Parents and the Community .....................................................................97

x

Table 28: Q5-3 Evaluate Resources: A Device and Hardware Procurement Is in Place
That Will Enable the District to Provide Equitable Access to Up-to-Date Devices This
School Year for All Students, at a 1:1 Ratio or Better .......................................................98
Table 29: Q5-4 Evaluate Resources: Our District’s Cycles for Updating and
Replacing Devices, Hardware, and Networks Is Financially Supported Through a Line
Item in the Annual Maintenance and Operations Budget ..................................................99
Table 30: Q5-5 Evaluate Resources: Our District’s Rollout (or Plan for the Rollout) of
Devices to Students and Staff Is Efficient (Addresses Responsible User Policies,
Empowers Students and Teachers to Get Ready for Effective Use, Involves Parents,
etc.)...................................................................................................................................100

xi

PREFACE
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified
as such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs,
a collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of
developing highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the
USC Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our
inquiry team to carry out this shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with one other doctoral
candidate, Jorge Morales. We two doctoral students met with the Rio Unified School
District (RUSD) with the aim of helping the district resolve a genuine problem. However,
the process for dissecting and resolving the problem was too large for a single
dissertation. As a result, the two dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively
address the needs of RUSD (see Jorge Morales, 2018).

xii

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to uncover the strategies used by effective high
school principals, middle school principals, and superintendents in supporting
personalized and digital learning to help prepare students with the 21st-century skills
needed to be successful in college and career. More specifically, this study set out to
uncover (1) the leadership strategies middle and high school principals at Future Ready
Schools use to help provide access to technology for their teachers and students, (2) how
Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals encourage personalized learning
for their teachers and students, (3) how Future Ready Schools middle and high school
principals create an innovative and adaptable culture to support teachers in becoming
connected educators beyond their school community, (4) the skills and strategies Future
Ready Schools middle and high school principals need to wisely use time and resources
to help lead successful Future Ready Schools, and (5) how Future Ready Schools middle
and high school principals evaluate strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready
Schools. The study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of nine quantitative
surveys and nine qualitative interviews completed by four high school principals, four
middle school principals, and a superintendent in comprehensive mid-sized urban middle
schools and high schools in Southern California/Los Angeles County. Through the
process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that Future Ready Schools
principals and superintendents find ways to build capacity in their teachers to embrace
ever-changing technology in the classroom to help personalize learning for students to
succeed beyond the classroom walls. The researchers found that effective leadership and
the implications of the Future Ready Schools framework should encourage meaningful

xiii

discussions on the actions needed to enhance the teaching and learning environments to
prepare students for the jobs and careers of tomorrow.

xiv

DEDICATION
This was the most difficult part of the dissertation for me, probably because I
couldn’t research any of my emotions or find statistical data on the ways so many people
helped me accomplish my personal, professional, and educational goals. When my
parents emigrated from Mexico for a better life, I don’t think they ever imagined the type
of life each of their children would have. What they did know was that if we worked
hard, if we were honest and giving of ourselves by helping others, we would find success
in anything we wanted to pursue. I know my brothers and sisters made my parents very
proud by realizing their own dreams. Whether that was through their career, their
children, or their hobbies, my parents just wanted us to have more and do more than they
did. To my nieces and nephews, all 26 of you, both Guzman and De La Rosa included:
Many of you have achieved your educational and/or career goals, while some of you are
still working on them. I’d say I’m about twice your age, on average, so don’t think it’s
too late to pursue something you’ve wanted to. I’m finishing this up at 45 years old.
Lastly, to my husband, Anthony, and my kids, Anthony Jr., Andrew, Adrianna,
and Alesandra: Anthony, not only did you entertain every crazy, impulsive idea I had,
you also got me through each one. You didn’t let me let me be a wimp when I felt I
couldn’t complete something, and you definitely didn’t let me feel sorry for myself when
I failed miserably. Kids, you have been patient while I have worked on completing my
educational goals. I have missed your practices, your games, your awards ceremonies,
and you’ve had to be independent much more quickly than your peers. But know that
these are sacrifices that you and I made together, and although I feel regret at times, those
feelings go away when I know that you are as proud of this accomplishment as I am.

xv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. David
Cash, and Dr. Amy Avina, for their direction, feedback, and leadership throughout this
process. Dr. Avina not only guided me through the research and writing process, but also
provided me with the confidence and assurance I needed throughout the doctoral
program. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my dissertation partner, Jorge Morales, for
his efforts and dedication to our research and completing the dissertation as a
collaborative learning process.

Truly an amazing journey.
Fight On!

1

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Because of their positions within the education system, school principals and
district superintendents are empowered to create the vision and organizational change
that is required to provide students, teachers, and community stakeholders with the best
educational services to meet the needs of 21st-century personalized and digital learning.
As school leaders, principals and superintendents must promote 21st-century college and
career preparation opportunities to help students and teachers meet the increasing
demands of the competitive workforce. It is of the utmost importance for school leaders
to be prepared to transform the learning experience for their students by aligning their
school or district vision to focus on research-based strategies that promote personalized
and digital learning for all students.
According to Lynch (2017a), “The future of education is digital. We live in an
increasingly digital world, where technology is a part of our lives in so many ways”
(para. 1). Technology is a tool. Today, we cannot avoid the use of smartphones and
computers. Digital technology will continue to be a part of human life. The challenges
and opportunities lie in leveraging digital technology resources as an instructional tool to
enable teachers to provide education opportunities for students. Future Ready Schools
and its framework is providing 21st-century education professionals the guidance they
require to meet this important need.
Now, more than ever, it is crucial to incorporate digital technology into education.
Educators must ensure that students are familiar with technology. If they are not, they
will not be prepared to compete globally in the job market (Lynch, 2017a). Students,
teachers, and school leaders must trust the process and take risks toward aligning to this
2

vision so that they may receive the necessary support for personalized and digital
learning.
Today, major challenges remain. Thus far, too many public schools have not been
able to change quickly enough to meet the needs of students, parents, and employers.
Many high school graduates do not have the skills they need to succeed in college or the
workplace (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012). Administrators who want to improve
graduation rates and prepare their K–12 schools for the future of education should look at
the ways they use technology in the classroom.
Future Ready Schools are those that blend technology with learning seamlessly
and include technology in nearly every lesson (Lynch, 2017a). The primary focus of
Future Ready Schools administrators is on teachers and their pedagogy. Research has
continued to show that effective teaching is the most important school-related factor in
student achievement (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012). Teachers need to make learning
relevant, engaging, and fun by using technology to accelerate opportunities for students
to participate in learning experiences that were barely possible 10 or 15 years ago.
Technology offers, and already has been proven in many schools and districts to provide,
greater opportunities for equity and access by helping address the achievement gap and
ensure that students are prepared for college and a career (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012).
There is a benefit to this objective, as more and more students today are what could be
called “digital natives,” already accustomed to the rapid feedback, collaborative nature,
and ease of use of many digital technologies (Prensky, 2010).
3

Background of the Problem
There is a moral and an economic imperative to change the way teachers teach
and students learn in the United States. All children should graduate from high school
ready for college and a career, possessing the deeper learning skills they need in order to
compete in today’s rapidly changing economy (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012). These
skills include not only mastery of core content but also the ability to think critically, solve
complex problems, work collaboratively, communicate effectively, and be self-directed
and incorporate feedback (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2011). The commitment by
teacher leaders, school principals, and superintendents to ensuring that students graduate
from high school college and career ready will require unprecedented work. This work
involves implementing new content, instructional strategies, teacher preparation, and
sustained professional learning for teachers so that their use of technology leads to a
significant transformation of the nation’s education system (Schwartzbeck & Wolf,
2012).
Future Ready Schools (FRS) helps district leaders plan and implement
personalized, research-based digital learning strategies so all students can achieve their
full potential. Future Ready Schools believes that every student deserves a “rigorous,
personalized learning environment filled with caring adults and student agency. District
leaders must recognize the potential of digital tools and align necessary technologies with
instructional goals to support teaching and learning” (Future Ready Schools, 2017a, para.
1). Future Ready Schools was created in 2015 “to help school districts develop
comprehensive plans to achieve successful student learning outcomes by (1) transforming
4

instructional pedagogy and practice while (2) simultaneously leveraging technology to
personalize learning in the classroom” (Future Ready Schools, 2017a, para. 3).
Future Ready Schools helps education leaders and professionals to collaborate
and share leadership to address the following categories of problems in the education
environment (Future Ready Schools, 2017b):
1. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment (e.g., flipped classroom)
2. Personalized professional learning (e.g., which programs teachers should
pursue)
3. Robust infrastructure (e.g., IT infrastructure, how to make Twitter an
infrastructure)
4. Budget and resources (e.g., what percentage of annual school district budget
should be allocated toward technology)
5. Community partnerships (e.g., leveraging digital tech to engage with local
media, parents)
6. Data and privacy (e.g., ensuring privacy of students/people promoted via digital
tech, security)
7. Collaborative leadership (e.g., building alignment and support within your
organization)
8. Use of space and time (e.g., design of classrooms)
This effort comes at a critical time, as districts are embracing college and career
readiness as the goal for all students and recognizing the potential of digital tools to help
teachers personalize learning for each student. United States schools have the potential to
transform the educational experiences of all students, regardless of their background.
5

District leaders must respond to these changes with thoughtful planning to align
necessary technologies with instructional goals by supporting teaching and learning.
Statement of the Problem
Simply placing a netbook on top of a textbook, however, will not necessarily lead
to significant outcomes. Critical for learning success with digital learning is developing a
comprehensive strategy that has a foundation of involvement and sustained career
training for teachers—not occasional professional development—that concentrates not
just on the technology, but also on the pedagogical skills needed to use the technology in
teaching and learning (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012). Effective digital media combined
with powerful teaching, rich content, and engaged students has the potential to take
learning in the United States to a much higher level, so students can be truly prepared for
college and the 21st-century workplace (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012). But education has
been slow to adopt these technologies.
From the point of view of a learning organization, what is most important is that
principals and district superintendents, along with teacher leaders, share a vision and
work together supportively (Anderson & Dexter, 2000). Strong leadership is essential to
creating systemic, sustainable change in education. Superintendents and their leadership
teams, with the support of state and local leaders, are key to leading the transition to
digital learning in their districts (Anderson & Dexter, 2000). The challenges of doing so
are multifaceted and range from unifying a diverse set of stakeholders who may hold
divergent views on the best path forward, to updating physical and technical
infrastructure, to designing new learning models and resources, to building the capacity
6

of educators to take on new roles and new approaches to classroom instruction (Anderson
& Dexter, 2000).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to uncover the strategies used by effective
principals and superintendents in supporting personalized and digital learning to help
prepare our students with the 21st-century skills needed to be successful in college and
career. The burden of preparing for the future of education does not fall just on teachers.
To truly prepare schools for the future of education, administrators must lead the way in
implementing digital technology and ensuring teachers use that technology according to
best practices (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Schools where principals act as
leaders in introducing technology have been shown to achieve better results (Lynch,
2017a). Ultimately, Future Ready Schools principals and superintendents find ways to
build capacity in their teachers to embrace ever-changing technology in the classroom to
help personalize learning for students to succeed beyond the classroom walls.
Research Questions
1. What leadership strategies do middle and high school principals at Future
Ready Schools use to help provide access to technology for their teachers and
students?
2. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals encourage
personalized learning for their teachers and students?
3. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals create an
innovative and adaptable culture to support teachers in becoming connected
educators beyond their school community?
7

4. What skills and strategies do Future Ready Schools middle and high school
principals need to wisely use time and resources to help lead successful Future
Ready Schools?
5. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals evaluate
strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready Schools?
Importance of the Study
In education, technology clearly plays a role, but it is not the driver. Learning is
always the goal, with pedagogy and curricula as the driving force. Technology, in this
context, is the accelerator. Which technology is right for a school or district? There is not
one right answer to this question, but how the question is answered is key (Lynch,
2017a). It is important to recognize that the transformation from a traditional school to a
Future Ready School is a process. When engaging in this process, education leaders need
to take a long look at the leadership guiding the vision of their school or district and
review the policies and procedures that are in place. Future Ready Schools find ways to
embrace ever-changing technology in the classroom to help students succeed beyond the
classroom walls (Lynch, 2017b).
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study included time, researcher bias, interviews, and survey
responses. First, time was a limitation because the data were collected within a time
period of 2 months. The interviews were completed over the span of 4 weeks, and the
principals surveyed had 1 month to complete and return the survey. This limited the
scope and depth of the study. Second, researcher bias was a potential limitation because,
as in any study that includes qualitative data collection and interpretation, the researcher
8

may present a level of subjectivity due to prior experiences. However, the researchers
used member checking and triangulation and presented discrepant information that
counters the themes in order to check for accuracy and validity (Creswell, 2014; Patton,
2002). Lastly, the survey response was a limitation because responses may have
contained self-reporting errors and discrepancies.
Definition of Terms
21st-century skills: Core competencies such as collaboration, digital literacy, critical
thinking, and problem solving to help students thrive in today’s world.
Bandwidth: The volume of information per unit of time that a transmission medium (such
as an Internet connection) can handle.
Blended learning: Occurs any time a student learns, at least in part, at a supervised brick-
and-mortar location away from home and, at least in part, through online delivery
with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace.
Carnegie units: A total of 120 hours of class or contact time with an instructor over the
course of a year at the secondary (American high school) level.
Digital learning: Any instructional practice that is effectively using technology to
strengthen the student learning experience.
Digital native: A person born or brought up during the age of digital technology and who
therefore has been familiar with computers and the Internet from an early age.
Flipped classroom: Students watch a recorded lecture online on their own time and then
complete their “homework” in class.
Formative assessment: Variety of methods used to conduct evaluations of student
comprehension, learning needs, and academic progress during a lesson or unit to
9

help teachers identify concepts that students are struggling to understand so that
adjustments can be made to lessons, instructional techniques, and academic
support.
Future Ready Schools (FRS): Project by the Alliance for Excellent Education (the
Alliance) to help school districts develop comprehensive plans to achieve
successful student learning outcomes.
Graduation rate: The number of students who graduate in 4 years with a regular high
school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort
for the graduating class.
Innovation: A new idea, method, or device.
One-to-one program: A type of school program where there is one computer or tablet for
every student.
Pedagogy: The art, science, or profession of teaching.
Personalized learning: To facilitate the academic success of each student by first
determining the learning needs, interests, and aspirations of individual students,
and then providing learning experiences that are customized for each student.
Robust infrastructure: An adequacy of devices; quality and available network, adequate
and responsive support, and formal cycle for review and replacement.
School reform: The goal of changing public education, specifically at the district/site
level.
Smartphone: A cellular telephone with an integrated computer and other features not
originally associated with telephones, such as an operating system, Web
browsing, and the ability to run software applications.
10

Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview, the
context, and the purpose of the study. Chapter 2 summarizes a review of the literature on
the adoption of the Future Ready Schools framework by school districts. Chapter 3
outlines the methodology for surveying and interviewing site principals and district
superintendents. Chapter 4 presents the data gathered through the process described in
Chapter 3. The study concludes in Chapter 5 with a discussion of the findings,
implications, and recommendations regarding the effective leadership of school
principals and district superintendents supporting personalized learning for teachers and
students in a Future Ready School.
Simply stated, technology and digital learning, when implemented effectively,
provide opportunities to employ the elements deemed necessary for whole-school reform
and effective instruction. While the activities through which these strategies are
implemented must fit the unique needs of each school, the core is a coherent combination
of organizational, systemic, and instructional efforts requiring the cooperation of school
leaders, teachers, parents, and community members and flowing from a cohesive design
(Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012).
Like any other type of educational initiative, the effective application of
technology and digital learning in a blended environment requires each classroom,
school, and district to have a clear strategy for how these new concepts and capacities
will be implemented. Although the use of technology in the education system is
constantly evolving, districts and schools have already implemented programs that are
11

changing the teaching and learning process and outcomes for students (Schwartzbeck &
Wolf, 2012).
12

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter focuses on the Future Ready Schools framework supported by
traditional and successful research-based methods. Like any other type of educational
initiative, the effective application of technology and digital learning in a blended
environment requires each classroom, school, and district to have a clear strategy, action
plan, or framework for how these new concepts and capacities will be implemented. The
research-based methods include Future Ready Schools guidance for education leaders
and professionals to collaborate and share leadership strategies to address the following
categories of problems in the education environment: technology, networks, and
hardware; personalized professional learning; innovative leadership; use of space and
time; and curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
In education today, technology clearly plays a role but does not drive the
improvement of student success and expected education outcomes. Effective teaching
and learning are the goals, with pedagogy and curricula as the means to achieve these
goals. District leaders and school principals must recognize the potential of digital tools
and align necessary technologies with instructional goals to support teaching and learning
(Future Ready Schools, 2017a). As school leaders, principals and superintendents must
be prepared to transform and support the learning experiences for their students by
aligning their school or district vision to focus on research-based strategies that promote
personalized and digital learning for all students.
The focus of Future Ready Schools administrators is on teachers and their
pedagogy. The leadership focus will help teachers and students meet the increasing
demands for college and career preparation opportunities for the competitive 21st-century
13

workforce. Teachers must make learning relevant, engaging, and fun by using technology
and digital tools to accelerate opportunities for students to participate in learning
experiences that, until about 15 years ago, were not possible; many of them have become
possible only in the last 10 years. It is crucial that digital technology be incorporated into
education to help ensure students are familiar with the technology needed to succeed in
higher education and future career endeavors of the 21st century.
Historical Context
Debates over public education, local control, state school funding, standardized
curricula, teacher preparation, innovation, and other major reform efforts have been a
significant part of American history (Sheninger & Murray, 2017). The education system
has changed significantly because of major policies and political events in American
government. The education system has evolved from traditional one-room schoolhouses
to large compulsory schools. Schools adjusted to prepare students with skill sets to match
the labor demands of new factories, industries, and related technology advancements. As
the worlds of school and work began to collide, skilled workers were replaced by
machines capable of doing the work faster and cheaper (Sheninger & Murray, 2017).
Today’s machines, through automation and robotics, are replacing workers at an
unprecedented pace with the ability to do the work better, faster, and cheaper
(Sheninger & Murray, 2017).
Advancements in technology have had a lasting impact on federal and state
education policies (Sheninger & Murray, 2017). According to Klein (2015), the federal
government established the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 to
help provide additional funding and standards for accountability to prepare teachers and
14

students for the future. In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education
released the publication A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. This
report highlighted findings that elementary and secondary schools were failing to prepare
students for the future. In 1994, the ESEA was reauthorized by the passing of the
Improving America’s Schools Act. In 2002, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which
reauthorized the ESEA again, introduced a standardized testing system and a focus on the
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reporting system. This reauthorization was another
attempt to hold schools accountable in preparing students to be future-ready citizens. In
2009 and 2011, the ESEA was reauthorized again with an ease in the requirements of the
expected deadline of every student being proficient in English and math by 2014.
However, schools needed to find ways to help prepare students to become college and
career ready. In 2015, the ESEA was reauthorized once more by the passing of the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Innovative Leadership
In an era of school reform and 21st-century instruction, site administrators and
district leaders have often found themselves perplexed about how to begin
implementation of technology in the classroom. According to Fullen (2005), when
districts take a step back from dominating as leaders and give other stakeholders
opportunities to build their own leadership capacity, districts and schools are able to
implement successful strategies for school improvement. Capacity building
requires careful attention from districts and schools and must be the foundation of
improvement strategies, placing a focus on the crucial issues of sustainability (Fullen,
15

2005). Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) described the development of
people in an organization in the following manner:
The ability to engage in practices that help develop people depends, in part, on
leaders’ knowledge of the “technical core” of schooling—what is required to
improve the quality of teaching and learning—often invoked by the term
“instructional leadership.” (p. 24)
Therefore, creating a culture of collaboration, innovation, capacity building,
and empowerment will allow all stakeholders to have ownership of the implementation
of new strategies and hold themselves accountable (Fullen, 2005).
Levin and Schrum (2013) found that key commonalities for schools that have
successfully implemented technology-rich classrooms and curricula include a supportive,
distributed leadership. Distributed leadership includes not only the school leaders, but
also teachers and students during the planning and the process. Successful districts did
not make the use of technology the goal; rather, they focused on learning-centered goals
such as relevant learning, providing opportunities to close achievement gaps, and
increasing graduation rates and college readiness. The goals were to equip students with
21st-century skills through collaboration, digital learning, critical thinking, and
opportunities to problem solve and not merely the addition of technology to instruction.
Levin and Schrum discovered that schools with successful integration of technology used
the following three strategies:
1. Establish vision and culture: Improving school culture and climate and
transformation of curriculum and instruction was achieved through ongoing,
16

differentiated professional development for teachers and establishing a clear
vision that was followed with the means to fund these initiatives.
2. Bring technology into assessment: A systematic use of technology for
ongoing formative assessment was employed so that principals and teachers
could collect and analyze data, develop differentiated instruction, and offer
students individualized remediation.
3. Establish partnership: Partnerships with local businesses were created to
increase the network and secure ongoing support for the school’s technology
infrastructure and curriculum.
Further research has also placed emphasis on the concept of shared leadership
and the development of leadership capacity among all stakeholders, not just the
principal (Lambert, 2002). Lambert (2002) defined leadership capacity as “broad-
based, skillful participation in the work of leadership” (p. 38) and stated that schools with
high leadership capacity will have learning and instructional leadership become part of
their ongoing professional practices. Distributed leadership, according to Edwards
(2015), is a shared leadership where it is not merely a few leading from the top but
rather an inclusion of various stakeholders who take part in the decision-making and
implementation process. Stakeholders include teachers, students, staff, and community
members who actively participate either directly, in the development of curriculum and
high-performance teaching and learning environments, or indirectly, as part of an
advisory board (Edwards, 2015).
17

Personalized Professional Learning
To continue the appropriate implementation of up-to-date instructional technology
and learning, teachers should have professional development that is current and
appropriate. Fritschi and Wolf (2012) stated that a basic understanding of the electronic
devices and their features is important for teachers to have. But further professional
development will allow for teachers to use technologies to change teaching and learning
and not merely replace print resources with digital ones. Far too often, when new
technology is introduced into education, high expectations are placed on the technology
or device itself, when teachers should have an appropriate understanding of how to use
these technologies or devices as instructional tools.
The top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to professional learning has been
prevalent in schools across the nation. Educators are often brought into large group
rooms, and a “sit and get” model of professional learning is utilized (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2015). Quite often, educators are left feeling frustrated and districts
wonder why there is little evidence of impact in a traditional model (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2015). In recent years, the concept of educators being empowered to
take charge of their own personalized professional learning has gained momentum
(Future Ready Schools, 2017a). Here, teachers learn to adapt their pedagogy to facilitate
learning experiences that are grounded in the real world and make effective use of
technology (State Educational Technology Directors Association [SETDA], 2017).
Changes toward 21st-century learning outcomes are heavily dependent on changes in
teaching and the application of technology as a learning tool that produces college- and
career-ready graduates (SETDA, 2017). To encourage and enable effective teaching,
18

school districts should commit to ongoing, high-quality opportunities for personalized
professional learning (Future Ready Schools, 2017a).
In Future Ready Schools (2017b), technology and digital learning expand access
to high-quality, ongoing, job-embedded opportunities for personalized professional
learning for teachers and administrators. Future Ready Schools (2017b) also found
that opportunities for personalized professional learning for teachers in the use
of technology tools ultimately lead to improvements in student success and create a
broader understanding of the skills that comprise success in a digital age. Future Ready
Schools principals across the country are making efforts to empower and train teachers
as education technology leaders (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2010). These
education leaders share ownership of responsibilities for professional growth by
becoming ambassadors to help staff members become users of and advocates for 21st-
century learning opportunities (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2010). The Future
Ready Schools principals are using the available technology super tools to help promote
personalized learning opportunities for each learner on each campus (Partnership for
21st Century Skills, 2010).
The Alliance for Excellent Education (2018) reported that blended learning
supports shifts in classroom instruction, but most districts still offer teachers professional
learning in traditional ways. Typically referred to as “professional development,” this
usually involves vague “sit-and-get” sessions that offer little practical application for
teachers and result in few widespread changes in teaching practice. According to the
Alliance for Excellent Education (2018), meaningful professional learning around
blended learning should provide educators at least two things: (1) the functional skills
19

necessary to operate new software and technology tools and (2) examples of and
guidance for how teachers can integrate new technology into their practice to transform
learning. Often, though, professional learning focuses solely on the functionality of new
technology and does not equip teachers with skills to implement that technology in
innovative ways (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2018). Effective personalized
professional learning opportunities can improve and enhance the blended teaching and
learning with technology to use for problem solving and innovation (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2018).
The goal of the Future Ready Schools framework is to promote effective teaching
practices that are relevant and engaging for all learners at school. This is measured
by how the site instructional leadership team supports self-directed, personalized
professional learning by providing all staff with multiple ways to demonstrate individual
and collective growth beyond seat time (Future Ready Schools, 2017b). Principals are
working collaboratively with onsite teacher leaders to promote the opportunities for all
staff to learn how to use a range of technology and social media in their professional
learning (Future Ready Schools, 2017b). The professional learning sanctioned by the site
leadership empowers all staff to customize their experiences to ensure the learning is
relevant to them (Future Ready Schools, 2017b). Today, alternative, personalized models
of professional development are enabled through technology and social media (e.g.,
EdCamps, Twitter Chats, Webinars, and YouTube) and encouraged and supported
through coherent district policies and school action plans (Future Ready Schools,
2017b). It is hard to promote students’ personalized learning if there is no support for
teachers’ instruction (Smith & Throne, 2009). The flexibility that technology brings
20

to instruction can help teachers contextualize their teaching practice for student diversity
and student accountability for learning (Smith & Throne, 2009).
However, the availability of technology itself does not promise effective
technology integration for personalized instruction (Getting Smart & SAS Curriculum
Pathways, 2015). Technology benefits are evident when teachers integrate technology
seamlessly into the teaching and learning process while ensuring that the use of
technology adds value to learning (Getting Smart & SAS Curriculum Pathways, 2015).
But, “to create an innovative classroom, teachers need time to create lesson plans and
gather appropriate resources, time to grow, and time to learn from others in the
field” (Getting Smart & SAS Curriculum Pathways, 2015, p. 17). Sufficient time is
especially crucial for integrating technology and instilling confidence in teachers, both in
a specific tool and in their own ability to use it effectively (Fok & Ip, 2006). According to
a recent study by Getting Smart and SAS Curriculum Pathways (2015), teachers believe
in the power of high-quality EdTech, but many feel woefully unprepared to use it
themselves. There is a need for personalized professional development that helps teachers
learn to utilize technology for instruction (Fok & Ip, 2006).
According to Future Ready Schools (2017b), site principals should provide the
technologies required for professional online learning, and principals should encourage,
model, and provide opportunities for a broad spectrum of professional learning.
Principals and school leaders can model these opportunities in many ways, from a series
of face-to-face professional learning events, to professional learning through social
media and 24/7 access to online collaborative tools (e.g., Skype, Google Hangouts,
Twitter feeds, and YouTube) that empower them to interact with colleagues online.
21

A successful personalized professional development plan should require the
shared ownership and shared responsibility for professional growth of education
professionals (Learning Forward, 2017). Teachers should design a personalized
professional growth plan for the given academic year to ensure that they gain the
knowledge and expertise needed to be successful in the implementation of technology
with the teaching and learning opportunities occurring daily in schools (Learning
Forward, 2017). According to Future Ready Schools (2017b), site principals and school
leadership teams should help teachers build an active professional learning network to
guide educators’ transition to professional learning in a digital world (e.g., online classes,
following bloggers, EdCamps, and Twitter feeds).
The personalized professional learning opportunities provided by a district should
model effective applications of 21st-century skills within the participants’ areas of
expertise (e.g., creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, or self-direction) and then
integrate these skills into all aspects of curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Future
Ready Schools, 2017b). Principals and school leaders can measure the growth of
personalized professional learning by noting how teachers work collaboratively with their
site administrators and colleagues to collect a broad range of indicators of their progress
and contribute that evidence during their use of technology as an instructional
tool (Learning Forward, 2017).
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
In their book Learning Transformed, Sheninger and Murray (2017) shared that,
with all that is known about how students learn, the predictions regarding the world
students will face upon graduation, and the vast inequity that has existed for centuries,
22

utilizing a traditional, one-size-fits-all approach to teaching and learning is education
malpractice. Educators are obliged to prepare students for their future and not the past
and must create and lead schools that are relevant for the world students live in, not the
world the staff grew up in. Instructional pedagogy must focus on higher-order thinking
skills and problem solving, while anytime, anywhere learning must become a realistic
possibility for today’s “Netflix generation” of students (Sheninger & Murray, 2017).
This vision for the classroom of the future is not new (Christensen & Horn, 2008).
It is one that people have talked and dreamed about for years in a variety of forms:
Students partake in interactive learning with computers and other technology devices;
teachers roam around as mentors and individual learning coaches; learning is tailored to
each student’s differences; students are engaged and motivated (Christensen & Horn,
2008). In Future Ready Schools (2017b), curricula, instruction, and assessment are tightly
aligned and redesigned to engage students in 21st-century, personalized, technology-
enabled, deeper learning. Curricula and instruction are standards aligned, research based,
and enriched through authentic, real-world problem solving. In addition, students and
teachers have robust and adaptive tools to customize the learning, teaching, and
assessment, ensuring that it is student centered and emphasizing a deep understanding of
complex issues.
Leadership teams and principals should develop curriculum and instruction
practices that provide each student the opportunity to solve real-world problems and
encourage collaboration with students, educators, and others outside of the school
environment (Barkley, 2013). Digital content can easily be kept up to date and relevant to
students’ lives without the cost of reprinting or redistributing print materials (Fletcher,
23

Schaffhauser, & Levin, 2012). The digital content can be made available anytime and
anywhere, both online and offline, accessible when the student, teacher, or parent needs
it, whether from home, school, or another location. And digital content can be far richer
and more engaging, including not only text, but also high-definition graphics, video
clips, animations, simulations, interactive lessons, virtual labs, and online assessments
(Fletcher et al., 2012). These digital content opportunities help schools to monitor
the ability for students and teachers to create, evaluate, and effectively utilize
information, media, and technology for life and work in the 21st century (Jones, Fox, &
Weeks, 2017).
Shifting to digital content and online assessment systems creates the opportunity
for approved users (i.e., students, teachers, administrators, and parents) to receive real-
time feedback in ways that increase the rate and depth of learning and that enable data-
informed instructional decisions (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2015). In Future
Ready Schools, digital assessments are to be online (e.g., online tests, online polling,
digital response systems, embedded assessments, ePortfolios, or simulations) and are
being used formatively to improve, enrich, and guide the learning processes for all
students (Heritage, 2010). Teachers and administrators use established digital assessment
metrics data and the associated analyses as building blocks for learning that is
personalized, individualized, and differentiated to ensure all learners succeed (Heritage,
2010). As teachers connect pedagogy and content, integrating technology must reflect
content learning along with practices to advance students’ progress toward the more
advanced knowledge and skills required in the 21st-century global economy by
employers and higher education institutions (Wolf, 2012).
24

Technology, Networks, and Hardware
As the discussion regarding the topic of infrastructure for school districts begins
to take place, it is crucial to remember that the sustainability of technology is just as
important as the implementation of the devices themselves. The Consortium for School
Networking (2014) asserted that states and schools must recognize the need for a robust
technology infrastructure, which should not be overlooked due to budget constraints. The
short-term decision-making process has limited the ability for district personnel to
evaluate their long-term needs properly. Through a survey, the Consortium for School
Networking found that 47% of instructional technology leaders reported there is
insufficient funding for technology to adequately meet their school board expectations,
thus causing districts to fall short on operating efficiently, managing sustainability, and
making smart investment choices needed to accomplish district goals.
Much of the infrastructure in place today does not have the bandwidth for
teachers and students to fully access the Internet. Students and teachers use the Internet
for various reasons on any given day, according to the United States Department of
Education (2014). Uploading high-definition multimedia content, participating in online
video conferences, and creating learning portfolios may exceed the bandwidth available,
especially when compared with the online tools, email, and reference materials that were
used many years ago. If districts want their students to access innovative digital learning
tools, they will need to upgrade their technical infrastructure and allow students and
teachers to access high-speed Internet throughout schools’ campuses (U.S. Department of
Education, 2014).
25

District leaders can assist with the planning and implementation of upgrading a
network that is not meeting the needs of their schools. Assessing district needs will
include determining the amount of bandwidth needed, the district’s learning goals, and
the technology that will be used to meet these goals (Education Superhighway, 2014).
Education Superhighway (2014) estimated that bandwidth needs grow at a rate of
approximately 50% each year. For this reason, the following should be considered:
1. Tools: A list of software and online learning tools the district plans to use
(teacher survey is recommended to anticipate future software needs)
2. Bandwidth: Determine bandwidth needs based on tools assessment
3. Budget: Should include funds to build and maintain network
Once districts determine the amount of bandwidth needed, the district’s learning goals,
and the technology that will be used, districts must develop a timeline that is realistic for
them, customize their needs, assemble a team that will manage expectations, and acquire
a network or services. Having a reliable network with sufficient bandwidth for the
learning tools used and allocation of funds to include technology upgrades and
maintenance will allow teachers and students to have the access they need for 21st-
century learning.
District broadband “is fast becoming essential to educators who want to make the
most of the available online resources for professional development” (Fox, Waters,
Fletcher, & Levin, 2012, p. 10). As a means to bridge the gap between various
technology instructional strategies, the State Educational Technology Directors
Association suggested a framework that highlights districts’ uniqueness and needs and
provides a planning tool that will fit those specific needs (SETDA, 2017). The planning
26

tool includes a close look at the following: assessment and accountability, leadership and
culture, learning, teaching and professional learning, and infrastructure. The five key
components must be examined by all stakeholders in order to create a strategic plan that
will allow districts and schools to transform their instruction and technologies.
Each school district must invest the time to evaluate the technology systems and
processes they have in place and assess their needs as a means to begin to improve upon
their digital infrastructure. According to the Alliance for Education (Thigpen, 2014),
when broadband connectivity is appropriate, the use of digital technology can offer
extraordinary opportunities that will allow educators to provide students with learning
experiences that were not previously possible. The Alliance for Education also stated that
when used effectively, technology has great potential to improve student achievement.
School leaders are responsible for making decisions that will affect the way students are
exposed to digital technology, the way students will use it, and the way in which their
teachers will provide those experiences.
Use of Space and Time
In education today, there has been a surge of interest by educators, communities,
and architects in dynamically reimagining what schools look like (Jacobs, 2017). As in
any other field, it is time for our profession to step back and rethink old habits (Jacobs,
2017). According to Future Ready Schools, “Personalized learning requires changes in
the way instructional time is used and the learning space is designed” (n.d., para.
1). Many schools are shifting away from Carnegie units used for the industrial model of
the past to competency-based learning (Silva, White, & Toch, 2015). This type
of competency-based learning system adapts learning to meet the needs, pace, interests,
27

and preferences of the learner (Patrick & Sturgis, 2015); “as the pedagogy shifts, so too
must the learning space” (Future Ready Schools, n.d., para. 1).
To assist innovation design teams, Jacobs (2017) created the Learning Space
Spectrum. The Learning Space Spectrum shows how educators can begin with the most
basic changes, such as moving furniture and fixtures to create a more accommodating
environment. As they progress around the spectrum, the options become increasingly
complex, leading to dynamic new learning environments that, in turn, increase the
opportunities for responsive and robust learning (Jacobs, 2017).
At the school site level, principals can focus on the welcoming impressions of the
school by surveying the students, parents, and staff. Unique learning spaces can capture
the essence of school culture (Barrett & Zhang, 2009). Classrooms, libraries, hallways,
and common work areas need to be evaluated for how the learning space is designed
(Barrett & Zhang, 2009). School spaces can be enhanced by adding inspirational quotes
and colors and identifying parts of the campus with names of influential leaders who
support the school’s mission and vision along with the school culture (Jacobs, 2017).
Educators should consider the effects of learning spaces on students (Jacobs, 2017): Do
the classrooms reflect student-friendly learning spaces? Is the entry point of the school
student-centered, or does it highlight the reminiscence of past achievements? By
leveraging classroom furniture, technology, and media resources, students have options
to learn any time of day, at home, at school, or in the community (Demski, 2012).
Technology will play a significant role in ensuring that students are able to learn
anytime and anywhere (Selinger, Sepulveda, & Buchan, 2013). Inside the classroom,
teachers are transitioning to more student-centric environments, leveraging flexible uses
28

of time to enable personalized learning for their students (Glowa & Goodell, 2016). A
digital learning environment (e.g., a digital space for collaborative, project-based
learning; online communication; or access to digital content) is critical if student learning
is to be personalized (Glowa & Goodell, 2016). The extension of time beyond the school
day will be dependent on innovative and effective uses of technology (Groff,
2013). Strategies for providing extended time for projects and collaboration should be
implemented (Groff, 2013). Students working on projects should be provided extra time,
beyond deadlines, to refine and perfect their work (McLinden, 2013). Flexibility and
adaptability in scheduling and use of instructional time is key to meeting the diverse
needs of students (McLinden, 2013).
According to Graham-Clay (2005), students are involved in after-school activities
and need to have access to the digital form of shared learning objectives beyond their
practice times. Parental work schedules are such that when the school day is over they
can assist with homework for their children only if they have access to the digital form of
shared learning objectives. Finally, with bus schedules dictating when certain students
need to leave school, a digital form of shared learning objectives can also be of value for
the teacher and students. Districts’ digital learning environments and digital content need
to be made accessible to authorized students 24/7 (Graham-Clay, 2005). This empowers
students to continue their work on projects beyond the school day. Student progress is
measured by performance and mastery, rather than attendance/seat time (competency-
based learning). However, the need to build teachers’ capacity to teach effectively in
schools with flexible scheduling and unique learning spaces continues to be a challenge
for school leaders (Graham-Clay, 2005).
29

Summary
In this chapter, a review of the literature provided the Future Ready Schools
framework and guidance for education leaders and professionals to collaborate and share
leadership to address the following categories of problems in the education environment:
technology, networks, and hardware; personalized professional learning; innovative
leadership; use of space and time; and curriculum, instruction, and assessment. In
Chapter 3, the design of the study will be presented.

30

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
In 2014, during the ConnectED Superintendents Summit at the White House,
President Obama stated,
Closing the technology gap is going to take more than fiber-optic cable, it’s going
to take more than portable hotspots and wireless projectors. It will take more than
policymakers in Washington or even Silicon Valley CEOs. It’s going to take
teachers, principals, superintendents who get it—who understand the power of
these tools when used creatively and who are willing to make changes and push
reforms and test new ideas. And we want to help you do that. (The White House,
Office of the Press Secretary, 2014, para. 19)
As noted in Chapter 1, critical for success with digital learning is developing a
comprehensive strategy that has a foundation of involvement and sustained career
training for teachers—not occasional professional development—that concentrates not
just on the technology, but also on the pedagogical skills needed to use the technology in
teaching and learning (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012). This chapter restates this study’s
problem, purpose, and research questions from Chapter 1. A description of the
participants, sampling techniques, criteria for selection, and setting are provided to create
context for the study. Protocols for the mixed-method study and data collection are
identified and discussed. Data analysis tools and methods will be presented. Chapter 3
concludes with a summary of the chapter and a preview of chapters 4 and 5.
Restatement of Problem
Simply placing a netbook on top of a textbook will not necessarily lead to
significant outcomes. Critical for learning success with digital learning is developing a
31

comprehensive strategy that has a foundation of involvement and sustained career
training for teachers—not occasional professional development—that concentrates not
just on the technology, but also on the pedagogical skills needed to use the technology in
teaching and learning (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012). Effective digital media combined
with powerful teaching, rich content, and engaged students has the potential to take
learning in the United States to a much higher level, so students can be truly prepared for
college and the 21st-century workplace (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012).
From the point of view of a learning organization, what is most important is that
principals and district superintendents, along with teacher leaders, share a vision and
work together supportively (Anderson & Dexter, 2000). Strong leadership is essential to
creating systemic, sustainable change in education. Superintendents and their leadership
teams, with the support of state and local leaders, are key to leading the transition to
digital learning in their districts (Anderson & Dexter, 2000). The challenges of doing so
are multifaceted and range from unifying a diverse set of stakeholders who may hold
divergent views on the best path forward, to updating physical and technical
infrastructure, to designing new learning models and resources, to building the capacity
of educators to take on new roles and new approaches to classroom instruction (Anderson
& Dexter, 2000).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to uncover the strategies used by effective
superintendents and principals at the high school and middle school levels in supporting
personalized and digital learning to help prepare students with the 21st-century skills
needed to be successful in college and career. The burden of preparing for the future of
32

education does not fall just on teachers. To truly prepare schools for the future of
education, administrators must lead the way in implementing digital technology and
ensuring teachers use that technology according to best practices (U.S. Department of
Education, 2015). Schools where middle school and high school principals act as leaders
in introducing technology have been shown to achieve better results (Lynch, 2017a).
Ultimately, Future Ready Schools principals and superintendents find ways to build
capacity in their teachers to embrace ever-changing technology in the classroom and help
personalize learning for students to succeed beyond the classroom walls.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the research:
1. What leadership strategies do middle and high school principals at Future
Ready Schools use to help provide access to technology for their teachers and
students?
2. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals encourage
personalized learning for their teachers and students?
3. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals create an
innovative and adaptable culture to support teachers in becoming connected
educators beyond their school community?
4. What skills and strategies do Future Ready Schools middle and high school
principals need to wisely use time and resources to help lead successful Future
Ready Schools?
5. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals evaluate
strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready Schools?
33

Design Summary
This study used a mixed-methods research approach. Both qualitative and
quantitative data were collected and analyzed. The mixed-methods approach was selected
because of the complexities of analyzing data from interviews and surveys to provide a
better understanding of the problem. The study was based on Creswell’s (2008) six steps
for conducting a study:
1. Identifying a research problem
2. Reviewing the literature
3. Specifying a purpose for research
4. Collecting data
5. Analyzing and interpreting the data
6. Reporting and evaluating research
Chapter 3 specifically addresses data collection, analyzing and interpreting the
data, and reporting and evaluating research. The mixed-method approach included
quantitative data from surveys of a superintendent and eight principals. Qualitative data
collection included interviews with a superintendent and principals by using a case study
of comprehensive mid-sized urban middle schools and high schools in Southern
California/Los Angeles County. This case study used surveys to gather responses from a
larger sample and used a smaller sample of results from interviews conducted with the
superintendent and middle school and high school principals in order to triangulate those
results.
34

Participants and Setting
The participants for the interviews and surveys were selected using a purposeful
sampling method (Patton, 2005) as a means of identifying administrators available based
on a list provided by the district. The criteria used to select the participants for this study
were the following: school principals in a participating district who have been in
administration for at least 3 years, school principals serving in participating schools with
high levels of technology accessibility in classrooms, and by superintendent
recommendation. There were a total of eight site administrators, including four high
school and four middle school principals. The sample for this mixed-method case study
was selected based on the following criteria:
1. School district in Southern California/Los Angeles County currently using the
Future Ready Schools framework
2. Unified school district with kindergarten to grade 12 configurations, including
middle schools and high schools
3. Student enrollment between 15,000 to 20,000
The superintendent and middle school and high school principals are from the Rio
Unified School District, an urban, comprehensive unified school district.
Instrumentation and Protocols
Interviews were conducted with school principals who have been in
administration for more than 3 years and are serving in schools with high levels of
technology accessibility in classrooms in eight comprehensive public schools. These
interviews were conducted in the participant’s natural setting, to allow for findings that
gain greater validity (Maxwell, 2013). Surveys were completed by middle school and
35

high school principals and the superintendent. Both survey and interview results were
used as a means to gather data and information about high levels of technology
accessibility in classrooms and districts. Having both research methods adds insight and
allows for the depth of understanding through the use of the qualitative method, as well
as the breadth that is made available in collecting quantitative data through a larger
sample (Creswell, 2008; Johnson, Oweuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007; Westat, 2010).
Quantitative Instrumentation
Quantitative research results give numerical data for interpretation and assessment
of amount of evidence (Maxwell, 2013). Quantitative data were captured through Google
Forms, an online survey tool. A total of 25 questions were selected for the survey based
on the five research questions specific to this case study and in combination with the
review of the literature. The survey questions addressed the following focused areas aside
from the five research questions that guided this research: (a) leadership strategies that
help provide access to technology for teachers and students, (b) principals encouraging
personalized learning for their teachers and students, (c) principals creating an innovative
and adaptable culture to support teachers in becoming connected educators beyond their
school community, (d) skills and strategies principals need to wisely use time and
resources to help lead successful Future Ready Schools, and (e) monitoring and
evaluating strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready Schools.
The quantitative survey included the following types of questions: (a) four
demographic questions (gender, degree status, years in education, and years as high
school principal), (b) question to determine the willingness to participate in a follow-up
interview, and (c) 25 Likert-type scale questions associated with the five research
36

questions (Appendix B). A Likert-type scale is a rating scale of 1–5, where 1 signifies
strongly disagree, 2 signifies disagree, 3 signifies neither agree nor disagree, 4 signifies
agree, and 5 signifies strongly agree. The Likert-type scale format allowed the
researchers to quantify the level of support for each specific survey item.
Qualitative Instrumentation
Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews and open-
ended questions that were selected for the study. This semi-structured format allowed the
researcher and interviewee to stay focused within the allotted amount of time,
approximately 45 minutes, which facilitated data analysis (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2002).
This qualitative method was chosen to further gain an understanding of the experiences
held by educational leaders (superintendent and site principals) regarding the framework
that has been implemented in the district (Merriam, 2009). It is important to gather data
from all leaders involved in the school district to interpret results and analyze information
collected in order to be able to see how the Future Ready Schools framework has affected
teachers and students. Furthermore, conducting interviews allowed the researchers to ask
the interviewees follow-up questions to get a better understanding of the participants’
views of and experiences with the framework (Merriam, 2009). Protocols for the
superintendent and principals are included in the appendices.
Data Collection Protocols
Individual interviews served as the primary data source and were conducted face
to face using open-ended questions and an interview protocol. Interviews were conducted
in the participants’ individual schools to provide the best contextual environment
(Creswell, 2009). The interview questions were aligned to the research questions
37

(Appendix A). These interviews were audio recorded on a digital device. According to
Creswell (2009), audio recordings provide several advantages, as they capture the
participants’ responses in total, along with the feeling tone of the interview, and are
available for the researcher to repeatedly listen to, to capture the essence of the
experience. In this qualitative research project, all interviews were scheduled in advance
at a designated time and location. Before the researcher conducted any interviews, all
participating principals were given an informed consent form outlining their rights and
responsibilities as participants in this study. They were asked to sign the informed
consent document before beginning any interview. Standardized open-ended interviews
were conducted with each urban high school administrator on his or her campus in order
to collect data for this data collection report. According to Patton (2002), standardized
open-ended interviews are used when it is important to minimize variation in the
questions posed to interviewees. Upon completion of the audio-recorded interviews,
transcription of interviews was conducted.
At the beginning of each interview, the participants were given the purpose of the
study. Each participant in the study was asked a set of questions about his or her
background and personal experience utilizing technology. The interview questions were
shared, presented one at a time, and discussed thoroughly. Each participant was informed
that there were no right or wrong answers as they prepared to answer the questions. The
interview was organized around a set of predetermined questions, with other pertinent
questions emerging from the dialogue between interviewer and interviewee. The
expected time allotment for each interview was 30 to 60 minutes.
38

The interview questions were based upon the Future Ready Schools Framework
for School Principals. The Future Ready Schools Framework for School Principals
interview questions that were asked, along with the standard they address, are included in
Appendix A.
Data Analysis
The goal of this study was to gain understanding of the effects of site and district
leadership on the implementation of the Future Ready Schools framework in
comprehensive mid-sized urban middle schools and high schools in Southern
California/Los Angeles County. As a means of identifying key phrases and recurring
main themes that appeared in transcription, selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008)
was conducted.
Summary
This mixed-methods study combined quantitative data from an online Google
Forms survey with qualitative data from guided interviews. All data were triangulated to
provide an understanding of the support of school principals for personalized and digital
learning for teachers and students. This method provided validity to the study. The
findings are presented in Chapter 4, and recommendations for further research are
included in Chapter 5.

39

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
Background
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected from the study, which
aimed to develop an understanding of the effects of site middle school and high school
principals and district superintendent leadership on the implementation of the Future
Ready Schools framework in comprehensive mid-sized urban high schools and middle
schools in Southern California/Los Angeles County. Future Ready Schools helps district
leaders plan and implement personalized, research-based digital learning strategies so all
students can achieve their full potential. Future Ready Schools believes that every student
deserves “a rigorous, personalized learning environment filled with caring adults and
student agency” (Future Ready Schools, 2017a, para. 1). Future Ready Schools principals
and superintendents are critical in supporting personalized and digital learning to help
prepare students with the 21st-century skills needed to be successful in college and
career. For personalized learning to actually move the needle on improving student
experiences and elevating student outcomes, the question of how schools, administrators,
and teachers personalize learning is just as important as why (Arnett, 2018). To truly
prepare schools for the future of education, administrators must lead the way in
implementing digital technology and ensuring teachers use that technology according to
best practices (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Strong leadership is essential to
creating systemic, sustainable change in education. Superintendents and their leadership
teams, with the support of state and local leaders, are key to leading the transition to
digital learning in their districts (Anderson & Dexter, 2000).
40

Research Questions
1. What leadership strategies do middle and high school principals at Future
Ready Schools use to help provide access to technology for their teachers and
students?
2. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals encourage
personalized learning for their teachers and students?
3. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals create an
innovative and adaptable culture to support teachers in becoming connected
educators beyond their school community?
4. What skills and strategies do Future Ready Schools middle and high school
principals need to wisely use time and resources to help lead successful Future
Ready Schools?
5. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals evaluate
strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready Schools?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to uncover the strategies used by effective
superintendents and principals at the high school and middle school levels in supporting
personalized and digital learning to help prepare students with the 21st-century skills
needed to be successful in college and career. The burden of preparing for the future of
education does not fall on just teachers. To truly prepare schools for the future of
education, superintendents working jointly with high school and middle school principals
must lead the way in implementing digital technology and ensuring teachers use that
technology according to current best practices (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
41

Middle schools and high schools where principals act as leaders in introducing
technology have been shown to achieve better implementation results (Lynch, 2017a).
Ultimately, Future Ready Schools principals and superintendents find ways to build
capacity in their teachers to embrace ever-changing technology in the classroom and help
personalize learning for students to succeed beyond the classroom walls.
This mixed-methods study combined quantitative data from an online Google
Forms survey with qualitative data from guided interviews conducted within a single
school district focused on the district superintendent and eight principals: four from the
high school and four from the middle school. Both qualitative and quantitative data were
collected and analyzed. All data were triangulated to provide an understanding of the
support of the high school and middle school principals for personalized and digital
learning for teachers and students. The mixed-methods approach was selected because of
the complexities of analyzing data from interviews and surveys to provide a better
understanding of the problem. The study was based on Creswell’s (2008) six steps for
conducting a study:
1. Identifying a research problem
2. Reviewing the literature
3. Specifying a purpose for research
4. Collecting data
5. Analyzing and interpreting the data
6. Reporting and evaluating research
A semi-structured approach was used during the interviews with one
superintendent, four high school principals, and four middle school principals, which
42

consisted of 10 questions in the interview protocol. These participants were selected
based on the following criteria: school district currently using the Future Ready Schools
framework, unified school district with kindergarten to grade 12 configuration including
middle schools and high schools, and student enrollment between 15,000 to 20,000. The
semi-structured protocol allowed the researcher the flexibility to probe and ask additional
follow-up questions as needed. The interview protocol captured the behaviors and
feelings that could not be observed (Merriam, 2009). Data were also collected from a
Google Forms survey to gather responses in order to triangulate those results.
Participants’ Demographic Data
Quantitative Survey Participants
The quantitative demographic data were gathered to provide an understanding of
the superintendent, high school principals, and middle school principals surveyed and
interviewed. The personal and professional information provided a foundation on which
to better understand the superintendent’s, high school principals’, and middle school
principals’ reasoning for their strategies and leadership qualities when implementing the
Future Ready Schools framework in their district. The demographic data were limited to
information on (a) gender, (b) degree status, (c) years in education, and (d) years as
school principal. The researchers made sure that all of the data collected from surveys
and/or interviews were maintained and protected for confidentiality, especially the
questions relating to the demographics of the superintendent, four high school principals,
and four middle school principals.
Table 1 highlights the gender of the high school and middle school principals and
one superintendent who completed the quantitative survey. Twenty-five percent of the
43

high school participants were female; 75% percent were male. Fifty percent of the middle
school principals were female and 50% were male. The superintendent was female and
was the only superintendent participant.

Table 1
Quantitative Survey: FRS High School Principals Gender
Gender Frequency %
Female 1 25.00
Male 3 75.00
Total 4 100.00

Quantitative Survey: FRS Middle School Principals Gender
Gender Frequency %
Female 2 50.00
Male 2 50.00
Total 4 100.00

Quantitative Survey: FRS Superintendent Gender
Gender Frequency %
Female 1 100.00
Male 0 0.00
Total 1 100.00

Hill, Ottem, and DeRoche (2016) found that 52% of all principals nationwide,
from elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools, are female, while 48% are
male. This statistic is fairly similar to the gender makeup of the principals interviewed
and surveyed in this study. Table 2 presents 100% of the FRS high school principals as
44

having a master’s degree. At the middle school level, 50% of the principals have a
master’s degree and 50% have a doctorate degree. The superintendent, accounting for
100% of the superintendent participants, has a doctorate degree. The superintendent had
earned an Ed.D. in education leadership, and one middle school principal had earned a
Ph.D. in mathematics. According to Masters-Education.com (n.d.), having an advanced
degree shows a deep level of understanding and commitment to the profession of
education. Further, an advanced degree allows educators to modify curriculum goals,
make changes to their teaching methods, and enter into leadership positions that allow
them to influence school and district systems.

Table 2
Quantitative Survey: FRS High School Principals Level of Education
Highest degree earned Frequency %
BA or BS 0 0.00
Master’s 4 100.00
Doctorate 0 0.00

Quantitative Survey: FRS Middle School Principals Level of Education
Highest degree earned Frequency %
BA or BS 0 0.00
Master’s 2 50.00
Doctorate 2 50.00

Quantitative Survey: FRS Superintendent Level of Education
Highest degree earned Frequency %
BA or BS 0 0.00
Master’s 0 0.00
Doctorate 1 100.00

45

Table 3 specifies the number of years the site principals and district
superintendent had spent serving in schools. Twenty-five percent of the high school
principals had 16–20 years of experience, and 75% had 26 or more years of experience in
education. Of the middle school principals surveyed, 25% had 16–20 years of experience
in education, 50% had 21–25 years, and 25% had 26 years or more. The superintendent
had 26 or more years of experience in education, accounting for 100% of the
superintendent participants.

Table 3
Quantitative Survey: FRS High School Principals Number of Years in Education
Number of years Frequency %
0–10 years 0 0.00
11–15 years 0 0.00
16–20 years 1 25.00
21–25 years 0 0.00
26 years or more 3 75.00

Quantitative Survey: FRS Middle School Principals Number of Years in Education
Number of years Frequency %
0–10 years 0 0.00
11–15 years 0 0.00
16–20 years 1 25.00
21–25 years 2 50.00
26 years or more 1 25.00

Quantitative Survey: FRS Superintendent Number of Years in Education
Number of years Frequency %
0–10 years 0 0.00
11–15 years 0 0.00
16–20 years 0 0.00
21–25 years 0 0.00
26 years or more 1 100.00

46

Table 4 specifies the amount of years each surveyed high school and middle
school principal and superintendent had spent serving as a site or district leader in
schools. Seventy-five percent of the high school principals had 0–5 years as site leaders.
Twenty-five percent of them had 6–10 years as site leader. At the middle school level,
50% of the principals had 0–5 years as site leaders, 25% had 6–10 years as site leaders,
and 25% had 11–15 years as site leaders. The superintendent had 6–10 years as district
leader, accounting for 100% of the superintendent participants.

Table 4
Quantitative Survey: FRS High School Principals Number of Years as Site Leaders
Number of years Frequency %
0–5 years 3 75.00
6–10 years 1 25.00
11–15 years 0 0.00
16 or more 0 0.00

Quantitative Survey: FRS Middle School Principals Number of Years as Site Leaders
Number of years Frequency %
0–5 years 2 50.00
6–10 years 1 25.00
11–15 years 1 25.00
16 or more 0 0.00

Quantitative Survey: FRS Superintendent Number of Years as District Leader
Number of years Frequency %
0–5 years 0 0.00
6–10 years 1 100.00
11–15 years 0 0.00
16 or more 0 0.00

The following section describes the characteristics of the interview participants for the
district superintendent, high school principals, and middle school principals.
47

Qualitative Interview Participants
For the qualitative research, four high school principals, four middle school
principals, and one superintendent were selected to participate in the interviews, which
were then followed by a survey. High school and middle school principals’ experience
within their school and overall as an educator varied between interviewees. The
participant with the most experience was Principal MS 4, with 35 years of service. The
principal with the least amount of experience at his or her current school site was
Principal HS 3, as he was to start his second year as site principal. The district
superintendent had been in the district for the last 3 years and throughout the
implementation of the Future Ready Schools framework in that district’s 2020 plan.
Table 5 summarizes the demographic data for each of the nine interview participants and
their schools.

48

Table 5
Qualitative Demographic Data: School Characteristics
Principal Profile School
Principal HS 1
Gender: Female
Educational degree: Master’s
Years in education: 34 years
Years as a principal: 3 years
Enrollment: 1,992
Title 1: No (48.1% eligible)
Demographics: 67.9% Hispanic
Public school: Yes
Principal HS 2

Gender: Male
Educational degree: Master’s
Years in education: 28 years
Years as a principal: 9 years
Enrollment: 1,122
Title 1: Yes (74.6% eligible)
Demographics: 78.6% Hispanic
Public school: Yes
Principal HS 3
Gender: Male
Educational degree: Master’s
Years in education: 27 years
Years as a principal: 2 years
Enrollment: 1,346
Title 1: Yes (81.4% eligible)
Demographics: 90.4% Hispanic
Public school: Yes
Principal HS 4
Gender: Male
Educational degree: Master’s
Years in education: 19 years
Years as a principal: 5 years
Enrollment: 2,076
Title 1: Yes (85% eligible)
Demographics: 87% Hispanic
Public school: Yes
Principal MS 1
Gender: Female
Educational degree: Master’s
Years in education: 23 years
Years as a principal: 6 years
Enrollment: 699
Title 1: Yes (53.1% eligible)
Demographics: 67% Hispanic
Public school: Yes
Principal MS 2

Gender: Male
Educational degree: Master’s
Years in education: 22 years
Years as a principal: 5 years
Enrollment: 516
Title 1: Yes (54.3% eligible)
Demographics: 73.3% Hispanic
Public school: Yes
Principal MS 3
Gender: Female
Educational degree: Doctorate
Years in education: 19 years
Years as a principal: 5 years
Enrollment: 658
Title 1: Yes (89.1% eligible)
Demographics: 90.1% Hispanic
Public school: Yes
Principal MS 4
Gender: Male
Educational degree: Doctorate
Years in education: 35 years
Years as a principal: 12 years
Enrollment: 1,229
Title 1: Yes (84.3% eligible)
Demographics: 88.6% Hispanic
Public school: Yes
Superintendent
Gender: Female
Educational degree: Doctorate
Years in education: 30 years
Years as a superintendent: 8 years
Enrollment: 18,960
Title 1: N/A (71% eligible)
Demographics: 79% Hispanic
Public school: Yes

49

Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What leadership strategies do middle and high
school principals at Future Ready Schools use to help provide access to technology for
their teachers and students?” The quantitative survey data for this research question
focused on the leadership initiatives and strategies of the site high school and middle
school principals to help promote the use of technology for their students and teachers.
Then, the interview questions were posed to examine those leadership strategies and the
data the high school and middle school principals use to assess the effectiveness of
implementation of the Future Ready Schools framework. The following section describes
the survey response data regarding research question 1.
Findings: Survey Responses From Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals
To answer research question 1, the survey contained a series of questions to which
answers were to be percentage-based, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale with options ranging
from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The survey posed multiple questions about
the type of leadership that high school and middle school principals use to promote
personalized learning opportunities for teachers and students. Table 6 describes the extent
to which the district’s vision establishes personalized learning through technology as a
key characteristic of student learning. To summarize, 25% of the high school and middle
school principals strongly agreed that the district’s vision promotes personalized learning.
Meanwhile, 75% of the high school and middle school principals agreed that the district’s
vision is part of the leadership strategies for principals to provide technology for
personalized learning through technology as a key characteristic of student learning. The
50

superintendent 100% strongly agreed that the district’s vision establishes personalized
learning through technology as a key characteristic of student learning.

Table 6
Q1-1 Personalize Leadership: The District’s Vision Establishes Personalized Learning
Through Technology as a Key Characteristic of Student Learning
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

The second survey prompt for research question 1 asked high school and middle
school principals and the superintendent about the degree to which the district’s
leadership programs include capacity building in the effective uses of technology and
digital learning. Table 7 displays the responses. A majority of the high school principals,
75%, reported that they strongly agreed, and 25% agreed. The middle school principals
offered varied responses: 50% strongly agreed, 25% agreed, and 25% neither agreed nor
disagreed. The superintendent 100% strongly agreed that the district’s leadership
51

programs include capacity building in the effective uses of technology and digital
learning.

Table 7
Q1-2 Personalize Leadership: Our District’s Leadership Programs Include Capacity
Building in the Effective Uses of Technology and Digital Learning
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
75%
25%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
25%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response:
Strongly agree 100%

The third survey prompt for research question 1 read, “Teachers in our district are
provided time to work together to redesign lessons to integrate 21st Century skills.” The
results are outlined in Table 8. All high school principals, 100%, strongly agreed that
teachers are allowed time to collaborate for lesson design. Of the middle school
principals, 25% strongly agreed and 75% agreed with their district providing time to
work together to redesign lessons to integrate 21st-century skills. The superintendent
52

strongly agreed with the statement that teachers in the district are provided time to work
together to redesign lessons to integrate 21st-century skills.

Table 8
Q1-3 Personalize Leadership: Teachers in Our District Are Provided Time to Work
Together to Redesign Lessons to Integrate 21st-Century Skills
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

Table 9 highlights quantitative survey responses to the following statement:
“Leaders in the district model effective uses of technology.” All of the high school
principals (100%) who completed the quantitative survey responded that they agree with
having the ability to model the effective use of technology for their schools and
district. Of the middle school principals, 25% strongly agreed and 75% agreed with being
leaders in their district who model effective uses of technology. The superintendent 100%
agreed with the statement that leaders in the district model effective uses of technology.
53

Table 9
Q1-4 Personalize Leadership: Leaders in the District Model Effective Uses of
Technology
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Agree – 100%

However, as displayed in Table 10, the superintendent, high school principals,
and middle school principals did not all agree that the district or school had a shared
understanding of digital learning and its role in student learning. Fifty percent of the high
school principal participants felt that they strongly agreed and 50% agreed, while 25% of
the middle school principals strongly agreed, 50% agreed, and 25% neither agreed nor
disagreed. The district superintendent 100% agreed that there was an understanding of
digital learning and its role in student learning.

54

Table 10
Q1-5 Personalize Leadership: All District Staff Have a Shared Understanding of Digital
Learning and Its Role in Student Learning
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
50%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
50%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Agree – 100%

The following section addresses the qualitative findings through the in-depth interviews
according to research question 1.
Findings: Research Question 1 Interviews From Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals
Through the interviews, it was evident that the leadership strategies used by high
school and middle school principals and the superintendent play a crucial role in
promoting an instructional environment that supports the integration of digital tools in the
personalized learning process. This section is organized into two subsections: the
instructional environment and leadership strategies used by both high school and middle
school principals and the superintendent.
55

To best understand the effective leadership qualities of high school principals,
middle school principals, and superintendents, the interview assessed their understanding
of the current pedagogy shift and their link to the use of digital tools for improving
student learning and engagement. The first interview question asked, “What have been
the most significant changes made to the instructional environment due to the support of
integration of technology digital tools in the classroom?”
The instructional environment—superintendent. To help answer this question,
the superintendent stated, “I’ll tell you the pedagogical shift is the change of the mindset
that it’s no longer going to be sage on the stage. Teachers are really learning, getting so
much staff development on blended learning.” This emphasizes the importance of
promoting a focus on providing teachers and students the support needed to maximize
their use of digital tools when using effective pedagogy.
The superintendent added, “The teachers say, ‘How do I integrate what I’m
teaching by integrating technology?’” This need is supported by adding personalized
professional learning for all stakeholders. The teaching and learning of today must help
address the critical need to apply the expected 21st-century skills for teachers and
students. Part of promoting positive change in education is the implementation of an
instructional setting that matches good pedagogy practices with the effective use of
digital tools. The shortcomings and evolution to mastery that come with the expected
change in pedagogy for teachers should also be supported. The superintendent reinforced
this:
To me it’s not what they do but how they do it, and how they go about doing it.
And how it really changes their thinking. This promotes a comfort zone for
56

teachers to effectively teach, model, reflect, and provide feedback when
implementing the learning process for our students.
According to the superintendent, it is important to catch any shortcoming by supporting
teacher learning: “‘Now that we failed, let’s think. Why did we fail?’ They go back. I
mean to me, that to me is transformational.” This reinforces the importance of reflection
and revision, which is key to any instructional or pedagogical shifts but particularly
necessary when it comes to lesson planning with digital integration.
The instructional environment—high school principal. To help answer
research question 1, Principal HS 2 said, “But bottom line is, the technology that is
available to our students make it way easier for our students to access the curriculum,”
adding:
And basically, how can we use technology for critical thinking? For collaboration,
for communication, for being creative? So those are the things that we really want
to focus on and see how we can enhance the teacher pedagogy for student
learning to develop those skills through technology.
Principal HS 3 shared his concern about this daily challenge:
It’s interesting to see that most teachers will use whatever device the students
have been given almost as a substitute for the student agenda, or a substitute for
the textbook, or a substitute for going to the library, doing a little bit of research.
The technology doesn’t drive the instruction from what I’ve seen. Not yet, at
least. That’s what we’re kind of aiming for, letting the technology be an integral
part of instruction in the classroom.
57

The instructional environment—middle school principal. Maintaining support
for the understanding in the pedagogy shifts in day-to-day instruction is necessary.
Otherwise, educators are susceptible to repeating the same old practices. Principal MS 4
said,
I know that one of the key elements of making gains in the instructional setting is
having that knowledge base within the teaching staff . . . as far as the comfort
level that teachers have using technology. And I’ll be honest. I mean, they’re very
skittish about using technology as a teaching tool.
So how do educators address this challenge? The next subsection provides current
leadership strategies being used by the high school and middle school principals and
district superintendent.
Leadership strategies—superintendent. During the qualitative interviews, the
high school principals, middle school principals, and superintendent were asked, “What
leadership strategies do you use to help provide access to technology for your teachers
and their students?” The superintendent stated, “The district mission and vision statement
adopted by the Board of Education uses the Future Ready School framework. And so this
is how we clarified for teachers what the expectations are every year.” Technology
leaders—teachers and administrators—who view their school as a learning organization
will not only set goals and coordinate activities, but also design and participate in
learning processes themselves (Louis, 1994). The superintendent said,
My half of the equation is making sure that we’re providing sort of a pathway for
schools, for principals, for teachers to really kind of attain these skills. And to
have a sort of cohesive vision and direction for getting there.
58

Becker (1993) found evidence for both “top-down” and “bottom-up” effective
technology decision-making in American schools. That is, both teachers and, at other
times, administrators initiated technology innovation. From the point of view of a
learning organization, the most important thing is that both groups share a vision and
work together supportively. The superintendent expressed support for this process:
What I really want to emphasize is the high need for teacher buy-in. And they
won’t buy in until they feel comfortable and they’re allowed to organically grow
what it is they do. They’ve got to take what they love, they’ve got to take what
they know they’re good at, and slowly sort of digitize it.
Despite the progress, today’s high school and middle school leaders continue to be
challenged with the gradual evolution and adoption of digital tools. The district
superintendent noted,
One of our high schools that went through accreditation last year received a
recommendation in a critical area for follow-up. They said, there’s so much
technology but your teachers are really not utilizing. So therefore, we knew that
we do have an issue with the teachers at the high school level. And you remember
you cannot just say push, push, push technology, it has to be a balanced approach.
So, we know for a fact that the high school people are not progressing, and correct
me if I’m wrong, at the speed that we would want them to.
Leadership strategies—high school principal. School leaders continue to
wrestle with the slow progression into the integration of effective pedagogy with the
available digital tools for teachers and students. Principal HS 3 said,
59

The other side of that is that I’ve begun to take a large portion of our site budget,
and I’ve begun to invest it in upgrading some of our technology. One of the big
things that I’m doing is, I’ve selected 13 teachers to be demo teachers and to set
up their classrooms as demo classrooms.
Thus, the trainer of trainers model takes effect for this leadership strategy.
Principal HS 3 added,
So, these teachers will be my first line of . . . They’re going to go out and do the
promoting for me within their departments because their charge is to really speak
to the level of how this use of technology is enhancing their instruction and really
increasing the collaboration that can be planned for students to engage in that
academic discourse that we really want them to use in the classroom setting.
Leadership strategies—middle school principal. According to Principal MS 1,
“Some of the things we’re doing as leaders is going digital with master calendars and
collecting information from our teachers digitally through technology instead of passing
out a survey and saying, ‘Please fill this out.’”
Another strategy for leadership by a site principal is to support the teachers by
placing the resources where they are needed. Principal MS 3 described how the district
has led principals and staff:
One, it’s building that base of knowledge and understanding that it’s a fantastic
tool that we need to keep up with and stay on the cutting edge for the 21st century
without . . . I think our district has been really mindful to not be herky-jerky of
just trying to shift for shifting’s sake but to do some research and to have some
backbone to it.
60

Summary of Research Question 1 From Superintendent, High School Principals,
and Middle School Principals
After the survey and interview data were collected and coded, multiple themes
emerged related to research question 1, which pertained to how high school and middle
school principals build structures at their schools to facilitate leadership strategies to
support the implementation of the Future Ready Schools framework for their teachers and
students. Effective modeling of the resources is essential for each high school and middle
school principal. Even though the measure of leadership used in this study is limited and
does not represent all of the areas of technology leadership and technology decision-
making for improved pedagogy and the implementation of digital tools, the results show
that principal and superintendent leadership has a great impact on the outcomes or
success of technology programs. By evaluating measures in a teaching observation tool
(e.g., 21st-century skills, personalized learning, cognitive rigor, pedagogy practices with
the effective use of digital tools), the high school and middle school principals and
superintendent identified ways to connect pedagogy and technology. This shift has given
teachers an opportunity to implement innovative instructional strategies and learning
opportunities.
As the push for technology continues to be an issue at all levels, site high school
and middle school principals and the superintendent are investing resources, time, and
funds to provide leadership that will assist in implementing an effective pedagogy, thus
supporting the integration of technology digital tools in the classroom. As a result of the
Future Ready Schools framework, the high school and middle school principals and
superintendent modified their leadership strategies to promote action research, aligning
61

district mission and vision goals, and by asking teachers to identify a particular skill set
or competency that they wanted the students to develop. The findings show that the
teachers were asked to align their learning goals to a teaching strategy and appropriate
technology tools. Using the data from these action research cycles, the high school and
middle school principals and superintendent support best practices for effectively using
technology to amplify student voice and make thinking visible. Today, these practices
drive the types of personalized professional development opportunities offered across the
district. The next section presents the findings relevant to research question 2.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “How do Future Ready Schools middle and
high school principals encourage personalized learning for their teachers and students?”
Research question 2 sought to understand how Future Ready Schools high school and
middle school principals encourage personalized learning for their teachers and students.
The quantitative survey data pertaining to this research question focused on the progress
in implementing digital learning and 21st-century skills. The qualitative interview data
affiliated with this research question focused specifically on the superintendent and high
school and middle school principals’ methods to encourage personalized learning by
giving their teachers access to curricula and professional development that support
content knowledge and personalized digital learning. The next section describes the
survey response data for research question 2.
62

Findings: Survey Responses From Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals
In the survey, five questions addressed research question 2. The first survey
question addressed how confident principals felt regarding their preparation to monitor
the progress of implementing digital learning and 21st-century skills. As shown in Table
11, 25% of the high school and middle school principals each reported that they strongly
agree that the district monitors their progress in implementing digital learning and 21st-
century skills, while 50% of high school and 75% of middle school principals agreed.
One high school principal, 25%, disagreed. The superintendent 100% strongly agreed
with the district monitoring the progress of implementing digital learning and 21st-
century skills.
Table 11
Q2-1 Personalized Professional Learning: My District Monitors Our Progress in
Implementing Digital Learning and 21st-Century Skills
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
50%
0.0%
25%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%
63

The second survey prompt for research question 2 asked high school and middle
school principals and the superintendent the degree to which the district’s leadership
celebrates individual and team innovations that advance digital learning and 21st-century
skills. Table 12 provides a visual representation of the responses. Fifty percent of the high
school principals strongly agreed, and the other 50% disagreed. Of the middle school
principals, 25% strongly agreed and 75% agreed with the district supporting the progress
of individual and team innovations. The superintendent 100% strongly agreed with the
degree to which the district’s leadership celebrates individual and team innovations that
advance digital learning and 21st-century skills.

Table 12
Q2-2 Personalized Professional Learning: Our District Celebrates Individual and Team
Innovations That Advance Digital Learning and 21st-Century Skills
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
50%
0.0%
50%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

64

The third survey prompt read, “The professional learning opportunities provided
by the district model a range of the effective uses of technology.” The results are outlined
in Table 13. Twenty-five percent of the high school principals strongly agreed, while
50% agreed and 25% neither agreed nor disagreed that teachers in the district model the
effective use of technology during professional learning opportunities. Of the middle
school principals, 50% strongly agreed and 50% agreed. The superintendent 100%
strongly agreed that the professional learning opportunities provided by the district model
a range of the effective uses of technology.

Table 13
Q2-3 Personalized Professional Learning: The Professional Learning Opportunities
Provided by the District Model a Range of the Effective Uses of Technology
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
50%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
50%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

As shown in Table 14, 25% of the high school leaders strongly agreed and 75%
agreed that they use social media outlets to stay current in their field. Twenty-five percent
65

of the middle school principal participants strongly agreed, and 50% agreed, while 25%
of the middle school principals neither agreed nor disagreed with using social media to
participate in Twitter chats, EdCamps, or professional interactions using Facebook. The
district superintendent 100% agreed that they use social media outlets to stay current in
their field.

Table 14
Q2-4 Personalized Professional Learning: I Use Social Media (Twitter Chats, EdCamps,
Hashtag Searches, Professional Facebook Interactions) at Least a Couple Times a Week,
in Order to Stay Current in My Field
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
50%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Agree – 100%

As shown in Table 15, 75% of the high school leaders agreed and 25% neither
agreed nor disagreed that the district leadership models continuous professional growth,
in part through the use of various technologies, social media, and online professional
learning networks (PLNs). Twenty-five percent of the middle school principal
66

participants strongly agreed and 50% agreed, while 25% of the middle school principals
neither agreed nor disagreed. The district superintendent 100% strongly agreed that the
district leadership models continuous professional growth, in part through the use of
various technologies, social media, and online professional learning networks (PLNs).

Table 15
Q2-5 Personalized Professional Learning: In My District, the Leadership Team Models
Continuous Professional Growth, in Part Through the Use of Various Technologies,
Social Media, and Online Professional Learning Networks (PLNs)
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
75%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
50%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

The following section addresses the qualitative findings through the in-depth interviews
according to research question 2.
67

Findings: Interviews From Superintendent, High School Principals, and Middle
School Principals
The nine in-depth interviews surfaced a diverse array of qualitative findings
around how Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals encourage
personalized learning for their teachers and students. This section is split into two
subsections: teachers’ collaboration to redesign lessons to integrate 21st-century skills
and how leadership teams model continuous professional growth as members of
professional learning networks (PLNs).
To best understand the effective leadership qualities of Future Ready Schools
high school principals, middle school principals, and superintendents, the interviews
assessed how they encourage personalized learning for teachers’ collaboration to redesign
lessons to integrate 21st-century skills. This is important because, as a study by the
Economist Intelligence Unit (2015) reported,
As proponents of 21st-century skills point out, we have no way of knowing what
challenges tomorrow’s graduates will face, and still less what jobs will exist for
them to apply for. The best education can hope to do is to equip students with
sufficiently transferable skills to be able to respond to whatever the future holds.
(p. 6)
Teachers’ collaboration on 21st-century skills—superintendent. The first
interview question asked, “Are your teachers provided time to work together to redesign
lessons to integrate 21st Century skills?” To help answer this question, the superintendent
stated,
68

We’re entering our third year, in fact the reason why we did Future Ready
Schools was because we were about to make a shift going from standalone pilots
to district-wide. And so we needed a tool like Future Ready Schools to actually
sort of get us all in the same room and make sure that all our goals were clear.
Also to help point out areas that we needed to focus on such as personalized
learning and redesigning lessons to integrate 21st-century skills, so what we do is
we ask everyone to develop personal goals . . . How do you want to be using the
technology, where are you now, what other resources do you need? And so this is,
this is a working, this is a little activity I led them through during the summer
professional development training. But as you can see here, the next step is now
we have to provide personalized, differentiated training for the gamut that we
have. . . . But what I really want to show you was, going back to what skills are
necessary. No one can hit a target that they can’t see. And so it’s not just enough
to tell people use technology. It’s really what are you using technology for? What
does the scope and sequence look like for kids?
The superintendent supports the need to focus on the teachers and their instruction
at the secondary level, adding, “I will also tell you that the downside is, with the older
kids, that they feel that by using the technology, it’s replacing their thought process.
Because they can readily get answers. So that’s what I see.”
Teachers’ collaboration on 21st-century skills—high school principal.
Principal HS 1 added, “Both through the blended learning summits our teachers are
encouraged to incorporate the technology, to plan together, to collaborate together, to
really work toward the use of the technology and building those 21st-century skills.”
69

Principal HS 1 added, “Our teachers collaborate around their content, so maybe biology
teachers or chemistry teachers, but then we also have a biomedical pathway where the
teachers that teach different subjects come together and actually collaborate cross-
curricular.”
Despite the progress reported in the encouragement of personalized learning for
teachers and collaboration to redesign lessons to integrate 21st-century skills, school
leaders continue to face hurdles to lead this effort. Principal HS 3 reported that the
personalized professional learning opportunities and trainings offered for teachers are not
and were not specifically for 21st-century skills. Principal HS 3 added,
Pedagogical shifts . . . The hardest . . . And even with my best teachers, I’ve not
seen it used routinely or frequently, but what I would like to see is a shift from a
direct instruction format that teachers love to plan because they have . . . at least
in their mind, they have full control of what’s going on in the classroom to really,
a student-centered, student-driven, almost a very inquiry-based approach to
teaching. Don’t take me wrong, I have a few teachers that are very good, but our
students need more teachers promoting personalized learning and the use of 21st-
century skills for all students.
Principal HS 3 said,
So that, I think, is going be the biggest pedagogical shift that needs to take place,
and we’re not quite there yet. We’re not even close, to be honest with you.
There’s a lot of teachers that are just still direct instruction, direct instruction, and
they think that they are allowing students to collaborate when they give students
two minutes in class to collaborate, and turn and talk, and that’s . . . Maybe it only
70

happens when I walk in the classroom, but that’s not what we want to see. But as
far as 21st-century skills specifically, no, not identified as 21st-century skills.
Teachers’ collaboration on 21st-century skills—middle school principal.
Principal MS 2 said, “So we really focus on seeing if the teachers are using the 21st-
century skills to promote student learning for research, for investigation, for basically
corresponding and collaborating with each other.” Principal MS 4 stated,
Traditionally, like 10, 15 years ago, basically the focus was on recall and retell
type of thing. It was not as much focus on creativity and critical thinking. Now,
bringing technology into the picture, it provides the students with the ability to
investigate, to do research, and just adds a different component to the whole
learning and teaching. And also collaboration. Anything that you can
communicate, for example, use Google classroom, you are responding to the
teacher, the teacher can see live what students are doing.
Professional learning networks (PLNs)—superintendent. During the
qualitative interviews for research question 2, the high school principals, middle school
principals, and superintendent were asked, “Does the leadership team model continuous
professional growth, in part through the use of various technologies, social media, and
online professional learning networks (PLNs)?” The superintendent stated,
The beauty of the Future Ready Schools process is that it allows you to take what
you have and then move from there. The system we have, again it’s a phased
model, it’s an organic model and as a result, you can just see from the results right
there. As opposed to buying some program which is going to try to overlay or try
to cover or try to change what people do. Teachers will fight that.
71

The superintendent also reported,
The teachers have group goals, but they also have personal goals. Some teachers
have never had devices at all in their classroom. And some, they could teach
everything. They’re amazing. So the spectrum is wide. I see that they get so
excited when helping other colleagues to understand. So how did you use this in
your class, how did the kids make videos? Because if first grade was able to do
that, second grade teachers say, “Then I should really know that. So help me.”
When I realize it’s beyond the pedagogical shift. It’s really collegial. It’s opening
up a lot of conversation and a lot of communication among teachers who would
not otherwise talk to each other.
Professional learning networks (PLNs)—high school principal. Principal HS 2
supports the need for personalized learning and collaboration for teachers, adding,
But it has to be intentional. You have to create the time. If this is a priority, then
you have to make sure it’s part of your staff meetings, it’s part of your
professional development, it’s part of the PLC time, so you just have to make sure
it’s intentional and give the proper time that teachers and administrators need to
get trained so that they can actually implement the technology the way that can
impact the student learning.
Principal HS 2 added,
Yes, we have a PLC time, weekly PLC time for our teachers. On Wednesdays, we
have a short day for our students. Our students leave around 1:45, and then from
two o’clock to four o’clock, there’s a PLC time for our teachers. And during that
72

time, of course, teachers are working in PLC teams, and part of what they work
on, of course, is designing lessons and integration of technology into the lessons.
Principal HS 3 added,
So right now, it’s about providing them the PD, it’s providing them the
technology, it’s expanding the technology that they already have. And then
moving forward, they’re going to be my leadership team in technology. I don’t
want it to be a top-down, “I found this. You’re going to use it,” versus . . . It has
to be organic. It has to come from them, “I want to try this. I want to do this. This
is how I plan to use it. This is how it’s going to increase student learning, student
engagement.”
Principal HS 4 noted that teachers need to have time to work in PLCs with their
colleagues to learn from each other: “Teachers can work in PLCs or individually. We are
also dedicating a ton of PD time to building our tech skills and getting familiar with how
to use online professional learning networks (PLNs).”
Professional learning networks (PLNs)—middle school. In response to this
question, Principal MS 1 stated,
[The district] also hold[s] a technology conference within the district. It’s called
the Blended Learning Summit. The teachers that receive their new technology, or
received it last year and are in that next level of learning, they come and they do
all the different breakout sessions that are applied to their needs. It’s fantastic; I
love it.
Principal MS 2 shared,
73

It really is kind of a culture where they support one another, they share with one
another, they understand that it’s an expectation that they’re using the technology.
Obviously, some are still better than others, but as I said I’ve been pretty
impressed. . . . This is only going to be my second year here at the school.
Impressed with the degree that teachers are able to integrate.
Finally, the interviews added a finding that highlights the commitment by the
district and site principals to collaboration. Principal MS 3 said,
I would say in terms of leadership strategies, I think one of the things is we
encourage our teachers to attend professional development for their own learning
to access it. That’s basically been a district thing, but then what we do is we
support that on the school site with professional learning communities.
Summary of Research Question 2 From Superintendent, High School Principals,
and Middle School Principals
The survey and interview responses regarding how Future Ready Schools middle
and high school principals and the superintendent encourage personalized learning for
their teachers and students resulted in two major themes. First, each of the interviewed
principals reported on teachers’ collaboration to redesign lessons to integrate 21st-century
skills. Many agreed that through the blended learning summits the teachers are
encouraged to incorporate the technology, to plan together, to collaborate together, to
really work toward the use of the technology and building those 21st-century skills for
their students. To support teachers’ collaboration and 21st-century skills, the high school
and middle school principals and superintendent favored investing in the Future Ready
Schools framework and teachers as innovators who can lead the way and set the direction
74

for the district, as well as serve as models for their peers. The high school and middle
school principals and superintendent reported the value of creating safe spaces for
teachers to collaborate and to take learning risks in schools and also for the district to take
risks on a larger scale. Similarly important was listening to their students to learn what
they need and how to leverage resources to meet those wants and needs, thus allowing for
student voice and choice.
Second, it was apparent that the high school and middle school principals model
continuous professional growth as members of professional learning networks (PLNs).
They model and provide the teachers the time to work in PLNs with their colleagues to
learn from each other. Teachers can work in PLNs or individually. High school and
middle school principals support teachers by dedicating a significant amount of
professional development time to building their tech skills and getting familiar with how
to use online professional learning networks (PLNs). Finally, the interviews for research
question 2 also resulted in a finding that the superintendent and the high school principals
must focus on. According to the superintendent,
I think the challenge is, we’re not seeing any resistance at the elementary levels to
improve pedagogy with the use of digital tools other than fear. I don’t know how
to do this, oh my god. Middle school they don’t like to be told what to do but
nonetheless, they’re going along with the implementation of the Future Ready
School framework. At high school, I think the issue has to do with really what the
teachers feel their job is. And when we meet with a lot of teachers, they see
themselves as the master of the content. And so they see content acquisition by
students as the most important thing. And so part of the conversation we’re
75

starting in high schools is, there are 21st-century skills that kids have to walk
away with. Content is gained and lost. That’s just the way the brain works. But
21st-century skills are something that you build upon and you actually are going
to be able to use in college, career, whatever. And so part of what the
conversation we’re starting to have with our high school people is how do we use
the content as a way to develop these 21st-century skills with our kids.
The next section presents the findings relevant to research question 3.
Research Question 3
The third research question was, “How do Future Ready Schools middle school
and high school principals create an innovative and adaptable culture to support teachers
in becoming connected educators beyond their school community?” This question was
intended to explore how principals provide their teachers the opportunity for growth
within and outside their school community. The quantitative survey data pertaining to
this research question focused on the teachers’ opportunities to gain knowledge and skills
beyond the school community in order to provide their students with engaging lessons
that integrate 21st-century skills. The qualitative interview data affiliated with this
research question spotlighted the principals’ ability to create an innovative and adaptable
culture to support teachers in becoming connected educators beyond their school
community. The next section describes the survey response data for research question 3
from the district superintendent, high school principals, and middle school principals.
76

Findings: Survey Responses From Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals
There were five survey questions that addressed research question 3. The first
survey question addressed the district’s ability to develop model lessons that demonstrate
how 21st-century skills should be integrated into content areas. As shown in Table 16, the
high school leaders’ responses were highly varied, with 25% of them strongly agreeing,
25% neither agreeing nor disagreeing, and 50% disagreeing. One hundred percent of the
middle school principals strongly agreed or agreed. The superintendent 100% strongly
agreed with this statement.

Table 16
Q3-1 Innovation Culture: Our District Has Developed Model Lessons That Demonstrate
How the 21st-Century Skills Should Be Integrated Into Each of the Content Areas
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
0.0%
25%
50%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

77

The next survey questions asked if teachers are provided time to collaborate with
each other to redesign lessons that integrate 21st-century skills. As shown in Table 17,
100% of the high school principals surveyed agreed with this statement. Twenty-five
percent of the middle school principals also strongly agreed, and 75% agreed. The
superintendent also 100% agreed with the statement that teachers are provided time to
work together to redesign lessons that integrate 21st-century skills.

Table 17
Q3-2 Innovation Culture: Teachers Are Provided Time to Work Together to Redesign
Lessons to Integrate 21st-Century Skills
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

The next survey question focused on the provision of resources and support
needed to redesign 21st-century learning environments in the classroom. As shown in
Table 18, of the high school and middle school principals, 75% strongly agreed and 25%
agreed that these resources are being provided. The district superintendent 100% strongly
78

agreed that teachers are provided the resources and support needed to redesign 21st-
century learning environments in the classroom.

Table 18
Q3-3 Innovation Culture: Teachers Are Provided the Resources and Support Needed to
Redesign Classrooms Into 21st-Century Learning Environments
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
75%
25%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

Survey question 4 asked if students are empowered to use social media in their
learning. As shown in Table 19, the responses between leaders were varied. For high
school principals, 25% of them agreed, 50% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 25%
strongly disagreed. Middle school principals responded with 75% of them agreeing with
the statement and 25% of them neither agreeing nor disagreeing. The superintendent
100% strongly agreed that students are empowered to use social media in their learning.

79

Table 19
Q3-4 Innovation Culture: In Our District, Students Are Empowered to Use Social Media
in Their Learning (e.g., Learn From Twitter Feeds, Blogs, Online Interactions, and
Collaborations via Texts, Tweets, or Other Social Media)
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
25%
50%
0.0%
25%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
75%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

The last survey question for this research question asked if the technology used
provides students with the opportunity to engage in rich, authentic work within real-
world contexts. As shown in Table 20, the responses complemented each other. One
hundred percent of the high school principals surveyed agreed with this statement.
Middle school principals responded similarly, where 25% strongly agreed and 75%
agreed. The superintendent 100% strongly agreed that the technology used provides
students with the opportunity to engage in rich, authentic work within real-world
contexts.

80

Table 20
Q3-5 Innovation Culture: Technology Is Used in Our District to Provide Students With
the Opportunity to Engage in Rich, Authentic Work Within Real-World Contexts
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response:
Strongly agree – 100%

The following section addresses the qualitative findings through the in-depth
interviews according to research question 3.
Findings: Interviews From District Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals
Through the interviews, it was evident that principals and district superintendents
are the ones who affect teachers’ ability to have an innovative school culture in order to
be connected educators outside their school and district. This section presents the
interview findings on the principals’ and superintendent’s promotion of an innovative,
adaptable culture and becoming connected educators beyond their school community.
81

Innovative, adaptable culture and becoming connected educators beyond
their school community—superintendent. In order to identify the district and school
leaders’ ability to support an innovative and adaptable culture, the interview questions
addressed their ability to provide teachers with time to work together and collaborate.
The fifth and sixth interview questions asked if the teachers in the district and/or site are
provided time to work together to redesign lessons that integrate 21st-century skills and
to describe what that looks like. In response to these two questions, the superintendent
spoke about the district’s learning management system: “Schoology allows our teachers
to connect not only within their own school but I think that’s something that helps them
just connect with their own colleagues across the district.” This shows the district’s
investment, both in time and in monetary funding, and allows teachers the collegial
environment necessary for growth as educators.
Additionally, the superintendent discussed the way this district-wide management
system has given teachers a connectedness to other teachers: “But then everything is
there. Because in a way it helps us get organized and stay organized. And just talk about
creating a culture within the district where people really get used to doing that,” thus
further supporting collegiality and uniting teachers in developing curricula and lessons
that support personalized digital learning.
Innovative, adaptable culture and becoming connected educators beyond
their school community—high school principal. Principal HS 4 stated,
I believe we are getting there in some classes. However, it is a work in progress. I
think even within our district, different schools (and different classrooms) are at
82

different places. The one consistent improvement in our schools has been
personalized learning.
Principal HS 4 reported that although it is not where they want to be in terms of
innovation and adaptability, they are advancing in the right direction. Principal HS 1
echoed this statement while commenting on the district’s investment in time for teachers
to stay connected with other educators. Principal HS 1 described the following scenario:
One of the things our district has done a great job with is they, every summer,
offer what is called a blended learning summit. Basically, it gives teachers
throughout the district the opportunity to come together around their content, and
use the technology, and plan, and collaborate together, so I think the district has
provided a great environment for our teachers to be able to collaborate with each
other around the technology.
Innovative, adaptable culture and becoming connected educators beyond
their school community—middle school principal. Principal MS 4 stated, “I mean with
innovation and being creative . . . I tell our teachers that this is number one skills that we
really have to teach our students in order for them to have the 21st-century skills, to think
out of the box.” Principal MS 4 further articulated,
And part of it is our partnership with the community and businesses around us. To
give you an example, this past year, we were the recipient of a grant from Best
Buy. That they gave our school a hundred thousand dollars’ worth of Kano
computers. And actually they brought their team and the CEO of Best Buy came
here to provide that to our students, so they had their team here, they sat down
83

with our students in their classrooms and helped them to assemble, and students
kept that device.
In this case, the school was able to connect with a local community business and
boosted the school’s ability to increase the use of technology in the classroom. In terms
of creating quality relationships among teachers, Principal MS 2 explained, “They do a
lot of networking amongst the other teachers in the district, and then I know that several
of them are part of other professional groups where they’ll collaborate with people,” once
again describing how the district and sites are supporting teachers’ ability to connect with
fellow teachers.
Summary of Research Question 3 From Superintendent, High School Principals,
and Middle School Principals
Now that the survey and interview data have been collected and coded, it is
evident that there is little variance in the responses for both high school and middle
school principals. Analysis of the survey results shows that all of the high school and
middle school principals agree at some level that their teachers are provided time and
resources to collaborate with their colleagues to redesign lessons and classrooms to
integrate 21st-century skills. Additionally, the survey also shows that, although high
school and middle school principals feel neutral about students’ empowerment to use
social media as an educational tool, they all agree to some extent that the technology
provided to the students in this district allows students to develop rich, authentic work
within real-world contexts. Although personalized learning is an ultimate goal for district
leaders and teachers, the interviews show that the district continues to work to improve
upon the way it fosters teachers’ ability to be innovative and have an adaptable culture in
84

order to become connected educators beyond their school community. Through
professional development, time, and funding, the district is moving closer to this
objective. The next section presents the findings relevant to research question 4.
Research Question 4
Research question 4 was “What skills and strategies do Future Ready Schools
middle and high school principals need to wisely use time and resources to help lead
successful Future Ready Schools?” The question aimed to discover how principals
cultivate conditions for collaboration and support innovative spaces to bring down
barriers and create flexible learning environments. The quantitative survey data
pertaining to this research question focused on significant barriers created by the district
that prevent teachers from providing their students choice for their own learning and
accessing technology anytime and anywhere. The next section describes the survey
response data for research question 4.
Findings: Survey Responses From District Superintendent, High School Principals,
and Middle School Principals
In education today, there has been a surge of interest by educators, communities,
and architects in dynamically reimagining what school looks like (Jacobs, 2017). By
leveraging classroom furniture, technology, and media resources, students have options
to learn any time of day, at home, at school, or in the community (Demski, 2012). This
section homes in on how the high school and middle school principals and superintendent
surveyed wisely use time and resources to help lead Future Ready Schools.
Table 21 shows the responses to the survey question “Technology will play a
significant role in ensuring that students are able to learn anytime and anywhere”: 75% of
85

the high school principals strongly agreed, and 25% neither agreed nor disagreed. Of the
middle school principals, 50% strongly agreed, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed, and
25% disagreed. The superintendent 100% strongly agreed that technology will play a
significant role in ensuring that students are able to learn anytime and anywhere.

Table 21
Q4-1 Use of Space and Time: Technology Will Play a Significant Role in Ensuring That
Students Are Able to Learn Anytime and Anywhere
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
75%
0.0%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
0.0%
25%
25%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

As shown in Table 22, responses to survey question 2, “Policies and procedures in
my district remain significant barriers to achieving flexible, anytime, anywhere learning
in the schools,” revealed that 75% of the high school principals disagreed and 25% of
them strongly disagreed. Of the middle school principals, 25% neither agreed nor
86

disagreed, and 75% disagreed. The superintendent 100% disagreed with the district
creating barriers for anytime, anywhere learning opportunities in schools.

Table 22
Q4-2 Use of Space and Time: Policies and Procedures in My District Remain Significant
Barriers to Achieving Flexible, Anytime, Anywhere Learning in the Schools
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
75%
25%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
0.0%
25%
75%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Disagree – 100%

The level of input that students have when using technology to study is reported
in Table 23. For survey question 3, 50% of the high school and middle school principals
agreed, and 25% of them neither agreed nor disagreed, while the other 25% disagreed.
The superintendent 100% agreed with the students having input on the type of technology
and media used in class.

87

Table 23
Q4-3 Use of Space and Time: Students Get to Decide What Type of Media (e.g., Video,
Text, Audio, Animation, Simulation) They Will Use to Learn About the Things They Are
Studying in Class
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
50%
25%
25%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
50%
25%
25%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Agree – 100%

In response to the level of student options for how they learn through digital
content, 75% of the high school principals strongly agreed and 25% neither agreed nor
disagreed, as shown in Table 24. Of the middle school principals, 75% agreed and 25%
neither agreed nor disagreed. The superintendent 100% agreed with the students having
options for how they learn as individuals or in collaborative groups when using digital
content.

88

Table 24
Q4-4 Use of Space and Time: Students Have Some Options for How They Learn (e.g.,
Individually or Collaboratively, Through Various Types of Digital Content)
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
75%
0.0%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
75%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Agree – 100%

Participants’ survey responses for question 5 are reported in Table 25. Of the high
school principals, 50% strongly agreed, 25% agreed, and 25% disagreed with the schools
or other community centers being available for students beyond the regular school day.
Of the middle school principals, 50% strongly agreed, 25% agreed, and 25% neither
agreed nor disagreed. The superintendent 100% neither agreed nor disagreed with the
schools being open beyond the extended school hours.

89

Table 25
Q4-5 Use of Space and Time: In Our District, School and/or Community Centers Are
Open Beyond School Hours to Provide Extended Work Time for Student Projects
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
25%
0.0%
25%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
25%
25%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Neither agree nor disagree – 100%

The following section addresses the qualitative findings through the in-depth
interviews of the high school and middle school principals and superintendent according
to research question 4.
Findings: Interviews From District Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals
Through the interviews, it was evident that high school and middle school
principals must reflect on skills and strategies to wisely use time and resources to help
lead successful Future Ready Schools. This section reviews the findings for research
question 4. According to Future Ready Schools,
90

Personalized learning requires changes in the way instructional time is used and
the learning space is designed. Many schools are shifting away from Carnegie
units to competency-based learning. This type of system adapts learning to meet
the needs, pace, interests, and preferences of the learner. As the pedagogy shifts,
so too must the learning space (n.d., para. 1)
A digital learning environment (e.g., a digital space for collaborative, project-based
learning; online communication; or access to digital content) is critical if student learning
is to be personalized (Glowa & Goodell, 2016).
Use of time and resources—superintendent. To support the effort to create
learning opportunities, the superintendent stated,
We brought Schoology onboard for two reasons. One is that we needed a way to
have our students develop sort of a digital workflow. Because getting access to
digital tools and digital content is one thing, but having them actually develop all
of these skills, and have them organize their workload, was something that was
very important to us.
The superintendent is not only focusing her efforts to assist the students’ learning in
space and time, but also providing the teachers with effective use of space and time. The
superintendent added,
The second part of that way to use space and time is how do we facilitate teachers
sharing resources, because it takes a long time to develop a blended lesson, it
takes a while to really kind of digitize all these best lessons that teachers have.
And so we want to provide again a stable platform that they could share in small
groups by either grade-alike or content-alike. Through Schoology, they’re able to
91

actually share lessons with each other. So whenever they have PLC meetings, the
regular PLC days, there’s additional resources where they can collaborate.
Use of time and resources—high school principal. Principal HS 1 added that
the effective change in use of space and time is also in the form of the delivery of
instruction:
What we’re finding is that teachers don’t have to stand and lecture to kids because
those factual pieces, they’re available to the students any time and place through
these other digital technologies such as video, text, audio, animation, or
simulation. It’s what you ask them to do with the information that they can find.
Principal HS 1 further added information about making good use of the tools that have
been provided:
I mean, skills, we just have to keep up with what’s happening in the tech
evolution, you know, we need to wisely use time and resources to help lead our
students, and the kids are actually better at it than we are, obviously.
According to Principal HS 2, the technology resources provided for learning must go
beyond the classroom and school walls:
The goal is to provide the technology that they need to access the curriculum not
only at the school, but also at home. This goal includes increasing our partnership
with the community and businesses around us to help with the Internet access to
the digital tools.
In education, time is always a major factor that seems to be in short supply.
Moreover, not all users use time efficiently or effectively. Teachers often say that they
92

hate to be pulled out of the classroom because those instructional minutes are sacred.
Addressing that sentiment, Principal HS 4 said,
Teachers and administrators also need to have access to support from an onsite
expert. Someone who models the effective use of time to help each adult learner
try to improve on the incorporation of digital tools in the instructional setting. As
a principal, this I believe will help to be the biggest pedagogical shift that has
occurred; it is personalized learning.
Use of time and resources—middle school principal. Principal MS 2 said,
What we have to do is show them how they can use the technology as part of their
instruction and learning. I think that’s where the shift has to happen for them, and
to kind of get to the point where they figure out that that is a better use of their
time and a better use of our time is if they just come together instead of treating
them as if they’re separate things.
Principal MS 4 presented two points to help promote the effective use of space and time:
One is, now since the students have access to technology, we can do flipped
classrooms. You know, they can go home and review the instructional goals of
whatever the lesson is going be the next day. And then they come back the next
day and the teacher is providing them with relevant connections to the
lesson. Two is, an increase in collaboration. Anything that you can communicate,
for example, use Google classroom, you are responding to the teacher, the teacher
can see live what students are doing. And then students are corresponding to the
other students, responding to their answer or whatever, so just the collaboration
and then just the monitoring students’ progress when the teacher is just sitting
93

there and seeing what’s going on, and can address whatever that needs to be
corrected or to be retaught, so right there, the teacher has access to do that. So all
the way that they are learning and teaching has changed drastically just because of
additional technology.
To make good use of space and time, educators need to know that they are free
from judgment if they attempt to use technology in their curriculum and it does not go
well. Principal MS 3 provided this insight:
It’s a lot easier for teachers . . . I think the biggest thing is actually time. We have
decent resources; I’m not really hurting for that. The district does a pretty good
job of that, but it’s really just the use of time for differentiation, facilitation, and
shifting teachers and staff into more of that facilitation mode. So we have all of
those resources that help us keep in touch and manage our time. Probably the
most prominent is going beyond the school hours and going beyond the scope of
that classroom’s amount of time.
Finally, Principal MS 2 added,
The pedagogical shifts on flipping the classroom and being able to differentiate
the instruction delivery to an extent that’s different from before. I think the
pedagogical shifts are not just in the direct teaching instruction and the balance of
time that’s given toward that but also in data monitoring systems. After
establishing the why then making sure we can move through the what and the
how.
94

Summary of Research Question 4 From District Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals
After the survey and interview data were collected and coded, multiple themes
emerged related to research question 4, which pertained to how high school and middle
school principals build structures at their schools to support the implementation of the
Future Ready Schools framework’s focus on the use of space and time for teachers and
students. The superintendent and leadership team have policies and budgets in place to
support the plan for anytime, anywhere learning. Not only does the district provide digital
tools and opportunities to transform curriculum, but there is still a need to turn these
resources into tangible results in the classroom via developing collaborative students with
21st-century skills in order to prepare them for career and college.
The high school and middle school principals and the superintendent promote the
benefits of the effective use of space and time at their schools. High school and middle
school principals are addressing some issues of access for devices, high-speed Internet,
and digital content for every student, but more importantly, they express the need for
teachers to fully make use of these resources and further transform their classroom
instruction and personalize it for their students.
With the use of Schoology, the superintendent and the site principals have a
digital learning or content management environment that allows classroom teachers to
begin to work toward shared models of online and blended learning. The staff is engaged
in collaborative conversations to help them create a more systematic and creative use of
space and time with technology, and these practices trickle down to students. Each school
has continual review processes in place to help evaluate their digital resources for
95

continual feedback from an onsite expert to help match the Future Ready Schools
resources. They are staged to provide professional development to teachers and additional
training to students that will enable flexible, anytime, anywhere learning.
The high school and middle school principals and the superintendent celebrate the
fact that they are taking risks with instructional design, that they are trying something
new, and that they are really looking to redesign the learning experience for their students
by finding external experts who can help connect real-world learning to the classroom.
They embrace the process, the risks, and the failures that are inevitably involved to help
the teachers and students shift in their learning. They are focused on the benefits of the
effective use of space and time at their schools. The next section presents the findings
relevant to research question 5.
Research Question 5
Research question 5 was, “How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school
principals evaluate strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready Schools?” The
question was intended to explore how principals gauge the strength of the strategies they
are using to help them lead Future Ready Schools. The quantitative survey data related to
this research question asked if the district monitors the progress in implementing digital
learning and 21st-century skills in the curriculum. The qualitative interview data
affiliated with this research question focused specifically on how the strategies for
leading Future Ready Schools are evaluated. Also asked was if the district or school has
conducted a needs assessment to determine technology needs for learning, teaching,
assessment, productivity, and management. The next section describes the survey
response data for research question 5.
96

Findings: Survey Responses From District Superintendent, High School Principals,
and Middle School Principals
To answer the last research question, question 5, the survey presented five
questions about the evaluation strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready
Schools. Table 26 shows the results for the question that addresses the district’s network
and access as being consistently fast and reliable. To summarize, 50% of the high school
principals strongly agreed and 50% agreed with the district’s network being consistently
fast and reliable. Similarly, 100% of the middle school principals agreed with the
statement. The superintendent 100% strongly agreed that the district’s network and
access is consistently fast and reliable.

Table 26
Q5-1 Evaluate Resources: Our District’s Network and Access to the Internet Is
Consistently Fast and Reliable
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
50%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

97

The second survey prompt for research question 5 asked high school and middle
school principals and the superintendent the degree to which the district has a responsible
use policy that is supported by parents and community. Table 27 provides a visual
representation of the responses. Seventy-five percent of the high school principals
strongly agreed, and the other 25% agreed. Of the middle school principals, 25% strongly
agreed and 75% agreed with the district having a responsible use policy supported by
parents and community. The superintendent 100% strongly agreed that the district has a
responsible use policy that is supported by parents and community.

Table 27
Q5-2 Evaluate Resources: Our District Has a Responsible Use Policy That Is Supported
by Parents and the Community
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
75%
25%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
25%
75%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

The next survey questions addressed the procurement of devices and hardware
that enables the district to provide equitable access for all students, all year. Table 28
98

shows that all, or 100%, of the high school and middle school principals surveyed either
strongly agreed or agreed that the district has a device and hardware procurement in place
that enables the district to provide equitable access for all students, all year. The
superintendent 100% strongly agreed that the procurement of devices and hardware
enables the district to provide equitable access for all students, all year.

Table 28
Q5-3 Evaluate Resources: A Device and Hardware Procurement Is in Place That Will
Enable the District to Provide Equitable Access to Up-to-Date Devices This School Year
for All Students, at a 1:1 Ratio or Better
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
75%
25%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
50%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

In the next survey question, it was asked to what extent principals and the
superintendent agree with the district’s ability to fund the cycle for updating and
replacing devices, hardware, and networks. In Table 29, the responses varied
significantly between grade level. One hundred percent of the high school principals
99

neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement, whereas 100% of the middle school
principals strongly agreed or agreed. The superintendent 100% strongly agreed with the
district’s ability to fund the cycle for updating and replacing devices, hardware, and
networks.

Table 29
Q5-4 Evaluate Resources: Our District’s Cycles for Updating and Replacing Devices,
Hardware, and Networks Is Financially Supported Through a Line Item in the Annual
Maintenance and Operations Budget
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
0.0%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
50%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

For the final survey question addressing research question 5, it was asked to what
extent the principals and superintendent agree with the efficiency of the district’s rollout
of devices to students and staff along with addressing responsible user policies. The
responses in Table 30 were similar across site levels. One hundred percent of the high
school principals strongly agreed. Of the middle school principals, 50% strongly agreed
100

and 50% agreed that the district’s rollout plan of devices to students and staff is efficient.
The superintendent 100% strongly agreed that there is efficiency in the district’s rollout
of devices to students and staff along with addressing responsible user policies.

Table 30
Q5-5 Evaluate Resources: Our District’s Rollout (or Plan for the Rollout) of Devices to
Students and Staff Is Efficient (Addresses Responsible User Policies, Empowers Students
and Teachers to Get Ready for Effective Use, Involves Parents, etc.)
Level of agreement of high school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
100%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of middle school principals Proportion of survey respondents
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
50%
50%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Level of agreement of superintendent/survey response: Strongly agree – 100%

The following section addresses the qualitative findings through the in-depth
interviews according to research question 5.
101

Findings: Interviews From District Superintendent, High School Principals, and
Middle School Principals
This section is organized into two subsections: the district’s evaluation process of
the Future Ready Schools framework and the principals’ evaluation process of the Future
Ready Schools framework.
Evaluation process of Future Ready Schools framework—superintendent.
The superintendent, as the leader of the district, responded to the evaluation process in
the following manner:
We are constantly evaluating the impact of our practices and the effectiveness . . .
our committee is a standing committee, that used to meet probably every other
month when we first started like two years ago, it took us a whole year to just
plan, present to the board. And then start implementation. So we really finished
the second year of implementation, but we were constantly monitoring because
we go back to the drawing board . . . instructional technology department does a
very good job of organizing them, providing this data. You know how much
usage there is, you know what it is being used for. You know just as far as student
assignments, the percentage. But we’re constantly looking at the impact and
saying okay, but obviously we cannot pull this off with the different scheduling
because it’s a union issue and not all schools are willing to change their schedules
and on the list, what is the next best step for us to do it?
The superintendent further discussed the way in which these evaluations are conducted:
We’re constantly monitoring classrooms. We, myself and the coaches, will walk
into classrooms weekly if not daily. So we are pretty aware where things are
102

going well and where we need to focus our efforts. . . . The other thing that we are
going to be focusing on in year three really is a heavy, heavy emphasis on
mastery-level work, student work. And I think that’s going to be a cultural shift.
Evaluation process of Future Ready Schools framework—high school
principal. In interviews with the principals at the site level, their responses varied from
site to site. Principal HS 1 said,
I don’t know that we’re at the point right now where we’re evaluating our
strategies yet. . . . I think we’re just at the point right now where we are just trying
to get all of the systems in place, so I think that the evaluation piece will come
soon.
Principal HS 1 did acknowledge the district evaluation process:
Part of what our technology department at the district does is every year they do a
survey of the staff on needs, both in terms of the hardware, what do you need in
terms of technology, and also what do you need in terms of professional
development.
Another high school principal also spoke about the district’s evaluation process. Principal
HS 2 responded,
Yes, actually our district has an annual feedback type of survey for all the
stakeholders. And also at a site level, we do that too. One thing that as a school, as
a district, we believe in, is making sure we know, clarity, making sure what is
needed in the classroom, for the teachers, for the students, in order to get our
students future ready, and of course college and career ready.
103

Evaluation process of Future Ready Schools framework—middle school
principal. At the middle school level, a few principals spoke about the evaluation
process for both their site and the way in which the district has evaluated this framework.
Principal MS 1 responded,
I do a technology needs survey for my teachers, just the basic supplies that they
need and whatnot. . . . I wonder if the student survey would help in terms of their
understanding of why we are using this technology and what the effects it would
have on their future learning. Also asking students their preference of completing
work and have those answers. This particular generation is that, intermediary
where they didn’t have digital two or three years ago, so this would be a good
focus group to work on because they’ve seen the difference, whereas two, three
years from now, they won’t know any difference, you know?
Another middle school principal had some insight on their evaluation process. Principal
MS 3 said,
On our side we like to do a mid-year check-in. Between semester one and
semester two just scheduling appointments with the teachers to make sure we
have that concentrated time to check in on how it’s going, what else do you need.
. . . Then of course the informal/formal walk-throughs to see the integration and
being able to share that out in staff formats or give shout outs in our weekly
communications bulletin that goes out via email and it’s posted with hard copies
around.
104

Summary of Research Question 5 From District Superintendent, High School
Principals, and Middle School Principals
The survey results revealed that all of the high school and middle school
principals strongly agreed or agreed that the district’s network is reliable, that the district
has a responsible user policy and hardware procurement policies in place, and that the
district’s rollout of devices is efficient. The interview questions for research question 5
allowed insight pertaining to how the district and principals evaluate strategies used to
help lead successful Future Ready Schools. The district superintendent’s focus on the
Future Ready Schools framework has been to ensure the success of its implementation
and to further advance the district toward fully achieving this goal. Having completed the
first 2 years of the implementation of the Future Ready Schools framework has given the
district a point in the process in which to be able to gauge if it is working well at the site
level. Visiting classrooms and acquiring feedback from site principals is important for the
district and superintendent to develop a plan for year 3 of this framework.
The evaluation processes at the high school and middle school levels have the
same objectives in place as the district: to transform the district and schools as the
principals and superintendent lead their teachers in creating an innovative culture through
personalized digital learning. High school principals stated that, although part of the
evaluation process taking place is merely for hardware and infrastructure, there is some
evaluation of teachers’ instructional needs in the form of professional development.
Middle school principals use needs assessment surveys as well as classroom walk-
throughs and informal conversations with teachers to find out if they have any technology
105

needs in terms of hardware and look for innovation and integration of the technology in
the classroom.
Summary
Chapter 4 presented the quantitative findings from the Future Ready Schools high
school principal and middle school survey as well as the qualitative in-depth interviews
of eight principals and the superintendent. The data were presented according to the five
research questions:
1. What leadership strategies do middle and high school principals at Future
Ready Schools use to help provide access to technology for their teachers and
students?
2. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals encourage
personalized learning for their teachers and students?
3. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals create an
innovative and adaptable culture to support teachers in becoming connected
educators beyond their school community?
4. What skills and strategies do Future Ready Schools middle and high school
principals need to wisely use time and resources to help lead successful Future
Ready Schools?
5. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals evaluate
strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready Schools?
The importance of effective modeling of the digital resources shows that principal
and superintendent leadership has a great impact on the outcomes or success of
technology programs. As a result, the high school and middle school principals and
106

superintendent modified their leadership strategies to promote action research, aligning
district mission and vision goals, and asked teachers to identify a particular skill set or
competency that they wanted students to develop.
Through the interviews, the high school and middle school principals and
superintendent reported that site principals encouraged teachers to incorporate the
technology, to plan, collaborate, and to work together toward the use of the technology
and building those 21st-century skills for their students. High school and middle school
principals model continuous professional growth as members of professional learning
networks. Teachers are supported by receiving a significant amount of personalized
professional development time to build their tech skills and acclimate themselves with
how to be active participants in professional learning networks. However, one finding
revealed that each school leader continues to be challenged with teachers who do not
want to put in their part to support the Future Ready Schools framework, thus further
creating challenges in achieving the district’s and site principals’ goal of having
personalized digital learning in the classrooms.
Analysis of the survey results shows that all of the high school and middle school
principals agree at some level that their teachers are provided time and resources to
collaborate with their colleagues to redesign lessons and classrooms to integrate 21st-
century skills. Although personalized learning is an ultimate goal for district leaders and
teachers, the interviews show that the district continues to work to improve upon the way
it fosters teachers’ ability to be innovative and have an adaptable culture in order to
become connected educators beyond their school community.
107

The high school and middle school principals and the superintendent promote the
benefits of the effective use of space and time at their schools. They are addressing some
issues of access for devices, high-speed Internet, and digital content for every student, but
more importantly, they express the need for teachers to fully make use of these resources
and further transform their classroom instruction and personalize it for their students.
High school and middle school principals and the superintendent embrace the process,
the risks, and the failures that are inevitably involved to help the teachers and students
shift in their learning. They are staged to provide professional development to teachers
and additional training to students that will enable flexible, anytime, anywhere learning.
Focus on the Future Ready Schools framework has been to ensure the success of
its implementation and further advancement of the district to fully achieving this goal.
The Future Ready Schools framework has given the district a gauging point for further
implementation. The evaluation process’s objective of transforming the district and
schools in leading teachers in creating an innovative culture through personalized digital
learning has become evident to the district superintendent and site principals. The
superintendent, high school principals, and middle school principals have taken
ownership of their role as leaders and decision makers for the Future Ready Schools
framework implementation.
Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the research as well as further conclusions and
implications of the research. Chapter 5 culminates with suggestions for further research
and final recommendations.

108

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the study’s overview and purpose,
methodology, and research findings. This chapter reviews the five research questions that
guided this study and were investigated through the findings. Implications for future
practice for the study are also presented in this chapter. Recommendations for future
research and the limitations of this study are discussed.
Statement of the Problem
Critical for learning success with digital learning is developing a comprehensive
strategy that has a foundation of involvement and sustained career training for teachers—
not occasional professional development—that concentrates not just on the technology,
but also on the pedagogical skills needed to use the technology in teaching and learning
(Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012). Simply placing a netbook on top of a textbook will not
necessarily lead to significant outcomes. It is effective digital media combined with
powerful teaching, rich content, and engaged students that has the potential to take
learning in the United States to a much higher level, so students can be truly prepared for
college and the 21st-century workplace (Schwartzbeck & Wolf, 2012). But education has
been slow to adopt these technologies.
From the point of view of a learning organization, what is most important is that
principals and district superintendents, along with teacher leaders, share a vision and
work together supportively (Anderson & Dexter, 2000). Strong leadership is essential to
creating systemic, sustainable change in education. Superintendents and their leadership
teams, with the support of state and local leaders, are key to leading the transition to
digital learning in their districts (Anderson & Dexter, 2000). The challenges of doing so
109

are multifaceted and range from unifying a diverse set of stakeholders who may hold
divergent views on the best path forward, to updating physical and technical
infrastructure, designing new learning models and resources, and building the capacity of
educators to take on new roles and new approaches to classroom instruction (Anderson &
Dexter, 2000).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to uncover the strategies used by effective
principals and superintendents in supporting personalized and digital learning to help
prepare students with the 21st-century skills needed to be successful in college and
career. The burden of preparing for the future of education does not fall on just teachers.
To truly prepare schools for the future of education, administrators must lead the way in
implementing digital technology and ensuring teachers use that technology according to
best practices (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Schools where principals act as
leaders in introducing technology have been shown to achieve better results (Lynch,
2017a). Ultimately, Future Ready Schools principals and superintendents find ways to
build capacity in their teachers to embrace ever-changing technology in the classroom to
help personalize learning for students to succeed beyond the classroom walls.
Research Questions
1. What leadership strategies do middle and high school principals at Future
Ready Schools use to help provide access to technology for their teachers and
students?
2. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals encourage
personalized learning for their teachers and students?
110

3. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals create an
innovative and adaptable culture to support teachers in becoming connected
educators beyond their school community?
4. What skills and strategies do Future Ready Schools middle and high school
principals need to wisely use time and resources to help lead successful Future
Ready Schools?
5. How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals evaluate
strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready Schools?
Methodology
The study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of nine quantitative
surveys and nine qualitative interviews completed by four high school principals, four
middle school principals, and a superintendent in comprehensive mid-sized urban middle
schools and high schools in Southern California/Los Angeles County. The mixed-
methods approach was selected because of the complexities of analyzing data from
interviews and surveys to provide a better understanding of the problem. The study was
based on Creswell’s (2008) six steps for conducting a study: identifying a research
problem, reviewing the literature, specifying a purpose for research, collecting data,
analyzing and interpreting the data, and reporting and evaluating research.
Findings
Research Question 1
“What leadership strategies do middle and high school principals at Future Ready
Schools use to help provide access to technology for their teachers and students?”
111

The importance of effective modeling of digital resources shows that principal
and superintendent leadership has a great impact on the outcomes or success of
technology programs. As a result, the high school and middle school principals and
superintendent modified their leadership strategies by aligning district mission and vision
goals, providing ongoing personalized professional development for teachers and school
leaders to include capacity building in the effective uses of technology and digital
learning. The high school and middle school principals and superintendent also modified
their leadership strategies by modeling the effective use of technology, sustaining
innovation, and providing time for teachers to work together to redesign lessons to
integrate 21st-century skills. Through the interviews, the high school and middle school
principals and superintendent reported that site principals encouraged the support needed
for teachers to maximize their use of digital tools by using effective pedagogy,
personalized professional development on blended learning, and emphasis in the need for
teacher buy-in to build the human capacity of teacher leaders. Support through
personalized professional development was provided to teachers to incorporate
technology, to plan, collaborate, and work together toward the use of the technology and
building those 21st-century skills for their students.
Research Question 2
“How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals encourage
personalized learning for their teachers and students?”
High school and middle school principals model continuous professional growth
as members of professional learning networks. Teachers are supported by receiving a
significant amount of personalized professional development time for building their tech
112

skills and acclimating themselves with how to be active participants in professional
learning networks. However, one finding revealed that each school leader continues to be
challenged with teachers who do not want to put in their part to support the Future Ready
Schools framework, thus further creating challenges in achieving the district’s and the
site principals’ goal of having personalized digital learning in the classrooms. Analysis of
the survey results shows that all of the high school and middle school principals agreed or
strongly agreed that their teachers are provided time and resources to collaborate with
their colleagues to redesign lessons and classrooms to integrate 21st-century skills. It was
found during the interviews that principals agreed or strongly agreed that through the
blended learning summits teachers are encouraged to incorporate the use of technology,
to plan together, to collaborate together, and to build 21st-century skills for their students.
To support teachers’ collaboration and 21st-century skills, the high school and middle
school principals and superintendent favored investing in the Future Ready Schools
framework and supporting teachers as innovators who can lead the way and set the
direction for the district as well as serve as models for their peers.
Research Question 3
“How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals create an
innovative and adaptable culture to support teachers in becoming connected educators
beyond their school community?”
Although personalized learning is an ultimate goal for district leaders and
teachers, the interview process revealed that the district continues to improve upon the
way it fosters teachers’ ability to be innovative and have an adaptable culture in order to
become connected educators beyond their school community. Such efforts have included
113

the redesigning of lessons that integrate 21st-century skills, empowering teachers to use
social media in their learning, district investment in both time and monetary funding, a
blended learning summit, and professional development outside the district (i.e.,
conferences and workshops). Additionally, the district promotes connections with local
community businesses and has boosted the school’s ability to increase the use of
technology in the classroom that allows students to develop rich, authentic work within
real-world contexts. Through personalized professional development, time, and funding,
the district is moving closer to the objective of sustaining innovation.
Research Question 4
“What skills and strategies do Future Ready Schools middle and high school
principals need to wisely use time and resources to help lead successful Future Ready
Schools?”
The high school and middle school principals and the superintendent promote the
benefits of the effective use of space and time at their schools. Many schools are shifting
away from Carnegie units to competency-based learning. Personalized learning requires
changes in the way instructional time is used and the learning space is designed. This
type of system adapts learning to meet the needs, pace, interests, and preferences of the
learner. The district facilitates the sharing of resources through the cloud infrastructure,
the use of mobile devices to access the curriculum (not only at the school but also at
home), and partnership with the community and businesses to help with Internet access
for the extended use of virtual and augmented reality. Therefore, the high school and
middle school principals and superintendent are addressing some issues of access for
devices, high-speed Internet, and digital content for every student, but more importantly,
114

they express the need for teachers to fully make use of these resources and further
transform their classroom instruction and personalize it for their students by making good
use of space and time. It is important for the high school and middle school principals
and superintendent to reassure educators that they are free from judgment if they attempt
to use technology in their curriculum and it does not go well.
The high school and middle school principals and superintendent embrace the
process, the risks, and the failures of access for devices, high-speed Internet, and digital
content for every student, but more importantly, they express the need for teachers to
fully make use of these resources and further transform their classroom instruction and
personalize it for their students, thus supporting teachers and students in shifting in their
learning as they further implement technology in the classroom. The high school and
middle school principals and superintendent are staged to provide professional
development to teachers and additional training to students that will enable flexible,
anytime, anywhere learning.
Research Question 5
“How do Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals evaluate
strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready Schools?”
The focus on the Future Ready Schools framework has been to ensure the success
of its implementation and to further advance the district toward fully achieving this goal.
The Future Ready Schools framework has given the district gauging points for further
implementation. These are in the form of a needs assessment to determine technology
needs for learning, teaching, assessment, productivity, and management. This is also
through the consistency of a fast and reliable network and access provided by the district,
115

through the district’s responsible use policy that is supported by parents and community,
and the district’s ability to fund the procurement of devices and hardware that enables the
district to provide equitable access for all students. Other gauging points include the
efficiency of the district’s rollout of devices to students and staff, addressing responsible
user policies, and a survey of the staff’s needs in terms of hardware, technology, and
personalized professional development. The evaluation process’s objective of
transforming the district and schools in leading teachers in creating an innovative culture
through personalized digital learning has become evident to the district superintendent
and site principals. The superintendent, high school principals, and middle school
principals have taken ownership of their role as leaders and decision makers for the
Future Ready Schools framework implementation.
Implications
As education continues to evolve, specifically in the area of technology, districts
and schools continue to face challenges to promoting personalized digital learning
opportunities for teachers and students. The significant findings associated with this study
via interviews and surveys identified the strategies used by the high school principals,
middle school principals, and superintendent responding to demands for personalized
digital learning opportunities for students. This study examined the high school
principals’, middle school principals’, and superintendent’s implementation of the Future
Ready Schools framework in the following areas: leadership strategies, encouraging
personalized learning, creating an innovative and adaptable culture, strategies to wisely
use time and resources, and evaluation of strategies used.
116

The data from this study imply that the high school principals, middle school
principals, and superintendent are using their leadership roles by making decisions that
contribute to the successful implementation of the Future Ready Schools framework and
promote personalized digital learning for teachers and students.
However, through the research, it was found that the high school principals,
middle school principals, and superintendent continue to struggle with reluctant teachers
who do not always demonstrate a willingness to adapt and implement the use of digital
learning tools and resources available for students today. Additionally, school district
leaders can use these findings to help draw attention to the strategies used by effective
school principals and one superintendent in implementing the Future Ready Schools
framework.
Recommendations
The concept of the Future Ready Schools framework is relatively new, and
limited research has been conducted around aspects of this concept. There are
unanswered questions that remain that could help educators effectively promote the use
of digital tools to support personalized learning for teachers and students. Therefore,
researchers should continue to identify successful leadership strategies used by school
principals and superintendents that are used to promote the digital learning opportunities
for teachers and students that support the 21st-century skills for success in college and
career. Based on the findings in this study, the researchers recommend the following for
future studies:
1. Although personalized learning is an ultimate goal for district leaders and
teachers, the interviews show that the district continues to work to improve
117

upon the way it fosters teachers’ ability to be innovative and have an
adaptable culture in order to become connected educators beyond their school
community. How can school principals and superintendents create an
innovative and adaptable school culture for learning education opportunities
for teachers and students?
2. School leaders promote the benefits of the effective use of space and time at
their schools. They are addressing some issues of access for devices, high-
speed Internet, and digital content for every student, but more importantly,
they express the need for teachers to fully make use of these resources and
further transform their classroom instruction and personalize it for their
students. How does the district support the use of space and time to promote
24/7 anytime, anywhere learning opportunities for students?
Limitations
The limitations of this study included time, researcher bias, interviews, and survey
responses. Researcher bias was a potential limitation because, as in studies that include
qualitative data collection and interpretation, the researcher may present a level of
subjectivity due to prior experiences. However, the researchers used member checking
and triangulation and presented discrepant information that counters the themes in order
to check for accuracy and validity (Creswell, 2014; Patton, 2002). The survey response
was a limitation because responses may have contained self-reporting errors and
discrepancies.
118

Conclusion
The focus on the Future Ready Schools framework has been to ensure the success
of its implementation and to further the advancement of the district in fully achieving the
following goals: collaborative leadership strategies, encouraging personalized learning,
creating an innovative and adaptable culture, strategies to wisely use time and resources,
and evaluation of strategies used. The superintendent, high school principals, and middle
school principals have taken ownership of their role as leaders and as the decision makers
for the Future Ready Schools framework implementation. The importance of effective
modeling of digital resources show that principal and superintendent leadership has a
great impact on the outcomes or success of technology programs. Effective high school
and middle school principals and superintendents encourage teachers to incorporate
technology, to plan, to collaborate, and to work together toward the use of technology
and building those 21st-century skills for their students.
The purpose of this research was to uncover the leadership used by effective high
school and middle school principals and a district superintendent in supporting
personalized and digital learning to help prepare students with the 21st-century skills
needed to be successful in college and career. The reported findings of effective
leadership and the implications of the Future Ready Schools framework should
encourage meaningful discussions on the actions needed to enhance the teaching and
learning environments to prepare students for the jobs and careers of tomorrow. The
researchers found that there will always be teachers who are leaders in terms of
technology use and adoption. Likewise, there will always be those teachers who feel left
behind. Ultimately, Future Ready Schools principals and superintendents find ways to
119

build capacity in their teachers to embrace ever-changing technology in the classroom to
help personalize learning for students to succeed beyond the classroom walls.
The rapid evolution in technology and advances in artificial intelligence,
automation, and robotics are having an impact in the world of work and the way workers
will perform and receive training for the tasks of the fourth industrial revolution.
Education, business, and political leaders are looking for future-ready graduates from K–
12 schools who can contribute and have the work skills to meet the needs of the future
workforce. Educators need to foster and implement creative and innovative teaching
strategies that encourage students to create, collaborate, and connect to what is going to
benefit them 5 or 10 years from now. The demands of the fourth industrial revolution will
cause a significant shift in the way schools, districts, and communities prepare students
for their careers. We cannot just teach students how to use digital tools and technology;
we must teach them how to build the tools and the theory behind the advancements in the
technology tools.
For high school principals, middle school principals, and superintendents serving
in poor areas of cities and rural communities, it is crucial to prioritize this commitment to
be a Future Ready Schools leader—a leader who helps prepare students for the labor
force of tomorrow as the gaps in achievement translate to gaps in preparedness as well as
inequalities of race, gender, and income opportunities.

120

REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011, May). A time for deeper learning: Preparing
students for a changing world. Policy Brief. Retrieved from
http://all4ed.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/DeeperLearning.pdf
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2015, January 8). Personalized professional learning
in a digital age [webinar]. Retrieved from https://all4ed.org/webinar-event/jan-8-
2015/
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2018). Blending teaching and technology: Simple
strategies for improved student learning. Retrieved from
http://1gu04j2l2i9n1b0wor2zmgua-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/Blended_Learning_Report_FINAL.pdf
Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. L. (2000). School technology leadership: Incidence and
impact. Irvine: University of California, Center for Research on Information
Technology and Organizations. Retrieved from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/76s142fc#page-7
Arnett, T. (2018). A new approach to personalize learning reveals 3 valuable teaching
insights. Retrieved from https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/a-new-
approach-to-personalized-learning-reveals-3-valuable-teaching-insights/
Barkley, S. (2013). Instructional strategies motivate and engage students in deeper
learning. SREB.org. Retrieved from https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/13v06w.pdf
Barrett, P. S., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Optimal learning spaces: Design implications for
primary schools. Retrieved from
http://usir.salford.ac.uk/18471/1/SCRI_Report_2_school_design.pdf
Becker, H. J. (1993). Decision making about computer acquisition and use in American
schools. Computer Education, 20, 341–352.
Christensen, C. M., & Horn, M. (2008). Disrupting class: Student-centric education is
the future. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/student-centric-education-
technology
Consortium for School Networking. (2014). Smart IT: Strategic technology planning &
management. Available from http://www.cosn.org/smartit
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

121

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Demski, J. (2012). This time it’s personal: True student-centered learning has a lot of
support from education leaders, but it can’t really happen without all the right
technology infrastructure to drive it. And the technology just may be ready to
deliver on its promise. THE Journal (Technological Horizons in
Education), 39(1), 32.
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2015). Driving the skills agenda: Preparing students for
the future. Retrieved from
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/edu.google.com/en//pdfs/skills-of-the-
future-report.pdf
Education Superhighway. (2014). Network essentials for superintendents: Upgrade your
network for digital learning. Retrieved from
http://www.educationsuperhighway.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Network-
Essentials-For-Superintendents-Version-2.14-2.19.15.pdf
Edwards, M. A. (2015). Thank you for your leadership: The power of distributed
leadership in a digital conversion model. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D., & Levin, D. (2012). Out of print: Reimagining the K-12
textbook in a digital age. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology
Directors Association.
Fok, A. W. P., & Ip, H. H. S. (2006). An agent-based framework for personalized
learning in continuing professional development. International Journal of
Distance Education Technologies, 4(3), 48–56, 58–61. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/201699369?accountid=14749
Fox, C., Waters, J., Fletcher, G., & Levin, D. (2012). The broadband imperative:
Recommendations to address K-12 education infrastructure needs. Washington,
DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association. Retrieved from
http://www.setda.org/master/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Broadband_Trifold.pdf
Fritschi, J., & Wolf, M. A. (2012). Turning on mobile learning in North America:
Illustrative initiatives and policy implications. Paris, France: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002160/216083E.pdf
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
122

Future Ready Schools. (2017a). About the effort. Retrieved from
https://futureready.org/archived-pages/about-the-effort-updated/
Future Ready Schools. (2017b). The Future Ready framework. Retrieved from
https://dashboard.futurereadyschools.org/framework/framework-overview
Future Ready Schools. (n.d.). The Future Ready framework: Use of space and time.
Retrieved from https://dashboard.futurereadyschools.org/framework/use-of-space-
and-time
Getting Smart & SAS Curriculum Pathways. (2015). Getting smart on tomorrow’s
classroom: Free innovative resources, tools, and apps. Retrieved from
https://www.sas.com/content/dam/SAS/en_us/doc/other2/getting-smart-on-
tomorrows-classroom.pdf
Glowa, L., & Goodell, J. (2016). Student-centered learning: Functional requirements for
integrated systems to optimize learning. International Association for K-12
Online Learning. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/resource/student-
centered-learning-functional-requirements-for-integrated-systems-to-optimize-
learning/
Graham-Clay, S. (2005). Communicating with parents: Strategies for teachers. School
Community Journal. Retrieved from http://www.adi.org/journal/ss05/Graham-
Clay.pdf
Groff, J. (2013). Technology-rich innovative learning environments. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/Technology Rich%20Innovative%20Learning
%20Environments%20by%20Jennifer%20Groff.pdf
Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are
we losing an opportunity? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543063.pdf
Hill, J., Ottem, R., & DeRoche, J. (2016). Trends in public and private school principal
demographics and qualifications: 1987-88 to 2011-12. Stats in Brief (NCES 2016-
189). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016189.pdf
Jacobs, H. H. (2017). Ending old-school nostalgia in learning spaces: Fresh thinking
about classroom setup and architecture and their impact on student engagement.
School Superintendents Association. Retrieved from
http://my.aasa.org/AASA/Resources/SAMag/2017/Oct17/Jacobs.aspx
Johnson, R. B., Oweuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of
mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
123

Jones, R., Fox, C., & Weeks, T. (2017). Navigating the digital shift II: Implementing
digital instructional materials for learning. Washington, DC: State Educational
Technology Directors Association.
Klein, A. (2015, March 31). ESEA’s 50-year legacy a blend of idealism, policy tensions.
Education Week. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/04/01/eseas-50-year-legacy-a-blend-of-
idealism.html
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8),
37–40.
Learning Forward. (2017). A new vision for professional learning: A tool kit to help
states use ESSA to improve learning. Education
Counsel. Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/docs/default-
source/getinvolved/essa/essanewvisiontoolkit
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Retrieved from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-
Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf
Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2013). Technology-rich schools up close. Educational
Leadership, 70(6), 51–55.
Louis, K. (1994). Beyond ‘managed change’: Rethinking how schools improve. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 2–24. doi:10.1080/0924345940050102
Lynch, M. (2017a, July 31). Is your school ready for the future of education? The
Edvocate. Retrieved from http://www.theedadvocate.org/school-ready-future-
education/
Lynch, M. (2017b, December 4). What does a future-ready school look like? Education
Week. Retrieved from
http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?cid=25920011&item=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.edwee
k.org%2Fv1%2Fblog%2F155%2Findex.html%3Fuuid%3D73583
Masters-Education.com. (n.d.). Personal benefits of earning a masters in education.
Retrieved from http://www.masters-education.com/personal-benefits-of-earning-
a-masters-in-education/
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
McLinden, M. (2013). Flexible pedagogies: Part-time learners and learning in higher
education. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/fp_ptl_report_0.pdf
124

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator
preparation. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/aacte_p21_whitepaper2010.pdf
Patrick, S., & Sturgis, C. (2015). Maximizing competency education and blended
learning: Insights from experts, international association for K–12 online
learning. Retrieved from
https://www.competencyworks.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/CompetencyWor
ks-Maximizing-Competency-Education-and-Blended-Learning.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Schwartzbeck, T. D., & Wolf, M. A. (2012). The digital learning imperative: How
technology and teaching meet today’s education challenges. Alliance for Excellent
Education. Retrieved from https://all4ed.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/01/DigitalLearningImperative.pdf
Selinger, M., Sepulveda, A., & Buchan, J. (2013). Education and the internet of
everything: How ubiquitous connectedness can help transform pedagogy. Cisco.
Retrieved from
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/solutions/industries/docs/education/educatio
n_internet.pdf
Sheninger, E. C., & Murray, T. C. (2017). Learning transformed: 8 keys to designing
tomorrow’s schools, today. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Silva, E., White, T., & Toch, T. (2015). The Carnegie unit: A century-old standard in a
changing education landscape. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. Retrieved from https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/Carnegie_Unit_Report.pdf
Smith, G. E., & Throne, S. (2009). Differentiating instruction with technology in middle
school classrooms. Retrieved from
https://www.hoodriver.k12.or.us/cms/lib/OR01000849/Centricity/Domain/1244/D
if%20with%20Technology.pdf
125

State Educational Technology Directors Association. (2017). Building your roadmap to
21st century learning environments. Retrieved from
http://www.roadmap21.org/assets/Creating-Your-Roadmap-to-21st-Century-
Learning-Environments1.pdf
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2014, November 14). Remarks by the
president at ConnectED Superintendents Summit. Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/19/remarks-
president-connected-superintendents-summit
Thigpen, K. (2014). Creating anytime, anywhere learning for all students: Key elements
of a comprehensive digital infrastructure. Alliance for Excellent
Education. Retrieved from https://all4ed.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/DigitalInfrastructure.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Future Ready Schools: Building technology
infrastructure for learning. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/Future-Ready-Schools-Building-Technology-
Infrastructure-for-Learning-.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Characteristics of future ready leadership: A
research synthesis. Retrieved from
https://tech.ed.gov/files/2015/12/Characteristics-of-Future-Ready-Leadership.pdf
Westat, J. F. (2010). The 2010 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation. National
Science Foundation, Division of Research and Learning in Formal and Informal
Settings. Retrieved from
https://www.purdue.edu/research/docs/pdf/2010NSFuser-
friendlyhandbookforprojectevaluation.pdf
Wolf, M. A. (2012). Culture shift: Teaching in a learner-centered environment powered
by digital learning. Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved from
https://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CultureShift.pdf

126

APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

127

128

129

130

APPENDIX B
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

131

132

133

134

135

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this research was to uncover the strategies used by effective high school principals, middle school principals, and superintendents in supporting personalized and digital learning to help prepare students with the 21st-century skills needed to be successful in college and career. More specifically, this study set out to uncover (1) the leadership strategies middle and high school principals at Future Ready Schools use to help provide access to technology for their teachers and students, (2) how Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals encourage personalized learning for their teachers and students, (3) how Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals create an innovative and adaptable culture to support teachers in becoming connected educators beyond their school community, (4) the skills and strategies Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals need to wisely use time and resources to help lead successful Future Ready Schools, and (5) how Future Ready Schools middle and high school principals evaluate strategies used to help lead successful Future Ready Schools. The study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of nine quantitative surveys and nine qualitative interviews completed by four high school principals, four middle school principals, and a superintendent in comprehensive mid-sized urban middle schools and high schools in Southern California/Los Angeles County. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that Future Ready Schools principals and superintendents find ways to build capacity in their teachers to embrace ever-changing technology in the classroom to help personalize learning for students to succeed beyond the classroom walls. The researchers found that effective leadership and the implications of the Future Ready Schools framework should encourage meaningful discussions on the actions needed to enhance the teaching and learning environments to prepare students for the jobs and careers of tomorrow.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school

PDF

Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success

PDF

Elementary principal perceptions of teacher to student bullying within classroom management practices

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)

PDF

Elementary principal leadership and learning outcomes for low socioeconomic status Hispanic English learners

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

Incorporating service learning curriculum to enhance college and career readiness: a professional development for teachers

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Secondary school counselor-principal relationships: impact on counselor accountability

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Middle school principals’ impact on effective professional learning communities in public schools in California

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

From meaning‐making to expansive learning: how contradictions shape teachers' implementation of technology‐based personalized learning

PDF

A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day

PDF

How service-learning educators help students learn: master teachers’ perspectives

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners

Asset Metadata

Creator De La Rosa, Angelica Leticia (author)

Core Title Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/13/2019

Defense Date 02/04/2019

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

Tag 21st-century skills,bandwidth,blended learning,digital learning,digital learning for students,digital learning for teachers,digital native,flipped classroom,Future Ready Schools (FRS),innovation,middle school,middle school principal,OAI-PMH Harvest,one-to-one program,pedagogy,personalized learning,principal support,robust infrastructure,school reform,smartphone

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Avina, Amy (committee member), Cash, David (committee member)

Creator Email aldelaro@usc.edu,divinewater@msn.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-131885

Unique identifier UC11675566

Identifier etd-DeLaRosaAn-7155.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-131885 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DeLaRosaAn-7155.pdf

Dmrecord 131885

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights De La Rosa, Angelica Leticia

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA