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
/
The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
(USC Thesis Other)
The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE SUPERINTENDENT AND REFORM: A CASE STUDY OF ACTION BY
THE SYSTEM LEADER TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN A
LARGE URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Lila Rene Mendoza-Jenkins
________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2009
Copyright 2009 Lila Rene Mendoza-Jenkins
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents
Rene and Elizabeth Mendoza
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Rudy Castruita
Dr. David Marsh
Dr. Michael Escalante
Members of the Marsh-Castruita thematic group:
Dave H., Liz B., Albert V., Eimi G., Roberto S., Dave B., Kristin K., Patricia R.,
and Teresita R.
A special thank you to Dave Haglund for fulfilling the role of the student group
leader in stellar fashion and for providing each of us with technical support and
guidance throughout the past year and a half.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION …………………………………………………………………… ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………………….. iii
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………… ix
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………… x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………... 1
Statement of the Problem …….…………………………………………. 15
Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………………. 16
Importance of the Study ………………………………………………… 18
Assumptions ……………………………………………………………..20
Limitations ……………………………………………………………… 21
Delimitations ……………………………………………………………. 21
Definitions of Terms ……………………………………………………. 22
Organization of the Study ………………………………………………. 27
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……………………………… 29
Student Achievement Trends and Implications ………………………… 30
International and Local Trends………………………………... 31
The Achievement Gap ………………………………………... 33
The Role of Local Systems in Improving Student Performance ……….. 36
Program Coherence…………………………………………… 37
A New Role for the System Leader …………………………………….. 41
Leadership Matters …………………………………………….43
Strategies System Leaders Utilize for Creating Change and
Improvement …………………………….................................................
47
The House Model ……………………………………………... 50
Strategic Plan …………………………………………………. 51
Assessment …………………………………………………….52
Curriculum ……………………………………………………. 54
Professional Development ……………………………………. 55
HR Systems and Human Capital Management ……………….. 57
Finance and Budget …………………………………………… 60
Communications ……………………………………………… 62
Governance and Board Relations …………………………….. 63
Labor Relations and Contract Management ………………….. 66
Family and Community Engagement ………………………… 68
v
Leadership Preparation… ………………………………………………. 71
New Leaders for Today’s Schools ……………………………. 71
Traditional and Non-Traditional Programs………………......... 74
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………… 79
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ………………………………… 82
Sampling Criteria and Process ………………………………………….. 85
Selected District Profile ………………………………………. 85
Description of School District / Key Players …………………. 86
Instrumentation …………………………………………………………. 93
Data Collection Instruments ………………………………….. 99
Data Collection …………………………………………………………. 106
Data Analysis ………………………………………………………….... 111
Validity and Reliability ………………………………………. 113
Summary ………………………………………………………………... 114
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION ………….............. 115
Findings ………………………………………………………………….115
District Background …………………………………………... 117
Background of the Superintendent ……………………………. 120
Condition of District at the Time of Superintendent’s Arrival... 121
The Entry Plan and Launching Strategies …………………….. 128
Ten Key Reform Strategies …………………………………… 131
Other House Model Elements ………………………….……... 201
Discussion ………………………………………………………………. 212
Systemic Reform ……………………………………………… 213
The System Leader …………………………………………… 225
Four Frames of Leadership……………………………………. 228
Summary ………………………………………………………………... 237
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ………... 238
Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………………. 239
Methodology ……………………………………………………………. 241
Sample …………………………………………………………242
Data Collection and Analysis …………………………………. 242
Selected Findings ……………………………………………………….. 245
Research Question #1 ……………………………………….... 245
Research Question #1a ……………………………………….. 255
Research Question #1b ……………………………………….. 262
Research Question #1c ………………………………………... 265
Conclusions ……………………………………………………………... 267
Implications for Practice ………………………………………………... 271
School and District Administrators …………………………… 271
vi
Local Community Stakeholders and School Board Members… 272
Policy Makers and Superintendent Preparation Programs ….... 273
Recommendations for Future Research ………………………………… 274
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………... 277
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………… 292
A: Superintendent Interview Guide …………………………………….. 292
B: Key Player Interview Guide …………………………………………. 294
C: Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide …………………… 295
D: Quality Rubrics ……………………………………………………… 301
E: Implementation Rubric ………………………………………………. 321
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Relationship of Research Questions to Data Collection Instruments …… 99
Table 2: Data Collection Activities ………………………………………………. 109
Table 3: Demographics of Keystone Public Schools Student Population………… 118
Table 4: Strengths in Keystone Public Schools Upon Arrival …………………… 123
Table 5: Challenges in Keystone Public Schools Upon Arrival ………................. 124
Table 6: Reform / Launching Strategies Leveraged in Keystone Public Schools … 127
Table 7: Rubric Ratings of House Model Reform Strategies ……………………. 134
Table 8: Rubric Scoring of Strategic Plan ……………………………………….. 135
Table 9: Addressing Change in Strategic Plan …………………………………… 137
Table 10: Strategic Plan Rating by Rubric Component ………………………….. 139
Table 11: Rubric Scoring of Assessment …………………………………………. 140
Table 12: Addressing Change in Assessment …………………………………..… 141
Table 13: Assessment Rating by Rubric Component …………………………….. 144
Table 14: Rubric Scoring of Curriculum ………………………………………..... 145
Table 15: Addressing Change in Curriculum …………………………………….. 147
Table 16: Curriculum Rating by Rubric Component …………………………….. 150
Table 17: Rubric Scoring of Professional Development ………………………..... 151
Table 18: Addressing Change in Professional Development …………………….. 153
Table 19: Professional Development Rating by Rubric Component …………….. 157
Table 20: Rubric Scoring of HR System and Human Capital Management ……... 158
Table 21: Addressing Change in HR System and Human Capital Management..... 160
viii
Table 22: HR System and Human Capital Management Rating by Rubric
Component………………………………………………………………
167
Table 23: Rubric Scoring of Finance and Budget ………………………………… 168
Table 24: Addressing Change in Finance and Budget ……………………………. 170
Table 25: Finance and Budget Rating by Rubric Component ……………………. 173
Table 26: Rubric Scoring of Communications ……………………………………. 175
Table 27: Addressing Change in Communications ……………………………..... 177
Table 28: Communications Rating by Rubric Component ……………………….. 180
Table 29: Rubric Scoring of Governance and Board Relations ……………..…… 181
Table 30: Addressing Change in Governance and Board Relations ……………… 183
Table 31: Governance and Board Relations Rating by Rubric Component ……… 187
Table 32: Rubric Scoring of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations ……..…. 188
Table 33: Addressing Change in Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations …… 189
Table 34: Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations Rating by Rubric
Component …………………………………………………………….. 192
Table 35: Rubric Scoring of Family and Community Engagement ……………… 193
Table 36: Addressing Change in Family and Community Relations ……….……. 196
Table 37: Family and Community Engagement Rating by Rubric Component …. 200
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The PELP Coherence Framework…………. ………………………….... 39
Figure 2: System Coherence Model ………………………………………………. 41
Figure 3: Four Frames of Leadership ……………………………………………... 46
Figure 4: The House Model ……………………………………………………….. 94
Figure 5: The House Model ……………………………………………………….. 133
Figure 6: Cycle of Change ………………………………….................................... 214
Figure 7: System Coherence Model …………………………………..................... 218
Figure 8: Performance Standards Rubric ………………………………….............. 221
Figure 9: Four Frames of Leadership...…………………………………................. 236
Figure 10: Keystone Urban Leadership System for Excellence…………………… 251
x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify the actions large urban school
district superintendents take to leverage systemic change designed to positively
impact student achievement. Overall, the study explored the entry of one
superintendent into a large urban school district. This analytical case study focused
on ten specific reform strategies, in order to determine how superintendent action
impacted levels of quality and implementation. One research question and three
related sub-questions inquired into the strengths and challenges of the district, how
district characteristics related to the development of a strategic plan of entry, how the
superintendent determined specific actions to be taken to initiate systemic reform to
improve student achievement, and how those choices related to the unique context of
the district and their own personal and professional background.
The analysis and results of the study indicated that the system leader (i.e.,
superintendent) utilized reform strategies in accordance to the strengths and
challenges of the district to establish a vision and mission for the district’s work
focused on providing students with a high quality educational experience. The major
strategies utilized by the superintendent were: 1) establishing relationships with all
stakeholder groups to create and foster clear lines of open and honest
communication, 2) linkages between the district vision and actions, creating system
coherence, 3) restructuring the allocation of resources to support teaching and
learning activities, and 4) building leadership capacity throughout the organization
through professional development and measures of accountability.
xi
The superintendency position has transitioned from a managerial-focused
position to one focused on instructional leadership. As a result, it is critical that
system leaders have both the skill set and knowledge base necessary to direct multi-
dimensional, district-wide action towards a single objective: improving student
achievement. The findings and conclusions from this study provide guidance to those
responsible for student achievement, as well as those who are vested in the outcomes
of public education.
Future research is warranted that incorporates a quantitative review of student
achievement data in relation to the efforts for systemic reform, in order to provide a
more robust analysis of the effectiveness of various reform strategies and establish a
statistical relationship between district action and student learning.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The American educational system has been faced with many woes over
students’ inconsistent performance on standardized tests at the national and
international levels for several decades. School reforms were developed in response
to the widespread perception that students in the United States are not learning
enough. These concerns may have had their beginnings as far back as the 1960’s
with the legislation of the Chapter I Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) of 1965 which aimed to provide children from economically disadvantaged
homes with a quality education. In the 1980’s, the complaints about the lack of
student learning was voiced in A Nation at Risk (1983) published by the National
Commission of Excellence (NCE) report which pointed out that in international
comparisons, American students ranked last on the academic tests as compared to
other industrialized nations.
Reports published by the U.S. National Research Center during the 1990’s
affirmed that American students were not making great gains in mathematics and
science achievement. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) – 1995 revealed that U.S. fourth-graders performed well in math and
science, U.S. eighth-grade students performed above the international average in
science and below the international average in math and U.S. seniors scored among
the lowest in math and science. Several years later, the TIMSS – 1999 affirmed that
students in the U.S. were continuing to fall behind the students in other countries
2
educationally (Ruzzi, 2006). These reports stressed the need for school reform at
large to improve student achievement.
In the first year of the new century, President Bill Clinton voiced his concern
regarding the status of education and international student performance in his State
of the Union Address (2000) when he discussed the thrust of accountability. States
and school districts would be held accountable for student achievement. All states
would be required to implement standards-based instruction and assessment
programs to monitor student achievement. Shortly thereafter, President Bush
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) which calls for the success
of all children within the United Sates Educational System. In order to achieve this
success each state operates under the plan entitled No Child Left Behind (2001). The
plan is based on four principles: 1) accountability for results; 2) local control and
flexibility; 3) expanded parental choice; and 4) effective and successful programs.
This plan demands that all students will achieve success regardless of race, ethnicity,
culture, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, and academic ability. President
Bush expressed in the past “Too many of our neediest children are being left behind”
(California Department of Education, 2004). This federal legislation established a
new definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for all states, local education
agencies (LEA), and public schools, by mandating that 100% of all students score
proficient or above in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics by the year
2014 (United States Department of Education [USDE], (2002). NCLB and the
standards-based reform were designed to address the state of our nation’s educational
3
system. In response to the legislation, states have developed and implemented
standards-based curriculum requirements in order to create consistency and
accountability in the subject matter as well as alignment in the K-12 system.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which collects
data in reading and math for students in grades 4, 8, and 12 is published every four
years by the United States Department of Education is considered the Nations Report
Card. The first report was published in 1971 and throughout the last three decades
has chronicled trends in student achievement. Overall, the reports reveal that growth
has occurred for students in grades 4 and 8 while little or no measurable growth has
been exhibited for grade 12 students (Perie, Moren, & Lutkus, 2005). In addition, the
NAEP reports provide achievement data for racial and ethnic groups. Reports from
1975 to 2004 reveal that the achievement scores for minority groups have risen,
nevertheless there remains an achievement gap between White and minority (Black
and Hispanic) groups (Perie et al., 2005). Achievement gaps as large as 20 points
exist between the White and minority subgroups (Black and Hispanic). Large urban
school districts across the nation experience the challenges resulting from diverse
populations with specific needs such as students who are learning English as a
second language, new immigrants to the United States who lack the skills and
knowledge to navigate the educational system, and students who lack the social,
emotional and academic experiences their peers possess upon entering school.
As a result of the data, much has been written about the achievement gap
which exists between certain minority and low income children and their more
4
affluent counterparts. It has been the subject of thousands of studies. The elimination
of this gap is - and has been – the target of billions of federal and state dollars.
Therefore, it is crucial for American students to stay in school and graduate from
high school and be provided the opportunity to attend the college of their choice.
Additionally, many point to the gap between the performance of U.S. students and
those from other countries on international comparisons as evidence that the current
educational system is not preparing students adequately (National Center for
Educational Statistics [NCES], 2005). They fear that this deficiency will affect our
national productivity and international competitiveness. If the United States is to
remain a global leader in the 21
st
century, the academic achievement of students
must improve. United States students and citizens are at risk of not meeting the
standards needed to compete in a global marketplace. School districts and individual
schools play a critical role in carrying out the mandate of NCLB and it is the
leadership provided by the superintendent/system leader that matters most in the
quest for student success.
The role of the school district and school systems in carrying out the
mandate of NCLB is critical to improving student achievement in American public
schools (Waters & Marzano, 2006). According to Marsh (2002), the school district
serves as the most influential piece in providing support in instructional
improvement. According to the work of Childress, Elmore and Grossman (2006) the
concept of how to improve student achievement in America’s urban public schools
might be one of the biggest management challenges. Several approaches such as
5
vouchers, site-based and district centered management as well as the $450 billion
fiscal funds in the last three decades have failed to produce a one high performing
urban school district. One reason for this failure may be attributed to the fact that
policymakers, researchers, and educators all too often view the district office as part
of the problem versus part of the solution (Childress et al., 2006). School-based
solutions are important but in and of them selves are not enough to warrant the
necessary changes without support and guidance from the district office. If this were
true there would be an abundance of high functioning urban systems across the US.
District leadership is crucial when addressing the barriers of low–performing schools
and the needs of struggling learners. In order for a large urban district to achieve
excellence on a broad scale it is imperative that the district office under the
leadership of the superintendent develop a shared vision for student achievement
through proposed educational goals and outcomes. Also, they must identify best
practices to be implemented, provide opportunities for stakeholders to develop
leadership capacity as well as develop systems to monitor student improvement, and
hold all individuals accountable for results (Childress et al., 2006). By doing this,
school districts transform themselves into agents of “serious instructional
improvement” who are focused on raising student achievement with deliberate
actions (Chrispeels, Gonzales & Edge, 2006).
This type of reform necessitates strong leadership which will serve as the
cornerstone to ongoing instructional improvement. Therefore, leadership matters.
6
The significance of the superintendent as a positional leader in the educational
system is widely known and acknowledged.
The superintendent’s role in improving learning and instruction for all
students must incorporate a myriad of strategies to effectively bring about this
transformational change (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). At one time, the role
of the superintendent was clerical, assisting the school board with the day-to-day
details of the school activities. The role of the superintendent gradually evolved its
clerical genesis to that of the schoolmaster. In this position the superintendent was
seen as a master educator, providing direction on curricular and instructional matters
(Carter & Cunningham, 1997). Today’s “instructional leaders” are the heirs of these
school masters. According to Goodman and Zimmerman (2001), the position of the
superintendent is one of the most challenging of all chief executive undertakings in
academia. Consider the complexities of modern-day education, together with today’s
political realities, social problems, economic constraints, changing technology, an
abundance of state and federal legislation, and an avalanche of pressure-packed
factors (e.g., changing demographics, board member turnover, school privatization,
decentralization, teacher empowerment). All of these developments have
dramatically influenced and complicated the role of the superintendent (Goodman &
Zimmerman, 2001).
The study of leadership in the superintendency is of critical importance in
understanding the nature of leadership in the role and effecting student achievement
(Johnson, 1996). The focus of her study was to explore superintendent’s approaches
7
to leadership, stakeholders’ responses to their superintendent’s initiatives, and the
resulting changes in educational practice and student achievement. She found that
successful superintendents developed their district’s capacity for change within their
first two years and managed the change process by helping stakeholders move
through the stages of resistance, acceptance, involvement, and investment. These
organizations had clear goals, sought adherence to widely accepted standards, and all
members were provided with explicit roles and exact procedures for meeting their
responsibilities. Johnson suggests that to lead reform and improve teaching and
learning successfully, superintendents must have the ability to interpret information
about the district accurately and be able to design an approach to reform that makes
sense with the local context, considering the history of the district, its strengths, its
most urgent needs, existing beliefs about what works, and structures that will make
reform possible. Successful visions were developed and shaped to fit the context and
were championed by the superintendent, both in word and deed. Ultimately, it is the
superintendent who must be willing to challenge the current policies and practices in
order to effect change while including the various stakeholders in the development
and implementation of the change process (Marzano, 2003). Who is ready for the
toughest job in America – and some would agree that it may be the most important?
The role of the superintendent or systems leader has become increasingly
complex during the last several decades, shifting the focus from a manager of
finance and operations to that of instructional leadership. The superintendent of
today must be able to negotiate complex governance systems, internal and external
8
political arenas as well as the legislative aspects (Byrd et al., 2006). It is the
leadership that the superintendent or systems leader provides that serves as a catalyst
to educational reform. It is this leadership that moulds the policy drivers such as
personalization, professionalism, formative assessment and collaboration. The many
reform efforts aimed at transforming organizations such as new governance
frameworks and additional accountability require leadership to shoulder the greatest
responsibilities and to bear the most direct consequences. According to Professor
David Hopkins, HSBC iNet Chair of International Leadership (2006), “The best
‘system leaders’ are willing to shoulder-system wide roles; they are almost as
concerned about the improvement of other schools as they are about their own.”
Watkins (2004) clearly delineates strategies for new leaders and suggests
creating a 90-day entry plan to face the transitional challenges. The strategies
include: negotiate success; achieve alignment; promote yourself; accelerate learning;
match strategy to situation; build your team; and create coalitions. By implementing
the 90-day plan, the new leader can begin to address the myriad of issues with
confidence and sense of purpose. In reality, the 90-day plan is liken to the entry plan
as suggested by Neely, Berube, and Wilson (2002) which serves as a cornerstone
when establishing relationships, recognizing stakeholders, and looking at situations
through various lenses.
An example of an entry plan in action is the study by Takata, Marsh and
Castruita (2007). The researchers investigated the use of these strategic entry plans in
two urban districts where the superintendent was a Broad Academy graduate. The
9
Broad Foundation, a private foundation, has developed an innovative superintendent
training program known as the Broad Superintendent’s Academy (TBA) (Thomas
Fordham Institute, 2003; Broad Foundation, 2003). The preparation program uses the
House Model, a conceptual framework for understanding the key elements of
district- wide reform which is designed to prepare new leaders with a solid
foundation that include an entry plan for the first 100 days. The House Model
represents a three-year strategic plan which focuses on the areas of instructional
alignment, operational excellence stakeholder management, and organizational
effectiveness while the superintendent’s entry plan serves as the foundation of the
structure. The model also aligns reform strategies (25) to specific areas of the house
of which ten have been identified for the focus of this study. Broad Academy
graduates who implement this plan are also supported by the mentoring of TBA
graduates and have access to all Broad Foundation resources (The Broad Foundation
& the Thomas Fordham Institute, 2003; Takata, Marsh & Castruita, 2007).
The leadership challenges faced by school superintendents are well
documented, along with the critical nature of their leadership to sustaining school
district improvement (Cambron-McCabe et al., 2005; Williams, 2004; Thomas,
2001; Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Peterson, 1999). Therefore, the leadership
development that each superintendent receives prior to entering the position plays a
role in her/her success.
In the last decade, the landscape of executive training programs for school
superintendents has undergone changes and multiple options have become available
10
for aspiring leaders. At this time, there are two basic models of preparation programs
for aspiring system leaders: 1) traditional rise through the ranks of education, and 2)
non-traditional leaders from the business, military, government, and other private
sector positions. The increase of choices available for training preparation may be a
direct result of recent reports and research. Reports have identified four areas of
weaknesses in traditional superintendent training programs: 1) time spent on theory –
lacking practical experiences, 2) lacking access to technological advances currently
available in the global economy, 3) lacking application and synthesis – linking to
common practice, and 4) learning limited to instructor’s professional experiences –
lacking breadth (Bjork, Kowalski, & Young, 2005). In response, a report by Murphy
and Vriesenga (2006) suggests the following to negate these issues: 1) reconsider the
basis of administrative preparation programs in the United States through systematic
review of “who we are and what are we doing in the area of leader preparation” and
2) come together as a profession to establish a collective agenda around the training
and education function.
In 2001, the Carnegie Foundation began to lead the way in transforming
university leadership preparation programs through the Carnegie Project on the
Education Doctorate (CPED), by conducting eighty-four action research studies of
Ph.D. programs that focused on four themes: 1) purpose, 2) principles, 3)
apprenticeship, and 4) intellectual community while creating a network of
institutions committed to redesigning their programs (Carnegie Foundation, 2007).
Meanwhile on the west coast at the University of Southern California, the Rossier
11
School of Education (RSOE), faculty began to redefine the goals for the Ed.D. and
Ph.D. programs to address the perceptions of the much flawed, outdated, and no
longer effective programs. Working with key stakeholders, Karen Gallagher, the
dean of RSOE clarified the RSOE’s urban mission, and created new direction for the
school. The labor of their work is evident in the clear and much needed distinction
between the Ph.D. and Ed.D. degrees, as well as the intent of the new Ed.D.
program, which is to develop and produce practitioner leaders who have the ability
to promote and extend learning within an organization, by acting as change agents
and most importantly in the a complex urban-metropolitan setting (Shulman et al.
2006; Dembo & Marsh, 2007).
Despite the changes in superintendent preparation programs throughout the
last eight years, there still exists two opposing views on professional preparation
programs for aspiring system leaders: 1) traditional rise through the ranks of
education, and 2) non-traditional leaders from the business, military, government,
and other private sector positions.
Non-traditional superintendents are being hired throughout the country with
some more notorious examples being Roy Romer, Former Colorado Governor and
Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent, and John Stanford, retired Lt.
Colonel and non-traditional superintendent in Seattle, Washington. Although hiring
non-traditional superintendents has been happening for ten years (Cuban & Usdan,
2003), there are many unanswered questions about why this is happening in
education. Non-traditional superintendents bring a wide spectrum of talents along
12
with a wide array of perspectives. According to Fuller (2003), this new breed of
superintendents has come from the arenas of business, military, non-profit
organizations, and public service and these non-traditional superintendents are not a
mandated reform: they are merely another reform. Brigadier General Fred Van
Valkenburg is one example of a proven leader in the military sector that has made
the transition to public education. His distinguished 30-year career in the Untied
States Air Force and participation in the military leadership development programs
afforded him the opportunities to build his strengths and skills one step at a time
beginning as a cadet and rising through the ranks to that of a general.
One example of a non-traditional preparation program is the Broad
Superintendents Academy which is a 10-month executive management program
designed to prepare outstanding senior executives and CEO’s from business,
military, non-profit organizations, higher education and government who have
successfully managed large organizations to lead large urban public school districts.
The intent of the program is exemplified in the mission statement for The Broad
Center for the Management of School Systems: “to raise student achievement by
recruiting, training, and supporting executive leadership talent from across America
to become the next generation of urban school district leaders” (The Broad
Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003). The program intentionally
guides its systems leaders to take authority in the process of improving learning for
all students in the school district by supporting each with strategic plans and
resources. Components of the training include CEO-level skills in the areas of
13
management, operations, finance, organizational systems and education. At the end
of the training program, the intent is that each participant is capable of transforming
a large, complex, bureaucratic organization into a high performing enterprise focused
on raising student achievement.
At the same time there are university–based programs that prepare
individuals to be school superintendents. Due to the changing landscape and age of
accountability in the nation, higher education institutions acknowledge the need to
respond in order to prepare individuals who well equipped with the skills and
strategies to successfully navigate the role of the superintendency. Most
superintendents have served in a principal role and/or district level leadership which
provides insight into effective teaching and learning but may not have sufficiently
provided insight and experiences necessary to lead a large organization. Traditional
programs have had a foundation in theory and resource management while lacking in
content focusing on external issues and pressures (Fuller et al., 2003). Higher
education institutions have added specific components to their existing programs
which intentionally provide aspiring individuals the necessary information to provide
a top-to-bottom organizational focus on student achievement, supported by a
consistent and continuous message from the superintendent and board; rigorous use
of achievement data to inform instructional staff, and programmatic decisions by
teachers, principals, and central office staff; systems to hire, develop, and retain
effective teachers and principals in all schools; and engagement of families and the
14
larger community in promoting achievement (Snipes, Doolittle, & Herlihy, 2002;
Elmore, 2000; School Communities that Work, 2002).
Regardless of the preparation program selected by the aspiring individual,
both models provide multiple opportunities for the participants to gain the
knowledge and expertise required for the leadership position in the areas of policies,
curriculum and instruction, and management. The critical issue becomes knowing
“which” reform strategy to use “when” to bring about the most change. It is evident
that systems leaders do in fact implement specific reform strategies in their quest to
increase student achievement.
The significance and relevance of educational research to document
superintendent preparation programs is pivotal to any attempt to reform a school
district. “Nothing is more important to the future of this country than giving young
people the tools to succeed” (United Sates Secretary of Education Margaret
Spellings, 2007). Therefore, the need for relevant and intentionally designed
preparation programs provides a basis for the evaluation of current preparation
programs. According to the literature, there is an abundance of research on
educational administration preparation programs (Murphy & Vrisenga, 2006). The
common understanding that teacher quality and student achievement are linked to
teacher preparation has contributed to the increase of research in the area of teacher
preparation programs (Murphy & Vrisenga, 2006). On the other hand, the knowledge
that the quality of executive leadership is linked to student achievement has not
resulted in the same enthusiasm for scholarly research on the topic despite the notion
15
that superintendent preparation is often linked to tenure and success in increasing
student achievement (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006; Fuller et al., 2003). Therefore,
superintendents who are well equipped with leadership and managerial skills will
most likely produce the desired results.
Statement of the Problem
In today’s educational arena, the increasing accountability for student
achievement is a high priority. Districts and schools must be transformed, not
because they have failed in their traditional mission, but because the mission and the
context have changed so dramatically in recent years. Today’s educational climate
calls for a new way of doing business. Political power shifts have affected the
superintendency. The authority of the position has been eroded and dispersed, while
the expectations have multiplied. Superintendents are expected to respond effectively
to varied pressures while staying focused on improving student learning. With their
formal powers weakened by bargaining agreements, legislation, state and federal
mandates and local political infighting, 21
st
century superintendents must rely on
their personal skills, knowledge, and ability to bring people together. Effective
superintendents are consummate communicators, collaborators, consensus creators,
child advocates, champions of curriculum and masters of teaching and learning.
Developing and sustaining successful system leaders is a major challenge due
to the ever changing environment in which superintendents fulfill their role exerting
leadership, guidance and support over the individuals they have been entrusted to
lead. Recent concerns state that traditional preparation programs are producing
16
leaders who do not understand the complexity of urban educational systems, lack
solid preparation specifically for the system leader job, and do not know how to
focus large education organizations on enhancing learning for all students.
Although research has been conducted regarding effective systems leaders,
there is a need to investigate the preparation programs for the superintendent position
(Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006). There is a gap in the literature in the areas of
superintendent preparation, how they initiate reform, and how to successfully
navigate through the complex problems that are educational, managerial, and
political in nature. For this reason, it is critical to understand the reform strategies
selected by effective urban school leaders and to determine how those choices are
related to the manner in which they were prepared for the position due to the fact that
the employment of specific reform strategies is a critical component to either the
success or failure of the district’s vision for increasing student performance.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the actions that superintendents take
to initiate change and improve student achievement in large urban school districts.
Although there are many actions that a superintendent may implement to effect
change within a school system, this study will focused on ten reform strategies to
understand how a superintendent’s action, including levels of quality and
implementation, relates to improved student achievement. This study will build upon
the Phase I study conducted by Takata, Marsh, and Castruita (2007) which sought to
compare the actions taken by large urban school superintendents to initiate change
17
related to raising student achievement. Consistent with the Phase I study, this study
used the House Model as the conceptual framework to glean how the unique context
of the district contributed to a newly tenured superintendent’s decision-making
process in terms of ten reform strategies he employed to increase student
achievement.
The study investigated one superintendent in large urban school district,
specifically how he developed and implemented systemic reform based on the
strengths and weaknesses of the district upon entry, how he determined a course of
action (entry plan) to initiate and sustain improved student achievement, how
decisions were impacted by professional and personal past experiences, and how
those choices relate to the unique context of the school district.
Research Questions
1. How are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban
school superintendents to improve student achievement in his or
her respective district?
a. How does the quality and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district
when the superintendent took office?
b. What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do
they correspond to the elements of the House model?
18
c. How does the choice and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of
the superintendent?
Importance of the Study
Currently, federal and state accountability systems hold schools and districts
responsible for poor student performance and identify those schools achieving as
well as those who are in need of improvement. The No Child Left Behind Act
(2001), ultimately holds local educational agencies and their superintendents
responsible for ensuring the academic success of all students across the nation by
requiring all students meet grade level standards by the year 2014. These mandates
have placed pressure on schools and districts to provide students with a high quality
education in order to accomplish this task. This aggressive goal of ensuring that
100% of all children will meet or surpass the proficiency levels set by each state by
the year 2014 require the concerted efforts of all individuals who interact with
students within the educational setting.
Therefore, examining the actions taken by one large urban school district
superintendent to increase student achievement by identifying the reform strategies
selected by the system leader to improve student performance and considering how
an individual’s personal and professional background and preparation impacts these
choices will contribute to the knowledge base of system leadership. By clarifying the
factors that contribute to the superintendent’s efforts, others will gain insight and
understanding of the system leader’s role that training and background influence
19
leadership. To this end, the results of this study have importance and relevance in the
current realm of high-stakes accountability and low student performance in urban
school districts across the United States.
School and districts administrators work under the federal and state mandates
of assuring that school sites are engaged in the work of reform while focused on the
improvement of student performance by discovering best practices to implement in
order to enhance teaching and learning in all classrooms. This study brings to light
the specific actions taken by a system leader to create and shape the district reform
strategy to increase student performance and therefore serves to inform the actions of
all others within the organization.
This study is also significant to professional and academic preparation
programs. Insight gleaned will assist in reforming and reorganizing, developing new
programs, and implementing professional preparation programs to better understand
how to provide future systems leaders with the proper guidance and support in their
preparation programs. Specifically, this study will inform the universities, leadership
institutes and district leaders of specific reform strategies which support and enhance
district-wide leadership, performance, and ultimately improve student outcomes.
Educational researchers, policymakers, district office personnel, site
administrators, and classroom teachers will benefit from this study because of the
effective leadership illustrated by the system leader in their quest for school reform.
This study illuminates the significance of the superintendent’s role within the school
district’s reform effort and provides a deeper understanding of the dynamics required
20
for effective reform with in the educational system and the use of effective
conceptual frameworks or models for improving system-wide student achievement
(i.e., House Model). Promising practices at the district-level might be explored and
further documented by researchers with respect to the Superintendent Entry Plan and
other actionable plans for district reform and systemic change based on viable
effective strategies focused on improving student performance. In addition, the
findings of this study will inform the work of education policymakers and legislators
who purpose is to create policy and laws to enhance and extend system leadership
focused on producing and sustaining improved student outcomes. One such policy
might include superintendent training and certification programs.
Assumptions
The limitations of this study include the following:
1. Study is based on the premise that there is a relationship between the
actions taken by the superintendent in regard to district reform efforts and increased
student achievement.
2. Assumes that the superintendent is held accountable for increasing student
achievement and results are directly or indirectly attributable to the decisions made
by him/her.
3. The conceptual framework, data collection instruments and procedures
were developed based on a thorough review of current literature.
4. Assumed that tools and processes provided valid information and that the
all participants answered willingly and honestly during interviews.
21
5. Assumed all existing data collected and analyzed from the identified
school district were complete and correct.
Limitations
The limitations of this study include the following:
1. Data collection for this study was completed within the timeline agreed
upon between the Urban School Leadership Foundation and University of Southern
California.
2. The purposive nature of this study may have limited this study’s ability to
be generalizable to other school districts throughout the country.
3. To prevent researcher bias and subjectivity, efforts were made to prevent
bias through triangulation of data and adhering to specific conceptual frameworks
founded in a review of literature.
4. The researcher could not control participants’ bias or willingness to
participate in the interview. Analysis of the data was subject to researcher
interpretation.
5. The data collected from documents was also limited due to the limited
amount of time and resources to collect and review the documents.
Delimitations
Taking into consideration the aforementioned limitations, the structure of this
study was an analytical case study of one large urban school district superintendent.
Specifically, the study focused on the ten key reform strategies utilized by the
superintendent to leverage systemic reform his/her district and subsequently impact
22
student achievement. The criteria used to select the case study district included the
following:
1. District must be identified from the largest 125 school systems in the
United States;
2. The superintendent must have been in office in the district since 2006; and
3. The superintendent must have graduated from the Urban School
Leadership Institute.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are operationally defined as
specified below:
Accountability: A designed effort or system that holds district, schools,
and/or students responsible for student performance. Accountability systems
typically consist of assessments, public reporting of results, and rewards or sanctions
based upon student performance over time.
Achievement gap: A term that refers to the observed difference in educational
performance measures between groups of students defined by race/ethnicity, gender,
and socioeconomic status.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Federal indicator of annual progress
towards the goal of grade-level proficiency for all students that is required by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The NCLB law requires districts to pay attention to
the performance levels of all students by sub group (e.g., grade, sex, special program
23
status, and ethnicity). Districts must make annual progress towards the goal of 100%
proficient by 2014.
Assessment: Assessments enable districts to measure students’ skill or
knowledge and examine whether they are learning what they are supposed to learn.
There are various types and of assessments, each with different purposes (e.g.,
formative, summative, curriculum-embedded, performance-based, etc.).
Capacity: The ability to flexibly respond to external demands in order to
translate high standards into effective instruction and strong student performance that
is comprised of both qualitative and quantitative factors that residing within
structures, processes, and relationships.
Central office: Used interchangeably with district office as the location of the
district’s senior management personnel and their staff (i.e., superintendent, assistant
superintendent, and directors).
Coherence: Alignment between institutional goals and objectives to
allocation of resources across the system.
Communication: Communication of great stories in the district must be
shared. The development of a public relations or communications office staffed with
experts on dealing with the media can enable the district to communicate its vision to
the public or proactively build support for an important initiative.
Conceptual framework: A consistent and comprehensive integration of
research literature, theories, and other pertinent information that is the basis for the
analysis of findings within the study.
24
Curriculum: Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach. Classroom
materials, such as textbooks, worksheets, pacing guides, etc., should address the
scope and sequence of the district’s learning standards.
Family and Community Engagement: Family and Community Engagement
offer the district multiple opportunities for all stakeholders to interact with the
district, from volunteering to partnering with local organizations in support of
student success. Many districts take surveys of parents of students and the
community in general to determine how they view the district and what priorities for
improvement are. Surveys should be closely linked to the district’s performance
management system and data dashboard. Increasing stakeholder satisfaction can
lead to greater support for funding measures, significantly increasing its financial
resources.
Finance and Budget: The Finance and Budget of a district should be in
alignment with instructional priorities as well as balanced and sustainable. Some
successful district’s have adopted innovative budgeting approaches such as “zero-
based budgeting” and weighted students funding to bring their budgets into closer
alignment with their priorities.
Governance and Board Relations: The area of Governance/Board Relations
is critical since most districts are governed by boards elected from the local
population; others answer to appointed boards. The school board is responsible for
setting policy direction for the district; superintendents can take a supporting role in
25
developing policy but are mainly charged with executing it. Winning the support of
the board is time consuming but a critical task for superintendents.
House Model: A conceptual framework developed by the Broad Academy
staff, providing a visual representation of the reform model that is used by The Broad
Academy in its training session and curriculum. The House Model incorporates four
key components including, resource allocation, instructional alignment,
organizational effectiveness, and system governance.
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management: The Human
Resource System (HR) and Human Capital Management research indicates that
teacher quality is a primary influence on student achievement. Effective districts do a
good job in attracting, selecting, and managing talent at the teacher, principal or
district office level. Improving the recruiting and hiring processes for personnel,
developing attractive compensation packages, and streamlining the process of
applications and payments are evidence of a good HR system.
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations: The area of Labor
Relations/Contract Negotiations presents the superintendent the opportunity to build
relationships and negotiate with several unions to which various staff belongs.
Success in working with unions requires an upfront investment in building
relationships and understanding the priorities of union leaders. The content of the
contract also requires close attention. Contract language can restrict or expand the
superintendent’s options for replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly
26
crucial with teacher contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant
influences on student achievement.
Large urban School District: As defined by the Urban School Leadership
Foundation, a large urban school district is defined by student enrollment. The
largest 125 districts are considered to belong within this category.
Professional Development: Professional Development is any program or
course intended to improve teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness. Successful
districts have an integrated professional development strategy that centers on
enabling teachers to detect when students aren’t meeting a certain standards and to
adjust their instruction accordingly, or enables principals and teachers to improve
their knowledge and skills in areas of district focus.
Reform Strategies: Reform strategies include numerous actions and processes
utilized by systems leaders to initiate and sustain systemic reform.
Sanctions: In accountability systems, the consequences imposed upon an
individual or system for not meeting identified performance outcomes.
Standards: Standards describe the learning goals for a particular subject area,
at a particular grade level.
Strategic plan: The Strategic Plan defines the district’s mission, goals, and
vision. It also assigns performance indicators and work plans to each of the district’s
primary goals and serves as the guiding document for the district decisions and
priorities.
27
Subgroup: A homogeneous group as defined by race/ethnicity, language
proficiency, gender, socioeconomic status, or special program.
Sustainability: Sustainability refers to the goal of long-term district reform
that retains a permanent focus on student achievement beyond the success of initial
gains.
System leader: The term system leader refers to the superintendent of a
school district.
Systemic reform: Coherent change that occurs throughout all aspects and
levels of the educational institution, impacting and requiring the involvement of all
stakeholders.
Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI): An innovative school system
leadership program, which is funded by the Urban School Leadership Foundation
(USLF). The 10 month Superintendents Institute provides an intensive training
program designed to prepare senior executives from business, non-profit, military,
government, and education backgrounds to lead urban public school systems.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of this manuscript began with an introduction to the study, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions to be
answered, a statement regarding the significance of the study, the assumptions, the
limitations, and a listing of operational definitions for key terms. Chapter 2 contained
a review of the relevant literature and reviews the following topics: The impact of
accountability systems, the relationship between student performance and local
28
school system, the role that system leaders play in improving student performance,
the strategies employed by new system leaders, and how superintendents are
prepared in relation to their role in improving student performance. Chapter 3
presented the research methodology used in the study, the reasons for interest in the
study, the rationale for how participants were selected, as well as the overall design
and relevant background of the study. In Chapter 4, the findings were presented
along with analysis and discussion of the data. Chapter 5 presented a summary of the
study and proposed possible implications for practice as well as recommendations
for future research. References and relevant appendices follow.
29
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
By the year 2014, 100% of public school children will demonstrate academic
competencies that meet or exceed standards, as measured by a single test, regardless
of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender, language ability, or cognitive limitations
and this daunting task is the essence of external accountability placed on educational
leaders. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde (2005) indicate, “For twenty years we have
been enduring the most intense period of educational reform this country has ever
seen.” Education reform has forced accountability and change on every level of
public education, including the superintendency. The review of current and past
literature is pertinent to the role of the urban school Superintendent in implementing
educational reform strategies to improve student achievement in urban settings. This
review begins by providing an overview of student achievement in the United States
and internationally, followed by the role of local systems in improving student
performance. The next section in this chapter outlines relevant research on the role of
the superintendent in providing leadership for the organization, specifically ten
reform strategies implemented to affect student achievement. Strategies include: (1)
strategic plan, (2) assessment, (3) curriculum, (4) professional development, (5)
human resources system and human capital management, (6) finance and budget, (7)
communications, (8) governance and board relations, (9) labor relations and contract
negotiations, and (10) the family and community engagement. Finally, the last
portion of this literature review focuses on the research describing leadership
30
preparation programs for the role of the superintendent. The objective of this chapter
is to synthesize the literature by describing effective practices in urban
superintendency, connecting their actions to increase student achievement
performance of all students, and the demand to meet high accountability standards
imposed by state and federal guidelines
Student Achievement Trends and Implications
The improvement of our nation’s public education system with respect to
poor student performance has fueled spirited debates for several decades. Calls for
improvement were heightened when the National Commission on Excellence (NCE)
released the landmark educational report entitled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative
for Educational Reform on April 26, 1983. This report confirmed the public’s
perception of the academic proficiency of American students, stating that “the
educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of
mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people” (Luce &
Thompson, 2005). The report also detailed other failings of the American public
education system, such as the estimated 23 million functionally illiterate adult
citizens (National Commission on Educational Excellence, 1983). Reform efforts
had taken place before the 1980’s but the publication of A Nation at Risk propelled
education reform into the media’s national spotlight. As a result, scholars and
national panels began issuing reports validating the dismal picture of American
student performance and reinforcing the NCE’s conclusions.
31
One such report titled Action for Excellence, issued by the Education
Commission of the States, confirmed the conclusion of A Nation at Risk stating “the
weakness of public education was detracting from the nation’s economic viability”
(Kirkpatrick, 2003); thus, the nation’s public education system was producing
graduates incapable of contributing to the American workforce, and consequently,
damaging the United States’ economic condition. Sixteen years after A Nation at
Risk (1983), The Educational Resources Information Center reported that
internationally, U.S. students at the elementary level were maintaining their own
while students at the middle and high school levels were falling behind their
counterparts (ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, 1998).
Today, public education still faces the scrutiny and criticism for a lack of
systemic achievement and has much at stake in the global economy where literature
concludes a relationship between student achievement to both wages and the overall
strength of the national workforce (Friedman, 2005; Kirkpatrick, 2003; ERIC
Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, 1998). The implementation of the No
Child Left Behind Act (2001) is spurring each state to press forward with reform
efforts and comply with the law’s requirements for challenging academic standards,
assessments, and timelines for adequate yearly progress towards the goal of all
students achieving academic proficiency by 2014 (Luce & Thompson, 2005).
International and Local Trends
At the National level, the United States of America is considered one of the
most economically developed countries in the world and belongs to a consortium of
32
industrialized nations known as the Group of Eight (G8) including the United States,
Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia. The
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provides reports detailing each
country’s student achievement data compared to other G8 nations, utilizing data
compiled from three international assessment surveys: the Indicators of National
Educational Systems (INES) project, the Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA), and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMMS). Results indicated that overall American students underperformed their
peers in other G8 nations in the areas of math and reading. For example, students in
Germany, France, Japan, and Canada outperformed American 15-year-old students
in both math and reading (Ruzzi, 2006). Data for the United States also indicated a
significant achievement gap of 82 points when comparing the wealthiest and poorest
students. This gap represents the 3
rd
largest achievement gap of the eight countries
with France receiving an 88 points achievement gap and Germany with a 102 points
achievement gap (Miller, Sen, & Malley, 2007; Kewel-Ramani et al, 2007).
Since its inception in 1969, The Nation’s Report Card (NAEP) has tracked
trends in student performance and has served as an evaluative tool to measure what
American’s students (grades 4, 8, and 12) know and can do in the areas of reading
and mathematics. The report is published every four years and in 1984,
modifications were made to the assessment to expand the scope of the report to
include science data and other areas of study, allowing for comparison between
33
student cohorts, and establishing foundational data for monitoring student growth
over time (Piere et al., 2005).
Data collected through the NAPE assessment has provided researchers with
the opportunity to compare the performance levels of U.S. students and study the
relationship between poverty and student academic achievement in the United States.
It was reported that in 2007, more than 350,000 fourth and eighth grade students
participated in the NAEP Reading and Math Assessments and demonstrated gains in
overall reading and math performance. Although higher percentages of white and
minority students performed at or above the basic and proficient levels in both
reading and math, these gains have not succeeded in closing racial, ethnic and gender
gaps (Lee, Grigg & Donahue, 2007). NAEP reported that students identified as
eligible for free and reduced lunch continued to have lower reading and math scores
than those who were not eligible for the program. When assessed by gender, gaps in
the scores have remained relatively constant over the last 15 years and females have
continued to out perform males in reading (Lee et al., 2007). According to NAEP
data, ethnicity, poverty and gender are negatively correlated with literacy and math
skills.
The Achievement Gap
The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) revealed that the
number of students attaining a high school and/or college degree has increased, yet
there seems to be a growing disparity between ethnic groups (NCES, 2005). Results
of several reports indicated that students of 91.9% of the White or non-Hispanic
34
descent individuals have completed high school, as compared to the 85% of Black,
non-Hispanic individuals, and 69.25 of Hispanic individuals (NCES, 2005).
Additionally, data indicated that White students comprise 63.4% of the populations
enrolled in high schools, and 49.9% of the drop outs, while Black, non-Hispanic
students comprise 14.2% of the enrollment and 17.0% of dropouts, and Hispanic
students comprise 15.2% of the enrollment and 27.1% of the dropouts. Students who
fail to meet the educational bar and drop out of high school have a negative impact
on society as a whole let alone the individual with regard to future earnings and
quality of life. In fact, Brewer, Hentschke and Picus (2008) state that the amount of
education and student academic performance is correlated to the amount of money a
person will conceivably earn throughout his/her lifetime as well as the quality of life
that will be lived. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2004), in 1995 half of the
U.S. welfare recipients as well as half of those incarcerated were individuals who
had failed to complete high school. Literature supports the idea of human capital and
investing in an individual’s educational experience will lead to benefits for the
individual and society. Human capital is a critical concept in the quest for improving
student achievement of all students, most importantly, the Hispanic, English
Language Learners (ELL), and Socioeconomically (SED) students. Additionally,
increased educational attainment for these students has the future potential to reduce
poverty levels, decrease racial and ethnic wage gaps, and lower welfare rates (Karoly
et al., 2004; Kewel-Ramani et al., 2007).
35
For example, in the state of California, an “achievement gap” exists among
student subgroups that threaten their future and the future of California. In 2006,
42% of the students in grades 2-11 scored proficient or above in English-language
Arts and 40.6% of students scored proficient in Math on the CST, the achievement
gap continues to be perpetuated in California’s public schools. The CST data
revealed a substantial educational achievement gap between minority and non-
minority students based on the 36.9% proficiency difference in English Language
Arts (ELA) from the lowest Latino scores to the highest Asian scores in each
respective group. CST Math data results also reflect a 42.0% proficiency gap from
the lowest African American scores to the highest scores among Asians. There is a
significant discrepancy in proficiency rates between minority students and other sub-
groups (California Department of Education, 2007a).
As student achievement data is revealed, the United States has much further
to go to improve the structure and content of out educational system. The goal of
high quality instruction in every classroom across the nation is far from being met. It
is evident from research that students from poor families and minorities are subjected
to education of low quality and as a result they score desperately below the national
achievement averages (National Center on Education and the Economy, 2007; Ruzzi,
2005; Luce & Thompson, 2005; Snipes, Williams, Horwitz, Soga, & Casserly,
2007). Despite the weaknesses in the education system, improvements have been
made since A Nation at Risk.
36
Success in the education is evidenced in the research of Reeves (2000), which
focused on schools with high rates of poverty (90% or higher) and ethnic diversity
(90% or higher), yet have found a 90% success rate (the number of students meeting
or exceeding academic targets). The success evidenced in these “90/90/90” schools
suggests that large urban school districts can make dramatic improvements as a
result of comprehensive, well-structured, and sustained reform efforts. Another
example of large urban school districts experiencing success is through the study of
student performance data and best practices undertaken to determine The Broad
Prize for Urban Education (The Broad Academy website, 2007). What is limited, in
terms of examples in the literature, are a plethora of cases in which this level of
success has been taken to scale; driving change across large urban school districts
across the United States.
The Role of Local Systems in Improving Student Performance
Elmore and Burney’s (1999) analysis of Superintendent Anthony Alvarado’s
efforts to successfully transform New York City Community School District #2 from
an average performing district to one of the highest performing elementary school
districts in the city brought the importance of the district role in improving student
performance to the forefront of the educational community. It “confirmed that
districts do matter, and that at least some districts ‘matter’ in powerfully positive
ways for student performance in large numbers of schools and for students of all
sorts of backgrounds” (Elmore, 1997; Elmore, 2003b; MacIver & Farley, 2003).
Additionally, it suggested that it is local educational agency that is responsible for
37
increasing student performance by utilizing research-based practices to support
system change (Childress et al., 2006; Anderson 2003; Chrispeels, Gonzales & Edge,
2006).
In the last ten years, school districts have participated in a number of reform
activities. For example, some districts have attempted to restructure the school day,
implement the most effective strategies in the classroom, and provide focused and
ongoing professional development (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). To support these
endeavors, the Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (OERI) provides an outline for successful school district reform
efforts: (1) Planning: Leadership, Goals, Timing; (2) Implementing: Training,
Flexibility, Infrastructure; and (3) Sustaining: Mandating Resources, Self-
Assessment.
Program Coherence
In 2004, the Public Education Leadership Project (PELP), a joint project of
Harvard Business School, the Harvard Graduate School of Education and nine urban
school districts launched a conceptual model which defines various district
components and their relationship to supporting, or presenting challenges to, the
instructional core. The conceptual framework was designed to assist system leaders
and their teams in understanding and addressing the unique context and challenges
that exist in urban school systems and the overall quality of educational programs in
the United States (Childress et al., 2007). The intent of the PELP project was to
adapt and integrate the best management and leadership concepts from business,
38
non-profits and education to the unique environment of public schools. The PELP
Coherence Framework (PFC) supports district leaders in identifying key elements
which support a district-wide improvement strategy and serve as a guide in
organizing their activities more coherently while focusing on the teaching and
learning in the classroom. The framework supports program coherence by: (1)
connecting the instructional core with a district-wide strategy for improvement; (2)
identifying district elements that can support or hinder effective implementation of
reform strategies; (3) identifying interdependencies among district elements (e.g.,
culture, structure, systems, resources, and stakeholders); and, (4) recognizing forces
in the external environment (e.g., regulations, statutes, contracts, funding, and
politics) that might prove detrimental to implementation of strategic reform
initiatives (Childress et al., 2006; Childress et al., 2007). The PELP Coherence
Framework (Figure 1) illustrates the key organizational elements critical to high-
performance, poses questions versus answers about each element in order to bring
then into coherence with the strategy and one another. Key elements include: culture,
structures and systems, resources, stakeholders and environment.
39
Figure 1: The PELP Coherence Framework
Source: Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University (adapted from
Tushman and O’Reilly’s congruence Model, 2002)
It is the belief of the researchers that an important element in reaching and
sustaining district excellence is the ability of the leader to see the connection
between management and better educational outcomes. As a conceptual framework,
the model illustrates the role that district leaders have in promoting change and
developing organizational capacity to sustain reform strategies over time (Childress
et al., 2006; Childress et al., 2007). Just as the classroom is at the center of the school
district, the PELP model has the classroom at its instructional core indicating that the
relationship between the teacher and student is where teaching and learning takes
place. This model recognizes that there are powerful forces that exert influence on
the school system, yet most of the organizational decisions, resources, and activities
40
should be directed toward the district’s strategy to make the core powerful. It is by
focusing on the execution of this strategy that the district can put its fiscal and human
resources to use more effectively to improve teaching and learning in all classrooms
(Childress et al., 2006; Childress et al., 2007).
According to Fullan et al. (2004), coherence in the organization occurs when
“the elements of a school district work together in an integrated way to implement an
articulate strategy.” His research identified five organizational elements that must
work in an integrated way if articulated goals are to be achieved which include:
culture, structures and systems, resources, stakeholders, and environment. His work
suggests that leaders of school organizations are instrumental in actively involving
others in the process of accomplishing shared work (Bjork et al., 2005; Eiter, 2002).
Elmore adds that powerful leadership works when it is distributed throughout the
organization, especially in the case of creating momentum for instructional change.
In fact, Elmore states, “Powerful leadership is distributed because the work of
instructional improvement is distributed” (p.10). Figure 2 illustrates the five
organizational elements from the research in a conceptual framework. As the model
suggests, it is the superintendent who has the ability to orchestrate the alignment of
the vision and goals and establish coherence between those goals and objectives and
the activities in which all departments of the district engage (Applebaum, St. Pierre,
& Glavas, 1998; Fullan et al., 2004; Childress et al., 2006; Laboratory for Student
Success, 2002).
41
Figure 2: System Coherence Model
The role of the Superintendency calls for the integration of multiple
frameworks to effectively deal with the myriad of challenges that system leaders
encounter as they deal with today’s political realities, economic constraints, and
social problems, perpetually changing technologies, and proliferation of state and
federal regulations.
A New Role for the System Leader
When it comes to challenges in public administration, the responsibilities
associated with leading a large urban school system are equal if not more demanding
than the responsibilities of a chief of police, civic leader, and public transit director.
Stakeholders
Culture
Resources
Structures and
Systems
Environment
System Coherence
Superintendent
Leadership
42
The job of the superintendent has become increasingly complex with today’s
political realities, economic constraints, pressure packed factors (e.g., changing
demographics, board member turnover, and school privatization) and the advent of
state and federal measures that include consequences for failing to increase student
achievement levels from year to year (Bjork, Kowalski, & Browne-Ferrigno, 2005;
Goodman & Zimmerman, 2001). Initially, the role of the superintendent was clerical
and focused on the day-to day school activities and evolved to that of a schoolmaster.
In the late 1950’s with the Soviet Unions successful Sputnik space launch, the job
called for leadership, political savvy and improved education and in the 1970’s came
the era of accountability. Since 2000, research has appeared on the complexity of the
position (Carter & Cunningham, 1997).
In 1993, the Commission on Standards for the Superintendency noted the
need for school leaders who are skilled in dealing with issues such as the growing
diversity of the American student population, the dramatic social changes, and
demands for improved student achievement. The demand for improved student
achievement calls for system leaders to be the instructional leaders and champions of
efforts to restructure schools and district programs (Eiter, 2002; Broad Foundation &
Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003; Mojkowski & Bamberger, 1991).
Increase in accountability measures means that the superintendent assumes
increased responsibility for acquiring and allocating human and fiscal resources,
defining teaching and learning, developing a professional learning community
(teachers and administrators), and for creating local systems of accountability
43
(Childress et al., 2006, Johnson, 1996; Gilbert et al., 2002). Kowalski (1999) stated,
the “superintendent must be the primary catalyst for change” (50). Byrd, Drews and
Johnson (2006) suggest that recent educational reform efforts at the district level
have centered on increasing accountability and the shifting role of the superintendent
from manager to one of driving instructional improvement. Research indicates that
accountability leadership can be effective when distributed equitably throughout the
organization and when it stresses the individual and collective agency (Elmore, 2005
and 2003; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2006;
Leithwood et al., 2004).
Leadership Matters
The meta-analysis of research by Waters and Marzano (2006) suggests that
effective leadership by the superintendent can have a positive impact on student
achievement. Their research suggested the following:
1) District-level leadership is critical
2) Superintendents must lead with a clear vision, measurable goals, well-
defined roles and responsibilities
3) Tenure of superintendent is positively correlated with student
achievement
4) Superintendents provide site administrators specified decision-making
(negotiable and non-negotiable)
This research also indicated that successful school districts were focused on
instruction while the superintendent acted as a teacher-leader, convincing others to
44
lead with him and participate in shaping educational reform at the school site. This
collaborative leadership can have a direct impact on student achievement.
In the current age of accountability, effective leaders possess the ability to
discern the “when,” “how,” and “why” things should be done far beyond the “what”
to do. Research studies have identified two magnitudes of change at work in the
reform process (Waters et al., 2003; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Northouse 2004). The
“first order” of change is viewed as natural “next steps” that are related to past
practice and are consistent with existing values and norms of the organization. The
“second order” of change requires all stakeholders to take a clear break with the past
and asks individuals to learn new approaches which may or may not be in conflict
with the prevailing norms and values of the organization. Thus, effective leaders
have the wisdom and the ability to know the “how” and “when” and have the ability
to explain the “why” utilize specific leadership practices to bring about change and
facilitate the learning of all participants in the organization (Waters & Marzano,
2006; Northouse, 1997).
The Four Frames of Leadership articulated by Bolman and Deal (2003)
illustrates the effective leadership associated with second order of change. The
authors stress the complexity of the environment in which leadership is exerted and
propose four frames of reference (structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic) through which successful leaders approach their work. It is important to
note that the frames are not distinct of one another and depending upon the situation
they may intersect. The first frame, structural, devotes itself to clear roles,
45
responsibilities and relationships. Bolman and Deal suggest that there must be
appropriate forms of coordination and control to ensure that the wide range of efforts
of individuals and departments mesh within the organization. In order to be effective
under the structural frame, the Superintendent must be cognizant of the rules, goals,
structures and supports within the organization. In addition, he must be aware of the
external changing forces that impact the school district and consider those changes
when coordinating the roles and responsibilities of the individuals within the district.
The second frame of Bolman and Deal’s leadership is the human resource
frame. The emphasis is on support, empowerment, relationships, and the fulfillment
of the needs of the people involved. Bolman and Deal stress that people within the
organization establish relationships and it is those relationships that have a bearing
on the ability of the organization to affect change. Through the human resource
frame, the Superintendent nurtures relationships within the organization’s teams to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the individuals and the collective group.
Bolman and Deal’s next leadership frame is the political frame. The political
frame is concerned with the political arena that the superintendent operates in on a
daily basis. Through this frame, “politics is simply the realistic process of making
decisions and allocating resources in a context of scarcity and divergent resources.”
It is the Superintendent’s ability to understand the political reality of the organization
in that there are many interest groups and individuals seeking power and control.
Bolman and Deal’s last frame of leadership is the symbolic frame. The
symbolic frame is about vision, culture, and beliefs. This frame depicts the
46
organizations ability to make sense of the ambiguous. The authors further state that
“culture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites people around
shared values and beliefs.” A Superintendent utilizes this frame to translate their
vision into action knowing that vision and inspiration is critical for pushing forward
the reform agenda of the district.
Bolman and Deal’s four frames are useful tools to view the leadership and
more importantly, effective leaders use all four frames to implement change within a
district and improve student achievement.
Figure 3: Four Frames of Leadership
Source: Bolman and Deal (2003).
Four
Frames
of
Leadership
Structural
Goals, Rules, Roles,
Operational
Functions
Political
Coalition Building
Negotiation
Bargaining
Scarcity of Resources
Power Differences
Competition
Symbolic
Culture, Beliefs
Values, Symbols
Rituals,
Vision
Human Resources
Relationships
Communication
Needs f People
Motivation
47
Systemic change within the organization requires leaders who understand the
structure of the organization in order to determine where human resources should be
allocated and they must also understand the political realities at work in the system.
Critical to their role is the symbolic nature of their work to inspire all stakeholders to
embrace a common vision. Eiter (2002) identified seven dimensions of leadership
which can serve as important characteristics system leaders should possess:
1. A strategic thinker
2. A driver of change
3. One who possesses a teachable point of view
4. The leader as a coach
5. The leader as a creator or champion of culture
6. The leader as a decision maker
7. The leader as a driver of results
“The superintendents of the twenty-first century face conflict over values and
interests, increased political activism, challenges to the purpose and goals of
education, and many other issues” (Keedy & Bjork, 2001). “Success in this
environment places the superintendency squarely at the front of the class” (Negroni,
2000).
Strategies System Leaders Utilize for Creating Change and Improvement
Superintendents utilize many strategies in their quest to implement change
and improve the school district’s overall performance. According to Kantor (1996)
today’s leaders must possess the skills of integrators who can see beyond the
48
differences in organizations, cultures, and disciplines. Leaders must have the
diplomatic skills to resolve conflicts resulting from different organizational
operations to influence workers to focus on a common purpose to work with one
another, ultimately improving student performance. Researchers also suggest that the
success of a superintendent can be determined by how successful the leader is in
creating the necessary momentum to achieve long-term success during the first 90-
100 days in office to (Watkins, 2004; Neely, Berube, & Wilson, 2002). During this
time period, Superintendents must develop a clear understanding of the organization
by evaluating the strengths and challenges of the organization in order to develop
improvement plans which take into consideration the unique strengths and
challenges, history, and political structure of the system (Takata et al., 2007; Jentz &
Murphy, 2005; Johnson, 1996; Watkins, 2004). During their early tenure, system
leaders devote time and energy to: (1) absorbing information, (2) defining
challenges, (3) establishing credibility, (4) assessing management team, and (5)
preparing emotionally (Neff & Citrin, 2005). In addition, Neff and Citrin (2005) also
suggest that the new leaders expend energy in developing relationships with key
stakeholders, setting standards and expectations, identifying management personnel,
and establishing a foundation for leadership through open and honest
communication. According to Rudy Crew, “How you start is how you finish”
(Koehler, 2000, p. 5). His advice to newcomers to the position is, “Be trustworthy
but not trusting, have an agenda to advance and learn to expect the unexpected. Extra
reserves of stamina and energy are important too” (4). What happens during the first
49
days, weeks, and months on the job in a new superintendency may outline the
difference between an ongoing successful partnership and an early invitation to
leave.
To support success, researchers suggest the implementation of a 90-day
entry plan which is designed to slow things down and not jump into reflexive
problem solving but provides opportunities for three types of learning: learning about
the new place, learning about oneself, and learning about the organization as a whole
(Jentz & Murphy, 2005; Watkins, 2004). Jentz and Murphy propose five steps of
entry planning for systems leaders:
1. Design an entry plan.
2. Seek feedback from key stakeholders on the draft entry plan.
3. Share the full entry plan to all members of the community.
4. Conduct interviews and site visits for the systematic collection of
good information and data.
5. Convene making sense meetings. Feedback sessions are conducted
with the cabinet and the Board. Present key findings and begin to
make sense of the data collected.
The use of an entry plan can enable the new superintendent to experience the
naturally occurring confusion that comes at the beginning of a new job and use that
healthy confusion as a resource for personal and organizational learning. It can help
the new superintendent gain knowledge, trust, and credibility by joining other
members of the school community in an open process for learning the state of affairs
50
and discussing potential plans for change. It can enable the new superintendent to
establish an approach to leadership that is seen as both top-down and bottom-up
(Jentz & Murphy, 2005). Research has demonstrated that effective systems leaders
can leverage the tension and chaos during organizational transitions to their
advantage and during this period of time, the superintendent’s actions can have a
significant impact on the culture, structure, and performance of the district
(Applebaum, Molson & Valero, 2007; Jentz & Murphy, 2005). Ultimately, the use of
an entry plan can position a new superintendent for success right from the start.
The House Model
The Broad Foundation has incorporated an entry plan as one component of
their urban school leader preparation program (Takata, Marsh, & Castruita, 2007).
The Broad Superintendents Academy 10 month rigorous executive management
program incorporates numerous research-based reform strategies into a conceptual
framework called the House Model, which serves a structural support for the work of
urban school superintendents and senior–level cabinet positions. This model
represents a 3-year strategic plan that focuses on overarching areas of influence
(rooms of the house), including: instructional alignment, operational effectiveness,
stakeholder management, and system governance. The unique House Model informs
the work implemented by The Broad Academy (TBA) graduates who are further
supported by experienced TBA mentors and other Broad Foundation alumni services
upon entry to their new position (Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute,
2003; Takata et al., 2007). To date, the Broad Academy has prepared and placed
51
many traditional and non-traditional school leaders into the role of the
superintendency in many of the largest, most diverse and challenging urban school
systems across the country (The Broad Academy website, 2007). The House Model
aligns specific reform strategies to each area of influence; ten of which were
identified as the key focus of this study and are defined in the following section.
Strategic Plan
The intent of the Strategic Plan is to define the district’s vision, mission, and
goals. It also assigns the performance indicators, work plans and the responsibility to
each of the districts goals while serving as the guiding document for the District with
respect to decision-making, budgeting, and priority setting processes (McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2003; Shannon & Blysma, 2004). For the strategic plan to be purposeful and
serve as a guiding document it must be comprehensive and include the following
elements: 1) guiding vision for the districts work; 2) values and beliefs to set the
priorities for the district; 3) mission of the district making clear it’s purpose and
identity; 4) measurable goals, objectives, and strategies leading to clear tasks,
responsibilities and timelines; and 5) monitoring and evaluation systems with
accountability and performance indicators focused on the desired outcomes (Cook,
2000; Reeves, 2002; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; Goldman & Morrison, 2003).
Research suggests that the processes of the developing and implementing the
strategic plan assists in building a common understanding of all stakeholders with
respect to vision, mission and adopted goals and strategically focuses the human and
fiscal capital of the district on a coherent path (Childress et al., 2006; McLaughlin et
52
al., 2002; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). Districts benefit from the shared learning
process of strategic planning resulting in commitment and ownership by all
stakeholders of the multi-year strategic plan (Broad Foundation & Thomas Fordham
B. Institute, 2003; Council of Great City Schools, 2006).
Assessment
In order for districts to determine whether or not students are meeting
academic targets, assessment activities must occur to measure the effectiveness of
adopted curriculum and the faithful use of instructional strategies (Anderson et al.,
2001; Fuller & Schmoker 1999; O’Day et al., 1999). According to Earl and Fullan
(2003) data have become the choice for accountability and districts feel the increased
pressure of accountability and the calls for more effective assessment of student
achievement. The use of common district-wide assessments have proven to be
valuable to drive instruction when administered on a regular basis and when they are
in alignment to grade level standards, adopted curriculum, pacing guides, and
professional development opportunities (Marzano, 2007; Chappuis, Stiggins, Arter,
& Chappuis, 2005). With the increase of web-based technology, schools and
classroom teachers are provided real-time information, allowing for data to drive
instruction in the classroom and inform the work of the district with respect to
student achievement and systemic reform (Schmoker, 1999; Guskey, 2007; White,
2007; Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004). With the advent of data analysis software, district
and school site personnel are equipped with the means to disaggregate student
assessment data to identify gaps in student learning and monitor progress towards
53
grade level standards mastery. The use of assessments should be a practical approach
to making key decisions about the students from whom these data are collected.
Researchers state that comprehensive district-wide assessment strategies include:
1. Summative assessments to gather information about student
achievement after the learning has occurred and for the purpose of
measuring student achievement.
2. Periodic grade-level and curricular-specific formative assessments
(e.g., benchmark assessments) for information on the learning and
progress taking place at any one time.
3. Data management sand information system for the analysis and
reporting of data.
4. Allocation of resources to support an assessment infrastructure,
practices, and development of staff (Ainsworth, 2007; Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Gallagher & Ratzlaff, 2008; Guskey, 2007).
Massell (2000) identified interpreting and using data gained from
assessments as one of four primary capacity-building strategies used by districts.
This work revealed that districts used data to plan professional development
activities, identify achievement gaps, align curriculum and instruction, assign and
evaluate personnel, and identify students for remedial programs. Additionally,
districts effectively used data to inform the development and practice of their theory
of instruction (Gilbert et al., 2002; Hightower, 2000; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003).
54
Curriculum
Curriculum is defined as the instructional textbooks and materials used to
teach which have been adopted by the District Board of Education from those
approved by the State Board of Education. Textbooks and instructional materials are
then provided in sufficient quantities to teachers and students for use. To support
fidelity of the curriculum, teachers utilize the curricular materials (e.g., textbooks,
worksheets, pacing guides, etc.) as tools to support students in the progress of
mastery of state standards. Effective curricular programs are aligned to state
standards, frameworks, and assessments and should address the scope and sequence
of the district’s learning standards. In order to differentiate instruction and support all
learners, curriculum includes ancillary materials that optimize all students’
opportunities to access appropriate instruction, including underperforming students,
students with disabilities, and English language learners. Student success towards
mastery of grade level standards is supported by the use of state frameworks, grade
level standards and performance objectives (Anderson, 2003; CDE, 2007; MacIver
& Farley, 2003; Marzano, 2007; Swanson & Stevenson, 2002).
Although high quality curriculum is available for districts to adopt, failure on
the part of teachers to implement the programs with fidelity contributes to lack of
student achievement (MacIver & Farley, 2003). Districts play a critical role in the
process of guiding content area adoptions, implementation of curricular programs,
and evaluation as to whether or not the program is implemented as it was intended.
Pacing guides, scope and sequence, ancillary materials, and blueprints are provided
55
and utilized to support implementation and fidelity of the adopted curriculum. The
use of data from curriculum embedded assessments assists in identifying gaps in
student learning and informs the need for adjustments in the delivery of instruction
and use of ancillary materials to support learning (Anderson, 2003; Carr & Harris,
2001; Swanson & Stevenson, 2002; CDE, 2007).
Professional Development
Professional development is defined as any program or course intended to
improve teachers’ or principals’ effectiveness. It may center on content, leadership,
or habits. Successful districts have an integrated professional development strategy
that centers on enabling classroom teachers to detect when students aren’t meeting
specific standards and to adjust instruction accordingly, or enables principals and
teachers to improve their knowledge and skill in areas of district focus. High
achieving districts focus on research-based strategy instruction through a four-part
series: initial training, demonstrations, coaching, and second-level training. The use
of student achievement data assists in providing clear goals and expectations for
planning in-services for staff. Ongoing, purposeful professional development is the
process of improving staff skills and competencies needed to produce outstanding
educational results for students. The literature suggests that school and district
policies have a profound effect on the success or failure of professional development
efforts (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Marzano & Pickering,
2001). Good professional development design includes both strong content as well as
an effective process for making initial and ongoing decisions. Relevant content is
56
essential to ensuring that professional development supports student learning goals
while good professional development content without a strong decision-making and
organizational process to support it will be short-lived. Successful professional
development design includes goals which focus on: (1) improving all students
learning, (2) improving teacher effectiveness, (3) setting high standards for teachers,
(4) promoting continuous staff learning, and (5) enhancing staff intellectual and
leadership capacity (Council of Great City Schools, 2006; Marzano & Pickering,
2001; Eaker, Dufour, & Burnette, 2002; Togneri, 2003). These five professional
development goals are critical to maintaining direction and supporting program
evaluation efforts (Guskey, 2000; Worthen & Sanders, 1989).
Effective districts stay abreast of and incorporate best practices into teaching,
learning, and leadership. They ensure that school/district policies and practices
support actual professional development implementation for staff in schools and
allocate adequate resources to organize and implement professional development.
Lastly, professional development is an integral component of the everyday life at
school (Council of Great City Schools, 2006; Marzano & Pickering, 2001; Eaker,
Dufour, & Burnette, 2002). The best evaluations of professional development are
“living” parts of the professional development improvement process, actively
pursuing the professional development goals. Effective districts are meticulous about
getting down to brass tacks with professional development goals and they are equally
meticulous about using the plan to evaluate specific professional development events
and the overall professional development effort. Personnel responsible for colleting,
57
analyzing, and reporting data and for facilitating professional development next steps
decisions also use the evaluation findings to make improvements in professional
development. Evaluation criteria must include: (1) improvement in teaching, (2)
improvement in student learning, and (3) narrowing of student achievement gaps
(Council of Great City Schools, 2006; Marzano & Pickering, 2001; Eaker, Dufour, &
Burnette, 2002; Tongeri, 2003). Additionally, work associated with evaluating
professional development and measuring the effectiveness of instructional practices
promotes a collaborative culture among teachers; a practice which has been tied to
student achievement gains (Elmore, 2002; Fullan, 2000; Marzano & Pickering, 2001;
Eaker, Dufour, & Burnette, 2002).
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management
Policy and academics tend to overlook the behind-the-scenes role that the
district human resources and human capital management (HR) offices play in
education; the HR office’s effect is far from small. In fact, the human resources and
human capital management department plays a critical role in the success of district
and school improvement efforts because they can determine whether qualified
teacher candidates are successfully recruited. The human resources department can
be instrumental in assisting principals in finding teachers who meet their school’s
particular needs or offer only perfunctory administrative support during the hiring
process (Campbell, DeArmond, & Schumwinger, 2004). The field literature indicates
that highly qualified personnel (teachers, administrators, and executive leadership)
have a positive impact on student achievement and large urban school districts
58
should develop and implement well designed HR system to support the efforts of
developing human capital. The components of a well designed human resource
system include: (1) recruitment by utilizing incentive and compensation packages,
(2) selection and hiring practices that reflect the district’s goals and needs, (3)
assignment procedures to ensure personnel are placed where skills can be
maximized, (4) support and retention strategies to keep highly qualified personnel in
the district, (5) professional development opportunities to build capacity while
paying close attention to current capacity and the training needs of principals,
teachers, and Leadership Team, (6) competitive salaries and health benefits to
maintain parity with neighboring and similar districts, and (7) consistent, equitable,
fair, and non-discriminatory policies and practices. Additionally, districts can
proactively improve their capacity for providing a quality education by examining
and refining their selection process (Council of Great City Schools, 2003; Elmore,
2000, 2003; Hanushek et al., 2004; MacIver & Farley, 2003).
Researchers have shown that the districts HR department plays a strong role
in managing the human capital and how it places administrative leadership
contributes to fidelity in implementing and monitoring programs designed to
promote district goals and objectives. Programs designed to recruit, train, and retain
school level leaders provide stability to these implementation efforts and, by
extension, a greater hope for positively impacting student achievement (Council of
Great City Schools, 2006; Elmore, 2000; MacIver & Farley, 2003). At the same
time, the literature details the relationship between teacher quality and student
59
achievement MacIver & Farley, 2003; Institute for Educational Leadership, 2006;
Marzano, 2003). Therefore, the district’s role in building leadership capacity of
principals and the instructional capacity of classroom teachers are two essential and
critical components to student success. Improving principal leadership through
programs aligned to district goals, development of school plans, the use of available
data to improve student achievement, and curriculum and instructional initiatives
leads to improved teaching and learning. Through induction programs and teacher
network systems, newly hired teachers participate in professional development
activities focused on the district’s curriculum, instructional delivery and classroom
management which are known to be top priorities for those entering the field of
education (MacIver & Farley, 2003; Wong, 2004).
School district Superintendents who want to improve their schools
understand that a key concept for the HR department is the ability to select and
maintain the most qualified for the district whether classroom teachers, site
administrators, or central office personnel (Campbell, DeArmond, & Schumwinger,
2004). In the words of researcher Jim Collins (2001), great leaders “get the right
people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus).” It is the imperative that the
district’s human resource and human capital department select the “right” candidates
with the “right” skill set who are committed to the organization’s goals and
initiatives and serving students.
60
Finance and Budget
The commitment of the Superintendent in providing all students with the
opportunity to perform at their fullest potential and ensure that there is no
discernable difference between the achievement levels of students by gender, race, or
economic level calls for the district to operate effectively and efficiently with respect
to finance and budget. The finance and budgeting strategies implemented by the
district leader play an important role in academic achievement of students, when they
are aligned to instructional priorities, balanced, and sustainable. In fact, many district
leaders have been released form their position due to financial fiascos and blunders
than for lack of increased student achievement. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of
the Superintendent to ensure that the districts budget is balanced and sustainable and
that all resources are allocated adequately to meet the needs of each student (Waters
& Marzano, 2006; Childress et al., 2006; Shannon & Blysma, 2004; Hoyle et al.,
2005). Often times, district reform efforts are challenged by poor performance within
the business office and the inability to created linkages between fiscal policies and
practices with district goals and initiatives (Anderson, 2003; Brown & Peterkin,
1999).
Research has revealed that school districts must develop the skill to organize
and manage its finances and budgets in order to allocate resources “inputs” into
student learning “outputs.” Therefore, the management of finances and budget
development is a constant, year around process involving planning and evaluation as
part of the regular budget process timeline due to the fact that school districts face
61
ongoing budgetary challenges and influences that can include an individuals state’s
own budget crisis, declining enrollment, changes in federal revenue allocations, and
the diminishing of grants or special funding. These issues require the district’s
financial operations team to monitor state and district issues on a constant basis. The
key to increasing student achievement is the distribution and use of fiscal resources
in order to educate students for the future with the skills to compete locally,
nationally and internationally. Failure to allocate and utilize fiscal resources with
responsibility and accountability will sentence students to a lifetime of poverty that
is permanent: a lack of opportunity (Brewer et al., 2006; Childress et al., 2006;
Waters & Marzano, 2006; Odden & Picus, 2008). To support these efforts, district’s
have adopted new and innovative budgeting policies and practices such as “zero-
based budgeting” and “weighted student formula funding” models which have
resulted in an increase of management of finances and budget processes into
alignment with the districts goals, objectives, and specific initiatives focused on
increasing student learning (Fullan, Bertani, & Quinn, 2004; Anderson, 2003). The
alignment and management of finances and budget processes ensure that fiscal and
human capital is targeted towards specific and measurable student learning
objectives and provides further support to system coherency (Shannon & Blysma,
2004; Brown & Peterkin, 1999; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Fullan et al., 2004;
Childress et al., 2007).
62
Communications
Communications research indicates the need for districts to showcase the
great stories in their organization as well as counteract misinformation and incorrect
news. The communication plan is one of the critical components of the overall
reform efforts of the district and it must be aligned with the districts strategic plan
and its ability to actively support the board’s policies and the district’s mission and
vision. Simply stated, the communications plan should focus on meeting the goals of
the organization and ultimately improve education, enhancing student achievement
(Carlsmith & Railsback, 2001; Howlett, 1993; National School Public Relations
Association, 2002). Researchers have implied that the development of a public
relations or communications office, staffed by personnel with expertise in effectively
dealing with the media, enables a district to articulate its vision to the public,
galvanize support, motivate the community, and when necessary, persuade them to
support to important initiatives (Howlett, 1993). Research suggests that districts with
a communication plan that is tailored to reflect the diversity of the community,
include effective communication strategies, seek community input will have greater
success in developing relationships with the community and engaging parents
(Shatkin & Gershberg, 2007; Bauch & Goldring, 1995).
Effective communications offices have the ability to provide support to the
district’s decision-making processes, serving as a liaison with members of the local
and greater community (National School Public Relations Association, 2002). The
executive personnel of the communications office is a member of the
63
Superintendent’s cabinet and is involved in the strategic management of the
processes of the organization. Through the vehicle of open and honest
communication, central office personnel orchestrate the work of the district in
communicating its vision to the public, soliciting public opinion (internal and
external), providing an avenue for sharing stories, forging coalitions and merging
goals and priorities (Howlett, 1993; National School Public Relations Association,
2002; Shatkin & Gershberg, 2007). These multi-layer outreach efforts assist
stakeholders in actively participating in the work at their local school site and
district. Through these processes parents can voice their expectations and help shape
policy and participate in decisions through involvement in ongoing activities (Bauch
& Goldberg, 1995; Carlsmith & Railsback, 2001). Literature demonstrates that
increased parent and community involvement positively affects the results of student
achievement and generates support for local school improvement efforts (Bauch &
Goldberg, 1995; Carlsmith & Railsback, 2001; Shatkin & Gershberg, 2007).
Governance and Board Relations
School boards are composed of elected citizens from the local community or
personnel appointed by state who are the guardians of and policymakers for our
nation’s schools at the local district level. The school boards role is defined as: (1)
responsive to its constituencies in governance; (2) sensitive to the needs of all
students; (3) an advocate for students and learning within their community as well as
before the local, state, and federal governmental agencies; and (4) an ambassador
explaining the roles and responsibilities of public education and its programs to the
64
entire community; (5) the legal agent of the state and must fulfill both state and
federal laws and mandates (Resnick, 1999). Research has identified seven primary
responsibilities of effective school board members in the governance process:
strategic planning, policy and decision making, oversight of district policies,
personnel, fiscal and facilities management, community relationships, and most
importantly student learning (Danzberger & Usdan, 2000; Smolley, 1999; Goodman
& Zimmerman, 2001). As a result, effective school boards help to create a long-term
vision for the district. Next, they establish and support the district’s organizational
structure, systems, and processes for the vision as well as identify processes and
systems that ensure accountability. Lastly, the board advocates for all children and
public education at three levels - local, state and federal (National School Boards
Association, 2001; Smolley, 1999; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Leithwood, 1995).
In contrast to the policy making role of the school board, the Superintendent
as the CEO of the organization is responsible for: (1) managing and directing the
organization; (2) implementation of the board’s policies; (3) providing professional
and instructional leadership to the district; (4) directing fiscal and organizational
responsibilities (California School Boards Association, 2007; Elmore, 2000;
National School Boards Foundation, 2001). At times, the superintendent may support
the board’s role in developing policy (McAdams, 2006). Therefore, the ability of the
school board and superintendent to work together more as a team and less as
adversaries is critical to the efforts of increasing student achievement (Henderson et
al., 2001; National School Boards Association, 2001). Over and over again, the
65
literature cited that how the superintendent and board relate to one another has an
impact on student achievement in their respective district (Esparo & Rader, 2001).
Building and managing relationships is what the superintendency is all about
(Elmore, 2000; Waters & Marzano, 2006; Leithwood, 1995). According to the
research of Smolley (1999), the most contentious part of the job from both the
superintendents’ and the board members’ perspectives is the superintendent-board
relationship. “The disconnect between school boards and superintendents has almost
the stuff of legends, and there are no quick fixes to the problem…Leadership in this
area is not about exerting the superintendent’s will, but about working
collaboratively with a board for a greater good” (Houston, 2001, p. 6).
The relationship that the superintendent fosters with the school board defines
the success of the school district. Effective superintendents employ several strategies
as essential to good governance and these strategies contribute to the success of the
team which includes setting a common vision and behaviors that build trust, respect
and support. Leaders ensure that all board members participate in training focused on
the “basic principles of educational and democratic theory: the rigorous search for
truth, genuine understanding, mutual respect for divergent views, a sincere
commitment to the common good and the belief that people have intelligence and the
capacity for judgment.”
The first and primary function of the superintendent and school board is to
create, commit to, and communicate its vision. It is the responsibility of the team to
define the values and vision for the community. Values represent the “golden rules”
66
and the vision is the picture of the future and it is this vision that becomes the
“driver” of the process. For example, if the district seeks to improve student
achievement, student achievement must be a major component of the district’s vision
(Resnick, 1999). The vision keeps the superintendent-board team focused while
making decisions focused on this vision. The research supports the idea that all
resources and focus must be aligned with the vision and priorities, otherwise single
issues begin to surface and get in the way, and the team is unable to produce positive
results of improved student achievement. For this reason, it is imperative that the
superintendent-board team work together on the agreed upon goals and overall
strategies for improving student achievement while sharing a common vision
(Education Commission of the States, 2004; Waters & Marzano, 2006; National
School Boards Foundation, 2001; Smolley, 1999; Leithwood, 1995).
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
With respect to effective labor relations and contract negotiations,
Superintendents are presented with both challenges and opportunities. Leaders must
work with union leadership and negotiate with several unions within the district
organization. The content and language of each contract requires close scrutiny and
attention to details, as it can restrict or expand the superintendent’s options for
replacing and reassigning staff. This option is particularly crucial with teacher
contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant influences on student
achievement (Hannaway & Rotherham, 2006; Hess & West, 2006). Superintendents
who proactively approach their work with unions aim to establish positive working
67
relationships which require an upfront investment and commitment to understanding
the priorities of union leaders. By doing this, Superintendents obtain the labor
unions’ commitment to the vision and goals of the district and minimize adversarial
behaviors while enabling the process for a productive review of existing contract
language, identification of issues and concerns, provide a vehicle for the sharing of
stakeholder concerns, and discussion of the impact of contract language on student
achievement (Cambron-McCabe, Cunningham, Harvey, & Koff, 2005; Hannaway &
Rotherham, 2006; Hess & West, 2006). Research validates the practice of
developing positive, trusting, and open relationships which then contribute to the
organizations overall success - serving the interests of both parties involved in
negotiations. This type of working relationship is based on mutual respect,
credibility, and models ethical behavior by establishing core values (Covey 1989;
Ingram & Snider, 1998; Hewitt, 2007).
The following elements must exist in constructive and favorable labor
relations and contract negotiations: (1) solid trusting relationships (district and union
leadership); (2) district and union leadership participate in ongoing meaningful
training (traditional, interest-based, core values); (3) district staff and union
leadership are kept abreast of proposals, planning, updates, and modifications to
negotiations and the collective bargaining unit; (4) collective bargaining goals and
objectives are developed in relation to the district’s mission, strategic plan, core
values, fiscal resources, community support, and student achievement; and (5) fair
and equitable distribution of compensation packages, evaluations, assignments,
68
health plan, professional development, and retirement (Cambron-McCabe,
Cunningham, Harvey & Koff, 2005; Hannaway & Rotherham, 2006; Hess & West,
2006; Hewitt, 2007; Ingram & Snider, 1998).
Family and Community Engagement
Family and community are key partners in influencing student outcomes of
youth, especially minority children’s academic achievement (Jeynes, 2003).
Research on parental involvement has increased during the last two decades with the
focus clearly resting on the relationship between parental involvement and student
academic achievement. The field literature found that students with involved parents
despite their income or background were more likely to earn higher grades,
performed stronger on assessments, and enrolled in higher-level programs (i.e.,
advanced placement). Students also attended school regularly, passed their courses
on time, earned credits and had higher transition rates to college. Additionally, they
had better social skills, showed improved behavior and had demonstrated
adaptability. The importance of effective parental involvement in school has been
identified as a critical factor in the academic success of students (Henderson &
Mapp, 2002; Jeynes, 2003; Lunenburg & Irby, 2002).
Literature supports the notion that family and community engagement is a
two-way partnership which involves active listening and acting on the part of the
Superintendent and leadership with respect to the concerns voiced by parents during
town hall meetings, forums and other public events. From the perspective of the
Board of Education, parents are seen as partners in making the district’s vision a
69
reality. Effective Superintendent-school board teams are committed to the school
system to partnering with parents and the community in maximizing student
learning. Through governance and advisory councils, effective districts foster and
nurture families to participate in the district’s leadership roles, thus, providing the
district with parent leadership reflecting the community’s diversity and embracing it
to enhance the educational environment. As the organization’s leader, the
Superintendent is responsible for leading the charge for family and community
engagement and is the person responsible for articulating the vision and mission of
the district to all community leaders, elected officials, faith leaders and parents while
influencing the community’s support for initiatives to benefit the welfare of the
districts students (Broad Foundation, 2003; Hoyle et al., 2005).
Studies demonstrate that effective school districts offer multiple opportunities
for the community and parents to interact with the district and develop a positive
partnership in the education of their children. Many districts seek salient information
through surveys and regularly scheduled parent and community forums, summits,
focus groups, opinion polls, and other techniques to garner public input into
decision-making process and initiatives. To enhance effectiveness and relevance of
the data and information collected, surveys are closely linked to the district’s
performance management system and data dashboard. Through written
communication, districts produce and distribute reports regarding issues, concerns,
initiatives, achievements to elected officials, parents, and civic, faith, business and
community leaders. To increase two-way communication and help bridge the
70
language gap, parents should receive information in a language they can understand
in order to become actively involved in their students’ education as well as stay
abreast progress towards goals and initiatives of the district. Research continues to
suggest that increased stakeholder satisfaction and collaborative relationships with
parents, community, and businesses can lead to additional support for funding
measures and significantly increased access to community-based financial and
human resources (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Fiore, 2006; Henderson & Mapp, 2002;
Ingram, Wolfe, & Lieberman, 2007; Lunenburg & Irby, 2002; Warner, 2002).
There is ample support in the research that the following district actions can
lead to improved family and community engagement which supports enhanced
academic achievement: (1) district supports ongoing parent trainings and workshops;
(2) district has a referral system for recruitment of volunteers; (3) school/district staff
have participated in training focused on working with parents; (4) oral and written
communication is provided in primary language; (5) school/district staff provide
strategies to parents on “how” to help their child at home; (6) parents are encouraged
to participate in school/district governance and councils; (7) district forms
partnerships with community and or higher education institutions (Epstein &
Sanders, 2006; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Ingram, Wolfe, & Lieberman, 2007;
Lunenburg & Irby, 2002; Warner, 2002).
The superintendent’s ability to implement the aforementioned reform
strategies is critical in the success of the school district. Therefore, the preparation of
school leaders must move past the training of efficient managers to an emphasis on
71
visionary, transformational leaders (Fuller, Campbell, Celio, Harvey, Immerwahr,
Winder, 2003; Johnson, 1996). How best to accomplish this task?
Leadership Preparation
New Leaders for Today’s Schools
The position of the twenty-first century Superintendency is a complex, multi-
faceted leadership role that requires one to strategically balance three roles:
instruction, managerial, and political. Today’s age of accountability demands all
Superintendents to well versed in instructional techniques and strategies and provide
fiscal management, support services and human resources. Also, they must be versed
in a wide array of research-based literature and equipped with the skills and
strategies in the areas of practicum such as corporate leadership, youth psychology,
organizational development technologies and professional learning communities to
meet the needs of the districts students (Blankstein, 2004; Hoyle et al., 2005). In
addition, the literature emphasizes the need for Superintendents to have a clear
understanding of their moral purpose, having the ability to develop and nurture a
professional learning organization and most importantly the skills and expertise to
develop a culture that has the ability to adapt to the continuous cycle of change
(Blankstein, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Pace-Marshall, 2006; Senge, 1990).
In order to achieve sustainable results for all students, scholars have spent
time and energy sharing their experiences to compile best practices for the process of
re-culturing organizations to support reform efforts. The results of their collective
efforts should be included in the preparation programs for future Superintendents in
72
a practical way to ensure that the training reflects the established research findings
which show that the investment in leadership training for a Superintendent is
correlated with their overall success (Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham
Institute, 2003; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2007a,
2007b; Dembo & Marsh, 2007; Murphy & Vriesenga, 2006; Shulman et al., 2006;
Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschul & Hutchings, 2008). The superintendent must
possess the skills to effectively use the reform strategies that have been discussed in
this chapter such as strategic plan, assessment, curriculum, professional
development, human resources, finance and budget, communication, governance and
board relations, labor relations, and family and community engagement to advance
their work in the educational community. Effective leadership is at the core of every
successful organization (Grogan & Andrews, 2002).
The Interstate School Leaders Consortium (ISLLC) has developed standards
for leaders that are used as guides for academic leadership programs and are also
used in the development of licensure requirements. The intent of the standards is to
improve school effectiveness and it is assumed that the Superintendent is able to
model the expected behaviors for all other leaders and aspiring leaders throughout
the organization. The principles are as follows:
• Principle 1: Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation and
stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared by and supported by the
community.
73
• Principle 2: Advocating, nurturing and sustaining a culture and instructional
program conducive to student learning and professional growth.
• Principle 3: Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and
resources for safe efficient and effective learning environment.
• Principle 4: Collaborating with families and the community interests and
needs and mobilizing community resources.
• Principle 5: Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
• Principle 6: Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger
political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context (Murphy, Yff &
Shipman, 2000).
These six principles are used to guide and enhance training programs for
administrators.
At the same time, researchers have implied that the professional standards
published by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) in 1993
are much more appropriate than the Interstate School Leaders Consortium (ISLLC)
standards. The feeling is that they present a stronger research-based foundation for
the training of the Superintendency which includes the following: (1) school and
district governance, (2) policy development, (3) political strategies, (4) strategic
planning, and (5) school finance. These five standards follow eight performance
goals including: (1) leadership and district culture, (2) policy and governance, (3)
communications and community relations, (4) organizational management, (5)
curriculum planning and development, (6) instructional management, (7) human
74
resources management, and (8) values and ethics of leadership. The standards were
developed to reflect the changes in the role of the Superintendent and to provide
specific criteria for evaluations and program accreditations.
Debates still continue amongst policymakers, scholars, and practitioner
associations as to how best prepare school district leaders for the increasingly
complex responsibility of managing large urban school districts. The Wallace
Foundation concluded that district leaders must be able to do the following: 1)
Generate and communicate a clear organizational vision that is focused on student
achievement and relevant to all stakeholder groups; 2) Manage and allocate fiscal,
human, and material resources to bring about specific results articulated in the
vision; and, 3) Develop and empower people – both within and outside of the
organization – through effective communication, strong engagement strategies, and
collaborative leadership (Education Research Service, 2005). The changing political
climate surrounding school systems in the past twenty-five years has generated new
pressures, calling for new leadership skills and the ability to deliver results.
Traditional and Non-Traditional Programs
There does not appear to be a standard, typical superintendent training
program because the position varies from district to district and state to state. Instead,
the doctorate has been viewed by many as the process through which district leaders
gain legitimacy. Literature has revealed that the number of superintendents that
possess a doctoral degree has risen through the last three decades, from 28% (1982)
to 36% (1992), to over 45% in the year 2000. This number is even higher in large,
75
urban school districts (25,000) where 83% of superintendents possess either a Ph.D.
or Ed.D. degree (Glass et al., 2000). However, it should be noted that the quality and
focus of university-based leadership programs has been questioned and the
discussion focuses on the differences between the research-centered (Ph.D.) study
versus an applied problem-centered (Ed.D.) study as the preferred pathway for
school leaders (Walker et al., 2008; Shulman et al., 2006; Carnegie Foundation,
2007).
The literature indicates that there are four weaknesses in the traditional
approaches to Superintendent preparation: (1) hands-on application, (2) inadequate
access to technology, (3) failure to link content to practice, and (4) too much
emphasis on the professors’ personal experiences (Bjork, Kowalski, Browne-
Ferrigno, 2005). The work of Murphy and Vrisenga (2006) suggests new ideas to
address these issues: (1) rethink the basis of administrative preparation programs in
the United States through the regular examination of “who we are and what we are
doing in the area of leader preparation” and (2) set up a united plan around
preparation and education intention (p.192). Beginning in 2001 and continuing
through 2005, the Carnegie Initiative of the Doctorate (CID) conducted a study to
understand the effectiveness of leadership preparation programs across the United
States by conducting action research studies of 84 Ph.D. programs which involved
400 institutions, enrolled 44,000 students and awarded approximately 6,500
doctorates (Shulman et al., 2006; Walker et al., 2008).
76
At the same time as the Carnegie project, the faculty at the University of
Southern California (USC) one of many university participants in the CID project
embraced the challenge of redesigning its programs. The collective efforts of the
faculty resulted in a new model for both the Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs (Dembo &
Marsh, 2007; Shulman et al., 2006). The 3-year, cohort-based model was launched at
USC’s Rossier School of Education in 2001, following a thorough review of the
university’s doctoral programs and focus on the specific needs of urban school
district leaders. The USC program was restructured to ensure all students work
through a common core curriculum, while engaging in a more in-depth study of one
of four specialty areas. These concentration areas include Educational Psychology,
Higher Education, K-12 Leadership in Urban School Settings, and Teacher
Education in Multicultural Societies. Each of the four concentration areas supports a
number of thematic dissertation groups during the final “capstone” experience
(Dembo & Marsh, 2007; Shulman et al., 2006). The thematic dissertation process is
designed to research a problem of practice and emphasizes theoretical inquiry within
a real-world context. The process encourages collaboration amongst and between
colleagues and is tied to the work experience of cohort members.
The Urban Superintendents Program at the Harvard School of Education is
another example of innovation within the nation’s schools of education (Institute for
Education Leadership, 2006). The program was established in 1990 in response to
calls for reforming the preparation of school leaders for their work in the age of
accountability. The doctoral program incorporates coursework, internship, and a
77
traditional dissertation. The program is spread across a 36-month timeline in which
students dedicate one year to fulltime classes, while in residency at Harvard.
Coursework is followed by the field-based internship experience and the dissertation
process. In both the Harvard and USC cases, the universities have developed a
clinical model which incorporates challenging assignments intended to increase the
student’s knowledge and understanding of the issues related to student performance
and the system leader’s role is driving systemic change.
Preparation programs for superintendents have undergone many changes in
recent years. There is research to support the idea that Superintendents believe that
expertise gained from their training and experiences is valuable however, other
research supports that a large number of university preparation programs and
credentialing standards are not adequately preparing the caliber of leaders necessary
to meet the challenges of today’s educational system. Fullan (2003) states,
“Superintendent training, it seems, does little to prepare leaders for the highly
ambiguous situations they are about to enter, in which political skill and calculation
are as important as expertise about instruction” (p. 57).
In response to the fact that preparation programs are failing to adequately
prepare systems leaders, researchers are looking closely at programs that are
introducing new ideas into the leadership development schema (Childress et al.,
2006; Dembo & Marsh, 2007; Walker et al., 2007; Shulman et al., 2006; Quinn,
2007; Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003; Murphy &
Vriesenga, 2006; USDE, 2004). Research has identified weaknesses in the
78
connection between curriculum and practice and the lack of hands-on experience for
program participants and has fueled the need to reform the models currently utilized
within urban school leadership preparation programs (Bjork et al., 2005; Murphy &
Vriesenga, 2006).
The Broad Foundation and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute are two
examples of non-university-based superintendent preparation programs which assert
that state licensing and/or university-based legitimacy is insufficient and may even
hinder school organizations from gaining access to talented leaders from fields not
traditionally seen as pathways to the superintendency (The Broad Foundation and
Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003). According to research of Tietel (2005) and
Fuller et al. (2003), non-profit foundations as well as for-profit organizations have
been established to meet the growing need for system leaders. These organizations
focus on developing a forum in which emergent leaders can discuss challenges faced
in school systems and engage with peers and expert practitioners in complex
problem-solving (Norton, 2002; Teitel, 2005). One such program is the Broad
Superintendent’s Academy, a rigorous and highly competitive 10-month program
run by the Eli and Edith Broad Foundation (Quinn, 2007).
The Broad Academy (TBA) is designed to prepare leaders from education,
military, business, and government backgrounds to assume leadership positions in
the largest urban school districts in the country. These districts represent a quarter of
US school-age children; over 70% of whom are from minority families and more
than 60% live in poverty. Reports indicate that two-thirds of TBA graduates who
79
have been on the job for longer than two years have produced student achievement
results that outperform peers of similar tenure in like districts (Quinn, 2007). Broad
Academy participants are working individuals who attend ten weekend-long sessions
during the year, focusing on topics such as CEO leadership, corporate profit,
educational leadership, start-up, connections, competence, and career path. Like
many of the newly redesigned university-based programs, the TBA trains skilled
leaders from various fields (education, government, military, non-profits, and
business) within annual cohorts, in order to give depth and perspective to the
conversations and develop more robust understandings as to the issues and potential
solutions covered during sessions (Quinn, 2007).
In summary, traditional (university-based) and non-traditional (non-
university-based) preparation programs have the ability to enhance and extend the
knowledge and skill of perspective system leaders to be critical thinkers and problem
solvers (Walker et al., 2008).
Conclusion
The review of the current literature revealed strategies, practices and insight
into the role of the Superintendent in improving student performance. The research
presented provided information regarding the status of student achievement and
clearly indicated that students in the U.S. are not performing at the same high levels
as other students around the world. It is also clear that the achievement gap still
exists in America - continuing to threaten the future of minority and educationally
disadvantaged youth.
80
The focus of this study is on how large urban school district superintendents
are orchestrating district action to drive improved student learning. The reform
strategies embraced by effective school leaders to increase student achievement were
explored and ten specific areas were investigated to inform the study. These
strategies included: 1) strategic plan, 2) assessment, 3) curriculum, 4) professional
development, 5) human resource system and human capital management, 6) finance
and budget, 7) communications, 8) governance/board relations, 9) labor
relations/contract negotiations, and 10) family and community engagement.
Review of the literature contributed to a greater understanding of the role that
local systems under the direction of the superintendent play in advancing student
achievement. From the review it became clear that the Superintendent plays a critical
role in the advancing student achievement while addressing the complexities of the
position. The ability of the district leader to develop systemic coherency that drives
alignment of district action to a well articulated vision, clearly defined goals, and
specific and measurable outcomes is critical to sustaining efforts to improve student
achievement. School districts focused on teaching and learning to improve student
achievement require transformational leaders to develop system coherence with the
intent of moving their districts to focusing on a common vision that includes clearly
articulated goals and objectives. An innovative model for systemic reform called the
House Model was developed by practitioners at the Broad Foundation and provides
the theoretical structure that supports the Broad Superintendent’s Academy. The
House Model also provided a conceptual framework for this study of reform
81
strategies engaged by a system leader to improve student achievement in a large
urban school district. The methodology for how this model was used will be
discussed in Chapter 3. Discussion and analysis of the findings are presented in
Chapter 4.
In closing, we have entered a promising era with respect to efforts to improve
public education. Challenges and frustrations are evident in the educational system
with performance levels on national and international achievement tests far from
stellar while minority and economically disadvantaged students are still lagging
behind their peers. Yet, progress has been made across the states as a result of the
1980’s standards and accountability movement. Today, we live with the belief that
all students can learn at high levels and should be supported to do so. In order to
accomplish this task, states have specified what students should be expected to know
in each grade. It is these state standards-based accountability systems that provide
educators the opportunity to determine how to support and enable students to attain
mastery, as well as hold educators accountable for the results. It is through the study
of systems leaders and high performing large urban school districts that we – the
change agents of today will glean “how” these districts and schools are spurring
student achievement gains and ultimately replicate the methods and reform strategies
employed by them.
82
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter described the research design, sampling and criteria processes,
instrumentation, and methodology for data collection and analysis employed in this
study. The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the impact of ten key
reform strategies being used by an urban school district superintendent, which have
been identified by the Urban School Leadership Academy (USLI) as those most
likely to positively impact student achievement. Findings suggest a set of useful
strategies that may inform the work of district superintendents and those
organizations that seek to prepare them. The researcher explored the actions and
effectiveness of one urban school superintendent, within the context of one large
urban school district. This analytical case study incorporated the following research
question and three related sub questions:
1. How are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban
school superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her
respective district?
a. How does the quality and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district
when the superintendent took office?
b. What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do
they correspond to the elements of the House Model?
83
c. How does the choice and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of
the superintendent?
Due to the purpose of this study, qualitative, descriptive-analytical case study
research methods were used to accomplish an in-depth investigation and analysis of
the identified school district superintendent and the use of the ten key reform
strategies to improve student achievement (Huberman & Miles, 1994). Case study
methodology offers explicit experiences of participants and allows for the
organization of the information to tease out the most relevant patterns and themes in
the data (Creswell, 2003). Additionally, Merriam (1998) describes five
characteristics of qualitative research: 1) the key concern of qualitative research is
understanding of the “phenomenon of interest from the participants’ perspectives,
not the researcher’s.” It is the insider’s view to the world of the study, 2) The
primary researcher is the instrument for all data collection and analysis, 3) The
research usually involves some sort of field work, 4) This type of research “primarily
researcher” employs an inductive research strategy, which leads the product of a
qualitative study to be, and 5) The result report is “richly descriptive.”
Often qualitative studies are undertaken because there is a lack of theory,
or existing theory fails to adequately explain a phenomenon. There are
thus no hypotheses to be deduced from theory to guide the investigation.
Qualitative researchers build toward theory that explains their data.
(Merriam, 1998, p. 7)
Qualitative research methods allow the researcher to study and describe
issues with depth and detail (Patton, 2002). The interviews in this study provided the
84
researcher with the vehicle to describe the participants’ perceptions of selection and
use of the ten key reform strategies being used by the Urban School Leadership
Institute (USLI) superintendent to impact student achievement.
Ultimately, the findings emerged through the structured, qualitative
methodology served to identify the effectiveness of the ten key reform strategies and
sought to understand the implementation and quality of the USLI graduate’s actions
to promote student achievement. The unit of analysis for the study is one large urban
school district, the USLI superintendent, and other identified key personnel
determined by the superintendent.
This current study represented a continuance of previous research on Broad
Superintendent’s Academy graduates which was conducted by Dr. David Marsh and
Dr. Rudy Castruita in 2006. The Urban School Leadership Academy (USLI) has
established a reputation for innovation and is responsible for introducing new ideas
and working knowledge into the academic discussion regarding how urban school
system leaders are prepared for leadership. The Phase I study was exploratory in
nature and focused on two school districts to identify the strengths, challenges, and
strategies related to school system leaders in urban school districts (Takata, Marsh &
Castruita, 2007). Phase I provided useful preliminary results which serve as a
foundation for the second phase of the study. The Phase II study expanded upon the
previous research and sought to synthesize ten analytical case studies in order to
review the ten school districts and how ten specific reform strategies were utilized by
85
large urban school district superintendents to increase student achievement.
Sampling Criteria and Process
One large urban school district superintendent was purposefully selected for
this study in order to provide a means for investigating the reform strategies engaged
in efforts to promote systemic change within the school district to improve student
achievement. Purposeful sampling was used to allow for an information-rich case
study, which provided deep insight into the actions taken by the superintendent to
raise student achievement as well as how their personal and professional background
may have contributed to their decisions and processes.
Superintendents that met the selection criteria were identified using criterion
sampling and were fully informed regarding the purpose of the study. Support for
identifying superintendents was provided through consultation with the Urban
School Leadership Foundation and the University of Southern California. Case study
participants included the district superintendent, two key players, and multiple
strategy-specific personnel; including deputy and/or assistant superintendents,
district–level directors, principals, board members, or members of the local
community. Participation in the study was voluntary and all participants were
assured that efforts would be taken to protect their anonymity.
Selected District Profile
The district under study was selected based on the following criteria:
1) District must be one of the largest 125 school systems in the United
States;
86
2) The superintendent must have been in office since 2006, or earlier; and
3) The superintendent must be a graduate from The Urban School
Leadership Institute.
Description of School District/Key Players
The Keystone Public Schools (KPS), located in the mid-west region of the
Untied States, was the 124
th
largest school district in the United States served a
diverse student population of 29,445 in grades kindergarten through 12 in 65
schools. School sites included; 18 - K-5 elementary schools, 14 - K-8 schools, 9 - 6-8
schools, 10 comprehensive high schools, 6 charter schools, 3 Academies, and 6
special schools. In addition, Early Childhood programs served Pre-K in classrooms
across the city.
The District’s roadmap for improving the academic performance for all
students is the Excellence for All strategic plan which aimed to establish a common
belief across the Keystone community that every child–at every level of academic
performance–can achieve excellence. This vision was evidenced in the mission
statement located on the district webpage,
The Keystone Public Schools will be one of America’s premier school
districts, student focused, well-managed, and innovative. We hold
ourselves accountable for preparing all children to achieve academic
excellence and strength of character, so that they have the opportunity to
succeed in all aspects of life.
To meet this commitment, the declaration of beliefs included that all students can
learn at high levels, teachers have a profound impact on student achievement,
education begins with a safe and healthy environment, families are essential in the
87
educational process, improvement is guided by effective leadership, and district
office personnel exist to serve students and schools (Keystone Public School
webpage, 2007).
To support this endeavor, the district’s programs included a Comprehensive
Curriculum, Gifted and Talented Education, Advanced Placement Programs,
Guidance and Counseling, Visual and Performing Arts, Magnet School Programs,
Comprehensive Special Education, Alternative Education, Title I, School
Improvement, Computer Science, Regional Occupation Program, Career/Vocational
Education, Adult and Continuing Education, Complete Spectrum of Sports and
Athletics Programs, Business Partnerships, and Technology/Computers. During the
2006-07 school year 2,444 students received scholarships (academic or athletic) in
the amount of $26,658,463. Total number of high school graduates in 2007 was
6,587 and 67% took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The average SAT score was
1778 placing them in the top 10% of students in the nation.
Keystone Public Schools served students who spoke 51 home languages in
addition to English and 39 countries were represented while 350 students were
enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. Of the enrolled student
population, over 70% were classified as minorities. The largest ethnically
represented group in the district was the African American student population and
accounted for 60.2% of the population while 13 were multi-racial, 10% were White,
0.8% was Hispanic, 6% were Asian and .01% was American-Indian. The district
language redesignation rate was 7% as compared to the state rate of approximately
88
10%. Additionally, 59.7% of the student population was considered low–income and
68% qualified for free/reduced-price lunch.
In order to maximize academic achievement for every student in KPS the
district employed over 17,000 staff members, including both certificated and
classified employees groups to work in one of its 65 schools. Certificated personnel
consisted of 8,860 full-time teachers with the average teacher’s salary at $68,746.
Classified personnel consisted of 7,283 support positions. The administrative/office
staff consisted of 918 employees in district and site positions. The operating budget
for the 2007-2008 year was $1.7 million with a per-pupil expenditure of $17,089
(based on projected enrollment of 28,300). The district enjoyed a strong volunteer
support program in which 49,480 citizens are registered.
The Superintendent: Dr. Ted Rose has been employed in KPS since August
of 2005. However, the superintendent had extensive experience in public service
and government. Prior to this position, he served as a state legislator and chaired the
legislature’s Education Committee for three years and during his tenure worked for
three years to craft and steer to passage the Education Reform Act of 1993, landmark
legislation fundamentally restructuring the way that the state funds and manages its
public schools. To his credit, Dr. Rose served in the one of the New England states
general court form 1986 to 1994 and was a Democratic nominee for Governor in the
mid nineties and lost to the incumbent governor. During the interim, Dr. Rose served
as CEO of a Biomedical Initiatives, Managing Director of the states Business
Alliance for Education, and as a professor of politics and Director of the Public
89
Policy Center at university level. In August 2005, after more than thirty years in
politics and working in educational reform, he assumed the top position in Keystone
Public Schools. The superintendent graduated from Harvard College (BA in History)
and the Harvard Law School.
Key Player One: Dr. Barbara Brockman, the Executive Director of K-5
Education has been employed in KPS since 1974. She was promoted to this position
soon after Dr. Rose assumed leadership in KPS in 2005. Her responsibilities
included directing Keystone efforts to improve teaching and learning, along with
supervising and providing support for K-5 administration and teaching staff.
Previous experiences included serving as an elementary teacher and began her tenure
as a school site principal in 1990. She is committed to working toward reaching the
Board Goals and the district’s Excellence for All Reform Agenda.
Key Player Two: Mr. Bill Oliver, the President of the School Board has been
member of the Keystone Public School Board since 1998. Mr. Oliver’s education
experiences included service on KPS urban school board, member of the Saint
Vincent College’s Board of Trustees and a career a as a teacher, administrator. At
one point, he was a member of the State’s Department of Education as the
Commissioner of Basic Education and Senior Program Advisor for Early Childhood
Education before joining the Family Communications, Inc., staff in 1984. In 2005, he
was the inaugural Executive Director of The Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning
and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College. Due to his years of service in KPS,
90
Mr. Oliver offered a broad and deep view on the history of KPS and current efforts
his vision for providing all students in KPS with the tools for learning.
Reform Strategy-specific Players: Additional study participants were
purposefully identified in order to provide additional information and perspective
related to the identified research questions. The district superintendent was asked to
provide access to those persons in the district that possess knowledge related to each
of the change levers being studied. For example, with relation to the specific
dimension of professional development, an Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum
and Instruction may have been identified and interviewed in one district, while the
Directors of K-6 and 7-12 Instruction may have been interviewed in the other. In
each case, the individual(s) were identified as having personal knowledge regarding
the change processes implemented to effectuate change.
The following individuals were identified by the superintendent to participate
in semi-structured group interviews relating to there area of expertise:
Strategic Plan: Ms. Katherine Simms, Coordinator of Strategic Planning and
Private Sector Development, Ms. Gina Book, Mr. Marcus Light, and Mr. Lance
Doyle were selected by the superintendent as the individuals closely tied to ongoing
planning and development in KPS.
Assessment: Dr. Pricilla Fontaine, Chief of Assessment and Accountability,
was hired by Dr. Rose from outside the district in 2006 for her skills and expertise in
the area assessment and leadership. She supervised the research, assessment and
91
accountability offices with a specific focus of increasing the capacity of the district
to use data to inform instruction.
Curriculum: Mrs. Francine Dale, Senior Program Officer of Curriculum and
Instruction was selected by Dr. Rose to represent the curriculum division in the
interviews. Mrs. Dale has served as Senior Program Officer of Curriculum and
Instruction in KPS for one year and joined the KPS staff in 2006.
Professional Development: Ms. Holly Graham, Program Coordinator of
Professional Development, was selected to represent the professional development
division in the interviews.
Human Resource System and Human Capital Management: Mr. William
White, Chief Human Resources, was recruited to KPS by Dr. Rose from the private-
sector (military) within the first year of entering KPS.
Finance and Budget: Mr. Thomas Michael, Chief Financial Officer, and Mr.
Mark Jacobs, Budget and Finance Director, were selected for interview by Dr. Rose
due to their strong grasp of the fiscal priorities established within the Excellence for
All master plan. Mr. Thomas Michael has been employed in KPS for twenty-none
years and Mr. Mark Jacobs has been employment for thirteen years. Their collective
knowledge of fiscal practices were considered essential by Dr. Rose in the process of
ensuring adherence to the goals and objectives outlined in the plan and moving
towards expenditures that support student learning.
Communications: Mrs. Elizabeth Charles, Director of Communications, and
Ms. Sheri Black, Director of Media Relations, represented the KPS during the
92
Communications interview. Mrs. Charles has been employed in KPS for forty years
was selected for her extensive history of communications in the district. Mrs. Black
was hired to provide leadership in the Media Relations office as a direct result of
reorganization of the communications department. Dr. Rose.
Governance/Board Relations: Dr. Linda Moretti, Chief of Staff and External
Affairs, represented KPS during the Governance and Board Relations interview.
Prior to the arrival of Dr. Rose, Dr. Moretti was employed by the KPS school board
as a strategic communications consultant to assist the Board and Administration in
resolving their differences with respect to facilities and later assisted the Board with
the exiting of the former superintendent. After Dr. Rose assumed the position of
superintendent in KPS, Dr. Moretti was instrumental in setting up his initial “meet
and greets” during his first few months and supporting the communications aspects
of his entry. Through this process, Dr. Rose approached Dr. Moretti with at part-time
position in the district to fill the vacancy of the Director of Marketing
Communications. The part-time position evolved into the position of the chief of
Staff and External Affairs of today.
Labor Relations/Contract Negotiations: Mrs. Courtney Spellberg, Executive
Director of Employee and Organizational Development, was selected to participate
in the interview for longevity in the district (twenty years) and her extensive
knowledge of labor relations, past practices, and the long spanning leadership of the
Keystone Federation of Teachers since its inception in 1969.
93
Family and Community Engagement: Mr. Jason Bartlett, Executive Director
Family & Community Engagement, and Mr. Bradley Morris, Intern, participated in
the Family & Community Engagement interview. Mr. Bartlett began employment in
KPS only weeks prior to the interview and previously had ties with the district as a
parent and local business owner. Mr. Bradley Morris had been hired by Dr. Rose in
2007 as an Urban Leadership Foundation Resident after the retirement of the former
Director of Parent Engagement.
Instrumentation
The conceptual framework selected as a basis for the study, the House
Model, was developed through a review of current literature and research-based best
practices by the Urban School Leadership Foundation’s staff. It is utilized as a key
component in the Urban School Leadership Institute program to prepare individuals
to lead large city school systems. The “House Model” (see Figure: 1) is a visual
model entitled, Framework for District Success – 2008 and includes a list of twenty-
five effective reform strategies. However, for this study, ten of the twenty-five
reform strategies as those most likely to positively impact student achievement. It
also served as a conceptual framework for this study and is incorporated below as
Figure 4.
94
Figure 4: The House Model
The house is divided into several levels, which are represented by three
foundations, three rooms, and a roof. Several reform strategies have been identified
and incorporated into each area of the House Model. Timelines have been
established for building the foundation (O – 1 year), building the rooms (Year 2),
and completing the house (Year 3). The foundational levels of the house speak to the
entry of a superintendent into a new position. Included in these two areas are: 1)
superintendent’s plan of entry, a 100-day plan, and 2) activities targeted for
implementation during the first year in office which include organizational
assessment and audits, management structures and strategic plan. The main rooms of
95
the house are divided into three overarching areas relating to instructional alignment,
operational excellence, and stakeholder management and relationships. The roof
incorporates the three-year targets including increasing student achievement, closing
the achievement gaps, and improving college and workplace readiness for all
students and the area of sustainability. The House Model illustrates the location of
each of the ten reform strategies and their relationship to other elements included in
this model. These ten key reform strategies, as defined by the Urban School
Leadership Institute, include:
1. Strategic Plan: The Strategic Plan defines the district’s mission, goals,
and vision. It also assigns performance indicators and work plans to each
of the district’s primary goals and serves as the guiding document for the
district decisions and priorities.
2. Assessment: Assessment activities enable districts to know whether
students are learning what they are supposed to learn (i.e., the standards).
Common, regularly-scheduled district-wide assessments should connect
directly with standards, the curriculum, pacing guides, and professional
development.
3. Curriculum: Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach. Classroom
materials such as textbooks, worksheets, pacing guides, etc. They should
address the scope and sequence of the district’s learning standards.
4. Professional Development: Professional Development is any program or
course intended to improve teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness.
96
Successful districts have an integrated professional development strategy
that centers on enabling teachers to detect when students aren’t meeting a
certain standards and to adjust their instruction accordingly, or enables
principals and teachers to improve their knowledge and skills in areas of
district focus.
5. Human Resource System and Human Capital Management: The Human
Resource System (HR) and Human Capital Management research
indicates that teacher quality is a primary influence on student
achievement. Effective districts do a good job in attracting, selecting, and
managing talent at the teacher, principal or district office level. Improving
the recruiting and hiring processes for personnel, developing attractive
compensation packages, and streamlining the process of applications and
payments are evidence of a good HR system.
6. Finance and Budget: The Finance and Budget of a district should be in
alignment with instructional priorities as well as balanced and
sustainable. Some successful district’s have adopted innovative
budgeting approaches such as “zero-based budgeting” and weighted
students funding to bring their budgets into closer alignment with their
priorities.
7. Communications: Communication of great stories in the district must be
shared. The development of a public relations or communications office
staffed with experts on dealing with the media can enable the district to
97
communicate its vision to the public or proactively build support for an
important initiative.
8. Governance and Board Relations: The area of Governance/Board
Relations is critical since most districts are governed by boards elected
from the local population; others answer to appointed boards. The school
board is responsible for setting policy direction for the district;
superintendents can take a supporting role in developing policy but are
mainly charged with executing it. Winning the support of the board is
time consuming but a critical task for superintendents.
9. Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations: The area of Labor
Relations/Contract Negotiations presents the superintendent the
opportunity to build relationships and negotiate with several unions to
which various staff belongs. Success in working with unions requires an
upfront investment in building relationships and understanding the
priorities of union leaders. The content of the contract also requires close
attention. Contract language can restrict or expand the superintendent’s
options for replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly crucial
with teacher contracts, as teacher quality is one of the most significant
influences on student achievement.
10. Family and Community Engagement: Family and Community
Engagement offer the district multiple opportunities for all stakeholders
to interact with the district, from volunteering to partnering with local
98
organizations in support of student success. Many districts take surveys of
parents of students and the community in general to determine how they
view the district and what priorities for improvement are. Surveys should
be closely linked to the district’s performance management system and
data dashboard. Increasing stakeholder satisfaction can lead to greater
support for funding measures, significantly increasing its financial
resources.
With regards to each of the ten reform strategies, two factors were shown to have
great influence over the desired outcomes:
1. The level of implementation
2. The quality of implementation
The instruments for this study were developed by the members of a cross-
analysis research team. Each member was a doctoral candidate enrolled at the
University of Southern California. The research team met during the winter and
spring of 2008 in a seminars facilitated by professors David Marsh, Ph.D., Associate
Dean of Academic Programs and Rudy Castruita, Ed.D., Board member of Harvard’s
Urban Superintendent Program. The research team conducted a comprehensive
review of the literature relating to five key areas of current research. These areas
included student achievement and school accountability, the role of the district in
increasing student achievement, how systems leaders influence academic
performance, strategies implemented by systems leaders to improve student learning,
and how urban school superintendents are prepared for the systems leader position.
99
From this process arose the mutually determined purpose of the study, the research
questions and the conceptual framework for creating data collection instruments.
In 2006, a previous phase of this study was conducted by Dr. Jen Takata, Dr.
David Marsh, and Dr. Rudy Castruita. The Phase I study clarified the reform
strategies emphasized by the Urban School Leadership Institute; focusing on the
strengths, challenges, and strategies used by USLI graduates during their first years
in office. The research in Phase I investigated the use of reform strategies utilized by
two USLI graduates. The Phase I study served to inform Phase II by refining the
interview methodology and construction of data analysis tools. A matrix that
demonstrates the relationship between the research questions and each data
collection instrument can be found in Table 1.
Table 1: Relationship of Research Questions to Data Collection Instruments
RQ1
10 Key
Levers
RQ 1a
Factors
Context
RQ 1b
Additional
Strategies
RQ 1c
Background/
Experiences
Superintendent Interview Guide
X X X X
Key Player Interview Guide
X X X
Strategy-specific Interview
Guide
X X
Data Collection Instruments
The aforementioned conceptual framework provided a basis for the data
collection instruments created by the group under the direction of David Marsh,
Ph.D., and Rudy Castruita, Ed.D. The ten-member research team met with the USLI
100
lead researcher in order to learn about the House Model and gain a deep
understanding of the role that the reform strategies included in the House Model play
in the training process for USLI graduates. To provide depth and structure to the data
analysis process, each team member investigated one of the ten reform strategies
identified in the House Model, developing the research base and rubrics used for data
analysis. Findings were shared during regularly scheduled team meetings and each
member was responsible for mastering the findings relating to each topic.
The rubrics and the related instruments were developed through a review of
the relevant literature and provided the conceptual framework for the level of
implementation of each reform strategy. Through collaborative efforts of the ten-
member team, the rubrics were refined and field-tested during the spring of 2008 to
ensure alignment with the conceptual framework and research questions prior to data
collection. For example, the Professional Development change lever rubric
(Appendix D) was created to measure the quality of implementation with respect to
relevant actions utilizing a 5-point Likert scale indicating high (5), moderate (3), or
low (1) quality. These components included a professional development plan aligned
to district’s goals and objectives, organizational structures and policies to support the
plan, process for monitoring and evaluating the plan, and a vehicle to document
challenges and successes in order to sustain excellence. A separate Implementation
Rubric (Appendix E) was designed to measure how each change lever was
implemented utilizing a 5-point Likert scale indicting high (5), moderate (3) or low
(1) levels in terms of four criteria, including: 1) the external challenges to full
101
implementation; 2) the extent that each component of the reform strategy is fully
implemented in practice; 3) the level of shared understanding, values, and
expectations; and 4) the sustainability of staff and fiscal resources.
Stemming from the rubrics and conceptual framework, three interview guides
were created. The aforementioned rubrics provided the basis for the foundation for
developing the interview guides which served as the foundation for data collection in
the study. These data collection instruments included a Superintendent Interview
Guide (Appendix A) that related each interview question to the related research
question, outlined the superintendent interview process, established a process for
coding interview data, and defined processes for identifying artifacts and documents
that were collected from each district; a Key Player Interview Guide (Appendix B)
that related each interview question to the related research question, outlined the key
player selection and interview process, established a process for coding interview
data, and created linkages to artifacts and documents collected from each district;
and, a Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C) that correlated
each interview question to the related research question(s), outlined the participant
selection and interview processes, and established a process for transcribing and
coding interview data.
Each interview tool provided critical support to the process of organizing
complex and divergent qualitative data to inform the research questions. Interview
process and questioning techniques were developed based on the semi-structured
interview protocol developed by Creswell (2003). The questions were aligned with
102
the conceptual framework and utilized open-ended questioning to allow the research
team to tailor probing questions for each participant. During the course of the
interviews, each interviewee was asked to identify and provide appropriate
documents that supported their perceptions. In each case, access to documentation
was facilitated by the District upon request of the researcher. Each of the
instrument’s internal validity was demonstrated through the course of the present
study’s data triangulation and peer examination.
Instrument 1: The Superintendent Interview Guide
The Superintendent Interview Guide from the Phase I study was reviewed
and revised collaboratively by the research team to facilitate collection of data
relevant to the research questions posed in the study. The document (Appendix A)
incorporated a script for the interviewer that outlined several lead questions and
included relevant probing questions to provide depth to the information collected.
The Superintendent Interview Guide assumed an initial interview of one hour and
included a set of open-ended questions with relevant probing questions designed to
allow the researcher to expand and explore issues raised during the process. The first
question and subsequent probes focused on establishing the strengths and challenges
of the district, in terms of student achievement, upon the superintendent’s arrival
(research sub-question 1a). Those questions included:
a) Describe the overall status of the district when you assumed your position
as Superintendent;
b) What were the major strengths of the district?
103
c) What were the major challenges facing the district?
d) What was the overall academic profile of the district?
A second question and relevant probes inquired as to the change strategies
implemented by the district under the superintendent’s leadership and the impact of
those actions on student achievement (research sub-question 1b). Those questions
included:
a) Considering the context of the district when you arrived, what strategies
did you use to improve the overall condition of the district?
b) What specific strategies did you employ to improve student achievement
within your district?
c) What participants were significantly involved in these strategies?
d) How would you describe the level of implementation you have achieved
for each strategy used?
A second, one hour follow-up interview was scheduled with the
superintendent on Day Two to focus on understanding the background and
experience of the superintendent (research sub-question 1c). Those questions
included:
a) Please describe key aspects of your previous background/experience.
b) How did your preparation and experience help you to select and
implement appropriate reform strategies designed to improve student
achievement?
104
Additional questions, which arose from subsequent interviews, were presented to the
superintendent to help clarify “information gaps” that arose relating to understanding
of the reform strategies and overall strategy discussed during the subsequent key
player and Specific Dimensions of Reform interviews.
Instrument 2: The Key Player Interview Guide
The Key Player Interview Guide was also based on a data collection
instrument utilized during Phase I of the study. The research team made several
modifications to the instrument in order to ensure alignment with the conceptual
framework and to provide meaningful data related to each research question. The
Key Player Interview Guide assumed interviews of approximately one hour and
included several lead questions, with relevant probing questions to allow the research
team to explore issues that arose in the process. The questions focused on developing
an understanding of the context of the district prior to the arrival of the
superintendent (research sub-question 1a) and the process used by the superintendent
to implement reform strategies to impact student achievement. Those questions
included:
a) Describe the overall status of the district when the superintendent
arrived?
b) Considering the context of the district, what strategies did the
superintendent use to improve the overall condition of the district?
c) What specific strategies did the superintendent employ to improve student
achievement within the district?
105
d) What was your involvement in these strategies?
e) How would you describe the level of implementation achieved within
your district for each of the reform strategies used?
Each question was designed with to provide access to a rich data set that addressed
the relevant research questions and informed the study. The Key Player Interview
Guide was incorporated into this study as in Appendix B.
Instrument 3: The Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide
The Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C) was
developed through the collaborative work of the research team in order to collect
data relevant to the research questions as they relate to the ten reform strategies
being studied. Each member of the team conducted significant research into the
theoretical and practical background of one reform strategy proposed by the Urban
School Leadership Institute. From that research, ten strategy specific quality rubrics
were developed by the group, which identified the components of a high-quality
implementation of the reform strategy when aligned with district efforts to improve
academic achievement. One implementation rubric was developed and used to
measure the level of district’s progress with respect to each identified reform
strategy. Lead and probing questions for each strategy-specific interview were
developed by the team of researchers based on the related reform strategy quality
rubrics, and were used to guide interviewers in the process of data collection.
The Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide was designed to support
semi-structured group interviews of individuals identified by the superintendent as
106
having specific knowledge relating to each of the ten key reform strategies under
study. Each group was interviewed for approximately one hour and were presented
with open-ended lead questions and relevant probes designed to provide a picture of
the context of the district prior to the arrival of the superintendent and describe how
the actions taken by superintendent may have influenced student achievement. Those
questions included:
a. What is your district currently doing with regard (name of dimension)?
What has been the superintendent’s specific strategies regarding this
dimension?
b. What has been your success in getting your current reform in this
dimension actually implemented and what challenges do you now face in
this regard?
c. How does your current effort for this dimension differ from what you
were doing prior to when the current superintendent came to the district?
d. For your prior approach, to what extent was that approach fully
implemented?
Reform strategy (quality and level of implementation) rubrics were used to
determine probing questions and support in guiding the discussions toward providing
data useful for informing the research questions.
Data Collection
The Urban School Leadership Foundation staff assisted the research team by
providing information relating to matches between sampling criteria and USLI
107
graduates. Access to the administrative teams in these districts was facilitated
through collaboration between USLF and the Rossier School of Education staff at
the University of Southern California. In order to assure school district leaders that
the process and reporting of findings would be managed professionally, USC
professors David Marsh, Ph.D. and Rudy Castruita, Ed.D. served as active members
of the research team and participated in the site interviews. Using the team approach
ensured multiple sets of ears and eyes would touch the data and allow for a
significant depth of perspective throughout the process.
The ten-member research team initiated the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
process in April of 2008. The University of Southern California IRB committee is
charged with ethical oversight of research projects conducted by USC students and
staff. The committee reviews research proposals to ensure that participant rights are
protected and that studies adhere to an ethical approach to research and result in
findings that are beneficial to society as a whole. The IRB review secured these goals
by requiring submission of detailed descriptions of the scope, the specific population,
and the methodology to be used in the study. For this study, the research team
submitted one IRB proposal for the ten related studies conducted by cohort members.
Although limiting the freedom of the individual researchers in the cohort to some
degree, the process resulted in increased consistency of the larger research project;
the use of common data collection instruments and methodologies enhanced the
team’s ability to speak to the transferability of the findings. The office of the USC
IRB indicated that the study did not require formal approval, as it did not focus on
108
human subjects. Following the finding of the IRB, the team of researchers began the
process of establishing contact with the sites and preparing for the visits.
Data for the study were collected from the district during a two-day site visit
in June of 2008. Prior to the site visit, the district superintendent was contacted by
Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Rudy Castruita and informed of the purpose and structure
of the study. Prior to the arrival of the research team arriving, the superintendent
received documentation relating to the site visits and was asked to identify study
participants, including key leaders, who were present when the superintendent took
office and held roles in implementing change. In addition, the superintendent was
asked to identify and provide access to other individuals who held roles in
implementing policies related to the ten key reform strategies. These individuals
included cabinet members, district-level staff, site principals, board members, and
local community and/or parent group leaders who volunteered to participate in the
study.
The site visit was conducted over a two day period during which the time on-
site data collection was facilitated by research team of two members. A matrix that
outlines the data collection activities can be found in Table 2.
109
Table 2: Data Collection Activities
Day One Day Two
Morning • Superintendent Interview (1 hour)
• Key Player Interview (1 hour)
• Key Player Interview (1 hour)
(Interviews conducted by three data
collectors to build shared
understanding)
• 5 Dimensions of Reform Strategy-
Specific Small Group Interviews
(60 minutes each interviews
completed by one , two, or three data
collectors)
Afternoon • 5 Dimensions of Reform Strategy-
Specific Small Group Interviews
(60 minutes each interviews
completed by one , two, or three
data collectors)
• Superintendent Interview (1 hour )
(Interview focused on the background
and experience of superintendent and
obtained missing information from
Day One.
Evening Data collectors met to debrief, make
initial ratings, and identify missing
information.
Data collectors formulated initial ratings
and prepared data for deeper analysis.
On Day One, a semi-structured, individual interview was conducted with the
district superintendent and was based upon the Superintendent Interview Guide
(Appendix A). The superintendent interview took place at the district office, lasting
approximately one hour. Following the superintendent interview on Day One, the
research team interviewed two key players, identified by the superintendent,
following the guidelines established in the Key Player Interview Guide (Appendix
B). Each of the semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted at the district
office and lasted approximately one hour.
During the afternoon of Day One, team members met individually with the
reform strategy-specific panels to conduct one hour small group interviews, which
included the individuals identified by the superintendent as having knowledge
specific to each of the ten key reform strategies identified by the USLF as those most
likely to lead to improved academic achievement. With permission, the interviews
were digitally recorded and detailed field notes were taken by the researcher. At the
110
conclusion of the day, the research team met together to review impressions and
consider issues that required clarification during the Specific Dimensions of Reform
small group interviews.
On Day Two, the team continued to meet with reform strategy- specific
groups until all ten panels had participated in the one hour group interviews. The
research team used the Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide to inform
this process (Appendix C). With permission, all of the interviews were tape-recorded
and detailed notes were taken by the researcher. All small group interview
participants were volunteers who agreed to be involved in the study. Also, on Day
Two, a one hour follow-up interview was conducted by the research team with the
superintendent in order to ensure opportunities for clarifying questions that would
lead to a rich data set. In each instance, the digitally recorded interviews were set
aside to be reviewed in greater detail at a later time.
Due to the possibility of issues and concerns arising due to breach of
confidentiality and/or anonymity, specific structures were put into place to provide
participants ample security and options to withdraw at their discretion. Each
participant was assured of their confidentiality and participated voluntarily. In every
instance, procedures were in place to mask identifiers so that participants could share
freely and maintain their anonymity throughout the process. For example, interview
tapes were numbered and names/positions edited out through a coding process
during transcription. These processes provided assurance to the district
111
superintendent regarding what information would be collected and how it would be
processed and shared.
Multiple data sources were accessed during the visits in order to provide
depth and richness to each qualitative data set. Collected data (documents and other
artifacts related to specific reform strategies) were cross-referenced against interview
data and longitudinal student achievement data. The credibility of findings was
enhanced through triangulation of data, which was achieved through a thorough
review of relevant documents, interviews, and district student achievements on
standardized measurements.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the strengths,
challenges and reform strategies utilized by one urban superintendent to improve
student achievement, resulting in a useful set of ideas, findings, and implications that
fundamentally enhance the preparation of urban superintendents and support their
early work as superintendents. Specifically, the study explored ten key reform
strategies identified by the Urban School Leadership Foundation as those most likely
to positively impact student achievement. One research question and three sub-
questions were developed to focus the study and assist in development of data
collection instruments. Alignment between the research questions, the conceptual
framework, and the data collection instruments increased the reliability of findings
made following a review of the data. The process for data analysis was developed
during the spring of 2008 and incorporates Creswell’s (2003) six steps for data
112
processing: 1) organizing the data, 2) establishing meaning through review of the
data, 3) beginning the coding process, 4) generating a description of themes and
categories and themes, 5) determining how data will be represented in the narrative,
and 6) developing interpretations.
The process of data analysis began on Day One of the site visit at the end of
the day in order to debrief, discuss interview findings, and record overall impressions
(Creswell, 2003). Notes were compared by the researchers and preliminary ratings
were established for each of the reform strategy rubrics. Issues that required
clarification were determined and the process for presenting follow-up questions was
integrated into interviews scheduled for Day Two of the visit. Additional follow-up
calls were made, as necessary, to specific participants during the remaining research
window. Upon conclusion of the site visit, the digital recording of each interview
was reviewed by the researcher and the information coded according to specific
research question for deeper analysis. An Excel spreadsheet was used to record
relevant rubric scores for both the quality and level of implementation related to each
of the ten key reform strategies. This spreadsheet provided a means for the data to be
sorted effectively, allowing patterns in the data to be revealed (Creswell, 2007).
During the month of August 2008, the ten-member research team met to
review the recordings and field notes and conduct an extensive analysis of the data.
Initial drafts of the case studies were completed at that time, summarizing initial
findings of the site visits to the ten districts led by USLI graduates. The research
team met together three times, for five hours per session, to discuss rubric ratings by
113
research question. Teams of researchers reviewed the initial findings of their case
students as they related to each quality and implementation reform strategy rubric.
This process of “norming” allowed for the revision of the rubrics and led researchers
further into research by exposing emergent themes, issues, and trends in the data
(Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002). Further collaboration between
members of the research group resulted in comparative analysis of how ten USLI
superintendents selected and implemented specific reform strategies in an effort to
improve student achievement. This summary document was presented to the Urban
School Leadership Foundation by Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Rudy Castruita in
November of 2008.
Validity and Reliability
According to Patton (2002), “no straightforward tests can be applied for
reliability and validity.” No absolute rules exist. All a researcher can hope to do is
the very best, using full intellect to represent the data and communicate what the data
reveal given the purpose of the study. The very uniqueness of each qualitative study
means that the analytical approach used will be unique as well. The human factor in
qualitative study is both great strength as well as a fundamental weakness. Creswell
(2003), on the other hand, recommended the following procedures to achieve
reliability and validity within qualitative research: 1) prolonged engagement, 2)
triangulation, 3) clarifying researcher bias, and 4) external audits. Traditional
scientific research criteria were followed to ensure the quality and credibility of the
qualitative inquiry. Procedures were established by the team to minimize researcher
114
bias during the data collection and emphasize objectivity. The field testing of the
Interview Guides and Specific Reform Strategy Rubrics, triangulation of data
(multiple evidence sources), were integral procedures to ensure validity and
reliability of the results. However, the purposeful selection criteria used to identify
the school districts for the study presents certain limits of the overall ability to
generalize the findings is limited to the districts under study. At the same time,
findings may serve to inform readers of policies and practices that have proven
successful in these specific contexts and, therefore, be transferrable to other settings.
Summary
This chapter contained information regarding the specific research
methodology used in the current study, inclusive of a description of the research
design, sample, underlying conceptual framework, data collection instruments and an
explanation of the data collection and analysis processes. The procedures and
instruments used in the study were collaboratively developed by the members of the
cohort and were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of
Southern California. Permission to access district documents and personnel was
granted by the district superintendents. Results and findings from the data analysis
were presented in Chapter 4.
115
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presented an analysis of the data collected in the current study,
whose purpose was to investigate one district superintendent’s efforts to leverage
systemic change aimed at increasing student achievement. The purpose of this study
was to describe and analyze the impact of ten key reform strategies being used by
urban school district superintendents, which have been identified by the Urban
School Leadership Foundation as those most likely to positively impact student
achievement. The findings suggest a set of strategies that will inform the work of
both superintendents and those organizations that seek to prepare them. Within the
context of one school system, factors relating to the conditions existing in the district
prior to the arrival of the superintendent were particular areas of focus, as was the
professional background of the superintendent. In addition, each strategy that was
selected for implementation was measured to determine the quality of the reform
effort, as well as the level of implementation both prior to and after the arrival of the
superintendent. Case study methodology was utilized to support data collection.
This study examined the systemic reform strategies implemented by one
superintendent to increase student achievement. Five instruments, described in depth
in Chapter 3, were used in the collection of data: (1) Superintendent Interview Guide
(Appendix A); (2) Key Player Interview Guide (Appendix B); (3) Specific
Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C); (4) Quality Rubric (Appendix
116
D); and (5) Implementation Rubric (Appendix E). The data was obtained through
structured interviews with district leaders, district documents, artifacts obtained from
State websites and the Urban School Leadership Foundation. Data was interpreted
and analyzed using the process of triangulation where multiple sources of
information were available to support findings. This methodology supported the
reliability and validity of the findings. Further interpretation and analysis of data was
conducted during collaborative work sessions with the eleven other members of the
USC research team who were utilizing the same tools and processes to study nine
additional districts.
The findings from the research, as well as a detailed analysis and discussion
of the data, were presented in this chapter. The chapter focused on how the strengths
and challenges of the District and the background of the new Superintendent
impacted the selection, quality, and levels of implementation regarding reform
strategies leveraged to improve student academic achievement. The next sections are
devoted to the findings in this study and are organized around the overarching
research question, which was the following: How are the ten key reform strategies
being used by large urban school superintendents to improve student achievement in
his or her respective district? Three guiding research questions helped to focus the
study, and from these questions the section headings were formed:
a. How does the quality and implementation of the ten key
reform strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of
the district when the superintendent took office?
117
b. What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do
they correspond to the elements of the House model?
c. How does the choice and implementation of the ten key
reform strategies correspond to the previous
background/experiences of the superintendent?
Again, the purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the impact of ten key
reform strategies being used by one urban school district superintendent, which have
been identified by the Urban School Leadership Institute as those most likely to
positively impact student achievement.
District Background
Keystone Public Schools (KPS) is located in the heart of Middle America. As
the 124
th
largest school system in the United States, KPS serves a diverse student
population of 29,445 in grades kindergarten through 12. Students attend 18 - K-5
elementary schools, 14 - K-8 schools, 9 middle schools, 10 comprehensive high
schools, 6 charter schools, 3 Academies, and 6 special program schools. In addition,
Early Childhood programs serve Pre-K in classrooms across the city. Keystone
Public Schools serves students who speak 51 languages and 39 countries are
represented in the community. Approximately 350 students are enrolled in English as
a Second Language (ESL) classes. The district language redesignation rate is 7% as
compared to the state rate of approximately 10%. Of the enrolled student population,
over 70% are classified as minorities; the largest group being African American
60.2%, while13% are multi-racial, 10% are White, 0.8% are Hispanic, 6% are Asian
118
and .01% are American-Indian. Additionally, 59.7 % of the student population is
considered low–income and 68% qualify for free/reduced-price of the population.
Table 3: Demographics of Keystone Public Schools Student Population
District Size White Black Hispanic Other
Free /
Reduced
School Lunch
32,506 36.4% 60.3% .08% 2.6% 68%
Comments: KPS serves a diverse community. Students speak 51 languages and 39 countries are
represented in the community and approximately 350 students are enrolled in English as a Second
Language (ESL) classes. The district language redesignation rate is 7% as compared to the state rate of
approximately 10%. Of the enrolled student population, over 70% are classified as minorities; the
largest group being African American 60.2%, 36.4% are White, 0,8% are Hispanic, and 2.6% are
classified as other. Additionally, 59.7 % of the student population is considered low–income and 68%
qualify for free/reduced lunch.
The district employs over 17,000 staff members, both certificated and
classified to work in one of its 65 schools. Certificated personnel consist of 8,860
full-time teachers with the average teacher’s salary at $68,746 and classified
personnel consist of 7,283 support positions. The administrative staff consists of 918
people in district and site positions. The operating budget for the 2007-2008 year is
$1.7 million with a per-pupil expenditure of $17,089 (based on projected enrollment
of 28, 300). The district enjoys a strong volunteer support program in which 49,480
citizens are registered.
The District’s roadmap for improving the academic performance for all
students is the Excellence for All master plan. This roadmap aims to establish a
common belief across the Keystone community that every child–at every level of
academic performance–can achieve excellence. This vision is evidenced in the
mission statement located on the district webpage,
119
The Keystone Public Schools will be one of America’s premier school
districts, student focused, well-managed, and innovative. We hold
ourselves accountable for preparing all children to achieve academic
excellence and strength of character, so that they have the opportunity to
succeed in all aspects of life.
To meet this commitment, the declaration of beliefs include that all students can
learn at high levels, teachers have a profound impact on student achievement,
education begins with a safe and healthy environment, families are essential in the
educational process, improvement is guided by effective leadership, and district
office personnel exist to serve students and schools (Keystone Public School
webpage, 2007).
To support this endeavor, the district’s programs include a Comprehensive
Curriculum, Gifted and Talented Education, Advanced Placement Programs,
Guidance and Counseling, Visual and Performing Arts, Magnet School Programs,
Comprehensive Special Education, Alternative Education, Title I, School
Improvement, Computer Science, Regional Occupation Program, Career/Vocational
Education, Adult and Continuing Education, Complete Spectrum of Sports and
Athletics Programs, Business Partnerships, and Technology/Computers. During the
2006-07 school year 2,444 students received scholarships (academic or athletic) in
the amount of $26,658,463. Total number of high school graduates in 2007 was
6,587 and 67% took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The average SAT score
was 1778 placing them in the top 10% of students in the nation.
120
Background of the Superintendent
The Superintendent, Dr. Rose has been employed in KPS since August of
2005; however, the superintendent is known as a public-sector change agent and a
champion of public education. His experience in the public sector makes him a non-
traditional systems leader. Prior to this position, he served as the Chair of one of the
New England States Legislature’s Education Committee; he worked for three years
to craft and steer to passage an Education Reform Act in the early 1990’s, landmark
legislation fundamentally restructuring the way that the state funds and manages its
public schools. As a result, affluent and poor districts now have roughly the same
resources and the state has a highly regarded academic standards and assessment
program. Today, this state is a leader in educational performance at almost all grade
levels and subject matters. In the early 1990’s, he was the Democratic nominee for
office of Governor. Since that time he is credited with teaching Political Science at a
well respected university, where he was also the Director of a well known Public
Policy Center; been the CEO of Biomedical Initiatives, a nonprofit economic
development corporation; and the Managing Director of the a Business Alliance for
Education. In addition, he holds a Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law School and a
Bachelor of Arts from Harvard College. He is also a graduate of the 2003 cohort of
the Urban School Leadership Institute, an intensive executive management program
designed to prepare educators and professionals from other fields to lead large city
school systems. Dr. Rose was selected by the Keystone school Board for his
distinguished career in public service and government with respect to education. It
121
was felt that his strength and resolve as a seasoned public official would provide him
the skills and strategies to address the district’s challenges.
Condition of District at the Time of Superintendent’s Arrival
At the time of Dr. Rose’s appointment as Superintendent of Keystone Public
Schools, the district and community were out of touch with one another. This
disconnect resulted in the inability of KPS to successfully address the issues of
declining enrollment, structural deficits, and failing schools. The district portfolio of
school buildings constructed for a student population of 70,000 that, a decade ago,
was substantially larger than today (30,000). Approximately six elementary schools
in KPS enrolled fewer that 200 students and many buildings were similarly below
capacity at middle-school and high school levels. In short, closing schools was
imperative. This particular issue presented Dr. Rose a unique opportunity at the onset
of his entrance to change the focus of the district and get the results the school board
hired him to do. His goal for improving student performance was to move the district
from marginally functioning to one of excellence.
Unfortunately, the strengths of the district at the time that Dr. Rose became
superintendent were small in number. Validation of this was recorded during the
Superintendents’ interview when he made the following comment, “I asked myself
what wasn’t broken when I assumed the position of superintendent? There was major
dysfunction everywhere and what was working was marginally functioning.” As a
result of the marginal functioning organization steeped in tradition and history, Dr.
Rose encountered lingering challenges from the past. For example, the African-
122
American community had not been treated fairly with respect to equity issues in the
schools and a sense of past practices re-occurring was prevalent in the community at
large. It should be noted that the KPS community is comprised of 94 neighborhoods
which have been racially divided and segregated throughout the years. Results of
achievement data by school indicated that students of low SES were over represented
in the lower achievement bands on the state annual assessments.
With respect to academic operations, KPS had highly experienced, fully
credentialed and a stable corps of teachers which is an asset that many urban districts
lack. It had district-wide curricula in reading and math that were intended to ensure
coherent instruction across the district’s schools. At the same time a wide array of
professional development opportunities was provided to teachers to support the
implementation of the adopted curriculum. Additionally, supplemental after-school
programs had been established in schools with large numbers of students who were
achieving below proficiency. The actual proficiency levels of students, which
remained very low, were accompanied by the mentality of the district administration
being out of touch with the reality of the skills and strategies needed by principals to
effectively attend to the professional tasks and competencies required by the various
jobs of executive directors, site administrators and classroom teachers.
In regard to the Philanthropic base in the community, it was evident through
review of documents that at one time KPS had enjoyed a strong relationship with the
philanthropic and business community in Keystone; however, the relationship had
been destroyed by the contentious relationship between the KPS Board and
123
administration. The two were at odds due to the Board feeling that the KPS
administration was secretive and continually surprised them with new information
and items at the last minute.
Table 4: Strengths in Keystone Public Schools Upon Arrival
Strengths: Keystone Public Schools
• Aspects of organization marginally functioning versus not at all
• Number of strengths in its academic operations: highly experienced, fully credentialed and stable
corps of teachers, districtwide curricula (reading/math), wide array of professional development
opportunities, and after-school programs
• Philanthropic base in the community.
As mentioned previously, the district was in a state of organizational disarray,
a fractured and fragmented system due to the history of contentious relations
between the Superintendent and Board as well as lack of direction from the
Superintendent. Critical decisions were made in response to a crisis and the KPS
Board was characterized as impatient and micromanaging. The nine members were
consumed with differing expectations among themselves and their constituents
which resulted in widely publicized battles. As a result, the community had doubts
about the district’s commitment to initiatives. Furthermore, the poor confidence
levels of employees, lack of cohesion and culture of working in isolation made it
difficult for the organization to make progress towards improving student
achievement. Substantial numbers of KPS students were failing to achieve at levels
as measured by the standards set by the state. Despite minimal improvement in tests
scores, over half of the students did not achieve proficiency in reading and math and
statistics were substantially worse for low-income and African-American students.
Furthermore, one-fourth of ninth-graders were failing to graduate from high school.
124
Finally, the fractured and distrusting community wrought with racial
inequities presented a challenge for a white Superintendent to overcome. The fact
that the Board had terminated the prior Superintendent who was African-American
added to the challenge. To exacerbate the situation, KPS employees and many of the
community were leery of the non-traditional superintendent. These challenges in
KPS were further complicated by the continued declining enrollment experienced
during the last decade. The student population of 78,000 students had dwindled to
30,000 students along with families relocating to the suburbs and continued loss of
jobs in Keystone. At the same time, KPS formally practiced the art of allocating
funds to costly capital projects which quickly determined the financial forecast of
KPS as bleak and resulted in a $70 million deficit.
Table 5: Challenges in Keystone Public Schools Upon Arrival
Challenges: Keystone Public Schools
• A school system marginally functioning - organizational disarray; lack of strategic thinking and
planning
• Poor confidence level of employees and lack of cohesion - departments working in isolation
• Fractured and distrusting community over past practices – Racial tension in the community;
challenge for white Superintendent to overcome. Underlying feeling - this man may not understand
and represent the community
• An impatient micromanaging school Board with differing expectations among its members and
constituents.
• Low academic achievement – minimal growth
• Financial problems - $70 million deficit. Past practice-funds allocated to BIG capitol projects
• Continuing declining enrollment (10 years) amid continued loss of jobs in Keystone.
A fractured and fragmented system due to contentious relations between the
former superintendent and Board, and the distrusting community due to racial
inequities contributed to the lack of overall student achievement, which is typically
evident in large, urban school systems across the United Sates. In order to begin to
125
address the myriad of challenges and set a course for a new direction, the nine
members KPS School Board selected Dr. Rose for his distinguished career in public
service and government with respect to education.
Upon entry to the superintendency, Dr. Rose was provided a clear set of
priorities from the Board, but he had a less clear understanding of the actual state of
affairs within the district. His understanding quickly deepened as he immersed
himself in the listening, learning and assessment of the people, programs, policies,
problems and potential opportunities. He determined that the progress of Keystone
Public Schools would be determined by many factors. However, ultimately it would
come down to how the district was able to address two intertwined and complex
issues simultaneously – improving student achievement and getting the finances in
order. He felt that in order to make significant progress on these two issues it would
require a “change” in how business was conducted in KPS. Therefore, his primary
responsibility was to foster a belief of urgency to change the way business was
conducted in KPS and to create circumstances under which change was possible, and
to offer a vision of what the changes should be and how they would benefit all
students in Keystone. During his first year, his work included the gathering of input,
crafting a reform plan and communicating the plan, monitoring its progress, and
making adjustments while garnering and maintaining the support of key
stakeholders. The plan included six actions to address the urgent issues. Action 1:
Reduce the District’s excess capacity - the “Rightsizing” Plan (closure of schools)
with Board approval was implemented to have a school system with appropriate
126
space and future stability. Action 2: Restore positive relationships – Dr. Rose
focused efforts on the external constituencies to hear and share the vision for reform,
with emphasis on the branches of state government, city government and the
foundation community. Action 3: Address the budget deficit – the reorganization of
central office personnel and reallocation of resources ensured progress in lowering
the existing deficit. Action 4: The Excellence for All: A Four-Year Comprehensive
Framework for Improvement delineated specific strategies and plans to improve
student achievement. Action 5: Negotiate contract with the Keystone Federation of
Teachers. Action 6: Lack of public confidence – concerted efforts devoted to
developing relationships with internal and external stakeholders to spread the word
that the system was reparable and that the leadership knew how to accomplish this
task. Dr. Rose’s mantra was: “Together We Can Be the Change” to realize the
mission of KPS. These actions would begin to nudge the strong culture of history
and tradition of KPS employees and community to realize that change for the better
was on the horizon.
127
Table 6: Reform/Launching Strategies Leveraged in Keystone Public Schools
Areas of Reform
Specific Reform Strategies
Strategic Planning • Set clear district vision; focused on student achievement
• Entry Plan focused on Relationship Building and District Finances
• Utilized “listening tour” to glean strengths and challenges of the district.
• Board training - two out of three new members attended.
• Master Plan developed with stakeholder input and all goals tied to data.
• Superintendent’s annual performance evaluation tied to performance
criteria – results to deliver.
Organizational
Assessment and
Audits
• Academic operations audit conducted by outside firm.
• District’s operations and business services audits conducted by Council of
the Great City Schools (CGCS).
Organizational
and Management
Structure
• Leadership team reorganization with new hires (inside and outside)
personnel with expertise in given area of responsibility.
• Leadership Team roles and responsibilities tied to district’s goals.
• Team members and superintendent participate in “Learning Walks” at
school sites.
Instructional
Alignment
• Redefined role of principal as instructional leader and minimized impact of
operational issues on site administrators.
• School Plans developed in alignment of district’s six priorities.
• Focused on improving classroom teaching across the district through a
managed instruction approach (consistent curriculum, proven pedagogy,
assessment and data use, accountability structure).
• Data analysis coaches placed at schools to support teachers and
administrators in developing capacity with data-driven decision making.
• All professional development opportunities focused on developing
capacity of staff to implement strategies identified in the master plan.
• Collaboration with Institute for Learning (IFL) to focus on best K-12
practices to support the implementation of differentiated instruction in all
classrooms to support struggling learners.
Operational
Excellence
• Established a data-driven culture accountability at all levels - data used in
decision-making by superintendent and school Board.
• Designed infrastructure system for assessment data collection,
management and reporting. Increased capacity for systematically turning
data into information for improving results for all students.
• Budget aligned to support district priorities and address deficit.
• Reorganized HR, Curriculum, Assessment department towards meeting
needs of low performing schools
• Performance Priority 6: Improving Our Capacity to Do the Work includes
the Keystone Urban Leadership System for Excellence (KULSE) –
comprehensive system to recruit, train, evaluate and support site
administrators which delineates a performance-based compensation plan.
Stakeholder
Management
• Regained respect and trust with the community and viewed as an
educational leader.
• High visibility and effective use of media by the superintendent to promote
district vision, master plan, goals and initiatives.
• Established working relationships with local institutions, Keystone
Foundations and business community.
• Establishment of Parent phone hot-line and link on website to support the
paradigm shift to customer service.
• Conducted Town –hall/ Parent meetings to garner constituent input.
• Develop strong relationships with union (teachers) - ongoing
communication with leadership (AFT).
128
The strategies implemented by Dr. Rose and his staff to improve student
achievement were closely aligned to the district master plan and directly reflected the
strengths and challenges of the district at the time he took on the Superintendency.
Dr. Rose and his team implemented numerous strategies from his extensive
background in educational policy and reform as well as his training at the Urban
School Leadership Institute (USLI). Several reform strategies stand out as having
had the most significant impact on their work towards improving student
achievement: strategic plan, assessment, communications, finance and budget, and
family and community engagement. These areas will be discussed in further detail in
a following section of this chapter.
The Entry Plan and Launching Strategies
The Entry Plan for Dr. Rose as the new Superintendent of schools in
Keystone played a significant role in his formative days formative days as the
superintendent of KPS (September – November 2005). The plan was divided into
two major sections entitled: 1) Relationship Building, and 2) District Capacity and
Finances. Each section included goals and activities to clearly measure progress
towards the achievement of the goals. Included in the Relationship Building were the
following goals: 1) Establish a better working relationship between the Board and
Superintendent, 2) Give the public a sense that there is a New Day in Keystone,
including a new Superintendent who is in charge, 3) Repair relationships with the
Foundation Community, 4) Repair relationships with legislative delegation/executive
branch, 5) Establish positive and collaborative relationships and negotiate a new
129
contract with Keystone teachers union, and 6) Establish better relationships with City
and County elected officials. Included in the District Capacity and Finances are the
following goals: 7) Evaluate the functions of the Central office and plan for a
reorganization that will bring more talent and resources to bear on the district’s
problems, 8) Create a long term plan for facilities to further academic goals
(reductions/mergers/renovations), 9) Create a plan for better recruitment, training,
professional development of site administrators, 10) Evaluate district curriculum, 11)
Evaluate student achievement data systems in central office and use in schools and
district efforts to support low-performing schools, 12) Create a balanced budget, and
13) Begin the process for crafting the Keystone Reform Agenda.
Dr. Linda Moretti, Chief of Staff and External Affairs, shared that Dr. Rose
spent a vast amount of time in his early days “getting out and meeting key influential
opinion leaders as a way to help package what his vision was… and to set the course
for a future that was different than the past.” Dr. Rose’s past professional
experiences afforded him the opportunity to fully appreciate the impact of the media
to support the success of his entry with respect to the launching of the master plan.
His former experiences in the political arena served him well as he embraced the
media and served as the leading spokesperson for KPS as well as the driving force of
all efforts. Knowing the importance of the media, he strategically used the
communications department to send a clear and consistent message to the
community – “Together, We Can Be The Change.” The expansion of the
communication department and the implementation of the following strategies were
130
critical to the success of establishing a seamless connection with the community.
They included: personnel to support a clear focus on customer service, parent hot-
line, special events, media relations, communications, and parent and community
engagement across the district.
KPS’s master plan document, referred to herein as the Excellence for All
Master Plan, was developed with input from all stakeholder groups in addition to the
executive staff and the School Board. The four-year roadmap outlined the priority
areas of focus for improving the academic performance of all students in the
Keystone Public Schools (KPS). Based on the vision of Excellence for All, the
reform agenda aimed to move all children forward across all levels of achievement.
This was a significant step for KPS in that it was beyond the federal and state No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements, which focus on getting students to
proficiency by 2014. Believing that all children can learn at high levels, Dr. Rose
helped to craft the ambitious plan with measurable objectives not only for moving
every student toward proficiency, but also for increasing the number of children at
the highest levels of achievement. In one of his comprehensive reform agenda
speeches, he stated the following,
When setting our objectives, we wanted to be realistic yet inspirational.
We recognize that we must change the hearts and minds of everyone –
kids, parents, teachers, central office staff and the entire community – so
we share in a common belief that every child can achieve excellence.
The core elements of the Master Plan included a mission statement, declaration of
beliefs and strategies which aligned to each of the five District goals which
131
include:1) academic achievement of all students; 2) safe and orderly environment; 3)
effective and efficient support operations; 4) equitable distribution of all resources;
and 5) strong parent/community engagement. According to Kate Bowers, KPS’
Coordinator of Strategic Planning and Private Sector Development, the strategic plan
developed under Dr. Rose consolidated all the state mandated plans into 1 document
which resulted in a coordinated plan focused on instruction and lesser of compliance.
While the focus of the plan was to improve achievement for all students, it
was also intended to accelerate the learning of children who had been historically
short-changed by the education system in KPS. The reform agenda targeted
incremental gains of five percentage points per year for African-American students
compared to their peers.
The Superintendent’s focus on student achievement and his ability to
substantiate proposed initiatives with data was a new twist for the organization as
well as the school Board. The district’s Excellence for All master plan incorporated a
strategic vision, core beliefs, and common commitments that promoted the idea that
all students can be successful and that achievement gaps can be eliminated through
the strategic distribution of human and fiscal resources. The district plan tied all
strategic reform initiatives to measurable student performance benchmarks.
Ten Key Reform Strategies
The overarching research question posed for the study focused on the
development, quality, and implementation of reform strategies utilized by the Urban
School Leadership Institute (USLI) superintendent to improve teaching and learning
132
for all students ultimately resulting in improved student achievement across the
district. These ten key reform strategies as identified by the USLI were: 1) strategic
plan, 2) assessment, 3) curriculum, 4) professional development, 5) human resource
and human capital management, 6) finance and budget, 7) communications, 8)
governance and board relations, 9) labor relations and contract negotiations, and 10)
family and community engagement.
The question, “How are the ten key reform strategies being used by the USLI
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective district?”
provided the Superintendent and Key Players to identify the reform strategies
implemented by the system leader to drive student achievement gains across the
organization. Those strategies were compared to the House Model (Figure 5); the
conceptual framework that served as the basis of the study. Although interviews with
key staff members in the district probed the ten specific reform strategies, interview
data and district artifacts provided a wider look at numerous superintendent actions
to drive systemic change.
133
Figure 5: The House Model
The house model is divided into several levels, which are represented by
three foundations, three rooms, and a roof. Several reform strategies have been
identified and incorporated into each area of the House Model. The foundational
levels of the house speak to the entry of a superintendent into a new position. They
include the generation of the superintendent’s initial contract, the 100-day entry plan,
and activities targeted for implementation upon entry into office such as
organizational assessments and audits, management structures and strategic plan.
The main rooms of the house are divided into three overarching areas relating to
instructional alignment, operational excellence, and stakeholder management. The
134
roof incorporates targets including increasing student achievement, closing the
achievement gaps, and improving college readiness for all students and the area of
sustainability. USLI staff established the House Model through a review of current
literature and research-based best-practices. Their work revealed ten key strategic
actions or “reform strategies” through which systemic change is initiated and
sustained by system leaders, specifically as it related to improving student
achievement.
The following section provides information obtained through the interview
and artifact review processes for the ten key reform strategies. The specific
interviewees and/or artifacts were cited where appropriate. Rubric scores, where
referenced, are based on the Quality Rubrics (Appendix D) and the Level of
Implementation Rubric (Appendix E).
Table 7: Rubric Ratings of House Model Reform Strategies
House Elements Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Implementation
Level
Strategic Planning 1.2 4.1 3
Assessment 1.0 4.3 3
Curriculum 2.1 3.0 3
Professional Development 2.2 4.0 3
HR System and Human Capital Management 1.0 3.2 3
Finance and Budget 1.0 3.0 3
Communication 1.0 4.1 5
Governance and Board Relations 1.0 3.4 3
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations 1.0 3.0 3
Family and Community Engagement 1.1 3.0 3
The following section details the findings related to each of the ten reform
strategies under study. Data is presented that identifies where the district stood with
regard to the reform strategy prior to the arrival of the superintendent, the reforms
135
put into place by Dr. Rose, and the impact those reforms have had on the work of the
district focused on raising the level of student achievement.
Strategic Plan
Table 8 summarizes the pre and post quality rubric scores, the essence of the
difference between the pre and post quality scores as well as the action steps taken
by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of Strategic Plan.
Table 8: Rubric Scoring of Strategic Plan
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Strategic Plan 1 4 From state mandated plan to
strategic plan/comprehensive
reform agenda: clear goals,
strategies, timelines, and
evaluation measures. Five
Priorities.
• Plan development included
members from all stakeholder
groups
• External audit provided
evaluation - assess district
needs (all areas)
• Established measurable
outcomes, goals and
objectives tied to data
• Fiscal resources coordinated
and aligned to plan.
The previous strategic plan complied with state mandates, including
assessments and data collection procedures. However, there was little if any
alignment between the planning process and District action. Consequently, sites
wrote school plans that complied with state requirements but did not mirror the
district master plan which resulted in minimal alignment with district goals and
objectives. Ultimately this resulted in plans which lacked depth and direction. Due to
the high number of superintendents (eight) during the last decade in KPS, the
atmosphere was highly competitive and departments fought for limited resources
which resulted in inequities with respect to resources provided to students. Clearly,
136
KPS personnel were not working in a cohesive manner. Dr. Barbara Brockman,
Executive Director of K-5 reflects on the past:
Getting into my position now and supervising principals, they really may not
be following procedures and all, but people were really doing what they
wanted and it seemed to be they were critical of initiatives, they were critical
of things, if they decided not to do something, they chose not to do it. So it
wasn’t a cohesive unit all working together to support each other.
Eight superintendents in the ten years prior to Rose’s arrival contributed to the fact
that the group interviewed with respect to this reform strategy had differing opinions
as to the quality and implementation of the previous Strategic Plan. They stated that
sites complied with state mandates when developing site plans and possibly more
buy-in existed by all stakeholders (administration, staff, and community) but plans
lacked connection to district plan. Also, in the past, site administrators had
relationships with the process of the development and implementation of the
Strategic Plan but ultimately they could choose do follow their own path without
recourse from district leadership. In addition, the previous strategic plan did not
seem to engage the disenfranchised communities of KPS. As a result, various
communities did not a have a grasp of the district’s vision, mission, and goals nor did
all students receive access to the same level of instruction and learning.
In the area of strategic planning, KPS has attempted to make a shift in the
existing paradigm from state-mandated planning templates to one where the
organization developed a strategic plan which served as a comprehensive reform
agenda with clear goals, strategies, timelines and evaluation measures which
reflected the Board’s core beliefs, goals and objectives. The ultimate intent was to
137
develop an organization where master planning resulted in specific ties between
Board-adopted goals and objectives, and served as the guiding document for the
district. Dr. Linda Moretti, Chief of Staff and External Affairs comments:
He (Rose) framed the conversation around five priorities. Those five
priorities became the belief statements for the system that the board ended up
adopting…Excellence for All; Together We Can Be The Change; All
initiatives went to one of those five things.
The plan development which included members from all stakeholder groups created
an opportunity for KPS to begin to address the marginally functioning organization
with decisiveness.
Table 9 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and describes the initial
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of Strategic Plan.
Table 9: Addressing Change in Strategic Plan
Strengths Challenges
• Plan development included members from all
stakeholder groups
• Plan complied with State and Federal
mandates
• Plan included assessments and data collection
procedures
• Poor alignment between plan and District action
• Turnover in District leadership resulted in plans
which lacked depth
• Poor alignment between district and site plans
• Competitive atmosphere between departments
and regions for limited resources
Strategies
• Superintendent set clear district vision; focused on student achievement and communicated via the
media relations and communication departments (radio and TV). “Excellence for All” – Dream BIG
– Work HARD!
• Utilized “listening tour” to glean strengths and challenges of the district.
• Theory of action included a comprehensive plan tied to data to engage all stakeholders.
• Developed master plan with executive staff and Board; stakeholder input.
• Plan includes measurable outcomes for the five “foundations of success” outlined in reform agenda.
Focus on instruction.
• Superintendent’s annual performance evaluation is tied to performance criteria – results to deliver.
• Strategic Plan included “Right Size” plan to save the KPS $10.3 million in net operating costs –
closure of 22 schools. Begins to address the $70 million deficit.
• Fiscal resources coordinated and aligned to plan.
138
The current strategic plan incorporated the superintendent’s vision for the
improvement of student achievement. It consolidated the multiple state and federal
mandates into one document as well as incorporated high expectations and
measurable objectives for all students tied to data. The reform agenda included five
“foundations for success” which included:
1. “Rightsizing” the district to improve finances, optimize the use of
facilities and expand academic opportunity. “Flatten” the central office
organization and create a service-oriented culture that delivers equitable
services to students and schools.
2. Develop and deliver rigorous curricula aligned to curricula, assessments,
data-driven instruction and ongoing intensive professional development.
3. Recruit, train, evaluate and support site administrators and hold them
accountable for academic achievement.
4. Mobilize all available resources to provide a safe and learning and
working environment for all students and employees.
5. Build partnerships with families and the broader Keystone community to
advance the academic achievement and character development of all
students.
The Superintendent’s focus on student achievement and his ability to
substantiate proposed initiatives with data has been a new twist for the organization.
The Excellence for All master plan promoted the idea that all students can be
139
successful and that achievement gaps can be eliminated through the strategic
distribution of human and fiscal resources.
Each component of the Strategic Plan strategy was evaluated to assess prior
quality, current quality and level of implementation of KPS’s plan utilizing two
rubrics. Table 10 displays the ratings for previous quality, current quality, and the
average score for the overall level of implementation.
Table 10: Strategic Plan Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.2
Current Quality
4.1
Level of
Implementation
Vision 1 5
3
Mission 1 3
Objectives (goals) 2 5
Strategies 1 3
Action Plan 1 5
Theory of Action 1 5
Data Dashboard 2 3
In evaluating the current reform efforts behind the strategic plan, a score of
4.1 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a score of 3 was
provided for the level of implementation. The Strategic Plan met the high end of the
rubric scale, although the progress towards full implementation was in progress at
this time. During the last two years, Dr. Rose has attempted to raise student
achievement in Keystone by the implementation of the strategic plan. Although the
level of implementation is moderate, the Excellence for All plan united the district in
its vision, mission, and goals to improve teaching and learning. Additionally, the
strategic plan has focused the District around specific educational strategies and
140
objectives to improve student performance, communicated learning expectations to
students, families, employees and the community and, ultimately has placed the
District leadership in a position that is accountable for results. Because of this, the
scores reflect a moderate level of implementation of a high quality reform strategy.
Assessment
Table 11 summarizes the pre- and post-quality rubric scores, the essence of
the difference between the pre and post quality scores as well as the action steps
taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of Assessment.
Table 11: Rubric Scoring of Assessment
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Assessment 1 4 From little if any data analysis
to district-wide data-driven
decision-making. Shift to
focus on establishing data-
driven culture to emphasize
the meaning of accountability
at all levels
• Evaluate staff’s ability to do
necessary work in central office
• Paradigm shift to culture of
data- driven decision making
• Examine the district’s record
keeping on meeting AYP
standards under NCLB
• Work with Broad Foundation
and internal compliance
coordinator on NCLB audit
Prior to the arrival of the new Superintendent, KPS’s electronic data system
was considered impressive when compared with most districts, yet the district had
not made full if little use of the system. The system was set up for instructional
purposes including not only annual standardized-test results, but also the standards-
based assessments conducted several times annually. Unfortunately, the extent to
which teaching staff had been trained in using data to inform decisions varied from
school to school and also depended on the extent to which principals were committed
141
to the approach. The district had yet to develop the mechanisms to ensure that
instructional use of data was universal and effective. Similarly, the district data
system had the potential to be a powerful tool for evaluation, but the district did not
have the capacity to use it evaluatively, as an example, the position of Director of
Accountability for the district had been open for one year.
Table 12 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and describes the initial
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of Assessment.
Table 12: Addressing Change in Assessment
Strengths Challenges
• Electronic data system in place and set up for
instructional purposes
• Standardized tests and standards-based
assessments conducted several time annually
• District not prepared to make full use of
system
• Training for teachers to sue data to inform
instruction varies across district
• Not all principals committed to data-
decision making
• Position of Director of Accountability open
for one year
Strategies
• Utilized outside consultants with respect to analysis of District’s data capacity
• Employed skilled personnel to provide leadership in the Office of Assessment and Accountability
• Built upon existing infrastructure system for assessment data collection, management and reporting
• Coaches at sites to support data teams to analyze/interpret data to increase capacity for systematically
informing instruction
• Use of formative and summative assessments to monitor student growth
• Excellence for All plan focus efforts towards systemic progress
Under the direction of the Superintendent, the department of Research,
Assessment and Accountability was instituted as a result of evaluating central office
staff and restructuring efforts. To support the intended efforts of the newly created
office personnel with expertise in the area of assessment and leadership was
142
recruited from outside the district. By making a strategic shift in the way things had
been done contributed to the paradigm shift of systematically turning data into
information for improving results for all students. Dr. Pricilla Fontaine, Chief of
Assessment and Accountability reflect on her directive upon being hired:
The Superintendent brought me here and gave me the directive to increase
the capacity for the District to analyze data, to inform instruction. That’s my
top priority. I do have research, assessment and accountability, but my top
priority is increasing the capacity to turn data into information for improving
results for students.
The Master Plan focused on measurable goals connected to data to support
teaching and learning and built on the premise that the key to assessment in KPS is
the belief that increasing the capacity at the building level will make the difference
with regard to increasing student achievement. Dr. Rose validated this belief when
he stated, “Scratch the surface of an excellent school and you are likely to find an
excellent principal. Peer into a failing school and you will find weak leadership.”
This belief supported the shift form using summative standardized tests (measure at
end of the year) to the selection of formative assessment(s) to provide ongoing real
time information (RTI) for sites. KPS selected the state approved 4Sight tests
developed by John Hopkins University for the Success for All Foundation to fill this
need. The 4Sight tests were then aligned to the state standards and then utilized as a
diagnostic instrument throughout the year to help teachers and principals turn
assessment data into useful and real time information. This action necessitated the
need for KPS teachers and administrators to be able to access data in formats that
could be easily interpreted which resulted in the partnering of the Assessment Office
143
and the Information Office. Together Dr. Pricilla Fontaine and Mr. Tod Smalls,
Chief Information Officer (CIO) designed the reports and developed a centralized
scanning system. Professional development was provided on how to interpret the
data beginning with a group of selected principals followed by a cadre of teachers
who would serve as data coaches at the school sites. The implementation of data
coaches at the site level supported the premise of using data to drive instruction and
building capacity with site administration. In addition to the professional
development opportunities for principals and coaches, Professional Learning
Communities (PLC’s) were created at the K-8 sites to foster the use of using data to
inform instruction, monitor student growth and facilitate data conversations around
student needs. Dr. Poncelet affirms this ideal:
Applying that data to instructional practices is when the reports enable us
to see at an individual student level, where the strengths and weaknesses
are, and the instruction can fill in those gaps, make adjustments to fill in
the gaps.
Similarly, Dr. Rose voiced his belief in the use of formative data:
Right now…we are using diagnostic testing, the 4Sight tests, quarterly testing
for the first year in the district’s history. It made it so within a minute on
being in a school, you know, I could go in, look the principal in the eye and
say, “Hey, you got your second 4Sight test results in. What do you think?”
Dr. Rose has been instrumental in directing the leadership in the Assessment
and Information offices to collaborate efforts to design and set up a “central system”
which designs reports, scans answer docs, disseminates results in timely fashion or
RTI – real time information to support the focus of teaching and learning. Also, their
efforts to work closely with the curriculum department ensure impact on student
144
achievement. With respect to building site administrators capacity and commitment
to assessment initiatives, the Superintendent recently surveyed principals with regard
to use of testing data and results indicated that 50% looked at data, 25% intend to
look at data, and 25% had no clue.
Each component of the Assessment strategy was evaluated to assess prior
quality, current quality and level of implementation of KPS’s plan utilizing two
rubrics. Table 13 displays the ratings for previous quality, current quality, and the
average score for the overall level of implementation.
Table 13: Assessment Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.0
Current Quality
4.3
Level of
Implementation
Summative Assessments 1 5
3
Formative Assessments 1 3
Data Management,
Information, and Reporting
System
1 3
Analysis, Interpretation, and
Utilization of Assessment
Data
1 5
Professional Development 1 5
Fiscal Support and
Resources
1 5
A score of 4.3 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. This reflected a moderate
rubric score and level of progress towards implementing the assessment components
of the Excellence for All Master Plan. For example, while the district has made
remarkable growth with respect to efforts to incorporate data-driven decision making
at the district and site levels, those strategies have not quite made it to the all
145
classrooms at all sites. Assessments are also focused on the summative benchmark
tests while formative assessments are in place and coaches are in the process of
supporting all teachers in how to use data information effectively. Professional
Development is provided to support assessment objectives. These scores reflected a
moderate level implementation of a moderate-high quality reform strategy. It
appeared that with the investment KPS has made to increase its analytical capacity to
use data evaluatively; the data system in place will become a powerful tool for
evaluation as originally intended.
Curriculum
Table 14 summarizes the pre- and post-quality rubric scores, the essence of
the difference between the pre and post quality scores as well as the action steps
taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of Curriculum.
Table 14: Rubric Scoring of Curriculum
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Curriculum 2 3 Refocused the efforts of the
Curriculum & Instruction
office – demand for high
quality instruction in every
classroom.
• Employed skilled personnel
to coordinate Curriculum &
Instruction Office
• Refocused work of district
efforts on teaching and
learning
• Fostered instructional
alignment collaboration
between offices
• Teacher/coaches created to
support curriculum
development activities
Dr. Rose arrived to Keystone to a find that it had district-wide curriculum in
reading and math that were intended to ensure coherent instruction across the
146
district’s schools. The adopted curriculum was aligned to State Content Standards
and Frameworks and a wide array of professional development opportunities were
available to the teaching corp.
Unfortunately, the districts efforts to provide a coherent, sustained, district-
wide focus on it core academic programs were undermined by disagreements at the
top. The widely publicized battles among the school Board and former
Superintendent had shown doubts with employees about the district’s commitment
to the initiatives. This had been problematic in mathematics, where the district’s
chosen curriculum was not fully supported by all teachers. Therefore, many teachers
were not committed to the implementation of the math program or taking curricular
mandates seriously. Consequently, there existed a wide variation in the fidelity to
the base program implementation across the district. This resulted in a “free for all”
according to Dr. Rose. Overall, there was a wide lack of focus on delivered
instruction, curriculum implementation and a plan for monitoring teacher
implementation of the curriculum.
Table 15 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and describes the initial
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of Curriculum.
147
Table 15: Addressing Change in Curriculum
Strengths Challenges
• Quality curriculum adopted aligned to State
content standards and frameworks (districtwide
curricula -reading/math)
• No consistent plan for monitoring teacher
implementation of curriculum – resulted in
“Free for All”
• Lack of focus on delivered curriculum
• Fidelity to implementation of base program
varied across the district
Strategies
• Evaluated the curriculum
• Focus on establishing fidelity of implementation of the adopted curriculum – high quality instruction
• Role of principal from manger to instructional leadership
• Collaborated with outside expertise – writing curriculum K-12
• Refocused work of district on activities to inside the classroom (Principals – ELA and Math,
Assistant Principals - History/Social Science)
• Math and English coaches role based around implementation of the curriculum (each site)
The superintendent’s vision included in the Excellence for All reform agenda
directs the work of the curriculum department. The district Performance Priority 1:
Implementing Our Plan of Excellence for All provided a comprehensive framework
to increase student achievement by improving classroom teaching across the district
through a managed instruction approach (consistent curriculum, proven pedagogy,
assessment and data use, accountability structure). With that said, Dr. Rose set the
reform agenda; Dr. Nancy Proctor, Deputy Superintendent of Instruction,
Assessment and Accountability determines how to make it happen. To support the
reform agenda, school plans are developed in alignment of district’s six priorities and
reflected the focus of managed instruction approach. In accordance, district priorities
have shifted from past practices in that the district has reassumed responsibility for
curriculum development by hiring some its own teachers and coaches. At the same
time, KPS contracted with Kaplan Inc. to support the balance between theory and
practice. In addition to Kaplan Inc., KPS has also established a partnership with
148
Institute for Learning (IFL) out of the University of Pittsburgh to provide support
and guidance through professional development training sessions for the teachers
and coaches in the process of curriculum development and revisions. Mrs. Francine
Dale, Senior Program Officer expounds on curriculum development:
We have the Excellence for All reform agenda, and that guides our work here.
One of the things we’re doing is basically auditing all of the courses across
the district, and we’re actually in our second year of writing curriculum.
We’re actually writing curriculum, and we’re doing that K-12.
Efforts are focused on strengthening the collaboration between the
curriculum and assessment offices to ensure full standards alignment to state content
standards and adopted curriculum. District and school site administration has been
re-focused on the content areas of: English Language Arts, Math, History/Social
Science, Science, as well as the Advanced Placement (AP) to support the idea that
students will be properly placed based on data. The area of AP classes has been a
long-standing point of contention due to the fact of an under representation of the
majority African-American population in the AP classes. Differentiation of
instruction is built into the curriculum to ensure equal access to English Language
Learners using the Disciplinary Literacy Model. This model supports various levels
of student discussions which provide all participants the opportunity to discuss at
their instructional level – accountable talk.
To address the need for high quality writing throughout the district, Mrs.
Dale, Senior Program Advisor of Curriculum was brought into KPS to spearhead
collaboration between KPS and Kaplan Inc. in the development and implementation
149
of the K-12 writing program. To strengthen the connection between the curriculum
office and schools with respect to fidelity and implementation of the writing
program, a cadre of teachers to serve as coaches was developed. The intent of this
initiative was to develop coaches at each site to support full implementation of the
writing program and address specific teacher needs.
To build capacity at the district and site level with respect to monitoring the
implementation of curriculum, executive and site leadership participate in learning
walks on a regular basis. Mrs. Dale describes the walks:
Every Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday for the entire morning, these teams
will be in a school. There is a protocol for this and they actually have tasks to
complete. They might focus on Math or English and take anecdotal notes.
Part of the time is allotted to actually look at data while there.
The participation of the site administrators and executive leadership in the
learning walks has helped to redefine the role of principal from manager to one
instructional leader. The support provided to principals by district level leadership
has helped to minimize the operational issues on site administrators as well as create
lines communication between sites and district. Professional Development sessions
have been strategically designed to support the curriculum and assessment initiatives
with specific focus on building the capacity of the site administrators as stated in
Superintendent’s Entry Plan as well as Excellence for All theory of action which
includes:
1. Mounting evidence shows that strong, trained school leaders are a critical
lever to increase student achievement.
150
2. Principals are key levers to raising student achievement.
3. Leadership development should be a core capacity in any district’s
strategic plan.
4. Leadership is defined as the practice of improvement. Effective school
leaders must have the capacity to improve the quality of instructional
practice (Elmore, 2006).
Each component of the Curriculum strategy was evaluated to assess prior
quality, current quality and level of implementation of KPS’s plan utilizing two
rubrics. Table 16 displays the ratings for previous quality, current quality, and the
average score for the overall level of implementation.
Table 16: Curriculum Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
2.1
Current Quality
3.0
Level of
Implementation
Alignment to Learning
Standards and Assessments
5 5
3
Equal Access to Learning
Standards
3 3
Fidelity in Implementation 1 3
Sufficiency of and
Appropriateness of Materials
1 3
Clear and Regular Procedures
to Review and Update the
Curriculum
1 3
A score of 3.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. This reflected the analysis
and finding that the State mandated curriculum is accessible to classroom teachers
and students. As a result of an external audit (Broad Foundation and Council of
Great City Schools), efforts of the Curriculum & Instruction offices were refocused
151
to include a demand for high quality instruction in every classroom across the
district. To support the efforts, highly skilled personnel were hired to coordinate
Curriculum and Instruction Offices. With new personnel leading the helm in each
office, the instructional alignment and collaboration between offices has been
increased. These scores reflected a moderate level implementation of a moderate
quality reform strategy. The moderate level quality score is reflective of the
compliance focus relating to District efforts to monitor fidelity and implementation
of the base program, process in place to write curriculum by KPS staff and a lack of
effective instructional practices to provide equal access to learning standards for all
student subgroups.
Professional Development
Table 17 summarizes the pre- and post-quality rubric scores, the essence of
the difference between the pre and post quality scores as well as the action steps
taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of Professional
Development.
Table 17: Rubric Scoring of Professional Development
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Professional
Development
2 4 Shift from wide array of
Professional Development
offerings to central focus -
teaching and learning in the
classroom.
• All PD offerings focused on
fidelity to curriculum.
• Developed and implemented
KULSE project which places
focus on building human
capacity at all levels
• Refined school plans to reflect
best practices and monitor
ongoing efforts
152
Based on the interview with key personnel and the review of artifacts,
professional development offerings consisted of an extensive array of topics. A lack
of focus and direction in the area of professional development has contributed to the
overall fragmentation of the district. Content area coaches provided professional
development offerings but worked in isolation which resulted in little if any
consistency to the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
professional development activities. Participants completed evaluation surveys
following workshops and trainings but, few if any, other than the curriculum
supervisor knew the results of what teachers thought about the professional
development offerings. Due to the lack of central focus for professional development
offerings there was little support to ensure coherent instruction across the district’s
schools. Additionally, there was no vehicle in place to glean whether the extensive
array of topics was meeting the needs of the teachers or follow-up to measures in
place to evaluate whether there was direct impact on classroom instruction.
Due to the history of widely publicized battles between the Superintendent
and School Board, a percentage of teachers and administrators lacked commitment
and were less likely to adhere to curricular mandates. In short, professional
development opportunities were addressed by resistance and the attitude of “this, too,
shall pass.” The negative attitude among teachers and administrators stalled the
momentum for change.
Table 18 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and describes the initial
153
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of Professional Development.
Table 18: Addressing Change in Professional Development
Strengths Challenges
• Wide array of professional development
opportunities to teachers
• Content coaches in place
• Professional development activities not aligned
to curricular/instructional programs
• Lack of focus for professional development
offerings
• Corps of teachers less than fully committed to
district’s programs and initiatives
Strategies
• Superintendent set tone for building instructional leadership capacity for executive and site
leadership
• All professional development offerings tied to data, master plan and focused on results
• Coaches at school sites to provide support and guidance
• Developed plan for “coaching” opportunities for all stakeholders (executive, principals, aspiring
administrators and teachers)
The District’s efforts to improve teaching and learning began with the vision
of the newly hired Superintendent in August 2005. His vision for professional
development was to provide high quality professional development to the staff in
Keystone that was aligned to the district’s Excellence for All strategies as well as the
National Professional Development Standards to support and enhance research-based
instruction in all classrooms. The Director of Professional Development offered
comments on the Superintendent’s role in establishing the vision:
What Dr. Rose did, I believe it was 2006, created the Excellence for All
agenda. Professional development supports especially the coaching academy,
and the leadership academies that were developed, and to provide on-going
professional development for all staff. So everything we do is a direct result
of the document.
To begin to accomplish the task of high quality professional development
aligned to curricular goals and objectives, he focused on student achievement and
building the capacity of all KPS members by utilizing organizational assessments
154
and audits to glean existing strengths and challenges. Results indicated that KPS did
not have the personnel with the skills and expertise to rise to the myriad of
challenges. Therefore, Dr. Rose hired personnel from outside KPS for the Office of
the Deputy Superintendent with expertise and experience to ensure alignment
between the departments of curriculum and instruction, professional development
and assessment and accountability. At the same time, he restructured and reorganized
the district office so that personnel were appropriately placed and that they had the
skills and expertise to get the job done. Once personnel were in place, the offices of
curriculum and instruction, professional development, and assessment and
accountability were charged with the task of working together to provide continuity
and alignment. Ms. Holly Graham comments: “We support curriculum…we work
extensively together. There’s not much in curriculum that goes on that I in
professional development don’t have my ear to, so we’re trying to be as coherent as
possible.” Curriculum and Professional Development operate in sync.
The professional development plan included goals for: improving students’
learning, supported learning communities with goals aligned to district, fostered
leadership and instructional improvement, provided resources to support adult
learning, applied research to decision-making, used data to determine adult learning
priorities and prepared all educators to appreciate all students. The Program
Coordinator of Professional Development, Ms. Holly Graham describes the shift and
the current focus:
155
There’s a huge difference. It is now central. It wasn’t transparent. What we
do is transparent…I think that principals are much more aware of what’s
going on in their classrooms, or what curriculum should be implemented in
their classrooms than ever before.
Current reform efforts included the building of human capacity of staff and a
high quality systematic approach to professional development offerings tied to
curricular goals. The value of building human capacity for administrators imposed
by the Superintendent placed paramount focus on site administrators and their lack
of ability to serve as instructional leaders. His focus set in motion the shift of site
administrators operating as managers to that of an instructional leader. He placed the
responsibility and accountability for student achievement squarely on the shoulders
of the site administrators. To begin to support administrators in this shift and provide
resources for them, KPS leadership with the assistance of stakeholders developed
and implemented the Keystone Urban Leadership System for Excellence (KULSE)
project. A critical component of KULSE is the role of executive leadership of KPS to
provide coaching to principals in order to increase their effectiveness. Principals are
assigned one of five executive directors for school management which are grouped
by level – K-5 schools, K-8 schools, Accelerated Academies and middle schools,
high schools, and special education schools; and focus on curriculum and programs
that are relevant to grade configuration. Executive directors have the appropriate
certification and credentials to fulfill the role of supervising principals and most were
building level principals at one time. Supervisors visit the school sites and support
principals three days per week. Prior to serving as a supervisor, executive directors
156
participate in professional development opportunities to establish inter-rater
reliability with respect to a performance standards evaluation rubric and to ensure
that principals are evaluated and scored with consistency. In addition to rubric
training, executive directors receive coaching on how to conduct critical
conversations with principals and how to develop a cohesive, effective team. Ms.
Graham reflects:
Last year prior to the roll out of that evaluation tool there was a lot of
grumbling. And when they saw that they really needed to transform their
practice into becoming instructional leaders in their building, not just
managers, the tide changed, and they began to see the value in experiencing a
science lesson, or math lesson that they should be seeing in their building,
and having a little better content and conceptual understanding of what their
classrooms should look like and why.
Likewise, teachers are provided opportunities to participate in a coaching
model. Content coaches participated in training in a central facility and then take
training back to their home school. Training included three areas: knowledge of
curriculum, effective coaching strategies, and needs of classroom teachers to
implement curriculum. During the first year of implementation, coaches were pulled
out of the classroom and received extensive training with respect to the new
curriculum adopted for grades K-12. It became evident through evaluations and
discussions that the coaches were less than happy to be pulled from their rooms so
often. In response to the concerns voiced by coaches, the district pulled coaches out
less during the second year. In addition to providing support to teachers at the
building level with respect to curriculum and pedagogy, the district relied heavily on
the coaches to survey the needs of the teachers. Another vehicle used to gather
157
professional development needs of the teaching staff was the evaluation completed
after each workshop. Teachers have two options to complete a survey: online survey
and paper copy evaluation.
Each component of the Professional Development strategy was evaluated to
assess prior quality, current quality and level of implementation of KPS’s plan
utilizing two rubrics. Table 19 displays the ratings for previous quality, current
quality, and the average score for the overall level of implementation.
Table 19: Professional Development Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
2.2
Current Quality
4.0
Level of
Implementation
Designing Professional
Development
3 5
3
Implementing Professional
Development
3 3
Evaluating and Improving
Professional Development
3 5
Sharing Professional
Development Learning
1 3
A score of 3.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. This reflected a moderate
rubric score on the quality of the PD plan in place. The Professional Development
plan is focused on data analysis to drive instruction and tied to goals for District but
school site efforts were not consistent across the district according to personnel
interviewed. The KULSE project (principals and executive leadership) coaching
model was excellent in theory and time is required to fully implement the program.
The scores indicated a moderate level implementation of a moderate quality reform
strategy.
158
HR System and Human Capital Management
Table 20 summarizes the pre- and post-quality rubric scores, the essence of
the difference between the pre and post quality scores as well as the action steps
taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of Human Resource
System and Human Capital Management.
Table 20: Rubric Scoring of HR System and Human Capital Management
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
HR System
and Human
Capital
Management
1 3 From a system in need of
an overhaul in that
employees were rewarded
for longevity in the district
versus performance
outcomes, with little or no
measurement and
accountability.
• Set clear vision for HR - high
level’s of accountability
• Established priorities: staffing,
performance evaluations and
customer service
• Focus on school site
principals – develop
instructional leadership
• Signing bonus with
recruitment and pay-for-
performance compensation
(administrators)
Superintendent Rose arrived to find the KPS system marginally functioning
and the district’s Human Resource System was no exception. To begin to address
this issue the Superintendent contracted with outside consultants to conduct audits
and assessments. He collaborated with the Keystone’s Mayor’s Commission on
Public Education with the intent of gleaning salient information on student
performance and academic operations. The Rand Corporation analyzed data on
achievement and other outcomes for students in the Keystone schools, interviewed
individuals involved in the operations of KPS, and reviewed and summarized the
literature on high-performing schools districts. With respect to the human resources,
159
the findings indicated that KPS has a resource allocation system that permitted
substantial inequities in the distribution of experienced teachers to schools. Like
many other large urban school districts, KPS practiced the allocation of full time
teacher slots independent of salary to each school. This practice allowed highly-
experienced teachers to congregate in “better” schools located in the nicer areas and
the lowest paid, least experienced teachers were then assigned to the schools with the
highest proportion of children living in poverty – low socio-economic status and
high numbers of free and/or reduced lunch count. Ultimately, this practice allowed
less funding and resources available to those students considered at risk and in need
of the most support in the district. On paper the district policy for budgeting staff to
schools provided less funding to low-income children. To begin to ameliorate the
disparity and the myriad of other issues Dr. Rose recruited Mr. William White from
the private sector – military background to serve as the Chief Human Resource
Officer. He was immediately charged by the Superintendent to re-design the
functional aspects of the HR department so that it would be in alignment with the
mission of the district. Mr. White described the previous HR department:
In looking at the role of HR, and where it is today, we were pretty much a
reactionary type of function – basically look on HR to provide whatever help
is needed at the moment…so the challenge that I have had in coming here has
been number one; to redesign the function.
Ultimately, the goal was to have the HR department function as a strategic partner
within the organization.
160
Table 21 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and describes the initial
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of HR System and Human Capital Management.
Table 21: Addressing Change in HR System and Human Capital Management
Strengths Challenges
• Stable corps of teaching staff and
administration – know history of the
district
• HR department minimally functioning due to
lack of effective leadership
• Low rate of turnover of administration and
most rewarded for longevity
• HR lacking in leadership training, mentoring,
support for personnel at all levels
• Lack of tools for effective and meaningful
evaluations for all administration
• Salaries not competitive with neighboring
areas
Strategies
• Superintendent set clear focus; accountability, clear expectations, and pay for performance model
• HR executive hired from outside; military personnel with non-traditional background
• Aligned HR policies to district goals and objectives
• Created plan or better recruitment, training, professional development of principals
• Implemented plan for HR to become a customer friendly department within the organization
To begin the transformation of the HR Systems and Human Capital
Management department, Superintendent Rose utilized outside consultants to
perform an organizational audit to assess strengths and challenges. Review of
artifacts indicated that KPS had a number of strengths, specifically related to human
capital was a large corps of fully credentialed and highly experienced teachers which
are an asset many urban school districts lack. With respect to challenges, several
include: 1) lack of effective leadership, 2) no plan for recruitment, training,
professional development, and evaluation for all personnel, and 4) little if any
customer service. Several examples of these challenges reported during the
161
interviews included the fact that former HR Directors were not HR professionals but
individuals who were promoted from the educational arena versus those individuals
who have a broad background of experiences needed to understand the roles and
responsibilities of a human resources and human capital management department
and with the expertise to deliver true HR services. Another example was the practice
of traditionally rewarding principals for longevity in the district versus accountability
and performance. Principals were left alone to manage the sites without the weight of
accountability for student achievement.
To create movement, Dr. Rose clearly articulated his goals for enhancing
human resources and human capital by setting a clear and laser like focus on
accountability tied to results. His top priorities included: 1) staffing, 2) performance
evaluations, 3) customer service, and 4) day-to-day transactional needs (absence
management).
In the process of redesigning the function of the HR department, several
significant changes were made in terms of staff. The first related to staffing
throughout the district. Previously the HR department was not adequately staffed and
those in position did not have the right “skill sets” or “right competencies.” In turn
this led to a fairly ineffective function with customers not being served. William
reflects:
We were primarily operating from a transactional model, versus one that was
more broadly encompassing with the total of what you mean by customer
service, and adding value to the organization.
162
For the last two years Mr. White has recruited key staff into the HR department as
well as terminated those individuals unable to meet the competencies and
expectations. Staffing challenges extended into the classrooms of KPS in that most
of the hiring of classroom teachers took place in the 70’s and retirement for many
will be soon. Despite the declining enrollment KPS has experienced over the last
decade, the need to hire classroom teachers will continue to exist due to the
extremely high numbers of teachers electing to retire. In addition, KPS salaries were
not competitive with neighboring districts and KPS was unable to offer relocation
fees due to financial constraints which make it almost impossible to recruit the best.
At the same time, many businesses in Keystone were closing due to families
relocating to the suburbs of the large city to find jobs and affordable homes. To
combat this issue, one strategy employed by KPS has been to provide “signing
bonuses” to address the salary differences and not add to the annual compensation
costs.
Dr. Rose’s second priority was performance evaluations. According to Mr.
White, the change in administrative evaluations has been remarkable. This
significant change according to Frank is attributed to the fact that the Superintendent
brought in a real focus on accountability; clear expectations with a pay-for-
performance model. He reflected:
When you look at some of the changes we have made in our administrators,
focusing first on the principals and redefining what the role is - the role that
they play as instructional leaders in this district versus managing a building.
That has created a significant impact on trying to change the culture of the
organization
163
KPS developed the Keystone Urban Leadership System for Excellence (KULSE)
which was a comprehensive system to recruit, train, evaluate, support and
compensate site administrators. The goal of KULSE was to build human capacity by
developing and fostering leadership in order to improve student achievement.
Serving as the cornerstone of KULSE, was the performance standards evaluation
rubric which was developed through the analysis of current literature. The rubric
design included performance on four levels to differentiate performance and is
utilized mid-semester and at the end of the school year. The process included self-
assessment, supervisors’ assessment, as well as evidence and artifact collection.
Seven standards are included on the rubric which focus on teaching and learning and
include:
1. The Vision of Learning – the principal is the champion and promotes the
success of all students by sharing the vision of learning with all
stakeholders at the school site.
2. The Culture of Teaching and Learning – the principal promotes the
success of all students by focusing on fostering a community of learners
for students and staff.
3. The Management of Learning – the principal promotes the success of all
students by ensuring that organizational structures and supports are in
place to facilitate learning.
164
4. Relationship with Broader Community – the principal promotes the
success of all students by collaborating with families and the community.
5. Integrity, Fairness and Ethics in Learning – the principal promotes the
success of all students by exhibiting fairness, integrity and acting in an
ethical manner.
6. The Political, Social, Economic, Legal and Cultural Context – the
principal promotes the success of all students by navigating with the
success the arenas of policy, economics, legal and cultural context.
7. The Leadership of Learning – the principal promotes the success of all
students by promoting shared decision making at the school site and
engages in honing and refining leadership skills at the district,
community, state, and national levels.
To compliment the performance standards evaluation is the performance-based
compensation also known as pay-for-performance which rewarded the contribution
of the top performers. KPS instituted this concept to leverage and support its goal of
retaining talented principals who can meet the reform agenda goals and objectives.
Compensation is no longer based on length of time in the position, but on their
performance. An increment of up to $2,000 can be earned when the principal
receives a proficient rating on the seven performance standards and the 27
components of the rating rubric. The performance increase becomes a part of the
administrators’ base salary. In addition, principals have the ability to earn a bonus of
up to $10,000 which is based on growth in student achievement. This bonus does not
165
become part of the base salary. The combination of performance standards
evaluations and the performance-based compensation serve as evidence that Dr.
Rose was committed to his belief that excellent schools are lead by excellent
principals. By providing opportunities for principals to participate in the KULSE
which was about developing and improving principal leadership, he demonstrated his
belief that student achievement will increase. Funding for the KULSE six core
components comes from the federal Teaching Incentive Fund (TIF) grant.
The Superintendents’ third priority was customer service. Due to a lack of
technology, change had yet to take place. HR continued to operate under a system
put into place years ago - paper driven with most tasks accomplished manually. The
antiquated process made it almost impossible to expect personnel to be able to focus
on customer needs in an expeditious manner. William elaborated on the process:
We are completely paper driven; it is almost everything we do is a manual
process which is absolutely mind-boggling. Everyone has to walk down the
hall to where all the personnel records and retirement records are located.
None of it exists on any type of microfiche or anything else.
Until the effort is made to update the department with the necessary materials and
resources needed, it will continue to function as is and virtually make it impossible
for the HR department to reach the goal of performing as a strategic partner in the
organization committed to customer service for its employees.
Dr. Rose’s fourth priority for HR was dealing with the day-to-day
transactional needs. For example, the area of absence management was a critical
concern due to the need for 300 substitutes or more on any given day and coverage
166
for staff members who required lengthy periods of time off due to medical issues.
William stated that, “There is really not a system that we currently have for
managing that.” He continued by adding the fact that in order to address this issue he
had recently created a new position entitled, Absence Management Coordinator. This
position would be instrumental in developing a seamless process for employees with
respect to absences (ill or sabbaticals).
It is evident that Dr. Rose’s four priorities had been internalized by William
White as he addressed the progress or lack of for each one during the interview. He
was hopeful that with time and energy much more would be accomplished to address
the customer service goal. It was crystal clear during the interview that getting the
“right people” hired and getting them into the “right places” was paramount in order
to achieve the lofty goal of transforming the existing HR department into a strategic
partner. In addition to the four priorities discussed, it was evident that the strategy of
human resources and human capital management had been utilized by the
Superintendent and Chief Human Resource Officer to bring about progress with
respect to moving away from operating in a reactionary mode to one that was
focused on functioning in a proactive manner.
Each component of the HR System and Human Capital Management strategy
was evaluated to assess prior quality, current quality and level of implementation of
KPS’s plan utilizing two rubrics. Table 22 displays the ratings for previous quality,
current quality, and the average score for the overall level of implementation.
167
Table 22: HR System and Human Capital Management Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.0
Current Quality
3.2
Level of
Implementation
Recruitment, Selection and
Placement of new
Administrators
1 3
3
Recruitment of Highly
Qualified Teachers
1
3
Teacher Support and
Development
1 5
Salaries, Wages and Benefits 1 3
Use of Incentives 1 3
A score of 3.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. This reflected the analysis
and finding that KPS has attempted to make the HR department a strategic partner by
refocusing and redesigning the functional aspects of the department and align it with
the mission of the district. The intent was to set a clear vision for HR with high
level’s of accountability, establish priorities with respect to staffing, performance
evaluations and customer service with a laser like focus on school site principals in
order to develop instructional leadership and capacity. KPS had developed a strong
HR plan with respect to site administrators and executive leadership. Significant
efforts had been made invest in human capital to support improved student
achievement was evidenced by the KULSE program which included two highlighted
components: 1) performance standards evaluations, and 2) performance-based
compensation. The rating scores indicated a moderate level implementation of
medium quality reform strategy. Highly skilled personnel were hired and for reasons
discussed above, the actual transformation of the HR department had not taken place.
168
The scores indicated a moderate level implementation of a moderate quality reform
strategy.
Finance and Budget
Table 23 summarizes the pre- and post-quality rubric scores, the essence of
the difference between the pre- and post-quality scores as well as the action steps
taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of Finance and Budget.
Table 23: Rubric Scoring of Finance and Budget
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Finance and
Budget
1 3 From heavy involvement
in large capital projects to
spending priorities in
alignment with district
goals and objectives.
• Budget aligned to support district
priorities – focus on needs of
classrooms
• Implemented Excellence for All –
roadmap for improving student
achievement
• Efforts to address deficits and
improve long term solvency –
formula funding
• Pursued external funding
(foundations/business/grants)
In the past prior to the appointment of Dr. Rose, former Superintendents
(four) and the Board committed to large dollar capital projects. The budget was not
supportive of student achievement but was aligned to the district’s previous priorities
– facilities which led to the district’s financial straits. Despite the fact that the former
budgeting process was in compliance with state guidelines, financial disparities were
evident in that certain schools received more funding that others. Frequently it was
the “crown jewels” high achieving schools that received more funds while the low
socio-economic status (SES) schools with failing student achievement scores
169
received less. Status was rewarded. Due to a lack of alignment between spending
priorities and the needs of constituents resulted in a low pre-score on the rubric.
In sharp contrast, the current budget was aligned to the district’s top priority
– student achievement as described in the Strategic Plan – Excellence for All reform
agenda. This plan included measurable outcomes for the five “foundations for
success” and focused lesser on compliance and more on commitment to instruction.
When asked what was different about Dr. Rose’s approach to finance and budget, the
Chief Financial Officer (CIO) Mr. Thomas Michael and his staff responded:
We kicked off a series of large capital projects around the high schools and
elementary schools, that kind of cast in stone part of our financial future. I
think the current boss has really digested and become much more focused on
can we afford and what is the value that something adds. From the first day
of being here, he focused on what we had to do educationally.
Upon entering KPS Dr. Rose was faced with a district portfolio of school
buildings constructed for a student population of 70,000 that, a decade ago, was
substantially larger than today (30,000). Approximately six elementary schools in
KPS enrolled fewer that 200 students and many buildings were similarly below
capacity at middle-school and high school levels. In short, closing schools was
imperative. This particular issue presented Dr. Rose a unique opportunity at the onset
of his entrance to change the focus of the district and get the results the school board
hired him to do. His goal for improving student performance was to move the district
from marginally functioning to one of excellence.
Table 24 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and describes the initial
170
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of Finance and Budget.
Table 24: Addressing Change in Finance and Budget
Strengths Challenges
• Rich teacher – student ratio (14)
• Philanthropic base in the community
• Chief Financial Officer employed in district
for 13 years
• Minimal alignment between District goals and
spending priorities
• Continuing declining enrollment (10 years)
amid continued loss of jobs in Keystone
• Financial problems – large deficit. Past
practice-funds allocated to BIG capitol projects
Strategies
• Superintendent shifted focus of department to academics
• Created long term plan for facilities reduction, mergers, and renovations
• Established a performance-based budget process that was tied to District goals and objectives
• Transitioned away from investment in big and capitol projects to what is within budget
• Resource allocation and budget processes tightly aligned to District Master Plan
• Incoming Superintendent had strong background in understanding of political arena and used it to
secure foundation funding
To begin to address the financial deficits and ensure the best use of available
funds, the superintendent collaborated with Keystone’s Mayor’s Commission on
Public Education with the aim of providing information on student performance in
the KPS and organizational excellence. To support this work, he utilized a team of
elite experts from the Rand Corporation who analyzed data on student achievement
and other outcomes for students in the Keystone schools. The team interviewed a
variety of individuals involved in the operations of KPS and results indicated that
KPS has a resource allocation system that permitted substantial inequities in the
distribution of experienced full time teachers (FTE) and funds to schools. Like many
other districts, KPS allocated teacher slots independent of salary to each school site.
This practice over the years resulted in highly qualified teachers working in the more
affluent schools while the least experienced and least compensated teachers were
171
concentrated in schools with the highest proportion of children in poverty. Thus, the
district policy for budgeting staff to schools provided less funding to low-income
children who may be the most in need. Dr. Rose attempted to refocus the Finance
and Budget department as well as restructure HR services to address this particular
issue and worked specifically with the finance department and school board to
ameliorate the disparity.
To support the goals and initiatives of the Excellence for All reform agenda,
Dr. Rose and his financial team made a departure from big and capital projects to do
what was affordable and that which supported student learning. When considering
financial expenditures, the finance team considered what benefitted or added value
the expenditure would bring to KPS while maintaining a focus on student
achievement. The financial team adopted the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) model to use for long term planning and address facilities
reduction, mergers, and renovations. All expenditures were tightly aligned to the
District’s goals and objectives. The Board valued the importance of being informed
and this process occurred through finance committee meetings as well as through the
written vehicle of monthly financial reports. The finance team completed a three-
year forecast to keep the Board abreast of where the district has been and in what
direction it was headed.
Upon entry to the district the Superintendent capitalized on the opportunity to
take the unfortunate and negative situation of closing twenty-two schools and
eighteen buildings and turn it into a positive for KPS. He was able to take revenue
172
from the sales of schools to fund the newly created Accelerated Learning Academies
(ACA) grades K-8 through the process of reinvestment backing. He strategically
utilized the skills and expertise of Dr. Linda Moretti, Chief of Staff and External
Affairs, to accomplish this endeavor due to the fact she had previously worked with
the former Superintendent and the School Board on facilities management issues.
With respect to the Philanthropic base in the community, it was evident
through a review of documents that at one time KPS had enjoyed a strong
relationship with the philanthropic and business community in Keystone; however, it
had been destroyed by the contentious relationship between the KPS School Board
and district administration. Fortunately, the Superintendent’s strong background and
understanding of public administration afforded him the knowledge and expertise in
dealing with the business community while pursuing external funding sources. His
time and energy was well invested as he re-established prior relationships with the
foundation community, local businesses and elected community leaders. These
efforts began to assist in addressing the financial deficits while focusing on student
achievement. Mr. Mark Jacobs, Budget and Finance Director reflected:
He (Rose) is tremendous at raising resources from the foundations and
donors. The hallmark for him right now is the “The Keystone Promise”
(TKP), a pledge from the provider…the latest million dollar announcement
from a foundation that never gives that size of money away – they’re careful
who they give their money out to.
Unlike the former Superintendent’s involvement in the budgetary procedures,
Dr. Rose made him self available to collaborate with the financial team. They
proposed ideas to him based on comparisons of KPS data with similar districts in the
173
state. This process provided the impetus to consider where and when to cut programs
or redistribute funds to ensure that all funds were maximized. By being hands-on
Superintendent Rose had the ability to deflect some of the special interest
constituencies that wanted to defend their territory. This strategy was in direct
contrast to the process that was in place prior to Dr. Rose entering KPS. Mr. Jacobs
described their collaborative process:
I think we have a process in place that drives collaborative work with the
deputy superintendent and her cabinet and Dr. Rose …it is more closely
aligned than what we were under the previous administration. So what we
have done is become very bridged as opposed to budget and finance and
education.
Dr. Rose’s high visibility and willingness to tackle the bleak financial prospectus of
KPS helped to promote the district’s vision, mission as well as master plan, goals,
and objectives.
Each component of the Communications strategy was evaluated to assess
prior quality, current quality and level of implementation of KPS’s plan utilizing two
rubrics. Table 25 displays the ratings for previous quality, current quality, and the
average score for the overall level of implementation.
Table 25: Finance and Budget Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.0
Current Quality
3.0
Level of
Implementation
Strategic Budget Planning 1 5
3 Organizational Culture 1 3
Operational Procedures 1 5
174
A score of 3.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. While the District has
transitioned from heavy involvement in large capital projects to spending priorities
in alignment with district goals and objectives, it has yet to reach solvency as
desired. It has made great gains creating a budget aligned to support district
priorities and goals while focusing on the needs of classrooms. The implementation
of the Excellence for All plan has been made possible by the paradigm shift in
budgeting during the first two years of Dr. Rose’s tenure. The finance team has
made valiant effort to address deficits and improve long-term solvency utilizing a
formula funding system. The current plan is focused on the District level budgeting
processes and has limited reach in terms of decision-making and accountability at
the site level. These scores reflected a moderate level implementation of a
moderate-high quality reform strategy.
Communications
Table 26 summarizes the pre- and post-quality rubric scores, the essence of
the difference between the pre and post quality scores as well as the action steps
taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of communication.
175
Table 26: Rubric Scoring of Communications
House Elements Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Communication 1 4 From a communications
department that functioned
in reaction to situation(s) to
one described as proactive,
effective and efficient in
publicly furthering the KPS
message – all kids are
capable of learning.
• High visibility of
Superintendent upon entering
the district - spreading the
vision that all children are
capable of learning at high
levels
• Enlarged department to
increase capacity of efforts
created Media Relations
department
• Established guidelines and
protocols for working with
press – PD for all staff.
• City’s TV and radio stations
engaged in promoting the
district’s core beliefs
The Communications Manager, Mrs. Elizabeth Charles worked in what she
described as “a mostly reactive communications office that received minimal
funding and little value from district leadership” prior to the arrival of Dr. Rose. It
was her view that in the past, the communications department lacked the ability to
effectively communicate with the public for two reasons: 1) communications office
understaffed (two employees who were responsible for multiple areas), and 2) KPS
did not have a communications plan. Elizabeth reflected:
Frankly we were a smaller staff, and it was more difficult given that fact,
essentially there were two of us. There was a Director of Communications
and Marketing, and me, who did for the entire district Media Relations,
Communications, Special Events and the Website. So it was much more
difficult to campaign. I don’t think there was a serious grasp of how
important the need to communicate effectively and the need to get the good
news out kind of campaign and carry that out.
Mrs. Charles also identified several other challenges present at the time of
Rose’s arrival in August 2005. First and foremost was the lack of leadership in the
176
district, which Lynn characterized as “departments working in isolation and out of
touch with one another.” As a result, the understaffed communications office
operated without a consistent communication platform, faced language and cultural
hurdles without a plan to address them, and stakeholders were uninformed.
Furthermore, the community harbored a feeling of distrust and had the belief that the
district was not as transparent as it could be. These challenges resulted in a negative
reputation for KPS. The perception of KPS’s reputation was one described as
disjointed, haphazard, reactive, skeptical, and bureaucratic. It was Elizabeth’s view
that the district traditionally placed little value on the function of the
communications department and this made it virtually impossible to carry out the
critical task of letting the community know what the district was about. School sites
were left to disseminate information on their own with little if any support from the
communications office.
Table 27 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and described the initial
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of Communications.
177
Table 27: Addressing Change in Communications
Communications Strengths Challenges
• Communications office personnel open to new
direction
• Schools had their won way of conducting
“communication” business
• Lack of cohesion - departments working in
isolation
• Communications and media departments
understaffed
Strategies
• Superintendent placed high value on the communications department upon arrival
• Restructured and enlarged the communications department
• Utilized local and regional media forms to promote district’s goals and initiatives
• Training and protocols for administrators in dealing with the media
Dr. Rose’s past professional experiences as a public sector change agent
afforded him the opportunity to appreciate first hand the impact that the reform
strategy of communications could play in the reform process for KPS if used
effectively. Upon arrival, he immediately planned a media tour with the major print
outlets and the local news staff to announce his arrival as the new Superintendent “in
charge” and the send the message that a “New Day” filled with hope and promise
had arrived in Keystone. At the same time, an internal communications audit was
conducted and Dr. Rose quickly became aware of the need to restructure the function
of the communications department. He orchestrated the expansion of the department
to include management and support personnel for two distinct departments: 1) Media
relations, and 2) communications. He worked with his leadership team to develop a
clear vision for the communications department and was involved with the
development of the communications plan. His efforts to become transparent and
customer focused in order to change KPS’s negative reputation as well as create a
connection with the community were orchestrated through the two newly
178
restructured departments. Media relations focused on the local radio and television
stations while the communications department focused on the local and regional
press, creation of a website for KPS, district newspaper and other vehicles to share
his vision for KPS. His heavy experience in politics translated to strength in the
development of communications department while embracing a relationship with
media to engage the Keystone community while communicating the vision, mission,
and core values of the district. According to an interview with a panel of district
leaders on communication:
Past Superintendents have not been strong with media. In the past we had to
sort of sit and hold our breath when the Superintendent spoke because you
could never be totally comfortable with what was going to come out. Dr.
Rose as media savvy and is the driving force of all communications efforts.
Similarly, the Director of Media Relations, Mrs. Ebony Pugh added that Dr.
Rose “makes himself very accessible to the media, he has brought a high
level of energy and this part of the district is much more organized.”
The overall marketing and communications goals included the following: 1)
Attract, retain KPS families and students, 2) Improve the value of KPS reputation
and brand, 3) Increase the awareness and understanding of the Districts’ Excellence
for All reform agenda, and 4) Support strategic initiatives, programs and issues. To
support the communication of the district’s vision to key stakeholder groups,
guidelines for how to communicate were established for employees to use when
working with the media. In addition, all administration received protocols developed
for all press releases. Also executive and administrative personnel participated in
professional development opportunities to ensure the fidelity and implementation of
the guidelines and protocols. Mrs. Black described the process:
179
Principals now know to call communications before responding to media
calls – in the past, the media would just call the school principal for a
comment on the issue. Now we provide a service of responding to the report
for the principal. We help guide them on what that message should be and
how to stay on message when they’re dealing with reporters.
To foster the idea that district personnel build collective capacity to “tell the
story” concerning activities and events all schools were directed to submit all
communications - newsletters, flyers, and outgoing written information to the
communications office for pre-approval. This process was established to ensure the
caliber and effectiveness of the communications as well as ensure the connection to
the district’s Excellence for All agenda. Each site received templates embedded with
the district’s vision and goals to use to maintain the credibility of each message
disseminated to the KPS community.
The Keystone Educator, a professional publication published twice a year for
parents and families was established to inform the community of the district interests
and activities. By focusing all district communications (print, web, television) on the
district’s vision and goals located in the Excellence for All reform agenda, the
superintendent provided a clear vision and a means to promote district priorities,
programs and progress. Mrs. Charles described the process in place:
That’s our vision for the district, and everything that we send home should, in
some way, incorporate some language that ties back to here’s what we’re
doing for kids; here’s why we’re doing this; here’s why it’s important; and
here’s how it’s going to help us move forward toward reaching that vision of
excellence for all.
Each component of the Communications strategy was evaluated to assess
prior quality, current quality and level of implementation of KPS’s plan utilizing two
180
rubrics. Table 28 displays the ratings for previous quality, current quality, and the
average score for the overall level of implementation.
Table 28: Communications Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.0
Current Quality
4.1
Level of
Implementation
Communications Plan 1 5
3
Communications Office 1 5
Communication of District
Vision to the Community
1 5
Build Support for District
Initiatives
1 3
Two-way Communications
with Community
1 3
A score of 3.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 5 was provided for the level of implementation. The paradigm shift from a
communications office that functioned in a reactionary mode to the one currently in
place is credited to Dr. Rose’s proactive model and his ability to embrace the media
(radio and television) to further the KPS message which states all kids in Keystone
Public Schools are capable of learning. To support the endeavor of a positive
working relationship with KPS and the media and press, the communications
department was enlarged. The reorganization and up-leveling of the communications
department assisted with increased capacity of the team to develop guidelines and
protocols for all district employees when working with the press. All news releases
and such are funneled through the communications department to maintain
credibility and consistency. The Superintendent made him self accessible to the
media and his past professional experiences serve him well in this area. These scores
reflected a high level implementation of a moderate quality reform strategy.
181
Governance and Board Relations
Table 29 summarizes the pre- and post-quality rubric scores, the essence of
the difference between the pre- and post-quality scores as well as the action steps
taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of communication.
Table 29: Rubric Scoring of Governance and Board Relations
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Action Steps
Governance
and Board
Relations
1 3 From widely publicized
battles between the School
Board and Superintendent
to a working relationship
between the School Board
and the Superintendent.
• Board training provided with
support of the Broad
Foundation
• Attempts to engage the
community and parents
• Establishment of core beliefs
and shared goals
• Efforts to be transparent in all
decision-making
At the time of Dr. Rose’s appointment as Superintendent of Keystone Public
Schools, the district and community were out of touch with one another. The large
urban educational system was in a state of organizational disarray due to lack of
leadership from the administration and a history of contentious relations between the
Board and prior administration. Failure on the part of the administration to be
transparent with the Board resulted in the two being at odds and led to the Board
being surprised and feeling that the administration of KPS was very secretive. Lack
of open and effective communication between the two groups led to the practice of
critical decisions being made in response to a crisis while the external audiences of
KPS received mixed messages with respect to issues and concerns across the district.
As a collective group, the KPS Board was characterized as impatient and
micromanaging as the nine members were consumed with differing expectations
182
among themselves and their constituents as well as with the former Superintendent.
Disagreements at top of the organization undermined a district-wide focus on its core
academics and resulted in widely publicized battles played out at School Board
meetings. As a result of the battles, district personnel had doubts about the district’s
commitment to the superintendent’s initiatives. Furthermore, the poor confidence
levels of employees, lack of cohesion and culture of working in isolation made it
difficult for the organization to make progress towards improving student
achievement. In short, the district’s governance problems had real consequences in
the schools. The fact that the Board had terminated the prior Superintendent who was
African-American with three months left on his contract and the reality that KPS
Board did not have performance criteria nor an accountability plan for the prior
superintendent added to the challenges Dr. Rose would face upon entry. To
exacerbate the situation, the fractured and distrusting community wrought with racial
inequities presented another challenge for a non-traditional white Superintendent to
overcome.
Table 30 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and describes the initial
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of Governance and Board Relations.
183
Table 30: Addressing Change in Governance and Board Relations
Strengths Challenges
• Board and administration willing to work
together
• Widely publicized battles among Board
members
• Fractured and distrusting community over past
practices
• Micromanaging school Board with differing
expectations among its members and
constituents
• Financial problems – large deficit
• Leery of non-traditional leader
• Organizational disarray – lack of leadership
• Governance problems had consequences for
schools and academic achievement
Strategies
• Superintendent focused on establishing a working relationship with the Board
• Set focus for district on student achievement
• Reduce the Board’s involvement with management issues
• Addressed the Board’s internal hostilities
• Embraced the media (TV and ratio) to share the “New Day” has come
• Advocated School Board member trainings
• Establishment of performance criteria for Superintendent, executive leadership and district
administrators
Dr. Rose was selected by the Board following the termination of the former
Superintendent and a short tenure of an interim Superintendent. The Board was
assisted in the search process by two highly skilled individuals with respected
careers in public education that had personal knowledge of KPS. The President of
the Board stated in an interview:
It’s never easy choosing a Superintendent. Ted came in with the majority of
the board supporting him with a performance contract and with some goals
that the Board felt were important – one of which was to really get us into
financial shape and two was to increase achievement.
Knowing the history of KPS with respect to governance and board relations,
upon entry, Dr. Rose assumed his role and responsibility as the Superintendent to
develop, train and work with the Board. He began by setting a common vision and
engaging in behaviors that built trust, respect and support. He conducted many
184
meetings with individual Board members in order to establish strong and positive
working relationships with each individual as well as the collective group. To
support the focus on student achievement and educate the Board, during the meetings
Dr. Rose communicated key characteristics found in successful large urban schools
districts as a means of sharing where KPS needed to go. The Chief of Staff
commented in an interview:
I think Ted’s strategy with the Board is to ensure that the Board has a deep
understanding, and therefore commitment, to our reform effort. In order to
make that journey, we need to have everything, particularly the Board, on the
same page and as supportive as they can be.
The challenge for Dr. Rose was to have the Board understand the critical role they
each played in improving student achievement. He and the Board needed to
cooperate as a team to make the district organizationally sound for all kids to get a
good education. As they began to focus on policies to improve student achievement
and help students learn, a positive relationship began to develop between the
Superintendent and Board.
Fortunately, for Superintendent Rose a newly elected Board member was a
strong champion of good governance and had been elected on that platform. The new
member and the Board President became strong leaders for good governance and
rallied around the superintendent and his focus on developing a cooperative
superintendent-board relationship to be able to deal with issues that needed to be
addressed. Within the first year of Dr. Rose’s tenure, two of the three new Board
185
members on the nine-panel attended Urban School Leadership Foundation
governance training. Dr. Moretti reflects:
It made a complete difference, in their own relationships with each other as
new Board members, and in their passion for understanding the role that good
governance plays in terms of managing a school district, and as an
underpinning to any major reform effort...these two Board members became
fundamental supports of Dr. Rose, along with the Board President and several
other Board members.
Dr. Rose and his communications consultant ensured that each milestone was
communicated to the public. The team was quick to capitalize on each step of
progress and with each step the Superintendent and his team eagerly prepared press
conferences, press releases and articles for the media. These calculated and strategic
actions contributed to the hope and confidence of this new leader. Dr. Ted Rose
became very apparent throughout the community. His high visibility served the
district well in that the foundation community began to take interest once again in
KPS. Just after months as the Superintendent, Dr. Rose presented his key priorities
for foundation support to the foundation panel and met with success. Dr. Moretti
describes the response Dr. Rose received:
And they said they had never before been presented with an overall strategic
map of vision of the District and the kind of support the District would be
looking for from the foundation committees. And they said, “We will be
there for you.” Part of is was because they began to see that we had this
Board who had already reformed itself, by having a performance-based
contract with the Superintendent, that included how they were going to work
together. You know, you began to see a different demeanor, even among the
Board.
Dr. Moretti commented on the connection between the fractured and
distrusting community and race: “Race is a huge issue in Keystone. It seems to be
186
rooted in the history that the African-American community may not have been dealt
with as fairly as they should have been over the years.” It was the belief that the
African-American community of today believes that history has and will continue to
repeat itself. According to data, a disproportionate amount of poorer neighborhoods
have lower achievement and are African-American. In reality, KPS is made up of 94
neighborhoods which are racially divided and segregated with a minimal number
containing a diverse population. Most are primarily African-American and have low
socio-economic status (SES) and lower achievement in the schools. KPS
demographics indicate a lack of an African-American middle class. Therefore, the
work needed to be accomplished in KPS by the team (Superintendent-Board) was
virtually impossible due to the challenges of declining enrollment and the skepticism
in the African-American community due to issues of the past. The past practice of
investing in capital projects had left new facilities with dwindling enrollments in
neighborhoods where African-American families chose not to send their children.
Despite the difficulties the Superintendent and the Board have encountered
through the last the few years, it was a testament to Dr. Rose and his leadership and
support of the Board that they adopted Shared Goals, Core Beliefs and
Commitments. These goals, beliefs, and commitment statements illustrated their
unity and collective commitment to provide the best education possible for every
student by providing outstanding teachers, programs, and services to enable all
students to achieve their maximum potential as they become adults.
187
Each component of the Governance and Board Relations strategy was
evaluated to assess prior quality, current quality and level of implementation of
KPS’s plan utilizing two rubrics. Table 31 displays the ratings for previous quality,
current quality, and the average score for the overall level of implementation.
Table 31: Governance and Board Relations Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.0
Current Quality
3.4
Level of
Implementation
Setting the Direction for
the Community’s Schools
1 5
3
Establishing an Effective
and Efficient Structure for
the District
1 3
Providing Support and
Resources
1 5
Ensuring Accountability to
the Public
1 3
Actions as Community
Leaders
1 3
A score of 3.4 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. Based on data collected
during interviews of key personnel and a review of relevant documents, the
Superintendent worked to establish a good working relationship between the Board
and himself. Despite the progress that has been made, there was potential for the
Superintendent and Board to strengthen their relationship and become a cohesive
team focused on improving learning for all students. Historical challenges have
fostered a fractured and distrusting community wrought with racial inequities.
Nevertheless, sustained positive results for the students of KPS are possible if and
when the combined leadership team (superintendent and board) work together
188
toward shared goals. These scores reflected a moderate level implementation of a
moderate quality reform strategy.
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
Table 32 summarizes the pre- and post-quality rubric scores, the essence of
the difference between the pre- and post-quality scores as well as the action steps
taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of Labor Relations and
Contract Negotiations.
Table 32: Rubric Scoring of Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Labor
Relations
and Contract
Negotiations
1 3 From a system of Labor
Relations led from the top
and characterized with little
communication between
Superintendent and union.
• Established a partnership with
union and strong collaboration
• Selectively participated in
negotiations
• Focused on shoring up the
financial components of the
employment relationship
• Emphasized accountability for
leadership and tied evaluations to
student achievement - principals
As Superintendent Rose worked to bring unity and purpose to the district, he
deliberately fostered a collaborative working relationship with the district’s labor
union. With respect to the reform strategy of labor relations, the Superintendent
focused shoring up compensation issues as well as organizational effectiveness and
operational excellence.
As he entered KPS, Dr. Rose was faced with a seismic change in labor
relations due to the recent death of the president of teachers union. Since 1969 this
individual had been the president of the Keystone Federation of Teachers and
189
through the years he had established the reputation of renowned leader in labor
relations. For thirty-five years the process of contract negotiations was led from the
top, by a leader who was confident in terms of focus and direction. Executive
Director of Employee Relations and Organizational Development, Mrs. Courtney
Spellberg provides a description of the past contract negotiations:
A process that was led from the top, by a leader who was very confident in
terms of the direction that he wanted to take on the things, that he needed to
have to sell an agreement. That really was felt throughout every aspect of
labor relations here.
The untimely death of the president of the union led to a break down in labor
relations and contract negotiations.
Table 33 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and describes the initial
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of Labor Relations.
Table 33: Addressing Change in Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations
Strengths Challenges
• Former union leadership confident
• Negotiations process in place
• Prior to Superintendent’s arrival, longstanding
President (since 1969) passed away
• Lack of relationship between former
Superintendents and union leadership
• Negotiations led from the top leader who was
extremely confident in direction for KFT.
Strategies
• Established positive/collaborative relations with Keystone Teachers Union (KTU)
• Negotiate a new contract with KTU.
• Superintendent developed and implemented pay for performance accountability measure for site
administrators
• Focused work of teams on student achievement
190
Unlike former administration, Superintendent Rose focused on establishing a
positive and collaborative relationship with the leadership of the Keystone teachers
union during his early days of tenure. Working in partnership, the Superintendent
and union leadership were able to establish a positive relationship with ongoing
communication characterized by mutual respect. His greatest accomplishment
towards the middle of his first year was to successfully negotiate a new contract with
the union after having it voted down by membership shortly after he had arrived to
KPS. The fact that the contract had been voted down was contributed to the void left
by the former President of the union and the fact that there was not an heir apparent.
Teachers in the district were affected by the loss. To combat the effects of the great
loss of the union and the district, Dr. Rose, voiced his desire to establish a
partnership with union leadership by meeting one-on-one with the newly elected
President of the union, Mr. John James and met with the Union Executive Board
several times in order to foster and create a professional working relationships. In
addition, he met with Union leadership, district and site administration to research
ways to establish collaborative leadership structures in Keystone schools. By these
actions, Dr. Rose brought about the transition from a system of labor relations led
from the top and characterized with little communication to one with ongoing
communication between Superintendent and union leadership. Mrs. Spellberg
provided a comment on the change in labor relations:
Dr. Rose has brought a real desire to establish a partnership with the
Union…he is committed to having a strong collaborative relationship with
particularly the Federation. He has infused himself in ways that are perhaps
191
different from prior superintendents in that he has had a more ongoing
dialogue with the leadership of the Federation than prior superintendents did.
To accomplish the goal of a ratified contract, Dr. Rose attended part of the
negotiating sessions and met with the Executive Board multiple times focusing on
financial components. Teacher salaries were reviewed and up-leveled to begin to
reflect neighboring districts. Since his arrival Dr. Rose is credited with two
successful teacher contract negotiations and during this time he has continued to
maintain positive relationships with labor relations leaders as well a support grass
roots efforts to build relationships with the labor unions. Mrs. Spellberg commented
on activities that the district does to build relationships with labor unions, “We have
some grassroots efforts going on now where academic administrators meeting
regularly with union leadership to talk very informal, grassroots kind of level, issues
and concerns. I would say there’s a vibrancy to it that is new here.”
Dr. Rose was instrumental in establishing a pay-for-performance model for
site administrators with a clear focus on accountability. Although this model has not
been implemented for classroom teachers, Dr. Rose has sent a clear and consistent
message that student achievement is a district focus whether it is stated in the teacher
contract or not. The Executive Director of Employee Relations validates this point:
I think certainly there’s an air of accountability that is starting to grow within
the District. I don’t think that I can point to new provisions in the collective
bargaining agreement, necessarily. I think the sense that our mission is to
educate students and to raise academic achievement, as Ted often says, “you
use a laser beam to point at that.” And I think as a district, the focus on
student achievement has become much crisper, much cleaner.
192
In creating the negotiations team, Dr. Rose and the Employee Relations team
work collaboratively. Personnel from the finance department, executive leadership
and at times the Superintendent attend the table meetings. Through an outside labor
council a chief negotiator is secured by the District to serve as the chief
spokesperson. On specific occasions, teams of pertinent personnel are assembled to
meet and discuss particular issues and concerns in an ad hoc format prior to formal
negotiation meetings. This process allowed for the negotiation team to gather salient
information and proceed to the bargaining table with valid data with which to base
decisions.
In regards to labor relations, Superintendent Rose is credited with
establishing positive relationships with union leadership and working in a
collaborative manner while maintaining a focus on student achievement.
Each component of the Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations strategy
was evaluated to assess prior quality, current quality and level of implementation of
KPS’s plan utilizing two rubrics. Table 34 displays the ratings for previous quality,
current quality, and the average score for the overall level of implementation.
Table 34: Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.0
Current Quality
3.0
Level of
Implementation
Relationships,
Communications and Trust
1 3
3
Negotiation Principles and
Objectives
1 3
Strategies for Negotiation 1 3
Fair and Equitable Outcomes 1 3
193
A score of 3.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. The fifth goal of the
Superintendent’s Entry Plan focused on establishing positive and collaborative
relations with the union leadership as well as the negotiation of a contract for
teachers. These goals were accomplished. Although great gains have been made in
this area, based on the artifacts and interviews, a need existed to ensure that
bargaining goals and objectives were developed in relation to the importance of the
district mission and bargaining success. These scores reflected a moderate level
implementation of a moderate quality reform strategy.
Family and Community Engagement
Table 35 summarizes the pre- and post-quality rubric scores, the essence of
the difference between the pre- and post-quality scores as well as the action steps
taken by the Superintendent to implement the reform strategy of Family and
Community Engagement.
Table 35: Rubric Scoring of Family and Community Engagement
House
Elements
Quality
Pre
Quality
Post
Essence of the Difference
Between Pre and Post
Implementation
Strategies / Action Steps
Family and
Community
Engagement
1 3 From a fragmented
approach of Family and
Community Engagement to
a plan with clear goals and
objectives to include
families, community and
business members in the
life of KPS.
• Established Parent Community
Council to develop Family and
Community Engagement plan
• Built upon Parent Education and
Resource Centers
• Used communications and media
relations to build trust with
community
Prior to the arrival of the new Superintendent, leadership in the department of
Family and Community Engagement had served in the Keystone district for thirty-
194
five years as a classroom teacher and as the Director of Parent Engagement. While in
this position, she wore several hats and her responsibilities were many. Parent
engagement activities were district driven or top down with little input from parents
and the community. In the past, the primary vehicle used for engaging parents was in
the form of five Parent Resource Centers (PRC) located throughout the district.
Another vehicle for engaging parents was the annual district-wide parent meeting
held at one of the PRC’s or another venue. Parent ties were limited to one of the two
activities, and beyond that, there as no other planned outreach which resulted in
inconsistency with respect to parental involvement across the district. KPS lacked a
clear plan for communicating with parents effectively which left schools on their
own with limited resources to engage parents. Traditionally, the former system
leaders did not formally commit to attending these events.
When viewing parent-engagement at the school sites, historically, KPS had
pockets of excellence. It was common to see schools in Keystone’s more affluent
neighborhoods with strong parent engagement. Typically these parents had attended
college and now were highly involved in their children’s lives at school. On the other
hand, there were schools that didn’t have a functioning Parent-Teacher Organization
(PTO) or Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) and had little if any parent involvement.
It was not uncommon for these schools to have a handful of parents attend meetings
with a school population of 300 to 500 students. Overall, parent involvement varied
across the district depending on where the school was located.
195
Within eighteen months of the new Superintendent’s tenure the Director of
Parent Engagement retired which afforded Dr. Rose the opportunity to restructure
the department as well as hire personnel for newly created positions. The office of
Parent Engagement was divided into two branches; one to focus on family and
community engagement and another to work on district-wide parent and community
engagement initiatives. Restructuring the department to reflect two positions with
distinct responsibilities served as the foundation to fuel the transition from a
fragmented approach of parent engagement to a plan with clear goals and objectives
to include: diverse, ongoing, meaningful activities and opportunities designed to
engage parents and families throughout the school year, not only at their child’s
school, but in the district and home.
Table 36 presents the strengths and challenges at the time Dr. Rose assumed
the position of Superintendent in Keystone Public Schools and describes the initial
reform strategies implemented to improve student achievement with respect to the
strategy of Family and Community Relations.
196
Table 36: Addressing Change in Family and Community Relations
Strengths Challenges
• Some schools promoted events and encouraged
parental involvement
• Five Parent Resource Centers
• High parent involvement at affluent
neighborhoods
• Fragmented approach to parent engagement
• Little parent involvement at low SES
neighborhood schools
• 30% of school sites hosted parent
organizations
• Minimal communication and engagement
with the community
Strategies
• Superintendent provided the community a sense that there is a “New Day” in Keystone focused on
student achievement and placed value on parent and family engagement
• Personnel hired: Executive Director of Family and Community Engagement & Intern for Parent
and Community Engagement Initiatives
• Developed Family and Community Engagement Plan
• Established open lines of communication with community
• Focused on developing opportunities to engage disenfranchised community
• Superintendent hosted parent meetings every other month
The commitment of the Superintendent and school Board to parents and the
community were outlined in the document entitled, “Parent and Family Engagement
Guide.” It discussed parent and family involvement opportunities, what parents can
expect from the District, as well as shared responsibilities. In addition, the Guide
outlined the Parent and Family Involvement Policy that clarified the role of all
stakeholders, from the District, to schools, to parents and families, in the learning
environment. The Guide was drafted by a group of individuals which represented all
stakeholder groups (focus groups) and Dr. Rose was instrumental in the launching of
this endeavor. The advent of new leadership in the family and community
engagement department assisted in the development, implementation, and
monitoring of progress of the goals and initiatives delineated in this document. This
project assisted in the process of fostering seamless lines of communication between
the District and home.
197
During the interview, the staff indicated that their charge from the
Superintendent was to move from pockets of excellence to a more systemic way to
reach parents and foster parental involvement. Under the direction of the
Superintendent and in collaboration with other key staff in the district, the family and
community engagement staff developed a communications framework to provide
direction and focus. Mr. Bradley Morris, Foundation Resident for Family and
Community Engagement Initiatives describes the communication endeavors:
The Keystone Pledge is a communication vehicle that creates a standard and
an expectation that says, here’s what a student is expected to do. Here’s what
we expect as community members. Here’s what we expect as staff. Secondly,
the Welcome Back to School Program was a huge initiative…really a mass
communication to all 17,000 to 18,000 families in the district to communicate
with them about, here are our policies. Here’s a code of student conduct.
Here are some things you should know about your school.
To support these endeavors, personnel in the family and community engagement
department collaborated with members of the communications and marketing
departments. In addition to the district-wide efforts, school level meetings were held
one time a month to cover pertinent topics and garner input from parents and
community members.
Positive comments for the leadership and support of Dr. Rose were expressed
during the interview with the family and community engagement panel. The staff
indicated that the Superintendent capitalized upon the strengths of parent
engagement which were minimal but included 30% of schools that promoted events
and encouraged parental involvement via PTO/PTA, five Parent Resource Centers
(PRC), Parent School Community Council (PSCC) and high parent involvement in
198
the affluent neighborhoods. To support the existing strengths and extend their use
across the district, the Superintendent dedicated two hours every other month to
speak at parent meetings held at Parent Resource Centers and school sites. Questions
for discussion were sent to the department of family and community engagement by
parents via email, parent phone hot-line (newly installed), and letter or note. The
Director of Family and Community Engagement described Dr. Roses’ commitment:
“That’s a solid commitment blocked out on the schedule form the beginning of the
year that he’s going to meet with parents across the district.” In addition to time, Dr.
Rose has demonstrated support by acquiring resources for initiatives by working
with the Keystone foundation community. For example, 100% of the funds were
donated by the foundation community to support the Welcome Back to School
Program. Additionally, he has helped to coordinate the logistics and operations of the
production and mailing related to the Welcome Back to School Program with
pertinent district office leadership and department staff.
Since the arrival of Dr. Rose, the family and community engagement team
have partnered with the Harvard Family Research Project on the topic of parent-
teacher conferences. Focus groups and workshops have been conducted to articulate
best practices with respect to parent-teacher conferences. In order to establish a
baseline, parents were asked to complete a survey to glean how satisfied parents
were with the conference, the duration of the conference, and response rate of
conferences.
199
Since assuming leadership of the Keystone Public Schools in 2006, Dr. Rose
has consistently communicated a vision with the community that voiced the five core
beliefs, including “Together We Can Be the Change.” His effective use of the reform
strategy family and community engagement has been instrumental in developing the
Parent School Community Council to engage and include a large segment of the
population that felt disenfranchised if not slighted due to past reform efforts. Many
of the schools that were closed in the past were located in certain communities that
already felt that they had received unfair treatment. According to family and
community personnel interviewed the volunteer level at the school is a direct
reflection of the status of the parent involvement at the site. A staff member shared,
“I believe the Superintendent believes that the only way to really dig in to get
families that aren’t being active is for other parents to be ambassadors, for the
school, to bring other parents.” Another staff member added:
One of the goals that Ted has is really to start to codify some of the work at
the higher level into what does that mean for communities, our lower income
communities that don’t have the parent involvement. How do you train them
to be advocates for their children? That’s Ted’s, one of his passions.
In response to these issues and concerns, two or three parents from low involvement
schools were provided opportunities to participate in training with a focus on parents
as: 1) partners, 2) teachers, 3) supporters, and 4) learners. At the same time, the
training process included the topics of recruitment and training of other key parents.
The Executive Director of Family and Community Engagement was directly
working with identified parents. The process consisted of cultivating parents on a
200
one-by-one basis while providing opportunities for growth and personal development
with respect to their family and support for academic excellence. The Executive
Director had scheduled meetings at different outreach locations from churches to
housing projects as well as community centers. By reaching outside the school to
engage parents that won’t or can’t come to school for various reasons, Keystone
provided strategic opportunities for parents to participate in an alternative setting to
focus on building their capacity to support them in their endeavor to successfully
advocate for their child. A staff member added, “Hopefully over a period of time,
they’ll feel comfortable enough and strong enough to walk into the building and have
a conversation with the teacher or principal.”
Each component of the Family and Community Engagement strategy was
evaluated to assess prior quality, current quality and level of implementation of
KPS’s plan utilizing two rubrics. Table 37 displays the ratings for previous quality,
current quality, and the average score for the overall level of implementation.
Table 37: Family and Community Engagement Rating by Rubric Component
Rubric Components
Previous Quality
1.1
Current Quality
3.0
Level of
Implementation
Parenting 1 3
3
Communication 1 3
Volunteerism 1 3
Learning at Home 1 1
Decision Making 1 3
Collaboration with the
Community
2 5
A score of 3.0 was given for the quality of the current reform strategy and a
score of 3 was provided for the level of implementation. The Excellence for All plan
201
clearly placed a high priority on the reform strategy of Family and Community
Engagement. The Parent and Family Involvement Policy plan served as the guiding
force of parent involvement initiatives. The newly developed plan and processes
were a vast improvement upon the previous approach described as a “fragmented”
approach. Several actions assisted in the transition such as the support from the
Superintendent, new leadership in the department, and commitment of district
personnel to look honestly at the strengths and weaknesses of KPS and develop a
clear plan of just how to address them. The District continued to battle the
socioeconomic issues and the perception of racial inequalities which presented
barriers for the reform strategy of family and community engagement. With time,
perseverance, and the “right” personnel leading the charge of family and community
engagement, success will be seen. These scores reflected a moderate level
implementation of a moderate quality reform strategy.
Other House Model Elements
In addition to the ten key reform strategies, Dr. Rose’s plan for systemic
reform in KPS included additional strategies which were outside of those identified
by the Urban School Leadership Foundation and detailed in Chapter 3. The elements
are briefly described and key aspects of the reform strategy are emphasized below.
Each reform strategy was evaluated using the Levels of Implementation Rubric
(Appendix E) and given a score of 1 (low), 3 (medium) or 5 (high), representing the
level of progress the Superintendent has made with regard to full implementation of
each reform strategy.
202
Plan of Entry
Dr. Rose developed and implemented a plan of entry which included two
major sections. The first consisted of Relationship Building with respect to the Board
and the Superintendent, Foundation Community, legislative delegation/executive
branch, teachers union, City and County officials. The second consisted of District
Capacity and Finances with respect to the evaluation of the central office,
development of long term plan for facilities, proposal for better recruitment and
training of site administrators, evaluation of district curriculum and data systems,
balanced budget, and the crafting of the Reform Agenda. The efforts of the
superintendent to implement a plan of entry as a reform strategy geared towards
raising student achievement were rated a 5 (high).
Organizational Assessment and Audits
Following his arrival in KPS, Superintendent Rose used audits to glean
salient information with respect to the functioning of the organization. The use of
RAND research reports – Assessing the Performance of Public Schools in Keystone
as well as others were utilized to document the status of the organization and provide
guidance in developing goals and objectives focusing on the strengths and challenges
of the district. Results of KPS Year 1RAND audit mirrored those documented in
other school-districts in reform. The efforts of the superintendent to implement
organizational assessment and audits as a reform strategy were rated a 5 (high).
203
Leadership Team Effectiveness
Leadership team reorganization took place during the first year of the
Superintendent Rose which resulted in the movement of key personnel from one
department to another with the intent of the matching skill and expertise with the
appropriate position to maximize all personnel. In his second year, the Chief of
Technology and Chief of Human Resources were hired. Leadership Team
assignments and responsibilities were tied to district’s goals and initiatives as well as
focused on results. KPS utilized the Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS) to
review and evaluate the district’s operations and business services. Results prompted
the reorganization of Finance and Budget Functions. The efforts of the
Superintendent to implement systemic reform to enhance leadership team
effectiveness were rated a 3 (medium).
Standards
Academic content standards were developed at the State level and these
standards were supported by well-aligned textbooks and benchmark assessments and
KPS created high-quality pacing guides to support standards-based instruction. The
efforts of the Superintendent to implement standards as a reform strategy,
particularly as it applies to implementing standards-based instruction, were rated a 5
(high).
Instruction
The district Performance Priority 1: Implementing Our Plan of Excellence for
All provided a comprehensive framework to increase student achievement by
204
improving classroom teaching across the district through a managed instruction
approach (consistent curriculum, proven pedagogy, assessment and data use,
accountability structure). KULSE – Keystone Urban Leadership System for
Excellence is the district’s comprehensive accountability system to recruit, train,
support, evaluate, improve, and compensate principals in order to enable their
success toward the academic achievement and growth of students focused on
excellent instruction. There are six core components:
1. Keystone Emerging Leadership Academy (KELA) part of KULSE.
Funded with assistance of a $1.9 million grant from the Broad
Foundation, along with District funds, to recruit, train, support, and place
highly-qualified principals throughout the district who can serve as
change agents and instructional leaders. Aspiring principals complete a
year long residency alongside Mentor Principals.
2. Administrative Induction Program – KULSE provides support for new
principals through a focused two-year Administrative Induction Program.
During first year, novice principals receive training on District policies
and procedures. During second year, principals continue to receive
coaching support from executive directors and mentoring principals.
3. Leadership Academy provides extensive and ongoing professional
development to principals, assistant principals, and District
administrators. All professional development is aligned to the
performance standards and addressed the development of school
205
improvement plans, use of data to improve school achievement, and
curriculum/instructional initiatives.
4. Executive Director Mentoring and Training is a critical component to
KULSE. Executive directors provide support and coaching to principals
in order to improve school leaders’ performance. All directors have
credentials and certification to supervise principals. They spend 60% of
their time or three days a week in schools.
5. Performance-based Evaluation – the foundation of KULSE is a
performance standards evaluation rubric which was developed by
adapting leading research and studies into a school leadership rubric. It
contains seven standards: vision of learning, culture of teaching and
learning, management of learning, relationship with broader community,
integrity, political, social economic, legal and cultural context, and
leadership of learning. The rubric is designed to evaluate performance on
four levels: rudimentary, emerging, proficient, and accomplished.
Principals are evaluated two times a year (mid and end).
6. Performance-based Compensation is a groundbreaking measurement of
accountability of principals through research-based performance
evaluation standards and student achievement connected to principal
compensation. Principals can receive a performance increment of up to
$2,000 annually if assessed as proficient across the seven performance
standards and 27 components of practice in the performance evaluation
206
rubric, or if evaluated as satisfactory in completing the professional
growth project. The performance increment becomes part of the
principals’ base salary and an achievement bonus of up to $10,000 can be
earned annually based on demonstrated growth in student achievement.
The efforts of the Superintendent to implement instructional reform as a strategy to
drive student achievement gains was rated a 3 (medium).
Program Effectiveness
Dr. Rose attempted to establish a data-driven culture to emphasize the
meaning of accountability at all levels. To support this endeavor he utilized
organizational assessments and audits to support and evaluate programs effectiveness
in his early days. To support the efforts of accountability across the district,
personnel designed an infrastructure system for assessment data collection,
management and reporting of curriculum, and professional development and
assessment initiatives progress. All mandated plans were consolidated into one
document to align all goals and initiatives of the Board and the district’s six
priorities. The efforts of the superintendent to implement program effectiveness as a
reform strategy was rated a 3 (medium).
Focus on Lowest Performers
KPS’s work with Institute for Learning (IFL) focused on best K-12 practices
supported the implementation of differentiated instruction in all classrooms to
support struggling learners. Performance Priority 6: Improving Our Capacity to Do
the Work included the Keystone Urban Leadership System for Excellence (KULSE)
207
– comprehensive system to recruit, train, evaluate and support site administrators
which delineated a performance-based compensation plan. Overall, the program
based on results and is intended to focus on the lowest performing students in the
district. To support the Focus on Results initiative, the district pursued a grant from
the Cincinnati based Ruth & Lovett Peters Foundation. The efforts of the
Superintendent to refocus the work of the District toward supporting the lowest
performers, particularly as a reform strategy to improve student achievement and
close achievement gaps were rated a 3 (medium).
Student Support Services
Academic after school and summer program opportunities available to
students performing below state and KPS standards were rated a 3 (medium).
Resource Alignment
The superintendent and staff shifted the paradigm of the district with respect
to resource allocation. Today, the focus is on academics and the budget has been
aligned to support district priorities - needs of the classrooms. The Strategic Plan
Performance Priority 4: Reorganize Finance and Budget Functions included a plan to
address the deficit and improve long term solvency. Audit reports indicated that KPS
must flatten the administrative structure, realign divisions, and create new positions.
As a result of these efforts, new hires consisted of Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Information Officer to support this endeavor. In addition, a needs-based formula
funding model was implemented to support efforts to reallocate district resources to
schools with the highest populations of struggling students to ameliorate the inequity
208
issues from the past to underserved populations – especially the African-American
communities. The efforts of the Superintendent to implement resource alignment as a
reform strategy were rated a 3 (medium).
Facilities
The “Rightsizing” Plan consisting of the closure of 22 schools and 18
buildings at the onset of the Superintendents’ entrance garnered him the support to
reorganize and implement Accelerated Learning Academies (ALA) at grade 8 to
create smaller learning situations. By doing this, sites were provided with time to
collaborate, review data and student work samples, and focus on teaching and
learning. More recently, June 24, 2008, the highly publicized sale of the most
prestigious high school in KPS garnered $80 million plus. Funds were used to
support the district goals and objectives and address the financial deficit. The efforts
of the superintendent to implement facilities-related reform strategies to drive
student achievement were rated a 3 (medium).
Performance Management Systems / Accountability Plan
The KPS Master Plan utilized data in decision-making by the superintendent
and school Board as well as the goals and evaluations of site administrators. Today
the administrative team (executive and site) in KPS has student performance goals
built into their annual performance evaluations. Principal evaluations include student
achievement data and the implementation of teacher pay-for-performance is in the
works – process of plan development. The efforts of the Superintendent to
209
implement a performance management system and accountability plan as a reform
strategies was rated a 3 (medium).
Political Relationships
Superintendent Rose collaborated with the Mayor of Keystone and other
local, county and state political figures to forward district goals and initiatives. He
established a strong working relationship with the public and private representatives
who participated in the collaboration process in creating and establishing the “The
Keystone Promise” (TKP) which provided identified students with funding for
college. For many of these students, their respective families could not support this
endeavor. The efforts of the Superintendent to leverage political relationships as a
component of his overall reform strategy was rated a 3 (medium).
Philanthropic and Institutional Partnerships
Dr. Rose has been viewed as extremely successful in the area of
Philanthropic and Institutional Partnerships. During his first year in KPS, Dr. Rose
focused on re-establishing prior relationships with the community foundations, local
and regional institutions and the business community. His ability to successfully
accomplish this endeavor gained him favor by the Board and the community at large.
He has been applauded for his accomplishments in this area by the community at the
local and state levels. The efforts of the Superintendent to leverage philanthropic and
institutional partnerships to support district reform strategies tied to improving
student academic achievement were rated a 5 (high).
210
Constituent Service
Dr Rose and his leadership team are credited with the establishment of the
Parent phone hot-line and the link on KPS website to support the paradigm shift to
customer service in order to provide constituent service. Town–hall/ parent meetings
were conducted on a regular basis in order to glean constituent input and share the
progress of the efforts toward academic achievement for all – “Together, We Can Be
The Change.” Built upon the concept of the pre-existing parent education plan,
additional resource centers have been instituted throughout the district. The
Excellence for All plan clearly delineates the Family and Community Engagement
plan for the district to foster and support sharing the news. The Communications
department supported this endeavor with use of media (radio and TV). The school
Board shared the responsibility with Dr. Rose for students and families by
developing core beliefs, a vision with supporting Board policy statements to improve
the overall public confidence in the district, and the vision for developing a strong
parent and community engagement program. The efforts of the superintendent to
implement constituent services as a reform strategy were rated a 3 (medium).
Sustainability
Results of audits and evaluations indicated a need for KPS – increased
capacity and a “sense of urgency” in order to reach proposed goals. KPS has
attempted to do the following: 1) deepen the use of data tools through professional
development; 2) build a strong foundation of differentiated instruction; 3) enhance
the utilization and expertise of site coaches; 4) broaden and deepen instructional
211
leadership; 5) protect time of coaches and teachers; 6) provide school-based
professional collaboration – transfer of knowledge and skills; and 7) ensure that all
stakeholders understand that strategic plan – Excellence for All is a coherent strategy
and its components are mutually reinforcing. The efforts of the superintendent to
implement sustainability as a reform strategy were rated a 3 (medium).
Superintendent’s Contract
The Superintendent’s initial contract was a three-year agreement with
specific terms and conditions for employment under which the Superintendent would
serve and under which the Board and Superintendent agreed to improve the quality
of the Districts’ overall educational program. More recently, the Board approved
extending Superintendent Rose’s contract maintaining the same performance based
compensation schedule as the original agreement. “School districts that make
progress have an ambitious agenda and consistent leadership,” said Board President
Mr. Bill Oliver. “We currently have an ambitious plan for improving academic
achievement in Excellence for All. Superintendent Rose has demonstrated his
commitment to providing leadership necessary for change in Keystone Public
Schools,” stated Jazelle Maggiano, Board Committee Chair of Negotiations. “The
contract extension allows all of us to focus on the hard work we need to do together
to move student achievement and improve our financial future.” The efforts of the
superintendent to leverage his contract as a strategy to drive reform were rated a 5
(high).
212
Discussion
The findings presented in this study were developed and presented by
reviewing the data collected in the context of the conceptual framework of the House
Model. The purpose of this section was to make sense of the findings after careful
analysis of the data in order to provide purpose and meaning to the actions under
study.
Today’s large urban school district leaders face more difficult and complex
issues then did their predecessors in the late 20
th
century. Federal and state laws now
demand that Keystone Public Schools bring all of their students to higher levels of
achievement. The federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires all schools and
districts to meet the same standards of performance (as established by state) in terms
of achievement scores, attendance and graduation rates. Urban school systems and
system leaders are attempting to finds ways to successfully address these issues in
order to improve student achievement. While there is extensive literature on high-
performing schools, researchers have only recently begun to examine what
distinguished school districts do to systematically achieve higher performance across
their schools. This research is not yet sufficiently developed to definitely associate
operational characteristics of districts with improvements in student achievement,
but qualitative work on high-performing districts is beginning to identify
characteristics that are likely to lead to higher performance (Snipes, Doolittle, &
Herlihy, 2002; Elmore, 2000; Resnick & Glennan, 2001; School Communities that
Work, 2002). These characteristics include the following:
213
1. A top-to-bottom organizational focus on student achievement, supported
by a consistent and continuous message from the superintendent and
board;
2. The rigorous use of achievement data to inform instructional, staff, and
programmatic decisions by teachers, principals, and central office staff;
3. Systems to hire, develop, and retain effective teachers and principals in
all schools;
4. The full engagement of families and the larger community in promoting
achievement.
Specifically, in KPS, Superintendent Rose’s efforts to implement change in
Keystone Public Schools mirror those characteristics likely to lead to higher
performance.
Systemic Reform
In assessing Keystone Public Schools, it is clear that the following model
exemplifies the cycle of change that took place in KPS under the direction of Dr.
Rose. This model is consistent with the cycle of change utilized in the Phase I study
conducted by Dr. Marsh and Dr. Castruita which focused on two school districts to
identify and understand the reform strategies implemented by superintendents to
improve student achievement in their respective districts. Similarly, upon entry Dr.
Rose conducted an analysis of the Keystone Public Schools identifying strengths and
challenges in order to deepen his understanding of the actual state of affairs and
based upon those results selected and implemented specific reform strategies to
214
begin the process of systemic reform and ultimately improve student academic
achievement. The implementation of various strategic reform strategies inspired
gains in student achievement, which then drove the reassessment of new strengths
and challenges in KPS. The following model illustrates the cycle of change that took
place in Keystone.
Figure 6: Cycle of Change
Based on Dr. Rose’s understanding of the people, programs, policies,
problems and potential opportunities, he understood that progress would include
many factors and would require a “change” in how business was conducted KPS, a
district steeped in tradition and wrought with dysfunction. Keystone Public Schools
had few if any strength and exhibited a plethora of challenges at the time Dr. Rose
became the superintendent. To immediately begin to ameliorate the organizational
Selection and
Implementation
of Reform
Strategies
Gains in
Student
Achievement
Analysis of
Strengths and
Challenges in
the District
215
disarray, Dr. Rose began to foster a belief that a “New Day” in KPS had arrived, the
need to change was imminent, and most importantly he provided the vision for what
changes should take place and how all those within and outside the organization
would benefit. His actions upon entry were intent on the goal of providing KPS with
a top-to-bottom organizational focus on student achievement fully supported by the
Superintendent and Board.
Organizational assessments and auditing processes were used to support the
endeavor of overall organizational improvement and focus support to the school sites
(MacIver & Farley, 2003); reversing the way business had been done and setting a
new direction for the district. Results were used to support the development of the
Strategic Plan and a Theory of Action which mirrored those documented in other
school districts in reform. A critical component that supported reform was evidenced
in Dr. Rose’s reorganization of his leadership team. Strategic personnel moves as
well as new hires took place to get the most qualified in positions of leadership.
Skills and strengths of individuals were matched to the specific criteria necessary for
the position. Dr. Rose was intent on getting the right people hired so that district
leadership could effectively address specific responsibilities which, in turn, would
have a positive impact on student achievement (Waters & Marzano, 2006). To
further enhance the effectiveness of the leadership team and strengthen the top-to
bottom organizational focus, roles and responsibilities of the leadership team
members were strategically tied to district’s goals and initiatives and results of
success were based on data.
216
Dr. Roses’ Entry Plan demonstrated a clear understanding of the change
process while considering the unique strengths and challenges existing in KPS and
placed focus on those organizational structures inhibiting progress in Keystone. His
focus on relationship building with the Board, foundation community, teachers
union, and city officials was his first step in bringing the district and community
together which began to address the past history of KPS and the community being
out of touch with one another. Knowing that he was hired to improve student
achievement, Dr. Rose focused on developing a working relationship to instill a team
effort between himself and the Board to ensure consistent views about student
achievement while making the district organizationally sound for all kids to
participate in a good education. He facilitated a retreat to discuss the board –
superintendent relationship as well as their roles and responsibilities to reduce the
Board’s micromanaging history. In addition, the Superintendent’s Entry Plan
included strategies and activities to refocus the district’s budget to support student
achievement and activities to begin to create a long-term plan for facilities reduction,
a balanced budget, and transition away from capital projects to what was affordable
and that which supported student learning. His Entry Plan marked the beginning of
the practice in KPS of considering what benefit or added value the expenditure
would bring to the district while maintaining a focus on student achievement. His
vision of all students achieving at higher levels and his belief that school districts and
he the system leader possessed the power to bring about systemic reform were
embedded in his Entry Plan and considered the strengths and challenges of the KPS
217
in order to maximize the potential for change (Anderson, 3002; Institute for
Educational Leadership, 2006; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003).
At the same time he spent time and energy in selecting strategies to address
the need for enhancing district capacity by crafting an initiative for better recruitment
and training of site administrators, the evaluation of the central office personnel and
processes, and the evaluation of district curriculum and data systems all based on the
assessment of strengths and challenges in KPS upon entry. He immediately began to
meet with individual principals at their school sites to discuss student achievement
data and what processes were in place to train and support teachers on data usage. He
worked with several foundations to conduct a curriculum audit, evaluate student
achievement data systems to intervene in low- performing schools.
In attempting to create a vision, policies, and organizational structures for
reform in KPS and after only three months in office, Dr. Rose proposed a plan to
save the district millions of dollars while also raising student achievement. He aimed
to reorganize the district services, programs and positions, closing twenty-two low-
performing and eighteen buildings left vacant due to declining enrollment. Students
from the low-performing schools were redirected to higher performing schools, or to
new Accelerated Learning Academies (ACA) grades K-8 based on proven-effective
teaching methods. The reinvestment of revenues gained in the sales would be used to
fund the initiatives listed in the proposal. In a few months the superintendent worked
to adapt the structure of the district to align with the new vision and goals while
establishing coherence between those goals and objectives and the activities in which
218
all departments of the District engaged, as depicted in the research of Appelbaum et
al., 1998; Fullan et al., 2004; Childress et al., 2006; and Laboratory for Student
Success, 2002.
According to Fullan et al. (2004) coherence in the organization occurs when
“the elements of a school district work together in an integrated way to implement an
articulate strategy.” Their work identified five organizational elements that must
work in an integrated way if articulated goals are to be achieved which include:
culture, structures and systems, resources, stakeholders, and environment.
Figure 7: System Coherence Model
Stakeholders
Culture
Resources
Structures and
Systems
Environment
System Coherence
Superintendent
Leadership
219
One example of Dr. Rose drive for coherence is found in his work with school
site principals through the development and implementation of Keystone Urban
Leadership System for Excellence (KULSE) project. Superintendent Rose refocused
their role from managing a building to that of instructional leader based on the
mounting evidence that demonstrates how strong, trained school leaders are critical
to raising student achievement. The act of redefining the principals’ role and focus
has had an impact on changing the culture of the organization to one that is focused
on accountability and results stemming from his belief that leadership development
should be a core capacity in KPS’s strategic plan. The seven standards included in
the KULSE performance- standards rubric are focused on teaching and learning
which serve as an example of Dr. Rose’s commitment to building human capital by
investing time, energy and money in site principals and others involved in the
KULSE project. The seven standards cover a number of topics:
1. The Vision of Learning – the principal promotes the success of all students
by facilitating the development, articulation implementation and stewardship
of the vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school
community.
2. The Culture of Teaching and Learning – the principal promotes the success
of all students by advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture and
instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional
growth.
220
3. The Management of Learning – the principal promotes the success of all
students by ensuring management of the organization, operations and
resources for a safe, efficient and effective learning environment.
4. Relationship with roader Community – the principal promotes the success of
all students by collaborating with families and community members,
responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing
community resources.
5. Integrity, Fairness and Ethics in Learning – the principal promotes the
success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical
manner.
6. The Political, Social, Economic, Legal and Cultural Context – the principal
promotes success of all students by understanding, responding to and
influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural context.
7. The Leadership of Learning – the principal promotes the success of all
students by engaging school staff in decision-making at the school level and
expanding leadership skills at the district, community, state and national
levels.
221
Figure 8: Performance Standards Rubric
To assist in supporting principals, the district office was restructured to allow
executive leadership to devote time and energy in serving as mentors/coaches to the
principals. In addition, they support their mentees by regularly visiting school sites to
provide support and guidance while building the capacity of principals. Participants
(principals and executive leadership) now have standards to provide guidance for
discussions and raise the level of awareness of good practice for all administration in
KPS. The standards are also part of the pay-for-performance option that has replaced
222
annual raises for the principals. In this option principals are evaluated on students’
test scores and have the opportunity to receive bonuses up to $10,000 as well as
receive another $2,000 for meeting the evaluation standards. The underpinning of the
KULSE project is coaching and all principals receive support from trained coaches
(executive leadership) who ensure visits are meaningful and focused on their specific
needs. At the same time, coaches support executive leaders who serve as coaches to
the principals to ensure their focus is on schools and not central office bureaucracy.
The goal of building internal capacity and developing school leaders who are
effective instructional leaders has been at the center of Dr. Roses’ reform efforts in
KPS since assuming his position. An outcome of Dr. Roses’ efforts to develop and
implement a comprehensive system to hire, develop, support, evaluate, improve and
compensate principals in all schools has resulted in the Keystone Urban Leadership
System for Excellence which has become a part of the culture of Keystone and
reflects the researched practice of Elmore (2006) which defines leadership as the
practice of improvement – building capacity. Effective school leaders must have the
capacity to improve the quality of instructional practice in every classroom. The
KULSE project in KPS reflects the research of the Institute for Education Leadership
(2006) which describes good practice occurs when each individual has developed the
professional capacity in order to play their particular role in supporting systemic
reform and, by extension, promotes efforts to improve student achievement.
Another example of Dr. Rose’s efforts to create a system of coherence is
found in his ability to use data to substantiate proposed initiatives. Prior to entry, Dr.
223
Rose set the example of using data and performance for evaluation measures by
tying his evaluation to performance criteria and his ability to deliver the results as
stated during his interviews. This very action set the foundation for the ensuing
development of a theory of action which included a comprehensive plan tied to data.
The result of his efforts of tying data to evaluation measures is clearly seen in the
Excellence for All - strategic plan for KPS which tied all reform initiatives to
measurable student performance benchmarks. His ability to leverage the results of
external audits to assess district needs in all areas and successfully coordinate efforts
to develop and implement a plan which included all stakeholders is a testament to his
years in public service and government. For example, his three-year effort to craft
legislation in terms of how difficult it can be to move the status quo forward and in
terms of the skills required can be likened to that of leading a school district and how
difficult it can be to bring about change.
His ability to provide leadership to change the organizational structures in
Keystone and identify and implement strategies for reform clearly demonstrate his
resolve in creating a system of coherence while addressing all stakeholders, the
culture, the resources, the environment inside and outside of Keystone Public
Schools. His deliberate actions provided a course of action for KPS to begin to focus
on student achievement and exemplify his vision, passion, commitment, character,
influence, judgment, and ability to inspire others.
To further demonstrate his leadership and drive for coherence in KPS, Dr.
Rose addressed the lack of public confidence. This may have been the most
224
significant issue facing Superintendent Rose upon entry. There was a loss of faith in
many quarters that the system was reparable – a growing fear of what was wrong
with Keystone Public Schools was overwhelming. Through public meetings held by
Dr. Rose during his first year, individuals were provided the opportunity to publicly
share their commitment to the school system and specifically to Keystone, from
which many of them graduated and many of their children attended. However, they
also shared that they were increasingly convinced that the battle was already lost.
There seemed to be a pervasive feeling of pessimism and frustration.
Therefore, Dr. Rose deemed his number one objective during his first year
was to give the people of Keystone the hope that the system was indeed repairable
and that he knew how to make the repairs necessary. His actions and
accomplishments to date with respect to the selection and implementation of the
reform strategies attest to his achievement in gaining and restoring to some degree a
level of public confidence in that KPS knows were it is going and that it has the will,
skills, and dedication to do the work that is necessary. Renewed public confidence in
KPS is seen in the commitment from the foundation community and business
partnerships in funding to support initiatives contained in the master plan. By
maintaining a focus on the academic achievement of students and connecting
decisions to the Board adopted goals and objectives outlined in the Excellence for All
Master Plan, Dr. Rose has made significant gains in terms of developing positive
working relationships with parents, community members, and local and regional
political constituents.
225
The System Leader
This type of systemic change is best facilitated through transformational
leadership in which both the leaders and workers are transformed. The culture of the
organization is changed through transformational leadership which includes: setting
long term goals, vision, ethics, emotions and assessing needs. The transformational
leader focuses on the development of all within the organization (Northouse, 1997).
According to Sclafani (1987)
Superintendent effectiveness can be described as the dynamic interaction
of three sets of skills: technical, conceptual and human. Technical skills
are those utilizing a specific process, procedure, or technique; conceptual
skills allow the superintendent to visualize the whole of the organization
and relationship to its parts; and the human skills, perhaps the most
important of the three, are those used to shape the behavior of members of
the organization.
Dr. Rose focused on building the capacity of all within KPS by developing a shared
vision, determining clear priorities, promoting professional learning, linking schools
to the community, providing a strong accountability system and reorganizing the
school district structure. He focused on school principals through the Keystone
Urban Leadership System for Excellence project that articulated an explicit theory of
what good instructional practice should be. He took specific steps towards
developing the characteristics of strategic thinker, driver of change, and skills of a
coach in all principals to improve the leadership across the district to enable their
success toward academic achievement and growth of students. His commitment to
bring that work into contact with students by focusing on all leaders throughout the
organization served as an example of his knowledge and wisdom of the potential and
226
promise that each individual holds within the organization - influencing teaching and
learning from the top (Eiter, 2002; Elmore, 2000; Marshall, 2006; Shannon &
Blysma, 2004; Elmore, 2003b).
Dr. Rose clearly capitalized on his prior experience in the public sector and
his training in the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI) as his actions reflected
the seven key dimensions of leadership which include: strategic thinker and driver of
change, being teachable, possessing the skills of a coach, akin to the concept of
culture building, able to make decisions, and focusing on results (Eiter, 2002;
Elmore, 2000). During his first year as he faced a myriad of issues (some at crisis
stage) in KPS, he demonstrated his ability to be a strategic thinker and driver of
change by developing a systemic plan to improve student achievement which was
the Excellence for All: A Four–Year Comprehensive Framework for Improvement
which offered specific strategies and a plan to improve student achievement for all
students. His actions taken to restore and build positive relationships by reaching out
to a host of constituencies exemplified his leadership in the concept of culture
building. He provided opportunities for KPS stakeholders to voice their concerns
while he listened and during those venues he capitalized on the opportunity to share
the vision for reform while placing particular emphasis on repairing relationships
that were critical to the future of Keystone. These relationships included the
legislative and executive branches of state government, city government and the
foundation community. As a result KPS enjoyed improved relations with external
stakeholders and has established extensive new partnerships with foundation and city
227
government. His ability to make decisions began before he assumed the position of
Superintendent in KPS. Just prior to taking the position he began work on getting the
district finances in order by developing a plan to close twenty-two low-performing
schools and eighteen buildings left vacant due to changing demographics. With
support from external and internal resources, Dr. Rose developed the “Rightsizing”
Plan which reduced excess capacity of facilities and addressed existing academic
challenges by utilizing research and data-based criteria to make school-closings and
school redesign decisions. With the Board approval for the plan, Keystone reduced
excess capacity by the percentage required which resulted in a school system with
the appropriate space that has future stability. By accomplishing the goals of
reducing the district’s excess capacity, KPS was able to concentrate on the pressing
need to address instruction and learning. In addition to reducing excess capacity, the
“Rightsizing” plan (in one year) allowed for other actions which included cuts in the
central office which resulted in cutting the deficit from $72 million to $42 million.
At the same time of cutting the deficit, Dr. Rose negotiated resolution to the expired
contract with the Keystone Federation of Teachers (KFT) which, although added to
the budget shortfall, kept raises within a manageable range.
His skills of a coach are seen in his willingness to participate in the Urban
School Leadership Institute (USLI) prior to arriving to KPS. His time (ten weekends)
spent in sessions devoted to individual skill building activities and performance
projects to build a leadership portfolio requires a person who is teachable and
dedicated to learning and improving oneself. During this time, he had the
228
opportunity and task of developing a custom learning plan with the assistance of
USLI personnel. One example of a custom learning plan is his Entry Plan for
Keystone Public Schools. This plan included the engagement of the community and
external partners, implementation of a new pattern of communication, listening tour,
and making contact with external agencies. Additional ongoing support from USLI
was provided via two mentors: an urban superintendent and a chief executive officer
from the private sector. By continuing to work under the tutelage of mentors, Dr.
Rose demonstrated that he was clearly open to new learning from others and willing
to incorporate new knowledge into his superintendent’s tool box.
In summary, Dr. Rose demonstrated his leadership in KPS during his first
year by soliciting input and crafting a reform plan and communicating that plan to
the public and various stakeholders. His next steps included the implementation of
the plan, monitoring its progress, and making adjustments – all the while maintaining
the support of key stakeholders to see the plan through to fruition.
Four Frames of Leadership
In the book, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership,
Bolman and Deal (2003) identify four “frames” that can be applied to organizations.
These four frames of leadership can be applied to Superintendent Rose’s leadership
in Keystone Public Schools which include the structural frame; the human resource
frame; the political frame; and the symbolic frame. It is important to note that the
frames are not distinct of one another and depending upon the situation they may
intersect. The first frame, structural, devotes itself to clear roles, responsibilities and
229
relationships. Bolman and Deal suggest that there must be appropriate forms of
coordination and control to ensure that the wide range of efforts of individuals and
departments mesh within the organization. In order to be effective under the
structural frame, the Superintendent must be cognizant of the rules, goals, structures
and supports within the organization. In addition, he must be aware of the external
changing forces that impact the school district and consider those changes when
coordinating the roles and responsibilities of the individuals within the district.
Dr. Rose utilized the structural frame by making bold changes upon entry and
demonstrating to all stakeholders he was courageous enough to begin to radically
overhaul the existing system in Keystone. As the executive manager of KPS, he
worked to design and implement a new structure within the organization which took
into consideration the existing problems and circumstances. At the district level, he
made the goals clear for each department and directed each department to unite with
one another in their vision of increasing service to the classrooms by focusing on
student achievement. The mark of his ambition and use of the structural frame is
seen in the four-year “Excellence for All” plan introduced within six months after his
arrival which proposed a complete district overhaul, the closure of a score of schools,
overhauling the training and accountability standards for principals, and developing
new curriculum in every grade from K-8. The plan supported district reform in that
it: united the district in its vision; mission and goals to improve teaching and
learning; instilled a sense of urgency for improvement in education; focused the
district around specific educational objectives to improve student performance;
230
communicated learning expectations to students, families, employees and the
community, and held the district leadership and employees accountable for results.
According to Dr. Rose,
Change always brings concern. The nature of an institution is to revert to
the status quo. Educational institutions are as resistant to change as any
institution that we have. It’s why our high schools look so much like they
did in the 1950’s, while the rest of the world change hugely.
He wasted little time making dramatic changes while he tried to reverse the financial
spiral into which the district had fallen into over time.
After two years in office, Dr. Rose has made visible changes in the public
education system in KPS and has made a name for himself in the educational
community. He is credited with changing how business was conducted in Keystone
and refocusing district efforts to improving the quality of teaching and learning. He
restructured the central office and redefined their roles and responsibilities to ensure
that departments work together to support the goals and initiatives outlined in the
district master plan. The results of Dr. Rose’s efforts to create a system of coherence
in Keystone indicate that departments no longer work in isolation; instead they
participate in shared decision-making and work collaboratively to solve problems
and provide support to the school sites. Additionally, Dr. Rose has redefined the
focus and responsibilities of the site principals and district administration which
reflected the research that points to school leadership does make a difference in
student outcomes. Superintendent Rose has established the foundation in KPS for
231
distributed leadership and ensured that the desired traits of a learning organization
are fostered at all levels.
The second frame of Bolman and Deal’s leadership is the human resource
frame. The emphasis is on support, empowerment, relationships, and the fulfillment
of the needs of the people involved. Bolman and Deal stress that people within the
organization establish relationships and it is those relationships that have a bearing
on the ability of the organization to affect change. Through the human resource
frame, the Superintendent must nurture relationships within the organization’s teams
to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the individuals and the collective
group. Upon entry, Dr. Rose operated under the human resource frame as he worked
to establish positive relationships with the School Board, Union leadership, and the
community of Keystone. Through these relationships, Dr. Rose established a unified
vision for all stakeholders in KPS that a “New Day” had come where all students
would be supported to success despite socioeconomic status, ethnicity or disability.
To meet the needs of classroom teachers and support the focus of teaching
and learning, Dr. Rose provided opportunities for all staff to participate in
professional development activities which established a culture of ongoing learning
and improvement for all individuals. By refocusing the efforts of the assessment,
curriculum, and professional development offices at the district level, the corps of
teachers in KPS was provided opportunities to receive support and guidance and as a
result, was empowered to focus on the task at hand - meeting the needs of all
students. The superintendent’s willingness to establish relationships and focus on
232
building capacity during his tenure have resulted in creating an effective and
efficient leadership team at the district level, garnered the district financial support
from the foundation and business community, and assisted in the transition from
pockets of excellence to a more systematic approach to family and parent
engagement. Ultimately, Superintendent Rose capitalized on the relationships he
established early on in his career to empower all stakeholders to a higher level of
working with one another.
Bolman and Deal’s next leadership frame is the political frame. The political
frame is concerned with the political arena that the superintendent operates in on a
daily basis. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), through the political frame,
“politics is simply the realistic process of making decisions and allocating resources
in a context of scarcity and divergent resources.” Simply stated, it is the
Superintendent’s ability to understand the political reality of the organization in that
there are many interest groups and individuals seeking power and control. Upon
entry Dr. Rose capitalized on his prior experiences in public service and government
to begin to address the plethora of challenges in the district. His knowledge of widely
publicized battles among Board members, past practices of departments working in
conflict and fighting for limited resources, and the fractured and distrusting
community over educational inequities focused his work on establishing
relationships and coalitions with major constituency groups and interest groups in
order to bring cohesion to the district.
233
The Superintendent’s time and energy spent with the Board as a group and
individually garnered him the support of the Board to focus on good governance as
well as reappraise the Board’s Committee structure, meeting schedule and begin to
reduce the internal hostilities that plagued the Board for years. He worked with the
School Board to create shared goals, core beliefs, and commitments which resulted
in the establishment of a new district mission and vision for the district focused on
improving the academic achievement for all students in Keystone Public Schools. At
the district level, the Superintendent created arenas for negotiating differences with
respect to allocation of resources. In collaboration with his finance team, Dr. Rose
developed reasonable compromises so departments could focus on their specific
work with adequate resources and begin to work side by side with other departments
focused on the same goals.
The crafting of the strategic plan entitled, “Excellence for All” with input
from all stakeholders is another example of his ability to use the political frame to
build relationships and networks to bring a unified focus to the district, one focused
on teaching and learning. By establishing positive and collaborative relations with
the community of Keystone, Dr. Rose implemented an integrated approach to help
KPS students and families plan, prepare, and pay for education beyond high school
through the Keystone Promise. This particular endeavor raised expectations for every
student and family in Keystone by making all students become “Promise-ready.” Dr.
Rose demonstrated his political strength as he assessed the political power and
mapped the terrain during his tenure. His thirty-eight years in the political arena have
234
served him well as he has created a district focused on common goals and in the
process of reaching their goal of supporting every student and adult to success.
Bolman and Deal’s last frame of leadership is the symbolic frame. The
symbolic frame is about vision, culture, and beliefs. According to Bolman and Deal
(2003), it is how the organization is able to make sense of the ambiguous. The
authors further state that “culture is the glue that holds an organization together and
unites people around shared values and beliefs.” A Superintendent utilizes this frame
to translate his vision into action knowing that vision and inspiration is critical for
pushing forward the reform agenda of the district. Upon entry, Dr. Rose established
his presence and became the symbol for change in Keystone. He voiced his vision
for the district as he shared the message to the community - a “New Day” had come
and that working together, all students could reach to higher levels of academic
achievement. He lead the campaign for increasing student achievement and it was his
prior experiences in governance that afforded him the knowledge and most
importantly the comfort and ease with which to use the media to effectively get the
message out - change was on the way.
Under the Superintendents direction, the communications staff strategically
used the Keystone Public Schools signature (logotype) to symbolize the focus and
commitment of the district to its students. The logotype was developed in
conjunction with the design department of a local university in Keystone. The
building blocks trademark was selected for two reasons: building blocks in various
shapes and forms (pattern of circles, triangles and squares) are commonly associated
235
with children and child development. This logotype appears on the KPS website and
appears on all printed materials and news publications.
Another example of Superintendent Roses’ use of the symbolic frame was the
inaugural signing of the “Keystone Public Pledge,” an event which highlighted the
Welcome Back-to-School Program intended to get everyone on the same page for
the ensuing school year. In partnership, the Mayor of Keystone and Dr. Rose
appeared at the event to symbolize the collaborative efforts of the community and
district in supporting students and families to success. According to the
communications department, the Keystone Pledge symbolized a common vision of
clear expectations and a high standard for everyone involved and demonstrated that –
parents, students, teachers, administrators, and community leaders working
collaboratively can bring about the change needed to make a difference for all
stakeholders in Keystone.
Excellence for All, the name of its sweeping academic-improvement plan has
been used on stationary and other written materials to serve as the desire and intent
for all students in KPS. The “Excellence for All” reform agenda has its own logo - a
gold swirl and star which symbolizes the contents of its written pages in a non-verbal
manner to all who see the insignia on outgoing district documents. Through the
symbolic frame, Dr. Rose has used symbolism in many forms to communicate a
sense of the mission and vision to all stakeholders in the district. Superintendent
Rose has been visible and energetic and has established organizational traditions and
values which will continue to guide the district forward.
236
Bolman and Deal’s four leadership frames are useful tools to view the
leadership of Dr. Rose. The findings of this study indicated that circumstances
determine which frame is appropriate and will provide the best outcome. More
importantly, effective leaders use all four frames to implement change within a
district and improve student achievement.
Figure 9: Four Frames of Leadership
Source: Bolman and Deal (2003).
Four
Frames
of
Leadership
Structural
Goals, Rules, Roles,
Operational
Functions
Political
Coalition Building
Negotiation
Bargaining
Scarcity of Resources
Power Differences
Competition
Symbolic
Culture, Beliefs
Values, Symbols
Rituals,
Vision
Human Resources
Relationships
Communication
Needs f People
Motivation
237
In closing, when Dr. Rose was asked the question, where does your passion
for education come from? He responded:
All my life I thought I wanted to be in politics, and I was in politics
for 38 years. As I grew up during the Vietnam War and the civil rights
movement, politics became his vehicle for social change. But I got
very disillusioned. Luckily enough, I became very involved in
education reform issues. And for me, public education has replaced as
my sort of place to be, where you think you can make things better.
The findings of this researcher indicate that as the superintendent of
Keystone, Dr. Rose served as the most influential change agent in Keystone Public
Schools. It is his ability to select and implement reform strategies to leverage
systemic change aimed at increasing student achievement that keeps him focused on
working with all stakeholders in order to realize the mission of preparing all students
to achieve academic excellence.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings based on the data collected in the case
study and was followed by a detailed analysis and discussion of how those findings
relate to the research questions and their roots in the relevant research presented in
Chapter 2. The chapter considered the level and quality of implementation of the
reform strategies selected by the superintendent to improve student achievement and
made connections between those levels and student achievement gains. The findings
presented in this study were based on multiple data sources, which served to
strengthen their validity. The summary, conclusions, and implications of this study
are presented in the following Chapter 5.
238
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Overview of the Problem
As leaders of their districts, superintendents of today are faced with many new
challenges including those associated with the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), as
well as the demand for meeting the needs of increasingly diverse student
populations. Carlson (2004) suggests that the ability of the superintendent to
effectively identify impediments to learning and consequently implement solutions
to produce positive changes has become increasingly difficult. Superintendents must
deal with complex governance systems, internal and external politics and a plethora
of challenges related to accountability and student achievement. Despite the myriad
of challenges, Superintendents must demonstrate leadership qualities that foster and
support sustained change that quickly results in an immediate and measurable
increase in student achievement. At the same time he/she must recognize and
consider the unique history, specific strengths and unique challenges of the district
when determining how best to select, implement, and evaluate efforts for reform.
While research on superintendent leadership may offer no silver bullets to
impact district performance, research does indicate that the leadership of the
superintendent does make a difference in student achievement (Waters & Marzano,
2006). Therefore, understanding how the superintendents’ preparation, background,
and experiences influence the choices made to initiate systemic change within an
organization is critical when analyzing what impact those decisions have on student
239
achievement. There is much to be learned about the superintendent’s leadership role
in creating meaningful and sustained change within an organization as well as how
these leaders are best prepared to leverage the various dimensions of reform toward
improving the academic achievement of all students. There is no question that the
superintendency is a complicated and difficult position filled with pressure to
increase student performance. Therefore, it is important to analyze the work of
superintendents as they select and implement reform strategies to improve student
achievement so it can be easily replicated to support the improvement of academic
achievement across the nation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to develop a clearer understanding of one school
superintendent’s efforts to leverage systemic change aimed at increasing student
achievement. Specifically, this study focused on one superintendents’ utilization of
ten key reform strategies to determine how a superintendent’s actions impacted the
levels of quality and implementation of the action. This study, Phase II built upon a
Phase I study conducted by Takata, Marsh, and Castruita (2007), which sought to
explore the actions taken by large urban school superintendents to initiate change
related to raising student achievement. Consistent with the Phase I methodology, the
Phase II study used the House Model developed by the Urban School Leadership
Institute as a conceptual framework to understand how the unique context of the
district influences a superintendent’s decision-making process in terms of ten key
reform strategies employed upon entry into the role of superintendent.
240
The study investigated one superintendent in a large urban school district,
specifically how he developed and implemented systemic reform based upon the
strengths and challenges of the district upon entry, how district characteristics related
to the development of a strategic entry plan, how the superintendent determined the
specific actions to be taken to initiate reform strategies targeted towards improving
student achievement, how those choices related to the unique context of the district
and their own personal and professional background. The following research
question and three sub-questions guided the development of the study. These
research questions were:
1. How are the ten key reform strategies being used by large urban school
superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her respective
district?
a) How does the quality and implementation of ten key reform
strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district
when the superintendent took office?
b) What additional reform strategies (if any) were used? How do
they correspond to the elements of the House Model?
c) How does the choice and implementation of the ten key reform
strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of
the superintendent?
241
Methodology
Qualitative, descriptive analytic case study research methods were used in
order to accomplish an in-depth investigation and analysis to secure rich descriptors
and grounded explanations of processes in place within a localized environment
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Establishing which reform strategies are effectively
implemented by a large urban school district superintendent in order to improve
student achievement is a complex issue. A qualitative case study approach provided
the best opportunity for the researcher to study and describe issues with depth and
detail (Patton, 2002). Determining which key reform strategies contributed most
significantly to improving student academic achievement represented a significant
task. Case study methodology provided a means for investigating the complexities of
educational programs by incorporating the explicit experiences of participants and
supported evaluation rooted in a localized context (Creswell, 2003; Merriam, 1998;
Patton, 2002). More specifically, the case study approach permitted the research
team to follow the data and organize the information to tease out the most relevant
patterns and themes.
Interviews were selected as the key data gathering tool in that they would
provide the vehicle for describing the participants’ perceptions regarding the
selection and implementation of ten key reform strategies engaged by an Urban
School Leadership Institute (USLI) superintendent in efforts to positively promote
student achievement in one large urban school district. The specific findings that
emerged through this in-depth, multi-perspective case study analysis produced
242
qualitative data that defined and delineated the effectiveness of each reform strategy
engaged by the one USLI superintendent in their respective district. The unit of
analysis for this study was one large urban school district, the district superintendent,
and other relevant key personnel identified by the superintendent.
Sample
One large urban school district superintendent was purposefully selected for
this study in order to provide a means for investigating the reform strategies engaged
in efforts to promote systemic change within the school district to improve student
achievement. This process provided the researcher with deep insight into the actions
taken by the superintendent to raise student achievement as well as how their
personal and professional background may have informed those decisions and
processes. Case study participants included the district superintendent, two key
players, and multiple strategy-specific persons, including deputy and/or assistant
superintendents, district-level directors, principals, board members, or members of
the local community.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data for this study were collected during the month of June 2008. The
conceptual framework selected as a basis for the study, the House Model, was
developed as a component of the Urban School Leadership Foundation’s Framework
for District Success. The House Model is a visual model of effective reform
strategies that is advocated by the USLF and used as a foundation for training within
the Leadership Institute. The “house” is divided into several levels, which are
243
represented by three foundations, three rooms, and a roof. Several reform strategies
have been identified and incorporated into each area of the House Model. For the
purpose of this study, ten reform strategies were identified, including; strategic plan,
assessment, curriculum, professional development, human resource system and
human capital management, finance and budget, communications, governance and
board relations, labor relations and contract negotiations, and family and community
engagement.
Five instruments were developed and served as a foundation for the data
collection and analysis processes. The instruments were:
1. Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix A) that related each interview
question to the related research question, outlined the superintendent
interview process, established a process for coding interview data, and
defined processes for identifying artifacts and documents that were
collected from the district;
2. Key Player Interview Guide (Appendix B) that related each interview
question to the related research question, outlined the key player selection
and interview process, established a process for coding interview data,
and created linkages to artifacts and documents collected from each
district
3. Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Appendix C), that
correlated each interview question to the related research question(s),
244
outlined the participant selection and interview processes, and established
a procedure for recording and coding interview data.
4. Quality Rubric (Appendix D) measured the quality of relevant actions for
each of the 10-key reform strategies, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale
indicating high (5), moderate (3), or low (1) quality. The components in
the Professional Development Rubric, for example, included; designing
professional development, implementing professional development,
evaluating and improving professional development, and sharing
professional development learning.
5. Implementation Rubric (Appendix E) was designed to measure how each
reform strategy was implemented utilizing a 5-point Likert scale
indicating high (5), moderate (3), or low (1) levels in terms of four
criteria including; 1) the external challenges to full implementation; 2) the
extent that each component of the reform strategy is fully implemented in
practice; 3) the level of shared understanding, values, and expectations;
and, 4) the sustainability of staff and fiscal resources.
In order to support validity, a variety of data collection tools and a diverse
group of study participants were engaged to support methodological and data
triangulation from multiple sources.
245
Selected Findings
The data collection processes relating to the research question produced
several key findings. This section summarizes those findings and relates each finding
to the instrumentation and primary sources of data collected.
Research Question 1: Ten key reform Strategies
Research question 1 asked “How are the ten key reform strategies being used
by large urban school superintendents to improve student achievement in his or her
respective district?” The following summarizes the findings relating to each of the
ten key reform strategies. The primary sources of data collected included interviews
and district documentation through the use of the Superintendent Interview Guide,
the Key Player Interview Guide, and the Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview
Guide.
Dr. Rose implemented numerous reform strategies to improve student
achievement, however, the strategic plan proved to be the most influential reform
strategy for KPS for the following reasons: 1) provided shared goals to guide all
work, and 2) fostered a top-to-bottom – bottom up organizational focus on student
achievement. Dr. Rose utilized the strategic plan to fuel the cycle of change and to
begin to create a system of coherence in Keystone Public Schools. The district’s
Excellence for All: A Four-Year Comprehensive Framework for Improvement
included five “foundations for success” which consolidated the multiple state and
federal mandates into one document, incorporated high expectations for all students
and included measurable objectives tied to data. The strategic plan served as the
246
guiding force for KPS in that it established a clear district vision; focused on student
achievement which is reflected in the Keystone Public Schools mission: to be one of
America’s premier school districts, student focused, well-managed and innovative.
Dr. Rose, the school Board and KPS employees utilized this document to hold them
accountable for preparing all children to achieve academic excellence and strength of
character. In addition, Superintendent Rose used the goals, initiatives, timelines, and
evaluation measures included in the strategic plan to develop an organization where
master planning resulted in specific ties between the Boards adopted goals and
objectives. The “Excellence for All” plan united the district in its vision, mission, and
goals to improve teaching and learning; instilled a sense of urgency for improvement
in education; focused the District around specific educational strategies and
objectives to improve student performance; communicated learning expectations to
students, families, employees and the community; and, held the District leadership
and employees accountable for results.
The second and third foundations for success, outlined in the strategic plan,
focused on academic achievement and the pursuit of excellence. The objectives
included: 1) increase student achievement and eliminate the racial SES/achievement
gap, 2) improve student performance on district, state, and national assessments, and
3) facilitate leadership training for principals and assistant principals. To meet these
objectives, Superintendent Rose simultaneously used the curriculum, assessment,
and professional development reform strategies. Despite Dr. Rose’s non-traditional
background in public service, he had the knowledge required to understand that the
247
curricular objectives laid out in the strategic plan – “Excellence for All” must be
implemented in a cohesive and coherent manner in order to affect what happened in
the classrooms between teachers and students. The new system contained three
components that needed to work together to drive improvement: a new curriculum,
ongoing professional development to ensure proper instruction of that curriculum,
and an assessment feed-back loop to assess students’ absorption of the subject matter
taught.
With respect to the curriculum reform strategy, Dr. Rose directed the
district’s curricular direction from a lack of focus on curriculum towards a managed
instruction approach in which all schools implemented the adopted curriculum with
fidelity and used data to drive instruction – same programs for all students. District
personnel developed systems to monitor the implementation of the curriculum,
specifically the four content areas of: English Language Arts, Math, History/Social
Science, and Science. The results of monitoring implementation revealed that
teachers were in need of support and guidance with respect to fidelity of curriculum.
Therefore, a cadre of teachers was developed to serve as curriculum coaches and was
assigned to sites to support full implementation of the adopted curriculum with
fidelity.
To support the effective instruction of the curriculum, Dr. Rose used the
assessment reform strategy to create a culture where the use of data was universal
and effective. He restructured the central office and created the department of
Research, Assessment and Accountability (RAA) to support the use of data to inform
248
instruction. He capitalized upon the existing electronic system set up for instructional
purposes (standardized-test results and standards-based assessments) by hiring
skilled personnel to provide leadership in the office of RAA to increase the capacity
of staff to turn data into useful information for improving results for students and
stimulating a culture of data-driven decision-making. By doing this, Dr. Rose began
the process of developing mechanisms to ensure that instructional use of data was
universal and effective. District administration developed teacher-leaders to serve as
coaches at sites to support data teams to analyze and interpret assessments (formative
and summative) to increase the capacity of all teachers for systematically informing
instruction. In addition, professional learning communities were established at K-8
schools to foster the use of data around student needs (individual student levels,
strengths and weaknesses).
To support the pursuit of excellence and focus on increasing academic
achievement in KPS, Dr. Rose utilized the reform strategy of professional
development to foster leadership in the district. He believed that excellent leadership
would be the driving force behind raising student achievement and reducing racial
economic disparities in achievement. His collaborative efforts with outside
consultants resulted in the development of a new system of professional development
and performance-based evaluation and compensation for site administrators. This
work resulted in the Keystone Urban Leadership System for Excellence (KULSE) a
comprehensive accountability system to recruit, train, support, evaluate, and reward
principals in order to enable their success toward the academic achievement and
249
growth of students. This new system placed school leadership at the center of the
district’s “Excellence for All” reform agenda. KULSE is focused around six core
components which included:
1. Keystone Emerging Leadership Academy (KELA) part of KULSE.
Aspiring principals complete a year long residency alongside Mentor
Principals.
2. Administrative Induction Program – KULSE provides support for new
principals through a focused two-year Administrative Induction Program.
3. Leadership Academy which provides extensive and ongoing professional
development to administrators. Professional development is aligned to the
seven performance standards to ensure ties to data to improve school
achievement.
4. Executive Director Mentoring and Training is a critical component to
KULSE. Executive directors provide support and coaching to principals
and visit sites across the district three days a week.
5. Performance-based Evaluation – the foundation of KULSE is a
performance standards evaluation rubric. It contains seven standards:
vision of learning, culture of teaching and learning, management of
learning, relationship with broader community, integrity, political, social
economic, legal and cultural context, and leadership of learning.
Performance is evaluated on four levels: rudimentary, emerging,
250
proficient, and accomplished. Evaluation takes place two times a year
(mid and end).
6. Performance-based Compensation - measurement of principals through
research-based performance evaluation standards and student
achievement scores. Compensation in increments up to $2,000 annually if
assessed as proficient.
The goal of the new system was to build school leaders that drive student
achievement and student performance. Dr. Rose focused on increasing the quality of
principals and leveraging the principal’s role as a leader to increase the quality of
teachers so that students would be the recipients of high quality instruction. In
addition to the new professional development opportunities for administrators, Dr.
Rose and district leadership linked all professional development opportunities for
teachers to effective instruction of the adopted curriculum. Through the reform
strategy of professional development, Dr. Rose created a system where all employees
received better guidance, support and empowerment (with accountability) to deliver
on the goals outlined in “Excellence for All.”
251
Figure 10: Keystone Urban Leadership System for Excellence (KULSE)
252
The fifth “foundation for success” outlined in the “Excellence for All” Strategic
Plan focused on improved stakeholder engagement. Dr. Rose purposefully utilized
the reform strategy of family and community engagement to build partnerships with
families and communities of Keystone to advance the academic achievement and
character development of all students. He restructured the existing department to
include two distinctive departments: 1) focus on family and community engagement,
and 2) work on district-wide parent and community engagement initiatives. In
addition, personnel were hired and charged with coordinating their efforts to build a
strong parent/community engagement program. Along with Dr. Rose, they
developed a family and community engagement plan which included: 1) improved
customer service to parents, 2) parent education classes, and 3) improved customer
service to parents. To support these goals, a centralized parent hot-line was
established to afford parents and students the opportunity to ask questions and
receive feedback. Additionally, schools sites were supported in re-opening existing
parent resource centers to host parent education classes to ensure that parents and
families became full partners in their child’s education. Efforts were made to reach
parents that couldn’t go to the school sites by arranging meetings in alternative
locations such as religious centers or housing projects to ensure that all families were
provided opportunities to build capacity and advocate for their child. Lastly, Dr.
Rose created a parent and student leadership team to support the endeavor in regular,
two-way, meaningful communication centered on district goals and initiatives which
fostered a sense of shared responsibility for the academic success of all students.
253
As Keystone focused efforts on maximizing academic achievement for all
students, the reform strategy of finance and budget was instrumental to the work of
Dr. Rose. The first “foundation for success” outlined in the Excellence for All
Strategic Plan focused on reducing excess facility capacity and eliminating the
operating deficit. To ensure the best use of available funds, Dr. Rose and his
financial team instituted policies and practices to ensure that the budget was tightly
aligned to the district priorities listed in the strategic plan and focused on the needs
of classrooms. Efforts were made to flatten the central office organization and
restructure the offices to assist in decreasing the operating deficit, operating
processes, and internal financial reporting procedures. At the same time, the
superintendent utilized his previous background in the public administration as he
pursued corporate and foundation funding and secured federal grants to support goals
and initiatives focused on academics.
Dr. Rose’s prior professional experiences afforded him opportunities to fully
appreciate and capitalize on the use of the communications reform strategy.
Beginning the day Dr. Rose assumed the position of Superintendent; he served as the
leading spokesperson for KPS and was the driving force of all efforts. He used the
communications department to send a clear message to the community of KPS that a
“New Day” had come, one filled with promise to fulfill the dream that “Together We
Can Be The Change.” After the expansion of the communications department, Dr.
Rose charged the staff with communicating the vision, mission and core values of
the KPS through multiple forms of media – print, web, video productions, and a
254
professional publication – the Keystone Educator. To support the communication of
the district’s vision to all stakeholders with consistency, all administration were
provided protocols and guidelines to utilize when crafting press releases or working
with the media. Additionally, templates embedded with the districts vision and goals
to maintain credibility were distributed.
Upon entry, Dr. Rose utilized the reform strategy of labor relations as he
infused himself in ongoing dialogue with the leadership of the Keystone Teachers
Union (KTU). He focused on creating a professional, people–oriented, transparent
climate which resulted in a ratified contract within six months of his arrival. As a
result of his efforts to create a collaborative atmosphere, his work was instrumental
in the development and implementation of a pay-for performance model for
principals focused on accountability. To sum up, the Superintendent and union
leadership worked together to transition from a system of labor relations
characterized by leadership at odds to one of mutual respect focused on common
goals.
The reform strategy of governance and board relations provided Dr. Rose
the opportunity to capitalize on his skills acquired during his years of public service
and government. Upon entry, Superintendent Rose purposefully utilized this
strategy to initiate the transformation of school board governance in KPS. Through
open and honest collaborative communication, the board and Superintendent shared
the burden of leadership, which was vital for maintaining the vision for change and
the implementation effort to get there. Critical to the transformation process was the
255
School Board training supported by the Urban School Leadership Institute which
emphasized the concept of teamwork between the superintendent and school board.
Following an external audit, Dr. Rose used the reform strategy of human
resource system and human capital management to transform the district into a
performance-driven culture focused on providing all students an excellent
education. By reorganizing the district’s organizational structure and ensuring the
“right people” were hired and placed in the “right places” mechanisms were in place
to begin to break down former tendencies to work in isolation. To refocus the HR
department from a system in need of an overhaul to one focused on providing
customer service to all employees in KPS; Dr. Rose recruited outside personnel for
the Chief HR Officer position. New leadership resulted in a plan for recruitment,
training and support of all employees, especially site administrators with a pay-for-
performance evaluation model to support focus on the classrooms and implemented
goals and initiatives.
Research Question 1a: Strengths and Challenges of the District
Research question 1a asked “How does the quality and implementation of ten
key reform strategies correspond to the strengths and challenges of the district when
the superintendent took office?” The data collection revealed that Keystone Public
Schools had varying degrees of strengths and challenges when Dr. Rose assumed the
position of Superintendent.
Dr. Rose entered his position as Superintendent knowing that dramatic
improvements in the levels of student achievement in KPS must be made due to the
256
demand of state standards and federal law. The district was in a state of
organizational disarray due to a variety of problems: 1) past history of bickering
among district leaders which undermined the instructional initiatives in the schools
2) low–income students were taught by the least experienced teachers due to the
budgeting system, and 3) family and community engagement was low in KPS.
Through the interview process and conducting research on Keystone, the
superintendent had limited knowledge of the strengths and challenges of the district
prior to assuming his position. As he immersed himself in the listening and learning
tour during his first days in office, his understanding of the actual state of affairs
became much clearer. The information supported his early work in office as he faced
the operational deficiencies and instructional gaps. He focused on changing the focus
and priorities of the district and began the implementation a cycle of change in
Keystone: (1) analysis of strengths and challenges, (2) selection and implementation
of reform strategies, (3) gains in student achievement and reassessment of new
strengths and challenges. To begin the process of district reform, the Superintendent
developed an Entry Plan that included thirteen goals: (1) Establish a working
relationship with the Board, (2) Give the public a sense that a New Day had arrived,
(3) Repair relationships with the foundation community, (4) Repair relationships
with the legislative delegation/executive branch, (5) Establish positive relations with
Keystone teachers union, (6) Establish relations with city and county officials, (7)
Evaluate and reorganize the central office, (8) Develop long term plan for facilities
reduction, mergers, and renovations, (9) Develop a plan for recruitment, training and
257
professional development of site administrators, (10) Evaluate the district
curriculum, (11) Evaluate student achievement data systems, (12) Create a balanced
budget, and (13) Begin the process of crafting a the Reform Agenda.
During the first ninety days in office, Dr. Rose implemented the activities
outlined in his Entry Plan which specifically addressed the challenges of Keystone.
He focused on building relationships and partnerships while building his leadership
team. He created coalitions outside the organization by seeking feedback from key
stakeholders, making public the new direction for Keystone, and conducting
interviews and site visits for systematic collection of good information and data. His
actions assisted him in gaining knowledge, trust, and credibility which helped him to
establish a top-down approach of leadership in KPS focused on student achievement.
He created a sense of urgency and presented himself as the new Superintendent in
charge by hosting an Installation Ceremony which included a pledge to put the
interests of children first. By promoting himself, Dr. Rose demonstrated to all
stakeholders that he was prepared to take charge in his new role.
To begin to address the challenges of the school Board, Dr. Rose hosted
many individual conversations and group meetings with Board members to establish
positive working relations. During the meetings he shared the need for changing how
business was conducted within the organization with respect to improving student
achievement and getting the district’s finances in order. He demonstrated that he
possessed the skills to get the district’s finances in order when he proposed a plan to
close twenty-two schools and eighteen buildings left empty due to declining
258
enrollment and changing demographics. The reinvestment of revenues gained from
the sales was used to transform eight of the poorer performing schools into
Accelerated Learning Academies (ACA) grades K-8. The ACA’s helped students to
achieve to higher levels by extending learning time on core subjects and by
extending the school day by forty-five minutes. His plan converted excess capacity
to funds available for enhanced educational programs. Additionally, the plan
promoted socio-economic, racial, educational programs and facilities equally and
preserved diversity across the district. Board approval for his plan resulted in an
early win and established his credibility while it created momentum for future
changes. Over time the Superintendent and Board developed a shared vision for
teaching and learning which served as the unifying goal of the superintendent-board
team, changed the way business was conducted, and created a goal-oriented school
district. As a result of these efforts, KPS made a departure from the investment of
capital projects to expenditures that supported student learning
His commitment to repairing relations with the foundation community and
elected officials resulted in eternal alliances which brought additional funding and
support to the students of KPS. Dr. Rose scheduled meetings with the Boards of
major foundations and presented new projects for the improvement of Keystone
Public Schools. He established procedures for ongoing communication and meetings
with legislative executive leaders and met with the Mayor and City Council which
resulted in community support for district goals and initiatives and the renewal of
public confidence. He successfully negotiated resolution to the expired contract with
259
the Keystone teachers union which created a win-win situation for the district and
employees by meeting with the Union leadership and Union Executive Board to
establish a collaborative working structure. He attended several of the negotiation
sessions to acknowledge the concerns of the teaching staff and foster an open and
honest atmosphere in which opposing views could be heard. His hands-on approach
to negotiations accelerated his learning of the district and its employees and through
these deliberate actions Dr. Rose reduced the Board’s involvement in management
issues and began to address the Board’s internal hostilities. He supported the
executive leadership, School Board and the community at large in the process of
transitioning from a district of organizational disarray to one where everyone on the
team knew what KPS was about and focused upon.
Dr. Rose utilized external firms to conduct audits on academic operations and
the status of student achievement in KPS. Based on the results of this information,
Dr. Rose began the process of building his leadership team and the reorganization of
the central office. He evaluated each member through interviews, reassigned
personnel to maximize their skills and where necessary, hired personnel with
expertise needed to create a high-powered, energetic, management team. To maintain
a balance of stability during the transition time of the central office, Dr. Rose
maintained a balance between existing employees and new talent brought in to
further build human capacity and create a sense of urgency around the District’s
mission. He directed his executive leadership team and the central office departments
to work together as a cohesive team to make the district organizationally sound for
260
the students. With the advent of new leadership, the offices of Assessment and
Accountability, Curriculum and Instruction, and Professional Development were
restructured to improve teaching across the district through a managed instruction
approach (consistent curriculum, proven pedagogy, assessment and data use,
accountability structure). The curriculum was evaluated for program effectiveness
and replaced where necessary. For example, the adoption of writing program across
the curricula. The curriculum was aligned to state standards assessments and
instruction and professional development were provided for all teachers and staff
focused on academic objectives which included a district-wide coaching model.
Dr. Rose demonstrated his leadership to improve academic achievement by
soliciting input from all stakeholders and crafting a systemic plan to improve student
achievement and make all staff accountable for meeting the district priorities. Efforts
resulted in The Excellence for All: A Four-Year Comprehensive Framework for
Improvement which offered specific strategies and a plan to improve student
achievement for all students. A critical component of this plan was an explicit theory
of action which included the need to create a performance-based culture in KPS with
respect to site administrators. His efforts resulted in a new system that provided
professional development for principals and central office staff and tied all
evaluations to performance goals established in the “Excellence for All” strategic
plan. The new system focused on the development and improvement of principal
leadership intent on enabling their success toward the academic achievement and
growth of all students in their schools. Dr. Rose focused on cultivating effective
261
instructional leaders (principals) to serve as agents of change and placed them at the
center of reform in Keystone.
Dr. Rose capitalized upon the district’s strength in the area of human
resources, specifically, personnel. Keystone had a fully credentialed, stable corps of
teachers unlike many large urban school districts. Therefore, under the direction of
the Curriculum and Instruction offices, classroom teachers were selected and trained
to serve as coaches at the school sites to support fidelity to curricular programs. Dr.
Rose and his finance team restructured the district’s finances to support the
development of these teacher-leaders to carry out the strategies outlined in the
reform agenda. Again, he demonstrated his belief in the process of building human
capacity and his commitment to improving student achievement by refocusing
department efforts to support initiatives in the strategic plan.
Another critical teacher outcome of the finance restructuring was the change
in the practice of allocation of teacher slots to each site which resulted in highly
qualified teachers working in the affluent schools and teachers with less seniority
and experience working in schools with the highest concentration of students in
poverty. In collaboration, Dr. Rose, the Finance and HR departments and the Board
worked together to ameliorate the disparity. It is no longer permissible to allow
students in the greatest need to be short-changed as in the past.
One area of strength in the Keystone academic operations was its electronic
data warehouse. Dr. Rose hired personnel with the skills and expertise necessary to
develop a plan to provide teachers and site administrators with student-level
262
achievement data for instructional and evaluative purposes. A central-system was
established which designed reports, scanned answer documents, and provided results
to sites in a timely fashion or real time information (RTI). Data coaches (teachers)
were assigned to school sites to build capacity and provide support to classroom
teachers with respect to the use and value of data to drive instruction.
In summary, Dr. Rose aggressively implemented all ten key reform strategies
in accordance to the strengths and challenges of the district when he assumed office.
He has made an excellent start on academic reforms that will result in a high
performing district. Additionally, he has restored the overall confidence in the
district’s ability to govern and manage effectively while maintaining a focus on
continuing improvement for all aspects of the organization.
The data collection process was supported by the Superintendent, Key Player,
and Strategy Specific Interview Guides, as well as the various strategy-specific
Quality and Level of Implementation Rubrics.
Research Question 1b: Other Reform Strategies
Research question 1b asked “What additional reform strategies (if any) were
used? How do they correspond to the elements of the House Model?” Keystone
Public Schools reform process included several additional reform strategies that were
not included in the focus of this study. Dr. Rose utilized them to foster systemic
reform and improve student achievement. Interviews were not conducted for all
House Elements, therefore, the impact of the additional House Elements was
discussed as part of the overall reform effort during the interview process.
263
Superintendent’s Contract
Dr. Rose’s initial Superintendent’s Contract served as the cornerstone for
accountability and pay-for-performance in KPS. His contract solidified his authority
to hire district staff to ensure meeting the goal presented by the Board during his
interviews – improve the quality of the District’s overall educational program. He
helped to define the criteria and process for the annual evaluation of the
Superintendent.
Plan of Entry
At the onset, Dr. Rose’s Plan of Entry served as a critical document in the
process of analyzing the district strengths and challenges. It outlined what he sought
to achieve in the first one hundred days as the new Superintendent of Keystone. It
was not a strategic plan for the district, but rather a tool to help Dr. Rose focus and
accelerate the work required to serve the students in all schools. The thirteen goals
represented an actionable, measurable change agenda for all in KPS. Overall, the
plan focused on operational excellence and financial stability.
Organizational Assessments and Audits
The house model element of organizational assessments & audits served as
critical components of Dr. Roses’ strategy to support systemic reform. During the
early months of the superintendent’s tenure the results of student performance were
utilized in the process of decision making about the realignment and closure of
schools and as a key first step in larger efforts to improve instructional performance
and student achievement across Keystone.
264
Leadership Team Effectiveness
The leadership team effectiveness reform strategy was utilized by Dr. Rose
upon entry to Keystone. He utilized the results of organizational audits to reorganize
and restructure the central office to streamline the district. Leadership team member
roles and responsibilities were tied to goals and initiatives outlined in the strategic
plan. Through his leadership team, Dr. Rose fostered a culture of continuous
improvement to reduce inefficiency and bring funding and decision-making closer to
the schools and classrooms.
Political Relationships/Philanthropic and Institutional Partnerships
The reform strategies of political relationships and philanthropic and
institutional partnerships were utilized by Dr. Rose during his first one hundred days
in office. He re-established the relationship between KPS and the external
stakeholders of KPS (foundations, local educational institutions and business
community). He collaborated with the Mayor of Keystone and other political figures
to garner additional funding and support to realize implementation of newly created
programs to support student achievement. Interviews and district documentation
were the primary sources of data collected for analysis. The data collection process
was supported by the Superintendent, Key Player, and Strategy Specific Interview
Guides. Also, the strategy-specific Quality and Level of Implementation Rubrics
assisted in the data collection as well as in the analysis and interpretation of the
findings.
265
Research Question 1c: Relationship to the previous Background/Experience of
Superintendent
Research question 1c asked “How does the choice and implementation of the
ten key reform strategies correspond to the previous background/experiences of the
superintendent?”
After a distinguished career in public service and government, Dr. Rose
moved on to his biggest challenge yet: the superintendency of Keystone Public
Schools. It was his non-traditional experience in public administration and his years
spent focused on education reform that provided him with the confidence to accept
the responsibilities of the Superintendency and put his ideas into practice.
According to Dr. Rose, it was his professional experience as an elected state
official and his education at Harvard Law School that assisted him in the area of
governance and board relationships. Upon entry he focused on establishing a
positive working relationship with the school Board and subsequently they
developed common goals, core beliefs and commitments. He actively supported the
boards’ growth and development in their roles as a policy-making body for Keystone
by orchestrating a retreat for the Board to learn about proper governance. In addition,
Dr. Rose’s experiences as a CEO of a Biomedical Initiatives Organization and as a
Director of the Business Alliance for Education gave him the experiences necessary
to develop managerial skills to effectively negotiate contract resolution with the
leadership of labor relations during his early in his tenure and later in his second
year.
266
Superintendent Rose’s experiences in public policy as an advocate for
education reform assisted him in the area of strategic planning which proved to be
one of his strengths as the system leader in terms of changing the political, social and
educational contexts of KPS. Within months of entering Keystone, he crafted a
comprehensive reform agenda focused on district educational strategies and
objectives to improve student performance.
Dr. Rose’s political life as a champion of education translated to strength in
the development of the communications department. He utilized the media to support
the success of his entry, establish his presence in the community and to begin to
share the message that change was on the way. With the assistance of media, he
positioned himself as the leading spokesperson and champion of reform for Keystone
while communicating the vision, mission, and core values of the district - that
working together, all students in Keystone could reach academic excellence. With
respect to the launching of the district’s “Excellence for All” master plan he used the
communications department to send a clear and consistent message to the
community – “Together We Can Be The Change.” Through the reform strategy of
communications, Dr. Rose facilitated strong family and community engagement by
reaching out into the community through radio, television, internet and written
documents. Also, Superintendent Rose’s prior experiences in public office afforded
him the knowledge and expertise in philanthropic endeavors. He utilized his skills in
campaigning for office to pursue external funding from local businesses, foundation
267
community and higher education institutions to assist in addressing the financial
deficits of the district while focusing on student achievement.
Due to Superintendent Rose’s non-traditional background, he felt less
prepared to utilize the reform strategies of assessment, curriculum, professional
development, and human resource and human capital management; however, he was
quick to add that his participation in the Urban School Leadership Institute had
helped to prepare him to focus on teaching and learning with an emphasis on the
alignment of curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional development.
Therefore, Dr. Rose utilized the House element of leadership team effectiveness to
assemble an effective management team deemed essential in the implementation of
the reform agenda and in creating an efficient central office.
Interviews of the Superintendent, two key players and strategy specific
personnel and district artifacts were data sources for this analysis.
Conclusions
Based on the data collected and as a result of the methodologies utilized, the
study resulted in several conclusions relating to the superintendent and the reform
strategies that were implemented to improve student achievement. They include the
following:
1. Dr. Rose’s participation in the Urban School Leadership Institute (USLI)
training sessions covered executive leadership skills in finance,
management, operations, organizational systems and education. This
training assisted the non-traditional Superintendent in making the
268
transition into public education from his prior service in government with
success. His participation in the program provided him with the necessary
skills to begin to transform the complex organization of Keystone into a
high-performing system. His launching strategies included: (1) Entry Plan
which served as tool to guide his early work, (2) governance reform
process, (3) organizational audits, (4) reorganization of central office to
support schools, (5) focus on student achievement – coherent focus on
teaching and learning, and (6) development of Strategic Plan.
2. Dr. Rose’s customized Entry Plan was developed with support of the
USLI and was a critical component of the Superintendents initial success.
It served as a tool to guide his work while he focused on establishing
relationships with stakeholders (internal/external constituents). It included
measurable goals, considered the strengths and challenges of the district
and ultimately led to the development of the district Strategic Plan to
increase student achievement.
3. Dr. Rose utilized numerous strategies from his extensive background in
public service and government as he focused on moving the district form
organizational disarray to one where each individual accepted was
committed and accepted responsibility for providing high quality
education for its clients (students). To accomplish this goal, the
superintendent utilized his communication and negotiation skills to
establish a positive and collaborative working relationship with the nine
269
members Board. First, he focused on developing a common vision by
providing a retreat for Board members to learn about proper governance.
Second, in partnership, they worked together to develop shared goals,
beliefs, and commitments. Third, they agreed to support the goals and
initiatives outlined in the strategic plan. Fourth, a shift of the board from
decisions in administration to governance through policy and
accountability for outcomes.
4. As the Chief Executive Officer of KPS, Dr. Rose utilized his prior
professional and personal experiences to orchestrate the change in culture
and the restructuring of Keystone. His efforts resulted in the development
of the Strategic Plan which was presented to the School Board within six
months of entering Keystone Public Schools. It included input from all
stakeholders and provided Keystone with a comprehensive framework to
increase student achievement by improving teaching across the district.
The district’s “Excellence for All” master plan incorporated a strategic
vision, core beliefs, and common commitments and tied all reform
initiatives to measurable student performance benchmarks.
5. Serving as a catalyst for reform in Keystone, Dr. Rose capitalized on
several reform strategies simultaneously to create and foster a coherent
focus on teaching and learning. He utilized the governance strategy to
build a solid partnership with the school board and create a singular focus
on a improving the student achievement of every student in KPS. Outside
270
resources were used to conduct organizational audits and assessments
and he used the results to restructure and reorganize the central office
departments and personnel to create a central office (administrators and
support staff) united around a shared vision of improving education for all
district students. The Superintendent implemented system-wide
communication by enhancing the communications department which
resulted in increased family and community engagement. The district
engaged in curriculum overhaul to ensure alignment to state standards
and assessments. District benchmark assessments were selected to serve
as standards for student performance, monitoring student growth, and a
means for informing instruction. Professional development activities were
tightly aligned to support the fidelity and implementation of the district
adopted curriculum. The HR department developed a system for the
recruitment and development of teachers and administrators to support
each school in moving with the district’s goals and initiatives. The budget
and finance team was redirected to support goals and initiatives outlined
in the master plan and worked toward fiscal solvency. Dr. Roses’
philanthropic endeavors with the foundation community and local
businesses resulted in financial support to deserving students and families
in KPS.
6. One of the key factors for reform in Keystone was the Superintendent’s
focus on attending to the professional development needs of the
271
principals. He addressed this area with more intensity than that of the
classroom teachers. District support and finances were enhanced with
outside resources to develop and implement the KULSE program: a
comprehensive system of accountability to drive the Keystone Public
Schools reform agenda of Excellence for All by recruiting, training,
supporting evaluating, improving and rewarding principals to enable their
success and the achievement of students. The underlying principle for the
system is that best practices in thinking and behavior for principals can be
learned, measured, and is central to the efforts of reform in Keystone.
Implications for Practice
This study investigated the school superintendent’s efforts to leverage
systemic change aimed at increasing student achievement. The interviews with the
superintendent and key personnel left no doubt that the leader at the top of the
organization does have a great impact on district reform and student achievement.
The findings and conclusions of the study lead to the following implications. They
are listed as they relate to specific areas of responsibility, including school and
district administrators, local community stakeholders and school board members, and
policymakers and superintendent preparation programs.
School and District Administrators
1. In order for schools and districts to make gains in student achievement
and be successful, there must be a comprehensive design for reform
272
which is based on research and best practices. This plan must be known
to all stakeholders and aligned to federal and state accountability
mandates. Open communication and transparency fosters collaboration
and trust between stakeholders.
2. The areas of curriculum, instruction and assessment and professional
develop must be aligned to district and state accountability plans. A
process for evaluating programs is necessary for ongoing improvement.
3. All district resources (fiscal, human, material) must be allocated equitably
according to need in order to achieve desired goals and objectives.
Local Community Stakeholders and School Board Members
1. Based on the challenges experienced by new superintendents in
developing positive and trusting relationships with the governing board,
initial board relations are ambiguous and uncertain. It is critical that all
board members fully understand the challenges for the superintendent and
are provided the necessary information, details, and structures to support
the success of the superintendent. Establishing trusting relationships with
clear and specific roles and responsibilities for members of the board and
the superintendent will support the vision and mission of the school
district.
2. The superintendent and school board must have a comprehensive
understanding and the ability to proactively develop, implement, manage,
and interpret the district’s budget in order to validate the district’s
273
financial solvency. Without this competency, districts will be
unsuccessful and will result in more districts descending into financial
chaos.
3. The leadership of the school district must understand the critical role that
schools-community partnerships provide with respect to providing
opportunities for stakeholder commitment to meeting goals and
initiatives. By working together and with the same focus, a win-win
situation is created.
4. It is imperative that the Superintendent be directly connected with formal
and informal networks of collegial support. Superintendent turnover is
damaging to promoting the continuous improvement cycle and ultimately
impacts student achievement.
Policymakers and Superintendent Preparation Programs
1. Aspiring superintendent candidates must be recruited by experienced
superintendents who understand the job and the skill set required for the
position. Experienced superintendents possess the knowledge to see the
talent and potential in aspiring administrators and as education
professionals, experienced system leaders can provide encouragement,
support, and honest information to aspiring superintendents.
2. Upon selection for the position and through the first year of employment
to assist with the entry period, coaching and mentoring for new
superintendents can be an important component to success with the
274
unexpected challenges which arise the first year, and as a means of
avoiding mistakes made by many new to the superintendency.
3. College and universities that offer administrator preparation programs
should include modules in the program that will help future
administrators understand the impact of changing demographics,
globalization and the needs of an increasingly diverse student population.
Recommendations for Future Research
Within the context of the research questions, an analysis of the data, findings
and conclusions suggest several areas for further research:
1. The current study examined the actions in one large urban school district
after the superintendent had been in the position for two years. Research
shows that any new plan will cause growth for the first few years. In
order to study sustainability and effectiveness this study should be
duplicated in a few years. The use of the Quality and Level of
Implementation Rubrics, generated within this study, would provide
consistent measurement tools and enhance the validity of future findings.
2. The literature in the area, as well as qualitative and quantitative data,
demonstrates that questions regarding the role of selected reform
strategies by the superintendent to promote systemic change and
ultimately improve student achievement are far from answered. Further
qualitative and quantitative research examining the role of implemented
275
reform strategies in efforts to increase student achievement would be
timely.
3. This study is based on one of ten independent research projects that
utilized common data collection tools and analysis processes. Meta
analysis of the findings from the ten districts would provide a deeper
understanding of the impact that the ten key reform strategies had across
varied school systems and environments. Establishing common themes in
the research would provide important data to superintendent preparation
programs as well as serve to inform the work of current district
superintendents.
4. While the majority of superintendents have moved through the
instructional ranks (teacher, site administrator, district administrator) to
become superintendents, the participant in this study moved through the
career pathway to the superintendency through the political arena. Further
examination of the career pathways of others who ascend to the
superintendency through a more business-focused ascension will provide
a needed perspective to superintendent preparation as well as the way
traditional and non-traditional superintendents attempt to create an
accountable system for reform in urban schools.
5. The district’s Keystone Leadership system for Excellence (KULSE)
project, which provides coaching for site administrators, was viewed as
key by the superintendent as key to their instructional improvement
276
strategy. Because the program was in the initial phases of
implementation, it was not possible to accurately measure the impact of
the program in terms of transitioning their role from manager to that of
instructional leader. Included in the KULSE project is a pay-for–
performance model for site administrators. A follow-up study should
focus on this reform effort (KULSE project) to document the
effectiveness of the program.
6. A more focused examination should be made of the superintendent as the
instructional leader of a school district and to what extent the district’s
reform penetrates classroom practice.
277
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, L. (2007). Common formative assessments: The centerpiece of an
integrated standards-based assessment system. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of
the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning
(pp.79-101). Bloomington, ID: Solution Tree.
Anderson, S. (2003 August). The school district role in educational change: A
review of the literature [Electronic Version]. International Center for
Educational Change Working paper #2.
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~icec/workpaper2.pdf .
Applebaum S. H., Molson, J., & Valero, M. (2007). The crucial first three months:
An analysis of leadership transition traps and successes. The Journal of
American Academy of Business, 11(1), 1-8.
Applebaum, S. H., St-Pierre, N., & Glavas, W. (1998). Strategic organizational
change: The role of leadership, learning, motivation, and productivity.
Management Decision. 36(5), 289-301.
Bauch, P., & Goldring, E. (1995). Parent involvement and school responsiveness:
Facilitating the home-school connection in schools of choice. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17 (1), 1-21.
Bjork, L. G., & Kowalski, T. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent:
Preparation, practice and development (pp. 45-69). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2005). Learning theory and
research: A framework for changing superintendent preparation and
development. In L. Bjork & T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary
superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 71-106).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Young, M. D. (2005). National education reform
reports: Implications for professional preparation and development. In L.
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Third Edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
278
Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., Eide, E. R. Kuzin, A. & Nayfack, M. (2007). The
role of economics in policy research. Prepared for Handbook of Research in
Education Finance and Policy, March 8, 2007.
Broad Foundation. (2008). The Broad Superintendents Academy qualitative project:
Phase II. Los Angeles, CA: J. Takata Welsh.
Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2003). Better leaders for
America's schools: A manifesto. Los Angeles: The Broad Foundation.
California Department of Education. (2007). Achievement gap fact sheet. Retrieved
December 19, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/se/agfactsheet.asp
California Department of Education. (2007). Dropouts by Grade and Ethnicity, 2005-
06. Retrieved December 19, 2007 from http://www.cde.ca.gov
California Department of Education. (2007). School Accountability Report Card:
Data Element Definitions and Sources 2006-07. Retrieved January 1,
2008, from http://www.cde.ca.gov
California School Boards Association. (2007). School Board Leadership-The Role
and Function of California’s School Boards. West Sacramento CA:
California School Boards Association.
Cambron-McCabe, N., Cunningham, L., Harvey, J., & Koff, R. H. (2005). The
superintendent’s fieldbrook: a guide for leaders of learning. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Campbell, C., DeArmond, M., & Schumwinger, A. (2004). From Bystander to Ally:
Transforming the District Human Resources Department. Seattle, WA:
Center on Reinvesting Public Education, University of Washington.
Carlsmith, L., & Railsback, J. (2001). The power of public relations in schools. By
request. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2007). Carnegie project on
the education doctorate. Retrieved on April 3, 2008 from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/dynamic/publications/elibrary_pdf_639.p
df.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2007). Institutions enlisted
to reclaim education doctorate. Retrieved on April 6, 2008 from
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/news/sub.asp?key=51&subkey=2266
279
Carter, G., & Cunningham, W. (1997). The American school superintendent:
Leading in the age of pressure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carver, J. (2006). Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership I
nonprofit and public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chappuis, S. & Chappuis, J. (2007, December / 2008, January). The best value in
formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14-18.
Chappuis, S., Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J., & Chappuis, J. (2005). Assessment for
learning: An action guide for school leaders. Portland, OR: Educational
Testing Service.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school
districts. Harvard Business Review. November, 2006, 1-14.
Childress, S., Elmore, R.F., Grossman, A., & Johnson, S. M. (Eds.). (2007).
Managing school districts for high performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., Grossman, A., & King, C. (2007, January). Note on the
PELP coherence framework. Public Education Leadership Project,
1-14.
Chrispeels, J., Gonzales, M., & Edge, K. (2006). Uniting in reform: The power and
importance of bringing all stakeholders to the table. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting in San
Francisco, CA.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Council of the Great City Schools. (2006). Review of human resource operations in
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. Washington, DC: Council of the Great
City Schools.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons
in personal change. New York, NY: Fireside.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cuban, L. (1998). The superintendent contradiction. Education Week, 18( 7),
(September 23, 1998), 56.
280
Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M.
(2003). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse
contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a four-year study. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 143-170.
Danzberger, J. P, & Usdan, M.D. (2000). The role of school boards in standards-
based reform. Basic Education.
Dembo, M. H., & Marsh, D. D. (2007). Developing a new Ed.D. program in the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Los
Angeles, CA: USC.
Eaker, R., Dufour, R., & Burnette, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools
to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, ID: National
Education Service.
Education Commission of the States. (2004, April). States notes: Governance.
America’s Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Education Research Service. (2005). See Superintendents and principals: Providing
leadership for student learning.
Eiter, M. (2002). Best practices in leadership development: Lessons from the best
business schools and corporate universities. In M. Tucker & J. Codding
(Eds.), the principal challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of
accountability (pp. 99-102). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert
Shanker Institute, Winter. Retrieved on December 18, 2007 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement
[Electronic Version]. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Retrieved December 18, 2007 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/bridging.pdf.
Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-
10.
281
Elmore, R.F. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and
performance-based accountability [Electronic Version].CPRE:NGA Center
for Best Practices. www.nga.org/cda/files/0803KNOWING.PDF.
Elmore, R.F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Elmore, R. F. & Burney, D. (1999). Leadership and learning: Principal recruitment,
induction and instructional leadership in Community School District #2, New
York City. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and
Development Center.
Epstein, J. L. & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: preparing educators for
school, family, and community partnerships. The John Hopkins University,
Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships. Peabody Journal of
Education, 81, Issue 2 April 2006, pages 81-120. Online publication date:
May 1, 2006.
Esparo, L., & Rader, R. (2001). The leadership crisis. American School Board
Journal, 188(5), 46-48.
Fair City Entry Plan: Listening and Learning Plan. (2006).
Fiore, D. J. (2006). School community relations, 2
nd
Edition. Larchmont, NY: Eye on
Education.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21
st
century. New
York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large scale reform. Journal of Educational Change,
1, 1-23.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass:
A Wiley Imprint.
Fullan, M. (2003). The Moral Imperative of School Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their
organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
282
Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey J., Immerwahr J., & Winder, A.
(2003). An impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair.
Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Gallagher, C. W. & Ratzlaff, S. (2007, December / 2008, January). The road less
traveled. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 48-53.
Gilbert, S., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., Marsh, J., McLaughlin, M., Talbert, J. &
Young, V. (2002, April). Districts as change agents: levers for system-wide
instructional improvement [Electronic Version]. Presentation at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New Orleans,
LA. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/InProgress/AERA-DistrictsAs
Change.pdf.
Glass, T. (2001). Superintendent leaders look at the superintendency, School Boards
and Reform. ECS Issue Paper. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the
States, 2001.
Glass, T., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency 2000. A look at the superintendent of education in the new
millennium. American Association of School Administrators. Arlington, VA.
Retrieved July 1, 2005, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov.zeus.tarleton.edu:81/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/conten
t_storage_01/0000000b/80/10/d6/e.
Goldberg, B. & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-nect: Purpose, accountability, and
school leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership Lessons
from Comprehensive School Reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G. (2001). Thinking differently:
Recommendations for 21
st
century board/superintendent leadership,
governance and teamwork for high student achievement. American
Association of School Administrators-Issues and Insights. Arlington, VA:
American Association of School
Administrators.
Gregory, G. H., & Kuzmich, L. (2004). Data driven differentiation in the standards-
based classroom. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Press.
283
Hannaway, J. & Rotherham, A. J. (2006). Collective bargaining in education:
negotiating change in today’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers.
The Journal of Human Resources, 3(92), 326-354.
Harvey, J. (2003). The urban superintendent: Creating great schools while surviving
on the job. Orlando, FL: Council of the Great City Schools.
Henderson, A. T. & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of
Hess, F. M. (2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America’s
schools.
Hess, F.M. & West, M.R. (2006). A better bargain: overhauling teacher collective
bargaining for the 21
st
century. American Enterprise Institute and The
Brookings Institution.
Hewitt, P. (2007). Bargaining within the school culture. Leadership, 26-32.
Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2002). School districts
and instructional renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21
st
Century: It’s not just a job, it’s a
Calling. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428-433.
Howlett, P. (1993, May). The politics of school leaders, past and future. The
Education Digest, 58(9), 18-21. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from Research
Library Core database. (Document ID: 5139451).
Hoyle, J. R., Bjork, L. G., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as
CEO: standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press-A
Sage Publication Company.
Ingram, M., Wolfe, R. B., & Lieberman, J. M. (2007). The role of parents in high-
achieving schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and
Urban Society, 39(4), 479-497.
Ingram, R. L. & Snider, B. (2008). An educator’s guide to contract negotiations.
Leadership, 30-34.
284
Jentz. B., & Murphy, J. T. (2005). Starting confused: How leaders start when they
don't know where to start. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 736-744.
Jeynes, W. H. (2003). A Meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on
minority Childrens’ academic achievement. Education and Urban Society,
35(2), 202-218.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new
superintendency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching: Our needs
for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Keedy, J. L., & Bjork, L. G. (2001). Legacy of learning. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institute Press.
Kewal-Ramani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., & Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and
trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-039).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC.
Kirkpatrick, D. W. (2003, April 1). “A Nation Still At Risk.” The Heartland Institute:
School Reform News, Apr. 1, 2003.
http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11776 (accessed December, 20, 2008).
Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1996). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executive 5, No. 2:48-
64.
Koehler, P. (2000). Orchestrating a chorus. R & D Alert (fall): 4-6.
Kowalski, T. J. (1999). Keepers of the flame: Contemporary urban superintendents.
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Inc.
Lashway, L. (2002, September). The superintendent in an age of accountability.
ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 468515 Retrieved from
ERIC database:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000
0019b/80/1a/61/fe.pdf.
Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007
(NCES 2007–496). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
285
Leithwood, K. (1995). Effective school district leadership: Transforming politics
into education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Luce, T. & Thompson, L. (2005). Do what works. Dallas, Texas: Ascent Education
Press.
Lunenburg, F. C. & Irby, B. J. (2002). Parent involvement: A key to student
achievement [Electronic Version]. Paper presented to the annual meeting of
the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration in
Burlington, Vermont. Retrieved December 12, 2007 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000
0019b/80/1a/62/f7.pdf.
MacIver, M. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. (Report No.
65). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
At Risk, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved February 8, 2008 from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report65.pdf.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). Designing a comprehensive approach to classroom
assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment
to transform teaching and learning (pp.103-123). Bloomington, ID: Solution
Tree.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T. & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development & Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.
Massell, D. 2000). The district role in building capacity; Four strategies (RB-32).
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.
McAdams, D. R. (2006). What school boards can do: Reform governance for urban
schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
286
McDermott, K. A. (2000). Barriers to large-scale success of models for urban school
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 83-89.
McLaughlin, M. W., Gilbert, S., Hightower, A. M., Husbands, J. L., Marsh, J. A.,
Young, V. M., & Talbert, J. E., (2002). Districts as change agents: Levers for
system-wide instructional improvement. Presentation at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1-9). New Orleans:
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. (2003, September). Reforming districts: How
districts support school reform [Electronic Version]. Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy Research Report. www.ctpweb.org/.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2003). Public management and educational
performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administrative
Review, 63(6), 689-699.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
source book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Miller, D. B., Sen, A., and Malley, L. B. (2007). Comparative Indicators of
Education in the United States and Other G-8 Countries: 2006 (NCES 2007-
006). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Murphy, J., & Vriesenga, M. (2006). Research in school leadership preparation in
the United States: An analysis. School Leadership and Management, 26(2),
183-195.
Murphy, J., Yff, J. & Shipman, N. (2000). Implementation of the interstate school
leaders licensure consortium standards. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 3, Issue 1 January 2000, pp. 17-39.
National Center on Education and the Economy. (2007). Tough choices or tough
times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American
workforce. Washington, DC: The National Center on Education and the
Economy.
287
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Projections of education statistics
to 2014. Retrieved November 29, 2008 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/sec_3a.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for school reform. Washington, DC: National Commission on
Excellence in Education.
National School Boards Foundation. (2001). Improving School Board Decision-
Making: The Data Connection. Alexandria VA: National School Boards
Foundation.
National School Public Relations Association. (2002). Raising the bar for school PR:
New standards for the school public relations profession. Rockville, MD:
Author. Retrieved from:
http://www.nspra.org/files/docs/StandardsBooklet.pdf.
Neely, R. O., Berube, W., & Wilson, J. (2002). The entry plan. School
Administrator, 59(9), 28-30.
Neff, T. J., & Citrin, J. M. (2005). You’re in charge—now what?: The 8 point plan.
New York, NY: Crown Publishing Company.
Negroni, P. (2000, September). A radical role for superintendents. School
Administrator.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2002), Vol. 107-110, sec. Pub. L.
Northhouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Northhouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership theory and practice. 3
rd
ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
O’Day, J., Bitter, C., Kirst, M., Camoy, M., Woody, E., Buttles, M., Fuller, B., &
Ruenzel, D. (2004). Assessing California’s Accountability System:
Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities for Improvement. PACE Policy
Brief, 4(2). Retrieved August 21, 2006 from
http://www-gse.berkeley.edu/research/PACE/policy_brief.04-2.pdf.
Pace-Marshall, S. (2006). The power to transform. Leadership that brings learning
and schooling to life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
288
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2003). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3
rd
Edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Perie, M., Moran, R., & Lutkus, A. D. (2005). NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic
Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading and
Mathematics (NCES 2005–464). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2004). Wage Trends in California. Retrieved
December 17, 2007, from http://www.ppic.org.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2006). Poverty in California. Retrieved
December 19, 2007 from http://www.ppic.org.
Reeves, D. B. (2000). Accountability in Action. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning
Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2005). Accountability in Action: A blueprint for learning
organizations. The plan you need to help you exceed NCLB requirements.
Englewood, CO: Lead + Learn Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2007). Challenges and choices: The role of educational leaders in
effective assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of
assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp.227-251). Bloomington,
ID: Solution Tree.
Resnick, M. A. (1999). Effective school governance: A look at today’s practice and
tomorrow’s promise. Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy
Institute.
Ruzzi, B. B. (2006). International education tests: An overview, 2005 [Electronic
Version]. Paper prepared for the New Commission on the Skills of the
American Workforce. National Center on Education and the Economy.
Retrieved December 30, 2008 from
http://www.skillscommission.org/pdf/Staff%20Papers/International%20Tests.pd
f.
289
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday Dell.
Shannon, G. S., & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of Improved School Districts:
Themes from Research. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public
Instruction.
Shatkin, G., & Gershberg, A. (2007). Empowering parents and building
communities: The role of school-based councils in educational governance
and accountability. Urban Education, 42(6), 582-615.
Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Conklin Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006).
Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational
Researcher, 35(3), 25-32.
Smolley, E. (1999). Effective school boards: Strategies for improving board
performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies
of how urban schools systems improve achievement. Washington, DC:
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Swanson, C. B., & Stevenson, D. L. (2002). Standards-based
reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from
the NAEO state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
24(1), 1-27.
Takata, J. W., Marsh, D. D., & Castruita, R. (2007). the broad superintendents
academy qualitative project: Final report. Los Angeles, CA: The Broad
Academy.
The Broad Academy Website. (2007). Accessed February 5, 2007 at
http://www.broadacademy.org.
The Broad Center. (2007, November). Top military, business and education leaders
graduate from urban superintendents academy. The Broad Center for the
Management of School Systems.
290
Togneri, W. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve
instruction and achievement in all schools - A leadership brief [Electronic
Version]. Learning First Alliance. Retrieved December 8, 2008 from
http://www.learningfirst.org/lfa-web/rp?pa=pa=doc&docId=62.
United States Department of Education. (2000). Title I: Supporting academic
Excellence in high poverty schools through Title I. Available:
www.edgov/offices/OESE/ESEA/themes/cc-title-I-html.
Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschul, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The
foundation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first
century. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
Warner, L. (2002). Family Involvement: A Key Component of Student and School
Success. Voices for Illinois Children: Chicago, IL.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School District Leadership that Works: The
Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning.
Waters, T. & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting
vision with action. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning.
Watkins, M. (2004). The first 90 days: critical success strategies for new leaders at
all levels. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
White, S. (2007). Data on purpose: Due diligence to increase student achievement. In
D. Reeves (ed.). Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform
teaching and learning (pp. 79-101). Bloomington, ID: solution Tree.
Wong, H. K. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and
improving. NASSP Bulletin, 88(684), 41-58.
Worthen, B. R. & Sanders, J. R. (1989). Educational evaluation. New York:
Longman.
291
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H. & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for
teaching in America’s schools (3
rd
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E., (2004). Transforming schools: creating culture
of continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
292
APPENDIX A
Please log: Name, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to be
obtained after the interview, part of the interview guide that were not fully covered,
digital tape location.
Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 1
Q# Questions RQ:
1
Describe the overall status of the district when you assumed your
position as Superintendent?
What were the major strengths of the district? (ask for 3
most salient)
What were the major challenges facing the district? (ask for
3 most salient)
What was the overall academic profile of the district?
1a
1a
1a
1a
2
Considering the context of the district when you arrived, what
strategies did you use to improve the overall condition of the
district?
What specific strategies did you employ to improve student
achievement within your district?
Which participants were significantly involved in these
strategies?
How would you describe the level of implementation you
have achieved for each strategy used?
1a/b
1a/b
1a/b
1a/b
293
APPENDIX A (Continued)
Superintendent Interview Guide – DAY 2
Q# Questions RQ:
3
Please describe key aspects of your previous
background/experience
(Probe: Rate top 3 experiences in terms of importance)
How did your preparation and experience help you to select and
implement appropriate reform strategies designed to improve
student achievement?
(Probe: TBA experience, non-TBA experience, K-12 background,
degree programs, work experience, etc.)
1c
1a/b/c
4
Please rate your previous professional experience with the
following reform strategies [On a scale from 1 = limited to 3 =
extensive].
(Reform Strategies: Strategic Plan, Assessment, Curriculum,
Professional Development, HR System and Human Capital
Management, Finance and Budget, Communications, Governance
and Board Relations, Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations,
and Family and Community Engagement)
(Probe: Identify her/his rationale for each rating)
1c
294
APPENDIX B
Please log: Name, title, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to be
obtained after the interview, part of the interview guide that were not fully covered,
digital tape location.
Key Player Interview Guide
Q# Questions RQ:
1
Describe the overall status of the district when the Superintendent
arrived (or when the key player arrived if after the Superintendent)?
What were the major strengths of the district? (ask for 3
most salient)
What were the major challenges facing the district? (ask for
3 most salient)
What was the overall academic profile of the district?
1a
1a
1a
1a
2
Considering the context of the district, what strategies did the
Superintendent use to improve the overall condition of the district?
What specific strategies did the Superintendent employ to
improve student achievement within the district?
What was your involvement in these strategies?
How would you describe the level of implementation
achieved for each of the reform strategies used?
(Note: Request documents mentioned).
1b
1b
1b
1b
295
APPENDIX C
Please log: Names, titles, data/time of interview, contact information, documents to
be obtained after the interview, parts of the interview guide that were not fully
covered, and digital tape location.
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide
Q# Questions
1
In this whole discussion, we want to focus directly on (the specific dimension)
What is your district currently doing with regard (name the
dimension)? What has been the superintendent’s specific strategies
regarding this dimension?
Is your current strategy at all linked to improving student
achievement—please explain?
What has been your success in getting your current reform in this
dimension actually implemented and what challenges do you now face
in this regard?
How does your current effort for this dimension differ from what you
were doing prior to when the current superintendent came to this
district?
For your prior approach, to what extent was that approach fully
implemented?
296
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes)
Questions
Strategic Plan:
What is your district currently doing with regard to (name the dimension)?
What has been the superintendent’s specific strategies regarding this
dimension?
Is your current strategy at all linked to improving student achievement—
please explain?
What has been your success in getting your current reform in this dimension
actually implemented and what challenges do you now face in this regard?
Assessment:
What strategies or does your district have in place in regards to summative
and formative assessment to improve student performance?
What assessment practices are carried out both at the district-level and school-
site level to improve student achievement?
How does your district ensure that assessment policies and practices are
carried out throughout the district?
297
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes) (Continued)
Questions
Curriculum:
What steps does the district take to ensure that the curriculum provides all
students with opportunities to access content and learning standards, (e.g., under-
performing students, students with disabilities, and English Language Learners)?
What steps does the district take to ensure fidelity of implementation of the
curriculum across all schools and classrooms?
What steps does the district take to review and update the curriculum and
adopted materials for alignment to learning standards and student learning
needs?
Professional Development:
Describe how the district’s professional development plan includes emphasis on
improving student achievement, building teacher effectiveness, maintaining high
standards, and promoting continuous learning to enhance intellectual and
leadership capacity?
How are resources specifically designated and available to support the district's
professional development plan?
To what extent does the district's organizational structure and policies ensure the
implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of the professional development
plan?
298
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes) (Continued)
Questions
HR System and Human Capital Management:
What structures are in place to support the recruitment, selection, and
placement of new teachers and administrators?
What district policies and practices are in place to ensure teachers and
administrators build collective capacity to understand and respond to student
achievement data?
How are incentives used to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and
strong administrators for hard to staff schools?
Finance and Budget:
Prior to the superintendent’s tenure, did the districts mission, vision, and value
statements align resources to the districts instructional goals and priorities?
Describe the process used to create an organizational culture which includes all
stakeholders in the development of district-wide budget and spending
priorities?
What effective controls are in place to ensure the district’s resources are
managed properly, including financial reports for fiscal management and
decision-making?
299
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes) (Continued)
Questions
Communications:
What structures are in place to support communication of the district's vision to
the key stakeholder groups: (e.g., students, staff, and community members)?
What district policies and practices are in place to ensure district personnel
build collective capacity to "tell the story" concerning policies, activities, and
events employed to improve student achievement?
How is the communication plan used to inform the community of district
interests and activities?
Governance and Board Relations:
Describe how the districts’ vision, mission, value, and priorities are focused on
the achievement and needs of all students providing a coherent "road map" to
success?
What procedures are in place and guide how the governance team
(superintendent/board members) works together to establish systems and
processes to monitor student achievement while communicating the
information to the larger community?
What district-wide policies, culture and practices are currently utilized which
reflect a commitment to implementing systemic reform, innovative leadership,
and high expectations to improve student learning and achievement?
300
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Specific Dimensions of Reform Interview Guide (Probes) (Continued)
Questions
Labor Relations and Contract Negotiations:
What processes are in place to build trust, foster relationships and ensure open
communication between the District and labor union negotiating teams?
What are the procedures for establishing principles and objectives for the
negotiating process?
What strategies are employed by the negotiating teams to ensure accountability
and fair and equitable outcomes for the District’s employees?
Family and Community Engagement:
How does the district support capacity building and encourage parents and
community members to participate in governance and advisory roles?
Please describe the district’s process for gathering information about
parent/community needs related to supporting their children’s education and how
the district responds to this information?
What kind of training or support is provided to administrators, teachers, and
other school staff in working with parents as equal partners in student academic
achievement?
301
APPENDIX D
Quality Rubric - Strategic Plan
Definition: The strategic plan defines the district’s vision, mission, and goals. It also assigns the performance indicators and work plans to each of the districts goals and
serves as the guiding document for the district decisions and priorities.
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Vision
□
□
□
The district’s vision is well articulated in the
strategic plan. It expresses the ethical code,
overriding convictions, and the moral
convictions of the district
□
□
□
The vision represents the personal values of
those vested in the organization and is easily
understood
□
□
□
The district’s vision is somewhat articulated in
the strategic plan. To some extent it expresses
the ethical code, overriding convictions, and
the moral convictions of the district
□
□
□
Vision somewhat represents the personal
values of those vested in the organization and
is moderately understood
□
□
□
The district’s vision is not articulated in the
strategic plan. It does not express the ethical
code, overriding convictions, and moral
convictions of the district
□
□
□
Vision does not represent the personal values
of those vested in the organization and is not
easily understood
Mission
□
□
□
The mission statement is a clear and concise
expression of the district’s identity, purpose,
and means
□
□
□
The mission statement is a bold declaration of
what the district will be and is known and
understood by most in the district
□
□
□
The mission statement is somewhat an
expression of the district’s identity, purpose
and means
□
□
□
The mission statement somewhat states what
the organization will be and is known and
understood by some in the organization
□
□
□
The mission statement is a not clear and lacks
concise expression of the district’s identity,
purpose and means
□
□
□
The mission statement, to a limited extent, is
declaration of what the organization will be. It
understood by few people in the organization
Objectives
(Goals)
□
□
□
Objectives clearly commit to achieve specific,
measurable results
□
□
□
Objectives are very closely aligned with the
mission statement and they are district
objectives that are measurable and observable
□
□
□
Objectives moderately commit to achieve
specific, measurable results
□
□
□
Some objectives are aligned with the mission
statement; they are district objectives
moderately measurable and observable
□
□
□
Limited commitment to achieve specific,
measurable results
□
□
□
Few objectives are aligned with the mission
statement and few are district objectives that
are measurable, demonstrated, and observable
Strategies
□
□
□
Full commitment to deploy any and all of the
districts resources-people, facilities, equipment
and funding- to execute the strategies to meet
objectives is clearly articulated
□
□
□
The strategies strongly indicate the districts
priorities and standards
□
□
□
Some commitment to deploy districts
resources-people, facilities, equipment and
funding- to execute the strategies to meet
objectives
□
□
□
The strategies indicate moderate commitment
to the districts priorities and standards
□
□
□
Limited commitment to deploy districts
resources-people, facilities, equipment and
funding- to execute the strategies to meet
objectives
□
□
□
Few strategies indicates the districts priorities
and standards
302
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric - Strategic Plan (continued)
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Action Plan □
□
□
Specific reference to the strategy it supports
□
□
□
States the objective of the action plan itself
□
□
□
Has a detailed description of each step
required to complete the plan.
□
□
□
Indicates assignments and responsibilities
□
□
□
Includes a timeline for plan
□
□
□
Some reference to the strategy it supports
□
□
□
States some of the objectives of the action
plan
□
□
□
Has some description of steps required to
complete the plan.
□
□
□
Indicates some assignments and
responsibilities
□
□
□
Includes some timeline for plan
□
□
□
Limited reference to the strategy it supports
□
□
□
Objective of the action plan not clearly stated
□
□
□
Has a little description steps required to
complete the plan
□
□
□
Indicates few assignments and responsibilities
□
□
□
Timeline for plan very limited
Theory of Action □ Superintendent has a written “theory of
action” that clearly articulates structure;
specifies what is tightly managed and what
decisions should be left to school leaders
□ It is aligned with district context, capacity, &
system leader’s beliefs
□ Superintendent has a “theory of action” that
loosely articulates what is managed by
district and what decisions should be left to
school leaders
□ It is loosely aligned with district context,
capacity, & system’s beliefs
□ Superintendent does not have a “theory of
action.” What is managed by district and
decisions school leaders
□ It is aligned with district context, capacity, &
sups. belief system
Data Dashboard □ District has clearly identified several key
indicators that give district’s pulse
□ Indicators are aligned with district’s strategic
plan; accountability plan assigns
responsibility for achieving district goals to
specific people/depts.
□ District has some indicators that give
district’s pulse
□ Indicators somewhat aligned with strategic
plan; accountability plan assigns some
responsibility for district goals to specific
people/depts.
□ District has few indicators that give district’s
pulse
□ Indicators not aligned with district’s strategic
plan; accountability and responsibility for
achieving district goals not clearly defined
303
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Assessment
Definition: Assessment activities enable districts to know whether students are learning what they are supposed to learn (i.e., the standards). Common, regularly-scheduled
district-wide assessments should connect directly with standards, curriculum, pacing guides, and professional development.
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Summative
Assessments
Full district-wide implementation of state
standardized assessments.
Full compliance to state and federal (NCLB)
requirements.
Moderate implementation of state
standardized assessments.
Compliance to state and federal (NCLB)
requirements.
Low district-wide implementation of state
standardized assessments
Low or no compliance to state and federal
(NCLB) requirements.
Formative
Assessments
District-wide use of standards-based
common benchmark and curriculum-
embedded assessments.
Common rubrics to review student work.
Assessment schedule and pacing guides
developed and utilized.
Moderate district-wide use of common
benchmark assessments.
Some common rubrics to review student
work.
Assessment schedule and pacing guides
developed.
Low or no district-wide use of formative
assessments.
Low or no use of common rubrics to review
student work.
No or unclear assessment schedule and/or
pacing guides.
Data Management,
Information, and
Reporting
System/Technology
District-wide (Internet-based) infrastructure
system for assessment data collection,
management, and reporting.
Data collection every 6-8 weeks.
Easy system for entry/retrieval of assessment
data and results/reports.
User friendly data reports.
District/school staff technology trained,
supported and proficient.
Moderate infrastructure for assessment data
collection, management, and/or reporting.
Periodic data collection.
System for entry/retrieval of assessment data
and reports.
District/school staff technology trained.
Low or no infrastructure for assessment data
collection, management, or reporting.
Low or no periodic data collection.
Limited or no district/school staff technology
trained, supported or proficient.
304
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Assessment (continued)
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Analysis,
Interpretation, and
Utilization of
Assessment Data
District-wide analysis, interpretation, and
utilization of assessment data to improve
instructional practices, decision-making, and
support for learning.
Meaningful feedback to identify areas of focus
and needs for student mastery of standards.
District-wide schedule for data analysis to plan
and improve curriculum, instruction, and
student achievement.
Moderate district-wide analysis,
interpretation and/or utilization of
assessment data.
Moderate feedback to identify areas of focus
and student needs.
Intermittent schedule for data analysis.
Low or no district-wide analysis,
interpretation or utilization of assessment
data.
Limited or no schedule for data analysis.
Professional
Development (PD)
District-wide plan to ensure all district/school
staff have knowledge and receive support in:
District-wide assessments (summative and
formative)
Effective utilization of data
management/reporting system
Analysis/interpretation of assessment data,
student achievement and meeting of standards
Collaborative data teams to analyze/interpret
data and design next steps improve instruction
and student performance aligned to proficiency
of standards.
Moderate district-wide plan for
district/school staff to receive training and
support in:
District-wide assessments
Utilization of data management/ reporting
system
Analysis/interpretation of student assessment
data and student achievement
Limited or no district-wide plan for
district/school staffs to receive PD and
support on district-wide assessments.
Limited or no PD for the utilization of
data management/reporting system.
Limited or no PD for the
analysis/interpretation of student
assessment data.
Fiscal Support and
Resources
District-wide fiscal policies and resources
support systematic assessment plan and
implementation aligned to state and federal
accountability measures for student
performance.
Fiscal resource allocation and policies
support district-wide assessment plan.
Limited or no district-wide fiscal policies
and resources in support of systematic
assessment plan and/or implementation.
305
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Curriculum
Definition: Curriculum refers to the materials used to teach. Classroom materials (e.g., textbooks, worksheets, pacing guides, etc.) should address the scope and sequence of
the district’s learning standards.
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Alignment to
Learning
Standards &
Assessments
□ The district has adopted and implemented a
curriculum that is based upon content standards and
frameworks, and is aligned to required assessments
of student learning
□ The district curriculum contains all of the essential
knowledge and skills students need master the state
and district learning standards
□ The district provides pacing plans in all content
areas that assist teachers in delivering the required
content during the academic year, aligned to
periodic assessments of student learning
□ The district has an adopted curriculum that
is based upon content standards and
frameworks, and is partially aligned to
required assessments of student learning
□ The district curriculum contains some of the
essential knowledge and skills students need
master state and district learning standards
□ The district provides pacing plans in some
content areas that assist teachers in
delivering the required content during the
academic year
□ The district does not have has an adopted
curriculum that is based upon content
standards and frameworks, or aligned to
required assessments of student learning
□ The district curriculum contains little of the
essential knowledge and skills students need
master state and district learning standards
□ The district does not provide pacing plans
that assist teachers in delivering the required
content during the academic year
Equal Access to
Learning
Standards
□ The district curriculum optimizes all students’
opportunities to access content and learning
standards, including under-performing students,
students with disabilities, and ELs
□ The district curriculum provides many
students with opportunities to access content
and learning standards
□ The district curriculum provides few
students with opportunities to access content
and learning standards
Fidelity in
Implementation
□ The district communicates the required curriculum
clearly and systematically with all stakeholders,
especially site administrators, teachers, students,
and parents
□ The district provides adequate funding for schools
to support professional development and full
implementation of the curriculum
□ The district demonstrates a systemic commitment to
long-term implementation of the curriculum
□ The district communicates the required
curriculum with site administrators, and
teachers
□ The district provides some funding for
schools to support professional development
and implementation of the curriculum
□ The district demonstrates some commitment
to long-term implementation of the
curriculum
□ The district does not fully communicate the
required curriculum to site administrators,
teachers, or other stakeholders
□ The district provides little or inadequate
funding for schools to support professional
development and implementation of the
curriculum
□ The district demonstrates little or no
commitment to long-term implementation of
the curriculum
306
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Curriculum (continued)
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Sufficiency of and
Appropriateness of
Materials
□ The district provides sufficient instructional
textbooks and curricular materials (including
intervention materials) for all students.
□ The district provides all schools with
abundant supplemental materials to support
and enhance implementation of the
curriculum in all subject areas.
□ The district provides curricular materials are
appropriate for and culturally relevant to all
students
□ The district provides instructional textbooks
and curricular materials for all students.
□ The district provides schools with some
supplemental materials to support
implementation of the curriculum in some
subject areas.
□ The district provides curricular materials are
appropriate for and culturally relevant to
many students
□ The district does not provide sufficient
instructional textbooks and curricular
materials for all students.
□ The district provides schools with few or no
supplemental materials to support
implementation of the curriculum.
□ The district provides curricular materials are
appropriate for and culturally relevant to some
students
Clear and regular
procedures to
review and update
the curriculum
□ There is a system in place that provides for
regular review of the adopted materials for
core subjects by district and site
administrators and teachers to verify
alignment and universal access
□ There is a system in place that provides for
district and site administrators and teachers to
adapt materials to ensure alignment and
access
□ There is a system in place that provides for
District and site administrators and teachers to
use assessment results to determine what
materials are needed to supplement the
adopted curriculum to ensure that all key
standards are mastered.
□ Key staff members periodically review the
adopted materials for core subjects to verify
alignment
□ Key staff members periodically adapt
materials to ensure alignment and access
□ Key staff members periodically use
assessment results to determine what
materials are needed to ensure that all key
standards are mastered.
□ Some district staff members may occasionally
review the adopted materials for core subjects
to verify alignment
□ Some district staff members may occasionally
adapt materials to ensure alignment and
access
□ Some district staff members may occasionally
use assessment results to determine what
materials are needed to ensure that key
standards are mastered.
307
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Professional Development
Definition: Professional development is any program or course intended to improve teacher or principal effectiveness. Successful districts have an integrated professional
development strategy that centers on enabling teachers to detect when students aren’t meeting certain standards and to adjust their instruction accordingly, or enables principals
and teachers to improve their knowledge and skills in areas of district focus.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Designing
Professional
Development
LEA includes budgeted, coherent PD activities
that reflect the best available research-based
strategies for improved student achievement and
focus on standards-based content knowledge.
PD supports the district’s long-term plan and
identified goals.
Plan includes needs assessment process and
goals include: improving all students’ learning,
improving teacher effectiveness, setting high
standards for teachers, promoting continuous
staff learning, and enhancing staff intellectual
and leadership capacity.
Resources are designated and available to
support PD plan and specific personnel stay
abreast of and incorporate best practices into
teaching, learning, and leadership.
LEA includes PD activities but they do
not reflect the best available research-
based strategies and may focus on
standards-based content knowledge.
PD minimally supports the district’s long-
term plan.
Plan may include a needs assessment
process may include two or less of the
following: improving all students’
learning, improving teacher effectiveness,
setting high standards for teachers,
promoting continuous staff learning, and
enhancing staff intellectual and leadership
capacity.
Resources available to support plan; few
personnel stay abreast of best practices.
The LEA has little or no connection to PD
activities which do not necessarily focus on
standards-based content knowledge.
PD plan is not in alignment with district’s
long-term plan.
The plan does not include a needs assessment
process and goals of PD include one or none
of the following: improving all students’
learning, improving teacher effectiveness,
setting high standards for teachers, promoting
continuous staff learning, and enhancing staff
intellectual and leadership capacity.
Minimal resources are available to support PD
plan and little or not effort has been made to
identify personnel stay abreast of best
practices in teaching, learning, and leadership.
Implementing
Professional
Development
LEA’s organizational structures and policies
support implementation of PD activities on the
individual, collegial, and organizational levels.
PD is integral to the district culture and
promotes inquiry.
PD plan includes “coaching model” and all staff
receives coaching support.
LEA ensures that resources remain available to
organize and implement PD.
Most LEA’s organizational structures and
policies support the implementation of PD.
PD is inconsistent across the district and
may promote inquiry and improvement.
Plan includes the “coaching model” and
participation is sporadic.
Some resources are available to support
PD.
□ Minimal number of the organizational
structures and policies support the
implementation of PD.
□ PD is disconnected to classroom practices and
does not support and promote teacher
effectiveness in the classroom.
□ Plan does not include “coaching model.”
□ Minimal resources are available to support
PD.
308
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Professional Development (continued)
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Evaluating and
Improving
Professional
Development
LEA uses PD design goals to determine
evaluation measures and standards for
success. Personnel for collecting, analyzing,
and reporting data and for facilitating the
“PD next steps” decisions are clarified.
Evaluation findings are used to make
improvements in PD plan and criteria
include: 1) improved teaching, improved
student learning, 3) narrowing of student
achievement gaps.
LEA has a process for monitoring and
documenting the alignment of the school
improvement plan(s), professional
development activities, and teacher and
student outcomes.
LEA has a plan to determine PD evaluation
measures but lacks clarity and specifics as to
what measures will be used as standards for
success. Minimal personnel are selected for
collecting, analyzing, and reporting data and
developing next steps (lacks depth).
Evaluation findings exist but are not used to
make improvements in PD plan.
Lack of alignment in the school improvement
plan(s), PD activities, and teacher and student
outcomes.
□ Little or no connection between PD design
goals and evaluation process. Personnel have
not been identified to collect and analyze data.
□ Little or no connection between evaluation
findings of make improvements in PD plan.
□ The process for monitoring and
documentation of the school improvement
plan(s) exists but lacks alignment between PD
activities, and teacher and student outcomes.
Sharing
Professional
Development
Learning
LEA has a plan to document professional
development learning (challenges and
successes) changes in order to sustain
excellence when major changes in personnel
occur.
Records are kept to guide future PD
decisions.
Implementation materials are organized and
available to serve as models of effective
practice. This strategy is essential for
keeping staff, administrators, parents,
students, and community moving in the same
direction.
□ LEA has moderate documentation of PD
learning (challenges and successes).
□ Records are kept.
□ Some implementation materials are
organized and available to others to serve as
models of effective practices. Therefore,
most of the staff, administrators, parents,
students, and community all moving in the
same direction.
□ LEA lacks documentation of PD challenges
and successes.
Few or no records are kept to guide future PD
decisions.
Little or lack of evidence to support that
implementation materials are organized and
available to others to serve as models of
effective practices.
309
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – HR System and Human Capital Management
Definition: Research indicates that teacher quality is perhaps the primary influence on student achievement, yet many districts do a poor job of attracting, selecting, and
managing talent, whether at the teacher, principal, or central office level. Improving the recruiting and hiring processes for teachers and principals, developing attractive
compensation packages, and processing applications and payments quickly—which a good HR system should be able to do—can greatly improve the quality of instruction in
schools and classrooms across the district. Districts then need to develop clever support and retention strategies to keep talent in the district. Most importantly, districts can
proactively improve their capacity for providing a quality education by examining and refining their selection process.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Recruitment,
selection and
placement of new
administrators
□ Achievement data, demographics, staffing,
and culture of the district are used to define
qualities of new administrators
□ District program in place to recruit
outstanding teachers as administrators
□ Achievement data, demographics, staffing,
and culture of each school are used to develop
a customized set of required principal skills at
all sites
□ Strongest principal leaders are placed at the
most underperforming schools
□ Some criteria are used when identifying
potential school leaders during the
administrator hiring process
□ Informal referral process is in place to
encourage in-house recruitment
□ Placement of principals is determined by
district personnel
□ Strong principals are encouraged to take on
underperforming schools
□ Hiring decisions have little to no connection
to student achievement
□ In-house recruitment program is nonexistent
or inconsequential
□ Placement is driven by availability or other
criteria
□ Performance of school is not considered in
placement
Recruitment of
highly qualified
teachers
□ Quarterly report to community regarding the
percentage of classes with HQTs
□ Compensation incentives are used to recruit
HQTs
□ District and employee organizations work
collaboratively to recruit HQTs from high-
performing schools to teach in
underperforming schools within the district
□ Annual HQT reporting is completed as
required by law
□ Incentives limited to few curricular areas or
special circumstances
□ Strong effort made by district, without union
support, to encourage HQTs from high-
performing schools to teach in
underperforming schools
□ No reporting policy in place or inconsistent
reporting to community
□ No incentive policy in place to support
recruitment of HQTs
□ No or inconsistent efforts to recruit HQTs
from high performing schools to teach in
underperforming schools in the district
310
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – HR System and Human Capital Management (continued)
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Teacher support
and development
□ All teachers have access to ongoing PD that is
targeted at district achievement goals and
delivery of standards-aligned curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
□ District has established a new teacher support
system the promotes high-quality support and
resources
□ PD activities are strongly tied to board-
adopted district goals and objectives
□ District collects data to measure the
effectiveness of PD as it related to improved
student achievement
□ Some teachers have access to ongoing PD that
is targeted at district goals and delivery of a
standards-aligned curriculum and instruction
program
□ District provides some site-level support for
new teachers through formal and informal
processes
□ PD activities are generally supportive of
district goals and objectives
□ Teachers are encouraged to measure the
effectiveness of PD as related to student
achievement
□ There exists little evidence that PD activities
are tied to district achievement goals or
specific curriculum objectives
□ New teachers receive the majority of support
through university teacher preparation
programs
□ No evidence of ties between PD and district
goals and objectives
□ No effort is made by the district to measure
the effectiveness of PD or impact on student
achievement
Salaries, wages,
and benefits
□ District and employee organizations work
collaboratively to ensure salaries, wages, and
benefits are sufficiently competitive to attract
and retain HQTs with an emphasis on math,
language arts, reading, and teaching ELs
□ District conducts quarterly analyses of
recruitment and retention data
□ The district has negotiated competitive
salaries, wages, and benefits as compared to
surrounding school districts
□ District conducts annual analyses of
recruitment and retention data
□ No evidence suggests a collaborative effort on
the part of the district and employee
organizations to attract and retain HQTs in
math, language arts, reading, and teaching
ELs
□ No evidence suggests analysis plans exist in
the district
Use of incentives □ Compensation incentives are used to recruit
HQTs and administrators to work in hard-to-
staff schools
□ Incentives include: extra compensation,
opportunities for collaboration, reduced class
size, and recognition programs
□ Compensation incentives are used to recruit
HQTs in certain content areas at hard to staff
and/or underperforming schools
□ Limited monetary and non-monetary
incentives in use by the district to attract and
retain HQTs and strong administrators
□ Compensation incentives are not used to
attract HQTs / administrators to hard to staff
and/or underperforming schools
□ Incentives are not in place or in use to attract
and retain HQTs and/or strong administrators
311
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric - Finance & Budget Rubric
Definition: While student achievement is the ultimate bottom line, more superintendents are fired for poor financial management than for poor student achievement results. In
addition to ensuring that their budget is balanced and sustainable, superintendents should closely align their budget with instructional priorities. Some districts have adopted
innovative budgeting approaches such as “zero-based budgeting” and weighted student funding to bring their budgets into closer alignment with their priorities.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Strategic Budget
Planning
□
□
□
Strategic plan is linked to the superintendent’s
goals and priorities, incorporates measurable
objectives and outcomes, and is used as the
basis of budget planning.
□
□
□
The budget is closely aligned to the district’s
mission, goals, and operational activities and
identifies who is accountable organizationally
for specified outcomes.
□
□
□
School budget is explicitly tied to the
district’s instructional goals and priorities.
□
□
□
Changes in district priorities are reflected in
the budget in a timely fashion.
□
□
□
Fiscal team understands the district’s past
fiscal issues, problems, challenges, and
accomplishments in order to gain perspective
on how to guide the district in the future.
□
□
□
District goals and priorities, outlined in the
strategic plan, are found in budget priorities,
but the links between the strategic plan and
the budget process are not evident.
□
□
□
There is some evidence of the district’s
instructional goals and priorities in the
budget.
□
□
□
Changes in district priorities are reflected in
the budget, but not in time to make
meaningful decisions.
□
□
□
The budget is somewhat aligned to the
district’s mission, goals, and operational
activities but organizational accountability is
not clear.
□
□
□
The district’s past fiscal issues, problems,
challenges, and accomplishments are not
considered in planning process.
□
□
□
Strategic plan is not referenced in budget
planning.
□
□
□
Changes in district priorities are not reflected
in the budget.
□
□
□
The budget is not understood by stakeholders.
□
□
□
Fiscal team has no historical perspective of
past fiscal issues.
312
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric - Finance & Budget Rubric (continued)
Components
High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Organizational
Culture
□
□
□
Expands participation in budget process to
include stakeholders and secure buy-in by
constituencies.
□
□
□
Presents audit findings & corrective action
plans to Board.
□
□
□
Establish a clear process to solicit input from
Local District personnel, principals, and
others on the annual budget process and to
pilot-test ideas before they are rolled out to
the field.
□
□
□
Participation in budget process limited to
upper and middle management.
□
□
□
Board is made aware of audit findings.
□
□
□
Processes for input from Local District
personnel, such as principals, is not clearly
established.
□
□
□
Little participation in budget process outside
of fiscal.
□
□
□
Audit findings are not sun-shined.
□
□
□
Input from Local District personnel,
principals, and others on the annual budget
process is not solicited.
Operational
Procedures
□
□
□
Establishes effective controls to ensure that
the district’s resources are managed properly,
including monthly financial reports for fiscal
management & decision-making.
□
□
□
Uses the district’s annual external audit to
improve district operations, including— the
timely review and follow-up of findings,
development of corrective action plans, and
implementation of corrective actions.
□
□
□
Establish uniform comprehensive financial
procedural manuals for school sites, Local
Districts, and central offices and conduct
appropriate training for users.
□
□
□
Controls to ensure that the district’s resources
are managed properly, including periodic
financial reports for fiscal management &
decision-making, are restricted to few district
personnel.
□
□
□
District’s annual external audit is discussed
only when produced and not revisited in
planning process.
□
□
□
Financial policies are not readily available to
school sites, Local Districts, and central
offices.
□
□
□
Financial reports for fiscal management &
decision-making are only produced, or made
available to decision-makers, in times of
crisis.
□
□
□
District’s annual external audit is not used to
inform decisions or future policy.
□
□
□
No formal financial procedural manuals are
available.
313
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Communications
Definition: Effective school districts need to showcase the great stories in their district and to counteract misinformation or negative news. Developing a public relations or
communications office staffed with experts on dealing with the media can enable the district to communicate its vision to the public or proactively build support for an
important initiative.
Component High (3)
Medium (2)
Low (1)
Communications
Plan
□ Communications plan is aligned with district’s
strategic plan
□ Communications plan actively supports district
mission and vision
□ Communications plan tailored to reflect diversity
of district schools
□ Communications plan designed to seek community
input
□ Communications plan is up to date
□ Communications plan is understood by
district office and school staff
□ Communications plan addresses needs of all
stakeholders
□ Communications plan is out of date or
missing
□ Schools are unaware of district
communications plan
□ Schools contact district office when
communications issues arise
Communications
Office
□ Communications office is integral part of district
decision making
□ Communications office maintains close liaison
with community
□ Communications office routinely consults with
district schools to ensure reporting of “great
stories”
□ Communications office is adequately staffed
□ Communications office consulted for input
in decision making
□ Communications office contacts schools and
community stakeholders with news of events
and decisions
□ Communications office is not functioning
□ Communications office is inadequately
staffed
□ Communications office not routinely
informed of decisions affecting community
stakeholders
Communication
of district vision
to the
community
□ District meets with community leaders to discuss
district vision
□ Multiple interactive means are used to disseminate
district vision
□ District employees take a proactive approach to
telling honest district message
□ District communicates vision via periodic
releases in local newspapers
□ District notifies community organizations of
district vision
□ School leaders are required to maintain
coherence of district vision with school goals
□ District vision is not communicated to the
community
□ Mission and vision are displayed on district
home page
□ School bulletins and newsletters relay district
vision to homes
314
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Communications (continued)
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Build support for
district initiatives
□ Family and community members are
engaged as decision makers in
communicating district initiatives
□ District initiatives are communicated and
understood by community
□ District notifies community organizations of
initiatives
□ Key community leaders are informed of
district initiatives
□ School leaders are encouraged to
communicate information regarding district
initiatives with key personnel
□ Community is unaware of district initiatives
□ Schools are given information concerning
district initiatives to send home in
newsletters
Two way
communications with
community
□ District and community feel involved and
engaged in their public schools
□ Focus groups and town hall meetings inform
community of district interests and activities
□ Staff members are involved in community
groups and organizations
□ Information concerning proposed legislation
that affects schools and communities are
tracked and disseminated by district
□ District publishes calendar and transportation
schedules in local newspapers
□ Community organizations are routinely
notified of district events
□ Key community leaders are routinely
notified of district events
□ School leaders are encouraged to
communicate school activities via
newsletters and letters home
□ Community events and activities are
disseminated through schools
□ Community is unaware of district events
□ District communicates to community
primarily through schools
□ Community does not communicate activities
with district
□ Parents receive letters and newsletters from
their school announcing special district
events
315
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Governance/Board Relations
Definition: Most districts are governed by boards elected from the local population; others answer to appointed boards. In either case, school boards are responsible for
setting the policy direction for the district; superintendents can take a supporting role in developing policy but are mainly charged with executing it. Winning the support of
board members, especially elected ones, is a time-consuming but critical task for most superintendents.
Component High (3)
Medium (2)
Low (1)
Setting the
Direction for the
Community’s
Schools
□ The District’s vision, mission, value, and
priorities are focused on achievement and the
needs of all students are clearly known in the
school community.
□ The vision, mission, values, and priorities are
described in the LEA plan and visible at all
district sites and described as measurable
goals.
□ The District’s goals are measurable and
achievable being evaluated annually to
improve instruction and close the gap
between high and low achieving students.
□ The District’s vision, mission, value and
priorities may lack clear focus and not
necessarily focused on student achievement
and the needs of all students are not well
known at all district sites.
□ The District’s goals are measurable and
possibly achievable but not evaluated
annually nor may be part of the LEA plan.
□ The instruction is not necessarily closing the
gap between high and low achieving
students.
□ The District’s vision, mission, value, and
priorities lack focus or are non-existent.
□ There is very little to no information available
at any district site or in the LEA plan.
□ The goals are not measurable or non-existent
and are not reviewed.
Establishing an
Effective and
Efficient Structure
for the District
□ The Board has established an organizational
structure that fully supports the district’s
vision while empowering the superintendent
and staff.
□ The Board approves policies and sets the
direction for adopting the curriculum.
□ The Board establishes budgeting priorities
on-time and consistent with the vision and
goals.
□ The Board has established an organizational
structure that partially supports the District’s
vision and may not fully empower the
superintendent.
□ Board policies are not adopted or approved in
a timely manner and there is little input in the
curriculum adoption.
□ The budget may not fully reflect the priorities
and is not consistent with the vision and
goals.
□ The board has established an organizational
structure that may not support the district
vision and may not empower the
superintendent and staff.
□ Board policies are not adopted or approved
and there is little to no input in the curriculum
adoption.
□ The budget does not reflect the priorities and
is not consistent with the vision and goals.
316
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Governance/Board Relations (continued)
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Providing
Support and
Resources
□ The Board supports the superintendent and
staff and acts in a professional demeanor
modeling the District’s belief and vision.
□ The budget allocation aligns resources based
on instructional priorities and student needs
and there is concentrated evidence of
providing additional support to reform efforts
that directly impact student achievement.
□ The Board may support the superintendent and
staff and sometimes acts with professional
demeanor modeling the District’s beliefs and
vision.
□ Budget partially aligns resources to instructional
priorities and student needs and there is some
evidence of additional support to reform efforts
that directly impact student achievement.
□ The Board rarely supports the superintendent
and staff and seldom models the District’s
belief and vision.
□ The budget allocation does not align
resources based on instructional priorities or
student need and there is no evidence of
providing additional support to reform efforts
that directly impact student achievement.
Ensuring
Accountability
to the Public
□ The Board establishes systems and processes
to monitor student achievement and
communicates the information to the school
community.
□ Board evaluates the superintendent and sets
the policy for the evaluation of all personnel.
□ The Board monitors program effectiveness
through assessments and requires changes to
protect scarce resources and monitors
effectiveness through self-evaluation.
□ The Board may have established systems to
monitor student achievement while
communication lacks consistency to the
community.
□ The Board evaluates the superintendent but may
not set policy for the evaluation of all personnel.
□ The Board may monitor program effectiveness
through assessments and seldom requires changes
to protect resources and there may be evidence of
monitoring through self-assessment.
□ Board has not established systems to monitor
student achievement and rarely
communicates information to the community.
□ The Board marginally evaluates the
superintendent and does not set policy for
personnel evaluations.
□ The Board rarely monitors program
effectiveness to protect resources and there is
no evidence of its’ effectiveness through self-
evaluation.
Actions as
Community
Leaders
□ The Board has involved the community in
appropriate, meaningful ways to allow for
feedback from stakeholders.
□ There is clear communication to community
members regarding district policies, district
educational programs, and the financial
condition of the district and progress of local
goals or bond information.
□ The Board allows the superintendent to share,
as appropriate, information with local
constituency groups.
□ The Board infrequently involves the community
in meaningful ways allowing for feedback from
stakeholders.
□ There may be clear communication to the
community regarding policies, programs and the
financial condition of the district but it is not
consistent.
□ The Board sometimes allows the superintendent
to share, as appropriate, information with local
constituency groups.
□ The Board has generally not involved the
community in any meaningful way and does
not readily accept feedback from the
community.
□ There is no clear communication to the
community and generally, district information
can be obtained only at district sites.
□ There is generally no sharing of information
with local constituency groups.
317
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Labor Relations/Negotiations
Definition: In addition to teachers unions, superintendents often need to build relationships and negotiate with several other unions to which various district staff belong.
Success in working with unions requires an upfront investment in building relationships and understanding the priorities of union leaders. The content of contracts also requires
close attention. Contract language can restrict or expand the superintendent’s options for replacing and reassigning staff. This is particularly crucial with teacher contracts, as
teacher quality is one of the most significant influences on student achievement.
Component High (3)
Medium (2)
Low (1)
Relationships,
Communications
and Trust
□ Both teams have solid trusting relationships,
credibility, political savvy, and model ethical
behavior by establishing core values
□ All bargaining members are provided with a
continuous meaningful training on traditional,
interest-based and core values bargaining
□ All key stakeholders informed of planning,
updates, modifications to proposals and
strategies, and tentative and final agreements
□ Both teams have moderate relationships,
credibility, political savvy, and model ethical
behavior by establishing core values
□ All bargaining members are provided with
some training on interest-based and traditional
bargaining
□ Some information is disseminated regarding
planning, updates, modifications to proposals
and strategies, and tentative and final
agreements to some stakeholders
□ Teams have limited skeptical relationships,
lacking credibility, political savvy, and
ethical behavior need for core values
□ There is a need for meaningful training on
traditional, interest-based and core values
bargaining
□ Only a few stakeholders are informed of
negotiation process and limited information
is distributed about tentative and final
agreements
Negotiation
Principles
and Objectives
□ Both teams have secure, established roles and
responsibilities
□ All teams use strategic plans, mission
statements, major goals and core values to
develop objectives
□ Teams work together collaboratively to review
existing contract language, to identify problem
areas, articulate community concerns, and
discuss the impact of current language on
student achievement and district operations
□ Only one team has secure, established roles and
responsibilities
□ The district and other teams have limited access
to strategic plans, mission statements, major
goals and core values to develop objectives
□ Each team works in isolation to review existing
contract language, and identify problem areas,
that impact of current language on student
achievement and district operations
□ Both teams have secure, established roles
and responsibilities
□ All teams use strategic plans, mission
statements, major goals and core values to
develop objectives
□ Existing contract language is not considered
or discussed in reference to the impact of
current language on student achievement
and district operations
318
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Labor Relations/Negotiations (continued)
Components High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Strategies for
Negotiations
□ Bargaining goals and objectives are
developed in relation to the importance of the
district mission and bargaining success,
district verifies the proposal against district
philosophy, core values, financial resources,
community support and impact of student
achievement
□ District and union work together to determine
an overarching approach to negotiations with
considerations for distributive or integrative
bargaining or a combination of the two
□ There is a solid plan for impasse: meditation,
fact finding and post fact finding negotiations
□ Bargaining goals and objectives are
somewhat developed in relation to the
importance of the district mission and
possible bargaining success
□ District determines an overarching approach
to negotiations with considerations for
distributive or integrative bargaining or a
combination of the two
□ Impasse results in breakdown in
communication, the district does not have a
plan for this process
□ Bargaining goals and objectives are
developed in relation to the importance of
each parties individual interest; the district
philosophy, core values, financial resources,
community support and impact of student
achievement are not the main consideration
□ Each group determines an overarching
approach that benefits self-interest in
negotiations
□ There is a solid plan for impasse: meditation,
fact finding and post fact finding negotiations
Fair and Equitable
Outcomes
□ Equitable distribution of rights in evaluations,
assignments, health plan, calendars, staff
development, schedules, retirement etc.
□ A high value placed on all employees and
fully recognizes their impact on the successes
of district students
□ Within the context of core values and fiscal
ability, settlement provides a fair and
equitable compensation package
□ In many cases, management rights override
the distribution of rights in evaluations,
assignments, health plan, calendars, staff
development, schedules, retirement etc.
□ Some value placed on employees and there
are small attempts to recognize their impact
on the success of district
□ At times, different groups consider core
values and fiscal impacts when negotiating
settlements and compensation packages
□ Power struggles exist when deciding the
rights in evaluations, assignments, health
plan, calendars, staff development, schedules,
retirement etc.
□ Employees perceive that they are not
recognized for their impact on the successes
of district
□ Regardless of core values and fiscal impact,
groups demand unreasonable, unaffordable
compensation packages
319
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Family and Community Engagement
Definition: All residents of a school district’s jurisdiction can be considered its stakeholders, so ensuring everyone’s satisfaction can be difficult. Districts should offer several
ways for the community and families to interact with the district, from coordinating volunteer opportunities for parents to partnering with local organizations in support of
student success. It is also important to gather feedback from the public on the district’s performance. Several districts take surveys of parents of children and of the community
in general to determine how they view the district and what their priorities for improvement are. These surveys should be closely linked to the district’s performance
management system and data dashboard. Increasing stakeholder satisfaction can lead to greater support for bond measures for the district, significantly increasing its financial
resources.
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Parenting □ The district provides coordinated trainings, at
all levels, based on parent needs and local
context.
□ The district has a system or process in place
for appropriate and quality referrals.
□ The district ensures and supports schools in
educating all staff in working with parents as
equal partners, coordinates parent programs,
and builds ties between parents/ community
and the schools.
□ Schools organize trainings for parents on a
scheduled basis.
□ Schools provide appropriate referrals.
□ The district or school offers staff trainings in
how to work with the parents/community.
□ Schools plan trainings upon request by
parents.
□ Schools provide referrals.
□ Schools receive little support from the district
in planning trainings for staff with a focus on
working with parents/community.
Communication □ Information is provided in a language and
format that ensures participation for those
parents who lack literacy skills or whose
native language is not English.
□ A district-wide expectation of consistent and
effective two-way communication between
the home and school exists.
□ Schools provide key information concerning
the school program and its activities, as
feasible, in a language that ensures
participation for those parents whose native
language is not English.
□ Schools encourage consistent and effective
two-way communication between the home
and school.
□ Schools are inconsistent in providing
translated notifications. Few resources or
options are available for schools that need
translation assistance.
□ Schools do not regularly emphasize the
importance of communication between the
home and school.
320
APPENDIX D (Continued)
Quality Rubric – Family and Community Engagement (continued)
Component High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Volunteerism □ The district and school parent involvement
policy informs parents about opportunities for
volunteers and the rights for parents to be
involved in school and classroom
activities/events.
□ The district delineates specific measures that
are taken to increase parental involvement
and addresses various barriers.
□ The district and school parent involvement
policy informs parents about opportunities for
volunteers and the rights for parents to be
involved in school and classroom
activities/events.
□ The district and schools address major
barriers, such as language, transportation, and
need for childcare.
□ The district and school parent involvement
policy informs parents about opportunities for
volunteers and the rights for parents to be
involved in school and classroom
activities/events.
□ The district and schools do little to address
barriers to parent/community participation.
Learning at Home □ The district supports schools in providing
techniques and strategies that parents may use
to improve their children’s academic success
and help their children in learning at home.
□ Schools provide techniques and strategies that
parents may use to improve their children’s
academic success and help their children in
learning at home.
□ Schools rely on teachers to work with
individual families on a as needed basis.
Decision Making □ Parents are encouraged and actively recruited
to participate in undertaking governance and
advisory roles..
□ The district organizes opportunities for
parents/ community to be involved in the
joint development of the LEA plan, parent
involvement policies, parent needs
assessments, and school-parent compacts.
□ Parents are encouraged to participate in
governance and advisory roles.
□ Parents/community are involved in some
components of the development of LEA plan,
parent involvement policies, parent needs
assessments, and school-parent compacts.
□ Schools do not have active parent
committees, and are provided little support
for taking corrective measures.
□ Parents/community are not consulted in the
development of the LEA plan, parent
involvement policies, parent needs
assessments, or school-parent compacts.
Collaboration with
the Community
□ Community organizations and/or institutions
are highly involved in district and/or school
activities, working in collaboration with the
district.
□ Community organizations and/or institutions
are minimally involved in district and/or
school activities.
□ Community organizations and/or institutions
are not involved in district and/or school
activities.
321
APPENDIX E
Implementation Rubric (All Levers)
Dimension High (3) Medium (2) Low (1)
Challenges &
Concerns
The external
challenges to full
implementation and
the concerns/
thoughts of key
players
□ No serious obstacle or
challenge.
□ Staff focused on
improving full use of
lever and its impact on
student performance
□ Common commitment
to approach
□ Some obstacles and/or
challenges to
implementation.
□ Staff focused on
thought and actions
needed to improving
lever
□ Majority of staff
showing commitment
to approach
□ Serious external
obstacles to
implementation
□ Staff focused on
whether approach to
lever is best design or
is feasible
□ Possible strong
disagreement about
best direction
Fully
Implemented in
Practice
The extent that
each component of
the change lever is
fully implemented
in practice.
□ Full implementation of
all components of the
lever across the district
□ Best practices have
been established and
are communicated in
coordinated manner
□ Practice is reflected in
policy and procedures
□ Uneven and/or
inconsistent
implementation of the
lever across the district
□ Best practices are
being collected-with
plans for
communicating these
across the district
□ Possibly some good
ideas about
implementation of the
change lever
□ Little actual
implementation of the
lever beyond minimal
bureaucratic
requirements
Common
Culture: Data,
Reflection, &
Continuous
Improvement
Shared
understanding,
values, and desired
expectations,
including active use
of data, reflection
and continuous
improvement of the
change lever itself.
□ Extensive use of data
and reflection about
the change lever—its
design,
implementation and
effectiveness in
supporting student
achievement.
□ Common and clear
expectations across
district
□ Extensive work on
continuous
improvement
□ Use of data and
reflection guides
decisions about the
change lever
□ Expectations
communicated across
the district
□ Moderately effective
continuous
improvement efforts
□ Little common
understanding of the
change lever
□ No/little data
collection regarding
lever
□ No/little reflection
about how to improve
implementation of
change lever
Sustainable Use:
Resources, Staff,
Regularization
Ad hoc vs. stability
of staff and fiscal
resources and a fit
with the ongoing
organization.
□ Strong possibility of
sustainability
□ Strong and ongoing
staff and fiscal
resource commitment
□ Shared expertise and
capacity building
□ Inclusion in regular
way the district
operates
□ Moderate possibility
of sustainability
□ Moderate staff and
fiscal resource
commitment
□ District support and
expertise
□ Very tenuous approach
to implementation of
change lever
□ Little chance of
sustainability in terms
of staffing, resources,
or regularized patterns
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement
PDF
An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study
PDF
Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions
PDF
Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent
PDF
The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies
PDF
Sustainable reform: a follow-up case study on one urban superintendent’s efforts to improve student achievement
PDF
Reform strategies used by system leaders in education to impact student achievement: a case study
PDF
How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement
PDF
A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent
PDF
How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement
PDF
Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts
PDF
The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement
PDF
Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents
PDF
Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform
PDF
An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement
PDF
CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents
PDF
Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jenkins, Lila Rene
(author)
Core Title
The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/29/2009
Defense Date
03/04/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
district refrom,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,reform strategies implemented by the system leader,student achievement,student performance,superintendent,systemic change
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy M. (
committee chair
), Marsh, David D. (
committee chair
), Escalante, Michael F. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ljenkins@ggusd.us,lrjenkin@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2155
Unique identifier
UC1295891
Identifier
etd-Jenkins-2776 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-233235 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2155 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Jenkins-2776.pdf
Dmrecord
233235
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Jenkins, Lila Rene
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
district refrom
reform strategies implemented by the system leader
student achievement
student performance
systemic change