Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
School integration as a reform strategy: the principal’s role, an evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
School integration as a reform strategy: the principal’s role, an evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: INTEGRATION OF SCHOOLS 1
SCHOOL INTEGRATION AS A REFORM STRATEGY: THE PRINCIPAL’S ROLE
AN EVALUATION STUDY
by
Heather Elisabeth Cash
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2018
Copyright 2018 Heather Cash
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you, Drs. Datta, Castruita and Escalante for the time and support you have
generously shared with me throughout this process. You exemplify the spirit of the Trojan
family, and I am filled with gratitude and pride to become an official member.
Thank you to my husband, the first Dr. Cash. You are the wind beneath my wings.
Without your encouragement, I never would have dreamed of setting my sights so high and
believing that I can truly do anything I set my mind to. You open my world everyday and take
me to places I’d never dare to go on my own. I am forever grateful that I found you as my
partner for life.
Thank you, my beautiful, dancing daughter. I hope that I’ve shown you that you can
become anything you choose to become with hard work, dedication and purpose. May all your
dreams come true.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 9
Organizational Context and Mission 10
Organizational Goal 13
Related Literature 13
Importance of the Evaluation 16
Description of Stakeholder Groups 18
Stakeholder’s Performance Goals 18
Stakeholder Group for the Study 20
Purpose of the Project and Questions 20
Methodological Framework 21
Definition of Terms 21
Organization of the Dissertation 22
Chapter Two: Literature Review 24
Review of the Literature 24
The History of Segregation in American Public Schools 24
Influences on School Segregation 27
School Choice as a Reform Strategy 28
Integration as a Reform Strategy 29
The Role of the School Principal in the Desegregation of Schools 30
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework 31
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 32
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of the Knowledge and Motivation to the
Organizational Context 47
Chapter Three: Methodology 53
Research Questions 53
Participating Stakeholders 53
Interview Sampling and Criteria 54
Document Analysis Sampling Selection and Criteria 56
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 57
Data Analysis 60
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 4
Credibility and Trustworthiness 61
Validity and Reliability 62
Ethics 63
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 66
Overview of Purpose and Questions 66
Participating Stakeholders 67
Findings: Principal Knowledge and Behaviors 69
Findings: Principal Motivation, Self Efficacy and Value Expectancy 80
Findings: Organizational Influences 87
Findings Synthesis 91
New Proposed Conceptual Framework 96
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations 98
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 98
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 109
Summary 123
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 124
Limitations and Delimitations 125
Recommendations for Future Research 126
Conclusion 127
References 129
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 148
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Demographics of Greatland School District by Site 12
Table 2. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 19
Table 3. Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge 36
Gap Analysis
Table 4. Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessments for Motivation 40
Gap Analysis
Table 5. Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Goal 42
Table 6. Schools in Greatland School District by Racial and Linguistic Profile 68
Table 7. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 100
Table 8. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 104
Table 9. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 106
Table 10. Outcomes, Metrics and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 111
Table 11. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods and Timing for Implementation 113
Table 12. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 115
Table 13. Components of Learning for the Program 119
Table 14. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 120
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Interaction of Principal Knowledge and Motivation within the 50
School District Models and Settings
Figure 2. New Proposed Conceptual Framework 97
Figure 3. Target Demographic Composition of Schools in Greatland School 123
District
Figure 4. Application of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World 125
Reaction Framework
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 7
ABSTRACT
Segregation in America’s public schools is once more a reality across the nation. In urban,
suburban and rural districts, school segregation is the result of housing patterns, legal and
legislative influences, school reform efforts and parent choice. While many districts are bound
by the demographic constitution of their communities, many suburban districts have racially
isolated schools in spite of serving diverse communities. This evaluation study explored the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that affect a school principal in using
integration as a reform strategy to support all students in reaching their academic potential.
Using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, the study consisted of a review of the
literature and eight interviews of the primary stakeholder focus of the study, the elementary
school principal. Key findings include that the school principal must focus on internal and
external relationship development, the school principal must be proficient in the use of data and
use that knowledge to mentor teachers in the use of data, the school principal must be culturally
proficient, and the school principal must focus on teacher quality as his or her highest priority.
To accomplish this, districts must provide principals the training they need to use data
effectively, training in cultural proficiency and job aids in the form of administrative supports to
redefine the focus of principal’s duties. District leadership must provide collaboration
opportunities for principals in implementing these changes and site support through visits and
mentoring. This study provided solutions recommended to close the knowledge, motivation and
organization gaps to school integration with a focus on the role of the school principal. This
study concludes with an integrated implementation plan and an evaluation plan to assess the
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 8
recommended solutions.
Keywords: school segregation, school integration, racial isolation, public schools, cultural
proficiency, data proficiency, shared leadership, community partnership, school principal
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 9
Chapter One: Introduction
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This study addresses the problem of the resegregation of public schools in the United
States. As a result of decisions of the United States Supreme Court, federal policy and school
choice, public schools are the most segregated they have been in the last 60 years (Fiel, 2013).
United States Supreme Court decisions over the past 60 years have largely undone the work of
1954’s Brown vs. the Board of Education in eliminating voluntary integration and affirmative
action. Federal policies such as NCLB (No Child Left Behind) legislation and school choice
have led to the creation of a “neo-Plessyism” (Wells, Fox & Cordova-Cobo, 2016) that has
resulted in disparate opportunities for students. Today, the achievement gap is geographic
(Zhang & Cohen, 2009). Failing schools are most likely to be located in low-income
neighborhoods and the reform strategy of school choice has stripped neighborhood schools of
their natural diversity (Fiel, 2013; Frankenberg & Lee, 2002; Logan, Minka & Adar, 2012).
School choice, charter schools, private schools and magnet schools continue to
exacerbate segregation as residential mobility allows for white isolationism (Renzulli & Evans,
2005). Social closure theory and a low tolerance for diversity are factors contributing to whites
leaving local public schools in favor of more racially isolated charter schools and private schools
(Fiel, 2013; Renzulli & Evans, 2005; Saporito & Sohoni, 2006). Local public schools are left
with higher concentrations of minorities and low-income families resulting in significantly
decreased academic opportunity and achievement levels (Logan et al., 2012).
Racial integration benefits all students (Logan et al., 2012; Orfield, 2009; Wells et al.,
2016) and specialty schools designed with the express purpose of integration have a positive and
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 10
profound impact on desegregation (Saporito & Sohoni, 2006). Intentionally designed schools
consider several factors. School factors that contribute to student achievement include racial
composition, poverty levels, location, immigration status and size (Logan et al., 2012). An
integrated school has more balanced income levels, racial composition, language influences and
resources. Schools that are integrated provide equitable opportunities for students to access high
quality education (Wells et al., 2016).
Given this problem, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the methods school
principals use to integrate their schools in order to mirror the community’s demographics relative
to racial and linguistic measures. This study specifically examined the knowledge and motivation
of a school principal to engage in measures to integrate their school as well as the organizational
influences on their school community. This study is highly relevant in many suburban California
districts that see highly disparate student body composition within the schools in one community,
such as Greatland School District.
Organizational Context and Mission
Greatland School District (pseudonym) is located in coastal California serving students in
Transitional Kindergarten through 6th grade. The mission of the Greatland School District is to
engage, empower and encourage all students to reach their academic potential. The district
provides educational services to approximately 3,700 students at nine elementary campuses.
Each campus’s administration consists of one principal, one office manager and a part-time
office clerk.
The demographics of the community vary by neighborhood, and are not consistently
mirrored in the racial composition of the schools within the district (see Table 1). El Calle
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 11
(pseudonym) school is 81% Hispanic compared to a district average of 50%, with 47% English
Learners compared to a district average of 30%. In contrast, Hillside Elementary (pseudonym)
has a 20% Hispanic population with 7% English learners. El Calle’s most recent Smarter
Balanced state testing results reflect 39% of students met or exceeded English Language Arts
(ELA) standards and 35% met or exceeded Mathematics standards, compared to 77% of students
meeting or exceeding ELA standards at Hillside Elementary, and 81% of students meeting or
exceeding Mathematics standards. These two schools are 3.1 miles apart and are located in the
same small city of less than 31,000 residents. Table 1 provides a comparison of student
demographics and achievement levels of the schools in Greatland School District.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 12
Table 1
Demographics of Greatland School District by Site
Name of
School
(pseudonym)
English
Learners
% Hispanic %White CAASP %
Met or
Exceeded
Standard
Free- and
Reduced
Lunch
Coastal View 7% 21% 66% ELA 77%
Math 81%
7%
Hillside 10% 25% 61% ELA 79%
Math 74%
11%
Pilgrim 29% 38% 41% ELA 72%
Math 67%
19%
District 30% 48% 35% ELA 59%
Math 54%
28%
Sheldon
25% 51% 33% ELA 53%
Math 46%
25%
Monterey* 25% 55% 33% ELA 50%
Math 45%
25%
Firwood 31% 56% 28% ELA 55%
Math 49%
33%
Island 46% 56% 24% ELA 58%
Math 49%
37%
El Calle 47% 82% 10% ELA 39%
Math 35%
55%
El Lago 48% 75% 19% ELA 41%
Math 37%
47%
*Not included in this study due to interim principal
The student population at individual schools varies widely, similar to many public schools in
Southern California, with regard to diversity and has faced the issue of segregation. This
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 13
disparity has been generally accepted by district administration and described as each school
having a unique character.
Organizational Goal
The primary goal of Greatland School District is addressing the achievement gap,
described by some researchers more accurately as an equity gap (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).
Research finds a direct correlation between an achievement gap and increased segregation in
public schools (Orfield, 2009; Renzulli & Evans, 2005; Wells et al., 2016; Zhang & Cowen,
2009). The mission of these schools is to engage, empower and encourage all students to reach
their academic potential. A central aim of this mission is to eliminate racial and socioeconomic
biases that negatively impact student achievement. The goal of ensuring all students achieve their
potential, regardless of income level and ethnicity, can be addressed by creating equitable
educational opportunity and access at each school in the district. The goal of creating equitable
academic access was established when it became clear that federal accountability measures were
resulting in white families leaving their local, neighborhood school in favor of higher performing
schools or private schools. It is important to evaluate principals’ success in working to balance
the demographic composition of their school to assure equity.
Related Literature
History has established that separate schools are not equal schools. Researchers have
repeatedly described trends and contributing factors to school segregation. From Supreme Court
decisions and national education policy and social behavior theories, there exist many reasons for
the current state of segregation in American public schools (Doyle, 2005; Hehnke, 2009).
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 14
Several key United States Supreme Court decisions have influenced the current state of
segregation in public schools today. Famously, Plessy v. Ferguson in 1899 allowed for racial
segregation in public schools in the form of “separate but equal” schools. Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) determined that separate was inherently unequal in the eyes of the law and
required school districts to integrated public schools. School districts used many means to begin
to integrate schools. In 1968, however, Green v. County School Board decided that freedom of
choice of attendance at schools was not a sufficient means to bring about desegregation. In
response, in Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg (1970) the court bestowed broad powers to the
judicial system in enforcing plans for integration. This court case allowed courts to judge
integration plans for effectiveness, carefully scrutinize the attendance procedures for
predominantly black schools, use intentional attendance zones and busing to ensure integration.
Shortly thereafter, the courts’ broad powers began to be limited by Milliken v. Bradley (1974).
This case limited the court’s powers to redraw attendance lines to achieve racial balance.
Several more decisions continued to limit the ability of the court and school districts to
support intentional integration in K-12 and higher education (UC v. Bakke, 1978; Gratz v.
Bollinger, 2003; Fisher v. Texas, 2013). A significant blow to integration efforts came in the
form of PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2007), in
which a policy of using race as a tiebreaker in remediating school imbalance in attendance
decisions was determined unlawful. These court cases, combined with federal policies and
priorities, have largely eliminated the work accomplished toward desegregation in American
public schools in Brown vs. the Board of Education.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 15
Federal policies centered around accountability over integration have contributed to and
exacerbated the return of segregation in our public schools. No Child Let Behind’s (NCLB) use
of school choice was an ineffective means to remediate failing schools as those without access to
choice schools remained in failing schools (Zhang & Cohen, 2009). As a result, school choice,
unexpectedly, has been a dominant contributor to segregation. NCLB’s flaw lies in the
“geography of opportunity” in which schools with more minorities perform significantly below
integrated schools (Logan et al., 2012, p. 287). Fiel (2013) cited social closure theory as an
explanation for continued and increased school segregation. He argued that those with mobility
will seek to maintain their status by excluding those who are viewed as threats. As
neighborhoods and schools become more integrated, white families often leave to private and
charter schools. Fiel (2013) stated that a major influence over this trend is population changes
within any given area. Fiel’s theory is supported by researchers Renzulli and Evans (2005) who
explained that competition over perceived school status is driving white families away from
integrated schools. An emphasis on accountability over integration and social equity, has resulted
in increased white isolation through school choice.
Unexpectedly, school choice, provisioned in NCLB, has allowed for a continuation and
increase in white isolationism in public schools. Advocates for charter schools argue that they
provide choice, accountability and autonomy (Renzulli & Evans, 2005), however the research
demonstrates that charter schools allow for residential mobility contributing to white flight from
neighborhood schools (Frankenberg & Lee, 2002; Renzulli & Evans, 2005; Saporito & Sohoni,
2006). Private schools are a form of residential mobility available to those with means.
Frankenberg and Lee (2002) cited racial competition theory in explaining why public schools’
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 16
percentages of minority students are significantly lower than the surrounding area’s demographic
percentage of minority students. The isolation of minority students has serious impacts on
student achievement as evidenced by test scores, graduation rates and college admission rates
(Frankenberg & Lee, 2002). In nearly every study, school choice inhibits racial integration and
perpetuates an increasing achievement gap in spite of research that emphasizes the importance of
integration and the benefits of a diverse student population.
As schools become more segregated, it is important to recognize the significant evidence
of the positive effects of intentional racial integration. Wells et al. explain that racially integrated
schools benefit all students in their 2016 report. They cite evidence that integration should be
used as a reform strategy to close the achievement gap and increase academic outcomes for all
students. Wells et al. argue that the benefits of having a diverse student population include
improved cognitive skills, critical thinking and problem solving skills. Additionally, universities
recognize the value of diversity in their enrollment and actively seek to use means by which to
ensure racial integration. This practice is supported by Logan et al. (2012) when they argued that
school assignment aimed at balancing class composition could have significant positive effects.
A deliberate refocusing on the value of racial integration over accountability in public schools is
needed to combat the trend toward the most segregated schools America has seen in the past 60
years.
Importance of the Evaluation
The trend away from broad judicial power to enforce racial integration in Supreme Court
decisions coupled with an aggressive federal policy of accountability has led to widespread
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 17
resegregation of American public schools. This issue is important to address because a racial
segregation perpetuates a significant and growing achievement gap in public schools.
In numerous studies, racial isolation is directly related to student achievement.
Frankenberg and Lee (2002) explain, “The isolation of blacks and Latinos has serious
ramifications: this isolation is highly correlated with poverty, which is often strongly related to
striking inequalities in test scores, graduation rates, courses offered and college-going rates”
(p.22). This de-facto racial isolation is the cause of segregation in schools. Segregation
perpetuates systemic poverty, high teacher turnover rates and poor school attendance (Zhang &
Cowen, 2009). If this problem is not effectively addressed the achievement gap will continue to
contribute to the inter-racial tension and violence seen in American cities across our nation
today. The ramifications of having an under-educated population are expensive and far-reaching
(Orfield, 2009).
Some districts have successfully addressed this issue by designing specialty schools with
the express purpose of integration (Saporito & Sohoni, 2006). Evidence suggests that busing,
charter schools and magnet skills have little or a negative effect on integration (Renzulli &
Evans, 2005; Saporito & Sohoni, 2006; Zhang & Cowen, 2009) and that the residual effects of
the significant integration efforts associated with Brown v. the Board of Education have a lasting
impact (Frankenberg et al., 2002). Wells et al.’s (2016) Century Foundation report concludes
with a call to address education policy just as fair-housing advocacy has been increasingly
prioritized. Ending the trend toward “neo-Plessyism” will be the work of policy makers, the
courts and school districts with a shared value on the benefits of diversity and racial integration
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 18
in the 21st century. Intentionally creating integrated schools allows school principals to provide
students with equitable educational opportunities.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholders in addressing the problem of resegregation of public schools include
school principals, district superintendents and school boards. The school board is elected and is
primarily responsible for broad educational and fiscal policies. The superintendent is selected by
the school board and is charged with enacting the policy and direction of the school board while
providing leadership to administration in accomplishing the goals of the district. The principal
reports to the superintendent and/or assistant superintendent.
As the site leader, principals have the greatest impact on the structure of the organization
and the highest degree of interaction with the public (i.e. families, community partnerships, local
government.) School board members have the ability to establish a district mission and allocate
funds to support that mission, and district administration can support a principal in his/her work,
but the principal is the one on the ground who does the work of enacting change within a school.
Significantly, teachers must adopt the values and organizational mission as they work with
students each day. Teachers must be active and willing participants in the change. Lastly, parents
must “buy-in” to the idea that racial integration benefits everyone, that each child’s academic
and socio-emotional needs will be met at school. Parents select schools based on peer referral,
those peers must see the value in a diverse school setting where all students are supported to
reach their full potential (Holme, 2002).
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
This study analyzed the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on a school
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 19
principal with regard to the use of integration as a means to accomplish the organizational
mission which is to engage, empower and encourage all students to reach their academic
potential. This study focused on one suburban school district that has disparate student body
compositions in its nine elementary schools with relatively disparate academic achievement
levels as measured by the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
(CAASPP). Table 2 explains the role of the school principal in supporting the organizational
performance goal and organizational mission through the use of integration.
Table 2
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of the district is to engage, empower and encourage all students to reach their
academic potential.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2020, the racial and demographic population of each school will reflect the population of
the community served by the district, thereby eliminating an equity gap.
Principal’s Goal Superintendent Goal School Board Goal
By June 2020, all principals
will engage in community
outreach, data-driven
intervention, demonstrate
culturally proficiency and
focus on teacher quality in
order to integrate the student
population to reflect that of the
community.
By June 2020, the
superintendent will provide
administrative support,
collaboration opportunities and
mentoring to principals.
By June 2020, the school
board will create school
attendance policies that aim to
provide equitable opportunities
to all students served by the
district.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 20
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes this study focused on the role of the school principal. The researcher selected the school
principal for several reasons. First, the aim of the researcher is to focus on the work of school
principal relative to equity and access to high quality education. Second, the principal has the
greatest degree of leverage with the stakeholders at a school site (families, staff, students.)
Finally, while a school board or superintendent may be bound by political and bureaucratic
impediments, a principal is charged with building the relationships within the school to support
the school’s mission with a greater degree of independence.
In determining the stakeholder goal, the researcher analyzed resources that are in place.
Demographic and achievement data are available through the California Department of
Education (CDE) and there are several means for principals to communicate with their school
community (ParentSquare, Parent Teacher Associations, Site Council, and English Language
Advisory Committees). These are measurable indices that reflect levels of equity and access to
educational opportunities between school sites. There are district and site structures aimed at
furthering the goals of the district, such as Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), weekly
staff bulletins, instructional schedules, staff meeting agendas, and leadership meeting agendas.
Artifacts from these meetings are qualitative indices that will assist in analyzing efforts to
desegregate schools and provide an equitable education. If the stakeholder’s goal is not achieved,
racial segregation with continue to grow resulting in an ever-widening achievement gap.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which principals influence their
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 21
school demographics relative to racial integration to encourage all students to reach their
potential. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related
to achieving the organizational goals. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on
all stakeholders, for practical purposes this study focused on the school principal.
The following questions guided this evaluation study in addressing the knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational influences on the school principal.
1. What principal knowledge and related behaviors influence school integration?
2. What role does principal self-efficacy and value expectancy play in school integration?
3. How do principals influence teacher selection to achieve the goal of integration?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
This study used qualitative data and analysis methods to evaluate the use of integration as
a reform strategy by school principals. The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
on a school principal were assessed using in-depth interview and document analysis. This study
utilized Clark and Estes’ (2009) gap analysis framework that specifically addresses knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences regarding performance. The gap analysis framework
guided the development of the interview questions and selection of documents for analysis to
inform the researcher in analysis and recommendation.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are provided to ensure clarity and consistency of the terms used
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 22
throughout the study.
Desegregation: The process of dismantling a dual school system (Brown v. Board of
Education, 1954).
Fourteenth Amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const., amend. XIV).
Resegregation: A dual school system in which students are isolated or assigned to schools
by race (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 1968).
Integration: The process of bringing together students of different races and socio-
economic status in one school (Orfield, 2005).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The No Child Left Behind Act is the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Its major components consist of accountability for
all students to achieve proficiency, flexibility in funding for school districts, research based
programming and parent choice for school attendance for children attending Title I schools. (US
Department of Education, 2018).
Title I: Federal financial assistance to school districts with high numbers of low-income
families (US Department of Education, 1965).
Unitary status: A single school system in which all students have access to high quality
facilities in integrated schools (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 1968).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One has given an overview of the
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 23
problem of practice and its evolution to date. It also introduced the organization’s mission and
goals, the stakeholder’s goals and the framework for the study. Chapter Two provides a review
of the history of segregation in the United States and the recent, relevant literature as it pertains
to school choice and leadership in the context of integration. The role of the school principal in
addressing school segregation was addressed in this section. Chapter Three describes the
methodology of the study, the selection of participants, data collection and analysis methods.
Findings and analysis comprise Chapter Four. Finally, Chapter Five suggests data-driven
solutions and literature that may illuminate future study and recommendations for further
implementation and research.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 24
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Overview of the Literature
The problem of the resegregation of American public schools has a significant influence
on the achievement gap, civil rights equity issues, political and legislative agendas and local and
national economies. It is important to study this issue to work to provide all students equal access
to high quality education as envisioned by President Jefferson, resulting in an engage, informed
and peaceful society. In this chapter, the researcher will first review the historical events prior to
and after Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) that have initiated a move away from and then
back to a state of segregation in American schools. Then, the researcher will address reform
efforts and their degree of success and failure in addressing segregation, referencing case law,
public school district initiatives as well as non-profit reports, such as those of UCLA’s Civil
Rights Project and the Century Foundation. Additionally, the researcher will review the literature
associated with leadership in the context of social justice for all students. The researcher will
then turn her attention to the school principal’s knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences and complete the chapter by presenting the conceptual framework.
The History of Segregation in American Public Schools
Supreme Court case law since 1954 has documented a trend from high levels of court
oversight of desegregation in public schools to a release of court-ordered desegregation. In the
famous case, Plessy v. Ferguson (1895), in which a man who was seven-eighths white refused to
move to the section of the train reserved for blacks, the supreme court decided that segregation
based on race did not inherently constitute unlawful discrimination. The phrase “separate-but-
equal” was not referenced in this decision but ultimately led to widespread segregation in the
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 25
school system. In 1954, the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Delaware in Brown v.
the Board of Education stated that “separate-but-equal” schools did in fact violate the Equal
Protection clause in the Fourteenth amendment arguing that segregation was inherently unequal
and distilled a sense of systemic inferiority. The decision stated that African American students
must be admitted to white schools to give them access to higher quality facilities.
Following Brown vs. Board of Education, several other key cases underlined the Supreme
Courts intent to truly create equitable educational opportunities for children. In Brewer v. School
Board of City of Norfolk, Virginia (1965), the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
ruled that the school board’s school assignment plan which preserved the former duality of
segregation did not sufficiently satisfy the intent of Brown v. Board of Education. Green v.
County School Board of New Kent County (1968) ruled similarly when stating that a plan that did
not move to sufficiently achieve unitary status (in this case freedom of choice) violated equal
protection under the law.
With continued push back from local government and school boards, the courts continued
to exercise broad powers over desegregation efforts. In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board
of Education (1970) the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit ruled that not only may
courts oversee and judge district efforts to reach unitary status, but that courts may close racially
isolated schools and evaluate attendance zones and busing routes.
In 1973, however, courts began to soften their stance on desegregation. In a 5-4 decision,
Milliken v. Bradley, the United States Court of Appeals, 6
th
Circuit ruled that integration has no
“particular racial balance” and that school districts should exercise local control. By 1991, the
decision by the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit in Dowell v. Board of Education of
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 26
Oklahoma City Public Schools, was that court oversight of desegregation efforts were only
intended to be temporary and that if unitary status had been achieved, court oversight would be
removed. The following year, Freeman v. Pitts (1992) affirmed this ruling and supported
incremental withdrawal of court supervision for desegregation.
In an apparent reversal of Brown v. the Board of Education, the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth District disallowed race as a factor in school attendance as a means to integrate
schools in an important case, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
No. 1 [PICS] (2007). In this case, Seattle School District had an open-enrollment system.
However, when a popular school had too many students interested in applying, they employed a
tie-breaker system in which students who would help the school achieve the racial balance of the
student body of the district (40% white/60% non-white) would be admitted first. A federal
district court at first upheld this decision when parents sued the district, but a three-judge panel
in the Court of Appeals overturned it. In the decision, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “The
way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”
(Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1., 2007).
The story of resegregation of schools in Norfolk, Virginia is a common one that mirrors
the court decisions away from desegregation. In Doyle’s (2005) report, From Desegregation to
Resegregation; Public Schools in Norfolk, Virginia 1954-2002, the author explains the school
board’s initial reaction to Brown v. Board of Education. Six white schools in Norfolk actually
closed for five months in defiance of integration. During this time 10,000 white students did not
attend school. Black advocacy groups and the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People [NAACP] finally got 17 black students admitted to white schools, these students
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 27
came to be known as the “Norfolk 17.” By 1975, court oversight ended and busing was
eliminated. By 1999, schools in Norfolk were completely resegregated with ten all African
American schools with a 90% free- and reduced-lunch student population.
Influences on School Segregation
Two major influences on school segregation are housing policy and residential mobility.
Zhang and Cowen (2009) discuss the geography of student achievement. The authors explain
that schools with a large minority enrollment and high levels of poverty are more likely to fail. In
these schools, poverty, teacher turnover rate and socio-economic status are the highest indicators
of low academic achievement and as a result academic achievement is highly correlated to
neighborhood. Finally, they argue that school choice (as provided in No Child Left Behind) is
not an option for rural students and students without mobility. Logan, Minca and Adar (2012)
agree with these findings: schools with higher minorities perform worse. Logan et al. argue that
lower quality schools are available to minorities and the only way for NCLB to adequately
address student achievement would be to close the 10% lowest performing schools and assign
those students to schools with an intent to achieve integration. These researchers explain that
neighborhood racial isolation is unlikely to change.
Location is the key factor in school segregation according to Jacobs (2013). Where a
child lives is where he or she will attend school. Jacobs argues that neighborhood schools create
de-facto segregation patterns.
Saporito and Sohoni (2006) explain that public schools would be less racially isolated if
all students living in the attendance area actually attended their public schools. These researchers
make the claim that private schools, magnet schools and charter schools contribute to
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 28
segregation. They also argue that NCLB’s effectiveness is dependent on taking into account the
effect of school vouchers on racial segregation.
NCLB’s voucher program is based upon the false premise that parents choose schools
based upon quality. According to Holme (2002), school choice is a function of status and
financial resources, it will not create equity for low-income families who do not have mobility.
School Choice as a Reform Strategy
School choice has been the primary reform strategy for public education in the era of No
Child Left Behind (NCLB). Frankenberg and Hawley (2011) explain that the design of school
choice can either integrate or stratify children. Charter schools do not offer better schooling, and
they contribute to school racial isolation for whites as well as blacks and Hispanics. Some
magnet schools with a focus on integration have proven to have a degree of success
(Frankenberg & Hawley, 2011).
School choice failed to acknowledge how parents actually choose schools. School choice,
in effect, is a form of wealth according to Dougherty et al. (2009). They argue that test scores
matter to high status parents, but that race is seven-times more influential than test scores in
school choice. Dougherty et al. explain that there is a measurable relationship between school
quality and home prices and vouchers are unlikely to play a role. Bosetti’s (2004) research
reveals that school choice is built on the false premise that parents use rational factors in school
selection. Parents instead select schools based on social networks, and some families would
never consider public schools, even without a school visit. Holme (2002) points out that wealthy
families choose schools based upon high status peer recommendation. This researcher describes
white families as believing their children will have access to greater resources at wealthy schools
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 29
and make assumptions about violence and drugs at schools with minority populations.
Renzulli and Evans (2005) highlight the reality that white flight is actualized in the
charter school movement, as white families seek whiter schools, charter provisions to integrate
are not enforced and residential mobility is only accessible to high income families. These
researchers document white families’ move away from public schools as minority population
increases.
School choice as a reform strategy has demonstrated increased segregation and has only
increased the achievement gap. Garcia (2009) documents this trend. He explains that students
who enter charter schools move into a more racially isolated school as families choose to attend
schools that are more racially similar. In his study, charter schools are 10% more white than the
local public schools and 29% more black.
Integration as a Reform Strategy
Racial integration is a more meaningful and far-reaching reform strategy than school
choice. In Reviving the Goal of an Integrated Society, Orfield (2009) emphasizes the importance
of educating white students to work in a society in which they are now the minority. He repeats
that the promises of Brown v. Board (1954) have not been fulfilled, explaining that integration is
the best way to meet the needs of today’s students in order to prepare them for a multi-racial
future.
Schools with a special design to support integration have had positive results (Logan et
al., 2012; Potter, Quick & Davis, 2016; Saporito & Sohoni, 2006). Racial integration with an
emphasis on cultural assets, rather than a deficit view, benefits all children (Yosso, 2015). Racial
achievement gaps were actually at their smallest when schools were the most integrated, and
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 30
there is a clear correlation between levels of integration and student achievement (Theoharis,
2015). Michael Lancellot (2016), an African-American male, former superintendent explains that
a desegregation plan is not needed as much as an education plan for successful integration to
attract diversity to magnet schools This plan must include allocating the most experienced and
talented teachers to the most challenging schools, rather than the least prepared, least
experienced teachers (Lancellot, 2016). It is the commitment to racial integration that failed,
according to Theoharis (2015), not busing or other means to integrate schools.
Researchers agree that integrated schools benefit all students. Integration leads to
improved cognitive skills, problem solving and critical thinking (Orfield, 2009; Wells, Fox,
Cordova-Cobo & Kahlenberg, 2016). White students in particular benefit from increased
intercultural and cross-racial knowledge, understanding and empathy. All students demonstrate
increased engagement in democratic processes and political engagement (Wells et al., 2016) To
accomplish this vision of integrated schools that meet the needs of all students, Orfield (2009)
suggests a focus on the common destiny of all children. He argues that change will be dependent
upon the values of the leadership of our country and school districts.
The Role of the School Principal in the Desegregation of Schools
The school principal is positioned to play an important role in leadership for social
justice. It is the school principal who can establish social justice as a core component of the
school’s vision (Kose, 2009; Riehl, 2009). Principals are responsible for providing equitable
opportunities for student learning in subject matter and personal development. They must
provide coherence in professional development in addressing the social issues of their student
population (Kose, 2009). Administrators must be aware of their own biases as agents of equity
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 31
and social justice. The school principal is positioned to create an inclusive school culture,
building relationships between schools and communities. A significant part of this inclusive
school culture is addressing the power relationships inherent in discourse and language, in
addition to increasing women and people of color in positions of leadership (Riehl, 2009).
The school principal has a unique influence as a change agent. As a leader of any change
process, the school principal must facilitate a focus on moving to a new culture of inclusion,
rather than away from the status quo (Goldring, Crowson, Laird & Berk, 2003). Leading change
requires a focus on relationships and community, the job of a school principal, and successful
staging of the change. The school leader has a significant effect on student achievement
according to Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003). These authors describe first and second
order levels of change. The literature on school integration as a reform strategy define a school
principal’s focus to be on the school’s community, culture vision and values as first order
priorities for change (Lancellot, 2016; Orfield, 2009; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005; Theoharis,
2015; Yosso, 2005; Wells et al., 2005).
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) provide a systematic and analytic framework to identify
organizational performance gaps relative to knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
on a key stakeholder in their Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework. This framework begins by
identifying a performance goal, then clarifying the stakeholder’s knowledge, motivation and
organizational gaps that affect the organizational performance goal. Krathwohl (2012) identifies
four types of knowledge that can be used to classify knowledge gaps: (a) factual; (b) conceptual;
(c) procedural; and (d) metacognitive. Motivation influences on the performance gap may be
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 32
relative to self-efficacy, personal values and attribution theory (Anderman & Anderman, 2006:
Eccles, 2006; Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Lastly, cultural models and settings, such as the
role of public schools and the political climate, will influence stakeholder organizational
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004).
The Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework was used to address the knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences on a school principal’s role in supporting the organizational goal of
ensuring the racial and demographic population of their school as representative of the
community served by the district by June, 2020. School principals’ knowledge and skills about
school integration were addressed first. Then, the motivation of school principals to successfully
integrate their school was investigated. Finally, organizational influences on a principals’ ability
to integrate their school were assessed. Each of these assumed stakeholder knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences on performance will then be examined through the
methodology discussed in Chapter Three.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Analyzing performance problems within an organization requires an assessment of the
skills and knowledge necessary to achieve the goals of the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). Without alignment between the problem and the knowledge necessary to address
it, solutions may be implemented that have no effect or may even have a negative effect on the
organization (Alexander, Schallert, & Reynolds, 2009; Rueda, 2011). Researchers emphasize the
importance of an analysis of the what of an organizational problem, in addition to the how a
problem came to be or should be addressed (Alexander et al., 2009). Addressing knowledge and
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 33
skill gaps might include additional information, job aids, training and education (Clark & Estes,
2008). Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill and Krathwohl classified types of knowledge in their 1956
taxonomy. This original taxonomy classified knowledge as knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, and synthesis. Later, Krathwohl (2002) updated the original taxonomy to
include remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate and create. Rueda (2011) explains that
without classifying forms of knowledge, equity gaps emerge as expectations for some students
can be lowered, translating into “differences in opportunity to learn” (p. 30).
Knowledge Influences. Krathwohl (2002) describes four main types of knowledge
relevant to stakeholders. Stakeholders must possess factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge,
procedural knowledge and metacognitive knowledge. Factual knowledge includes knowledge of
terminology and specific details (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). An example of factual
knowledge is a school principal’s knowledge and use of education-specific terms and acronyms.
Conceptual knowledge references theories, principles and categories (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda,
2011). A school principal’s conceptual knowledge can be seen in their understanding of
educational techniques, learning theories, and categories of English acquisition levels.
Procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something, such as creating a master schedule to
protect instructional minutes, using social media to communicate with parents, and selecting
appropriate personnel (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Metacognitive knowledge is strategic,
contextual and self-reflective (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Mayer (2011) describes
metacognitive knowledge as how a learner knows when to apply learning strategies. A school
principal might demonstrate metacognitive knowledge if she/he practices for a speech knowing
she struggles with public speaking or if she engages in professional goal setting. Though all four
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 34
types of knowledge are important, this study focused on three specific knowledge types:
conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. The identified conceptual knowledge influences
include a) building internal and external relationships and b) leveraging community resources.
The identified procedural knowledge influence is the knowledge of how to use data to improve
student achievement. Finally, the metacognitive knowledge influence is a principal’s awareness
of her own biases and degree of cultural competency.
Building internal and external relationships. The conceptual knowledge involved in
building internal and external relationships is a key component to successfully managing change
and addressing an organizational problem (Goldring, Crowson, Laird, & Berk, 2003; Riehl,
2000). Goldring et al. (2003) describe the process of networking as essential when leading
organizational change. The researchers describe this as the creation of a social fabric or
community. Knowing the importance of creating and maintaining networks is essential to the
creation of a school wide vision. Kose (2009) highlighted one principal’s use of various teams
and differentiated groupings to foster relationship building. Kose (2009) argues that while
principal cannot assume total influence for social issues at their school, they do play a key role in
this effort. Kose (2009) supports the argument that networking is essential for organizational
success.
Leveraging community resources. Knowing how to leverage community resources to
support the mission of a school is an essential procedural skill. Schmidt and Venet (2012)
describe that a principal’s ability to access resources and interact successfully with the
community is one way to create a culture of inclusion and leverage the power of the principal to
enact change. Leveraging community resources is an example of Alexander et al.’s Dimension 1:
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 35
The what of learning (2009). A principal first needs to understand the importance of leveraging
community resources. Then she must practice this skill until it becomes habitual. Alexander et al.
explain that “acquired habits and conditioned responses” can be learned and implemented by
leaders (p.181).
Knowing how to use data to improve student achievement. In Ferrandino’s (2005)
Focusing on Achievement Gaps, the author emphasizes the importance of using data to improve
student achievement. How to use data is an example of procedural knowledge. Education is rife
with data, but Ferrandino (2005) explains the principal’s role is to make sense of the data,
communicate the meaning of the data and use data to improve teaching and learning. In the
context of school composition and achievement, a principal must know how to interpret
demographic trends and influences cross referenced with impact on student achievement.
Knowing one’s biases and degree of cultural competency. Kose (2009) brings a value of
social justice forward as necessary for school leaders. The metacognitive knowledge associated
with knowing one’s own biases and cultural competency is necessary in addressing issues of
racial isolation and student achievement. Rueda (2011) describes metacognitive knowledge as a
means to consider context in solving problems strategically. Metacognitive knowledge requires a
principal to select relevant information and apply appropriate strategies to address problems
(Baker, 2006). The context of a racially isolated school and the biases inherent in the staff are
contextual aspects of a very complex and dynamic problem that requires metacognitive processes
to analyze.
Table 3 below organizes the organizational mission, the organization’s global goal and
the stakeholder goal related to the knowledge types, influences and assessments. As Table 3
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 36
indicates, two conceptual knowledge influences, one procedural knowledge influence and one
metacognitive knowledge influence informed the analysis of the problem of increased racial
isolation in public schools.
Table 3
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
The mission of the district is to engage, empower and encourage all students to reach their
academic potential.
Organizational Global Goal
By June 2020, the racial and demographic population of each school will reflect the
population of the community served by the district, ensuring equitable academic access.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2020, all principals will engage in community outreach, data-driven intervention,
demonstrate culturally proficiency and focus on teacher quality in order to integrate the
student population to reflect that of the community.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
1. Principals need to be able to
build internal and external
relationships
2. Principals need to know how to
leverage community resources
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Interview questions # 1, 5,
8, 14, 17
Document analysis:
Principal communications
Interview questions # 4, 7,
9, 16, 17
Document analysis:
Weekly bulletin,
community announcements
and communications
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 37
3. Principals need to understand
how to use their achievement
data
Procedural Interview questions # 2, 3,
10, 13, 17
Document analysis:
Single Plan for Student
Achievement; Staff
meeting agendas
4. Principals need to know their
own biases and be culturally
competent
Metacognitive
Interview questions # 2, 3,
4, 7, 15, 17
Document analysis:
translation of
announcements/flyers
Motivation
The stakeholder goal of achieving a student population that mirrors the community
demographics has significant motivation related influences. Clark and Estes (2002) describe
three indices of motivation: 1) active choice, defined as choosing to begin work toward a goal; 2)
persistence, defined as continuing to work toward a goal in spite of distraction; and 3) mental
effort, defined as working smarter and being innovative. Eccles (2006) defines expectancy value
motivational theory as an individual’s expectations for success and value related to a problem. In
the context of the problem of racial isolation, principals may not believe they will succeed in
balancing their student population, or they may not see the value in it. Rueda (2011) explains
that vague goals lead to people giving up on them, they don’t know how to move forward in
addressing goals, and some goals are too difficult to address at once. Some principals do not
believe they are capable of effecting change, referenced by Pajares (2006) as self-efficacy
theory. Lastly, principals may attribute the racial composition of their schools to external factors
beyond their control through attribution theory (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Rueda (2011)
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 38
references specific examples, such as the constant influx of new initiatives, teacher assignment
based on seniority and budgetary constraints, as negative effects on principal motivation.
Motivational influences can and should be viewed through a scientific lens according to Pintrich
(2003). He argues that self-efficacy and attributions are motivating influences on human
behavior (2003). Finally, Clark and Estes (2008) assert that humans have an inherent motivation
to be effective in their work.
Expectancy Value Theory. Eccles (2006) asks two basic motivation questions in
expectancy value theory: 1) Can I do the task? 2) Do I want to do the task? A person’s
perception of their ability to accomplish a task is a significant motivator. However, the second
question is laden with complexities. Whether or not a person wants to address a problem reflects
a person’s intrinsic interest in resolving the problem (Eccles, 2006). Intrinsic interest is
influenced by self-identity, short- and long-range goals and the cost of engaging in the activity
(Eccles, 2006). In the context of racial isolation of schools, principals will have different
viewpoints related to these questions.
School principals and values. Individual schools within a district can have dramatically
different demographic compositions. Additionally, the myriad of tasks assigned to school
principals can vie for their energy and attention. Mayer (2011) explains that interest in a goal,
such as creating a demographically balanced school, would be a strong motivator toward that
objective. Thompson’s (2016) research suggests that principals with an interest and value toward
equity and integration are successful leaders. He writes, “These findings suggest that in schools
where equity-oriented values are upheld, principals tend to be perceived by teachers as being
more visionary, collaborative, proactive, and motivating rather than managerial or passive” (p.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 39
147).
Without interest or personal value, efforts to attract diversity in the student population
fail. If there is no utility in changing the demographics of the school, a principal will not be
motivated to work toward that goal (Rueda, 2011).
Self-Efficacy Theory. Self-efficacy theory explains that people have little incentive to
act if they do not believe their actions will result in the desired outcomes (Pajares, 2006). A
significant indicator of a person’s self-efficacy is past performance, also termed mastery
experience (Pajares, 2006). Pintrich (2003) supports the argument that mastery experience is a
significant motivator and can be influenced by the belief and expectation of success. According
to Bandura (2000), self-efficacy translates to group dynamics as a shared sense of collective
efficacy supports a groups’ dedication to their mission, fosters resilience and supports
performance.
Principals and self-efficacy. The effect of self-efficacy on the performance of school
principals is well studied. Roley (2009) explains that there is a clear relationship between a
principal’s sense of self-efficacy and student achievement. He explains that principals with high
self-efficacy deal with problems through innovation rather than adaptation (2009). Nir and
Kranot (2006) demonstrate that transformational principals with positive self-efficacy result in
the formation of a teaching faculty who in turn has high self-efficacy. These teachers are better
able to handle stress, have more positive interactions with parents and are open to new teaching
methods. A transformational principal more closely reflects the values and beliefs of their staff,
leading to a highly developed sense of group efficacy (Thompson, 2016). Teacher self-efficacy,
behavioral modeling and a supportive environment are noted by Grossman and Salas (2011) as a
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 40
condition for transfer for teacher training. Taken together, a principal with high self-efficacy
transfers motivation to her staff, resulting in increased student achievement, a predisposition for
successful problem solving and effective transfer for teacher training.
Table 4 below organizes the organizational mission, the organization’s global goal and
the stakeholder goal related to the motivation influences and assessments. As Table 4 indicates,
expectancy value theory, attribution theory and self-efficacy theory will inform the analysis of
the principal’s role in the problem of increased racial isolation in public schools.
Table 4
Motivation Influences, Types, and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
The mission of the district is to engage, empower and encourage all students to reach
their academic potential.
Organizational Global Goal
By June 2020, the racial and demographic population of each school will reflect the
population of the community served by the district.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2020, all principals will engage in community outreach, data-driven intervention,
demonstrate culturally proficiency and focus on teacher quality in order to integrate the
student population to reflect that of the community.
Assumed Motivation Influences
Motivational Influence Assessment
Principals have self-efficacy to affect a change in
their student population.
Interview question # 1, 3, 5, 6, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17
Document Analysis: Weekly
Bulletin
Principals value integration to benefit the school Interview question # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
10, 13, 17
The effect of school choice on principal
motivation.
Interview question # 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,
12
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 41
Organization
Clark and Estes (2002) defined organizational performance gaps as organizational
barriers that address inadequate, conflicting, or inaccessible policies. In addressing the issue of
segregation of public schools and the role of the principal, organizational barriers have a
significant and to a large part external impact, considering the long history of education through
a lens of access and racial equity. It is within the organizational setting of a school district, that a
principal’s imperative to support all students in reaching their academic potential exists. Many
existing policies impede a principal in accomplishing this objective, some of which include
attendance boundaries, housing policy, per-pupil spending, neighboring private schools, and
student transiency. It is with the goal of academic achievement for all students that this study
will examine the broad and local organizational causes for segregation and the organizational
barriers to integration.
Principals must be aware of the cultural models and settings in which they function as a
leader in working toward the goal of integration for the purpose of equity in educational
opportunity. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2010) described cultural models as a shared
understanding of how the world works, contextualized in this study through the role of public
education in America and reform efforts. In a school context, the cultural models describe
principal and teacher beliefs about students and equity. Cultural setting, as described by
Gallimore and Goldenberg, is the context in which we work. The cultural settings addressed in
this study include case law and legislative policy and teacher quality at the school level. The
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 42
researchers explained that cultural settings exist where people come together to accomplish a
task, such as educating all students in the public school system. Table 5 references the
organizational cultural models and settings relevant to the stakeholder goal of racial integration.
Table 5
Organizational Influences on Stakeholder Goal
Organizational Mission
The mission of the district is to engage, empower and encourage all students to reach
their academic potential.
Organizational Global Goal
By June 2020, the racial and demographic population of each school will reflect the
population of the community served by the district.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2020, all principals will engage in community outreach, data-driven
intervention, demonstrate culturally proficiency and focus on teacher quality in order to
integrate the student population to reflect that of the community.
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organization Influence
Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
The role of public education in America has
evolved from civic participation to individual
achievement with an emphasis on test scores.
.
Interview principals about their
school’s achievement data relative
to the district and other schools.
Cultural Model Influence 2:
Principal’s influence over school choice.
Principal’s degree of engagement
in partnerships, community
outreach and communications.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Post-NCLB (No Child Left Behind) effects of
school choice as a reform strategy.
Interview principals about the
impact of NCLB on their school’s
demographics.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Principal’s influence over teacher quality.
Interview principals about their
involvement in selecting,
retaining, evaluating and
dismissing teachers.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 43
Cultural Model Influence 1: Public education in America. The role of public
education in America has changed since the values inherent in the decision of Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954 (Reardon et al, 2012). In that landmark decision, Chief Justice Warren
explained (with the unanimous support of the Supreme Court) the purpose of public education
was to prepare our children for participation in a democracy. He explicitly calls out an integrated
public education as a foundation of citizenship and a means to impart our shared cultural values.
This was not a new idea, as Warren was building upon John Dewey’s 1922 treatise in which
Dewey argues that democracy is dependent upon an educated electorate in which Americans
share common experience and benefit from mutual, interdependent knowledge. Access to free,
public education has shifted to an accountability model in which individual student achievement
is the objective (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).
Cultural Model Influence 2: School Choice Intended as a reform strategy, school
choice has altered the shared understanding of public education as integral to democracy.
Instead, public education has evolved into competition for perceived scarcity of resources
(Holme, 2002: Renzulli & Evans, 2005). Through a series of court cases limiting school district’s
ability to enforce and support integration, the right of the individual has superseded the rights of
the many (Frankenberg & Lee, 2015). Few resources remain for school districts intending to use
integration as a means provide equitable access to education.
Magnet schools as a model for integration. In the University of Minnesota Law School’s
2013 report, Integrated Magnet Schools, researchers describe many models of magnet schools
(Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, 2013). The report finds the greatest degrees of success
for student outcomes were related to stability and intentionality of student integration,
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 44
independent of the type of magnet school. Clear desegregation goals were the highest indicator
of school integration. Other factors such as whole school magnet, effective outreach, non-
competitive admission policies and low teacher turnover also impacted magnet schools’ success.
Integrated Magnet Schools (Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, 2013) details a planning
guide from the Magnet School of American program and the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (OERI) focused on creating sustainability in a magnet school. This guide suggests
developing a vision and mission; engaging stakeholders; choose effective leaders; allow teachers
to volunteer; provide effective staff development; engage in outreach; determine selection
criteria; address transportation; and identify funding sources.
Frankenberg and Siegel-Hawley (2011) juxtapose the inequity inherent in charter schools
as a reform strategy to the models and potential of magnet schools. The researchers explain that
there has not been enough oversight of student socio-economic status and ethnicity in charter
management, but once had the potential of magnet schools to operate outside the boundary lines
of attendance area and call out diversity with intentionality of design. Kucsera and Orfield
(2014) continue to support the use of magnet schools with a focus on promoting racial
integration as a reform strategy and cite many examples of successful magnet schools.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Legal and legislative organizational barriers. Case law
leading up to and through Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.
1 ([PICS], 2007) has bound school districts’ hands in integration. Milliken v. Bradley (1973)
began withdrawing court oversight of school districts in required integration. Missouri v. Jenkins
(1989) disallowed increased taxes to reform failing, segregated schools. Dowell v. Board of
Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools (1991) described desegregation as a temporary
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 45
intention. Freeman v. Pitts (1992) formalized the withdrawal of court supervision of
desegregation. Finally, PICS (2007) disallowed race as a factor of admission intending to create
racially balanced schools. In PICS, Justice Breyer explained our current state of affairs, while not
necessarily intentional, creates, maintains and exacerbates racial segregation (2007). There exist
hyper-segregated schools (90% or more minority) and inequitable funding related to housing
patterns (Frankenberg & Le, 2008).
No Child Left Behind. The organizational barriers discussed above significantly impact
the ability of a school principal to effect change in his or her student population, but No Child
Left Behind had a lasting and significant impact distilling segregation in schools. The No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. NCLB required all students to meet or exceed state standards in reading and math
by 2014. NCLB’s four “pillars” included accountability for schools to meet the needs of all
students, flexibility in the use of federal funds, research-based education and parent options. If a
school didn’t make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), it would enter Program Improvement (PI)
status. In PI, schools may be closed, converted to charter, taken over by the state, or managed by
a private company (Posnick-Goodwin, n.d.). Teachers at schools in PI would be required to re-
apply for their jobs. The fourth pillar, school choice, was actively used by parents to leave
“failing schools” in favor of other high achieving local schools.
In Capers’ 2013 study on the relationship between segregation and policy on student
outcomes, the researcher found the policy environment has a significant impact on student
outcomes. Policy, as Capers described it, is teacher representation, school board representation
and management strategy of the political influences on the racial environment. The study
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 46
concludes with internal strategies and policies as a means to achieve equal schools with equitable
outcomes. It is with internal district policies that school administrators may begin to address the
issues of racial isolation and segregation.
Capers’ research is echoed by Kuscera and Orfield (2014) as they outlined what districts
can and should do to promote diversity and reduce racial isolation. They also frame their
recommendations in policy; policies that intentionally foster diversity, policies that consider
race, policies that take advantage of strategic location and tie into housing policy. Additionally,
Kuscera and Orfield (2014) referenced the need for community involvement and election of
public officials who recognize the history of segregation.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: Teacher quality. The cultural models and settings
presented thus far exist, in large part, outside the sphere of influence of the school principal.
Teacher quality, however, is one influence in which a school principal has significant influence.
Houck (2010) conducted a case study on Nashville Public Schools as they achieved
unitary status (lack of court oversight of desegregation) and returned to neighborhood schools.
This study demonstrated not only increased segregation, but also correlated segregation with
teacher salary and tenure. Even with additional resources to reduce class sizes, students from
poor and minority backgrounds had significantly less experienced teachers with lower salaries
and higher turnover rates. This finding supported several previous studies (Betts, Ruben &
Danenberg, 2000; Sonstelie, Brunner & Ardon, 2000).
In Equal Resources, Equal Outcomes, Betts et al. (2000) explained that schools serving
minority populations engage teachers with less experience, less education and less credentials.
The authors examined the question of resource allocation in terms of more expensive,
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 47
experienced teachers versus less expensive, less experienced teachers as one of equity.
Teacher quality and segregation. Clotfelter, Ladd and Vigdor (2011) recognized that the
primary method of promoting equity would be full integration, but a secondary and powerful
method is addressing teacher quality. Their study explained that salary differentials could be
used to attract and retain higher quality, more experienced teachers to segregated schools. The
authors found, however, that teachers will most likely not be motivated by salary to work for
extended periods at highly segregated schools.
Jackson (2009) also documented a correlation between teacher quality and segregated
schools. This study highlighted teacher preferences for student attributes. The district in the
study expressed no change in hiring policy, but there remained a clear pattern of teacher
shuffling and that coordinated with the shuffling of student attendance as a district moved away
from court-ordered segregation to neighborhood schools.
The impact of teacher quality on student achievement levels at segregated schools is an
organizational barrier that a school principal must address. A school principal may influence
teacher quality by addressing the culture of the school as a pathway to change (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2010.) For the purposes of this study, the researcher will focus on the teacher
selection, retention and mentoring cultural influence.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context. A conceptual framework establishes a
constructed foundation to make meaningful connections between empirical, theoretical and
experiential knowledge (Maxwell, 2013). The purpose of a conceptual framework is as a basis
for focused research to further knowledge in an area of study built upon grounded theory,
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 48
empirical evidence and personal experience. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe this
framework as a theory constructed by the researcher with the intent to build knowledge for
organizational application. It is essential to acknowledge the benefits and limitations of the
researcher’s critical subjectivity. The researcher, with assumed perspective, collects and
explains the sum of our collective understanding in an area of study and presents a theory of
practice (Maxwell, 2013). A conceptual framework is iterative in nature and represents the
researchers’ beliefs about the subject (Maxwell, 2013). A conceptual framework serves as a
guide for the researcher in sampling, data collection and data analysis. When conducting
qualitative research, a conceptual framework is essential to organize the research, focus research
questions and generate theory grounded in empirical, theoretical and experiential research. It is
through this conceptual framework that the problem of practice is refined and communicated.
While the assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on the principal
relative to school integration have been presented within the sphere of influence, the intent is to
explain the interactions between these influences on the school principal. It is the researcher’s
claim that the organizational context of a school district creates a landscape in which the school
principal’s knowledge and motivation inform his or her actions and decisions around school
integration as a means to support all children in reaching their academic potential. It is through a
transformative worldview lens that this research is conducted. Creswell (2014) describes
transformative viewpoint as one in which research will bring about political and social change.
Answers to the research questions are intended to inform principals in how to establish an
integrated school population in order to address the implications of increasing segregation in
public schools.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 49
Research documenting the creation, dismantling and re-creation of segregated schools is
the foundation for the conceptual framework and established the imperative for addressing the
social crisis of inequitable educational opportunities for children in America. This history,
contextualized with research around housing policy (Zhang, 2009) and residential mobility
(Logan et al., 2012; Saporito & Sohoni, 2006) continued to construct this framework. School
choice as a reform strategy (Frankenberg & Siegel-Hawley, 2011) was examined closely as it is
informed by social closure theory (Fiel, 2013), racial competition theory (Renzulli & Evans,
2005) and critical race theory (Gillborn, 2005). Finally, the researcher investigated the concept of
integration as a reform strategy (Orfield, 2009) to address segregation, inequitable reform
strategies and social behavior theories.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 50
Figure 1. Interaction of Principal Knowledge and Motivation within the School District Models
and Settings
Figure 1 models the school principal focused on the organizational goal of integration
positioned within the cultural setting and models of a public school district. As demonstrated in
the model, there exist school district factors outside the sphere of influence of a school principal
such as the purpose of education as viewed through a political lens; legal and legislative limits to
district policies; the use of reform strategies such as school choice and teacher self-selection of
assignment and retention. Moving inward toward the setting of the school, each of the district
Principal Knowledge:
Factual, Conceptual, Procedural and
Metacognitive knowledge related to
segregation in public schools and
leadership for social change.
Principal Motivation:
Motivation relative to self-efficacy and
value expectancy of an integrated
school community.
Cultural Setting: The role of
public education in America today
Cultural Model:
Principal’s
influence on
student
composition of
school.
Cultural Setting:
Influence over
school choice,
i.e. outreach,
education,
Magnet schools
**Cultural Setting: Education as a
democratic process to create an engaged
electorate.
**Cultural
Setting:
School choice as a
reform strategy,
private, charter
and magnet
schools.
Cultural Model: Principal’s
influence on teacher selection
and retention.
**Cultural Model: Teacher
self-selection and tenure.
**Cultural
Model: Legal
and legislative
limitations to
district
integration
efforts.
School District:
Influences outside the sphere of
influence of a school principal.
School:
Influences within
the sphere of
influence of a
school principal.
Internal
influences on
a school
principal
Circle of Influence Key:
Internal influences
Circle of influence
** Outside influences
Organizational Goal
Organizational Goal:
The racial and
demographic population of
each school reflects the
population of the
community served by the
district.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 51
factors outside the school principal’s sphere of influence have relative, associated models and
settings that are within the school principals sphere of influence such as the role of public
education for all students as a moral imperative; principal influence over school attendance and
demographic makeup; principal’s influence over school choice; and principal influence over
selection and retention of high quality teachers. Centrally, within the cultural models and
settings of a school district and a school, there are internal knowledge and motivation factors that
are the core of the influence and behavior of a school principal as he or she focuses on the
organizational goal of an integrated school community. These factors include factual, conceptual,
procedural and metacognitive knowledge related to the history and evolution of segregation in
public schools and leadership for social change. Additionally, motivation factors include
principal self-efficacy and value expectancy for an integrated student population. With equal
weight, these knowledge and motivation factors combine to generate influence over the school
community and finally (moving outward) the district community.
The cultural models and setting influences reference the reality of constraints and the
context in which principals operate within a public school district, i.e. the need for principals to
be aware of impact of housing policy and geography on student attendance (Dougherty et al.,
2009; Logan et al., 2012); the need for principals to understand what is within their control to
moderate the impact of charter schools, magnet schools and private schools on public school
attendance (Garcia, 2009; Holme, 2002; Jacobs, 2013); the need for principals to have the
authority to engage in strategies employed by magnet schools to successfully integrate their
school (Lancellot, 2016; Waters et al., 2003); the need for principals to be active advocates for
attendance policies that support integration (Kose, 2009; Riehl, 200; Theoharis, 2015); and the
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 52
ability of principals to attract and retain highly qualified staff (Houck, 2010). These cultural
settings and models surround a principal’s knowledge and motivation.
Knowledge influences on a school principal include the need to understand the history
and political context of segregation in public schools (Daugherty et al., 2009; Doyle, 2005); the
need to be aware of the impact of reform efforts on their student population (Frankenberg &
Siegel-Hawley, 2011; Jacobs, 2013); the need to know the measure of the achievement gap
between white and non-white students in their district (Garcia, 2009; Levy, 2010); and the need
to have applicable knowledge of leadership practices, e.g. the use of data-based decision making,
for change (Goldring et al., 2003; Kose, 2009; Lancellot, 2016). Without this knowledge, a
motivated principal will not effectively function within the cultural settings and models of a
school and school district.
Motivation influences on a school principal include the need to understand how parents
actually choose schools (Bosetti, 2004; Holme, 2002); and the need to understand how social
closure, racial competition and critical race theories impact their students and teachers (Fiel,
2013; Gilborn, 2005; Ladson-Billing, 1998). Additionally, principals must value the cultural
capital of minority families (Yosso, 2005; Wells et al., 2016) and be motivated by social justice
for all students (Kose, 2000; Riehl, 2000). This motivation must work in tandem with the
knowledge about school segregation to address organizational change within the setting of a
school district.
It is in examining the intersection between principal knowledge about integration and his
or her motivation to address the issue of segregation that change may begin. This intersection
exists within a school community and school district, both of which are unique and far-reaching
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 53
cultural settings that are dynamic in nature as they influence principal knowledge and motivation
to be a leader for social change and achieve the organizational goal of integration. In order to
discover actionable and practical influences on school integration, the researcher focused
specifically on (a) principal knowledge and behaviors to promote integration; (b) principal self-
efficacy and value expectancy to achieve integration; and (c) the cultural influence of teacher
selection and retention. The remaining portions of the conceptual framework might be the focus
of further study.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 54
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study examined the capacity of the school principal to integrate the school
population as a reform effort aimed at closing the achievement gap and increasing student
achievement for all students. The purpose of this chapter is to explain the methodology for the
study, including data collection and analysis.
Research Questions
The following questions guided this evaluation study in addressing the knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational influences on the school principal.
1. What principal knowledge and behaviors influence school integration?
2. What role does principal self-efficacy and value expectancy play in school integration?
3. How do principals influence teacher selection to achieve the goal of integration?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus was elementary principals and former elementary
principals in Greatland School District, a Transitional Kindergarten through 6
th
grade district. At
the time of the study, there were nine elementary principals and two former principals working at
the district office in leadership positions. Each principal led a unique and distinctive school
population, ranging from racially isolated majority, to relatively integrated, to racially isolated
minority. By interviewing principals from schools with varied integration status, the researcher
was able to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences, as described by
Clark and Estes (2008), on the level of integration of a school relative to the behaviors and
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 55
beliefs of the principal. Purposive sampling of the principals allowed data collection ranging
from racially isolated schools to successfully integrated schools. Christensen and Johnson (2015)
explain purposive sampling as non-random sampling that allows the researcher to select
individuals with particular characteristics. The researcher interviewed eight principals; seven
current principals and one former principal.
Interview a Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Current or former principal.
The stakeholder of focus is the school principal and his/her influence on the demographic
makeup of his/her school. The researcher interviewed all available stakeholders. A former
principal in a district leadership role (a director) supplemented these interviews as one principal
was unable to participate due to resignation. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasized the
importance of focusing on information rich data to maximize the efficacy of the study. This
stakeholder was selected as a key pivotal player in implementing district initiatives, selecting
personnel and interacting with the community. The principals’ location in the organization was
one of connecting district initiatives with school level implementation. Through purposive
sampling from the racially isolated schools to integrated schools, the researcher explored the
knowledge and motivation influences within the school and the district as a whole. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) described this as maximum variation sampling as the widest possible range of
results is possible.
Criterion 2. Greatland School District. Using purposive sampling of the population of
current and former principals, this study illustrated the knowledge, motivation and organization
influences on school integration in Greatland School District.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 56
Criterion 3. Integrated school or racially isolated school. Principals who have
demonstrated success leading integrated schools and who have experienced the reality of leading
a minority isolated school provided rich information about the organizational constraints.
Principals with experience at racially isolated majority schools were also interviewed for
comparison purposes. Additionally, principal skill in leadership, motivation to integrate and
knowledge about community engagement provided insightful data.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The researcher conducted at eight interviews to gather as much data as possible. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) explained that saturation may occur when the researcher begins hearing
similar responses to interview questions, and the researcher recognized that with a sample size of
eight this may occur. While the interview was semi-structured, Maxwell (2013) cautioned
against pre-structuring to the degree that important information may be missed. Maxwell
suggested, instead, to lay out a plan for the interview, but be open to revision as data comes to
light. The researcher enjoyed a positive working relationship with all district principals as a
program coordinator at the district level, and did not oversee principals. This positive and
parallel relationship was key to the research process. Maxwell (2013) described the complexity
of the relationship between the researcher and the participant. The author explained the
difference between intellectual and personal participation by the interviewee and its impact on
the data being gathered. Each of these principals was already aware of the work of the researcher
and was willing to grant an interview. District administration was also in support of this research.
There was no IRB approval required by the district beyond oral permission of the superintendent
to conduct the study. In order to interview all available participants within the time constraints
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 57
of the school year, the researcher conducted the interviews over the course of one month.
Stakeholders meeting the above criteria comprised a manageable number of interviews
and provided a unique opportunity to examine all relevant schools in the district. This study may
prove to be generalizable to other similar districts in California dealing with segregation and
racial isolation.
Document Analysis Sampling Selection and Rationale
Selection 1. Weekly Bulletin. Creswell (2014) explained the value of document analysis
in understanding the language used by the participants. Documents allow for unobtrusive
information gathering and more importantly represent data to which principals have given their
attention. The weekly bulletin created by the principal expressed the school activities, values and
priorities of the school community relative to integration and student achievement.
Selection 2. Communications. Like the weekly bulletin, communications between the
school and the school community allow the researcher to gather contextual data about the school
and the role of the principal (Creswell, 2014). The researcher collected electronic school-wide
communications, and took note of visuals posted around the school and flyers in the school
office.
Selection 3. Staff Meeting Agenda A staff meeting agenda is a reflection of the
principal’s focus on priorities and leadership. A sampling of staff meeting agendas demonstrated
the school principals’ perceived accountabilities. Information about data proficiency, motivation
and organizational influences were gathered through analysis of these documents.
Selection 4. Single Plan for Student Achievement An analysis of each school’s single
plan for student achievement uncovered differences in school priorities. What a principal chose
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 58
to ignore and what was called out in the plan was another representation of his/her values around
student achievement, integration and achievement. What is acknowledged, and what is ignored is
another representation of a leader’s values (Collins, 2011).
Document Analysis Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Documents are an information rich source expressive of the priorities and values of the
school community. They can be correlated with other data points, such as interviews and
observation to provide context and meaning. Document analysis informed the researcher’s
coding of the data gathered and provide language useful to develop meaning. Document analysis
also compensates for potential lack of articulation of the interviewee and allows the researcher to
return to the data at a later time (Creswell, 2014).
Explanation for Choices
With a conveniently feasible population size, an interview with all relevant stakeholders
was possible. If the district were too large to accomplish this, or too small to gain a reasonable
sample, further methods might have been used to illuminate the research questions. The
qualitative design of this study was grounded in the rich information that was available through
detailed interview. The researcher noted the discrete responses in addition to implied meaning,
body language and the degree to which the researcher perceived the interviewee to be open to the
topic of racial integration.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study utilized in-depth interview and document analysis to collect data on the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on the school principal. Interview allowed
the researcher insight into the inner workings of the principal’s knowledge and motivation.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 59
Document analysis provided supporting or refuting evidence of the data gathered in the
interview. Additionally, document analysis informed the researcher of the organizational
structure and influences within the school district on the school principal. The researcher
selected these methods to gather rich information about principal’s beliefs and sense of self-
efficacy through interview triangulated with physical, visual evidence of actions and behaviors
through document and data analysis. Triangulation assures that one data collection method is
supported by another method, thereby reducing the risk of a single data collection bias (Maxwell,
2013). Additionally, demographic data gathered from the California Department of Education
(CDE) was cross-referenced with data gathered from interview and document analysis to
determine the degree to which a school is integrated relative to the principal’s behaviors and
knowledge. Recommendations for practice also referenced CDE data on student achievement
levels to further explain the need for integration as a reform strategy.
Interviews
Patton (2002) described the purpose of interview as understanding the perspective of the
respondent with a goal of making meaning of things that cannot be observed. To understand the
knowledge and motivation of the school principal, the researcher interviewed seven current
principals and one former elementary principal in semi-structured, formal interviews of
approximately one hour each. These interviews were prescheduled and took place in the
principal’s office to minimize interruption and ensure privacy. The office setting allowed for
principals to be as open and honest as possible, with the guarantee of anonymity and data
protection. Weiss (1994) cautioned the interviewer to understand the limitations of interview
with regard to the openness and precision of the respondent. The author explained that at times a
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 60
respondent may attempt to paint a positive picture of himself or herself, have limited memory or
not be willing to divulge personal information. Triangulation of interview data with document
analysis helped compensate for these limitations. All interviews took place in English, though
language ability was considered to be a factor that may contribute to cultural proficiency. The
interviews were semi-structured as there were a predetermined set of questions and topics to
explore, but respondents were encouraged to expand on a topic or provide additional information
when possible. Research questions gathered factual information about a principal’s experience,
history and school data; beliefs about school culture, community outreach, and the role of the
principal; as well as questions intended to discover the principal’s personal and professional
motivation. The researcher was prepared with follow-up questions to gather additional insight.
Semi-structured interview allowed the respondent to define their experiences and knowledge in
unique ways, allowing the researcher to gather new ideas or understand emerging relevant facets
of the topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Documents and Artifacts
The researcher gathered documents and artifacts as a means to triangulate interview data.
As possible, the researcher gathered school flyers and announcements, social media
communications, and photos of posters/displays throughout the school. Additionally, samples of
staff meeting agendas and weekly bulletins were collected from each principal. Each of these
artifacts reflected the principal’s influence, knowledge, and motivation on student and family
engagement and values around diversity in the student population. Social media communications
were available through ParentSquare (a social media platform) and accessible from the district
office. Photos of posters and school displays provided visual evidence of the school’s values;
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 61
Were posters bilingual? Did posters reflect the demographics of the school? The researcher took
photos during the normal course of her workday during the research window. When securing the
interview date and time, the principal was asked to provide samples of weekly bulletins and staff
meeting agendas. Bulletins and agendas were another means to identify the values and priorities
of the school principal in working with the school staff. Finally, data gathered from the CDE
website on student demographics and achievement data provided the researcher insight into the
actual makeup of the school and achievement levels of the subgroups of students, which was
analyzed in contrast to the principal’s degree of knowledge about his/her student demographics
and achievement. Reports produced through the CDE website are examples of researcher
generated documents as referenced by Merriam and Tisdell (2016).
Data Analysis
For this study, data was gathered through semi-structured, in depth interview and
document analysis. Data gathered through interview was analyzed after the completion of eight
interviews of current and former principals. Following each interview, the researcher wrote
reflections and questions for follow up in the form of an analytic memo. Miles, Huberman and
Saldaña (2014) emphasize the importance of analytic memos to the research process as a means
to make meaning of the data as it emerges. Additionally, the researcher noted new themes that
emerged and marked the location of specific quotes and examples that spoke to the research
questions. In each phase of analysis, the researcher was careful to be aware of researcher bias
and positionality. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a codebook created by the
researcher that gathered data about a priori codes as well as in vivo codes that emerged from data
collection. The a priori codes related specifically to the conceptual framework that organized the
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 62
study; knowledge, motivation and organization influences. In vivo codes emerged around the
themes of leadership of diverse populations, motivation to “sell” a school, and the impact of
federal accountability measures. Patterns and themes emerged around the degree of integration
with which a principal had experience. The data was then organized into racially isolated
majority, integrated and racially isolated minority categories, representing the demographic
composition of the school at which a principal served. Trends within these categories became
clear with a few exceptions. One such exception noted a principal with experience with diverse
populations did not seem to gain knowledge about effectively working with minority groups
through that experience and transferred voluntarily to a racially isolated majority school. Another
exception is a principal with significant experience with diversity de-emphasized her knowledge
about diversity in favor of discussing knowledge about data and organizational change. Several
analytic tools were used to synthesize the data, most notably questioning, comparing and
drawing upon personal experience (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Finally, document analysis
confirmed or rejected the data reported by research participants relative to the interview
questions. In nearly all cases, document analysis confirmed the reports of the participants and
researcher understanding gathered through interview. Gaps in knowledge, motivation or
organizational influences were deemed validated by the researcher if the interview data,
document analysis, personal experience as well as demographic and achievement data from the
California Department of Education were in congruence. Findings from the study are analyzed
and reported in Chapter Four.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To increase the credibility of the study, in depth interview was corroborated with
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 63
document analysis to support or refute interview data. This corroboration helped provide context
and supporting evidence of principal behaviors, beliefs and actions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
emphasized the importance of using multiple measures to ensure the research actually measures
the intended focus of the study. The interview protocol was peer reviewed by colleagues within
the field to ensure the credibility and validity of the questions. After data collection, the
researcher examined the data for congruent and discrepant evidence. Additionally, Maxwell
(2013) asserted that addressing researcher bias is a critical component to ensure credibility of a
study. It was the claim of the researcher that integration benefits students. To counter this bias,
the researcher interviewed principals from integrated and racially segregated schools.
Additionally, the researcher aimed to illuminate other efforts by school principals to increase
student achievement as discovered through in-depth interview. These findings are reported in the
discussion section.
Validity and Reliability
In order to address validity and reliability, the researcher selected all available principals
and former principals for interview, ensuring representation from racially isolated as well as
integrated schools. Each principal agreed to interview as a professional courtesy, though the
researcher provided a refreshment as a token of gratitude as compensation for the interruption in
the workday. The researcher intended to obtain 100% participation of the current principals in
Greatland School District, but one principal had resigned and another (interim) principal was not
available. With the addition of a former principal, and representative data from three other
integrated schools, the response rate was representative of the entire district as a whole. Each
interview question was administered with generally the same tone and intent, with clarifying and
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 64
probing questions as necessary. Efforts were taken to eliminate researcher bias in the delivery of
the interview protocol and collection of data.
Ethics
In qualitative research, the relationship between the researcher and the participant has
significant ethical considerations. In order to produce reliable and valid data, the researcher must
engage in ethical research methods (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell (2013) explained that in
qualitative research, the researcher inherently brings biases to the subject. These biases must be
recognized and addressed to mitigate their influence on the results of the research. Permission
from stakeholders, power issues, anonymity, disclosure, informed consent and IRB (Institutional
Review Board) must be considered in conducting valid and ethical qualitative research
(Creswell, 2014). The researcher addresses these influences and responsibilities in the following
narrative.
The researcher for this study had worked for Greatland School District for 14 years in
varying capacities. At the time of the study, she served as a program coordinator at the district
office. Her relationship with the stakeholder focus of the study was neither superior nor inferior.
She did not supervise or report to any school principal. She had a positive working relationship
with all principals in the district and could be described as located in a separate but parallel
position with regard to district administration and site employees. This relationship allowed her
to gain access to principals. There was no conflict or resistance to participation as each
participant was approached individually within his/her availability. The researcher fully
explained her role as that of investigator, unrelated to her position in the school district and gain
informed consent from each participant.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 65
While informal consent was gained upon proposition of the study to district
administration, the researcher obtained formal approval from the district superintendent. The
nature of the data did not carry risk to either the researcher or participant beyond a requirement
for confidentiality. The data gathered through interview remained both confidential and
anonymous. The goal of IRB at the University of Southern California (USC) is to mitigate risks
to both the researcher and the participant (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Additionally, a detailed
proposal of this study was submitted to USC IRB and approved before the initiation of the
collection of data to ensure ethical considerations have been addressed.
Each participant was provided full disclosure as to the full purpose of the study, right to
withdraw, right to anonymity and full confidentiality. The researcher’s responsibility to the
subject was to preserve these rights so as not to impact the careers and professional relationships
of the participants. The right to record the interview was obtained, with the interviews stored on
a locked device kept in the possession of the researcher at all times. Artifacts collected were
assigned a pseudonym and identifying characteristics have been blurred. Demographic data was
obtained from the California Department of Education (CDE).
The assumptions and biases held by the researcher included the belief that principals
beliefs and behaviors influence their student population and subsequent achievement, and that
principals intentionally address their student demographics to varying degrees and with varying
success as a reform strategy. The researcher’s personal relationships with each of the principals
had the potential to influence the interview protocol or bias the responses of the participants, so
conscious effort was made to adhere to the protocol and engage in authentic inquiry.
Additionally, the orientation of the researcher was one of inquiry, with genuine and open-ended
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 66
questions allowing for an earnest discovery of the knowledge, motivation and organizational
factors involved in school integration (Clark & Estes, 2002; Patton, 2002).
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 67
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Overview of Purpose and Questions
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which principals influence their
school demographics relative to racial integration to encourage all students to reach their
potential. The analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on
school principals as they strive to integrate the population of their school. While a complete
evaluation of the influences on school integration would also include district administration,
school staff and parents, for practical purposes, this study focused on elementary school
principals in Greatland School District.
The questions that guided this study were:
1. What principal knowledge and related behaviors influence school integration?
2. What role does principal self-efficacy and value expectancy play in school integration?
3. How do principals influence teacher selection to achieve the goal of integration?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources?
Data was gathered through in-depth semi-structured interviews, document analysis and
demographic analysis available through the California Department of Education. Chapter Four
will present the findings from the analysis of the data. Chapter Five will present research-based
solutions and recommendations for organizational practice.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 68
Participating Stakeholders
Seven current elementary principals and one former principal in Greatland School
District were ultimately interviewed. Principals interviewed ranged in experience from seven to
fourteen years. Six female principals and two male principals were interviewed. Four of the
principals were bilingual, Spanish speaking. Principals will be identified by the pseudonym
assigned to their school. The researcher intentionally sampled principals from three racially
isolated majority, three integrated schools and two racially isolated minority schools. The one
school omitted from the study was an integrated school. This school was omitted because the
interim principal was returning to the classroom and deemed unable to provide relevant data to
the study. The researcher defined integrated schools as schools within 10% of the district
demographic representation by race and English Learner status. Racially isolated majority
schools (Coastal View, Hillside, and Pilgrim) had greater than 10% more White students or 10%
fewer English Learners. Racially isolated minority schools (El Lago and El Calle) had greater
than 10% more Hispanic students and/or English Learners than the district average. Table 6
represents schools in Greatland School District ordered from racially isolated majority, to
integrated, to racially isolated minority. The district average demographic population is centered
in the table to show the relative integration status of each school.
Table 6
Schools in Greatland School District by Racial and Linguistic Profile
School White Hispanic English Learners Integration
Coastal View 66% 20% 5%
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 69
Hillside 58% 29% 11% Racially isolated majority
Pilgrim 40% 38% 27%*
District totals
(target integration)
35% 50% 26%
Integrated**
Sheldon 34% 52% 23%
Firwood 28% 58% 28%
Island 25% 52% 41%
El Lago 22% 72% 40% Racially isolated minority
El Calle 10% 84% 37%
*Data represents significant Special Education population
**Integrated is defined as within 10% of the district attendance area demographic
Findings
Findings are presented by research question in this section. Themes within the areas of
knowledge, motivation and organization influences emerged as the data was analyzed. For the
first research question, principal knowledge and related behaviors that influence integration are
presented. This section discusses knowledge about relationships, knowledge about the use of
data and knowledge about cultural proficiency. For the second research question, self-efficacy
and value expectancy as they relate to motivation are examined. The third research question
presents the organizational influences of teacher quality and the impact of school choice as a
reform strategy.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 70
Principal Knowledge and Principal Behaviors that Influence Integration
The first research question examined the principal knowledge and principal behaviors
that influence integration. Through a detailed review of the literature, in depth interview and
document analysis, the following knowledge influences emerged.
Knowledge about relationships. Goldring (2003) and Kose (2009) described
networking and relationship maintenance as essential for organizational leaders. The researcher
defined knowledge about relationships as those behaviors that lead to a successful and functional
social fabric within the organization. These behaviors include communicating with stakeholders,
leveraging community resources, engaging in community outreach, and bringing together
various factions within the organization. When analyzing principal knowledge about the role of
relationships and the purpose of relationship development, there were some clear themes that
spanned all interviews. All principals viewed relationship development as a priority and
significant focus of their job. Every principal referenced the importance of working closely with
the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), the school English Language Advisory Council (ELAC)
and attending school events. Many principals discussed being visible and available as a high
priority, citing knowing students’ names and greeting parents at the curb as examples. In these
examples, all principals demonstrated moderate to high knowledge about the importance of
relationships. However, the focus and purpose for relationship development varied between
racially isolated majority, integrated and racially isolated minority schools.
Relationship development at racially isolated majority schools discussed their role as that
of management of very involved parents with high expectations for their child’s school. These
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 71
parents tended to be highly educated, more affluent and actively involved in their children’s
school. The principal at Coastal View School explained he felt pressure to keep achievement
high. He learned to develop a thick skin and remain calm with parents who expected to get what
they wanted. “I’m good at the PR part,” he explained and went on to say that he viewed this as a
significant part of his job. Parents at Coastal View expected the principal to function as a public
relations officer in engaging the community with the school. To this point, Coastal View parents
created the district’s only education foundation, supported by current and former Coastal View
families to fund special projects at the school.
The principal at Pilgrim (also racially isolated majority) explained that a significant
portion of her job was relationship development through communicating with the various parent
groups, in the context of managing their various projects on campus. She affirmed that her
parents were highly educated and had high expectations, and that her Gifted and Talented
Education (GATE) program was one reason educated parents sought out her school. A weekly
bulletin at Pilgrim highlighted no fewer than thirteen parent-organized events occurring through
the course of just one week. Relationship building at Pilgrim was centered around engaging and
managing the resources and efforts of the parent community.
The principal at Hillside (also racially isolated majority) explained that parents are
already so vested that she felt part of her job was to rein in their efforts and to keep the parents
and community focused on the school’s objectives for teaching and learning. The Hillside
principal explained, “I’m trying to shift the parents energy to helping build learners, not just
having a bike rodeo.” Statements like these indicate that principals at racially isolated majority
schools must build relationships while supporting the mission of the school, as described by
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 72
Schmidt and Venet (2012). These parents needed to be encouraged while also being directed in
their efforts. Guiding and maintaining these relationships took a great deal of her time.
Prospective parent tours were a common occurrence at these schools. Parent management,
relationship maintenance (and implied appeasement) was viewed to be a major focus of the job
for principals at racially isolated majority schools.
Relationship development at integrated schools focused more on the nuts and bolts of
leading a school. These principals referenced leveraging parent resources to provide additional
opportunities for their schools and encouraging parent involvement, especially when sharing
cultural experiences. Principals within Greatland, a relatively small district, knew well the
differences in the parent communities between the schools. The principal at Firwood (integrated)
understood the role of the principal at Coastal View (racially isolated majority) as being different
from her role at Firwood. She explained, “Unlike at Coastal View, we rarely receive any
complaints from parents, there’s less pressure here to ‘manage parents.’” Principals interviewed
at integrated schools were reluctant to offer frequent parent tours. They explained that they
would certainly tour a family new to the neighborhood, but the school should speak for itself,
they were not interested in “selling” the school or catering to families who were “shopping.” The
principal at Sheldon learned to help parents understand what they offered and encourage parents
to decide what they are looking for in a school, he explained that Sheldon is representative of the
community of Greatland. At every integrated school, principals reported that they focused their
energy in relationship development in building leadership within the school staff and in the
parent community. Island School’s principal cited committee leadership and staff led
professional development, while Firwood’s principal discussed parent leadership of community
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 73
events as examples of how they built relationships to benefit the school. These examples of
shared leadership echo Kose’s (2009) findings about the use of teams to foster relationships.
There was a different intensity and focus on relationship development at racially isolated
minority schools. Principals at these schools felt a significant pressure to attract and retain
families. The principal at El Calle cited many examples of intense efforts to engage and retain
neighborhood families, from presentations at realtor forums, to writing grants to local
corporations, to partnering with the Anti-Defamation League with No Place for Hate and
implementing No Excuses University, a school-wide program focused on preparing all students
for college. These partnerships were high-stakes, sweeping efforts to re-engage and re-integrate
their populations. Some were partnerships with local businesses and non-profits, others were
formalized structures requiring the participation of stakeholders. These principals took advantage
of every opportunity to create partnerships and develop relationships. The principal at El Lago
explained that after meeting a parent at her Coffee at the Curb event, she engaged a local
engineering company to come to her school to facilitate engineering events. “You have to take
advantage of every opportunity,” she explained, as these connections were harder to make at
racially isolated schools. Principals at these schools intuitively understood that building internal
and external relationships were essential for organizational change at their school, supporting
previous research findings (Goldring et al., 2003; Riehl, 2000).
The principals of El Calle and El Lago (racially isolated minority) schools both
referenced the need to pull the dichotomous community together. When these principals first
arrived at these racially isolated schools, there was a power group of parents that was
monocultural, either white or Hispanic. This dichotomy discouraged the other group from fully
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 74
participating in the school community. El Lago’s principal described this as “cracking a few eggs
to make an omelet” when she explained the challenge in creating an integrated PTA group of
parents by inviting Hispanic parents to join the PTA. At El Calle, it was the opposite. White
parents felt unwelcome by the Hispanic parent group who ran school events. The Island School
principal, which had been a racially isolated school in the past, defined this effort to re-integrate
parent groups as “shifting the separateness.” These principals worked constantly to build
internal and external relationships through telecasts that went out to the school and community
via ParentSquare (a digital communication tool), visiting local Section 8 housing tracts, inviting
local news outlets to school events and inviting the neighborhood to school performances.
Summary. Each of these principals approached relationship development from very
different perspectives. Racially isolated schools required the principal to manage what the
principal from Coastal View termed “power player parents.” Integrated schools allowed the
principal to leverage resources, focus on the school objectives and engage with parents in a
manageable and appropriate way. There appeared to be a desperation in the scope and breadth of
relationship development efforts by school principals at racially isolated minority schools that
did not exist in the other schools to attract families. Based on the data, knowledge about
relationships was a validated knowledge influence.
Knowledge about the use of data. Knowledge about the use of data is defined as a
principal’s ability to make sense of the data, communicate its meaning and use it to improve
teaching and learning (Ferrandino, 2005). Principals of racially isolated majority schools
reported lower knowledge of and comfort with the use of data to inform instructional practices at
their schools. When asked to describe their school’s achievement in terms of data, they
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 75
universally explained that their schools are “high performing.” Several principals explained this
in interesting ways, “The kids came with everything they needed--they’ve been to museums and
on ski trips,” explained one principal. Another principal said, “They’ve got a lot of Velcro to
attach new knowledge.” It is through generalizations and metaphors that principals at racially
isolated majority schools referenced a macro view of student achievement. Principals at these
high performing schools described using data to focus on the eight English learner students, or
the “bubble” kids who, with a little extra instruction, will increase school-wide test scores. These
principals explained how hard it is to maintain high achievement, as it is tied so closely to
cohorts of gifted students who pass through and influence their overall achievement levels.
Principals at racially isolated majority schools referenced data with broad strokes as it relates to
public perception. One example of this is a staff meeting agenda at one of these schools in which
the principal showed her staff the 4X4 grid of the new California Dashboard and states, “Blue is
the optimal color.” There were a mere 15 minutes set aside for this agenda item, and it focused
entirely upon school-wide data reporting as it relates to public perception. Principals at these
schools did not seem to need to make sense of the data beyond its impact on the school’s
reputation.
At racially integrated schools, principals used data with markedly more proficiency.
These principals knew how to disaggregate, investigate and describe trends with subgroups.
They also knew how to support teachers in implementing intervention based upon achievement
data. The principal at Sheldon explained that when working with grade level teams, he expected
instructional groups to be determined by data. He told teachers, “you may NOT predetermine
learning groups,” but that these groups must be based on assessments around the essential skills
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 76
the teachers selected. This practice required teachers to use data for a very targeted purpose-
creating learning groups. This same principal explained that teaching teachers to use data is a
process which takes time and that learning will occur through mistakes, but that the leader must
be insistent that data drives instructional practices.
The principal at Island (integrated) described this process as well. She explained, “We
started with one assessment about fluency rates. We agreed to decide on some benchmarks, cut
scores, recognizing realistic expectations and then focused on growth over grade level
performance.” The Island principal went on to explain the need to develop common definitions
and practices for intervention and a common curriculum when discussing the use of data applied
to instructional practices. This is an example of the principal making meaning and transferring
her knowledge of data to instructional practices that improve teaching and learning. The
principal at Island school also focused staff meetings on staff development rather than
information dissemination. She used shared leadership to invite teachers to lead a discussion
about STAR 360 data tied to grade level collaboration and core instructional minutes. This was
the only agenda item for the entire staff meeting.
The principal at Sheldon school (integrated) also facilitated a discussion at a staff
meeting about data progress and monitoring for enrichment and intervention. Sheldon’s
principal implemented a structure in which teachers identified “smart goals” and then measured
student progress to form flexible groups for targeted instruction. Sheldon’s principal also
dedicated an entire staff meeting to this discussion, as well as follow-up grade level meetings.
These deep discussions about the use of data to inform instructional practices did not happen at
racially isolated majority schools as reported by their principals or through document analysis.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 77
Additionally, it was clear that data use was a high priority based upon the amount of time set
aside for discussion, learning and planning purposes.
The principal group most proficient with the use of data was the racially isolated minority
school principals. These principals used data in innovative and cutting edge ways to address their
student population. The principal at El Calle School was the first in the district to implement a
progress monitoring system in the district, Measures of Academic Progress (MAP). She
implemented Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) first as well, and taught the teachers
there to look at the data, monitor “raw score growth” and have “hard” discussions about student
achievement. This principal also expressed a more detailed understanding of how to demonstrate
school success, through achieving Safe Harbor, and focusing on growth targets. She brought her
school out of Program Improvement, the only school in the district to do so. One example of this
focus on the use of data was found in document analysis of a staff meeting agenda at El Calle
school. On this staff meeting agenda, the principal facilitated a discussion around MAP
(Measures of Academic Progress) testing results and goal setting. In this same meeting, the
principal also invited a guest speaker to educate teachers about the use of Lexia (an online
reading fluency program) as an intervention and acceleration tool which provided teachers with
actionable data to inform instruction. The principal at El Lago also led her staff through difficult
conversations, leading teachers as they learned to talk about student centered data. The El Lago
principal drastically revamped the school’s instructional schedule to allow for block core
instructional time, then asked the teachers to look at achievement data one year later. With
significant growth in her subgroups, the teaching staff now brought data to student study team
meetings. She explains, “It’s not personal. The data speaks for itself.” Teachers at El Lago have
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 78
become proficient with the use of data due to the principal’s leadership with data use. The
principal at El Lago believes the use of data has allowed her staff to come together over a
challenging majority minority population of underperforming students.
Summary. Data proficiency and use by principals varies drastically in Greatland School
District. Generally, principals at high performing (racially isolated majority schools) use data to
monitor very few students and GATE students. They were interested in a broader, reputation
maintaining use for data. Principals at integrated and racially isolated minority schools used data
more proficiently and frequently to impact student achievement and to support teachers. There
seemed to be an inverse relationship between the need for principals to use data and student
achievement rates, in that principals of high performing schools need little knowledge about how
to use data while principals at low performing schools needed a great deal of knowledge about
how to use data to impact student achievement. The data confirms that principal use of student
achievement data is a validated knowledge influence, with increasing relevancy and urgency as a
school approaches racially isolated minority.
Knowledge about cultural proficiency and positionality. Rueda (2011) described
metacognitive awareness of context as necessary in problem solving. Kose (2009) emphasized
the need for school leaders to value social justice. This reflective awareness and orientation
toward social justice emerged as an unexpected influence, as the spectrum of principals’
knowledge varied widely. In questioning principals about their knowledge of relationships and
the use of data, it became apparent to the researcher that previous experience and knowledge
about subgroups may be a significant factor in their knowledge and related behavior relative to
cultural proficiency and positionality. One principal at a racially isolated majority school (who
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 79
had actually been a teacher at a racially isolated minority school) expressed satisfaction at having
been moved to her new school by district administration. She alluded to discomfort, or lack of
success, with the families at the racially isolated minority school. The researcher understood her
to mean that she did not understand or connect with that community. When this same principal
referred to her school as “diverse”, it was more with reference to her students with special needs,
not racial diversity relative to the community. The principal at Coastal View bluntly explained,
“My parent [community] views a lack of diversity as a positive, because their children will get
more attention.” This principal also described his first teaching assignment as a “mixed” school.
The researcher inferred his language use and lack of interest in or explanation of the influence of
diversity to be evidence of his lack of experience with “mixed” populations. In fact, as a follow
up question, when asked why he was recently moved to an integrated school he explained, “He
[the superintendent] wanted me to have experience at a Title 1 school.” In general, the principals
at the racially isolated majority schools happened also to be white, monolingual English speakers
with limited demonstration of experience with diversity.
Principals at integrated schools were more intentional in addressing diversity,
demonstrating an increased awareness of cultural proficiency. They were intentional in their use
of culturally proficient language and referred to their positionality. For example, when the
researcher asked a clarifying question about “white” families, a principal responded with the
term “dominant culture” in its place. These principals demonstrated value in either reflecting
their community or in supporting their students in interacting successfully with others as a life
skill. The principal at Island View described that when she first arrived at Island View, the
students used to play soccer at recess--the whites vs. the Mexicans. She said, “We had many
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 80
discussions!” This example was illustrative of the work she engaged in to teach her students and
staff to be culturally aware and proficient. Many of these principals discussed the value of an
integrated population for all students, believing that there may exist an unconscious higher
expectation when there are higher-income, white peers in the classroom. Another research-
confirming insight came from both the principal at Island View and Firwood. They explained
that people tend to cluster with like people, and it is hard to be the “only one of your kind” when
discussing lack of integration on the playground or in the classroom (Fiel, 2013; Renzulli &
Evans, 2005; Saporito & Sohoni, 2006). Both of these principals were white and bilingual, but
seemed to be aware of their positionality as such.
Principals at racially isolated minority schools were more pointed in their opinions about
integration and cultural proficiency. One principal stated, “We have a real problem with
segregation” when describing the population of her school as monocultural [Hispanic]. She was
the only principal to actually make such a strong statement. The principal at El Lago expressed
her motivation to use data to impact student achievement as an imperative to shift the focus away
from cultural reasons for low achievement to objective means to address low achievement
through the use of data. This principal described many conversations in which teachers focused
on lack of support at home, non-English speaking parents, or poverty as reasons why their
students “couldn’t learn.” This principal worked hard to eliminate these inherent biases in
teacher practices. Both principals at the racially isolated minority schools were bilingual,
Spanish/English, one was bicultural. This continued to support evidence that principals with
experience with diversity (either personally or learned) more successfully interact with a diverse
population.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 81
Summary. Principal knowledge about cultural proficiency and positionality varied a
great deal in Greatland School District. It was interesting to learn that principals of racially
isolated majority schools generally tended to be white, monolingual and comfortable, or even
pleased, with the general isolation of their school as compared to the district averages. Three of
the four integrated schools’ principals were white, but two were bilingual and all principals
interviewed used racially sensitive language and expressed a value for an integrated student body
as benefiting all of their students. Principals of racially isolated minority schools were both
bilingual, one was Hispanic. These principals demonstrated significant cultural proficiency and
awareness of their positionality. They viewed their roles, as privileged and educated women, as
passionate advocates for all students. Cultural proficiency and knowledge of positionality is
confirmed as an influence for principals of integrated and racially isolated minority schools.
Principal Self-efficacy and Value Expectancy
The second research question examined principal motivation relative to school
integration. Specifically, the researcher examined self-efficacy for organizational change and
value expectancy to impact student demographics. An unexpected theme that emerged was the
influence of school choice on the motivation of the principal. Through a detailed review of the
literature, in depth interview and document analysis, the following motivation influences were
analyzed.
Principal self-efficacy and organizational change. In order to accomplish school
integration, a principal must believe that he or she can impact their student demographics.
Examples of the types of change that principals had engaged in with their staff were used to
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 82
gauge the degree to which a principal expressed self-efficacy for organizational change. All
principals were asked to describe a significant organizational change they had recently
implemented. The kinds of changes described by principals had a clear relationship to the school
demographics, from little or no changes at the surface level, to significant structural and
ideological changes.
At racially isolated majority schools, principals described surface level organizational
change or no change at all. One principal could not think of a recent change. This principal
explained, “I basically leave teachers alone and I have no union issues.” Another principal shared
in detail the intricacies involved in implementing “recess before lunch”. She expressed the
staffing changes necessary, the need to convince staff and parents, the logistics of this change in
working with district food services and how students would line up for lunch after playing. This
was a surface-level, managerial change with no substantive effect on the student population or
teaching and learning, reflecting low or no self-efficacy regarding significant change. Principals
at integrated schools responded differently to this question.
Principals at integrated schools described deeper, structural changes: professional
learning for teachers; implementing Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS);
building understanding and vertical coherence within the school. The principal at Sheldon
explained, “All kids need to have the same experience, if it’s not good enough for my kids, it’s
not good enough for one kid here,” in referencing the work he was doing to support teachers in
creating engaged learners. The Firwood principal explained that she successfully achieved
vertical coherence in standards and instruction by “talking about it all the time.” At Island
school, the principal described the process of using the Single Plan for Student Achievement to
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 83
examine the gaps in performance and create committees to address these gaps. She then provided
the opportunity for teachers to lead these committees, developing professional development that
became the focus of staff meetings (other details that would usually be the subject of staff
meetings was then communicated via email.) This shared leadership underscored her feelings
about how much there is to do as a principal, “principals have all the power to make a difference,
but they often feel they don’t have the time.” Through these examples, this group of principals
demonstrated the highest self-efficacy of all of the respondents.
Principals at racially isolated minority schools implemented far-reaching, meaningful and
substantive changes, but they were less confident in their efficacy. The principal at El Calle
referenced the “tipping point,” by which she meant the point at which there are too many
students in need of intervention, too many English Learners, to really address all of their needs to
the degree they should be addressed. El Calle adopted No Excuses University school-wide to
address the needs of the students as a whole. All teachers attended the No Excuses University at
least once, the principal estimated she attended six times. Other stakeholders (parents, other
staff) also attended, as part of the school-wide adoption of high standards for all students and
demonstrable efficacy in helping every child leave school college-ready. No Excuses University
was a high-stakes effort to “turn around” a failing school. The principal at El Lago made
significant changes as well. She revamped the daily schedule to ensure all students were
receiving sufficient core instructional minutes, provided common planning time for teachers by
aligning their Physical Education times, created 30 minutes of intervention and 30 minutes of
English Language Development daily, and worked to change the teachers knowledge and skills
about how to use data to plan instructional groupings and content. She insisted classroom
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 84
teachers personally instruct the academically neediest children and that classroom teachers were
responsible for the content of instruction for all of the students in their classes (even when pulled
out for intervention.) While these changes were far-reaching, neither principal felt they had
completely achieved what they had set out to do. Both of these principals privately expressed
low to moderate efficacy with regard to impacting student achievement through integrating their
schools.
Summary. Urgency for change seemed to drive the kinds of organizational changes
principals at these schools made. At racially isolated majority schools, students were generally
high achieving and principals felt little need to make substantive changes. These principals
demonstrated little self-efficacy to make changes. At integrated schools, principals felt urgency
to address a manageable number of students needs (both above and below grade level) with
systematic interventions and professional development. These principals indicated fairly high
levels of self-efficacy. However, at racially isolated minority schools, though principals felt high
levels of urgency, they also seemed to describe a lack of self-efficacy to address the enormity of
the changes they saw would be required to support every child in their school. There was a bell
shaped curve in these results ranging from low-efficacy at racially isolated majority schools; to
high efficacy at integrated schools; and back again to low efficacy at racially isolated minority
schools. The motivation influence of self-efficacy to change the student population is only
partially validated, as it appeared to occur as an influence only at already integrated schools.
Principal value expectancy for integration. Rueda (2011) explained that without an
interest or value in integrating a school community, a principal will not be motivated to address
his or her student demographic. To gather data on principal value expectancy for integration,
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 85
principals were asked if they would like to or could affect the demographic population of their
school. Specifically, principals were asked if they felt it was important to preserve the cultures of
their schools and if they could or would want to change their demographics.
Principals at racially isolated majority schools were quick to respond. They explained
they (and the schools’ families) liked the demographics of their school and sought it out. The
principal at Pilgrim answered, “I wouldn’t want to [change the demographics of Pilgrim].” She
referred to Pilgrim as “integrated,” explaining that parents like the mix, though Pilgrim’s
demographics are integrated with regard to students with special needs, not relatively racially
integrated. This perspective is supported by research that shows that white families are
comfortable with some diversity to a very limited degree (Fiel, 2013; Renzulli & Evans, 2005;
Saporito & Sohoni, 2006). The principal at Coastal View explained that it is “easy to monitor
eight English learners, they all fit on one page.” He went on to share that parents attend Coastal
View because they feel it is the best school, and they compare Coastal View to the high
achieving schools in neighboring wealthy districts and private schools. Principals at these
schools expressed low value expectancy for integration.
Principals at integrated schools valued their demographic makeup. They cited many
examples of the benefits of integration, from teacher quality to community representation.
Several principals explained that teachers need to teach differently [more effectively] when they
have a diverse student population. One principal observed small group instruction at Coastal
View (racially isolated majority) as the teacher teaching the same lesson three times, while at
Firwood (integrated), teachers must differentiate their instruction in small groups. This required
teachers to plan differently, use data to know where their students are, and work collaboratively
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 86
with their grade level teams. Several principals also felt their demographics were ideal: “Sheldon
represents Greatland’s community, it’s our reality;” and “Firwood is a Goldilocks school,
demographic mix, new and veteran teachers, public education is the great leveling of the playing
field.” Principals at these schools also referenced cultural heritage, building communication
skills, and the benefits of language and ability models in the classroom. These principals
acknowledged and appreciated the value in an integrated school.
Principals at racially isolated minority schools were the most vocal about the need to
change the demographics of the schools in Greatland School District, but they also felt very little
efficacy to do so. One principal actually called preservation of the cultures of the schools in
Greatland “veiled racism.” These principals valued honoring students’ cultural diversity and
demonstrated confidence in their teaching staff, but felt their task was daunting. Echoing
Thompson (2016), these principals often demonstrated visionary, equity oriented behaviors, but
again acknowledged the reality of the challenges in addressing their student population.
Universally, all principals referenced as the neighborhood school policy as the reason for the
inequity in student demographics at schools in Greatland School District.
Summary. Value expectancy for integration increased significantly as the minority
population of a school increased. At racially isolated majority schools, there was little or no
value for integration. Principals at integrated schools valued their diverse student population and
felt a degree of influence over it. Principals at racially isolated schools expressed the sharpest
drive and value toward integrating their school to improve student achievement. All principals,
however, agreed that the neighborhood attendance policy was the driving force behind the status
of integration or student composition of each school. As value expectancy increased with regard
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 87
to the benefits of integration to support all students increased as the minority population
increased, this motivation influence was validated by the data.
Principal beliefs about school choice. An unexpected theme that emerged was a severe
lack in principals’ value expectancy when it came to school choice in Greatland School District.
When it came to principal beliefs about how parents choose schools and to what their
demographics were attributed, all principals agreed. Students in Greatland School District attend
their neighborhood school, almost exclusively, with the exception of those who attend private
schools. Research supports these principals’ experience (Renzulli & Evans, 2005). Parents with
means select a neighborhood with a school that has a positive reputation (real or perceived.)
Word of mouth, rumor and reputation were the top reasons that principals felt parents chose
those schools. This was less true for integrated and racially isolated minority schools, which
principals referenced as “neighborhood” schools, acknowledging that parents had little choice in
attending these schools if they lived in the attendance area. Surprisingly, the data did not validate
school choice as a motivational influence for principals.
Summary. Value expectancy to affect their student population was generally limited
among principals interviewed. Exceptions to this were few. The principal at Coastal View
(racially isolated majority) did reference a significant part of his job was to keep parents from
leaving to go to private schools. The principal at Hillside agreed. She paused before saying,
“They do actually have a choice—these families could go anywhere they want. They come see
the school before they buy the house.” Parents with mobility did indeed have a choice. The
principal at Island (integrated) explained that her school’s reputation brought families back who
used to try to transfer out (when it had been racially isolated minority). When probed further, she
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 88
responded, “Math Superbowl. Not really, but we needed to offer gifted students the opportunity
to excel…that was public.” Island’s principal understood and worked to leverage public
successes to improve the reputation of the school. Many principals engaged in outreach
activities, from Kindergarten play dates at El Lago to posting on Nextdoor.com, but every
principal interviewed eventually returned to reputation and neighborhood as the reasons for their
school demographic makeup.
Organizational Influences
The third research question examined principal the organizational influences on a
principal relative to school integration. As described in the review of the literature, there are
many external influences on school integration: legal and legislative limitations; the political role
of public education; school choice as a reform strategy; and teacher self-selection and tenure.
This study focused on the internal organizational influences of the principal’s perception of the
influence of school reform strategies, i.e. No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and the principal’s
influence on teacher selection, retention and quality.
Principal influence on School Choice. No Child Left Behind was a reform strategy that
hit the racially isolated minority schools and the racially integrated schools in Greatland School
District with the greatest impact. When these schools were deemed “failing” by not attaining
unrealistic growth expectations (100% of students proficient and advanced achievement in
English language arts and mathematics) they became a school of choice. When this happened,
neighborhood schools were stripped of their natural diversity as white families fled integrated
schools to schools with positive reputations or private schools. The principals at El Calle and El
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 89
Lago schools referenced this as fact. They were too busy dealing with the reality and urgency to
meet the needs of their student population to discuss NCLB further. “We were losing 10-15
students a year through the transfer process,” explained one principal, as though floodwaters
were rising faster than the dam could be built. Several principals expressed hope that California’s
new Department of Education Dashboard tool will provide more accurate data on school success
and achievement through a growth model. Overall, principals felt they had little or no influence
over the impact of school choice as a reform strategy.
Summary. The effect of NCLB was significant on school attendance and composition in
Greatland School District. However, all principals agreed this was outside their realm of control,
therefore this organizational influence was not validated.
Principal influence on teacher quality. Findings about principal influence on teacher
quality proved the most impactful influence in the study. Principals felt they had the greatest
impact on teacher selection, retention and quality in addressing the needs of their student
population. As the minority population increased, so did principal involvement in hiring,
mentoring and retaining good teachers. Principals at racially isolated majority schools expressed
they had “some” influence over teacher quality, as they often inherited veteran teachers who
would stay put at a high performing school. However, principals at integrated and racially
isolated minority schools gave many examples of ways they impacted teacher selection, retention
and quality. Clotfelter et al. (2011) explained that short of full integration, teacher quality is the
most powerful method to promote equity.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 90
The principal at El Calle (racially isolated minority) explained, “it’s a golden opportunity
to get the right teacher,” so she made sure to be as involved as possible in district interviews. The
teacher at Hillside (racially isolated majority) explained, “it’s so exciting when you can hire.”
The Island (integrated) principal stated, “The number one contribution I can give is to hire good
people and support them.” Principals at these schools consistently looked for skills referenced by
CSTP 6 (California State Teaching Practice 6) as essential for new teachers. CSTP 6 includes
reflecting on professional practice, establishing professional goals, collaborating with colleagues,
and engaging in reflection. The principal at El Lago felt she had “a lot, a lot” of influence over
teacher quality and she argued teacher teams are essential. While principals did not necessarily
feel they could address the neighborhood school influence, they did believe that they could
impact teacher quality.
The concept of building, managing and creating teacher teams was a significant,
unexpected influence. The principal at Island shared that teams are essential, though building
teams was not a “box that can be checked” on her list of responsibilities. The principal at
Firwood said that she estimated having three grade level teams was the tipping point to building
momentum for change, and that her role was to pull teams together, maximizing their strengths
and finding the best spot for a teacher. Sheldon’s principal leveraged teams to disrupt
counterproductive behaviors, move teachers forward and connect teachers to mentors.
With regard to retention, principals explained that tenure laws make it important for
principals to dismiss unsuccessful temporary teachers. The stakes were too high to keep teachers
who were not collaborative or reflective. New teachers required mentoring, coaching and
support, they can learn the curriculum and classroom management, but across the board
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 91
principals argued that new teachers must be collaborative and reflective in their practices to be
retained.
Other than creating teams, principals engaged in many behaviors to improve the quality
of the teachers at their schools. Informal walkthroughs and evaluations was a common technique.
This involved leaving feedback about what they saw happening in the classroom. The principal
at Firwood explained the importance of frequent walkthroughs, “What gets monitored, gets
done.” This principal behavior was key to organizational change. Another principal used
questioning to urge teachers to address areas of growth. This questioning technique was
employed to help teacher reflect on their practices when having a post-observation conference.
Many principals shared that they counted on their teachers and respected them as professionals;
therefore their coaching was expressed through a lens of respect and acknowledgement of
strengths. Another technique many principals used was creating common collaborative time for
their teacher teams to process data, plan and collaborate. This both mentored new teachers and
nudged veteran teachers to examine their practices. The principal at El Lago summed it up with,
“A stellar staff can succeed regardless.”
Summary. Principals agreed that selecting, retaining and mentoring teachers were the
greatest influences they had over meeting the needs of their student population. They described
the importance of selection, observation and dismissal of teachers. Principals shared many
methods they used to coach, mentor and support teachers, from questioning, to walkthroughs, to
building shared leadership. Building teacher teams was commonly referenced as an essential
tool. Teacher quality was validated as a significant organizational influence by the data in this
study.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 92
Findings Synthesis
Knowledge and Behaviors that Influence Integration
Knowledge about relationships. Findings suggest that while all principals engaged in
relationship development as a major component of their role, the intent and objectives of
relationship varied by integration level. At racially isolated majority schools, the principal
viewed himself or herself in a public relations role. These principals were visible, communicated
a great deal and worked to manage their very involved parent population and reputation.
Principals at racially isolated majority schools discussed “managing” their parent community, or
keeping them at bay. At racially integrated schools, principals viewed relationships with teachers
and families as key to accomplishing the work of the school. They partnered with parents and
encouraged them to take leadership roles. They worked to develop leadership capacity within
their staff. These principals preferred to let the accomplishments of the school speak for
themselves and shied away from selling their school’s best qualities. At racially isolated schools,
principals spent a great deal of time in outreach to obtain resources or draw families into their
school community. Rather than managing their parent community, a central component to their
work was to build and engage the community. The principal at El Lago repeatedly referenced
leveraging parent involvement as the key to the success of the students at her school. These
principals engaged almost feverishly in relationship development.
Knowledge about the use of data. Principal use of and knowledge about data also
varied by integration level. At schools where students generally achieve at or above grade level
(racially isolated majority), principals were not required to know how to disaggregate data, coach
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 93
teachers in the use of data or manage resources based on data. These principals had a macro view
of the data as it relates to their school’s reputation. At integrated schools and racially isolated
minority schools, principals had a highly proficient knowledge about the use of data. These
principals not only knew how to interpret, disaggregate and leverage data personally, they did so
in their work in mentoring teachers, modifying schedules, creating planning blocks and
facilitating intervention cycles. A micro perspective and knowledge about the use of data is a
significant influence in both integrated and racially isolated minority schools.
Knowledge about cultural proficiency and positionality. In this study, the principals at
the racially isolated majority schools demonstrated little knowledge or experience with diversity.
Principals at integrated schools varied in their understanding of cultural proficiency and
positionality as they ranged from English-only, racially white to bilingual and bicultural. These
principals and the principals at racially isolated minority schools generally demonstrated
proficiency with culturally sensitive language, valued diversity and engaged in cultural activities
such as Festival of Lights or a Multicultural Faire. They often described the need to pull together
parent communities that had become polarized along racial or ethnic lines. This is illustrated
through a weekly bulletin at a racially isolated minority school which states the mission of the
school in bold, blue letters each week: “The [El Lago] community provides excellent learning
opportunities for all students to reach their greatest potential in a diverse world.”
Self-Efficacy and Value Expectancy for Integration
Self-efficacy and organizational change. Respondents in this study referred to varying
levels of self-efficacy and organizational change generally aligned with their demographic
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 94
population. At racially isolated majority schools, principals described surface level changes and a
lack of urgency to make changes. Principals at these schools described an interest in not creating
conflict with the teacher’s union as a priority. Principals of racially integrated schools leveraged
organizational change structurally and intellectually. They engaged in building understanding for
change initiatives, creating structures for coherence and collaboration and critically examining
gaps in performance with their staff. Principals at integrated schools leveraged professional
book study, shared leadership, creating processes for examining data and accountability for all
students. At racially isolated minority schools, significant, deep organizational changes were
implemented with urgency to address large populations of underachieving students. These
changes included physically re-orienting classrooms so grade level teams can function
efficiently, implementing school-wide reform and professional development, building designated
ELD and differentiation time into the schedule on a daily basis and fiercely protecting
instructional minutes. Changes such as these were actually called out in several staff meeting
agendas to bring to the forefront the urgency of what is happening in classrooms for
underperforming students. Efficacy for organizational change correlated closely with the urgency
to address numbers of underperforming students, which existed in increasing numbers as a
school approached minority racial isolation.
Value expectancy for integration. Principals at racially isolated majority schools
expressed no desire to address the imbalance of their student population. They cited the
community and parents as appreciating the demographics of their school community. Principals
at integrated schools overall valued their diverse population and leveraged it as a positive for
academic and interpersonal skill development. These principals also explained that teachers
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 95
teach better at integrated schools, because they have to. Principals at racially isolated minority
schools expressed frustration but lack of expectancy for change. To their credit, they did not
express this lack of efficacy to their staff, their weekly bulletins and staff meeting agendas were
littered with encouragement, empowerment and value for the work their teachers were doing.
Instead of relying on the district or parent community, they looked internally to build capacity
and advocate for their student population.
Principal beliefs about school choice. There was general agreement among principals
about how parents choose schools, which is supported by the literature (Holme, 2002). Wealthy
parents chose schools based on reputation, other parents simply sent their children to their
neighborhood school. Value expectancy to change this dynamic was limited among all
respondents, though they did engage in efforts to attract and retain families. A surprising finding
was the lack of interest in giving parent tours at integrated schools. Parent tours occurred at the
highest rate at racially isolated majority schools, supporting the research that finds parents with
mobility actually have school choice (Renzulli & Evans, 2005). Principals of integrated schools
felt their school should speak for itself, they did not feel it was part of their job to sell their
school. Principals of racially isolated minority schools described not only giving parent tours but
inviting parents to tour the school through opportunities such as Kindergarten Play Dates and
school performances, though they admitted that few parents requested tours.
Organizational Influences on Integration
Principal influence on school choice. No Child Left Behind had a lasting impact in
Greatland School district and is largely accepted as history at this point in time. Principals felt
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 96
they had little influence over the impact of school choice as it relates to their school population.
The two racially isolated minority schools were, in fact, integrated schools in Greatland School
District before NCLB.
Principal influence on teacher quality. The single greatest influence principals felt they
had over influencing their student population was teacher quality. Principals at the racially
isolated majority end of the spectrum expressed the least influence, while principals at integrated
and racially isolated minority schools expressed significant influence in selecting, retaining and
coaching good teachers. Principals provided countless examples of how they influenced teacher
quality that then impacted the reputation of the school. Teachers at El Calle school engaged in
peer observation in a schedule created by and facilitated by the principal to highlight best
practices and support new teachers. The principal at Firwood conducted regular informal
observations using an iPad tool called Mosaic that left instant, detailed feedback to the teacher
via email. Island’s principal stated, “My single greatest contribution to the students at this school
is hiring good teachers and supporting them.” The principal at Sheldon described engaging in
professional book study in order to facilitate a culture change among the teachers at his school to
create teams and focus on student achievement.
Other Influences and Non-Influences. Data was gathered about other possible
influences that were either not examined or determined not to have a significant effect. Principal
gender did not seem to have a correlation to principal knowledge or motivation. Each of the
principals interviewed had between 7 and 14 years experience as an administrator, therefore
years of experience did not appear to be an influence. Possible influences not examined include
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 97
language proficiency, racial or ethnic identity, number of languages spoken, education level and
experience with diverse cultures or other school districts.
New Proposed Conceptual Framework
Based upon the findings, the researcher proposes an updated conceptual framework
illustrating the interactions between the organizational influences, principal knowledge and
behavior and principal motivation on school integration, as represented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. New Proposed Conceptual Framework
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 98
This framework suggests that the external organizational influences (the role of
education, school choice, legal and legislative limitations to integration and teacher self-selection
and tenure) are the foundation for and cause of segregation in public schools. As preconditions to
re-integration, school principals must first have the knowledge and motivation necessary to
address segregation. This knowledge includes the ability to build internal and external
relationships, leverage community resources, use data to improve student achievement and
mentor teachers, and knowledge of one’s own personal bias and positionality. If these knowledge
conditions are in place, a principal must have the motivation to address segregation. Motivation
influences include self-efficacy for organizational change and value for integration as well as the
value expectancy or personal belief in the ability to effect change. When the knowledge and
motivation preconditions are in place, then principals can influence the organizational factors of
school choice (to a lesser degree) and teacher quality (to a significant degree.)
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 99
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
Chapter Four analyzed data collected in response to the first three research questions.
These research questions utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to examine
knowledge, motivation and organization influences on a principal relative to school integration.
The research questions in Chapter Four focused on principal knowledge and related behaviors
that influence integration and motivation to address school integration and organizational
challenges and influences on integration. Chapter Five synthesizes these findings and addresses
the final research question:
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources?
Once more, the Clark and Estes (2009) framework organizes Chapter Five. Research
validated recommendations are organized into knowledge, motivation and organizational
practices for the school principal in addressing school integration. Recommendations are specific
to the context of Greatland School District and based on the findings of this study. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model serves as the framework for
recommendations for practice, implementation and an evaluation plan. Concluding this chapter is
a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the gap analysis model, the study’s limitations
and delimitations, and recommendations for future study.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
An analysis of the assumed knowledge influences on school integration found that
relationship development, partnerships, data use and cultural proficiency were validated
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 100
influences by principals of integrated schools. Each of these influences proved to be key factors
in the role of the principal of an integrated school. The influence of leveraging community
resources was only partially validated, as there was significant variation in the use of community
partnerships by principals.
Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated?
Yes, Partially, No
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Principals need to be
able to build internal
and external
relationships.
Yes Shared instructional
influence and capacity
increase student
outcomes. (Urick,
2016)
Shared leadership
increases team
effectiveness. (Wang,
Waldmand & Zhang,
2014)
Internal and external
relationship
development focuses
on developing shared
leadership and
common values.
Principals need to
know how to leverage
community resources.
Partially Leveraging social
capital grants access
to organizations,
school as integral to
neighborhood (Green,
2018).
Increased self-
efficacy through
collaboration (Bryan
et al., 2018).
Principals need to
learn how to create
partnerships and
access community
resources.
Principals need to
understand how to use
their achievement
data.
Yes Principal knowledge
of the use of data
improves school
processes such as
achievement,
discipline and teacher
satisfaction (Shen,
2016).
Principals need to
know how to coach
teachers through the
use of data to inform
instruction, not
merely provide time
to look at the data.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 101
Data focuses principal
efforts and guides
action plan through
data teams (Lujan,
2010).
Principals must be the
data “expert” and stay
current with best
practices for
impacting student
achievement.
At integrated schools,
principals must use
data to meet the needs
of high achieving
students as well as
students in need of
differentiation.
Principals need to
know their own biases
and be culturally
competent.
Yes Professional
development on
cultural proficiency is
required to meet the
needs of all students.
(Gerhart et al., 2011)
At integrated schools,
principals must have
had experience,
background or
knowledge of cultural
proficiency.
Principals undergo
formal cultural
proficiency and bias
training.
Relationship development. Relationship development was validated by the data as an
influence on principals at integrated schools. In Greatland School district, successful principals
of integrated schools utilized shared leadership practices in developing internal and external
relationships. The principal of Island Elementary discussed teacher leaders designing and
conducting professional development around shared initiatives. At Sheldon school, the principal
fostered a sense of shared responsibility for the achievement for all students in data teams that
included all stakeholders. Research supports the use of shared leadership as an effective means
to increase student outcomes. Urick (2016) reported that as the principal’s leadership style moves
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 102
away from supervisory toward internal capacity building, student outcomes increase. Wang et al.
(2014) argued that change is accompanied by shared leadership as it generates trust, cooperation
and cohesion leading to higher team performance. Wang et al. (2014) explained that teams are
necessary for complex work, such as addressing student achievement. The development of
teams and shared leadership is a research-documented strategy for developing internal and
external relationships as it relates to school integration.
Partnerships. The influence of leveraging community resources was partially validated
by the data. Principals of integrated schools in Greatland School District intentionally cultivated
and developed partnerships within the community. At El Lago school, the principal leveraged
access to a local engineering company to invite engineers who “looked like my students” to
come and lead her students through engineering challenges. Island School’s principal leveraged
the success of her Math Superbowl team at the county competition to improve the reputation of
her school. Green (2018) explained that the school principal has the unique capacity to leverage
his or her social capital to gain access to local companies and organizations. The principal can
develop the image of the school as integral to the neighborhood. Green (2018) referenced the
principal as a pivotal broker between school and community resources.
Using data. The data demonstrated that the use of data was validated as an influence on
school principals. Data use was viewed as essential work for the principals of integrated and
racially isolated minority schools in Greatland School District. The principal at Sheldon created
structures and expectations around the use of data to create flexible intervention groups. The El
Lago principal drastically restructured the instructional schedule to protect core instruction and
used data to back up the decision. Using data is an essential skill for principals of integrated
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 103
schools as well as racially isolated schools. Shen (2016) showed that principal knowledge about
the use of data improves school processes such as achievement, discipline and even teacher
satisfaction. Shen (2016) argued that there is strong evidence of the predictive influence of
principal use of data on student achievement. Lujan (2010), a practicing principal, reported that
in his school the use of data is everyone’s responsibility. Data helped focus his work as a leader
and develop an action plan to improve academic progress. Lujan (2010) also used data as a
communication tool with parents and other stakeholders. Principal use of data is a significant
influence in integrated schools.
Cultural proficiency. The data illustrated that the influence of cultural proficiency was
validated at integrated schools and racially isolated minority schools. Gerhardt described cultural
proficiency as a “frame of mind about how we interact with people of different cultural
backgrounds” (2011, p. 270). In Greatland School Districts, principals of racially isolated
majority schools lacked a demonstrable awareness of their own biases and cultural proficiency.
In contrast, principals of integrated and racially isolated minority schools demonstrated
significantly higher knowledge of culturally sensitive terminology, cultural awareness and
factors impacting student achievement at their schools. To address this lack of knowledge and its
influence over the demographics of the school and district, professional development on cultural
proficiency for all principals is essential. Gerhart, Harris and Mixon (2011) described reframing
of the mindset of a team of teachers by a principal from a cultural deficit model to a service
model. In order to build relationships with students and serve their academic needs, principals
must be culturally proficient themselves. Cultural proficiency leads into motivation in addressing
equity and student needs.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 104
Motivation Recommendations
Motivation influences on school integration included the self-efficacy to effect a change
in the student population, value expectancy to integrate the school, and the effect of school
choice on principal motivation. The data expressed mixed results with regard to these influences
on school principals with regard to their influence over school integration.
Table 8
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated?
Yes, Partially, No
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Principals have the
self-efficacy to effect
a change in their
student population.
Partially Successful principals
maintain high
standards and
expectations for all
students. (Gerhart et
al., 2011)
Principals work to
change deficit
attitudes and lead staff
through a plan of
action to address the
student population.
(Bell McKenzie &
Scheurich, 2007).
Principals must
critically examine
their student
population through a
lens of equity for all
students.
Principals at racially
isolated majority
schools must be
motivated to work to
integrate their school
community for the
benefit of all students
and the district as a
whole.
Principals value
integration to benefit
the school.
Yes Principals must be
mentored by
individuals
knowledgeable about
intercultural pedagogy
and have professional
experience working in
diverse contexts
(Hamm, 2017).
Principals must be
given opportunities
and mentoring to
experience schools
with different
demographics.
The effect of school
choice on principal
motivation.
No
No recommendations.
School choice is an
accepted limitation by
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 105
Self-efficacy. Gerhart et al. (2011) described principals that have high self-efficacy at
integrated schools maintain high expectations for all their students and worked to change the
culture of the school. Self-efficacy was partially validated as an influence as there were limits to
what principals felt they could do to influence their student population. High expectations for all
students was described by the principal of Island School as the key to the culture of the school
and its subsequent success in moving from a racially isolated minority to school to an integrated
school. Bell (2007) suggested an analysis activity principals can use to foster cultural awareness
and a focus on equity for all students. This activity begins with an awareness of all of the factors
that contribute to the context of the school, selection of the most significant factors and an
analysis of the stakeholders involved in each. From this activity, a three-year improvement plan
would be developed with buy-in from the teaching staff. Self-efficacy was partially validated as
an influence.
Value Expectancy. Value expectancy was validated as an influence, only if principals
had experience or knowledge about working with diverse populations. The most successful
principals of integrated schools in Greatland School District discussed the importance of
collegiality and mentors. The data demonstrated that personal experience with diversity (e.g.,
bilingualism, working at an integrated school, being bicultural) was the only preparation these
principals had to lead an integrated school. Research explained that principals need mentors who
have a foundation in intercultural pedagogy and leadership approaches in diverse contexts
(Hamm, 2017). With mentoring, principals are allowed to develop language and skills around
all principals
interviewed.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 106
student and community strengths (Hamm, 2017). The principal at Sheldon explained that the
position of principal is an isolated one. He took the initiative to start a professional book club
with the other principals to read Transforming School Culture (Muhammad, 2009). Without a
mentor, principals generally work independently and inefficiently to meet the needs of their
student population. These findings recommend that principals are provided with culturally
proficient mentors to successfully address the needs of their school population (Hamm, 2017).
School choice. School choice was not validated as an influence, as principals generally
agreed that the external influences over school choice were simply part of the context of their
school and district. The data demonstrated a lack of value expectancy to address the realities of
school choice as a reform strategy. No Child Left Behind (its lasting impact on school choice)
and district attendance areas were strict indicators in each interview in determining the student
population of the school. School choice, therefore, was not validated as an influence.
Organization Recommendations
The assumed organization cultural model of the role of public education was not
validated as an influence in school integration. However, principal’s influence over parent school
choice was partially validated, as strategies and behaviors were commonly described by
principals in Greatland School District. The cultural setting of school choice as a reform strategy
was also not validated as an influence. Significantly, principal’s influence over teacher quality
was validated and is determined to be an area of recommended continued research.
Table 9
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Validated?
Yes, Partially, No
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 107
Influence
Cultural Model
Influence 1: The role
of public education in
America has evolved
from civic
participation to
individual
achievement.
No No recommendation.
Principals universally
accept the culture of
federal and state
accountability.
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
Principal’s influence
over parent school
choice.
Partially School initiated parent
outreach results in
greater parent
involvement (Frew et
al., 2012).
Parents are more
likely to be engaged
when the principal is
warm and welcoming
(Barr & Saltmarsh,
2014).
Principals actively
value and engage with
potential parents and
work to leverage word
of mouth and
reputation as
resources to work to
balance their school
demographics.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1: Post-
NCLB (No Child Left
Behind) effects of
school choice as a
reform strategy.
No No recommendation.
Principals accept
NCLB as a structural
reality.
Cultural Setting
Influence 2:
Principal’s influence
over teacher quality.
Yes Principals have a
measurable impact on
student achievement
through teacher
selection (Brewer,
1993).
Principal
determination and
encouragement shapes
teacher culture.
(Lee & Li, 2015)
Principals collaborate
and engage in teacher
selection, retention
and coaching as their
highest priority.
Districts acknowledge
teacher quality as a
core component of a
principals job and
provide necessary
resources and support
to allow principals to
focus on observation,
evaluation, coaching
and mentoring.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 108
Cultural Model: Public Education. The role of public education today was not deemed
to be a validated influence on school principals. School principals generally accepted the role of
state and federal accountability measures. California has recently transitioned to a growth-model
reporting tool in the California Dashboard. Principals in Greatland School District expressed
general hope that it will be a more accurate and useful tool and the Academic Performance
Indicators associated with No Child Left Behind. Every principal, however, viewed these state
reports of school performance as one (implying not very meaningful) measure of academic
progress at their schools. The culture of accountability was therefore not deemed to be of
significant influence.
Cultural Model: Influence Over Parent School Choice. Principal influence over the
decisions of parents regarding school choice was partially validated in this study. Many
principals cited behaviors in which they engaged demonstrating a belief that they can influence
parent choice. All principals referenced word of mouth, reputation or rumor as the greatest
indicator of parent behavior. Research explained that there is a degree of influence that principals
have over parent behavior. Frew et al. (2012) argued that parental involvement in school is
increased when the school initiates the outreach. The principal of El Lago described these
behaviors in detail, from engaging local news outlets, to inviting neighbors to school
performances. The principal of Island School described her school as a neighborhood hub,
connecting the local university to various community groups. Barr and Saltmarsh (2014)
described the behavior of the principal as a factor of parent engagement. The researchers
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 109
explained that a warm and welcoming principal encourages parent participation. Though these
influences are moderate, they are supported by research.
Cultural Setting: School Choice as a Reform Strategy. No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
and school choice were not concluded to be influences in school integration as they relate to
principal knowledge and motivation. Though frustrated by it, principals in Greatland School
District universally accepted NCLB as a structural reality.
Cultural Setting: Principal’s Influence Over Teacher Quality. The most actionable
and discrete influence as evidenced by the data in this study is the principal’s influence over
teacher quality. Jackson (2009) uses experience and effectiveness to measure teacher quality
through gains in student achievement and years of experience. Principals at integrated schools in
Greatland described in detail the ways they influence teacher quality, from recruitment to
retention. This influence was so great, it could be the foundation for future study. Research
supports these findings. Brewer (1993) reported that principals measurably impact student
achievement through teacher selection. Lee and Li (2015) explained that teacher culture is
impacted by principal determination and encouragement. Therefore, it is recommended that
teacher selection, retention and coaching become the highest priority of the principal and district.
A focus on teacher quality requires the district to provide the necessary resources and support to
allow the principal to focus on observation, evaluation, coaching and mentoring of teachers and
teacher teams.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 110
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Kirkpatrick’s (2001) original four level training framework included reaction to training
on these levels: reaction, learning, behaviors (also termed transfer), and results. This framework
was recently updated and reversed (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This reversal placed the
emphasis of the training on the organizational goals and outcomes. In this way, the results drive
the behavior. The behavior is driven by the knowledge and skills. Attainment of knowledge and
skills is then driven by reaction to the training. Kirkpatrick (2001) explained these responses to
the training in this order: Level 4 (results); Level 3 (behaviors); Level 2 (learning); and Level 1
(reaction). This framework for evaluation of training was innovative in that it moved beyond
initial training feedback into an evaluation of the impact of the training on the knowledge,
behavior and organizational outcomes associated with the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).
Organizational Purpose, Needs and Expectations
The mission of Greatland School district is to engage, empower and encourage all
students to reach their academic potential. The organizational goal is to balance the racial
demographics between schools so that each school reflects the population of the community
served by the district. To that end, the goal of the stakeholder (the school principal) is to engage
in data-driven intervention, value diversity and engage in family and community outreach, so
that by June 2020, all schools reflect the natural diversity of the community of Greatland. To
accomplish this goal, the following is a proposed framework based upon the literature reviewed
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 111
and the data gathered by the researcher in this study. These recommendations will work to
accomplish the organizational objective as determined by the data.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 10 shows the proposed Level 4 Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
external and internal outcomes, metrics and methods for Greatland School District. The external
outcomes (parent and community engagement) should accompany the internal outcomes
(principal use of data, cultural proficiency development, shared leadership and teacher quality).
Table 10
Outcomes, Metrics and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External
Increased community support
of local school.
Increased parent engagement
through shared leadership.
Increased reputation of
school.
Higher number of
partnerships from local
organizations and businesses.
More parents involved in
school activities and running
school events.
Increased attendance from
the local attendance area.
Principal will engage in
outreach to parents and
organizations for funding and
support.
Principal will actively recruit
parents in the management of
school events.
Principals will use social
media, local news outlets and
understand the value of word-
of-mouth in establishing a
positive reputation.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 112
Internal
Increased use of student
achievement data in
instructional practices.
Implementation of
differentiated practices to
meet the needs of students
exceeding standards and
those who are not yet
proficient.
Increased implementation of
shared leadership practices.
Increased knowledge of
cultural proficiency and bias.
Increased opportunity for
experiences with diverse
populations and mentoring
for principals.
Shared value for integration
as a means to engage all
students.
Increased principal
Teachers rely upon and ask
for more student achievement
data.
Classroom practices and
structures move away from
whole group instruction to
flexible grouping and
individualized instruction.
Teachers lead professional
development around data use
and cultural proficiency.
Increased use of culturally
proficient language around
student achievement.
Principals actively seek out
new experiences or diverse
colleagues to gain more
knowledge of diversity.
Principals understand how
the demographics of their
school affects other schools
in the district.
Increased collaborative
Principals will mentor/coach
teachers in the use of data
after engaging in professional
development on the use of
data to impact student
achievement.
Principals will support
teachers in scheduling,
planning and using data to
differentiate in the classroom
by providing dedicated
release time or time in staff
meetings to plan data driven
instruction.
Principals will encourage
teachers who are early
adopters of data use and
cultural proficiency to mentor
teachers and lead
professional development.
Principals will attend cultural
proficiency/bias training.
Principals will be mentored
in their leadership practices
by a culturally proficient,
experienced mentor.
Principals will take a district-
wide perspective on student
achievement, rather than
focusing on their own
school’s achievement.
Principals will participate in
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 113
collaboration.
Decreased distractions from
school management, instead
focusing on teacher selection,
retention and mentoring.
discussion time between
principals at leadership
meetings.
Increased focus on walk-
throughs, informal and
formal evaluations and
mentoring of teachers by
principals.
collaborative planning and
discussion around equity
with each other, district
administrators and
consultants.
Principals will have sufficient
administrative support to be
allowed to focus on teacher
quality.
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The school principal is the primary stakeholder group for this study.
The first critical behavior is that principals develop internal and external relationships. The
second critical behavior is that principals have the knowledge to coach teachers in their use of
data to inform their instructional practices. The third critical behavior is that principals
demonstrate cultural proficiency and have knowledge of their own biases in their work as a
leader. The fourth critical behavior is principals actively engage in the selection, retention and
mentoring of teachers. Metrics, methods and timing for these behaviors are outlined in Table 11.
Table 11
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods and Timing for Implementation
Critical Behavior
Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Principals develop
internal and external
partnerships.
1. The number of
organizations in
partnership with the
school and parent
groups involved with
school.
1.a. Principals shall
attend community
meetings.
1.b. Principals shall
encouraged shared
leadership with
1.a. Monthly
1.b. At every Parent
Teacher Association
meeting and every
interaction with a
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 114
parents.
1.c. Principal shall
encourage teachers to
take on leadership
roles.
parent when
appropriate.
1.c. When appropriate
2. Principals have the
knowledge to coach
teachers in using data
to inform their
practices.
2. Principals actively
engage in data
discussions around
student achievement
2.a. Principals shall
work with grade level
teams to create
instructional groups.
2.b. Principals shall
use data in Student
Study Team (SST)
meetings to determine
appropriate
interventions.
2.a. In 6-week cycles
2.b. At each Student
Study Team meeting
3. Principals
demonstrate cultural
proficiency and have
knowledge of their
own biases.
3. Regular discussion
at leadership meetings
about positionality
and equity.
3.a. Principals shall
use language that is
culturally proficient.
3.b. Principals shall
evaluate programs and
courses of action
through a lens of
equity.
3.a. Principals attend
at least one training
on cultural
proficiency.
3.b. Ongoing
4. Principals actively
engage in the
selection, retention
and mentoring of
teachers.
4. Principals have
intentionally selected
or retained all staff at
their school.
4.a. Principals shall
participate in teacher
selection.
4.b. Principals shall
use formal and
informal observation
to coach teachers.
4.c. Principals will
actively engage in
mentoring teachers.
4.a. When there is a
position to fill.
4.b. Weekly
4.c. Ongoing
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 115
Required drivers. Principals require support to engage in these critical behaviors. Principals
need reinforcement through sufficient administrative support, selection of highly qualified
teachers and use of data analysis tools. Principals require encouragement in the form of time for
collaboration with peers and leadership discussions around equity and cultural proficiency.
Principals need the rewards of recognition of partnerships and growth goal targets for student
achievement and the use of data. Principals need to be monitored and mentored through site
visits by district administration. Table 12 shows recommended drivers to support the critical
behaviors of principals.
Table 12
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Sufficient administrative support to develop
relationships and mentor teachers.
District support in selection of highly qualified teachers,
dismissal of teachers.
Implementation of data analysis software/warehouse
tools for principal and teacher use.
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
1, 2, 4
3, 4
2, 3
Encouraging
Collaboration time set aside for principals at leadership
meetings to discuss partnerships, successes/obstacles to
data use, teacher quality issues.
Discussions about equity and cultural proficiency at
leadership meetings and in one-on-one discussions with
district administration.
Bi-weekly
Ongoing
1, 2, 4
2, 3
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 116
Rewarding
Acknowledge/share experiences about obtaining
partnerships with local organizations and businesses.
Site growth goal targets.
Ongoing
Annually
1
2, 3
Monitoring
Site visits by district administration to mentor and
support.
Monthly
1, 2, 3, 4
Organizational support. To implement the required drivers for the critical behaviors,
district administration will provide the following support. First, a focus on selecting, retaining
and mentoring highly qualified teachers will become a primary focus for principals. Changing
the focus of the principal away from trivial administrative duties to talent officer will require
sufficient administrative support to allow principals to spend the time necessary selecting,
observing, coaching, and evaluating teachers. Second, the district will work to support principals
in the selection of highly qualified teachers through both attracting teachers and supporting
principals in the dismissal process. Third, the district will provide access to and training with a
data analysis program through which principals may coach teachers in the use of data. Fourth,
the district will set aside collaboration time for principals at leadership meetings to discuss how
to procure partnerships, successes and obstacles to the use of data, and teacher quality strategies
and issues. Fifth, the district will facilitate discussions around equity and cultural proficiency at
leadership meetings and one-on-one during site visits by district administration. Sixth, district
leadership will acknowledge partnerships that principals create with local organizations and
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 117
businesses and recognize the attainment of academic growth targets. Finally, district
administration will engage in site visits to mentor and support site administrators.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solutions, school
principals will:
1. develop external relationships with local organizations, businesses and parents to
support the objectives of the school (procedural)
2. develop internal relationships to distribute leadership and develop shared vision
(procedural, metacognitive)
3. use data to support teachers in the implementation of flexible grouping practices and
differentiation techniques (declarative, procedural)
4. engage in culturally proficient practices, language use and data disaggregation
through a lens of equity (declarative, metacognitive)
5. engage, retain and mentor high quality teachers (declarative, procedural)
Program. The learning goals listed above will be achieved through training, education
and job-aids. Principals will receive ongoing training on the use of data, how to access and
manipulate data and what data is relevant to impact student achievement. Principals will receive
education about cultural proficiency, positionality and bias to inform their practices as a leader.
Principals will receive job-aids in the form of administrative support and time for collaboration.
First, principals will engage in training on the use of data. Data is available through the
California Department of Education and through a district adopted data warehouse, IO
Education. Principals will engage in ongoing training in the use of this program in order to
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 118
personally access the data and coach teachers through the use of the data to inform their
practices. Principals will collaborate during leadership meetings about how they are using data,
successes and impediments to the use of data. Principals will create structures around the data to
support the instructional practices for teachers.
Second, principals will engage in cultural proficiency training led by Just Communities.
Just Communities is a local, non-profit organization with the mission of “advancing justice,
building leadership, fostering change and dismantling all forms of prejudice, discrimination and
oppression” (Just Communities, 2018). Just Communities provides training to organizational
leaders for diversity and change initiatives. Principals will participate in an initial training and
follow-up trainings throughout the year.
Third, principals will receive job aids that allow them to focus on teacher quality as a
primary objective of their work. Administrative support will take the form of restructuring
principal duties, providing additional office or district office support, the use of a student
management system and limiting district office communications and requirements of principals.
District administration will be cognizant of the work load of principals and allow them sufficient
time to participate in the selection, retention, mentoring and dismissal of teachers. Additionally,
teacher quality will be a focus of district leadership meetings on an ongoing basis.
Components of learning. In addition to the knowledge and skills obtained through
training, education and job supports, principals must also demonstrate a willingness to engage in
these critical behaviors, confidence that they can accomplish the objectives and a commitment to
the organizational goals. Table 13 outlines the methods and timing for evaluation of principal
knowledge, attitude, confidence, and commitment to these initiatives.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 119
Table 13
Components of Learning for the Program
Methods/Activities
Timing
Declarative: “I know/understand it.”
Demonstration of data proficiency.
Understanding of bias and positionality.
When working with grade level
teams to create differentiation
structures.
Ongoing language choice,
interactions and focus of
decisions.
Procedural: “I can do it.”
Establishment of internal and external partnerships.
Data use in student groupings and differentiation.
At the beginning of the school
year; ongoing.
At data teams meetings, grade
level team meetings and one-on-
one in teacher conferences.
Attitude: “I want to do it.”
Demonstration of a culturally-proficient orientation
toward leadership.
A focus on equity for all students.
At staff meetings and grade-level
team meetings.
Every day.
Confidence: “I believe I can do it.”
Peer collaboration around implementation of data use,
shared leadership, and community partnerships.
Before and after professional
development.
At leadership meetings.
Commitment: “I will do it.”
Engagement in teacher selection, retention and mentoring
practices.
In the summer, throughout the
evaluation cycle for temporary
and probationary teachers.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 120
Dedicated collaborative time is part of the structure of the
administration of the district.
At leadership meetings.
Level 1: Reaction
In order to gauge the reaction of the participants of a training program, an
implementation plan must measure a program’s impact. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
described Level 1 as a participants initial reaction to a training in terms of relevancy, favorability
and engagement. Table 14 lists the methods and tools which will be used to evaluate principals
reaction to their learning in this order: engagement resulting in collaborative conversations and
participation in teacher selection; relevance through one-on-one discussions with district
administration; and customer satisfaction with the Just Communities and IO Education trainings.
Table 14
Components of to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods/Activities
Timing
Engagement
Collaborative conversations around data, equity and
teacher quality.
Principal participation in teacher selection, retention and
mentoring.
Ongoing
August/September
Relevance
One-on-one discussions with the superintendent around
integration/diversity and its impact on the principal’s
school.
Throughout the year
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 121
Customer Satisfaction
Evaluation of a cultural proficiency training.
Evaluation of IO Education training
Immediately following Just
Communities training.
Immediately following IO
Education training
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following implementation. After training provided by Just Communities
and IO Education, principals will participate in a survey to provide information to the district
administration about their initial reactions to the training. The survey will enable district
administration to assess the relevance of the trainings, the satisfaction of the principals in
reaction to the trainings and their willingness to put into action the knowledge and skills they
learned in the trainings. These survey responses will provide Level 1 reactions to the new
information.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Throughout the course of the
year, district administration will conduct site visits to measure individual principal’s confidence
and application of the knowledge and skills gained in the trainings. A principal’s view of the
value of the training and confidence in implementation of the knowledge gained is an example of
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 2: Learning. Actual implementation of culturally
proficient practices and the use of data by principals demonstrates Level 3: Behavior
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Lastly, the organizational change as measured by the internal
and external outcomes in Table 10 will indicate Level 4: Results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 122
Data Analysis and Reporting
The level 4 results will be evidenced by community engagement, school reputation, the
use of data, shared leadership, cultural proficiency by school leaders and high quality teachers.
The metric used to measure these results will be the degree to which the district has met its
organizational goal of balancing the racial demographic of each school to reflect that of the
community. The district is geographically and ethnically bound by the students residing in its
attendance area, therefore in order to provide all students with equitable educational
opportunities, each school should have a demographic population that approximates (within
10%) the demographic composition of the community it serves. In this way, every school in
Greatland School district will be able to successfully engage in the district’s mission to engage,
empower and encourage all students to reach their potential. The target demographic
composition for each school in Greatland School district should reflect the racial balance of the
district as a whole, as was originally intended by Seattle Schools in PICS. The district’s
demographic makeup is visually represented in Figure 3.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 123
Figure 3. Target Demographic Composition of Schools in Greatland School District.
26%
74%
English Learners
English Only
35%
50%
White
Hispanic
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 124
Summary
There is a symmetry to the implementation of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New
World Reaction framework to the implementation of organizational change. Starting with the
desired results (demographic integration to support all students academically), specific outcomes,
metrics and methods to obtain the results were articulated. These outcomes included external
outcomes, such as community and parent engagement, as well as internal outcomes, such as use
of data, shared leadership and implementing collaborative opportunities. After these outcomes
were delineated, critical stakeholder behaviors in support of the outcomes were described. These
behaviors were identified as developing partnerships, using data to coach teachers,
demonstrating cultural proficiency and engaging in behaviors to support teacher quality. Then
drivers in support of these critical behaviors were outlined. Drivers included reinforcement in the
form of administrative support, encouragement in the form of collaborations and facilitated
discussions, reward in the form of acknowledgement and reward in the form of mentoring and
site visits. Necessary learning to engage in these behaviors was then identified. Learning
included training on the use of data tools and education around cultural proficiency. To complete
the evaluation, principal learning would be examined. Reaction to the training would be
measured. Finally, results about the impact of the learning activities would be shared with district
administration and the school board. Figure 4 graphically represents the use of Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Reaction framework application to this study.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 125
Figure 4. Application of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Reaction Framework
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework provided the structure for this
evaluation study. In this framework, knowledge, motivation and organizational gaps were
identified around the problem of practice. The stakeholder of focus for this study was the school
principal. Knowledge, motivation and organizational barriers to school integration within the
sphere of influence of the school principal were identified and analyzed. Clark and Estes’ (2008)
systematic approach for identifying and analyzing gaps proved to be an appropriate approach for
addressing this study, as the gaps identified proved actionable. In this model, the organizational
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 126
goal was first identified. In Greatland School district, this organizational goal was to provide
equitable access to educational opportunities by integrating all schools to represent the
demographics of the community served by Greatland. The Conceptual Framework developed by
the researcher identified knowledge, motivation and organization (KMO) influences both within
and outside the sphere of influence of a school principal with regard to integration. One
challenge to the use of this framework was the substantial number of external influences on a
school principal which were not within the power of the principal to change. These influences
included legal and legislative limitations to integration, school choice as a reform strategy,
teacher self-selection and tenure laws and the role of public education today. Analyzing these
influences allowed the researcher to focus the study on the factors within the sphere of influence
of the school principal. These factors included influence over parent school choice, influence
over teacher quality, influence on the composition of the school. The KMO model provided a
thorough overview of the problem of practice and resulted in research-based recommendations
that are actionable and an updated conceptual framework explaining the interactions of the
influences as discovered by the data. Though the focus of the study had been on the school
principal, the data gathered is highly relevant and useful to district administration in support of
the desired outcomes.
Limitations and Delimitations
At the conclusion of a study, limitations and delimitations become apparent. One
limitation of this study is the limited applicability of the findings due to the unique nature of
Greatland School District. While Greatland is representative of many school districts with
diverse populations in California, the focus of this study resulted in being limited to measuring
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 127
white and Hispanic populations, and English learner and English only populations. There are
many other metrics by which integration can be measured, such as socioeconomic measures and
achievement measures. Another limitation is the demographics of the community. Greatland
community is composed of diverse populations, primarily Hispanic and white. If a district
serving a community is entirely racially isolated, either majority or minority, these findings may
not be applicable. An additional limitation to this study is the proximity of the researcher to the
stakeholder group of study. While not in supervision of these stakeholders, the researcher had
years of personal knowledge about the principals and worked hard to ensure that the data
gathered was objective and representative of the actual knowledge and motivation of the
principals in the study. The sample size of the study could also be viewed as a limitation. Eight
interviews provided exhaustive data about Greatland School district, but the researcher did
identify questions that would have been useful after the administration of the interviews. These
questions included more directly asking about previous experience with diverse populations and
training on cultural proficiency. Finally, several of the principals interviewed had recently
switched sites. Therefore the researcher had to make an informed decision about which site was
being represented with the interview responses.
Recommendations for Future Research
While specifically applicable to Greatland School district, this evaluation study highlights
potential future opportunity for research. Of interest would be a replicate study of another district
with similar demographic disparity between schools in a diverse community. Greatland is a
suburban district, would the findings be similar in a diverse, urban population? Another possible
area of study would be to investigate more closely subgroup achievement rates at integrated and
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 128
racially isolated schools. Do white students and students of color actually achieve at higher rates
at integrated schools, or is one subgroup benefited more than the other? Anecdotal interview data
had conflicting views on subgroup achievement. One theme that emerged unexpectedly was the
motivation or lack of motivation to “sell” a school to the community. Another significant theme
that emerged was the use of teacher teams to effect change. Future study could illuminate how to
effectively leverage this strategy for change. A study around principal values and time
constraints could be useful for district administration as they work to support the high stakes
work of a school principal with regard to student achievement, especially for underachieving
subgroups. As evidence about the strength of school-community partnerships emerged, a study
about the value and benefit of developing partnerships and the impact of these partnerships on
student achievement rates and parent perception of the school would contribute to the body of
knowledge informing principal behavior.
Conclusion
School segregation is a reality across the nation. Many school districts serve diverse
communities but their schools are segregated based on housing patterns, attendance boundaries
and parent perceptions. A passive acceptance of these influences taints what can be done to
address this inequity. While there are many reasons for this segregation, a school principal does
have a degree of influence over his or her student population. There are specific behaviors in
which principals can engage to retain and attract families. These include community
partnerships, shared leadership and retaining high quality teachers. All participants in this study
agreed that good teachers make a significant difference. There are also specific behaviors in
which district administration can engage to work to balance schools and provide equitable
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 129
opportunities for students. Principals at racially isolated minority schools referenced a “tipping
point” at which point they felt they had little efficacy in being able to change their school.
Districts must be cognizant never to reach that tipping point, through conscious and intentional
school locations, attendance areas and busing practices. District administration must also
redefine the role of the principal from school manager to talent officer. The greatest impact a
principal can make is to select and retain high quality teachers. Selecting, dismissing, coaching
and mentoring teachers takes a great deal of time, it is not acknowledged as a box to check, and
it competes for the attention of a school principal. School segregation is a reality, and while those
in the dominant culture view this as a benefit, far greater numbers of students are underprepared
to enter the democracy of the United States prepared to succeed and thrive.
This study contributes uniquely to the body of knowledge about school segregation as it
is focused on a common and pervasive, but unseen, segregation in suburban areas of the United
States. This quiet segregation is not often attached to the urgent and visible segregation seen in
the nation’s cities or rural areas. Districts across the United States, especially those with the
ability to address their equity issues, must refocus their attention on equity and access for all
students if they are to achieve their mission of encouraging, empowering and supporting all
students to reach their potential.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 130
References
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A
topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Barr, J., & Saltmarsh, S. (2014). It all comes down to the leadership. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 491-505. 10.1177/1741143213502189 Retrieved
from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1741143213502189
Betts, J. R., Rueben, K. S. & Dannenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? San
Francisco, CA; Public Policy Institute.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives; The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1:
Cognitive domain. New York; David McKay.
Board of Education v. Dowell. (1990) Oyez. Retrieved January 31, 2018 from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990/89-1080
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013a). Reframing organizations (5. ed. ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 131
Bosetti, L. (2004). Determinants of school choice: Understanding how parents choose
elementary schools in Alberta. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 387-405.
doi:10.1080/0268093042000227465
Brewer, D. J. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high
schools. Economics of Education Review, 12(4), 281-292. 10.1016/0272-7757(93)90062-L
Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027277579390062L
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1). (1954). Oyez. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483
Brewer v. School Board of City of Norfolk, VA. (1965) Google Scholar. Retrieved September 21,
2017, from
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=652617922006242838&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
&as_vis=1
Bryan, J. A., Young, A., Griffin, D., & Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2017). Leadership practices linked
to involvement in School–Family–Community partnerships. Professional School
Counseling, 21(1), 2156759. 10.1177/2156759X18761897 Retrieved
from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2156759X18761897
Burke, J. C. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education (1
st
ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Capers, K. J. (2013). Representation, structure and public management in school desegregation:
An examination of student outcomes Available from Dissertations & Theses Europe Full
Text: Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1491386404
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 132
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002a). Turning research into results. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2010a). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and pay-
based policies to level the playing field. ().Urban Institute. Retrieved from Social Science
Premium Collection Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1820846300
Collins, J. (2011). Good to great HarperCollins.
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
(3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design (4. ed., internet student ed. ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.
[u.a.]: SAGE.
Collins, J. (2011). Good to great. HarperCollins
DeMatthews, D. (2014). Deconstructing systems of segregation leadership challenges in an
urban school. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 17(1), 17-31.
doi:10.1177/1555458913518537
Derechos Civiles.The Civil Rights Project at UCLA, 2018. Retrieved July 4, 2018 from
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/
Dewey, J. (1922). Democracy and education. New York [u.a.]: MacMillan.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 133
“Dowell v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools.” (1991). Oyez. Retrieved
September 19, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1969/603
Dougherty, J., Harrelson, J., Maloney, L., Murphy, D., Smith, R., Snow, M., & Zannoni, D.
(2009). School choice in suburbia:Test scores, race, and housing markets. American
Journal of Education, 115(4), 523-548. doi:10.1086/599780
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the "race question". New York, NY[u.a.]:
Teachers College Press.
Doyle, M. C. :. (2005). From desegregation to resegregation: Public schools in norfolk, virginia
1954-2002. The Journal of African American History, 90(1-2)
Dubnick, M. J. (2014). Accountability as a cultural keyword. The oxford handbook of public
accountability, Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0017
Durlak, J. A. 1., Weissberg, R. P. 2., Dymnicki, A. B. 3., Taylor, R. D. 3., & Schellinger, K. B. 1.
(2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of
school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Ebrahim, A. (2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In D. O. Renz & associates
(Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 101–
123) (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons/Jossey-Bass.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 134
Ellen Goldring, Robert Crowson, David Laird, & Robert Berk. (2003a). Transition leadership in
a shifting policy environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 473-488.
doi:10.3102/01623737025004473
Farbman, D. (2007). A new day for kids. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 62-65. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=507978813&site=e
host-live
Ferrandino, V. L. (2005). Focusing on communities: What principal should
know. Principal, (March/April), 72.
Fiel, J. E. (2013a). Decomposing school resegregation: Social closure, racial imbalance, and
racial isolation. American Sociological Review, 78(5), 828-848.
Firestone, W. A. (2005). A new agenda for research in educational leadership. New York [u.a.]:
Teachers College Press.
Fleming, N. (2011). After-school program offers enrichment to at-risk pupils. Education
Week, 30(23), 10-11. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=5
08193401&site=ehost-live
Fordham, M., Burn, K., Chapman, A., & Counsell, C. (2012). Teacher knowledge. Teaching
History, (146), 2. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43260471
Frankenberg, E., & Lee, C. (2002). Race in american public schools: Rapidly resegregating
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 135
school districts. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA-Civil Rights Project.
Frankenberg, E. & Le, C. Q. (YEAR) The post-Parents Involved challenge: Confronting
extralegal obstacles to integration. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA-Civil Rights Project.
Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation
and the need for civil rights standards. Education Digest, 76(5), 44. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/819261011
“Freeman v. Pitts.” (1992). Oyez. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/89=1290
Freire, P. (1921). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company.
Frew, L. A., Zhou, Q., Duran, J., Kwok, O., & Benz, M. R. (2013). Effect of school-initiated
parent outreach activities on parent involvement in school events. Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 24(1), 27-35. 10.1177/1044207311427163 Retrieved
from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1044207311427163
Friedman, L. (2002). Promoting opportunity after school. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 79-82.
Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=507790865&site=e
host-live
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1),
45-56. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 136
Garcia, D. (2009). The impact of school choice on racial segregation in charter schools (1. publ.
ed.). New York [u.a.]: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gerhart, L. G., Harris, S., & Mixon, J. (2011). Beliefs and effective practices of successful
principals in high schools with a hispanic population of at least 30. NASSP Bulletin, 95(4),
266-280. 10.1177/0192636511428373 Retrieved
from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0192636511428373
Gillborn*, D. (2005). Education policy as an act of white supremacy: Whiteness, critical race
theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 485-505.
Glenn, W. J. (2011). A quantitative analysis of the increase in public school segregation in
delaware. Urban Education, 46(4), 719-740. doi:10.1177/0042085911400321
Goldring, E., Crowson, R., Laird, D., & Berk, R. (2003). Transition leadership in a shifting
policy environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 473-488.
doi:10.3102/01623737025004473
Goldring, E., & Smrekar, C. (2002). Magnet schools: Reform and race in urban education. The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 76(1), 13-15.
doi:10.1080/00098650209604939
Gordon, V.H. (2016). Green v. county school board of new kent county Encyclopædia Britannica
Inc. Retrieved from http://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/610228
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 137
“Green v. County School Board of New Kent County.” (1968). Oyez. Retrieved September 19,
2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/695
Green, T. L. (2018). School as community, community as school: Examining principal
leadership for urban school reform and community development. Education and Urban
Society, 50(2), 111-135. 10.1177/0013124516683997 Retrieved
from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0013124516683997
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters.
International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.Hayward, S. (2010).
Haifeng (Charlie) Zhang, & David J. Cowen. (2009). Mapping academic achievement and public
school choice under the no child left behind legislation.Southeastern Geographer, 49(1), 24-
40. Retrieved
from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/southeastern_geographer/v049/49.1.zhang.html
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2002). Second international handbook of educational leadership and
administration. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hamm, L. (2017). Becoming a transformative vice-principal in culturally and linguistically rich
diverse schools. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(2), 82-
98. 10.1108/IJMCE-11-2016-0072
Harris, A. P., Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., & Thomas, K. (2012). Critical race
theory. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences,
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 138
Hehnke, J. M. (2009b). The politics of racial integration in the seattle public schools: Discourse,
policy, and political change, 1954-1991 Available from Dissertations & Theses Europe Full
Text: History. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/304973288
Hill, P. T., & Lake, R. J. (2010). The charter school catch-22. Journal of School Choice, 4(2),
232-235. doi:10.1080/15582159.2010.483925
Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of
school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/212302674
Houck, E. A. (2010a). Teacher quality and school resegregation: A resource allocation case
study. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 49-77. doi:10.1080/15700760802630210
Iannone, R. (1973). What motivates principals. The Journal of Educational Research, 66(6),
260-262.
Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity (2013). Integrated magnet schools: Outcomes and best
practices. University of Minnesota Law School.
Jackson, C. K. (2009). Student demographics, teacher sorting, and teacher quality. Journal of
Labor Economics, 27(2), 213-256. Retrieved
from http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=605438404
Jacobs, N. (2013). Understanding school choice. Education and Urban Society, 45(4), 459-482.
doi:10.1177/0013124511413388
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 139
Jensen, O. B. (2012). The engagement of employees as a key to corporate success. Dynamic
Relationships Management Journal (DRMJ), 1(2), 45-56.
doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2012.v01n02a05.
Johnson, A. G. (2007). Privilege, power, and difference (2., rev. ed. ed.). Boston [u.a.]: McGraw
Hill. Journal of managerial psychology. Bradford, West Yorkshire: Emerald.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B (2015). Educational research; Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Just Communities. Institute for Equity in Education, 2018, https://www.just-communities.org/.
Accessed 4, July 2018.
Kezar, A. (2000a). Pluralistic leadership: Bringing diverse voices to the table. About
Campus, 5(3), 0.
Kirkpatrick, D. (2001). The four-level evaluation process. In L.L. Ukens (ED.), What smart
trainers know: The secrets of success from the world’s foremost experts (pp. 122-132.) San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass/Pfeiffer.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexanderia, VA: ATD Press.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 140
Kose, B. W. (2009b). The principal’s role in professional development for social justice. Urban
Education, 44(6), 628-663. doi:10.1177/0042085908322707
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Kremer, K., kpeter26@slu.edu, Maynard, B., Polanin, J., Vaughn, M., & Sarteschi, C. (2015).
Effects of after-school programs with at-risk youth on attendance and externalizing
behaviors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 44(3),
616-636. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0226-4
Kuscera, J., & Orfield, G. (2014). New york state's extreme school segregation. Los Angeles,
CA: UCLA-Civil Rights Project.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7-24.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47.
Lancellot, M. (2016). Exploring racial integration: Views from an african american, male, former
school superintendent. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 177-196.
doi:10.1515/mlt-2016-0002
Lee, H., & Li, M. F. (2015). Principal leadership and its link to the development of school
teacher culture and teaching effectiveness: A case study of an award-winning teaching team
at an elementary school. International Journal of Education Policy and
Leadership, 10(4)10.22230/ijepl.2015v10n4a555
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 141
Levy, T. (2010). Charter schools legislation and the element of race. Western Journal of Black
Studies, 34(1), 43-52. Retrieved
from http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-
2003&xri:pqil:res_ver=0.2&res_id=xri:ilcs-us&rft_id=xri:ilcs:rec:abell:R04300191
Lipton, M. (1996). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan
Management Review, 37, 83.
Logan, J. R., Minca, E., & Adar, S. (2012). The geography of inequality: Why separate means
unequal in american public schools. Sociology of Education, 85(3), 287-301.
Lujan, J. (2010). Educators use student performance data to plan, implement, and
evaluate. Journal of Staff Development, 31(2), 38. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/870747159
Marroni, F. (2006). Great expectations (1. ed ed.). Roma: Aracne.
Mason-Dorman, C. (2013). School district of philadelphia student achievement as related to
2008-2009 K-8 teachers' perceptions of major academic indicators Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Professional. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1470242246
Maxwell, J. A. (2013a). Qualitative research design (3. Aufl. ed.). Los Angeles [u.a.]: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston ; Munich [u.a.]: Pearson.
McEwan-Adkins, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: Corwin Press.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 142
McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2007). King elementary. Journal of Cases in Educational
Leadership, 10(2), 19-27. 10.1177/1555458907301168 Retrieved
from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1555458907301168
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research (Rev. and expanded ed. ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis; A methods
sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milligan, T. M. (2013). Understandings of principals in segregated, white-staffed urban
elementary schools: Leadership in our peculiar institutions Available from Ethnic
NewsWatch: A History (ENWH) (Alumni Edition). Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1647204060
“Milliken v. Bradley.” (1973). Oyez. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-434
“Missouri v. Jenkins.” (1989). Oyez. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-64.
Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (YEAR) Formative assessment and self-regulative learning: A
model and seven principals of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2),
199-218.
Nir, A. E., & Kranot, N. (2006). School principal's leadership style and teachers' self-
efficacy. Planning and Changing, 37(3-4), 205. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218774333
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 143
Nkomo, S.M., & Al Ariss, A. (2014). The historical origins of ethnic (white) privilege in US
organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(4), 389-404. doi:10.1108/JMP-06-
2012-0178
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership (seventh Edition , international student edition ed.). Los
Angeles [u.a.]: SAGE.
Orfield, G. (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated society: A 21st century challenge. The
Civil Rights Project: UCLA.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self efficacy theory Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
“Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.” (2007). Oyez.
Retrieved September 19, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-908
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4. ed., [rev. ed. of the author's
'Qualitative evaluation methods'] ed.). Los Angeles, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Plessy v. Ferguson (1895). Oyez. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537
Posey-Maddox, L. (2014). When middle-class parents choose urban schools University of
Chicago Press. Retrieved from http://lib.myilibrary.com.libproxy1.usc.edu?ID=572961
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 144
Posnick-Goodwin (n.d.). Program improvement: schools torn apart in the name of reform.
California Teachers Association. Retrieved from https://www.cta.org/en/Issues-and-
Action/Education-Improvement/ESEA-NCLB/Archive-Educator-Program-Improvement-
NCLB.aspx
Potter, H., Quick, K., & Davies, E. (2016). A new wave of school integration. ().The Century
Foundation. Retrieved from Social Science Premium Collection Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1820829282
Powers, J. M. (2009). Charter schools (1. publ. ed.). New York [u.a.]: Palgrave Macmillan.
Publication manual of the american psychological association (2010). (6. ed., repr. ed.).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Assoc.
Rapp, K. E., & Eckes, S. E. (2007). Dispelling the myth of “White flight”. Educational
Policy, 21(4), 615-661. doi:10.1177/0895904806290123
Reardon, S. F., Grewal, E. T., Kalogrides, D., & Greenberg, E. (2012). Brown fades: The end of
court-ordered school desegregation and the resegregation of american public
schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(4), 876-904.
doi:10.1002/pam.21649
“Regents of the University of California v. Bakke” (1977) Oyez. Retrieved January 31, 2018
from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811
Renzulli, L. A., & Evans, L. (2005). School choice, charter schools, and white flight. Social
Problems, 52(3), 398-418. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.3.398
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 145
Riehl, C. J. (2000a). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A
review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational
administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.
doi:10.3102/00346543070001055
Roley, S. E. (2009). Creativity, cultural proficiency and self -efficacy in rural school principals:
The relationship to reducing the achievement gap for low -income students Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Open. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/288064662
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing (3. ed. ed.). Los Angeles [u.a.]:
Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York:
Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? the impact of student
composition on academic achievement in high school.Teachers College Record, 107(9),
1999-2045. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00583.x
Saporito, S., & Sohoni, D. (2006). Coloring outside the lines: Racial segregation in public
schools and their attendance boundaries. Sociology of Education, 79(2), 81-105.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3. ed. ed.). San Francisco, Calif:
Jossey-Bass.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 146
Schmidt, S., & Venet, M. (2012). Principals facing inclusive schooling or integration. Canadian
Journal of Education, 35(1), 217. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1018564189
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield
(Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35-
53). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Shen, J., Ma, X., Cooley, V. E., & Burt, W. L. (2016). Mediating effects of school process on the
relationship between principals' data-informed decision-making and student
achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(4), 373-401.
10.1080/13603124.2014.986208 Retrieved
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13603124.2014.986208
Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E., & Ardon, K. (2000). For better or for worse?. San Francisco, CA:
Public Policy Inst. of California.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43(3),
1066-1109. doi:10.1177/0044118X10382877
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116-133. doi:10.1177/0021886308314460
“Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education.” (1970). Oyez. Retrieved September 19,
2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/281
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 147
Tate IV, W. F. (1997). Chapter 4: Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and
implications. Review of Research in Education, 22(1), 195-247.
Taylor, E., Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Foundations of critical race theory in
education.
Theoharis, G.'Forced busing' didn't fail. desegregation is the best way to improve our schools.
Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1726320124?accountid=14749
Thompson, M. H. (2017). A study of the relationship between principal leadership style and
collective efficacy in equity-oriented high schools Available from Dissertations & Theses
Europe Full Text: Social Sciences. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904330015
Urick, A. (2016). Examining US principal perception of multiple leadership styles used to
practice shared instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(2), 152-
172. 10.1108/JEA-07-2014-0088 Retrieved
from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JEA-07-2014-0088
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Improving basic programs operated by local educational
agencies. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
US Department of Education. (2016). Equity of opportunity. Retrieved
from http://www.ed.gov/equity
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 148
Valencia, R. R. (2002). Chicano school failure and success (2nd ed. ed.). GB: Routledge Falmer.
doi:10.4324/9780203005132
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team
effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181-198. 10.1037/a0034531
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24188392
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. A working paper.
Wells, A. S., Fox, L., Cordova-Cobo, D., & Kahlenberg, R. D. (2016). How racially diverse
schools and classrooms can benefit all students. Education Digest, 82(1), 17. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1815499935
Wheeler, D., & Silanpaa, M. (1998). Including the stakeholders: The business case. Long Range
Planning, 31, 201-209.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006
Yergler, J.D. (2012) Organizational culture and leadership, 4th ed. (2012). Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 33(4), 421-423. doi:10.1108/01437731211229331
Zhang, H., & Cowen, D. (2009). Mapping public achievement and public school choice under
the no child left behind legislation. Southeastern Geographer, 49(1), 24.
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 149
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 150
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
1. Please tell me about your career and how you came to be principal at this school.
Possible probe: Why do you think you were selected for this particular school?
2. When looking at your school’s achievement data, what stands out the most to you?
3. When do you have an opportunity to translate your knowledge of your school’s achievement
data in your work as a leader?
Possible probes: Have you worked with data proficiency? Cultural proficiency? How do you set
the stage for teachers to work with data?
4. In your experience, how do parents choose schools?
5. What would be your gut feeling about how to attract families to a particular school?
Possible probe: How do you communicate mainly with parents or advertise school events?
6. Do you feel it’s important to preserve the individual cultures of each school within Greatland
school district?
7. What do you do to build relationships with the families of your school?
Possible probe: What do you do to build relationships within the school?
8. How do you leverage community resources? Do you have community partnerships?
9. Do you feel it’s within your power to affect the demographics or student population of your
school? Can you give me an example of this?
10. When was the last time you tried to implement a significant organizational change?
Possible probe: How did it go? Why?
11. What motivates you each day when you come to school?
12. How do you feel you impact student achievement at your school?
Possible probe: Can you give me some examples of systems or interventions you’ve
implemented?
13. What influence do you have over the quality of teachers at your school?
14. How do you work to select or retain good teachers?
RESEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS 151
15. Hypothetically, if you could design a school that you feel would be the most conducive to
supporting all students reach their potential, what would that school look like?
16. What should I have asked you that I didn’t think to ask?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study
PDF
The racially responsive facilitator: an evaluation study
PDF
Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by Southern California superintendents
PDF
Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India
PDF
Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by San Diego County superintendents
PDF
The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis
PDF
Line staff and their influence on youth in expanded learning programs: an evaluation model
PDF
Affluent teens and school stress: an evaluation study
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
Developing longevity in the K-12 principal position: strategies for preparation, recruitment, and retention
PDF
The 21st-century principal: the recruitment, mentoring, and retention of principals
PDF
Public school district principals in California: preparation, recruitment, and retention
PDF
The role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative practices
PDF
Perceived impact of Masters in Governance training on student achievement and governance
PDF
An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study
PDF
Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study
PDF
Schoolwide structures, systems, and practices that are closing the achievement gap at a Southern California high-performing, high-poverty urban public elementary school: a case study
PDF
The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development
PDF
Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study
PDF
Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cash, Heather Elisabeth
(author)
Core Title
School integration as a reform strategy: the principal’s role, an evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
11/12/2018
Defense Date
09/04/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
community partnership,cultural proficiency,data proficiency,OAI-PMH Harvest,Public schools,racial isolation,school integration,school principal,school segregation,shared leadership
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Datta, Monique (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy (
committee member
), Escalante, Michael (
committee member
)
Creator Email
cashh@usc.edu,heatherecash@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-102995
Unique identifier
UC11675179
Identifier
etd-CashHeathe-6959.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-102995 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-CashHeathe-6959.pdf
Dmrecord
102995
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Cash, Heather Elisabeth
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
Tags
community partnership
cultural proficiency
data proficiency
racial isolation
school integration
school segregation
shared leadership