University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
LIBERATION THROUGH PREPARATION:
BUILDING CAPACITY TO LEAD AMERICA'S URBAN SCHOOLS

by

Christopher J. Hert
______________________________________________________________

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

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Christopher J. Hert

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, Jennette, Angelina, Sophia, and
Lucas. Thank you, Jennette, for being supportive and for your love throughout this entire
process. Your patience and faith has inspired me to be a better person. I love you. Thank
you, girls, for being understanding and for always reminding me to see what is important
in life. Thank you, Super Lukie, for giving me a smile when I needed one most and for
your infectious personality. Thank you all for allowing me to take this journey; I couldn't
have done it without you. I love all of you more than you can ever know.
This is also dedicated to my mother, sister, and brother. Your support and words
of encouragement helped keep me on track. Thank you for the love. To my late father,
James C. Hert, whose memory inspires me in all that I do. To my friends, thank you for
tolerating my "quick" departures. To my neighbors, Wilson and Janet, thank you for
keeping me fed. To Gary and Dena, thank you for your support and for your belief in me.
Fight On!

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this time to extend my heart-felt gratitude to all those who
helped and supported me throughout this process. To Dr. Margaret Reed, my chair, your
passion for education has inspired me. Thank you for sacrificing your time in order to
help me achieve an unthinkable accomplishment. To my committee members, Dr.
Michael Escalante and Dr. David Marsh, thank you for your invaluable wisdom and
encouraging words of guidance. To my dissertation group—Sunday Abbott, Paula
Chamberlin, Charles Flores, Diane Kammeyer, Omaira Lee, and Paula Libby, thank you
for sharing your lives with me for the past three years—all of you have left an imprint on
my spirit. May you always find happiness and success in all that you do. Thank you again
for the wonderful support. Fight On!

So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will
strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.
-Isaiah 41:10

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 7
Significance of Study 8
Conceptual Framework 9
Assumptions 11
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study 12
Definition of Terms 14
Organization of the Study 15

Chapter Two: Literature Review 17
School Leadership Defined 18
The Urban School Context 23
The Evolution of the Role of the School Principal 25
Standards-Based Accountability Reform 27
Instructional Leadership 28
Transformational Leadership 34
Learning-Centered Leadership 38
Social Justice Leadership Theory 44
Leadership Capacity-Building: Effective Program Components 46
Dunkin Achieves! Principal Coaching Initiative 51
Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) 52
Leadership Support Structures 53
Mentoring and Coaching 54
Educational Leader Effects 55
Conclusion to Chapter Two 58

Chapter Three: Methodology 60
Introduction to Chapter Three 60
Intervention: Dunkin Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) 60
Study Design 61

v
Sample and Population 63
Selection Criteria 63
Gaining Access to Participants 67
Data Collection Procedures 68
Instrumentation Overview 70
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (Val-Ed) 71
Interview Procedures 75
Observations and Documents 76
Data Analysis Procedures 78
Validity 81
Ethical Considerations 83
Chapter Summary 83

Chapter Four: Research Findings 85
Introduction to Chapter Four 85
The Dunkin Principal Coaching Initiative 86
Case Study #1-University Park Elementary School 88
Findings for Research Question One 95
Findings for Research Question Two 102
Findings for Research Question Three 110
Findings for Research Question Four 116
Findings for Research Question Five 122
Summary for University Park Elementary School 131
Case Study #2 - Exposition Way Elementary School 131
Findings for Research Question One 138
Findings for Research Question Two 147
Findings for Research Question Three 154
Findings for Research Question Four 161
Findings for Research Question Five 168
Summary for Exposition Way Elementary School 176

Chapter Five: Summary of Findings, Discussion, and Recommendations 178
Introduction to Chapter Five 178
Statement of Problem 178
Purpose of the Study 180

Methodology Summary 181
Data Collection and Analysis 183
Summary of Findings 183
Implications for Future Research 196
Implications for Policy and Practice 198
Limitations of the Study 200
Conclusion to Study 201

vi
References 204

Appendices:
Appendix A: Informed Consent Letter 217
Appendix B: Principal Invitation Letter 221
Appendix C: Letter of Support 222
Appendix D: Outcomes Chart 223
Appendix E: Preintervention Principal Interview 224
Appendix F: Postinterview Principal Interview Protocol 227
Appendix G: Preintervention Teacher Interview 229
Appendix H: Postintervention Teacher Interview Protocol 231
Appendix I: Pre/Post Intervention Observation Protocols 233
Appendix J: Document Analysis Protocols – Department 235
Curricular Maps
Appendix K: Classroom Observation Protocol 239
Appendix L: Fall Val-Ed Results – University Park 240
Elementary School
Appendix M: Fall Val-Ed Results – Exposition Way Middle School 248
Appendix N: Spring Val-Ed Results – Exposition Way Middle School 256

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Transformational Categories of Leadership 36
Table 2: Dunkin Independent School District Enrollment 65
Table 3: Dunkin Independent School District Demographics 65
Table 4: Dunkin Achievement Results, 2008 67
Table 5: Triangulation Table 77
Table 6: Texas Public Schools - Mathematics Data 80
Table 7: Student and Teacher Ethnicity Breakdown for 2008-2009 90
Table 8: Economically Disadvantaged and Limited English Proficient 90
for 2008–2009

Table 9: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard in Reading 92
Table 10: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard in Math 93
Table 11: Dunkin ISD Accountability Ratings 2008-2009 94

Table 12: Fall 2009 Culture of Learning Integrated Summary of Principal's 106
Strengths and Areas of Growth

Table 13: VAL-ED Response Rates - Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 123
Table 14: VAL-ED Scoring Classifications 125
Table 15: Student and Teacher Ethnicity Breakdown for 2008-2009 134
Table 16: Economically Disadvantaged and Limited English Proficient for 134
2008-2009

Table 17: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard in Reading 135
Table 18: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard in Math 136
Table 19: Dunkin ISD Accountability Ratings 2008-2009 137

viii

Table 20: Fall/Spring Culture of Learning Integrated Summary of 150
Principal’s Strengths and Areas of Growth

Table 21: VAL-ED Response Rates - Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 170
Table D1: Outcomes Chart 220

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 10
Figure 2: Instructional Leadership Framework 31
Figure 3: Learning-Centered Framework 40
Figure 4: Theory of Social Justice (Theoharis, 2004) 45
Figure 5: Antecedent Effects with Mediated Effects Model 57
Figure 6: Sample VAL-ED Survey 73
Figure 7: Dunkin ISD Ethnic Breakdown 89
Figure 8 Visual Summary of 6 Core Components of 126
VAL-ED Survey Fall 2009

Figure 9: Visual Summary of 6 Key Processes of VAL-ED Survey Fall 2009 127
Figure 10: VAL-ED Principal Matrix Results Fall 2009 128
Figure 11: Dunkin ISD Ethnic Distribution 133
Figure 12: VAL-ED Scoring Classifications 171
Figure 13: VAL-ED Principal Matrix Results Fall 2009 173
Figure14: VAL-ED Principal Matrix Results Spring 2010 173

x
ABSTRACT
Achieving higher levels of learning for all children has become the 21st century
educational challenge across the nation. Substantial evidence exists that principals can
have a profound effect on the learning climate, educational programs, and professional
norms of practice in schools; however, controversy still reigns over the effects of
principal practice on student learning. Scant attention has been paid to evaluating the
efficacy of programs and practices for the professional development and retention of
school principals and validation of existing assessments of principal leadership practice
against measures of student achievement. This study was designed to explore these gaps
in the empirical literature by investigating the impact of the Dunkin (Pseudonym) ISD
Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) on leadership practice. The DPCI is a district-wide
executive leadership capacity-building program that combines the district’s standards-
based leadership curriculum with a leadership coaching support structure for principals.
This study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?

xi
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The focus for these two case studies was on assessing how participation in the DPCI
influenced leader practice and on investigating how, in turn, leader practice influenced
teacher professional practice.
Data were collected from pre/post VAL-ED leadership surveys, interviews with
principals, teachers, school documents/artifacts, and principal and classroom
observations. The VAL-ED 360 degree survey measured core components that support
the learning of students and enhance the ability of teachers to teach and key processes
leaders use to create and manage core components.
The findings showed that both case study principals felt the DPCI was a valuable
experience that, in fact, aided them in their journey toward becoming more effective
school leaders. The findings from this study support the use of a leadership capacity
building program as a tool to develop and support urban school principals; however,
further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the initiative over a sustained
length of time.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

For much of the last quarter century, educators and policymakers have been
engaged in ambitious talks addressing issues of educational equity and school
accountability. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), school
districts nationwide find themselves searching for sustainable programs aimed
specifically at closing the achievement gap for minority students. NCLB (2001)
legislation requires that schools and districts prepare all students to perform at the
proficient level on content standards in math and language arts by 2013-14. In responding
to this high stakes accountability policy, crucial differences in expectations, obligations,
and the social and economic context distinguish the tasks required of urban school
leaders from those required of leaders in other settings (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).
The adaptive challenges that confront urban schools are inextricably bound to the
social, economic, and political conditions of the urban environments in which the schools
reside (Miller, 1995). Our nation's urban schools, particularly those in most need, are
poorly matched to current popular reforms. A large number of urban schools can be
described as schools with high concentrations of the "hard to teach," economically
disadvantaged, limited English speaking, minority student populations who perform in
the lowest quartiles of academic achievement. Urban school leaders are often asked, but
are unprepared to address the inequalities that plague their school: low test scores, poor
attendance, needs of the socioeconomically disadvantaged, and high dropout rates.

2
Preparing and supporting urban school leaders to successfully address the
challenges presented by their environment and to provide all students with access to a
high demand, rigorous curriculum that closes the achievement gap requires dramatic
change in the traditional way in which urban school leaders are identified, prepared to
lead, and supported (Heifetz, 1998). It is vital that leadership capacity building programs
address the complexities found in urban schools while preparing future educational
leaders with the empowerment to create sustainable change and improved outcomes.
The research surrounding education in urban systems has provided a solid base of
knowledge about the specific challenges facing these schools. For the purpose of this
study, urban education is viewed as the process of teaching and learning that takes place
in complex urban-metropolitan settings typically characterized by broad diversity in race,
ethnicity, gender, class, culture, and language abilities. Urban settings have a mature
service-delivery infrastructure characterized by sociopolitical stratification and unequal
access by citizens to services. The adaptive challenges that confront urban schools are
inextricably bound to the social, economic, and political conditions of the urban
environments in which the schools reside (Miller, 1995).
Research regarding the indirect effects of school leadership on student learning
suggests significant effects on student learning, particularly in schools with historically
low performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). The role of the principal has
gained much attention in recent years as the position has slowly transformed from a
managerial one to that of an instructional leader with the potential to significantly

3
improve conditions that impact student outcomes. Principals today are expected to be
charismatic, energetic, intelligent, and experts in instructional design and curriculum.
Principals are expected to be advocates of social justice, role models, experts in
assessment, disciplinarians, fiscal managers, policymakers, and community leaders who
also create and maintain a culture of high expectations and exceptional ethics. With this
job description and the external pressures of high stakes accountability initiatives, no
wonder districts are struggling to recruit and maintain highly qualified educational
leaders (Knapp, Copland, & Talbert, 2003).
The difficulties of leading urban schools are very real. Many school districts find
the process of obtaining and retaining qualified administrators very difficult. Many
researchers and practitioners are currently analyzing the preparation of school leaders in
hopes of identifying ways of building greater leadership capacity to not only maintain
leaders in urban settings but to also help them thrive in urban systems. In addition, much
of the existing literature on educational leadership and principal preparation programs
focuses on leadership behavior (Hallinger & McCary, 1990). Many researchers have
examined leadership preparation from an inductive approach resulting in myriad studies
of a descriptive nature detailing “successful” or “effective” leader behavior. Ironically,
the literature offers vague definitions of the terms “successful” and “effective.”
Evidence from the fields of cognitive and social psychology suggest that
individual leaders behave quite differently depending on the context in which they find
themselves and the people with whom they are working (Leithwood et al., 2004). School
districts that reside in urban communities in which their schools are located must staff

4
their schools with leaders who not only possess impressive practices and behaviors, but
who also are confident in implementing strategies that recognize and value the context in
which their school is located and who know when to engage and when not to engage in
certain behaviors or strategies.
The framework for this study is grounded heavily in learning-centered leadership
theory (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006), connecting core elements of the
instructional and transformational leadership models and focusing on empirical studies of
effective schools, school improvement, and principal and superintendent instructional
leadership. The framework is also aligned with research findings positing that leaders
influence teachers and the organization, which in turn influence student outcomes
(Hallinger et al. 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2004; Youngs & King,
2002). The study also seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the components of
leadership capacity building programs that contribute to changes in beliefs and/or
behaviors from the perspective of the participating principals.

Statement of the Problem
Many leadership capacity building programs across the nation are struggling to
identify relevant leadership practices, contemporary theories, and models of practice that
lead to improved outcomes for professionals and for students. Unfortunately, research
suggests that leadership preparation programs are not adequately meeting the needs of
urban school leaders (Hale & Moorman, 2003). With the passage of NCLB (2001),
expectations of "strong" leaders have changed significantly, as has the level of attention

5
focused on principals who are or are not meeting them. As Davis, Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005) point out, "the role of principal [in U.S. schools] has
swelled to include a staggering array of professional tasks and competencies" (p. 4).
A good deal of research documents that principals make a difference in the
success of students (Levine, 2005), yet no systematic research documents the impact of
educational leadership programs on the achievement of children in the schools that these
graduates lead. Levine (2005) further states that, “there is an absence of research on what
value these programs add, what aspects of the curriculum or educational experience make
a difference, and what elements are unnecessary or minimally useful in enhancing student
learning in the K-12 setting" (p. 44). According to Davis et al. (2005), effective school
leaders influence student achievement; however, “additional research is necessary to
determine the impact and relative importance of leadership” in the areas of “curriculum,
assessment, and adaptation to local contexts” (p. 1).
Currently, there are a number of indicators that principal leadership is in crisis.
Two particularly troubling factors include the struggle districts are experiencing retaining
an adequate supply of highly qualified candidates for leadership roles (Knapp, Copland,
& Talbert, 2003); and principal candidates and existing principals are often ill-prepared
for the professional tasks and competencies necessary for today’s leaders (Davis et al.,
2005; Levine, 2005). Evidence indicates that effective leadership programs are “research
based, have curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic contexts, use cohort
groupings and mentors,” (p. 7) and collaborative in nature (Davis et al., 2005). However,
empirical evidence for the impact of these program features is minimal. For example,

6
additional research is needed to find out what skills excellent leaders have (and use);
what experiences can support the development of these skills; and what program
structures best support the learning of these experiences.
A sense of urgency is part of the environment of educational settings today as
students struggle to meet the high standards set by their states and nation, and as teachers
work toward improving educational quality and experiences for all students.
Achievement gaps persist, and parents of students who attend low-performing schools
increasingly seek to escape the offerings of public education (Knapp et al., 2003). The
need for strong educational leadership is exigent. Schools need leadership that brings
about significant improvement in learning and in closing the achievement gap.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research study was to contribute to the knowledge base
regarding effective components of leadership capacity building programs and support
structures that enable and sustain urban school leader practice. Specifically, it
investigated the impact of principal participation in a fully developed, research and
standards-based executive leadership development program on leader practice,
professional practice of teachers, and student outcomes over time.
The focus for this study was on assessing how participation in the Dunkin
(Pseudonym) ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) influenced leader-practice and on
investigating how then leader practice influenced teacher professional practice. The study
identified two principals who had participated in the DPCI, mixed-methods case studies

7
during the 2009-2010 school year. Each case study will focus on how the DPCI prepares
leaders to create organizational structures and practices that promote effective leader
practice and professional teacher practices that improve student outcomes in the urban
context.
The proposed study additionally looked to expand the knowledge base with
regard to components of effective leadership support structures at the school and district
levels that enable principals’ leadership practice in creating and sustaining the conditions
for effective teacher practice and promote a more equitable and effective student learning
environment in the urban school context.

Research Questions
1. How does participation in the Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?

8
The purpose of the two case studies was to contribute to the knowledge base
regarding effective components of leadership capacity building programs and support
structures that enable and sustain urban school leader practice. Specifically, the
researcher looked to investigate the impact of principal participation in a fully developed,
research and standards-based executive leadership development program on leader
practice and professional practice of teachers. Each case study focused on how the DPCI
program prepared leaders to create organizational structures and practices that promoted
effective teacher practices and improved student outcomes in the urban context.
The study additionally looked to expand the knowledge base with regard to
components of effective leadership support structures at the school and district levels that
enable principal’s leadership practice in creating and sustaining the conditions for
effective teacher practice and promoting a more equitable and effective student learning
environment in the urban school setting. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected
to determine both the leader’s change in practice and how these factors have been shaped
or reshaped by participation and experiences in the DPCI program over time.

Significance of Study
According to Knapp et al. (2003), leaders face complex tasks, and what they
should do to keep focused on guiding improvement in learning and narrowing the
achievement gap is not always clear. This study brought clarity to these issues and
supports principal and teacher leaders by providing them with a framework to build a
coherent, collaborative system that encourages powerful, equitable learning for all

9
students. The framework addressed issues such as improving student learning, improving
teacher practice through professional development; exploring how principal practice
influences what teachers and learners do; and providing pathways to understand how to
build coherent instructional programs that will sustain the process.
This framework provides clarity for policymakers and offers them valuable
information that informs how programs are funded at the federal and the state level. In
addition, policymakers may use the data gathered in this study to create infrastructures
that identify effective leadership preparation programs by designing data collection
structures that track program improvement and evaluation efforts (Young, Fuller, Brewer,
Carpenter, & Mansfield, 2007).
Finally, the findings of this study add to the research base content that clearly
focuses on instruction, principal leadership, and organizational structures. This study
provides a pathway to understanding how a coherent curriculum unites all aspects of the
preparation experience around a set of shared values, beliefs, and knowledge about
effective principal leadership and effective organizational practice. The study also adds
to the research surrounding how cohort structures foster collegiality and collaboration as
well as how informed university-based leadership programs create a seamless and
coherent program for leadership development programs (Young et al., 2007).

Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is based upon the seminal work of Pitner
(1988) and Hallinger and Heck (1996). The framework argues that the leader's decision-

10
making processes are informed and influenced by dependent and independent variables.
The "antecedent with mediated effects model," which describes principal effects on
student outcomes guides this study. Whereas leadership effects on student outcomes are
indirect, leadership practice has a direct effect on teacher practice and organizational
structures. Leaders indirectly impact student outcomes through the organizational
structures they create and through their influence on teacher practice; in turn, teacher
practice and organizational structures have a direct impact on student outcomes
(Hallinger et al. 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Youngs & King, 2002).
Figure 1

Conceptual Framework

Dunkin
Achieves!
IFL & DPCI
Context
Urban Setting,
NCLB,
Standards
Antecedent
Factors
Knowledge,
Experience,
Values & Beliefs

Leader
Context
Urban Setting,
NCLB,
Standards
School
Organization
Climate & Culture

Student
Outcomes

11
Assumptions
Five key assumptions frame this research study. First is the belief that leadership
is a key variable in the process of improving outcomes for students. Second, is the belief
that the context in which leadership is practiced matters as well as determines the actions
leaders take. Third, leadership was defined as “the process of influencing others to
achieve mutually agreed upon purposes for the organization” (Patterson, 1993, p.3).
Embodied within this definition was the notion that leadership is not a personal trait or
characteristic of an effective school leader. As a process, effective leadership practice
can, in fact, be taught (Northouse, 2007). The exercise of leadership involves influence;
as such, it requires interactions and relationships among constituents. Leadership involves
purpose and focus upon helping organizations and constituents reach identified goals.
Fourth, this study conceptualizes the effects of principal leadership in promoting and
sustaining valued outcomes in terms of the antecedent with indirect-effects model (e.g.,
Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood et al., 1990; Murphy, 2002;
Silins, 1994). Moreover, leadership behavior is
shaped by four major conditions: (a) the previous experiences of a leader (e.g.,
experience as a curriculum coordinator in a district office will likely lead to the
use of behaviors different than those featured by a leader who has had
considerable experience as an assistant principal); (b) the knowledge base the
leader amasses over time; (c) the types of personal characteristics a leader brings
to the job (e.g., achievement need, energy level); and (d) the set of values and
beliefs that help define a leader. (Murphy et al., 2007, p. 2)

Lastly, leadership effects occur indirectly through principal's behaviors that influence
teacher practice and organizational structures and processes (Hallinger et al., 1996;

12
Murphy et al., 2007). A principal’s practice of effective leadership behaviors is situated
within the learner-centered leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2007).

Delimitations and Limitations of the Study
The primary delimitation of this investigation is the sample of principals,
teachers, and other educational leaders. The participating schools were limited to those
within the Dunkin Independent School District. The results of this study were indicative
of this sample only and should be interpreted with caution when attempting to generalize
to the population at large. The design of this study was that of a descriptive, mixed-
method analysis in which the investigator looked to describe in depth the phenomenon of
changes in leader self-efficacy beliefs and behavior. The results of this study did not yield
causal inferences about the success of a particular training program. Rather, the results of
this study were limited to inferences of emerging patterns or themes between the two case
studies. This study was also delimited by the length of time the principals were studied.
The investigation took place over a period of five months, which limited the likelihood of
observing substantive changes in leadership self-efficacy beliefs and behavior.
The proposed design of the study looked to triangulate the data collected from
multiple sources for this study (i.e., interviews, observations, document analysis, and the
VAL-Survey, [Murphy, 2000]). Though triangulation increases validity and may
generate evidence about the effects of educational support programs, limitations persist
(Patton, 2002). For instance, limitations could include missing data, insensitivity to
potentially important variables, potential researcher bias, and researcher inexperience.

13
In addition, limitations of interviews arise because of their focus on what people
say they say, write, and do— rather than what they actually do say (Pole & Morrison,
2003). Limitations may also arise as a result of the questions asked and not asked, and of
limits on the participant and researcher time. Though observations were conducted to
confirm interview responses, limitations remain. For example, observations were
influenced by researcher perceptions, were confined to external behaviors, were limited
by the sample of activities being observed, and include how the researcher might impact
the observed (Patton, 2002). Though it provides another means through which to gather
information, document analysis is often limited because of inaccurate or incomplete data.
Time constraints; due to length, as well as costs of the VAL-ED Survey (Murphy, 2000)
and survey participation contributed to limitations for this study. Finally, adequate time
needed to be allowed for researcher feedback and joint analysis.
Limitations were:
1. Length of the Study: The principals in the study had only participated in
the DPCI for a short period of time. The fact that the postassessment of the
VAL-ED survey came relatively soon after the preassessment
(approximately five months) limits the degree to which it fully measured
the principal’s growth in the areas assessed, and survey participation rates
fluctuated dramatically. In addition, time for the fieldwork in this study
was limited to six months.
2. Pretest intervention Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration
of the VAL-ED had inherent issues of validity in that changes reflected in

14
the second administration of the VAL-ED reflected results of factors other
than the participants’ participation in the DPCI.
3. The “halo effect:” Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), raters may have had a tendency to assume
specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression. However, to
militate against this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-ED survey required
that raters identify the primary source of evidence for their rating on each
item (i.e., personal observation, documents, etc.).
4. For both case studies, VAL-ED survey participation rates for both fall and
the spring administrations were below 50%. As this level of participation
is considered low, the survey results were interpreted with caution.

Definition of Terms
AYP: Adequate Yearly Progress is the federal government's accountability measure used
under NCLB (2001). Each year states, districts, and schools are given a target growth that
they must meet in order for everyone to reach the common math and English Language
Arts (ELA) proficiency goal.
Leadership for Social Justice: A leadership theory and practice whereby principals
advocate, lead and keep at the center of their practice and vision issues of race, class,
gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other historically and currently marginalizing
conditions in the United States.

15
VAL-ED: The data collection instrument that will be used to quantify leadership practice,
which is based on the ISLLC standards and developed by Joseph Murphy at Vanderbilt
University.
360∫ Survey Assessment: A comprehensive evaluation tool providing a view of a school
leader through the assessment of various stakeholders’ (students, parents, leadership
team, teachers, colleagues) perspectives of the principal’s performance.

Organization of Study
This study was organized into five chapters. Chapter One serves as an
introduction to the study and includes the statement of the problem, the purpose of the
study, the research questions to be examined, the significance to the field of this
particular study, limitations and assumptions of the study, definition of terms, and the
organization of the study. Chapter Two includes a review of the literature as it pertains to
the concept of leadership; a discussion of leadership theories, including instructional
leadership, transformational leadership, learning-centered leadership, and social justice
leadership theory; the context of urban schools; the current literature on leadership
capacity building programs, including framework and structure; and an overview of
professional standards that serve as a framework by which preparation programs are
developed. Chapter Three explains the study’s methodology, including a discussion of
the research questions; the design of the study; the sample selection of participants; the
instruments, protocols, and procedures used for data collection; the procedures used for
data analysis; and the ethical considerations that guided the study. Chapter Four describes

16
the findings, presenting a thick and rich (Patton, 2002) description of interviews,
documents, survey, and observations. Chapter Five presents a complete, thorough, and
detailed analysis of the data, including conclusions and recommendations for schools and
districts that want to increase student achievement through building and supporting
leadership capacity in urban schools.

17
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

Much of the recent attention on increasing student achievement and decreasing
the achievement gap has focused on the direct impact teachers have on student outcomes.
Though teachers play a vital role in affecting academic growth, a growing body of
evidence points to the positive relationship between school leadership and student
achievement (Miller & Rowan, 2006). This chapter examines the literature on
contemporary theories and models of leadership capacity building for improving
professional practice and learning outcomes for urban school students. The chapter
focuses on identifying specific features and program attributes that influence leaders'
knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors, which in turn positively impact teacher professional
practice and improve learning in urban school settings.
The chapter is divided into five main parts. It begins by exploring the literature on
concepts and definitions of effective school leadership. The second section focuses on
defining the characteristics of urban schools and the adaptive challenges school leaders
encounter within their urban context. The third section concentrates on leadership
theories and identifies components of effective school leadership. The fourth section
focuses on models of leadership capacity building and the characteristics of effective
practices. The final section discusses leadership support structures and how they enable
and sustain practice.

18
School Leadership Defined
Leadership is generally considered a key element in organizational effectiveness,
but there is little agreement on what it is. A review of extant literature showed that many
sets of standards have been developed on what constitutes effective leadership for
individuals who occupy formal leadership positions in schools. At the core of most
definitions of school leadership are two functions: (a) leadership is a process that
provides direction to an organization, and (b) the measurable effects of leadership on
student performance is sensitive to the contexts in which leaders work (Northouse, 2007).
For the purpose of this review, the concepts and definitions of school leadership will be
those developed and substantiated by Peter Northouse (2007), Richard Elmore (2002),
and Lee Bolman and Terrance Deal (2003).
According to Peter Northouse (2007), "leadership is a process whereby an
individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (p.3). In addition,
Northouse (2007) identified four central components, suggesting that
leadership is a process that can be learned, and one that enables leaders to
organize people and resources to accomplish a given task: (a) Leadership is a
process, (b) leadership involves influence, (c) leadership occurs in a group
context, and (d) leadership involves goal attainment.

Defining leadership as a process implies that it is not a trait or a characteristic, but
rather a relationship between a leader and his/her followers. Northouse (2007) also
emphasized that leadership is not elementary, but rather a complex and multidimensional
event that is interactive and ever-changing. Leadership also involves influence. Influence
occurs when other people affect an individual's thoughts or actions. Joseph Rost (1991)

19
defined leadership as "an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend
real changes that reflect their mutual purposes" (p.92).
Leadership similarly occurs in groups. Groups are the contexts in which
leadership takes place. Northouse (2007) stated, "leadership involves influencing a group
of individuals who have a common purpose" (p. 3). Finally, leadership includes attention
to goals, which means that leadership has to do with directing a group of individuals
toward accomplishing some task or end (Northouse, 2007). Therefore, leadership occurs
and has its effects in contexts where individuals are moving toward a goal.
Elmore's (2000) concept of educational leadership as "the guidance of direction of
instructional improvement," (p.13) has been an important fixture in educational
leadership research. As Elmore (2002) has stated:
The pathology of American schools is that they know how to change. They know
how to change promiscuously and at the drop of a hat. What schools do not know
to do is to improve, to engage in sustained and continuous progress toward a
performance goal over time. So the task is to develop practice around the notion
of improvement. (p.1)

The literature on instructional leadership has suggested the need for a capacity building
model. To date, very little research has attempted to understand the effects of school
leadership on student achievement. Leadership, for example, has been described as
building and maintaining an organizational culture (Schein, 1985); establishing a mission
for the school giving a sense of direction (Louis & Miles, 1990); and doing the right thing
(Bennis & Nanus, 1985). It is clear from the literature on school improvement that good
leadership is essential if a school is to develop (MacGilchrist, Myers, & Reed, 1997).

20
Furthermore, improvement will be effective only if there is concentration on teaching and
learning.
Administration, on the other hand, is present-oriented, reactive, concerned with
structures and operations, establishing order, predictability, and systems and routines
According to Bolman and Deal (1991, cited in Evans, 1996), most school leaders spend
more time managing than leading. Running an organization seems to be a matter of
solving an endless sequence of “messes.” Management, on the other hand, is making
sure the bells ring on time. Fullan (1991) has maintained that successful principals are
managers and leaders simultaneously.
Many research studies have consistently reported that school leadership is critical
to developing and sustaining those school-level conditions believed to be essential for
instructional improvement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Rosenholtz, 1989). Bolman and
Deal's (1992) theory allows researchers to define leadership as a process rather than a
characteristic or trait and to view leadership not as a linear event, but as one that is
interactive and transformational. In brief, leadership involves the process of interaction,
of establishing relationships with the ability to effect change in others.
Bolman and Deal's (1992) definition of effective leadership is based upon a
theoretical framework in which four dimensions play important roles in effective
leadership and student achievement. Multiframe thinking has become a viable model not
only for the instructional leader but also for developing and sustaining effective
leadership practices. The section that follows will summarize the important aspects of
mutltiframe thinking as envisioned by Bolman and Deal (1992, 1997):

21
(1) The structural frame, which emphasizes goals and planning, and coordination;

(2) The human resource frame, which is sensitive to the human needs of others;

(3) The political frame, which recognizes the was that people seek to advance
their own interests; and
(4) The symbolic frame, which focuses in the rituals that give meaning to
organizational culture.
The Structural Frame: The metaphor used by Bolman and Deal (1997) for this frame is a
factory or machine. The structural frame emphasizes productivity and works best when
goals, objectives, and procedures are clear, and when people understand their own roles
and responsibilities within the organization.
The Human Resource Frame: This frame takes care of individuals' basic needs. The
human resource frame centers on how characteristics of organizations and people shape
the way they do for one another. The concept of need is controversial. Some theorists
argue that the idea is too vague and refers to something to difficult to observe.
Economists such as Jensen and Meckling (1994) have argued that the individual's
willingness to trade off one thing for another disproves the idea of needs. A genetic or
"nature" perspective posits that certain psychological needs are basic to being human
(Maslow, 1954; McClelland, 1985; White 1960).
The Political Frame: The political frame views organizations as “alive and screaming”
political arenas that house a complex variety of individuals and interest groups (Bolman
& Deal, 1997 p. 186). The political frame posits authority as only one among many forms

22
of power. It recognizes the importance of human needs but emphasizes that scarce
resources and incompatible preferences cause needs to collide.
The Symbolic Frame: The symbolic frame seeks to interpret and illuminate basic issues
of meaning and belief that make symbols so powerful. It depicts a world far different
from traditional canons of rationality, certainty, and linearity. The symbolic frame forms
a conceptual umbrella for ideas from a variety of disciplines, including organizational
theory and sociology (Blumer, 1969; Clark, 1975; Corwin, 1976; Davis, 1976; Hofstede,
1984; March & Olsen, 1976; Meyer and Rowan, 1978; Selznick, 1957; Weick, 1976) and
political science (Dittmer, 1977; Edelman, 1971).
Effective leaders. Organizations viewed from a cultural perspective develop
distinctive beliefs, values, and patterns. Schein (1992) has offered a more formal
definition of culture as, "a pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group learned as it
solved it problems of external adaptation and integration, that has worked well enough to
be considered valid” (p.12). Deal and Kennedy (1982) defined culture more succinctly:
"culture is both a product and a process” (p. 4). As a product, culture embodies
accumulated wisdom; as a process, culture is constantly renewed and recreated.
Effective leaders articulate the types of improvements required to achieve goals
and expectations and to develop a common language for improving student outcomes.
Effective leaders have a clear understanding of the change process and a deep, current,
and critical understanding of how students learn. According to Hallinger and Heck
(1998), school principals "exercise a measurable, though indirect, effect on school
effectiveness and student achievement" (p.13). Leadership appears to impact the quality

23
of teaching in schools. Effective school leaders provide focus and direction to curriculum
and instruction and manage the organizational structures to support student learning.
Much of the success of district and school leaders in the development and
implementation of practice within the organization relies heavily on how well leaders
interact and communicate with the larger social and organizational context in which
urban school leaders typically are found. The next section will examine the literature on
the contexts of urban schools and summarize the characteristics and school conditions
predominately found in an urban school setting.

The Urban School Context
The school's context offers both constraints and resources that shape the situation
in which leadership is implemented. The Federal No Child Left Behind (2001) legislation
requires that schools and districts prepare all students to perform at the proficient level on
content standards in math and language art by 2013-14. In responding to this high stakes
accountability policy, urban school leaders face crucial differences in expectations,
obligations, and the social and economic contexts for the tasks required of them, which
differ dramatically from those required of leaders in other settings.
For the purpose of this study, urban education is viewed as the process of teaching
and learning that takes place in complex urban-metropolitan settings typically
characterized by broad diversity in race, ethnicity, gender, class, culture, and language
abilities. Urban settings have a mature service-delivery infrastructure characterized by
sociopolitical stratification and unequal access by citizens to services. The adaptive

24
challenges that confront urban schools are inextricably bound to the social, economic,
and political conditions of the urban environments in which the schools reside (Miller,
1995). Ill-prepared urban school leaders often fail to address factors in the larger social
context, which affects the distribution of equal educational opportunities in their schools.
These differences call into question a prevailing assumption of standards-based reform
that the leadership capacity required to accelerate the rate of learning of the lowest
performing students is the same across districts (Cuban, 2001).
Our nation's urban schools, particularly those in most need, are poorly matched to
current popular reforms. A large number of urban schools can be described as schools
with high concentrations of the "hard to teach," economically disadvantaged, limited
English speaking, minority student populations who perform in the lowest quartiles of
academic achievement. For those who lead urban schools, different expectations,
different obligations, and different city histories require far more skills and political
finesse than the requirements of their colleagues in racially isolated suburbs (Cuban,
2001). Urban school leaders are expected to deal with adaptive challenges such as using
English as the only language of instruction, assimilating immigrants, racial and ethnic
conflicts over desegregation, community control, school violence, high dropout rates,
reducing poverty, and low academic performance. These dilemmas often affect test
scores, achievement, and the broader purposes of schooling, both in the schools and
within the cities and communities where they work.
Although increasing evidence shows that urban schools leader who have been
well prepared are a critical lever to increase student achievement, there is a shortage of

25
rigorous research on their practice and little is known about how leadership practice
actually influences student achievement (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982; Goldring
& Pasternack, 1994; Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Supovitz & May, 2003;
Supovitz, Poglinco, & Snyder, 2003). The next section will describe the evolution of the
school principal and will examine contemporary theories of leadership that are used to
improve outcomes for students.

The Evolution of the Role of the School Principal
With public demands for more effective schools, today's principals face a
staggering array of professional tasks and never-ending responsibilities. According to
Cotton (2003), principals play a critical role in school improvement. In fact, as
Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom's (2004) recent analysis of the
research has confirmed, "Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all
school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school" (p. 212). Principals
have the capacity to guide the positive progress of the school and to develop and nurture
relationships within the school community that impact the overall climate (Day, 2000).
As a result, school districts are struggling to attract and retain an adequate supply of
highly qualified candidate for leadership roles (Knapp, Copland, & Talbert, 2003).
Research also indicates that many existing principals are often ill prepared and
inadequately supported to organize schools to improve learning and to manage all of the
other demands of the job (Levine, 2005; Young, 2002).

26
Many scholars have concluded that the role of today's principal has changed
significantly over the past few decades. In the early 1960s into the late 1970s, the role of
the principal was one of administrative manger. Principals were often asked to perform
duties such as managing funded programs, overseeing bilingual education, and managing
curriculum. Principals in the early 1980s found themselves abandoning their roles as
program managers and viewing themselves as emerging instructional leaders of effective
schools. With the publication of President Ronald Reagan's 1983 educational report, A
Nation at Risk, the role of the American principal would no longer be viewed as passive
public administrator, but rather one that in charge of establishing a positive school
environment, instituting and implementing measurable goals, and creating opportunities
for students to learn.
Today, school principals do not manage instruction, they manage the structures
and processes that surround instruction; they implement standards, focus on student
learning, and condemn low-level academic work and applaud innovative approaches to
facilitate learning and student achievement. With the passage of the federal No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), expectations of "strong" leaders have changed
significantly, as has the level of attention focused on which principals are and are not
meeting them. As Davis et al. (2005) have pointed out, "the role of principal [in U.S.
schools] has swelled to include a staggering array of professional tasks and
competencies" (p. 4).
Principals are now mandated to serve first and foremost as "instructional leaders"
in their schools, educational coaches who possess the "skills necessary to help teachers

27
teach" and "help students meet challenging State student academic achievement
standards" (Title II, Section 2113 (c) cited in Lockwood, 2005). According to Elmore
(2000), perhaps the central challenge school leaders face today is communicating a
"sense of urgency and support" to their staff members "around issues of standards and
accountability" (p. 33).

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

28
Although every state is required to meet the same national target, the variation of state
content standards and assessments make it very difficult to compare students nationally
(Leithwood et al., 2004; Stecher et al., 2003).
In order to meet AYP, schools must meet the testing target for every significant
subgroup (e.g., ethnicity, English learners, special education, and economically
disadvantaged). Schools that receive Title I funds are the most affected by this
accountability model. Title I schools traditionally serve a high percentage of low-income,
minority students and English learners— historically, students found in urban schools.
These school receive additional founds from the government because of the challenges
presented by the demographics. When schools receive these founds, they also agree to
sanctions every year they fail to meet AYP.
With so much on the line for schools, educational institutions all across the nation
are looking for ways to best address the growing accountability demands of No Child
Left Behind. The following sections will examine contemporary leadership theories and
analyze the contribution the theories make to the understanding of effective school
leadership and their attempt at meeting the demands of NCLB (2001).

Instructional Leadership
Since the turn of the 21st century, increasing emphasis on school accountability
seems to have reignited interest in instructional leadership and other leadership theories.
Evidence from prior reviews of the literature on principal leadership and its impact on
student achievement (e.g., Hallinger, 2001; Hallinger & Heck 1996; Southworth, 2002)

29
indicates that the instructional leadership construct is active in school leadership and
school management. This section will tie together evidence drawn from several extensive
reviews of the educational leadership literature that included instructional leadership as a
key construct (Hallinger, 2001, 2003b; Hallinger & Heck, 1996b; Southworth, 2002). The
section will also seek to define the core characteristics underlying this approach to school
leadership and school management based upon both conceptual developments and
empirical investigation specifically from the work of Hallinger (1990) and Murphy
(1992). Finally, this section will reflect on the relationship between instructional
leadership and the evolving educational context of transformational leadership and how
these leadership theories are reshaping our perspective on school leadership today.
Educational Leadership (1992) has described two models of leadership that
"currently vie for most of the attention among practicing educators—instructional and
transformational models" (p. 7). The instructional leadership model attempts to focus the
principal on teaching and learning, away from the administrative and managerial tasks
that typically consume most of the school leader's time.
The concepts of instructional leadership emerged in the early 1980s as an
outgrowth from early research on effective schools (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee,
1982; Edmonds, 1979). The result of this research identified strong, directive leadership
focused on curriculum and instruction by the principal as a characteristic of elementary
schools that were effective at teaching children in poor, urban communities (Bossert et
al., 1982; Edmonds, 1979; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982; Purkey & Smith, 1983).
The emerging popularity of the instructional leadership model became evident in its

30
widespread adoption as the “model of choice” by most principal leadership academies in
the United States of America (Hallinger, 2003).
Phillip Hallinger and Joseph Murphy (1985) have also provided a comprehensive
review of instructional leadership in his analysis of research findings from the effective
schools, school improvement, staff development, and organizational change literature.
Using this review, they built an instructional leadership-framework that incorporates
studies and findings. The framework consists of four dimensions of instructional
leadership broken down into 16 different roles or behaviors. The four dimensions of the
instructional leader are (a) developing mission and goals, (b) managing the educational
production function, (c) promoting an academic learning climate, and (d) developing a
supportive work environment. Figure 2, below, indicates the different instructional leader
roles or behaviors that make up that dimension.

31
Figure 2
Instructional Leadership Framework

Developing Mission and
Goals

Managing the
Educational Production
Function

Promoting an Academic
Learning Environment

Developing a
Supportive Work
Environment

Framing school
goals;
communicating
school goals

Promoting quality
instruction;
supervising and
evaluating
instruction;
allocating and
protecting
instructional time;
coordinating the
curriculum;
monitoring student
progress

Establishing
positive
expectations and
standards.
maintaining high
visability;
providing
incentives for
teachers and
students;
promoting
professional
development

Creating a safe and
orderly learning
environment;
providing
opportunities for
meaningful student
involvement;
developing staff
collaboration and
cohesion;
securing outside
resources in support
of school goals;
forging links
between the home
and the school
Murphy's Comprehensive Instructional Leadership Framework (1990)

32
The process of developing a mission and goals is fundamental to creating a sense of
shared purpose and to linking efforts within the school around a common vision
(Murphy, 1990). Murphy (1990) broke this dimension into two major roles of the
principal: framing school goals and communicating school goals. The process of framing
school goals encompasses setting goals that emphasize student achievement for all
students, implementing findings from data on past and current student performance and
including staff responsibilities for achieving the goals. The communication of goals to
students, parents, and teachers emphasizes the importance that school goals guide the
activities of the school.
The process of managing the educational production function of the school is the
second dimension of Murphy’s (1990) framework. This dimension stresses the
management of the behavior of the principal. The instructional leader promotes quality
instruction by conducting teacher conferences and evaluations, visiting classrooms,
providing specific suggestions and feedback on the teaching and learning process, and
determining teacher assignments in the best interest of student learning (Murphy, 1990;
Teddlie & Stringfield, 1985). The principal works in cooperation with teachers to
coordinate the curriculum by aligning school goals and objectives with state standards,
assessments, and district curriculum.
Hallinger and Murphy (1985) have also contended that instructional leadership is
focused on defining the school mission through a clear vision of what the school is trying
to accomplish; managing the instructional program by working with the staff in areas

33
specifically related to the evaluation, development, implementation of curriculum and
instruction, and promoting the school learning climate.
An instructional leader also models how to use assessment data to set goals and
evaluate instruction (Murphy, 1990). Promoting an academic learning climate refers to
the behaviors of the principal that influences the norms, beliefs, and attitudes of the
teachers, students, and parents of a school (Murphy, 1990). “Principals foster the
development of a school learning climate conductive to teaching and learning by
establishing positive expectations and standards, by maintaining high visibility, providing
incentives for teachers an students, and promoting professional development” (p.174).
The final dimension of Murphy’s (1990) framework, developing a supportive
work environment, denotes how an instructional leader establishes organizational
structures and processes that support the teaching and learning process. The principal that
exemplifies this dimension creates a safe and orderly learning environment, provides
opportunities for meaningful student involvement, develops staff collaboration and
cohesion, secures outside resources in support of school goals, and forges links between
the home and school.
The versatility behind instructional leadership lends itself to the importance of
defining and communicating goals, monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching
and learning process, and promoting and emphasizing the importance of professional
development. The following section examines the role of transformational leadership in
an urban setting and will focus on how the leader fosters a collective vision within the
organization to collectively increase student achievement.

34
Transformational Leadership
The available literature has suggested that schools that cultivate particular in-
school processes and conditions such as rigorous academic standards, high-quality
instruction, and a culture of collective responsibility for students’ academic success are
best able to meet the needs of all students (Bryk & Driscoll, 1985; Newmann & Wehlage,
1995; Purkey & Smith, 1983). School leadership, especially principal instructional and
transformational leadership, is widely recognized as important in promoting these in-
school processes and conditions (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Lieberman, Falk, &
Alexander, 1994; Louis & Marks, 1998; Sheppard, 1996). Therefore, meeting the
excellence and equity challenge in urban schools depends on school leaders who
effectively guide instructional improvement (Barth, 1986; Leithwood, 1994).
Educational researchers have agreed that instructional leadership and
transformational leadership have emerged as two of the most frequently studied models
of school leadership (Heck & Hallinger, 1999). What distinguishes these models from
others is the focus on how educational systems and leader relationships improve teaching
and learning. Instructional leaders focus on school goals, curriculum, instruction, and the
school environment. Transformational leaders focus on restructuring the school by
improving school conditions. This section will focus on the concept of transformational
leadership from the perspectives of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985), and will also examine
Leithwood's (2004) model of transformational leadership.
As the name implies, transformational leadership is a process that changes and
transforms people. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term

35
goals and includes assessing followers' motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them
as full human beings (Northouse, 2007). James Burns (1978), a presidential biographer
and Pulitzer Prize winner is best known for his contributions to the theory of
transformational leadership. He first introduced concepts of transformational leadership
in his research covering political leaders. According to Burns (1978), leadership must be
aligned with a collective purpose and effective leaders must be judged by their ability to
make social changes; moreover, the role of the leader and follower must be united
conceptually as the process of leadership is the interplay of conflict and power.
Burns (1978) has proposed that only moral leaders with high purpose can be
transformational leader. Table 1, below, represents Burns's categories of transformational
leadership, focusing on the leaders ability to create connections that raises the level of
motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower:

36

Table 1

Transformational Categories of Leadership

Intellectual Leaders

Reform Leaders

Revolutionary Leaders

Charismatic Leaders

Seeing ideas and
values that transcend
immediate practical
needs and still change
and transform.

The concept of
intellectual leadership
brings in the role of
conscious purpose
drawn from

Values

Out of step with their
own time, in conflict
with the status quo

With a vision that
transform society by
raising consciousness

Requires participation of a
large number of allies
with various reform and
nonreform goals of their
own

Dealing with endless
divisions in the ranks

Implies moral leadership
matching means to the
ends

Transform society to
realize moral principals

Revolutionary
leadership demands
commitment,
persistence, courage,
and selflessness

The reformer operated
on the parts, the
revolutionary operates
on the whole

Strong sense of vision,
mission, and end-
values, the
transcendent purpose

Motivate masses of
people to revolt in the
service of revolution

Transformational
leadership

One of four
categories

Charismatic
heroic leadership
is the ideal

37
Expanding upon Burns's (1978) idea of transformational leadership, Bass (1985)
defined transformational leadership as it occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the
interests of their employees, generate awareness and acceptance of the purpose and
mission of the group, and stir employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the
good of the group (Bass, 1985). In addition, transformational leadership is universally
applicable regardless of culture, and transformational leaders inspire followers to
transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group or organization, for which
they become motivated to expend greater effort than would usually be expected. Bass
identified three ways that leaders transform followers: increasing levels of awareness of
task importance and value; getting them to focus first on team or organizational goals,
rather than their own interests; and activating higher-order needs (Maslow, 1943).
The dominant model over the past decade or so has been transformational
leadership. Leithwood (1994) expanded the work of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985),
viewing transformational leadership as a model that uses the gifts and talents of the
school's staff, rather than those of the principal alone. Leithwood (1994) described
transformational leadership as a model that involves staff in collaborative goal setting,
reduces teacher isolation, uses bureaucratic mechanisms to support cultural changes,
shares leadership with others by delegating power, and actively communicates the
school's norms and beliefs.
Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (2000) identified seven dimensions of
transformational leadership: (a) building vision and establishing goals, (b) providing
intellectual stimulation, (c) offering individualized support, (d) modeling best practices

38
and organizational values, (e) demonstrating high performance expectations, (f) creating
a productive school culture, and (g) developing structures to foster participation in school
decisions. This form of leadership assumes that the central focus of leadership ought to
be the commitments and capacities of organizational members. As discussed by
Leithwood et al. (1999), "Higher level of personal commitments to organizational goals
and greater capacities for accomplishing those goals are assumed to result in extra effort
and greater productivity" (p. 9).
In essence, "transformational leaders stimulate their followers efforts to be
innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and
approaching old situations in new ways" (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p.3). Even with the
popularity of transformational leadership within the educational community, this model
lacks attention to curriculum and a focus on instruction (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998, as
cited by Marks & Printy, 2003). With a foundational understanding of instructional and
transformational models, the next section will focus on the theoretical perspective of the
learner-center model of leadership.

Learning-Centered Leadership
The Learning-Centered leadership model is based on the general notion that (a)
quality leadership matters, (b) in difficult times it matters even more, (c) at times of
transition in organizations it is the major controllable factor in explaining performance,
(d) instructionally focused and changed-oriented leadership are effective frames for

39
education in general and fro school leadership specifically, and (e) team leadership seems
to offer promise for enhancing organizational performance (Murphy et al., 2006).
The framework connects the impact of leadership behaviors that are shaped by
experience, personal characteristics, knowledge, and values/beliefs in terms of outcomes
as indirect. These factors interact to create leadership behaviors that produce outcomes
directly and indirectly at the school. Murphy et al. (2006) has stated, "the model
acknowledges that context plays a significant role in the exercise of learning-centered
leadership" (p.6). Consistent with previous literature (Hallinger & Heck, 1999;
Leithwood, Riedlinger, Baure, & Jantzi, 2003), the learning-centered leadership model
described here relies heavily on the personal characteristics and beliefs of the school
leaders.
Figure 3, below, represents the framework of the learning-centered model, and in
turn, defines the specific behaviors employed to increase student outcomes:

40
Figure 3
Learning-Centered Framework

The leadership behaviors in the learning-centered framework fall under eight key
dimensions. These dimensions interact to create leadership behaviors that produce
outcomes directly and indirectly within the school. Murphy et al. (2006) states, "the
model acknowledges that context plays a significant role in the exercise of learning-
centered leadership" (p.6). The list below represents the eight dimensions of the learning-
centered leadership model discussed by Murphy et al. (2007) that are aimed at improving
student learning:

41
The Dimensions of Learning-Centered Leadership
I. Vision for Learning
A. Developing vision
B. Articulating vision
C. Implementing vision
D. Stewarding vision
II. Instructional Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Hiring and allocating staff
C. Supporting staff
D. Instructional time
III. Curricular Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Expectations, standards
C. Opportunity to learn
D. Curriculum alignment
IV. Assessment Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Assessment procedures
C. Monitoring instruction and curriculum
D. Communication and use of data

42

V. Communities of Learning
A. Professional development
B. Communities of professional practice
C. Community-anchored schools
VI. Resource Acquisition and Use
A. Acquiring resources
B. Allocating resources
C. Using resources
VII. Organizational Culture
A. Production emphasis
B. Accountability
C. Learning environment
D. Personalized environment
E. Continuous improvement
VIII. Social Advocacy
A. Stakeholder engagement
B. Diversity
C. Environment context
D. Ethics

43
The body of literature for which the framework was developed came from
empirical studies of effective schools, school improvement, and principal and
superintendent instructional leadership. Though the learning-centered leadership model
identifies a wide-range of behaviors, still absent from the literature are the specific
guidelines for attaining effective leadership behaviors as identified in the eight
dimensions. The review of the literature clearly presents a need to connect the
characteristics and behaviors of school leaders to effective practice (Darling-Hammond,
2005; Elmore, 2003; Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1996;
Marzano, 2003; Murphy, 2007).
One of the strengths of the learning-centered model is that it brings the
instructional and transformational leadership models together. Marks and Printy (2003)
argued that principals are more successful when they integrate instructional and
transformational leadership behaviors. Murphy et al. (2006) also acknowledged the
weakness of the framework, which is present in dimension seven, organizational culture,
and dimension eight, social advocacy. These two dimensions lack the research of the first
six dimensions.
The learning-centered framework has also gained great credibility by becoming
the framework for the National Institute for School Leaders (NISL) curriculum, an
executive leadership capacity program, and the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in
Education (VAL-ED) survey, a tool designed to assess the effectiveness of school
principals. The following section examines the theoretical perspectives on social justice,
and its impact on students whose education has long been neglected.

44
Social Justice Leadership Theory
Being a leader of an urban school requires a set of skills and beliefs that mirror
the ideals of equity and justice. Urban school leaders face challenges deeply rooted in
inequalities around race, ethnicity, class, language, and gender (Karpinski & Lugg, 2006;
Levin, Gaskell, & Pollock, 2007; Normore & Blanco, 2006; Theoharis, 2007). Literature
is emerging on social justice and education that identifies schools that have demonstrated
success in integrating and empowering students from varied racial, socioeconomic and
cultural backgrounds (Theoharis, 2007, p. 221). Some of the most persuasive work in this
area argues that leadership for social justice is characterized by an ultimate concern for
ameliorating marginalization. This section seeks to add to the growing body of literature
on social justice and to contribute to the elimination of the social inequalities found in
many of our urban schools today.
Though numerous scholars provide definitions of social justice (Blackmore, 2002;
Bogotch, 2002; Gewirtz, 1998; Goldfarb & Grinberg, 2002), Theoharis’s (2007)
definition of social justice examines the role that principals have in advocating, leading,
and keeping at the center of their practice issues of race, class, gender, disability, sexual
orientation, and other historically and currently marginalizing conditions found in schools
across the United States. Sapon-Shevin (2003) stated, “Inclusion is not about disability…
Inclusion is about social justice … By embracing inclusion as a model of social justice,
we can create a world fit for all of us”(pp. 26, 28). For his part, Theoharis explained:
I started to see all the white kids in jazz band, no black kids in jazz band,
you know jazz is essentially invented by black people and now the black
kids are not included in this particular activity in school . . . so I started to
work harder at it. (2007, p. 230)

45
Recognizing that leadership for social justice is a thoughtful, purposeful process,
Theoharis (2007) conducted an empirical study of seven principals who approached
school administration with a drive to pursue equity and justice with the aim to foster a
more “just” school. Based on his findings, Theoharis (2007) crafted a four component
framework for leadership for social justice consisting of: (a) personal essence or core
aspects of social justice leadership, (b) the resistance social justice leaders enact, (c) the
resistance they face, and (d) the resistance they develop. Figure 4, below, depicts the
relationships and struggles of the four components.

Figure 4

Theory of Social Justice (Theoharis, 2004)

In the center of Theoharis’s (2007) framework lies the leader’s personal
essence, which consists of his/her commitment to social justice, (what he terms
their “arrogant humility”), their passion, and their extensive knowledge base
(Theoharis, 2007 p. 15). These core aspects enabled them to stand up to the

46
resistance they faced, which included the norms and enormity of the
principalship, resistance from their staff and community, and resistance within
and beyond their school districts.
Social justice leaders must not only be sensitive to the students' social capital, but
also be aware of inequitable social structures and the forms of accessibility that
marginalize many. A central theme that emerges from the literature on social justice
leadership focuses on the structures in place to support and sustain leaders' capacity to
make changes to practices that influence equity and accessibility. In this next section,
components of effective leadership programs and approaches to embedding leadership for
social justice are examined.

Leadership Capacity-Building: Effective Program Components
Many scholars have concluded that the role of today's principal has changed
significantly over the past few decades. In the early 1960s and into the late 1970s, the
role of the principal was one of administrative manger. Principals were often asked to
perform duties such as managing funded programs, overseeing bilingual education, and
managing curriculum. With the rise of academic standards and accountability measures
in the 1990s, the daily responsibilities of the occupation have drastically changed. Davis,
Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005) contended that modern principals are
called upon to be visionaries, community builders, budget analysts, facility managers,
and curriculum experts; however, principal preparation programs fail to address many of
these roles.

47
Instead, Levine (2005) and Orr (2006) have found that current leadership
preparation programs are outdated, with a weak knowledge base. Cambron-McCabe and
McCarthy (2005) have concurred with this critique, and add that in terms of equity and
advocacy, traditional leadership programs give only “token consideration to concerns of
social justice” (202). Overall, current leadership preparation programs lack vision,
purpose, coherence, and sufficient resources (Davis et al., 2005; Levine, 2005).
With 1983’s “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) presenting the picture of America’s
failing schools and NCLB’s sweeping accountability measures as an impetus, researchers
have endeavored to study leadership preparation programs with the designs of
discovering best practices. Darling-Hammond et al. (2005) and Cohen’s (2007)
collaborative study, one of the largest and most comprehensive of its kind, examined
programs from various regions of the nation. Levine’s (2005) study, “Educating School
Leaders” provided a highly critical view of current leadership development practice and
serves as a call to action for researchers and practioners. Orr (2006) offered several
promising innovations and new directions in program design and delivery. Additionally,
research by McKenzie, Christman, Hernandez, Fierro, Capper, Dantley, Gonzalez et al.
(2007) Theoharis (2007), Brown (2006), and Caper, Theoharis, and Sebastian (2006)
informed the discussion regarding the emerging discourse in preparing leaders for social
justice.
These researchers entered their respective studies with the aim of filling the gaps
in knowledge regarding the content, design, support structures and financing of principal

48
preparation programs. Darling-Hammond et al.’s (2007) study, which utilized both
qualitative and quantitative methods, produced several useful findings, many of which
were corroborated by researchers. Most significantly, the researchers found that
preservice programs shared common design features.
First, they found that preparation programs must have a comprehensive and
coherent curriculum aligned to state and professional standards, in particular the
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISSLC) standards. Used by 45 states as
a platform for preparation programs and licensure, these standards provide a set of
common expectations for the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of school leaders
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Orr, 2006). Programs must also have a philosophy and
curriculum emphasizing leadership of instruction and school improvement (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007). Principals need the skills to facilitate their faculty’s ability to get
to know their students and families and to engage their staff in the process of identifying
and dismantling inequitable programs (Capper, Theoharis, & Sebastian, 2006)
The second common feature found by Darling-Hammond and colleagues (2007)
stressed the need for a program philosophy and curriculum emphasizing leadership of
instruction and school improvement. In expanding this theme, the framework of social
justice asserts that preparation programs have an obligation to instill in leaders a need to
resist injustice. Advocating for a comprehensive approach, Brown (2006) has
recommended an integration of social justice and equity issues, including critical social
theory, throughout the preparation program’s range of courses rather than just having one
single course devoted to the theory.

49
The third common feature of effective leadership programs requires active
instruction highlighting student-centered pedagogies that facilitate the integration of
theory and practice and stimulate reflection (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Brown
(2006) endorsed eight active-learning and reflective teaching strategies: (a) cultural
autobiographies, (b) life histories, (c) prejudice reduction workshops, (d) reflective
analysis journals, (e) rational discourse using critical incidents, controversial readings,
structured group activities, (f) cross cultural interviews, (g) educational plunges, and (h)
diversity panels. Additional practices include experiential learning, structured dialogue,
problem-based learning, and engagement with learning communities (Orr, 2006).
The fourth common feature of effective leadership programs calls for professors
who not only excel in their subject area, but who are also experienced administrative
practitioners (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Support, in the form of cohort or
formalized mentoring and advising, is the next common feature. Preparing leaders is
“complex and multidimensional” and does not include a “prescribed list of tasks merely
to check off” (Theoharis, 2007 p.7). Orr (2006) cited Wichita State University as a leader
in this realm in that it organizes student cohorts not just to simplify program delivery but
also to establish learning families for the duration of a two-year program.
Targeted recruitment, the next common essential, must not be a haphazard
process, but rather one that proactively recruits expert teachers with potential for
leadership. Rather than basing their selection decisions on traditional sources, exemplary
programs used multiple sources of evidence (documents, exercises, stimulation activities,
on-site observations) designed to assess future leadership potential (Darling-Hammond et

50
al., 2007; McKenzie, 2008). Also instead of letting students self-select, McKenzie
(2007) recommended that preparation programs choose students with a propensity toward
social justice, who are instructionally strong, and who have previous leadership
experience. Lastly, administrative internships are common, valuable features in that they
afford opportunities for candidates to engage in leadership responsibilities under the
tutelage of expert veterans. Some programs wishing to adopt an “urban school”
framework routinely arrange internship placements that expose their students to different
types of schools (e.g., urban, suburban, startups, charters) with different levels of
resources (Orr, 2006).
Beyond these common features, Darling-Hammond and colleagues (2007)
identified three additional findings. One, exemplary programs can, in fact, produce
leaders who engage in effective practices. Graduates from the studied programs reported
that they felt exceptionally well prepared, confidant, and strongly committed to the
principalship. Two, successful programs rely on a core groups of champions, on
collaborative organizational (district or university) partnerships, and on financial support
to design internships and to enable more selective recruitment of candidates. Lastly,
researchers found that state and district policies greatly influence program designs and
outcomes.
These policies impact the decision to align with the ISSLC standards and dictate
the certification measures for the principalship. State and district policies also influence
recruitment and principal development as some districts have constructed a leadership
pipeline that includes full-time internships and apprenticeships. The goal is to integrate

51
school districts and university partners in all program components, from governance to
design, to input on student selection, to coteaching and conducting evaluations (Orr,
2006).

Dunkin Achieves! Principal Coaching Initiative
Dunkin Achieves! is the district’s initiative to become the best urban school district in
America by 2010. The action plan for Dunkin Achieves! encompasses a model of
concentric rings representing each of the levels of influence that support the center –
High Achieving, Engaged Students. The rings moving out from the students are:
Effective Teachers, Empowered Principals, Campus-focused Central Services, Engaged
Parents and Guardians, and Supportive Community. The DPCI is predicated on the
following core standards, which align with the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISSLC) Standards, 2008:
• The leader has the knowledge and skills to think and plan strategically,
creating an organizational vision around personalized student success.
• The leader is grounded in standards-based systems theory and design and
is able to transfer that knowledge to his/her job as the architect of
standards-based reform in the school.
• The leader knows how to access and use appropriate data to inform
decision-making at all levels of the system.
In 1996, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed national
standards that provided common expectations for the knowledge, skills, and dispositions

52
of school leaders (Davis et al., 2005). Currently, more than 41 states have adopted some
variation of the ISSLC standards (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).

Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
In the Dunkin Independent School District, the superintendent and his staff have
taken a proactive approach to making sure that quality leaders are at the helm in public
schools. The Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) provides a standards-
based capacity building curriculum and the support of a leadership coaching structure.
The district is focused upon building capacity in school leaders by focusing on what they
need to know and be able to do in order to provide the guidance and direction of
sustained instructional improvement leading to higher student achievement.
The DPCI is designed to provide principals with a principal coach who offers at-
elbow coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership development and to
build leadership capacity to ensure improved academic success for students. Principals
and coaches participate in professional development focused on data analysis, goal
setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice, and establishing systems
and structures to support improved teacher practice and student learning. Research
demonstrates that effective school leaders have an impact on student achievement. A
focused program of continuing professional education can help leaders develop the
knowledge and skills they need to become more effective in improving the learning
environment for teachers and students.

53
The Dunkin Independent School District (Dunkin ISD), as a large city school
system, experiences the benefits as well as the boundless possibilities inherent in
educating a diverse population and meeting its goal of preparing students to be successful
in the 21st century. In order to meet the district’s goals and fulfill its mission, the district
must have as its centerpiece exemplary professional development for “everyone who
affects student learning” (Superintendent Lopez, 2009). The effectiveness of an education
system is measured by the academic achievements of its students and is impacted by the
quality of instruction. Increased student achievement demands a focused professional
development structure that will support content-specific training and establish
consistency in the delivery and implementation of instruction.

Leadership Support Structures
According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2007), the challenges of recruiting strong
principals can be attributed to the fact that principals are ill prepared and inadequately
supported to take on the challenges of school reform. Principals are often placed into
very difficulty situations, where they are not receiving on-going mentoring or coaching
(Spiro, Mattis, & Mitgang, 2007). In an era where the principal's role is evolving, the
new principal needs a support structure that will increase and develop the capacities and
skills needed to sustain his/her practice. Providing this support is one of the essential
functions of leadership development programs, but unfortunately most programs lack this
element.

54
Some leadership capacity building programs such as the Jefferson City Public
School system have integrated a principal mentoring component into its development
program (Darling-Hammond et al. 2007; Spiro et al. 2007). Other successful programs,
such as Delta State University, do not have a mentoring component, but have strong
partnerships with local districts (Delta State University provide mentors to Delta State's
graduates) (Darling-Hammond et al. 2007). The DPCI has both training and mentoring
components that target capacity building techniques. Though limited empirical evidence
indicates the impact that mentoring and coaching has on increasing student achievement,
clearly effective leadership capacity building programs see this support structure as a key
component of developing leadership practice (Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Spiro et al., 2007).
Mentoring and Coaching
Mentoring and coaching are a part of a school-based professional development
system that provides support to principals on instruction, school-based resources, content
areas, use of data, and any other school challenges the principals may face (Neufeld &
Roper, 2003). The two concepts will be used interchangeably. From research on
mentoring programs, Spiro et al., (2007) developed five guidelines that states, districts,
and leadership capacity programs can use to strengthen or establish a mentor program:
1. High-quality training for mentors should be a requirement and should be
provided by any state of district with mentoring.
2. States and districts that require mentoring should gather meaningful
information about efficacy.

55
3. Mentoring should be provided for at least a year, and ideally two or more
years.
4. State and local funding for mentors should be sufficient and enough to
attract participants to continue mentoring.
5. The primary goal of the mentoring process should be focused on leaders
who are ready for change and have the courage to move forward in the
face of resistance. (p.7-9)
In addition to the guidelines for establishing mentoring and coaching programs,
there are key behaviors and duties for coaches and mentors, including: (a) helping
principals recruit teachers that can help build capacity, (b) assisting the principals in
building capacity for shared decision making, (c) modeling leadership skills for
principals, (d) assisting with scheduling, and (e) assisting principals in organizing and
managing their time (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).

Educational Leader Effects
In this era of renewed accountability and finger pointing, an analysis of leadership
effects is essential. Both qualitative and quantitative methods have been employed by
several researchers (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Pitner, 1988; Suskavecevic & Blake, 2004)
who have all come to a similar, resounding conclusion: leadership matters. Not only does
it matter, but it also is second only to teaching among school-related factors in impacting
student learning and outcomes; it represents about a quarter of total school effects
(Leithwood, 2004). Also of significance and inline with the Freire’s (1990) “bold

56
possibilities,” researchers have discovered that effective leadership can have the greatest
impact in environments, including the urban context, with the greatest needs. Again,
leadership is recognized as an instrumental catalyst for school reform.
Notable researchers, including Darling-Hammond (2005), Hallinger and Heck
(1996), Hallinger et al. (1996), Leithwood (2004,) and Murphy et al. (2006), have agreed
that effective school principals influence student achievement via two vital, but indirect
pathways: (a) the support and development of effective teachers and (b) the
implementation of effective organizational processes. Hallinger and Heck (1996) also
acknowledged that context matters, describing the principals role as a “web of
environmental, personal, and in-school relationships” that merge together to affect
student achievement and organizational outcomes (p 6). Utilizing Pitner’s (1988)
seminal work as an initial framework, Hallinger and Heck (1996) reviewed empirical
literature studying the relationship between a principal’s role and school effectiveness.
They found the most positive correlations in the antecedent with mediated effects model,
noting the studies’ comprehensive approach taking into account the interactions across
multiple levels of the school organization. This model is unique in viewing the principal
as both a dependent variable (subject to the influence of other variables within the school
and environment) and an independent variable (in control of influencing the actions of
teachers, the school organization, and student learning) (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).
Figure 5, below, illustrates the researcher’s adaptation of Pitner’s (1988)
Antecedent with Mediated Effects model and integrates descriptions of each contributing
factor as found in Hallinger et al. (1996).

57

Figure 5

Antecedent with Mediated Effects Model
Adapted from Pitner, 1998 (as found in Hallinger and Heck, 1996)

Studies reviewed by Hallinger and Heck (1996) touted significant findings of
internal processes (principal’s past experience, beliefs) and external factors (training,
environmental variables) influencing the principal’s role. They corroborated earlier
findings stating that leadership practices contribute to the outcomes that schools produce,
but do so through their impact on the instructional climate and instructional organization
(Hallinger et al.,1996). Instructional climate, including the school mission, school goals,
student opportunities to learn, and teacher expectations, represents the factors of the
school that shape the attitudes and behaviors of staff and students toward instruction and
learning. Studies based on such variables frequently show statistically significant
indirect effects of principal leadership on student achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).
Referring to the manner in which a school organizes opportunities for teaching and
learning, the intervening variable of instructional organization includes practices of
Antecedent
Variables
 School SES
 Ethnic make-
up
 Parent
Involvement
 Values,
Beliefs
 Teaching
Experience
Principal
Leadership
 Principal
leadership
(instructional,
transformatio
nal, learner-
centered,
social justice)
Intervening
Variables
 Instructional
Climate
 Instructional
Organization

Student
Outcomes/
Achievement

58
teacher collaboration, curriculum tracking, and equity and access to rigorous coursework
(Hallinger et al., 1996).
Recognizing that the “linkage between principal leadership and students are
inextricably tied to the actions of others” should not be seen as a negative or a weakness
of the principal’s role (Hallinger & Heck, 1996 p. 29). Rather, the researchers remind
leaders that achieving organizational results through the actions of others is the essence
of leadership.

Conclusion to Chapter Two

Conceptual and methodological challenges notwithstanding, previous research has
identified a measurable impact of effective principal leadership on individual student
achievement. Principal effects have been shown to be primarily indirect, as they are
typically mediated by other variables that are closer to the student's level. Also apparent
is that many leadership preparation programs have fallen short of adequately preparing
educational leaders for the challenges involved in educating today’s children (Jackson &
Kelley, 2002). Much of the research on the effects of leadership on student learning and
effective preparation programs is unclear, at best. This oversight is due, in part, to the fact
that the methodologies employed by many of these studies significantly underestimate
the actual effects. Some researchers have shown that leadership effects (both direct and
indirect) account for up to one-quarter of total school-level effects (Hallinger & Heck,
1996, 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000).
However, this review of the literature has brought to the surface one particular
leadership approach that has gained much attention. The engagement of learning-centered

59
leadership behaviors has demonstrated strong influences on teacher practice and
ultimately on student achievement. The review of the mentioned literature seeks to
synthesize the major studies on the topic over the past 20 years, with a specific focus on
research covering the last 10 years.

60
CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY

Introduction to Chapter Three
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection and
data analysis process employed in this study. The purpose of this research study was to
contribute to the knowledge base regarding effective components of leadership capacity
building programs and support structures that enable and sustain urban school leader
practice. Specifically, it investigated the impact of principal participation in a fully
developed, research and standards-based executive leadership development program on
leader practice, professional practice of teachers, and student outcomes over time.

Intervention: Dunkin Principal Coaching Initiative (Dpci)
In the Dunkin Independent School District, the superintendent and his staff took a
proactive approach to making sure that quality leaders were at the helm in public schools.
The Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) provided a standards-based
capacity building curriculum and the support of a leadership coaching structure. The
district aimed to build capacity in school leaders by focusing on what they need to know
and be able to do in order to provide the guidance and direction of sustained instructional
improvement leading to higher student achievement. The DPCI is designed to make
available to principals a coach who provides at-elbow coaching and conferring to
enhance instructional leadership development and to build leadership capacity to ensure

61
improved academic success for students. Principals and coaches participate in
professional development focused on data analysis, goal setting related to academic
achievement, leadership practice and establishing systems and structures to support
improved teacher practice and student learning. Research demonstrates that effective
school leaders have an impact on student achievement. A focused program of continuing
professional education can help leaders develop the knowledge and skills they need to
become more effective in improving the learning environment for teachers and students.
The focus for this study was on assessing how participation in the DPCI
influenced leader-practice and on how leader practice then influenced teacher
professional practice. Additionally, the district was interested in learning more about how
the VAL-ED Survey could be used as a tool to facilitate the leadership coaching process
and to promote effective leadership practice.

Study Design
The study identified two principals participating in the DPCI. Each case study
focused on how the DPCI program prepared leaders to create organizational structures
and practices that promoted effective leader practice and professional teacher practices
that improved student outcomes in the urban context. The study took a comprehensive
look at the leadership practices that have the potential to lead to attainment of the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) and Dunkin Achieves! outcomes to determine:
(a) the relationship between principal participation in the DPCI program and his/her
leadership practice, and (b) if the practice of the two principals varies, what accounts for

62
that variance. The study additionally sought to expand the knowledge base with regard to
components of effective leadership support structures at the school and district levels that
enabled the principal’s leadership practice in creating and sustaining the conditions for
effective teacher practice and promoting a more equitable and effective student learning
environment in the urban school context. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected
in a preintervention and postintervention design to determine the leader’s change in
practice and how these factors were shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences
in the DPCI program over time.
The case study design was appropriate for this study, suited as it is to situations in
which it is impossible to separate the phenomenon’s variables (e.g., leadership practice,
leader knowledge, etc.) from context (Yin, 1994), as is the case in the study of leadership
practice in schools. In case study research, data collection usually “involves all three
strategies of interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents” (Merriam, 1998, p.136).
Patton (2002) contended that multiple sources of information are sought and used
because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective. By using a combination of observations, interviews, and document analysis,
the researcher is able to use different data sources to validate and cross-check findings.
This study is designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(DPCI) prepare principals to become effective leaders?
2. How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership
practices of urban school principals?

63
3. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
4. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
5. How can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?

Sample and Population
The unit of analysis for this study was urban school leadership practice.
Nonprobability sampling, specifically, purposeful (Patton, 1990) sampling, was the
strategy used to identify participants for this study. This strategy is appropriate for this
study because the intent is to discover and to gain a better understanding as well as to
achieve insight into the nature of leadership practice. Therefore, it was important to
identify a sample from which the most can be learned. Patton (1990) has contended,
The logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich
cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can
learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the
research, thus the term purposeful sampling. (p. 169)

Selection Criteria
For this multicase, comparative, qualitative study, the first level of sampling
involved selection of the “case.” Two schools that met predetermined criteria were
identified for participation in the study. The intent was to explore variation between

64
schools where principals were in their first year participating in DPCI. Schools identified
for participation in each case were purposefully selected based on the following criteria:
1. Percent minority population was greater than or equal to 50%
2. Percent low-income student population was greater than or equal 50%
3. Percent English language learner was greater than or equal to 5%
4. Principal experience was fewer than or equal to 5 years
5. Percent of minority population proficient in math and reading was less
than or equal to 50%
6. Gap in math and reading proficiency among student groups was greater
than or equal to 20%
7. Principal participation in year one of the DPCI program in Fall 2009-10
The two case study schools selected for participation in this study met the
described criteria for participation. Additionally, both schools resided in urban areas of
Dallas, Texas and experienced a broad diversity in race, ethnicity, gender, class, culture,
and language abilities.
To strengthen the validity of the study, teacher participants identified for the
within case sampling were randomly identified. Each participant, principals and their
teachers, were asked to participate in preintervention and postintervention interview and
observation data collection activities. A minimum of six teachers who taught high-stakes
accountability subjects, math and/or reading, were identified for this level of sampling.
Participants in this study were recruited from the Dunkin Independent School
District that serves an ethnically diverse student population and substantial numbers of

65
low-income families. This district had a 2008 student enrollment of 157,632 (K-12)
students who were served in 226 schools (Dunkin Independent School District). The
2008 student demographics in Dallas were as follows: 27.7% African American, 1%
Asian, 66.5% Latino/Hispanic, and 84.7% low income. Table 2, below, provides a
graphic illustration of student enrollment; Table 3, below, illustrates disaggregated
enrollment percentages.
Table 2
Dunkin Independent School District Enrollment
Enrollment
(K-12)
Schools High
Schools
Middle Elementary Alternative
157,632

226 33 32 156 5
Note. Data retrieved from the Dunkin Independent School District Education Website:
http://www.dallasisd.org

Table 3
Dunkin Independent School District Demographics
African
American
Latino White Asian/Pacific
Islander
Low
income
ELL Special
Education
Other
27.7% 66.5% 4.6% 1% 84.7% 9.9% 8.1% .2%
Note. Data retrieved from the Dunkin Independent School District Education Website:

http://www.dallasisd.org

66
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), which was
implemented in Spring 2003 by a mandate of the Texas Legislature, is the state’s
standardized test given to students in grades 3-10 annually. Students are assessed in
mathematics in grades 3-10; reading in grades 3-9; writing in grades 4 and 7; English
language arts in grade 10; science in grades 5, 8, and 10; and social studies in grades 8
and 10. The TAKS is a standards-based assessment that measures the extent to which a
student has learned and is able to apply the defined knowledge and skills at each tested
grade level; as such, the TAKS is directly aligned to the Texas Essential Knowledge and
Skills (TEKS), the state’s curriculum standards. Student results on the TAKS are
reported as either “met standard” or “commended performance.” Disaggregated student
achievement on the TAKS during the 2008 school year is illustrated in Table 4, below.
Whereas the percentage of students meeting the English language arts standards is at least
70% in each subgroup and grade level, the math data reveals significant gaps between the
number of students meeting the standard at the middle school level and high school
levels, as well as the Black and White subgroups. The data allow the principal to take a
more focused approach when planning professional development sessions, topics for
professional learning communities, and one-on-one meetings with staff.

67
Table 4
Dunkin Achievement Results, 2008
Student 6
th
RDG % 7
th
RDG % 8
th
RDG % 9
th
RDG % 10
th
RDG % Exit Level
Group Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard Met Standard

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

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

Gaining Access to Participants
In August 2009, Dr. Margaret Reed, Associate Researcher and Faculty Adviser,
met with Dunkin Independent School District administrators, potential case study school
principals, leadership coaches, and the DPCI Key Planners team to discuss the University
of Southern California’s research study proposal and to secure the district’s involvement
in the study. As a result of this meeting, case study school principals were identified and
participated in an overview of the DPCI/USC research proposal, which outlined their role
in the study, the methodology to be used, and benefits of participation; additionally, the
identified case study school principals completed the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) on-line survey, the primary data-collection tool to be
used in the study.

68
In September 2009, USC student researchers/primary investigators sent
introductory letters via e-mail to each of their assigned case study school principals to
provide an overview of the proposed research, and to identify the data that would be
collected upon our visit to Dallas. Follow-up phone calls were then placed to confirm
travel plans and visitation schedules. Principals were also asked to identify a lead teacher
to coordinate the distribution of the VAL-ED survey IDs to teacher participants so as to
maintain their anonymity and to protect the confidentiality of the information collected;
the lead teacher would also be responsible to assist in securing a list of teachers from
which to randomly select case study participants. To further assist in maintaining
anonymity, case study participants will be given a pseudonym. The VAL-ED survey was
administered once in the fall and once in the spring to each participant group. For this
study, all VAL-ED survey respondents took the on-line version. All respondents were
assigned a unique ID to protect their confidentiality.
The distribution of VAL-ED survey IDs to teachers was coordinated by a lead
teacher identified by the researcher in cooperation with the principal (responsible for
providing the master list of teachers and their contact information) to maintain their
anonymity. Each researcher to maintain anonymity distributed principal survey IDs.

Data Collection Procedures

This study utilized a qualitative comparative case study design. In general, case
studies focus on discovery and exploration rather than hypothesis testing and the
development of deductive inferences (Merriam, 1998). Case studies are most appropriate

69
in situations where the researcher has little control over the events in the context
surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Therefore the focus of this study centered on
descriptive questions which revealed information about the “how” and “whys” of
changes in principal leadership behavior through participation in the DPCI program as
well as the impact of the leader’s practice on teacher practice and organizational
structures.
Yin (1984) defined a case study as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used” (p. 23). For this study it was important to analyze the phenomenon of
educational leadership in a real-life context to gain a better understanding of what factors
about the context seemed to influence principal behavior. As such, a multiple case study
design was the best methodological approach. The design of this study supports the
ability to identify and purposefully collect data for analysis of the leadership phenomenon
and capacity building context. Not only did the comparative case study design contribute
to the robustness of this study, but it also added to the base of knowledge supporting the
importance of context in change in professional practice.
According to Patton (2002),
multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single source of
information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective on the
program. By using a combination of observations, interviewing, and document
analysis, the fieldworker is able to use different data sources to validate and
crosscheck findings. (p. 306)

70
In addition, Patton (2002) pointed out that each type of data source has its strengths and
weaknesses. Triangulation (the use of multiple data sources) increases validity because
the strengths of one approach can compensate for the weaknesses of another approach.

Instrumentation: Overview
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. Qualitative as
well as quantitative data were collected in a preintervention (Fall 2009) and
postintervention (Spring 2010) design to determine the leaders’ change in practice and
how these factors have been shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences in the
DPCI over time. Interviews (45 minutes) with the principals (N = 14 Case Study and 3
Master Principals) and three to six of their teachers (30 minutes) were conducted in the
fall and spring. To strengthen the validity of the study, teacher participants identified for
the within case sampling will be randomly identified. Principals were shadowed while
enacting their practice (i.e., leading a professional learning opportunity with staff)
whereas classroom teachers were observed (i.e., in professional learning teams, leading
classroom instruction, and/or participating in professional learning opportunity).
Documents (i.e., school improvement plan, school accountability report card, WASC
report) were collected and analyzed.
In addition, pre and postintervention data were collected from the administration
of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey to each
principal and all of their teachers. The first administration took place in September 2009,

71
prior to the principals’ interaction with their DPCI coach and before the start of the Fall
Semester; the postintervention assessment took place in Spring 2010.
Patton (1990) contended that, “multiple sources of information are sought and
used because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective” (p. 244). Data collected in response to each research question was
triangulated to facilitate the data analysis process and to substantiate any inferences made
with regard to changes in leader practice and teacher professional practice. The VAL-ED
survey was administered as a part of the overarching longitudinal study as well as the
case studies.

The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
The VAL-ED (Joseph Murphy, Ellen Goldring, Stephen Elliot, and Andrew
Porter, 2007) is a standards-based survey of educational leadership that is closely aligned
with the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards. Learning-
centered leadership theory is the framework for the VAL-ED. The learning-centered
leader establishes a clear vision, exhibits instructional proficiency, aligns the curriculum
to assessment, personally knows his or her staff, implements a culture of learning for
adults and children, encourages a safe and orderly environment, and communicates with
all actors in the teaching and learning process. Through this leadership perspective the
behaviors for this instrument were developed.
The survey is composed of 72 items broken down into six core component
subscales and six processes subscales. The six core components are (a) high standards

72
for student performance, (b) rigorous curriculum, (c) quality instruction, (d) culture of
learning and professional behavior, (e) connections to external communities, and (f)
systemic performance accountability. The six key processes are (a) planning, (b)
implementing, (c) supporting, (d) advocating, (e) communicating, and (f) monitoring.
The conceptual framework for VAL-ED is based on a review of the learning-centered
leadership research literature and alignment to the Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) standards.
The VAL-ED was funded by a grant from the Wallace Foundation and developed
by a team of well-respected researchers in educational leadership (Joseph Murphy, Ellen
Goldring, Stephen Elliot, and Andrew Porter, 2007). Survey respondents indicated their
perceptions of how well the principal engages in actions (the key processes) that impact
effective school activities supported by research (the core components). The survey
respondents are also asked to identify the source(s) of evidence that support these
perceptions.
The instrument is designed to provide a 360-degree evidence-based assessment of
leadership. It is designed for completion by the principal, supervisor, and all teachers at
the school. Respondents rate the perceived effectiveness of the principal on a scale of 1-5
(1= Ineffective to 5= Outstandingly Effective) for each of the 72 items. Parallel forms of
the assessment measure growth over time, from the preintervention assessment to the
post-intervention period. Both principal and teacher surveys are designed to take from 30
to 45 minutes to complete. The VAL-ED survey is designed to yield both criterion-

73
referenced and norm-referenced scores. Figure 6, below, illustrates a sample of the VAL-
ED survey.
Figure 6
Sample VAL-ED Survey

Though the VAL-ED (2008) is a new instrument in the research of educational
leadership, it has gone through extensive field-testing to establish high standards of
content validity and reliability. The conceptual framework is based on the literature on
school leadership effects on student achievement (Porter, Murphy, Goldring, Elliott,
Polikoff, & May, 2008). The developers completed a nine-school pilot test in fall 2007 to
establish both face and content validity. Estimated reliability coefficients for each of the
12 subscales were also established as a result of this pilot. Overall, the investigation
revealed high reliability coefficients for the 72-item scales (α = >.98). Confirmatory

74
factor analysis was conducted to investigate data fit to the conceptual model. The factor
analytic model was designed to parallel the conceptual framework for the VAL-ED by
incorporating higher-order factors for core components, key processes, and an overall
score (Porter et al., 2008). .
Because each item contributed to both a core component and a key process, the
factor analytic model was split into two separate analyses: one on core components and
the other on key processes. Results from the confirmatory factor analyses reveal that both
the core components and the key processes models fit the data very well, having
goodness of fit indices between .96 and .99. A primary source of validity evidence is the
core component and key process intercorrelations. The correlations were high, both for
core components and for key processes, though they appear somewhat higher for key
processes. For core components, correlations ranged from a low of .73 (Connections to
External Communities and High Standards for Student Learning) to a high of .90 (Quality
Instruction and High Standards for Student Learning).
For key processes, correlations ranged from a low of .89 (Supporting and
Monitoring) to a high of .94 (Monitoring and Communicating). Correlations of core
components and key processes with total score were all quite high, with none lower than
.9. These high intercorrelations, along with the factor analysis results described above,
suggest that the instrument is measuring a strong underlying construct, principal
leadership. A full description of the VAL-ED reliabilities and psychometric properties is
found in Appendix E.

75
For this study, all survey respondents took the on-line version. All respondents
were assigned a unique ID to protect their confidentiality. The distribution survey IDs by
a lead teacher identified by the researcher in cooperation with the principal (responsible
for providing the master list of teachers and their contact information) avoided the
possibility of retaliation against teachers for their responses. Through this process, the
exact responses of all participants and their contribution to the overall survey results
remained unknown to the principal.

Interview Procedures
Semistructured interviews were conducted with each principal (N=2) and six
teachers (N=6) from each principal’s school site. Principal and teacher interview
protocols had a mixture of predetermined as well as open-ended questions (Appendix E).
In addition, probing questions were asked when the responses required elaboration or
clarification. The interviews were recorded (with permission) and later transcribed for
analysis. The postintervention principal interviews (Appendix F) took place in the spring
(2010). The interviews were recorded and later transcribed for analysis.
Teachers were randomly selected from the master teacher list secured with
principal cooperation based on whether they teach math and/or reading. The interview
protocols were designed to elicit responses that could provide evidence for a change in
principal and teacher practice in alignment with the outcomes of value to this study,
which are aligned with the Texas Core Leadership standards, the outcomes of the DPCI
curriculum, and the learning-centered leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2008).

76
Observations and Documents
In addition to interviews, four types of pre/postintervention observations were
conducted at each school to gather additional data. Observational data were necessary to
strengthen data obtained through interviews and the VAL-ED. Interview and survey data
are based solely on individual perceptions. Observations and document analysis provided
additional data that are somewhat removed from individual perceptions and, in some
cases, biases of those working at the school site. Additionally, these observational data
added to the strength of the study as they provided another source of data for
triangulation. Observations included the following:
1. Principal and teacher interactions in both individual and group settings
(i.e., staff meetings and professional learning community meetings)
2. Teachers instructing students in math and language arts
3. Principal interactions during day-to-day responsibilities
4. School-level professional learning opportunities in which the principal
was guiding the learning process.
In total, one day was devoted to collecting qualitative data during both the
preintervention (fall 2009) and postintervention (spring 2010) period at each school site.
Reflective field notes from these observations were recorded using an observation
protocol designed for each type of observation. The notes were transcribed for analysis
and coded to facilitate organization for analysis. Table 5, below, details the triangulation
of data in relation to each research question identified at the beginning of this chapter.

77
Table 5

Triangulation Table

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

X

X

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

X

X

X

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

X

X

X

X

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

78
Table 5, Continued

Data Analysis Procedures

The researcher, in accordance with the two levels of analysis, formative and
summative, analyzed the data collected for this study. To protect the integrity of each
case study, each case was fully analyzed (i.e., coding, pattern matching, organization by
themes, and summative data analysis) prior to the cross-case comparative analysis. Once
the data for the two case studies were individually analyzed, data from both cases were
analyzed again in search of patterns and themes that help to make inferences regarding
the variance between the two cases.
Formative Data Analysis Procedures
A formative data analysis of this study was completed utilizing Creswell’s (2003)
generic six-step process:
1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis, which involves transcribing
interviews, field notes, and reviewing documents.
2. Read through all the data in order to obtain a general sense of the
information and to reflect on its overall meaning.

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

X

79
3. Begin detailed analysis with a coding process—organizing the material
into chunks or categories.
4. Use the coding process from Step 3 to organize the categories into themes
for analysis and look for connections between the themes.
5. Define how the themes will be represented in the qualitative narrative.
6. Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data (Creswell, 2003)
Summative Data Analysis Procedures
For the summative data analysis: emphasizing the theoretical implications from
the conceptual framework that guided this study, for each research question, the
researcher analyzed the data from this study through the lenses of the literature discussed
earlier to determine if there was a change in leader behavior, and if so, what its impact
was on teacher practice and organizational structures. For the quantitative data collected
from the VAL-ED survey, the mean difference between the results of the pre and
postadministrations of the assessment was used. A positive value was considered a
change in the direction toward effective learning-centered leadership practices. A
negative value was considered an area for improvement and capacity building. This data
triangulated with the qualitative data and was used to further support the descriptive
analysis of the case study data.
This research study was completed over a five-month period of time. Table 6,
below, illustrates the timeline for the study.

80
Table 6
Research Timeline for Study
ACTIVITY DATES
Proposal Development and Planning August/Sept 2009
Recruitment of Study Participants August/September 11, 2009
On-Site Roll Out Planning and Presentations September 16-17, 2009
Preintervention
• On-Site Case Study Qualitative Data Collection (Fall): Observe
case study principals leading PL; interview principals &
classroom teachers; collect documents for analysis; Collect &
Analyze Principal Artifacts of Practice
• Observe master principals, coaches, IFL presentations;
coordinate/monitor case study data collection process

September 28-29, 2009

ON-LINE VAL-ED Survey Administration (Fall)
All principal participants; teachers, coaches, supervisors
September to October 2009

Data Analysis November to December 2009
Postintervention
Case Study Qualitative Data Collection (Spring): Observe principals
leading PL; interview principals & classroom teachers; collect
documents for analysis; Collect & Analyze Principal Artifacts of
Practice
February and March 2010

ON-LINE VAL-ED Survey Administration (Spring)
All principal participants; teachers, coaches, supervisors February 2010
Data Analysis April 2010

81
Validity

Validity strategies are used to determine the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba,
1985, as cited in Creswell, 2005) and accuracy of interpretations and findings. The
accuracy and credibility of the findings of this study will be established using the
following validation strategies: data triangulation and peer debriefing. Triangulation is
the process of corroborating evidence from various individuals, sources, and methods.
Data collected in this study came from a variety of individuals (i.e., principals,
supervisors, and teachers) and sources and methods (i.e., survey, interviews,
observations, and review of artifacts). Peer debriefing was also utilized through a process
of identifying a colleague to whom responsibility for reviewing and asking questions
about the interpretations and findings was given. Through this process, the researcher
could anticipate that clarity could be gained from someone other than himself.
Though various limitations and delimitations of the study were addressed in
Chapter One, recognizing additional threats to validity was important. Some potential
threats to internal validity are outlined below:
1. Length of the Study: Time for collecting qualitative data from fieldwork
for this study is limited to five months.
2. Principal participants had just completed five months of the DPCI
program. Both principals may not have had sufficient time to assimilate
their learning. The possibility that neither of the principals will have
completed the full compliment of the initiative may leave gaps in their
learning.

82
3. The fact that the postassessment of the VAL-ED survey will come
relatively soon after the preassessment (approximately four months) limits
the degree to which it can fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas
assessed.
4. Pretest Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of
the VAL-ED has inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected in
the second administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors
other than the participants’ participation in DPCI.
5. The “halo effect:” Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED
(ratings of self and colleagues), participants may have a tendency to
assume specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression.
However, to mitigate the effect of this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-
ED survey required raters to identify the primary source of evidence for
their ration on each item (i.e., personal observation, documents, etc.)
6. For both case studies, VAL-ED survey participation rates for both fall and
the spring administrations were below 50%. As this level of participation
is considered low, the survey results were interpreted with caution.

83
Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
policies and procedures for conducting research will be utilized in the development of
this research design. Prior to participation in this study each participant was given an
explanation of the purpose, procedures, and scope of the study. In addition, each
principal participant was given an informed consent form, which outlined the nature of
the study, and served to indicate his or her voluntary participation. To protect the
anonymity of each participant, pseudonyms were assigned to the principal and teacher
participants. In addition, the names of the districts and schools with which the
participants were associated were changed to avoid any possible association that might
lead to the identification of participants in this study. All data was stored in a secure
location with restricted access to the data to the researcher only. The proposal for this
study underwent the rigorous approval process for the conduct of human subjects
research through the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB), and was approved prior to the start of data collection in the fall (2009).

Chapter Summary

In summary, this chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and the research
methodology that was used to accomplish that purpose. Justification for the use of a
descriptive qualitative analysis to address the research questions was given in the
beginning of the chapter. The research design included a detailed description of the
sample and how the individual cases were selected for study. Data collection and analysis

84
procedures were explained, as were instrumentation considerations. Due to its infancy
and limited use in research of educational leadership to date, a brief review of the VAL-
ED survey and its psychometric properties was given to assure readers of its validity and
reliability in assessing leader behavior in this study.

85
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS

Introduction to Chapter Four
This chapter discusses the findings from two qualitative case studies, which
investigate how a focused district-wide leadership capacity building and support initiative
carried out in a large, urban school district prepared principals to become effective
instructional leaders, and the extent to which those principals put into practice behaviors
that focused upon creating and sustaining organizational structures and processes that
promote effective teacher practice and positively impact student outcomes. The rigorous
design of this study included the pre/post collection of both qualitative and quantitative
data to be used in descriptive analysis of the findings from this study. Data collected
from each case study school are presented and analyzed in this chapter to determine the
impact that participating in the Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) had on
leadership practice.
The chapter is organized with a brief discussion of the components of the Dunkin
ISD leadership capacity building and support initiative followed by a presentation of each
case study school including a brief introduction to the principal, a description of the
school context, including student demographics, student achievement patterns in math
and language arts, and the mission for each school. The presentation of each case study
school will be followed by a discussion and analysis of the findings in relation to each of
the five research questions that guided this study. The chapter will conclude with a

86
comparison of the findings for each of the schools and an analysis of the variations
between the two, followed by a discussion relating to the possible cause(s) for the
variations. The following five research questions were the focus for the study:
1. How does participation in the Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
4. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
5. Who can the VAL-ED instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?

The Dunkin Principal Coaching Initiative
The Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) provides a standards-based
capacity building curriculum and the support of a leadership coaching structure. The
district is focused upon building capacity in school leaders by focusing on what they need
to know and be able to do in order to provide the guidance and direction of sustained
instructional improvement leading to higher student achievement.
The DPCI is designed to provide principals with a principal coach who provides
coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership development and to build

87
leadership capacity to ensure improved academic success for students. Principals and
coaches participate in professional development focused on data analysis, goal setting
related to academic achievement, leadership practice and establishing systems, and
structures to support improved teacher practice and student learning. Research has
demonstrated that effective school leaders have an impact on student achievement. A
focused program of continuing professional education can help leaders develop the
knowledge and skills they need to become more effective in improving the learning
environment for teachers and students.
This chapter will proceed with an introduction to the school for the first case
study, University Park Elementary. This introduction will be followed by a report of
preliminary findings for each research question based upon data collected in fall 2009
and spring 2010. The same pattern will be followed for the second case study school,
Exposition Way Middle School. The data in the analysis section of this chapter were
organized according to each research question.

88
Case Study #1 - University Park Elementary School
Located in northwest Dallas, Texas, University Park Elementary School is just one
of many elementary schools within the Dunkin Independent School District. The Dunkin
Independent School District encompasses a 384-square mile area in the eastern portion of
the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex and includes all or portions of the municipalities of
Addison, Balch Springs, Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Garland,
Highland Park, Hutchins, Mesquite, Seagoville, University Park, and Wilmer. Its students
come from homes where almost 70 different languages are spoken.
The district serves roughly 157,00 students in kindergarten through 12
th
grade. Of
this student population 84.7% qualify for free and reduced lunches and 8.1% was
reported as having an Individual Education Plan (IEP) under the statutes of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In 2007-2008 the school district reported the following student demographic data:
Asian 1%, African American 27.0%, White 4.6%, and Latino 66.5%. The district is
composed of 156 elementary schools, 32 middle schools and 33 high schools, making it
the largest school district in the state of Texas. With roughly 11,000 classroom teachers,
3,000 district and campus level administrators, and over 6,000 support staff members, the
Dunkin ISD employs more than 20,000 professional and support people, making it the
largest employer in the city of Dallas. Figure 7, below, represents Dunkin ISD student
ethnic break down for the past seven years.

89

Figure 7
Dunkin ISD Ethnic Breakdown
School Description
University Park Elementary School serves roughly 261 students in kindergarten
through 5th grade. Of this student population 94% qualifies for free and reduced lunches
and 10% was reported as having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) under the
statutes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Table 7, below,
represents the student and teacher ethnicity breakdown for 2008-2009 and Table 8,
below, represents University Park's economically disadvantaged and limited English
proficient students for 2008-2009 school year.

90
Table 7
Student and Teacher Ethnicity Breakdown for 2008-2009
Ethnicity Students Teachers
African American 14 (5.4%) 3 (13.6%)
American Indian 1 (.4%) *
Asian 4 (1.5%) *
Hispanic 239 (91.6%) 11 (50%)
White 3 (1.1%) 7 (31.8%)
Other ** 1 (4.5%)

Table 8
Economically Disadvantaged and Limited English Proficient for 2008 - 2009
Student Group Number %
Economically disadvantaged students 248 95
Limited English proficient students 185 70.9

Since the 2007 school year, enrollment at University Park Elementary School has
decreased; however, based on the data, the demographics of the school have changed
little. Hispanic students remained the majority of the population. African American and
Asian students made up the next largest subgroups. Consistently, White and American
Indian students represented about 2% of the student population. University Park
Elementary School also has held a large number of English Language Learns. The
primary non-English language was Spanish.

91
Despite the large numbers of ELL and Economically Disadvantaged students,
University Park Elementary School made steady academic growth based on the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) standardized test as measured by the state's
accountability rating system. Tables 9 and 10, below, represent the percentage of students
meeting standard in reading and math for the last three years.

92
Table 9
Percentage of Students Meeting Standard in Reading
Grade Year White African
American
Hispanic Econ
Disad
Special
Ed
All Dunkin
ISD
Number
Tested (All
Students)
3 2006 • 93.5 93.9 94.1 87.7 34
2007 • • 94.7 90.9 • 91.3 84.6 23
2008 • • 100.0 100.0 • 100.
0
86.2 21
4 2006 • 96.0 96.0 96.0 69.5 25
2007 • 72.4 73.3 • 73.3 69.7 30
2008 • 79.2 80.0 • 81.5 72.1 27
5 2006 • 84.0 84.6 • 85.2 76.9 27
2007 • 80.0 81.3 81.3 78.3 16
2008 95.0 95.0 95.0 82.9 20
3-5 2006 • 91.3 91.7 • 91.9 78.2 86
2007 • • 81.0 80.9 • 81.2 77.6 69
2008 • • 90.2 90.6 • 91.2 80.3 68
Dunkin ISD Data Analysis, Reporting, and Research Services

93
Table 10
Percentage of Students Meeting Standard in Math
Grade Year White African
American
Hispanic Econ
Disad
Special
Ed
All Dunkin
ISD
Number
Tested (All
Students)
3 2006 • 93.5 93.9 94.1 87.7 34
2007 • • 87.0 88.5 • 88.9 70.3 27
2008 • • 93.3 94.1 • 94.4 78.6 18
4 2006 • 80.8 81.5 81.5 74.0 27
2007 • 86.7 87.1 • 87.1 75.7 31
2008 • 95.7 95.8 • 96.2 77.9 26
5 2006 • 92.0 92.3 • 92.6 82.2 27
2007 • 93.3 93.8 93.8 82.9 16
2008 95.0 95.0 95.0 84.0 20
3-5 2006 • 91.4 91.8 • 92.0 77.1 87
2007 • • 88.2 89.0 • 89.2 76.2 74
2008 • • 94.8 95.1 • 95.3 79.5 64
Dunkin ISD Data Analysis, Reporting, and Research Services

The state accountability system assigns ratings to every campus and district in the
Texas public education system each year. In most cases the system assigns one of four
rating labels ranging from lowest to highest and includes Academically Unacceptable,
Academically Acceptable, Recognized, and Exemplary. To determine the rating label, the
system evaluates indicators of performance, including assessment results on the state
standardized assessment instruments as well as longitudinal completion rates and annual
dropout rates. The district has been making considerable gains over the last four years,

94
with the highest Accountability Ratings in the 2008-2009 school year. Table 11, below,
represents a summary of the Dunkin ISD Accountability Ratings for 2008-2009 year.
Table 11
Dunkin ISD Accountability Ratings 2008-2009
Campus Rating Number of Schools
Exemplary 26
Recognized 77
Academically Acceptable 98
Academically Unacceptable 21
AEA: Academically Acceptable 2
AEA: Academically Unacceptable 0
AEA: Not Rated - Other 0
Not Rated: Other 6
Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues 0
Total 230
Dunkin ISD Data Analysis, Reporting, and Research Services
Principal Overview
The 2009-2010 school year marked the beginning of Mr. Brian Anderson's
(Pseudonym) 14th year as an educator and his third year as the principal of University
Park Elementary School. Principal Anderson shared that after seven years as a classroom
teacher he was offered a position as an assistant principal at an elementary school in Fort
Worth, Texas. Four years after he accepted the assistant principal position, he moved to
Dallas and assumed a principalship within Dunkin ISD, where he has been ever since.
Principal Anderson believed that an effective school leader is one who can "create and
communicate sustainable programs that enrich the lives of all students." He also stated
that 2009 was his second year participating in the DPCI program and that he was
"looking forward to a successful outcome."
The mission of University Park Elementary School is to provide a safe and secure
learning environment in which students gain the behavioral and academic skills to

95
become successful. The data reviewed in Chapter Four reflect the five research questions
asked in this case study and are followed by in-depth analysis and description of the
findings.
Findings for Research Question One
Research Question #1 - How does participation in the Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching
Initiative (DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the DPCI prepared principals to
become effective instructional leaders. The primary data collection instruments used to
address this research question were (a) the principal pre/post intervention, (b) pre/post
teacher interviews, and (c) pre/post intervention document analysis. The data were
analyzed from the research perspective of the design of effective leadership capacity
building and support structures for improving and sustaining effective leadership practice
(Darling-Hammond, 2007; Hallinger, 2005; Marzano, 2003; Murphy, 2006; Neufeld &
Roper, 2003).
Key Findings: Preparing Principals Through a Coaching Structure
In an era where the principal’s role is evolving, new principals must have a
support structure that will increase and develop the capacities and skills needed to sustain
their practice and manage their educational and instructional programs (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007). Understanding this need, the Dunkin Independent School District
has created and implemented a program focused on building the capacity of school
leaders and providing them with the necessary support structures. The Dunkin
Independent School District has integrated a principal mentoring or coaching component

96
into their leadership development program (Darling-Hammond et al. 2007; Spiro et al.
2007). Coaching and mentoring are a part of a school-based professional development
system that provides support to principals on instruction, school based-resources, content
areas, use of data, and any other school challenges the principals may face (Neufeld &
Roper, 2003).
The DPCI is designed to make available a principal coach who provides at-elbow
coaching and conferring to principals to enhance instructional leadership development
and to build leadership capacity, thus ensuring improved academic success for students.
Principals and coaches participate in professional development focused on data analysis,
goal setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice, and establishing
systems and structures to support improved teacher practice and student learning.
Principal Anderson’s second year participating in the DPCI was 2009. Knowing
that he would be unable to have the same coach as he had his first year, Principal
Anderson did not hesitate when asked to participate in the program for a second year. The
principal stated that he enjoyed his first year with a coach and looked forward to
participating in the program again. Principal Anderson and his coach worked together
under the DPCI’s elbow-to-elbow coaching model, which meant the coach and the school
principal met regularly in-person. Interwoven in these meetings were discussions
regarding best practices for teaching and learning, and reflections on the importance of
effective instructional leadership. Principal Anderson explained, "part of my time with
my coach focuses on what I am dong as the instructional leader of the school. We
accomplish this by meeting regularly, discussing new ideas and what's been working."

97
The role of a coach is to engage principals in discussions and have them reflect
upon their work. At its best, coaching helps educators make informed decisions about
instruction and school organization that will lead teachers to teach in ways that help
students gain deeper understandings of the subject matter and improve student success.
For example, Principal Anderson explained:
My coach has been working with me pretty consistently since about the fourth
week of school. We usually meet every Wednesday from 9-1pm, with our
meetings consisting of conducting classroom observations, setting goals, and
analyzing data. My time with my coach has helped me build my confidence when
speaking to the staff, developing new programs, and giving the teachers useful
feedback after classroom observations. (Principal Anderson, 2009)

Data collected from the teacher interviews supported Principal Anderson's claim of
increased confidence, revealing, as a science teacher stated, "I have definitely seen a
change in Principal Anderson's ability to provide us feedback after he conducts an
observation. It seems he is more willing to provide us with greater detail of what he
would like to see from us." Another teacher explained,
When I first started here, Principal Anderson would observe my classroom and
then give me his notes on what to improve. Now, he meets with me and goes into
detail what good instruction looks like and how it impacts student learning. It
seems he is more aggressive with what he wants. (Ms. Jackson, 2009)

The principal and teacher data provided some evidence that the principal's confidence
increased. The teachers agreed that the increased level of confidence shown by Principal
Anderson not only helped many of them understand his direction and vision, but also
contributed to the overall boost in teacher morale, student success, and a positive school
climate.

98
Key Finding: Developing Effective Leaders Through Professional Development
In an effort to become “the best urban school district in the United States,” the
Dunkin Independent School District created a leadership initiative called Dunkin
Achieves! One significant part of the initiative was to increase student achievement. To
do so, the district must have as its centerpiece exemplary professional development for
“everyone who affects student learning” (Dunkin Independent School District, 2009).
The goal of the district was to provide practical, hands-on professional development for
employees at all levels and to strengthen the foundation necessary to improve student
performance. In an attempt to meet its goal of becoming "the best urban school district in
the country," the Dunkin ISD commissioned a curriculum audit of the district by the
National Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA). The audit resulted in 17
recommendations, one of which was to "build the instructional leadership capacity of
principals and district administrators through differentiated, engaging, and rigorous
professional development that is focused on specific academic goals and tied to student
achievement" (Dunkin Achieves! Leadership Development Initiatives’ Executive
Summary (2009).
Because of the Dunkin Independent School District’s relationship with the
University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL), the IFL is involved in the
collaboration and implementation of much of the curriculum for Dunkin ISD’s
professional development.
As a participant in the district's professional development, Principal Anderson
appreciated the focus on student achievement; he explained,

99
When you asked me on your first visit about professional development, I told you
that it was a way for me to bring the staff together and focus on a common topic.
Since that visit, I have been thinking about the usefulness of my PD sessions.
After meeting with my coach, I realized that I have not been utilizing the
professional development sessions the way I should be. Now, with the help of my
coach and my involvement in the DPCI, I feel I am much more focused, just ask
the staff. (Principal Anderson, 2010)

In discussing the focus of the professional development at University Park
Elementary School, Principal Anderson stated that the district decided to focus on one of
the Principles of Learning, academic rigor. During the fall 2009 visit, Principal Anderson
led a professional development session, which focused on academic rigor. One teacher
stated,
It was great seeing Principal Anderson leading the professional development. I
know he [principal] has been working very hard with someone from the district
office. Today's session focused on delivering content-rich lessons, focusing on the
rigor of the lesson. That's great for me, I teach math. (Mr. Graham, 2009)

Analysis of Findings
The Dunkin Independent School District’s leadership initiatives offered programs
providing support to principals through professional development and including coaching
opportunities that seek to enhance the principal's effectiveness and capacity. 2009 marks
the fourth year of the association between the IFL and Dunkin ISD, 17 leadership
institutes for principals have taken place, as well as numerous professional development
opportunities for associate principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches, central
administrative staff members, teacher-leaders, and classroom teachers. According to
Davis et al. (2005), these collaborative efforts are beneficial in supporting and sustaining
both university programs and district initiatives. They have stated: “A well-defined and
coherent program is one that links goals, learning activities, and candidate assessments

100
around a set of shared values, beliefs, and knowledge about effective administrative
practices” (p. 8).
The site-level principal plays a very critical role in addressing and improving
student achievement. An effective school promotes a climate of high student expectations
where all students are encouraged to meet standards set forth by the curriculum. The staff
at University Park Elementary agreed upon the importance of high expectations and of
addressing the needs of all students. In order to meet these high expectations, the school
focused on student learning not instructional practice.
An effective school has processes in place for frequent monitoring of pupil
progress in essential areas, using a variety of assessment procedures that emphasize
authentic assessment in curriculum mastery (Darling-Hammond, 2006). In addition, staff
in an effective school effectively use data gathered through these monitoring processes to
inform and guide instructional practice to the benefit of the students and the school.
Benchmark assessments serve as a means of accountability and provide data for staff to
guide instructional decisions. As the principals stated, "Our decisions are made with the
conscious effort of interpreting what the data is telling us." Based upon an analysis of
data collected from principal and teacher interviews, classroom and principal
observations, and artifacts of practice, some evidence suggested that the staff at
University Park Elementary School used data collected from its students to make the
appropriate instructional decisions.
The data from the principal and teacher interviews indicated that Principal
Anderson adopted some characteristics of what research (Darling-Hammond, 2006;

101
Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006; Marzano, 2005) has posited as critical indicators
of an effective instructional leader. Some evidence indicated that the DPCI program
provided him with the support, resources, and confidence to run a successful school and
increase student performance. The significance of the DPCI structure in preparing the
principal for instructional leadership was revealed in teacher accounts regarding Principal
Anderson’s provision of support in monitoring teacher effectiveness and analyzing
student performance. Data evidenced that Principal Anderson's confidence and ability to
communicate with his staff became more effective since the researcher’s first visit in
September. Moreover, data revealed that Principal Anderson developed successful
strategies from the DPCI trainings to support the tenants of effective instructional
leadership.
Summary
Analyzing the coaching component of the DPCI makes apparent that providing a
coach to the principal proved worthwhile. As discussed by Neufeld and Roper (2003),
“coaches help principals focus on instruction, make the best use of school-based
resources, and nurture teacher leadership” (p. 4). As shown in teacher interviews and the
VAL-ED assessment, the impact that the coach had on Principal Anderson's ability to
lead University Park Elementary School was significant. A 3
rd
-grade science teacher
stated, "Since Principal Anderson has been working with a coach, I have seen a huge
change in his confidence and ability to communicate what he wants us to do." When
asked about what has influenced him most, Principal Anderson discussed that "my

102
relationship with my coach has changed the way I see things, it has allowed me to see
ahead and not focus on the past."
Principal Anderson's preparation for becoming an effective instructional leader can
be attributed to his past experiences and to his participation in the Dunkin ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (DPCI). Principal Anderson valued the coaching initiative, as
demonstrated by his volunteering to be part of it for a second straight year. The DPCI
program also gave him confidence and support— through the support of a coach—
which enabled him to focus on improving student achievement. Based on data, Principal
Anderson’s leadership practices focused more on instruction, as a result of his learning in
a collaborative environment with his coach and other colleagues who grappled with
similar issues. Furthermore, the DPCI program allowed Principal Anderson to voice his
concerns in a positive manner, and to utilize his coach in assisting him with data analysis
and in providing him with the support to improve his practices in becoming an effective
school leader.

Findings for Research Question Two
Research Question #2 - How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the DPCI influenced leader
practice in implementing the district's reform initiatives. To determine the value added
from participation in the DPCI for five months, the researcher analyzed the data from the
learning-centered leadership practices perspective, which focuses on instructional

103
leadership behaviors that promote change in leader practice. In addition, the primary data
collection instruments used to address the research question include (a) pre/post principal
interview, (b) pre/post teacher interviews, (d) pre/post intervention document analysis,
and (d) pre/post intervention VAL-ED survey results. Following preliminary findings,
several theoretical and analytical frameworks from Northouse, Murphy, and Elmore were
utilized as critical sources to determine patterns and themes across the data sets.
Key Findings: Influencing Leader Practice Through Developing Mission and Goals
Leaders in high performing schools devote considerable time to the
"development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that
is shared and supported by the school community" (Council of Chief State School
officers, 1996). Effective leaders also facilitate the creation of a school vision that
reflects the ideas that all students can learn and learn at a high level. In particular,
effective leaders anchor their belief in such a notion. Within the first few days of taking
over at University Park Elementary School, Principal Anderson met with his staff and
discussed the significance of refining the current vision and of developing a mission
statement that reflected the priorities of the school. As Principal Andersons stated:
We met as a staff and developed the mission statement collaboratively with the
idea of No Child Left Behind. I mean we cannot leave any child, not a single
student should fall through the cracks. And that's the premise of our mission
statement and we try to honor it everyday. (Principal Anderson, 2009)

Principal Anderson's ability to lead his staff in meaningful discussion regarding
the development of the mission statement exemplified the very premise of what Murphy
et al. (1990) has called "a sense of shared purpose" around a common vision. Indeed,

104
effective leaders are masters in keep the school's vision in the forefront and at the center
of everyone's work. Many teachers agreed about the importance of keeping the school's
vision in the back of their mind at all times. One 4
th
-grade teacher stated,
The principal makes sure we understand the vision of the school by continuously
asking us if know where are kids are at, academically, that no one should be left
behind. He's always asking questions and he is always looking at student work.
We have to explain to him why we are at the point we are at and what we are
going to do with the kids that are having a hard time. (Mrs. Rogers, 2010)

Findings also indicated a strong working relationship between the principal of the
elementary school and the district office in developing and implementing the school's
vision. Specifically, data reflects the district's efforts of supplying each principal with a
coach and/or mentor to support the instructional leader throughout this process during the
entire school year. Data also reflects that the DPCI program engaged principals in
activities and supplied instructional leaders with the support of a coach/mentor to help
create and implement the school's vision and to navigate the terrain of urban
principalship. Principal Anderson, the principal of University Park Elementary School,
felt strongly about his relationship with his coach and her ability to positively influence
his professional practice. The principal referred to his participation in the DPCI program
as "meaningful." In addition, Principal Anderson stated,
The coach has given me a confidence that I know I lacked. I knew my material,
my theory—and I’ve been in education for some time so I know instruction and I
know what the education field requires, but I wasn’t confident enough to bring it
out. And with her help, she has been able to give me some strategies on how to
do things in terms of what it is I need to do and not question my actions or
decisions. (Principal Anderson, 2009)

The principal’s sentiments were echoed by teacher respondents in individual
interviews, where one asserted:

105
I do see a difference in his instructional leadership. I think I’m seeing him be little
more assertive this year of better organized, let’s say; more structured approach to
certain things; and as he’s always done, he’s very responsive to teachers’
input…seeking it and then responding to it.

Many of the teachers complimented the principal and the evident change in his leadership
style. One teacher cited the principals' attention to detail, stating:
I have seen growth. I think the principal is really focused on what he wants from
us…at least for me, we try to keep on track. If we have a problem or something,
we go to him. In the past, he was difficult to approach.

Another teacher cited formal and informal meetings as forums where Principal
Anderson’s ability to communicate the schools' vision was evident, "Principal Anderson
guided the staff through a number of exercises that helped expose the academic goals and
cultural perspectives of our school and of our mission statement."
Similar to the principal and teacher accounts of developing a strong mission and
vision statement, the fall 2009 VAL-ED survey indicated that Principal Anderson
exhibited learning-centered leadership behaviors at a Basic level, meaning Principal
Anderson was likely to influence teachers positively and result in acceptable value-added
achievement and learning for all students (see Table 12, below). This behavior refers to
the leader's ability to communicate levels of professional practice that reinforces the
leader’s ability to create a healthy school environment focused on student achievement
for all. Due to the low response rate, the data should be interpreted with caution.

106
Table 12

Fall 2009 Culture of Learning Integrated Summary of Principal's Strengths and Areas of
Growth
__________________________________________________________________________________
Key Processes

Core Components Planning Implementing Supporting Advocating Communicating Monitoring
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Culture of Learning
& Professional BB BB BB BB B B
Behavior (Fall)

Culture of Learning
& Professional
Behavior (Spring) NO RESPONSE
___________________________________________________________________________________

Table 12 reveals Principal Anderson's effectiveness across six Key Processes
where he rated as Basic or Below Basic. All six Key Processes rated low except for
Principal Anderson’s ability to “communicate” and "monitor" for a Culture of Learning.
The area of "communicating" remained constant from the data collected in the fall 2009
to that of the spring 2010 data. In addition, based on the data collected, Principal
Anderson's ability to effectively create and communicate the school's vision was an
indicator of the district's support of the principal and the effectiveness of the Dunkin
coaching initiative.
Key Findings: Data Analysis to Influence Leadership Practice
The principal's emphasis on school improvement was very evident throughout the
research study. Principal Anderson felt very strongly about using data as the catalyst to
drive instruction and support student needs. University Park Elementary School used both
summative and formative data as an instrument to monitor progress toward achieving the
school's vision. The principal stated,

107
The use of data is critical in determining the needs of the school. I often have
conversations with my staff regarding the significance of data use and what it
means to use the data to drive instruction. Not only should we be looking at data,
but dissecting it to the point in which it guides what we do. (Principal Anderson,
2009)

The analysis of data is essential to leaders ensuring that their schools are organized
around state and district standards, accountability tools, and assessments (Hallinger,
2003; Murphy et al., 2006). The principal at University Park Elementary School
emphasized the use of data to support instructional improvement. He stated:
At the beginning of the school year we meet as a staff and collaboratively review
our testing data from the prior year. This gives the teachers time to reflect on the
data and determine which instructional strategies were effective in the previous
school year and those pedagogies that need to be change to address the needs of
the students more effectively. (Principal Anderson, 2009)

The principal's emphasis on monitoring student performance translated positively
to his teaching staff. One teacher stated, “during our collaboration time, Principal
Anderson puts us into groups and gives us time to work together on analyzing the data.
The student data that Principal Anderson provides us helps us stay focused." Each
quarter the principal provided each teacher with a list that showed the results of their
formative (periodic) assessments. The teachers reviewed the data from the assessments to
determine the students' progress towards mastery of the standards and to identify which
standards need to be taught again. Another teacher noted, “the time together is really
focused…it allows us to share what we are doing and what others' are doing as well."
The teachers' interview data also supported the role of the DPCI program in
assisting the principal with the appropriate support for monitoring student performance.
Principal Anderson's participation in the DPCI program allowed him to work closely with

108
his coach in developing techniques that assist in analyzing performance data. Principal
Anderson stated, "My time with my coach has been very helpful. When it comes to data,
I feel she [the coach] is very knowledgeable and is willing to explain the details of data
analysis, she gives me great confidence." Principal Anderson was given the opportunity
to utilize some of the methods his coach demonstrated for him in analyzing data at a
recent staff development. One teacher stated, "that was one of the best PD's we have ever
had. I never knew Principal Anderson was able to tie in our benchmark results to what
assignments I am giving my students." During the spring visit, numerous teachers
reported a change in Principal Anderson's approach when it came to data. When asked to
explain, one teacher stated,
I don't really know what happened. The last few staff meetings he has shared how
he has been working more with his coach and feels more comfortable explaining
the value of understanding data. It's nice to see his efforts paying off. (Mr.
Thomas, 2009)

Analysis of Findings
Though difficult to determine how much of the success at University Park
Elementary School can be attributed to the time Principal Anderson spent participating in
the DPCI, it is definitely clear that Principal Anderson’s effort to increase student
achievement through the us of collaboration time is clear. The DPCI provided an
invaluable support structure for Principal Anderson and valued the commitment he
showed. Principal Anderson provided the researcher with evidence that indicated the
DPCI supported him when creating collaboration time for him and his staff. Recognizing
that the “linkage between principal leadership and students are inextricably tied to the
actions of others” should not be seen as a negative or a weakness of the principal’s role

109
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Rather, the researchers remind leaders that achieving
organizational results through the actions of others is the essence of leadership. In
addition, notable researchers, including Darling-Hammond (2005), Hallinger and Heck
(1996), Hallinger et al. (1996), Leithwood (2004), and Murphy et al. (2006) have agreed
that effective school principals influence student achievement via two vital, but indirect
pathways: (a) the support and development of effective teachers and (b) the
implementation of effective organizational processes, such as teacher collaboration. The
principal’s attempt to increase student performance through these two pathways
symbolizes a continuous effort to provide effective organizational processes and support,
which overtime translates to an increase in student performance. In addition, Principal
Anderson continued to provide ongoing professional development that was rich in data
analysis and constantly emphasized the use of formative and summative assessments as
instruments to guide instruction.
Summary
From the VAL-ED survey, classroom observations, teacher and principal
interviews and document analysis, some evidence indicates that the DPCI has influenced
leader practice in implementing the district's reform initiatives. Data analyzed from the
learning-centered leadership perspective indicated a strong working relationship between
the principal of the elementary school and the district office in supporting leader practice
and a strong shared leadership; and collaboration focused on student learning.

110
Findings for Research Question Three
Research Question #3 - How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
strategies that the principal put into place to create and sustain organizational structures
and processes to promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes. The
data collection instruments used to address the research question includes (a) pre/post
principal interview, (b) pre/post teacher interviews, (c) pre/post intervention document
analysis, and (d) pre/post intervention VAL-ED survey results. The data was analyzed
from the perspective of the direct effect that leader practice has on creating the structures
and learning environment that can potentially have a positive influence on student
outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Hallinger, 2005; Murphy, 2003; Neufeld & Roper,
2003).
Key Findings: Professional Learning Communities and Effective Teacher Practice
The district's vision for Professional Development began with establishing and
supporting professional learning communities at the school to help support alignment and
coherence to the education plan and to increase student achievement. Most recently the
idea of transforming schools into professional learning communities has lead to high-
performing schools. Schmoker (2006) stated “professional learning communities have
succeeded to improve instruction where typical professional development and workshops
have failed.” The professional learning community model flows from the assumption that

111
the core mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but
to ensure that they learn. This simple shift—from a focus on teaching to a focus on
learning—has profound implications for schools. Principal Anderson and his staff at
University Park Elementary School engaged deeply in the practice of professional
learning communities (PLC's) and devoted their time and energy into the planning time
set aside for professional practice.
The Professional Learning Community (PLC) at University Park Elementary
School was organized by content and grade level. Each PLC was headed by a staff
member chosen by the principal at the start of the school year. The PLC met twice per
month and had a strict schedule for each meeting. When asked about the role of the PLC,
the principal stated:
We use the PLC as a way to communicate clearly the expectations for the school,
departments, staff, and students. I work in conjunction with my coach to develop
the schedule for the PLC's and to set goals for what I would like accomplished
when finished. We use the PLC as a support system for our staff, covering topics
from data analysis, academic expectations, classroom observation, to the
implementation of standards-based instruction and instructional pedagogy. If done
correctly, PLC's play an integral part in the success of the school. (Principal
Anderson, 2010)

From the teachers' perspective, the PLC acted as a time for collaboration. In fact,
Mr. Johnson, a 4
th
-grade science teacher stated, "the PLC time allows us to discuss what
we are doing as a department and where we need to be going." During Professional
Learning Community (PLC) time, the teachers were also expected to analyze data from
their assessments. They disaggregated their data among student groups, how each scored
on the assessment as a whole and also by looking at individual items. When patterns
emerged, teachers discussed ways to reteach standards and to refine their practice.

112
Principal Anderson felt very strongly about data analysis and about using data to drive
instruction, interventions, and setting instructional goals. At University Park Elementary
School both formative and summative data were utilized to monitor effective teacher
practice and determine student needs. The importance of data is critical in understanding
the relationship between student performance and student outcomes (Marzano, 2005).
Based also on collected evidence, teachers were expected to use the data from
their assessments to create classroom goals, setting reachable objective for each student
for the entire school year. One math teacher stated:
When we meet together with our data, we are able to see what is going on. Let's
say we are meeting a day after all the math teachers have given the section 5.1
assessment. We will bring our data [results] from the test and discuss our
individual results with the group. Next, we will look at our department results
together. If my student did well on one part of the test, I have the opportunity to
share with my fellow math teachers what I am doing on that particular section.
After we go around the table, we are able to develop a sense of where the math
department is for that particular standard. The data collected and the time spent in
the PLC is invaluable to us. Without the time, it would be very difficult to meet
the principal's expectations. (Mr. Graham, 2009)

When asked if the time that was set aside actually worked, Principal Anderson
stated, "I hope so. Since the focus on PLC time, we have seen our students do better, thus
our score have gone up. There are still a number of concerns to address, but overall this
process has worked very well for us." Principal Anderson was very diligent in
monitoring the PLC's. He spent his time going from one PLC to the next, observing his
staff, collecting artifacts, and sharing in discussions about student performance. One
English teacher stated, "I think it's important for Principal Anderson to visit our meetings.
He is able to see if we are doing what he wants us to do. You know how it is, when the
cat is gone the mice will play."

113
Key Finding: Promoting Effective Teacher Practice Through Learning Walks
The importance of Learning Walks at University Park Elementary School was
significant. Researchers define the principal's presence as "a leader who engages in
frequent observations and is highly accessible to staff and faculty members (Elmore,
2003; Hallinger, 2003; Marzano, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). At University Park
Elementary School, Principal Anderson was reported as frequently visiting PLC and
classrooms, often engaging in conversations with the staff and students. In sharing his
philosophy on the importance of staying connected, Principal Anderson stated, "I try to
visit the staff and students as much as possible." In addition to Principal Anderson's
classroom visits, Principal Anderson employed the "use of an observation rubric to
provide feedback." One of the observation tools Principal Anderson employed was called
a Learning Walk, which allows the principal to see how teachers are teaching and how
students are learning (Elmore, 1996).
Evidence suggested that Principal Anderson's frequent visits to classrooms and
providing immediate feedback were indicators of high visibility. Data collected from
teacher interviews supported the claim that Principal Anderson was high accessible and
always present. A science teacher stated, "It's nice to see Principal Anderson in the
classrooms. He always is encouraging and supportive. When I am conducting a lab, he
interacts with the kids, offering suggestions and support." According to the teacher
interview data, teachers agreed that this level of visibility is very well supported on
campus. One teacher explained:
Principal Anderson is always in my class. I remember when I first started here
[last year] I was so nervous when he visited. Now, because of the way he

114
conducts these Learning Walks, I look forward to his visits. He always gives me
great feedback. (Mrs. Bellhouse, 2010)

The principal and teacher interview data confirmed that Principal Anderson had a
high visible presence on campus. That he was frequently in classrooms and monitoring
the professional learning communities suggested that Principal Anderson was highly
visible as the instructional leader at University Park Elementary School. Effective leaders
articulate the types of improvements required to achieve goals and expectations and
develop a common language for improving student outcomes. Effective leaders have a
clear understanding of the change process and a deep, current, and critical understanding
of how students learn. According to Hallinger and Heck (1998), school principals
"exercise a measurable, though indirect, effect on school effectiveness and student
achievement" (p.13). Principal Anderson's leadership appeared to have an impact on the
quality of teaching and learning in his school.
Data also evidenced that Principal Anderson's support of professional learning
communities and his increased visibility had a positive impact on teacher practice,
resulting in an improvement in student outcomes. One teacher stated:
I have noticed a change in how we are using our time. Before, when we would go
to our PLC's we would spend a large part of the time just venting, but now that
Principal Anderson has been more visible, we are much more focused. For me, I
have seen a difference in my approach to classroom issues. I am more willing to
try what my colleagues are doing because it has been tested. (Mr. Ryan, 2009)

Principal Anderson's belief in the importance of PLCs and his presence on
campus contributed to the successes at University Park Elementary. Additionally, he
created opportunities for teachers to plan curriculum, analyze data, and share best

115
practices on a regular basis. As part of effective professional development, leaders create
the opportunity for teachers to collaborate with one another in an effort to further develop
their own teaching strategies (Hawkins, 2007).
Analysis of Findings
The data from the principal and teacher interviews indicated that Principal
Anderson developed what research (Northouse, 2005) has dubbed critical indicators of an
effective instructional leader, in which "leadership involves influencing a group of
individuals who have a common purpose." The use of a professional learning community
is one highly effective approach to supporting students in urban schools. Effective
professional development has the ability to fuse great teaching with great practice.
Professional development induces reflective practices among staff and encourages each
member to identify what curriculum is essential for all students to learn. In addition,
professional development provides the opportunity for teachers to review data and
identify which students need additional support and/or targeted interventions. From this
acquired knowledge, the staff is able to create and plan instructional strategies that
coincide with available curriculum and determine which instruction is best (Billings &
Gomez, 2001; Marzano, 2003).
Summary
From the VAL-ED survey, classroom observations, teacher and principal
interviews, and document analysis, evidence appeared that the principal, in collaboration
with the DPCI, was successful in creating and sustaining organizational structures and
processes that promoted effective teacher practice. The data was analyzed from the

116
perspective of the direct effect that leader practice has on creating the structures and
learning environment that can potentially bear a positive influence on student outcomes
(Darling-Hammond, 2007; Hallinger, 2005; Murphy, 2006; Neufeld & Roper, 2003). In
addition, the data indicated a strong working relationship between the principal of the
school and the district office in supporting leader practice.

Findings for Research Question Four
Research Question #4 - What leadership support structures enables leader practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and
teacher levels) that enabled teacher practice and subsequent movement in the direction of
implementation of the district's and school's improvement initiatives. The primary data
collection instruments used to address the research question includes (a) pre/post
principal interview, (b) pre/post teacher interviews, (c) pre/post intervention document
analysis, and (d) pre/post VAL-ED survey results. The data was analyzed from the
perspective of effective strategies for building and sustaining learning-centered
leadership practice (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Murphy, 2006).
Key Finding: Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT) Supports Leader
Practice
Another means of principal support designed by ISD was the creation and
implementation of the Campus Instructional Leadership Team. The CILT team was made
up of representatives from each department who acted as liaisons between the teachers

117
and principal of University Park Elementary School. The main role of the CILT team was
to conduct nonevaluative classroom observations and to provide constructive feedback to
the teacher. The district felt very strongly about the use of the CILT team, and
encouraged its principals to utilize the team as much as possible. When asked about the
CILT team, Principal Anderson spoke very highly, referring to them as "a group of great
teachers helping with difficult tasks." The role of the CILT team was not to evaluate, but
rather to provide constructive feedback to the principal and other staff members. This
type of shared leadership is highly touted by Elmore (2000) in that a distributed leader's
job is to harness the varied skills and talents of his staff so they compliment each other
and work towards a common goal. Those who are part of the CILT team reported the
following:
When I was asked to be part of the time, I gladly accepted. I saw it as an
opportunity to help Principal Anderson. Being part of this leadership team has not
only allowed me to see what other teachers are doing, but it has allowed me to
reflect on my own practice and evaluate how I am preparing these kids. (Mr.
James, 2009)

Another teacher, Ms. Liang, had this to say about the CILT team:
When Principal Anderson asked if I would be a member of the leadership [CILT]
team I was so excited. I knew from past experiences how much the leadership had
helped me, so I didn't hesitate when he asked. I think as a teacher it is great to
have a set of non-threatening eyes observe what I am doing in the classroom. (Ms.
Liang, 2009)

Another teacher, Mr. Zurati, also agreed about the usefulness of the CILT team:
I know the CILT team gets a bad rap at times (for being out of the classroom
frequently), but I think they provide a service to this school that the principal
alone cannot. We all know what's it like when the principal is the one who comes
in your classroom, may be you are just not on today, the kids are not listening,
etc., but with the CILT team I do not have to worry about how my kids are acting

118
or that I just didn't have it today. It's refreshing to be observed without the
pressures of being evaluated. (Mr. Zurati, 2009)

Even though the principal played an important leadership role on campus, members of
the CILT team played a significant role as well. Members of the team worked closely
with the principal to arrive at mutual decisions that benefited students and teachers, alike.
Principal Anderson discussed freely his opinion of the CILT team during the fall 2009
visit, stating, "The CILT team gives me another set of eyes and ears. It allows me to
gather information without me actually being in the classroom, what a great addition to a
campus" (Principal Anderson, 2009).
Key Finding: Department Coordinators as Support Structures to Enable Leader
Practice
Quality school leadership is a key, second only to quality teaching, to successfully
implementing school reform (Leithwood, 2004). Urban school principals at all levels are
instrumental to establishing a coherent school-wide plan for what quality teaching and
learning should look like; setting a climate of high expectations; and securing the
resources to realize that vision. The data collected during pre/post visits indicated a
strong relationship between teacher collaboration and the recent success of University
Park Elementary.
The researcher found that teacher collaboration played a significant role in the
function of this school. When asked about this role, Principal Anderson stated the
following:
We place a very high importance on giving teachers the time to talk with each
other. If you give them a chance to collaborate with each other you will discover
what is working in one classroom and what isn’t working in another. What this

119
allows the school to do is to create a plan or a direction to follow. We want all of
us on the same page. The DPCI [coach] is very supportive and offers suggestions
when I am stuck or in a rout. My coach made it very clear that the support is
there, if needed, and aggress with me that the time that I set aside for teacher
collaboration is very valuable. (Principal Anderson, 2010)

Not only did Principal Anderson feel strongly about giving his staff time to work
together, but his teachers were also supportive. The following excerpts taken from
teacher interviews supported this conclusion:
The fourth grade teachers appreciate the time Principal Anderson gives us. The
times allows us to talk about the direction we are going, the direction we want to
go, and what we need to do to get there. We share our strategies with each other
and look at examples of student work. Overall, the principal has been very
supportive of us. (Mrs. Graves, 2009)

Another teacher stated: “When we meet together as the science department, it’s great.
The time that is set aside allows us to bounce ideas off each other, asking questions and
sharing our thoughts” (Mr. Lim, 2009).
During interviews with teachers, the researcher found teacher collaboration linked
to improved student performance. Many teachers supported the principal in creating as
many opportunities as he could to bring teachers together. One teacher stated the
following: “When I was a new teacher, I was uncomfortable sharing my ideas with the
veteran staff, but as time went on, I developed an appreciation of the process and felt
more comfortable in sharing my ideas” (Ms. Walter, 2010). Another teacher explained:
I think for the most part, the time that we meet as a staff is productive. Of course
there are times when we complain about our parking spots, students not listening
and so on. But overall, the time that the principal gives us is spent looking at data,
talking with each other about our practice, and brainstorming on how best to reach
each and every student. (Mr. Romero, 2009)

120
In building capacity with his staff members, Principal Anderson strove to figure
out their individual strengths and areas where he could help them improve so that they
could contribute to the school and grow professionally. When working with a struggling
teacher, he always first asked for input in ways that the teacher could see the problem and
then work with him to come up with a remedy. Once a plan was created, Principal
Anderson monitored the teacher’s progress, assisting when necessary and reflecting with
them once things had been worked out.
Analysis of Findings
In analyzing the data, the findings indicated a strong working relationship
between the principal and the CILT. Specifically, the data reflected the principal's use of
the leadership team and his management of their findings; as Principal Anderson stated:
I utilize the CILT team as much as possible. Currently, the leadership team visits
at least two classrooms every week. During these visits, members of CILT are
looking for signs of student learning, classroom management, and signs of
effective teaching. After they conduct a visit, they then meet with the teacher and
debrief. They discuss what they observed, the role the teacher had in the
classroom, and what the students were doing. After this debriefing, I meet with
the team. They inform me of their observation, they give me a copy of their notes
and they offer suggestions on where to go from here. Since I have been here I
have been very pleased with the leadership team and their efforts in supporting
the school's vision. (Principal Anderson, 2009)

Effective leaders articulate the types of improvements required to achieve goals
and expectations and to develop a common language for improving student outcomes.
Effective leaders have a clear understanding of the change process and a deep, current,
and critical understanding of how students learn. According to Hallinger and Heck
(1998), school principals "exercise a measurable, though indirect, effect on school
effectiveness and student achievement" (p.13). The use of the CILT team as a means of

121
managing part of the educational production of the school is what Murphy (1990) has
called his second dimension, which stresses the management of the behavior of the
principal. The instructional leader promotes quality instruction by conducting teacher
conferences and evaluations, visiting classrooms, providing specific suggestions and
feedback on the teaching and learning process, and determining teacher assignments in
the best interest of student learning (Murphy, 1990; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1985). The
principal worked in cooperation with teachers to coordinate the curriculum by aligning
school goals and objectives with state standards, assessments, and district curriculum.
Summary
The data from the principal and teacher interviews indicated that Principal
Anderson improved his practice through the benefit of two support structures that enabled
his professional practice. The first was Principal Anderson's opportunity to receive the
support of a coach as part of the DPCI program. He attributed much of the success at
University Park Elementary School to his increased in confidence, which was gained
through work with his coach. In addition, he felt the extra confidence allowed him to be a
better communicator with his staff, resulting in a clearer, more focused approach to
handling issues of instructional planning, data analysis, and student performance.
Second, Principal Anderson received support through shared leadership from his
extended leadership team, known as CILT. Principal Anderson was able to draw guided
information from his leadership team and utilize their classroom observations to help
create a system of trust and accountability. This process led to a collaborative model of
leadership and allowed Principal Anderson to utilize the efforts of his leadership team in

122
assisting him in what Marzano (2005) has described as an effective means of targeting
needs and securing the necessary resources to maximize student opportunities to learn.

Findings for Research Question Five
Research Question #5 - How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to
assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
potential for the data collected from an instructional leadership assessment instrument,
the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL-ED), to be used as a tool to
inform the coaching support designed to promote effective instructional leadership. Data
were analyzed from the perspective of Murphy's (2006) work on developing learning-
centered leadership practice and effective leadership coaching practices designed to
promote and support effective leadership practice including reflective practice and
conferring coaching models. The data collection consisted of the pre and postintervention
survey results from the principal, the teachers, and the principal’s supervisor.
Key Finding: Evaluating Leadership of Instruction and School Improvement
Principal Anderson allocated time for his teachers to take the VAL-ED survey
during one of their collaboration periods in both the fall and spring of the 2009-2010
schoolyear. Thirty-three percent of the teachers completed a survey in the fall, which
according to the VAL-ED, is a low response rate. When response rates are low, resulting
scores should be interpreted with caution. Principal Anderson and his supervisor also
completed the survey in fall 2009. Data collected from the VAL-ED survey during the

123
spring 2010 visit indicated a significant drop in teacher participation. Zero University
Park Elementary School teachers completed the VAL-ED survey in spring 2010.
Principal Anderson and his supervisor were the only participants that completed the
survey in Spring 2010. Table 13, below, represents the response rates for the VAL-ED
survey at University Park Elementary School for fall 2009 and spring 2010.
Table 13

VAL-ED Response Rates - Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009 Respondents Spring 2010 Respondents Fall
%
Spring
%
Principal 1/1 1/1 100 100
Teachers 8/24 0/24 33 0
Supervisor 1/1 1/1 100 100

Each respondent who completed the 72-item, 360-degree survey was required to
indicate a “source of evidence” for each response. The choices included: reports from
others, personal observations, school documents, school projects or activities, or other.
All three respondent groups, the University Park's teachers, Principal Anderson, and his
supervisor, all primarily cited “personal observations, school documents, and reports
from others” as their main sources of evidence.
The VAL-ED provided a total score across all respondents as well as separately
by respondent group. The scores from the teachers were based on the average across all
teacher respondents. The total score, core component, and key process effectiveness

124
ratings were interpreted against a national representative sample that included principals,
supervisors, and teachers, providing a percentile rank. The results were also interpreted
against a set of performance standards ranging from Below Basic to Distinguished. A
national panel of principals, supervisors and teachers determined the scores associated
with performance levels.
Principal Anderson’s overall total effectiveness score based on the averaged
ratings of all respondents was 2.94. The score equaled a “Below Basic” performance
level rating and a percentile rank of 3.6. As defined in the VAL-ED Principal Report, “a
leader at the below basic level of proficiency exhibits learning-centered leadership
behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are unlikely to influence teachers positively nor
result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and social learning for students.

125
Table 14

VAL-ED Scoring Classifications

Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education Survey
Key Findings: Core Components and Key Processes Scores
An examination of Principal Anderson’s Core Components mean item ratings
ranged from a low of 2.57 for Connections to External Communities to a high of 3.17 for
Performance Accountability. He scored a “Below Basic” in all of the Core Components.
Similarly, Principal Anderson’s Key Processes mean item rating indicated they ranged
for a low of 2.76 for Monitoring to a high of 3.10 for Supporting. A common pattern
revealed itself in the respondent comparison across the core component and key
processes scores. The principal's relative strengths and areas for development can be
determined by comparing scores for each of the 6 Core Components and 5 Key Processes
across different respondent groups. Figure 8 and 9, below, present and integrate visual
summary of the results for the fall 2009 survey:

126
Figure 8
Visual Summary of 6 Core Components of VAL-ED Survey Fall 2009

127
Figure 9
Visual Summary of 6 Key Processes of VAL-ED Survey Fall 2009

Summary - Fall 2009 Principal Matrix
The VAL-ED provides a matrix giving an integrated summary of the principal’s
strengths and areas of growth based on the mean item scores for the intersection of the
Core Components with the Key Processes. Figure 10, below, offers a visual summary of
the areas in which Principal Anderson was rated Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic:

128

Figure 10

VAL-ED Principal Matrix Results Fall 2009

Besides the visual representation, the VAL-ED offers a list of leadership behaviors
assessed in the evaluation for possible improvement in becoming a more effective
learning-centered leader. The leadership behaviors listed in each cluster are
representative of the lowest rated core component by key process areas of behavior. If
fewer than six core component by key process areas of behavior are listed, the principal
had fewer than six that were below distinguished. No provided behavior clusters indicates
that the principal's current learning-centered leadership behaviors are considered
acceptable. According to the fall 2009 survey, Principal Anderson’s suggested behaviors
for possible improvement were:
Quality Instruction & Communicating
• Discusses instructional practice during faculty meetings.

129
• Communicates with faculty about removing barriers that prevent students from
experiencing quality instruction.
Connections to External Communities & Advocating
• Challenges teachers to work with community agencies to support students with low
achievement.
• Promotes mechanisms for reaching families who are least comfortable with school.
Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior & Monitoring
• Monitors the participation of every student in social and academic activities.
• Assesses the culture of the school from the students' perspective.
Connections to External Communities & Supporting
• Secures additional resources through partnering with external agencies to enhance
teaching and learning.
• Allocates resources that build family and community partnerships to advance
student learning.
Performance Accountability & Monitoring
• Monitors the accuracy and appropriateness of data used for student accountability.
• Analyzes the influence of faculty evaluations on the rigor of the curriculum.
Connections to External Communities & Implementing
• Builds business partnerships to support social and academic learning.
• Implements programs to help address community needs.

130
Key Findings: Using the VAL-ED as a Coaching Tool
Developing educational leadership for school improvement can be difficult work.
Using the VAL-ED assessment as a coaching tool has the potential to make the task of
redefining effective school leadership and improving student performance more
attainable. First, leadership assessment can set the organizational goals and objectives for
the school leader (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Second, leadership assessment provides
both summative and formative feedback to the school leader. Given the critical role of
and mounting demands on school principals, identifying and developing effective school
leaders is a top priority for school systems (Knapp, Copland, & Talbert, 2003).
Incumbent school principals also can benefit from assessment results as benchmarks for
professional growth. Third, assessment can serve as a powerful communication tool both
within the school district and within the school community. Leadership assessments with
well-articulated results can help all stakeholders understand the common goals,
accomplishments, and challenges faced by the school, and its leader, which in turn
creates an environment of collective accountability.
The VAL-ED assessment was used by Dunkin ISD as part of a comprehensive
review of the effectiveness of a leader's behaviors by providing a detailed "picture" of
perceived performance. The survey yielded valuable norm-referenced and criterion-
reference scores for evaluating learning-centered leadership, measuring performance
growth, guiding professional development, and facilitating a data-based performance
evaluation.

131
Summary for University Park Elementary School
The stakes of having effective school leaders are high in today’s climate of system-
wide accountability where American public schools are charged with the daunting tasks
of improving student achievement and closing performance gaps among the subgroups of
an increasingly diverse student population (Catano & Stronge, 2006; Portin, Knapp,
Alejano, & Marzolf, 2006; Thomas, 2000). Effective leadership assessment can be an
integral part of a standards-based accountability system. When designed accurately,
executed in a proactive manner, and properly implemented, leadership assessment has the
power to improve school performance and to identify leaders of the future (Lashway,
2003; Reeves, 2005). In addition, the VAL-ED is designed to provide a summary of the
effectiveness of a principal's learning-centered leadership behaviors during the current
school year.
A comprehensive picture of Principal Anderson emerged and was reported with
input from teachers, the principal's supervisor, and his own self-report. Although
University Park Elementary School's participation rate was low in fall 2009 and
extremely low in spring 2010, the survey exposed elements of Principal Anderson's
leadership behaviors and shed light on the effectiveness of his leadership ability.

132
Case Study #2 - Exposition Way Elementary School
Located in northwest Dallas, Texas, Exposition Way Elementary School is just one
of many elementary schools within the Dunkin Independent School District. The Dunkin
Independent School District encompasses an area of 384 square miles in the eastern
portion of the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex and includes all or portions of the
municipalities of Addison, Balch Springs, Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Dallas, Farmers
Branch, Garland, Highland Park, Hutchins, Mesquite, Seagoville, University Park, and
Wilmer. Its students come from homes where almost 70 different languages are spoken.
The district serves roughly 157,00 students in kindergarten through 12
th
grade. Of
this student population 84.7% qualifies for free and reduced lunches and 8.1% was
reported as having an Individual Education Plan (IEP) under the statutes of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (New America, n.d).
In 2007-2008 the school district reported the following student demographic data:
Asian 1%, African American 27.0%, White 4.6%, and Latino 66.5%. The district was
composed of 156 elementary schools, 32 middle schools and 33 high schools, making it
the largest school district in the state of Texas. With roughly 11,000 classroom teachers,
3000 district and campus-level administrators, and over 6000 support staff members, the
Dunkin ISD employed more than 20,000 professional and support people, making it the
largest employer in the city of Dallas. Figure 11, below, represents Dunkin ISD student
ethnic break down for the past seven years, 2002-2008.

133
Figure 11
Dunkin ISD Ethnic Distribution
School Description
Exposition Way Elementary School served roughly 895 students in kindergarten
through 6
th
grade. Of this student population, 95% qualifies for free and reduced lunches
and 5% was reported as having an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) under the statutes
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Table 15, below, represents
the student and teacher ethnicity breakdown for 2008 - 2009 and Table 16, below,
represents University Park's economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient
students for 2008-2009 school year.

134
Table 15
Student and Teacher Ethnicity Breakdown for 2008-2009
Ethnicity Students Teachers
African American 47 (5.3%) 3 (13.6%)
American Indian 5 (.6%) *
Asian 2 (.2%) *
Hispanic 831 (92.8%) 22 (36.7%)
White 10 (1.1%) 7 (36.7%)
Other ** 1 (1.7%)

Table 16
Economically Disadvantaged and Limited English Proficient for 2008 - 2009
Student Group Number %
Economically Disadvantaged Students 851
95.1

Limited English Proficient Students 461 51.5

Since the 2007 school year, enrollment at Exposition Way Elementary School
decreased; however, based on the data, the demographics of the school changed little.
Hispanic students remained the majority of the population. African American and Asian
students made up the next largest subgroups. Consistently, White and American Indian
students represented about 2% of the student population. Exposition Way Middle School
also held a large number of English Language Learners. The primary non-English
language was Spanish.

135
Despite the large numbers of ELL and Economically Disadvantaged students,
Exposition Way Elementary School made steady academic growth based on the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) standardized test as measured by the state's
accountability rating system. Tables 17 and 18, below, represent the percentage of
students meeting standard in reading and math for the last three years.

Table 17
Percentage of Students Meeting Standard in Reading
Grade Year White African
American
Hispanic Econ
Disad
Special
Ed.
All Dunkin
ISD
Number Tested
(All Students)
3 2006 • 80.0 69.3 71.1 • 70.7 87.7 99
2007 • • 88.4 89.6 • 89.6 84.6 77
2008 • 83.9 83.9 • 85.2 86.3 61
4 2006 100.0 61.3 62.8 • 64.2 69.5 81
2007 • 75.0 52.8 54.6 • 54.0 69.7 100
2008 • • 63.2 65.2 • 65.8 72.1 73
5 2006 • • 75.7 78.7 • 78.3 76.9 83
2007 • 73.1 73.1 • 74.5 78.3 98
2008 • 80.0 81.5 83.0 • 81.5 82.9 92
6 2006 • • 84.0 85.7 85.2 89.4 54
2007 • • 89.6 89.2 • 90.2 87.2 82
2008 • • 91.4 91.6 92.0 87.8 87
3-6 2006 100.0 91.3 71.4 73.2 • 73.5 80.7 317
2007 100.0 89.5 74.7 74.6 90.9 75.6 79.9 357
2008 • 90.5 80.4 81.6 57.1 81.5 82.0 313
Dunkin ISD Data Analysis, Reporting, and Research Services

136

Table 18
Percentage of Students Meeting Standard in Math
Grade Year White African
American
Hispanic Econ
Disad
Special
Ed
All Dunkin
ISD
Number
Tested (All
Students)
3 2006 • 50.0 27.8 29.3 • 30.4 74.9 102

2007 • • 62.3 62.7 • 63.6 70.3 77
2008 • 70.4 67.3 68.3 76.6 60
4 2006 100.0 81.3 83.3 • 82.7 74.0 81
2007 • 71.4 70.8 70.8 • 69.7 75.7 99
2008 • • 69.1 72.7 • 68.5 77.9 73
5 2006 • • 78.7 82.4 • 80.7 82.2 83
2007 100.0 79.3 80.6 • 80.6 82.9 98
2008 • 60.0 66.3 66.7 • 66.0 84.0 94
6 2006 • • 62.7 62.0 • 61.8 77.2 55
2007 • • 78.2 78.7 • 79.5 70.0 83
2008 • • 78.6 79.1 • 80.0 73.8 90
3-6 2006 83.3 69.6 60.8 61.8 33.3 62.0 77.1 321
2007 100.0 78.9 73.2 73.7 46.7 73.7 74.7 357
2008 • 59.1 71.3 71.7 50.0 72.0 78.2 317
Dunkin ISD Data Analysis, Reporting, and Research Services
The state accountability system assigns ratings to every campus and district in the
Texas public education system each year. In most cases the system assigns one of four
rating labels, ranging from lowest to highest and includes Academically Unacceptable,
Academically Acceptable, Recognized, and Exemplary. To determine the rating label, the

137
system evaluates indicators of performance, including assessment results on the state
standardized assessment instruments as well as longitudinal completion rates and annual
dropout rates. The district made considerable gains over the last four years, 2005-2008,
with the highest Accountability Ratings in the 2008-2009 school year. Table 19, below,
represents a summary of the Dunkin ISD Accountability Ratings for 2008-2009 year.
Table 19
Dunkin ISD Accountability Ratings 2008-2009
Campus Rating Number of Schools
Exemplary 26
Recognized 77
Academically Acceptable 98
Academically Unacceptable 21
AEA: Academically Acceptable 2
AEA: Academically Unacceptable 0
AEA: Not Rated – Other 0
Not Rated: Other 6
Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues 0
Total 230
Dunkin ISD Data Analysis, Reporting, and Research Services

138
Principal Overview
The 2009-2010 school year marked the beginning of Ms. Donna Martin's
(Pseudonym) 10
th
year as an educator and her 3
rd
year as the principal of Exposition Way
Elementary School. During our first interview, she shared that after five years as a high
school Spanish teacher she was offered a position as an assistant principal at a high
school in Duncanville, Texas. Three years after she accepted an assistant principal
position, she moved to Dallas and assumed a principalship within Dunkin ISD, where she
had been ever since. 2009-2010 marks the first year of Principal Martin's involvement in
the DPCI program.
The mission of Exposition Way Middle School was to educate all students to
reach their maximum potential by igniting an intrinsic passion that develops critical
thinkers, life-long learners, and contributing members of society. The data reviewed in
Chapter Four reflect the five research questions asked in this case study and are followed
by in-depth analysis and a description of the findings.

Findings for Research Question One
Research Question #1 - How does participation in the Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching
Initiative (DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the DPCI prepared principals to
become effective instructional leaders. The data was analyzed from the research
perspective of the design of effective leadership capacity building and support structures

139
for improving and sustaining effective leadership practice (Darling-Hammond, 2007;
Hallinger, 2005; Marzano, 2003; Murphy, 2006; Neufeld & Roper, 2003).
The primary data collection instruments used to address this research question
were (a) the principal pre/post intervention, (b) pre/post teacher interviews, and (c)
pre/post intervention document analysis. Some evidence indicated that the Dunkin
Independent School District integrated an effective principal leadership-coaching
component into its leadership development program.
Key Findings: Preparing Principals Through a Coaching Structure
In an era where the principal's role is evolving, principals need a support structure
that will increase and develop the capacities and skills needed to sustain their practice.
Mentoring and coaching are a part of a school-based professional development system
that provides support to principals on instruction, school-based resources, content areas,
use of data, and any other school challenges the principals may face (Neufels & Roper,
2003). As mentioned in question one, the DPCI was designed to provide principals with
a principal coach who provides professional development focused on data analysis, goal
setting related to academic achievement, leadership practice, and establishing systems
and structures to support improved teacher practice and student learning.
With the focus on becoming "the best urban district in the United States," the
Dunkin Independent School District created a theory of action, which meant that the
central office accepted responsibility for directly managing the educational plan and
goals designed with the expectation that all students would experience a college-ready-
level curriculum in prekindergarten through 12
th
grade and would be prepared to succeed

140
in college and the workplace. One part of the theory of action was to support principals
with the help of a coach or mentor. Principal Martin spoke very highly of the support she
was given by her coach and the relationship that they created; she stated:
It was a little rough at first. I think we both were sizing each other up. For me, I
knew I wanted to be the best principal that I could be, and with a coach watching
over my shoulder, I was nervous that I was going to fail. As the process unfolded,
I realized that my coach was there to help me, not critique. As we became more
comfortable with each other, I realized that my coach wanted me to do well and
was very supportive of my ideas. (Principal Martin, 2009)

One example of Principal Martin's ability to look ahead was just after debriefing
sessions with her leadership team. Having the opportunity to observe one of her
professional development sessions in the fall (first visit), the researcher noted that
Principal Martin worked well with her staff, but at times had difficulty holding its
attention. On my second visit to Exposition Way Middle School in spring 2010, I
observed another professional development session. Principal Martin's presence and
confidence in front of her staff was significantly different from the fall visit. When asked
about the change, Principal Martin replied,
I didn't think I did anything different, but I will take your [researcher] word for it.
What I can tell you about what has changed is my relationship with my coach. I
think I told you earlier, when I first started in the DPCI, my relationship with my
coach was a little rocky. As when began to develop a relationship, I became more
trusting. Now that I think about it, I do see a difference over the last few months. I
feel I am now more comfortable with my staff. (Principal Martin, 2010)

Key Finding: Developing Effective Leaders through Professional Development

In an effort to become “the best urban school district in the United States,” the
Dunkin Independent School District created a leadership initiative called Dunkin
Achieves! One significant part of the initiative was to increase student achievement. In

141
order to do this, the district must have as its centerpiece exemplary professional
development for “everyone who affects student learning” (Dunkin Independent School
District, 2009 p. 112). For principals, programs were provided to build their
“instructional leadership capacity through differentiated, engaging, and rigorous
professional development that is focused on specific academic goals and tied to student
achievement” (Dunkin Achieves! Leadership Development Initiatives’ Executive
Summary, 2009 p. 67). The goal of the district was to provide practical, hands-on
professional development for employees at all levels and to strengthen the foundation
necessary to improve student performance.
As an attempt to meet its goal of becoming "the best urban school district in the
country," the Dunkin ISD commissioned a curriculum audit of the district by the National
Center for Educational Accountability (NCEA). The audit resulted in 17
recommendations, one of which was to "build the instructional leadership capacity of
principals and district administrators through differentiated, engaging, and rigorous
professional development that is focused on specific academic goals and tied to student
achievement" (Dunkin Achieves! Leadership Development Initiatives’ Executive
Summary, 2009 p. 74).
Because of the Dunkin Independent School District’s relationship with the
University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning (IFL), the IFL was involved in the
collaboration and implementation of much of the curriculum for Dunkin ISDs
professional development. In addition, team learning is a necessary component of
organizations if the shared vision is to be achieved. Such learning is viewed as "the

142
process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to create the results its
members truly desire" (Senge, 1990, p. 236). Exposition Way Middle School and the
Principles of Learning (POL’s) focused their professional development sessions around
the following tenants: academic rigor, clear expectations, accountable-talk, disciplinary
literacy, and self-management of learning. During the fall Professional Development,
teachers were given their first professional development session, which was monitored by
each department head and focused around Academic Rigor. Principal Martin explained:
Having a focus for the school year not only helps me, it allows the staff to work
towards a goal. The concept of Academic Rigor is not something new. It's
teaching the curriculum around the core concepts. It's asking the student to raise
questions and solve problems. If we can stay focused, I truly believe we will see
significant growth in our scores. (Principal Martin, 2010)

One primary way that Principal Martin addressed this goal was through the Principles of
Learning, Learning Walks. Principal Martin routinely walked through classrooms and
expected the same from her Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT). These
learning walks were real opportunities to share best practices and fostered a community
of positive collegiality and respect. Learning Walks were one aspect of the Dunkin
Achieves initiative implemented at Exposition Way in 2009.
Principal Martin allocated time within professional development for these
Learning Walks. The Learning Walks were built into the schedule and the staff was
required to do a number of them each semester. Principal Martin left it up to the
departments and the chairs to organize and provide feedback. One teacher explained,
"after our first PD session we all knew what the focus for the year was, Academic Rigor.
Now, when we go on our Learning Walks we are looking for just that” (Mrs. Rogers,

143
2010). During the spring 2010 visit, Principal Martin led a professional development
session, which, much like the fall 2009 PD, focused on academic rigor. One teacher
stated, "the PD sessions help me understand what I should be focusing on. Principal
Martin has been doing a great job keep me and the rest of the staff focused" (Mr. Chacon,
2010).
The professional development offered to Ms. Martin proved to be yet another way
the DPCI continued to support her growth as an instructional leader. Copland and Blum
(2007) have stated that the primary mechanism through which leaders like Ms. Martin
influence improved instruction at their site occurs through observation of instruction in
classrooms, dialogue with teachers about the observation, and concrete feedback
designed to stimulate and support teachers’ improved practice. They further projected
that a district
seeking to strengthen leaders’ knowledge and skills with this process would need
to intentionally structure professional development that simultaneously focused
on deepening leaders’ knowledge of content and pedagogy in key subject matter
fields… developing leaders’ skills with observation and dialogue about
instruction, and helping leaders plan and exercise specific leadership strategies
and actions. (p. 6)

Analysis of Findings
The Dunkin Independent School District’s leadership initiatives offered programs
that provided support to principals through professional development and included
coaching opportunities to enhance the principal's effectiveness and capacity. In the fourth
year of the association between the IFL and Dunkin ISD, 17 leadership institutes for
principals have taken place, as well as numerous professional development opportunities
for associate principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches, central administrative

144
staff members, teacher-leaders, and classroom teachers. According to Davis et al. (2005),
these collaborative efforts are beneficial in supporting and sustaining both university
programs and district initiatives: “A well-defined and coherent program is one that links
goals, learning activities, and candidate assessments around a set of shared values,
beliefs, and knowledge about effective administrative practices” (p. 8).
The Dunkin Independent School District’s leadership initiatives offered programs
that provided support to principals through professional development and included
coaching opportunities to enhance their effectiveness and capacity. The district’s
collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for Learning, which has been
instrumental in working closely with a number of school district’s nationwide in an effort
to improve professional development programs for educational leaders, was also
essential. Whether preservice or in-service programs, they should be research-based, have
curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic contexts, use cohort groupings and
coaches/mentors, and be structured to enable collaborative activity between the program
and area schools (Davis et al., 2005).
In addition, the Dunkin Independent School District’s Plan for Student
Achievement: Educational Theory of Action and Summary of Initiatives and Strategies
(2006 outlines the following goals for their programs' participants:
• Build the capacity of teachers and principals to enact the district’s
education plan and theory of action based on best practices.
• Individualize programs that develop areas of weakness and build upon
strengths.

145
• Ensure that principals and teachers know the specific knowledge and skills
at each subject and grade.
• Build the instructional leadership capacity of principals through
differentiated, engaging, and rigorous professional development that is
focused on specific academic goals and student achievement.
• Build the capacity of instructional leaders to design, lead, and support the
educational plan.
In analyzing the coaching component of the DPCI, the researcher noted that
providing a coach to the principal was worthwhile. As discussed by Neufeld and Roper
(2003), “coaches help principals focus on instruction, make the best use of school-based
resources, and nurture teacher leadership” (p. 4). As shown in teacher interviews, the
impact that the coach had on Principal Martin's ability to lead Exposition Way Middle
School was significant. A 3
rd
-grade science teacher stated, "Since Principal Martin has
been working with a coach, I have seen a huge change in her confidence and ability to
communicate what he wants us to do." When asked about what influenced him most,
Principal Martin discussed that "my relationship with my coach has changed the way I
see things, it has allowed me to see ahead and not focus on the past."
The data from the principal and teacher interviews indicated that Principal Martin
developed what researchers (Northouse, 2005) have posited as critical indicators of an
effective instructional leader, explaining that, "leadership involves influencing a group of
individuals who have a common purpose," Professional development is a highly effective
approach to supporting students in urban schools. Effective professional development has

146
the ability to fuse great teaching with great practice. Professional development induces
reflective practices among staff and encourages each other to identify what curriculum is
essential for all students to learn. In addition, it provides opportunity for teachers to
review data and identify which students need additional support and/or targeted
interventions. From their acquired knowledge, the staff is able to create and plan
instructional strategies that coincide with available curriculum and determine which
instruction is best (Billings & Gomez, 2001; Marzano, 2003). An understanding
established between the students and teachers can be a critical catalyst to student learning
(Nelson-Barber, 1999). Leaders are able to empower teachers and students by way of
professional development for teachers and by creating a culture within the school that
highlights the differences students bring (Banks, Cookson, Gay, Hawley, Irvine, Nieto,
Schofield, & Stephan, 2001).
Summary
From the classroom observations, teacher and principal interviews, and document
analysis, some evidence suggests that the principal, in collaboration with the DPCI, was
successful in creating and sustaining organizational structures and processes that
promoted effective teacher practice. The data was analyzed from the perspective of the
direct effect of leader practice on creating the structures and learning environment that
can potentially have a positive influence on student outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2007;
Hallinger, 2005; Murphy, 2003; Neufeld & Roper, 2003). In addition, the data indicated a
strong working relationship between the principal of the school and the district office in
supporting leader practice.

147
Findings for Research Question Two
Research Question #2 - How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the DPCI influenced leader
practice in implementing the district's reform initiatives. To determine the value added
from participation in the DPCI for five months, the researcher analyzed the data from the
learning-centered leadership practices perspective, which focuses on instructional
leadership behaviors that promote change in leader practice. In addition, the primary data
collection instruments used to address the research question includes (a) pre/post
principal interview, (b) pre/post teacher interviews, (d) pre/post intervention document
analysis, and (d) pre/post intervention VAL-ED survey results. Following the
preliminary findings, several theoretical and analytical frameworks from Northouse,
Murphy, and Elmore 2004 were utilized as critical sources to determine patterns and
themes across the data sets.
Key Findings: Influencing Leader Practice Through Developing Mission and Goals
Leaders in high performing schools devote considerable time to the
"development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that
is shared and supported by the school community" (Council of Chief State School
officers, 1996 p. 91). Effective leaders also facilitate the creation of a school vision that
reflects the ideas that all students can learn and learn at a high level. In particular,
effective leaders anchor their belief in such a notion. When asked about her priorities
after becoming principal at Exposition Way Middle School, Principal Martin replied, "I

148
truly believe that the school's vision should be set by the staff. It should be a collaborative
approach. " At the beginning of the year, Principal Martin met with her staff and
discussed the significance of refining the current vision and of developing a mission
statement that reflected the priorities of the school; Principal Martins stated,
At the first professional development session I asked the staff, "How do we know
where we want to do and who to bring?" I used this question as an opportunity to
discuss our current vision for the school. For me, this was my way to show the
staff that I wanted this journey to involve all of us. (Principal Martin, 2009)

Principal Martin's ability to lead her staff in meaningful discussion regarding the
development of the mission statement exemplified the very premise of what Murphy et
al. (1990) have called "a sense of shared purpose" around creating a common vision.
Indeed, effective leaders are masters in keep the school's vision at the forefront and at the
center of everyone's work. Many teachers agreed about the importance of keeping the
school's vision relevant and applicable. One math teacher stated,
I have the school's vision posted on my classroom wall. I use it as a reminder for
where I should be going, like a sail on a boat. As for my students, I tell them that
the vision represents our promise to you [students] that I will always put you first.
By the way, Principal Martin checks to see if we have it up. (Mr. Chacon, 2009)

Findings also indicated a strong working relationship between the principal of the
middle school and the district office in developing and implementing the school's vision.
Specifically, the data reflected the district's efforts of supplying each principal with a
coach to support the instructional leader throughout the process during the entire school
year. Evidence also suggested that the DPCI program engaged principals in activities and
supplied instructional leaders with the support to help create and implement the school's
vision and to navigate the waters of an urban principalship. Principal Martin, the

149
principal of Exposition Way Middle School, was first uncomfortable with the idea of
having a coach, but after working with the coach, appreciated the time and influence,
which positively influenced her professional practice. The principal also referred to her
participation in the DPCI program as "an experience that will make me a better educator."
In addition, Principal Martin stated,
To be honest, I was a little hesitant at first. Why do I need a coach? It was until a
few weeks into the DPCI program that I realized that the coach was there to help
me, not evaluate me. After I understood that point, my time with my coach was
very productive. My coach gave me some ideas, she lifted my confidence, and she
was an ear to listen. (Principal Martin, 2009)

Many of the teachers complimented the principal and the evident change in her
leadership style. One teacher cited the principals' attention to detail by stating,
One example that I can share with you deals with an adoption of intervention
program. Last year I had asked her [principal] about adopting a reading program
for my 4th and 5th grader, right away she turned it down, telling me "I am the one
who decides." That happened last year, this year the principal was asked again
about the same reading program and she responded, "If you bring me more
information, we can sit down and see if it will work."

Another teacher cited formal and informal meetings as forums where Principal Martin’s
change was evident:
I had the opportunity to be a member of the leadership team this year, what a
great experience. I know last year everyone was scared to be a member because of
the debriefing time with the principal. But so far, I have nothing but good things
to say about the process.

Similar to the principal and teacher accounts of developing a strong mission and
vision statement, results from the fall 2009 and spring 2010 Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey indicated that Principal Martin experienced a
slight growth in learning-centered leadership behaviors. Her fall 2009 data revealed a

150
Below Basic rating in "Communicating" with staff. Her spring 2010 data revealed a
Basic rating in "Communicating" with staff and was likely to influence teachers
positively and result in acceptable value-added achievement and learning for all students
(see Table 20, below). This behavior refers to the leader's ability to communicate levels
of professional practice that reinforces the leaders ability to create a healthy school
environment focused on student achievement for all. Due to the low response rate, the
data should be interpreted with caution.
Table 20

Fall/Spring Culture of Learning Integrated Summary of Principal's Strengths and Areas
of Growth
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Key Processes

Core Components Planning Implementing Supporting Advocating Communicating Monitoring
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Culture of Learning
& Professional BB BB BB BB BB BB
Behavior (Fall)

Culture of Learning
& Professional
Behavior (SPRING) B BB B BB B B
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Table 20 reveals Principal Martin's effectiveness across six Key Processes, where
she rated as Basic or Below Basic. In the spring administration of the VAL-ED, an
increase in ratings took place for three of the six KEY Processes: Planning, Supporting,
and Communicating. In addition, based on the data collected, Principal Martin's ability to

151
effectively plan, support, and communicate her knowledge and beliefs was an indicator of
the district's support of the principal and the effectiveness of the Dunkin coaching
initiative.
Key Findings: Data Analysis to Influence Leadership Practice
The principal's emphasis on school improvement was very evident throughout the
research study. Principal Martin felt very strongly about using data as a catalyst to drive
instruction and support student needs. Exposition Way Middle School used both
summative and formative data as an instrument to monitor progress toward achieving the
school's vision. The principal stated,
Using data allows us to better serve the students of Exposition Way. Whether we
are looking at state assessment data, teacher generated data, or school data, the
numbers tell us a story. I personally feel that the staff takes great pride in their
data, always comparing and analyzing, looking for patterns and trends. (Principal
Martin, 2009)

Analysis of data is essential so that leaders may ensure that their schools are organized
around state and district standards, accountability tools, and assessments (Hallinger,
2003; Murphy et al., 2006). The principal at Exposition Way Middle School emphasized
the use of data to support instructional improvement. He stated,
We use the time that is set aside to work together to analyze the data. What we
draw from this process gives us our road map to where we would like to go. Once
we have a direction, we utilize the findings from the data to help us create
instructional tools and improve teacher practice in order to get us to our
destination. (Principal Martin, 2009)

The principal's emphasis on monitoring student performance translated positively
to her teaching staff. One teacher stated, “I am very appreciative of the time Principal
Martin gives us to analyze data. Because we meet mostly in our PLC's, I feel comfortable

152
asking questions." Every week the principal provided each department with a list that
showed the results of their assessments. The teachers reviewed the data from the
assessments to determine the students' progress towards mastery of the standards and
identify which standards need to be taught again. Another teacher noted, "I don't know
what I would do if I didn't have this time to work with my colleagues. If I have questions
regarding data, they are there to help."
The teachers' interview data also supported the role of the DPCI program in
assisting the principal with the appropriate support in monitoring student performance.
Principal Martin's participation in the DPCI program allowed her to work closely with
her coach developing techniques that assist in analyzing performance data. Principal
Martin stated, "The time that I have spent with my coach has been great. She is very
knowledgeable when it comes to data analysis. There has been numerous time when I
have picked up the phone and called my coach to help me understand the data." Principal
Martin was given the opportunity to utilize some of the methods her coach demonstrated
for her in analyzing data at a recent staff development. A math teacher commented, "The
format in which Ms. Martin created to help us understand data during our last PD was
great. I finally understood what I needed to do." During the researcher’s visit in spring
2010, numerous teachers commented on the school’s process for data analysis. When
asked to explain, one teacher stated,
The process in which we look at data is definitely working. I use my data from
my last benchmark exam and I compare to my colleague. For the areas that my
students may have struggled with, I look to see if there is another teacher in my
department that may have had success with my particular problem. Without the
PLC's, it would be difficult to do. (Mr. Valencia, 2010)

153
Analysis of Findings
Though difficult to determine how much of the recent success at Exposition Way
Middle School can be attributed to the time Principal Martin spent participating in the
DPCI, clearly Principal Martin’s approached increasing student achievement through the
use of collaboration time. The DPCI provided an invaluable support structure for
Principal Martin and valued the commitment she has shown. Principal Martin provided
the researcher with evidence indicating that the DPCI supported her in creating
collaboration time for her and the staff.
In responding to the core component of Culture of Learning and Professional
Behavior on the fall 2009 VAL-ED survey, which speaks to “integrated communities of
professional practice in the service of student academic achievement” (Murphy et al.
2007, p. 8), teachers (26 of 55 possible respondents) found that Principal Martin was
proficient in implementing a Culture of Learning leadership. According to the VAL-ED
(Murphy et al. 2007), "a proficient leader exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors
at the levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers positively and result in
acceptable value-added to student achievement and social learning for all students" (p. 8).
Recognizing that the “linkage between principal leadership and students are
inextricably tied to the actions of others” (p.12) should not be seen as a negative or a
weakness of the principal’s role (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Rather, the researchers
remind leaders that achieving organizational results through the actions of others is the
essence of leadership. In addition, notable researchers, including Darling-Hammond
(2005), Hallinger and Heck (1996), Hallinger et al. (1996), Leithwood (2004) and

154
Murphy et al., (2006), have agreed that effective school principals influence student
achievement via two vital, but indirect pathways: (a) the support and development of
effective teachers and (b) the implementation of effective organizational processes, such
as teacher collaboration. The principal’s attempt to increase student performance through
these two pathways symbolizes a continuous effort to provide effective organizational
processes and support, which overtime, translates to an increase in student performance.
In addition, Principal Martin continued to provide ongoing professional
development to her staff that was rich in data analysis and she constantly emphasized the
use of formative and summative assessments as instruments to guide instruction.
Summary
From the VAL-ED survey, classroom observations, teacher and principal
interviews, and document analysis, some evidence indicated that the DPCI influenced
leader practice in implementing the district's reform initiatives. Data analyzed from the
learning-centered leadership perspective indicated a strong working relationship between
the principal of the elementary school and the district office in supporting leader practice
and a strong shared leadership, and collaboration focused on student learning.

Findings for Research Question Three
Research Question #3 - How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?

155
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
strategies that the principal put into place to create and sustain organizational structures
and processes to promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes. The
data collection instruments used to address the research question included (a) pre/post
principal interview, (b) pre/post teacher interviews, (c) pre/post intervention document
analysis, and (d) pre/post intervention VAL-ED survey results. The data was analyzed
from the perspective of the direct effect that leader practice had on creating the structures
and learning environment that can potentially have a positive influence on student
outcomes (Darling-Hammond 2006; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Murphy; Neufeld and
Roper, 2003)
Key Finding: Promoting Effective Teacher Practice Through Collaboration
Quality school leadership is a key, second only to quality teaching, to successfully
implementing school reform (Leithwood, 2004). Urban school principals at all levels are
instrumental to establishing a coherent school-wide plan for what quality teaching and
learning should look like; setting a climate of high expectations; and securing the
resources to realize that vision. The data collected during pre/post visits indicated a
strong relationship between teacher collaboration and the recent success of Exposition
Way Middle School.
The researcher found that teacher collaboration played a significant role in the
function of the school. When asked about their role, Principal Martin stated the
following:
I learned through my studies that collaboration is the backbone of an effective
school. When we have professional development time I typically like to see the

156
teachers sitting by department. I feel this gives them the best opportunity to
collaborate with one another. To share ideas of what is working in their
classrooms, and what is not. I have found that if I stand in front of them lecturing,
nothing gets done. But, if I give them a push in the right direction and let them
work collaboratively, the staff usually gets everything on the agenda completed.
(Principal Martin, 2010)

Not only did Principal Martin feel strongly about giving her staff time to work together,
but her teachers were also much more supportive. The following excerpts taken from
teacher interviews supported the conclusion:
I can't tell how much I appreciate the time that we have to meet. When you are in
a department with eight others, it's hard to find time to meet if it's not scheduled.
The time the principal sets aside really makes us come together and share our
ideas and frustrations. (Mrs. Shivers, 2009)

Another teacher stated:
As a math department, we are always trying to meet. Having time set aside by Ms.
Martin has allowed us to meet more frequently. I am not going to tell you that
every meeting is perfect, but for the most part, we get a lot accomplished. (Mr.
Ramirez, 2010)

During the interviews of teachers, the researcher found teacher collaboration as a
link to improve student performance. Many teachers supported the principal in creating
as many opportunities as he could to bring teachers together. One teacher stated the
following:
Collaboration time or plc's, has given me the opportunity to share my ideas with
others. I know just last year I needed help with a science lab. Having time to meet
with the other science teachers helped me out tremendously. (Ms. Carr, 2010)

Another teacher explained:

The time Ms. Martin gives us for meeting with the other teacher is great. If it
weren't for this time, I would rarely see my fellow teachers. When we do meet,
the time is utilized well. All of us typically bring are data to analyze. (Ms.
Andino, 2009)

157
In building capacity among her staff members, Principal Martin strove to figure
out their individual strengths and areas where she could help them improve so that they
can contribute to the school and grow professionally. When working with a struggling
teacher, she always first asked for his/her input in ways the teacher could see the problem
and then work together to come up with a remedy. Once a plan was created, Principal
Martin monitored the teacher’s progress, assisting when necessary, and reflected with
them once things worked out.
Key Findings: Professional Learning Communities - Effecting Teacher Practice
The district's vision for Professional Development began with establishing and
supporting professional learning communities at the school to help support alignment and
coherence to the education plan and to increase student achievement. Most recently the
idea of transforming schools into professional learning communities lead to high-
performing schools. Schmoker (2006) stated “professional learning communities have
succeeded to improve instruction where typical professional development and workshops
have failed.” The professional learning community model flows from the assumption that
the core mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but
also to ensure that they learn. This simple shift—from a focus on teaching to a focus on
learning—has had profound implications for schools. Principal Martin and her staff at
Exposition Way Middle School engaged deeply in the practice of professional learning
communities (PLC's) and devoted their time and energy into the planning time that was
set aside for professional practice.

158
The Professional Learning Community (PLC) at Exposition Way Middle School
was organized by content and grade level. Each PLC was headed by a department chair
chosen by the principal at the start of the school year. The PLC meetings occured twice a
month, following an agenda developed by the principal. When asked about the impact
PLC's had on his school, the principal stated:
The staff and I utilize the time we have together to investigate areas of concern
and develop plans of action. The PLC format has allowed us as a community of
learners discussing the issues that impact student achievement. The format of the
professional development is decided in advanced, always with a focus on specific
academic goals. Just with the few PD days we have had so far, I have seen a
significant improvement in the moral of the staff. Last year, I under planned. Not
knowing what to cover or how long my presentation would last. But this year,
because of my coach I am able to create PD with more insight. (Principal Martin,
2009)

From the teachers' perspective, the PLC acted as a time for collaboration. In fact,
Ms. Martin's department head for math stated, "the agenda has been a God sent. Before,
we never had enough to discuss, but know we seem to stay too long." During PLC time,
the teachers were also expected to analyze data. During the fall visit, teachers during
their PLC time were asked to look at their scores from previous years' state assessments.
The principal allowed 45 minutes to work with their groups and to disaggregate the data.
The principal provided each group with a worksheet to record their findings. Principal
Martin felt very strongly about data analysis, utilizing the findings to drive instruction,
interventions, and setting instructional goals. The principal and staff used both formative
and summative data to monitor effective teacher practice and to determine student needs.
Data is critical in understanding the relationship between student performance and
student outcomes (Marzano, 2005).

159
Based also on collected evidence, teachers were expected to use the data from
their own assessments to create classroom goals, setting reachable objectives for each
student for the entire school year. One science teacher stated:
The times that we meet are very important. When we are meeting in our PLC's we
are asked by the principal to bring our data. We then are give time to look at our
data, discuss it with others, and the come up with a plan of action. (Mr. Bell,
2009)

When asked if the time set aside actually worked, Principal Martin stated, "I have
seen an improvement in the short time I have been here, using this format." Another
teacher stated, "I think it's important for us to use the time that is set aside for us to really
focus on what the data is telling us."
PLC's also provided time for teachers to discuss the findings from the latest
Learning Walks. Learning Walks are organized walks through of the school's halls and
classrooms using the Principals of Learning to focus on the instructional core. Principal
Martin utilized Learning Walks three to four times each month. These visits to the
classrooms were short in duration, usually 5 to 10 minutes. During these visits, walkers
obtain a "snapshot" of the learning at the school. When asked about the Learning Walks,
Principal Martin stated:
We utilize these Learning Walks as part of our professional development cycle.
The goal of the walk is not to evaluate, but to substantiate. We want to see what is
going on in the classrooms. We want to see what instruction looks like and what
student learning is taken place. (Principal Martin, 2009)

Analysis of Findings
The data from the principal and teacher interviews indicated that Principal Martin
developed what research (Northouse, 2005) posits as critical indicators of an effective

160
instructional leader, "leadership involves influencing a group of individuals who have a
common purpose." Professional learning communities are a highly effective approach to
supporting students in urban schools. Effective professional development has the ability
to fuse great teaching with great practice. Professional development induces reflective
practices among staff members and encourages them to identify what curriculum is
essential for all students to learn. In addition, professional development provides
opportunity for teacher to review data and identify which students need additional
support and/or targeted interventions. From their acquired knowledge, the staff is able to
create and plan instructional strategies that coincide with available curriculum and
determine which instruction is best (Billings & Gomez, 2001; Marzano, 2003).
An understanding established between the students and teachers can be a critical
catalyst to student learning (Nelson-Barbar, 1999). Leaders are able to empower teachers
and students by way of professional development for teachers and to create a culture
within the school that highlights the differences students bring (Banks et al., 2001).
Though difficult to determine how much of recent success at Exposition Way
Middle School can be attributed to the time Principal Martin spent participating in the
DPCI, clearly Principal Martin approached increasing student achievement through the
use of collaboration time. The DPCI provided an invaluable support structure for
Principal Martin and valued the commitment she showed. Principal Martin provided the
researcher with evidence indicating that the DPCI supported her when creating
collaboration time for her and the staff.

161
The increasing emphasis on school accountability and student achievement seems
to have reignited interest in the educational community. Notable researchers, including
Darling-Hammond (2005), Hallinger and Heck (1996), Hallinger et al. (1996), Leithwood
(2004) and Murphy et al. (2006), have agreed that effective school principals influence
student achievement via two vital, but indirect pathways: (a) the support and
development of effective teachers and (b) the implementation of effective organizational
processes, such as teacher collaboration. The principal’s attempt to increase student
performance through these two pathways symbolizes a continuous effort to provide
effective organizational processes and support, which overtime, translates to an increase
in student performance.
Summary
From the VAL-ED survey, classroom observations, teacher and principal
interviews and document analysis, evidence suggested that the DPCI influenced leader
practice in implementing the district's reform initiatives. Data analyzed from the learning-
centered leadership perspective suggested a strong working relationship between the
principal of the elementary school and the district office in supporting leader practice and
a strong shared leadership, and on collaboration focused on student learning.

Findings for Research Question Four
Research Question #4 - What leadership support structures enables leader practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and

162
teacher levels) that enabled teacher practice and subsequent movement in the direction of
implementing the district's and the school's improvement initiatives. The primary data
collection instruments used to address the research question includes (a) pre/post
principal interview, (b) pre/post teacher interviews, (c) pre/post intervention document
analysis, and (d) VAL-ED assessment. The data was analyzed from the perspective of
effective strategies for building and sustaining learning-centered leadership practice
(Darling-Hammond, 2007; Murphy, 2005).
Key Finding: Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT) Supports Leader
Practice
Another means of principal support designed by Dunkin ISD was the creation and
implementation of the Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT) team. The CILT
team was made up of representatives from each department who acted as liaisons
between the teachers and principal of Exposition Way Middle School. The main role of
the CILT team was to conduct nonevaluative classroom observations and to provide
constructive feedback to the teacher. The district felt very strongly about the use of the
CILT team, and encouraged its principals to utilize the team as much as possible. When
asked about the CILT team, Principal Martin spoke very highly, referring to them as
"dedicated staff members with the mindset of helping all student s reach their potential."
The role of the CILT team was not to evaluate, but rather to provide constructive
feedback to the principal and other staff members. The type of shared leadership is highly
touted by Elmore (2000) in that a distributed leader's job is to harness the varied skills

163
and talents of his/her staff so they complement each other and work toward a common
goal. Members the CILT team reported the following:
Being part of the CILT team is a great way to get a shot of what is happening at
our school. This is my second time participating on the leadership team and I truly
enjoy it. Selfishly, having the ability to observe my fellow teachers has made me a
better educator as well. (Ms. Cosio, 2010)

Another teacher, Mr. Simon, had this to say about the CILT team:
After I do my observations, I meet with Principal Martin and discuss what I
observed. We have protocols to assist us in what to look for. During my last
observation I was able to see a science lab that I will be doing the following week.
(Mr. Simon, 2009)

Another teacher, Mr. Zurati, agreed with the usefulness of the CILT team:
I am glad Ms. Martin feels so strongly about the use of the leadership team. I too,
agree with the concept behind the team. When I met with the principal last week,
I was able to have a meaningful discussing regarding classroom management. I
think I met with her [principal] for over an hour. Principal Martin was great. (Mr.
Zurati, 2009)

Even though the principal played an important leadership role on the campus,
members of the CILT team played a significant role as well. Members of the team
worked closely with the principal to arrive at mutual decisions that would benefit
students and teachers, alike. Mr. Mocabee, a member of the CILT team, discussed his
role on the team in the following way: "being part of the CILT team has allowed me to
share best-practices with my fellow colleagues. It has allowed me to see what others are
doing and implement new ideas into my own classroom" (Mr. Mocabee, 2010).

164
Key Finding: Grade Level Coordinators as Support Structures to Enable Leader
Practice
Quality school leadership is a key, second only to quality teaching, to successfully
implementing school reform (Leithwood, 2004). Urban school principals at all levels are
instrumental to establishing a coherent school-wide plan for what quality teaching and
learning should look like, setting a climate of high expectations, and securing the
resources to realize that vision. The data collected during pre/post visits indicated a
strong relationship between department coordinators and the recent success of University
Park Elementary. The researcher found that grade-level coordinators played a significant
role in the function of University Park Elementary School. They worked closely with the
CILT team and often led professional development sessions. When asked about their role,
Principal Martin stated the following:
The grade level coordinators make my job easy. We have one grade level
coordinator for each grade. They are often found working with other coordinators,
planning for the year. For example, my fourth grade math coordinator has been
working closely with the fifth grade coordinator aligning the math curriculum to
the standards. Once they are finished, I meet with them to discuss what they have
done, and then they I ask them to take the information to the other teachers.
(Principal Martin, 2009)

Not only did Principal Martin feel strongly about involving the coordinators in the
functions of the school, but also his coordinators were supportive. In discussing the
opportunity for grade-level coordinators to share their discussions with other teachers,
Ms. Carr, a science teacher explained, “As one of three science guys on campus, I
appreciate the time and effort my grade level coordinator puts into finding me and
sharing what is going on.” This type of support structure has allowed the principal to

165
more closely identify with the pulse of the school. Principal Martin met with his grade-
level coordinators each week, discussing upcoming professional development days, long-
range department planning, assessments, and data analysis. The following excerpts are
taken from teacher interviews regarding the role of grade-level coordinators:
They consistently provide me with guidance. I work well with my grade level
coordinator. He is always helping me with my class and with my planning. I know
I can go to him with anything and he will have an answer for me by the next day.
(Ms. Andino, 2009)

Another teacher stated:
For me, I appreciate the hard work he does. I know the stresses of the job are
demanding, so I give him a lot of credit for taking on the role of coordinator.
During our plc time we may work with our coordinator to discuss grade level
assessments, grading, students that my need interventions, and classroom
management. It's great to have someone who can have a dialog between the grade
levels. (Ms. Carr, 2009)

In building the capacity his staff, Principal Martin took great pride in supporting his staff.
The grade-level coordinator gave Principal Martin another tool to assist him in improving
student performance and increasing staff moral.
Analysis of Findings
In analyzing the data, the researcher noted that the findings indicated a strong
working relationship between the principal and CILT. Specifically, the data reflected the
principal's use of the leadership team and her management of their findings. Principal
Martin stated:
I try to make sure that I rotate the members of the team as often as I can. I like to
give as many teachers and opportunity to participate in the process. I know form
my own experience that having the ability to see others at work is invaluable.
When I was going through my credentialing classes, part of my requirement was
to observe a number of different teachers at different grade levels. I remember
walking away from that experience with a great respect for what teacher do. I will

166
never forget the great lessons, the interactions, and the excitement that was
observed during that time. On the other side of the coin, I remember the not-so-
good stuff that I witnessed. That is another benefit of having a leadership team
that does observations, they report back to you the bad stuff as well. (Principal
Martin, 2009)

Effective leaders articulate the types of improvements required to achieve goals
and expectations and develop a common language for improving student outcomes.
Effective leaders have a clear understanding of the change process and a deep, current,
and critical understanding of how students learn. According to Hallinger and Heck
(1998), school principals "exercise a measurable, though indirect, effect on school
effectiveness and student achievement" (p.13). The use of the CILT team as a means of
managing part of the educational production of the school is what Murphy (1990) has
called the second dimension, which stresses the management of the behavior of the
principal. The instructional leader promoted quality instruction by conducting teacher
conferences and evaluations, visiting classrooms, providing specific suggestions and
feedback on the teaching and learning process, and determining teacher assignments in
the best interest of student learning (Murphy, 1990; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1985). The
principal worked in cooperation with teachers to coordinate the curriculum through
aligning school goals and objectives with state standards, assessments, and district
curriculum.
The support provided to Principal Martin by the grade-level coordinators proved
invaluable in assisting the principal to guide the school. The grade-level coordinators
provided assistance to the entire staff and performed duties that alleviated some of the
responsibilities of the principal. The grade-level coordinators, working as part of the

167
leadership team, “must first determine teachers’ learning needs and then meet those needs
by targeting conversations around instruction, raising questions, organizing professional
development opportunities, bringing in research and articles, and guiding teachers in
developing new practice” (Neufeld & Roper, 2003, p. 8). Marzano et al. (2005) have
defined the members of a school’s leadership team as a “group of individuals highly
committed to the general well-being of a school” (p. 104).
One teacher, Mr. Zurati, described the coordinators as “the unofficial leaders of
the school.” This remark was reflected in the interactions observed at Exposition Way
Middle School among the staff during a professional development session in the spring
2010 visit, and also during teacher interviews for spring 2010.
Davis et al. (2005) have offered that, “successful school leaders influence student
achievement…both through their influence on other people or features of their
organization and through their influence on school processes” (p. 5). Principal Martin
took great pride in sharing her leadership responsibilities with her staff, specifically the
grade-level coordinators. Leithwood et al. (2004) have outlined three sets of core
leadership practices that define successful school leaders: (a) developing people, (b)
setting directions for the organization, and (c) redesigning the organization. Through the
support structure of grade-level coordinators, some evidence indicated that Principal
Martin reflected the qualities that define a successful school leader.

168
Summary
The data from the principal interviews, teacher interviews, and the VAL-ED
survey indicated that Principal Martin improved her practice through the benefit of two
support structures that enabled her professional practice. The first was Principal Martin's
opportunity to receive support through a coach as part of the DPCI program. She
attributed much of the success at Exposition Way Middle School to her increase in
knowledge and confidence, gained through work with her coach. In addition, she felt that
the extra confidence allowed her to be a better communicator with her staff, resulting in a
clearer, more focused approach to handling issues of instructional planning, data analysis,
and student performance. Second, Principal Martin received support through shared
leadership from her extended leadership team, known as the CILT.
Principal Martin was able to draw guided information from her leadership team
and to utilize their classroom observations to help create a system of trust and
accountability. The process led to a collaborative model of leadership and allowed
Principal Martin to utilize the efforts of her leadership team in what Marzano (2005) has
described as an effective means of targeting needs and securing the necessary resources
to maximize student opportunities to learn.

Findings for Research Question Five
Research Question #5 - How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to
assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?

169
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
potential for the data collected from an instructional leadership assessment instrument,
the Vanderbilt Assessment of leadership Practice (VAL-ED), to be used as a tool to
inform the coaching support designed to promote effective instructional leadership. Data
were analyzed from the perspective of Murphy's (2006) work on developing learning-
centered leadership practice and effective leadership coaching practices designed to
promote and support effective leadership practice including reflective practice and
conferring coaching models. The data collection consists of the pre and postintervention
survey results from the principal, the teachers, and the principal’s supervisor.
Key Finding: Evaluating Leadership of Instruction and School Improvement
Principal Martin allocated time for her teachers to take the VAL-ED survey during
one of their collaboration periods in both fall and spring of the 2009-2010 school year.
Forty-seven percent of the teachers completed the survey in the fall, which according to
the VAL-ED is a low response rate. When response rates are low, resulting scores should
be interpreted with caution. Principal Martin and her supervisor also completed the
survey in fall 2009. Data collected from the VAL-ED survey during spring 2010 visit
indicated an increase in teacher participation. Exposition Way Middle School had 62% of
teachers complete the VAL-ED survey in spring 2010. In addition to the teachers at
Exposition Way, Principal Martin and her supervisor completed the survey in Spring
2010. Table 21, below, represents the response rates for the VAL-ED survey at
Exposition Way Middle School for fall 2009 and spring 2010.

170
Table 21
VAL-ED Response Rates - Fall 2009 and Spring 2010
Fall 2009
Respondents
Spring 2010
Respondents
Fall
%
Spring
%
Principal 1/1 1/1 100 100
Teachers 26/55 34/55 47 62
Supervisor 1/1 1/1 100 100
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education, Principal Report Spring 2010
Respondents who completed the 72-item, 360-degree survey was required to
indicate a “source of evidence” for each response. The choices included reports from
others, personal observations, school documents, school projects or activities, or other.
All three respondent groups, the University Park's teachers, Principal Martin, and her
supervisor, primarily cited “personal observations, school documents, and reports from
others as their main sources of evidence.
The VAL-ED provided a total score across all respondents as well as separate by
respondent group. The scores from the teachers were based on the average across all
teacher respondents. The total score, core component, and key process effectiveness
ratings were interpreted against a national representative sample that included principals,
supervisors, and teachers, providing a percentile rank. The results were also interpreted
against a set of performance standards ranging from Below Basic to Distinguished. A
national panel of principals, supervisors, and teachers determined the scores associated
with performance levels.

171
Key Findings: Core Components and Key Processes Scores - Fall 2009 and Spring
2010
Principal Martin’s overall fall 2009 total effectiveness score based on the
averaged ratings of all respondents was 2.62. The score equaled a “Below Basic”
performance level rating and a percentile rank of 0.4. As defined in the VAL-ED
Principal Report, “a leader at the below basic level of proficiency exhibits learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are unlikely to influence
teachers positively nor result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and social
learning for students.”
Figure 12
VAL-ED Scoring Classifications

Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education Survey
An examination of Principal Martin’s Core Components mean item ratings ranged
from a low of 2.44 for Performance Accountability and a high of 2.81 for Culture of
Learning & Professional Behavior. She scored a “Below Basic” in all of the Core
Components. Similarly, Principal Martin’s Key Processes mean item rating indicated
they ranged for a low of 2.55 for Supporting to a high of 2.70 for Planning. A common

172
pattern reveals itself in the respondent comparison across the core component and key
processes scores. The principal's relative strengths and areas for development can be
determined by comparing scores for each of the 6 Core Components and 5 Key Processes
across different respondent groups (Appendix N).
Principal Martin’s overall spring 2010 total effectiveness score based on the
averaged ratings of all respondents was 3.30. The score equaled a "Basic” performance
level rating and a percentile rank of 17.3. As defined in the VAL-ED Principal Report,
a leader at the basic level of proficiency exhibits learning-centered leadership
behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers positively
and that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and social
learning for some sub-groups of students, but not all.

An examination of Principal Martin’s Core Components mean item ratings ranged
from a low of 3.11 for High Standards for Student Learning and a high of 3.50 for
Culture of Learning & Professional Behavior. She had a mix of scores ranging from
“Below Basic” to "Basic" in all of the Core Components. Similarly, Principal Martin’s
Key Processes mean item rating indicated they ranged for a low of 3.21 for Implementing
to a high of 3.42 for Planning. A common pattern revealed itself in the respondent
comparison across the core component and key processes scores. The principal's relative
strengths and areas for development were determined by comparing scores for each of the
6 Core Components and 5 Key Processes across different respondent groups. The VAL-
ED also provided a matrix giving an integrated summary of the principal’s strengths and
areas of growth based on the mean item scores for the intersection of the Core
Components with the Key Processes. The leadership behaviors listed in Figures 13 and
14, below, display the results for both VAL-ED assessments, Fall 2009 and Spring 2010.

173
Figure 13
VAL-ED Principal Matrix Results Fall 2009

Figure 14
VAL-ED Principal Matrix Results Spring 2010

Fewer than six core component by key process areas of behavior are listed if the
principal had fewer than six below distinguished. No behavior clusters provided indicates
that the principal's current learning-centered leadership behaviors are considered

174
acceptable. According to the survey, Principal Martin’s suggested behaviors for possible
improvement are:
High Standards for Student Learning & Supporting
• Encourages students to successfully achieve rigorous goals for student learning.
• Supports teachers in meeting school goals.
Performance Accountability & Communicating
• Communicates to faculty how accountability results will be uses for school
improvement.
• Discusses progress toward meeting school goals with parents.
Connections to External Communities & Advocating
• Challenges teachers to work with community agencies to support students with low
achievement.
• Promotes mechanisms for reaching families who are least comfortable at school.
High Standards for Student Learning & Implementing
• Creates buy-in among faculty for actions required to promote high standards of
learning.
• Creates expectations which faculty high standards for student learning.
Performance Accountability & Monitoring
• Monitors the accuracy and appropriateness of data used for student accountability.
• Analyzes the influence of faculty evaluations on the rigor of the curriculum.
Rigorous Curriculum & Communicating
• Discusses state curriculum frameworks.

175
• Discusses the importance of addressing the same academic content in special and
regular programs.
Key Findings: Using the VAL-ED as a Coaching Tool
Developing educational leadership for school improvement can be difficult work.
Using the VAL-ED assessment as a coaching tool has the potential to make the task of
redefining effective school leadership and improving student performance more
attainable.
First, leadership assessment can set the organizational goals and objectives for the
school leader (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Second, leadership assessment provides both
summative and formative feedback to the school leader. Given the critical role of and
mounting demands on school principals, identifying and developing effective school
leaders is a top priority for school systems (Knapp et al., 2003). Incumbent school
principals also can benefit from assessment results as benchmarks for professional
growth. Third, assessment can serve as a powerful communication tool within both the
school district and the school community. Leadership assessments with well-articulated
results can help all stakeholders understand the common goals, accomplishments, and
challenges faced by the school and its leader, which in turn creates an environment of
collective accountability.
The VAL-ED assessment was used by Dunkin ISD as part of a comprehensive
review of the effectiveness of a leader's behaviors by providing a detailed "picture" of
perceived performance. The survey yielded valuable norm-referenced and criterion-
reference scores for evaluating learning-centered leadership, measuring performance

176
growth, guiding professional development, and facilitating a data-based performance
evaluation.
Summary
The stakes of having effective school leaders are high in today’s climate of system-
wide accountability where American public schools are charged with the daunting tasks
of improving student achievement and closing performance gaps among the subgroups of
an increasingly diverse student population (Catano & Stronge, 2006; Portin et al., 2006;
Thomas, 2000). Effective leadership assessment can be an integral part of a standards-
based accountability system. When designed accurately, executed in a proactive manner,
and properly implemented, leadership assessment has the power to improve school
performance and to identify leaders of the future (Lashway, 2003; Reeves, 2005). In
addition, the VAL-ED is designed to provide a summary of effectiveness of a principal's
learning-centered leadership behaviors during the current school year.
A comprehensive picture of Principal Martin emerged and was reported with input
from teachers, the principal's supervisor, and her own self-report. Although Exposition
Way Middle School's participation rate was low in Fall 2009, an increase in teacher
participation occurred in the VAL-ED assessment in spring 2010, which exposed
elements of Principal Martin's leadership behaviors and shed on her leadership ability.

Summary for Exposition Way Elementary School
The chapter presented an analysis of data from principal and teacher interviews,
document analysis, classroom observations, and VAL-ED survey results. The information

177
was organized and analyzed by each of the five research questions and further
categorized into themes such as the use of data, coaching/mentoring, professional
development, teacher collaboration, shared leadership, and professional learning
communities. The findings also suggested that the Dunkin Independent School District
Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) could serve as a model for many school districts
across the nation. Beginning with the district's initiative to become the best urban school
district in America by 2010, that the superintendent and her staff have taken a proactive
approach to creating a fully developed, research and standards-based executive leadership
program aimed at improving professional practice and increasing student outcomes over
time is evident. The next chapter presents a discussion of findings and conclusions for the
research study.

178
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction to Chapter Five
Preparing and supporting urban school leaders to address the challenges presented
by their environment and to provide all students with access to a high demand, rigorous
curriculum that closes the achievement gap requires dramatic change to the traditional
way in which urban school leaders are identified, prepared to lead, and supported
(Heifetz, 1998). Research regarding the indirect effects of school leadership on student
learning suggests significant effects on student learning, particularly in schools with
historically low performance (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2004; Waters et
al., 2003). Evidence also indicates that effective leadership programs are “research based,
have curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic contexts, use cohort groupings
and mentors and are collaborative in nature" (Davis et al., 2005). However, empirical
evidence for the impact of these program features is minimal.

Statement of Problem
Many leadership capacity building programs across the nation are struggling to
identify relevant leadership practices, contemporary theories, and models of practice that
lead to improved outcomes for professionals and students. Unfortunately, research
suggests that leadership preparation programs are not adequately meeting the needs of
urban school leaders (Hale & Moorman, 2003). A good deal of research has documented

179
that principals make a difference in the success of students (Levine, 2005), yet no
systematic research documents the impact of educational leadership programs on the
achievement of children in the schools that these graduates lead.
In the Dunkin Independent School District, the superintendent and her staff have
taken a proactive approach to making sure that quality leaders are at the helm in public
schools. The Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) provides a standards-
based capacity building curriculum and the support of a leadership coaching structure.
The district is focused upon building capacity in school leaders by focusing on what they
need to know and be able to do in order to provide the guidance and direction of
sustained instructional improvement leading to higher student achievement. The DPCI is
designed to provide principals with a principal coach who provides at-elbow coaching
and conferring to enhance instructional leadership development and build leadership
capacity to ensure improved academic success for students. Principals and coaches
participate in professional development focused on data analysis, goal setting related to
academic achievement, leadership practice and establishing systems and structures to
support improved teacher practice and student learning.
A sense of urgency is part of the environment of educational settings today as
students struggle to meet the high standards set by their state, and nation, and as teachers
work toward improving educational quality and experiences for all students.
Achievement gaps persist, and parents of students who attend low-performing schools
increasingly seek to escape the offerings of public education (Knapp et al., 2003). The

180
need for strong educational leadership is unmistakable. Schools need leadership that
brings about significant improvement in learning and in closing the achievement gap.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the research study was to contribute to the knowledge base
regarding effective components of leadership capacity building programs and support
structures that enable and sustain urban school leader practice. Specifically, it looked to
investigate the impact of principal participation in a fully developed, research and
standards-based executive leadership development program on leader practice,
professional practice of teachers, and student outcomes over time.
The study additionally looked to expand the knowledge base with regard to
components of effective leadership support structures at the school and district levels,
which enable the principal’s leadership practice to create and sustain the conditions for
effective teacher practice and promote a more equitable and effective learning
environment in the urban school context. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected
in a preintervention and postintervention design to determine the leader’s change in
practice and how these factors have been shaped or reshaped by participation and
experiences in the DPCI program over time. The study was designed to answer the
following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?

181
2. How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective instructional leaders?

Methodology Summary
The study examined two case study principals who have participated in the DPCI
during the 2009-2010 school year. Each case study focused on how the DPCI prepared
leaders to create organizational structures and practices that promoted effective leader
practice and professional teacher practices that improved student outcomes in the urban
context. The study took a comprehensive look at the leadership practices enacted that
showed potential to lead to the attainment of the Texas core leadership standards and
district leadership goals and outcomes to determine: (a) the relationship between
principal participation in the DPCI and their leadership practice and (b) if the practice of
the 14 principals varies, what accounts for that variance. Data were collected for each
case study school utilizing methods such as (a) principal interviews, (b) teacher
interviews, (c) document analysis, (d) field observations, and (e) pre/post analysis from
the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED).

182
It was uncovered that the Dunkin Independent School District Principal Coaching
Initiative addressed leadership concerns on multiple fronts by providing support for
school principals in Dunkin ISD. As a result of the study, the findings provided valuable
information regarding the importance of an effective leadership capacity building
program for principals of urban schools. Specifically, the results of the study can be used
to inform and shape leadership practices, develop district-wide leadership capacity
building professional learning opportunities, and put into place effective support
structures. As a result of the study, future practitioners, policymakers, and developers of
leadership preparation and support programs will gain new knowledge of specific
program features that are effective in building and sustaining leaders’ capacity to reshape
the teaching and learning environment in our urban schools in ways that promote expert
teacher practice and improved outcomes for students.
Distinctively, the data indicated that the role of the coach influenced the
leadership practices of both case study principals, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Martin, by
providing (a) guidance and support, (b) assistance in time management, and (c) assistance
in developing effective organizational processes. Therefore, participating in the DPCI
and working exclusively with a coach helped both principals attain the knowledge and
leadership skills to promote a culture of high standards for student learning through an
increased knowledge of (a) effective professional development, (b) data analysis, (c)
teacher collaboration, (d) professional learning communities, and (e) shared leadership.

183
Data Collection and Analysis
The study used four instruments to gather data in a mixed-methods applied case
study: the Val-ED 360 Survey, principal and teacher interviews, principal and teacher
observations, and document analysis. A formative data analysis of this study was
completed utilizing Creswell’s (2003) generic six-step process. The summative data
analysis involved emphasizing the theoretical implications from the conceptual
framework that guided this study for each research question; the data from this study was
analyzed through the lenses of the literature discussed earlier to determine if there has
been a change in leader behavior and, if so, what its impact has been on teacher practice
and organizational structures.
The engagement of many participants provided multiple perspectives, thus
producing multiple sources of data used by the researcher to cross-check and verify
emergent themes, which provided a basis for triangulation in the study (Patton, 2002).
Triangulation assisted the researcher in checking the accuracy of the findings by using
multiple individual interviews, document analysis and survey results. Producing multiple
sources of data allowed the researcher to build a coherent justification for emergent
themes. The following is a discussion of findings for each of the five research questions
and the theoretical implications that developed from them.

Summary of Findings
Two theoretical frameworks paved the foundation for the study: (a) Darling-
Hammond's (2007) framework on Effective Leadership Capacity Building Programs, and

184
(b) Murphy's (2006) Learning-Centered Leadership framework. The purpose of the
section is to summarize the findings of each research question presented in the study and
to discuss their theoretical implications in relation to the literature discussed in Chapter
Two.
Research Question One
In response to Research Question One, How does participation in the Dunkin ISD
Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) prepare principals to become effective
instructional leaders, the data collected from principal interviews, teacher interviews, and
document analysis suggested that both principals, Mr. Anderson of University Park
Elementary School and Ms. Martin of Exposition Way Middle School, with the support
of their coaches and through the participation of the DPCI, implemented some
components of effective leadership practices and established systems and structures to
support the improvement of teacher practice and student learning. In addition, evidence
suggests that both principals adopted characteristics of what researchers (Darling-
Hammond, 2006; Dufour et al. 2006; Marzano, 2005) have posited as critical indicators
of an effective instructional leader.
As reviewed in Chapter Two, in the field literature, an effective instructional
leader (Leithwood, 1999; Marzano, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006) influences schooling
through a proactive approach that requires involvement in curriculum and instruction and
supports the improvement of teacher practice. Darling-Hammond and colleagues (2007)
suggest that, "exemplary programs can, in fact, produces leaders who engage in effective

185
practices." Both principals reported that they felt "exceptionally well prepared,
confident, and strongly committed to their jobs." Given the limited time frame in which
the study was conducted, the most critical findings in this area concerned the idea that for
principals to develop the major characteristics of an effective instructional leader, they
must be provided the opportunity to learn in a collaborative environment with their
colleagues and be supported through a fully developed, standards-based capacity building
program.
The DPCI was designed to provide principals with the support to enhance
instructional leadership development and to build leadership capacity to ensure improved
academic success for students. Research demonstrates that effective school leaders have
an impact on student achievement. A focused program can help leaders develop the
knowledge and skills they need to become more effective in improving the learning
environment for teachers and students alike. Urban school principals at all levels are
instrumental to establishing a coherent school-wide vision for what quality teaching and
learning should look like; setting a climate of high expectations; and securing the
resources to realize that vision. Principals play a critical role in providing guidance and
direction for effective schools, but existing knowledge on the best ways to prepare and
develop highly qualified urban school principals is sparse.
Though participation in the DPCI had been in effect for only a short period of
time (i.e., six months) during the course of the study, evidence suggested that both
principals demonstrated successful behaviors and practices from an integrated model of
leadership as a result of working with their coaches. Specifically, the principals

186
demonstrated behaviors and practices of a learning-centered leader who successfully
embedded (a) High Standards for Student Learning, (b) Culture of Professional Behavior,
(c) Community of Collaboration, and (d) Performance Accountability.
In fact, both principals not only vocalized the importance of instructional
leadership, but they also demonstrated being a strong instructional leader by conducting
regular classroom visitations and providing teachers with immediate feedback. These
findings from the study are consistent with the literature on the effectiveness and
importance of coaching and mentoring (Spiro et al., 2007) “to promote a more equitable
and effective learning environment” (Spiro et al., 2007, p. 9). However, assessing
measurable change in leadership practice as a direct result of principal coaching is
difficult, as other variables interacted with the overall coaching process.
Evidence also suggests that both Principal Anderson and Principal Martin's
effectiveness as instructional leaders can be attributed in part to their participation in the
Dunkin ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI). Through pre/post interviews, both
principals valued their time in the DPCI program as demonstrated by their volunteering
to be part of the initiative. Through the coaching support, the DPCI program gave both
principals confidence and support, which enabled them to focus on improving student
achievement. In addition, based on collected data, both principals' instructional leadership
practices focused more on instruction as a result of learning in a collaborative
environment with their coach and other colleagues who grappled with similar issues.
Furthermore, the DPCI program has allowed Principal Anderson and Principal Martin to
voice their concerns in a positive manner, utilize their coach in assisting them with data

187
analysis, and has provided them with the support needed to improve their practices in
becoming effective school leaders.
Research Question Two
In response to Research Question Two, How does the DPCI influence the
knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of urban school principals, the data collected
from principal interviews, teacher interviews, document analysis, and the VAL-ED
suggested that both principals, Mr. Anderson of University Park Elementary School and
Ms. Martin of Exposition Way Middle School, were successfully influenced by
participating in the DPCI.
Preparing and supporting urban school leaders to successfully address the
adaptive challenges presented by their context and to provide all students with access to a
high demand, rigorous curriculum that closes achievement gaps requires a dramatic
change in the traditional way in which urban school leaders are identified, prepared to
lead, and supported (Elmore, 2000; Heifetz, 1998). Evidence collected is inconclusive as
to how much of the recent success at both schools can be attributed to the time Principal
Anderson and Principal Martin spent participating in the DPCI, but clearly both of the
principals used strategies obtained through the program to increase student achievement
through. The DPCI provides an invaluable support structure for both principals, and
values the commitment they have shown. Recognizing that the “linkage between
principal leadership and students are inextricably tied to the actions of others” should not
be seen as a negative or a weakness of the principal’s role (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). In
addition, notable researchers, including Darling-Hammond (2005), Hallinger and Heck

188
(1996), Hallinger et al. (1996), Leithwood (2004), and Murphy et al. (2006), agree that
effective school principals influence student achievement via two vital, but indirect
pathways: (a) the support and development of effective teachers and (b) the
implementation of effective organizational processes, such as teacher collaboration. The
DPCI program and its components have supported the principals' attempt to increase
student performance through these two pathways.
The difficulties of leading urban schools are very real. Many school districts find
the process of obtaining and retaining qualified administrators very difficult. Many
researchers and practitioners are currently analyzing the preparation of school leaders in
hopes of identifying ways of building greater leadership capacity to not only maintain
leaders in urban settings but also to help them thrive in urban systems.
Research Question Three
In response to Research Question Three, How does an urban school principal
create and sustain organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher
practice and improve student outcomes, the data collected from principal interviews,
teacher interviews, and document analysis suggested that both principals, Mr. Anderson
of University Park Elementary School and Ms. Martin of Exposition Way Middle School,
with the support of their coach and through participation of the DPCI, were successful in
creating and sustaining organizational structures that promote effective student practice
and improve student outcomes. In addition, evidence suggests that both principals have
adopted characteristics of what research (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Dufour et al., 2006;
Marzano, 2005) posits as critical indicators of an effective instructional leader, that

189
principals have the capacity to guide the positive progress of the school and to develop
and nurture relationships within the school community that impact the overall climate
(Day, 2000).
Chapter Two’s literature review revealed that the impact of leadership is indirect
in that it is mediated by school factors and instructional activities (Leithwood et al.,
2004). Specifically, researchers found that principals have a critical role in the success of
students through their influence on other people or operations of the schools (Leithwood
et al., 2004, p. 13; Marzano et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). Notable researchers,
including Darling-Hammond (2005), Hallinger and Heck (1996), Hallinger et al. (1996),
Leithwood (2004) and Murphy et al. (2006), agree that effective school principals
influence student achievement via two vital, but indirect pathways: (a) the support and
development of effective teachers and (b) the implementation of effective organizational
processes. Hallinger and Heck (1996) also acknowledge that context matters, describing
the principal’s role as a “web of environmental, personal, and in-school relationships”
that merge together to affect student achievement and organizational outcomes (p 6).
The finding from this research study showed that both principals influenced
teacher practice through their enactment of instructional and learning-centered leadership.
As uncovered in Chapter Four, one of the ways in which both principals' practice
impacted teacher practice was by creating and supporting professional development
opportunities for teachers. Evidence collected supported what research (Northouse, 2005)
posits as critical indicators of an effective instructional leader, that "leadership involves
influencing a group of individuals who have a common purpose." The professional

190
learning community is one highly effective approach to supporting students in urban
schools. The majority of teachers interviewed reported that the principal’s focus on staff
development and the implementation of Professional Learning Communities (PLC)
helped them to improve their practice as professionals. As a result of the principal
leadership behaviors and practices, as Chapter Four indicated, both schools, University
Park Elementary School and Exposition Way Middle School (a) enhanced their internal
capacity as professionals, (b) focused on improving instruction the PLCs and (c)
implemented a shared vision.
By creating the necessary conditions and processes for teachers to participate in a
professional development activity, both principals enabled teachers to work collectively
outside the classroom setting. In doing so they promoted the collective work and
responsibility of teachers, deemed significant in sustaining a professional learning
community (Lee & Smith, 1996). Teachers then implemented new ideas and strategies
obtained from collaboration, which they reported occurred during the interviews and
observations. In short, the study revealed that leadership practice has had a positive
impact on the organization’s climate, as both principals helped to reshape and enhance
the school professional learning culture. Prominent researchers in the field, Lee and
Smith (2001) have emphasized that where there is collective responsibility and
cooperation among teachers, there are higher achievement gains for students.
Consequently down the line, there may be a noticeable increase in both schools'
standardized test scores. However, because of the length of study, the impact on student
learning at the present time remains unknown.

191
Moreover, as McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) found, promoting the work of
professional learning communities (PLC) is a viable means of raising student
achievement by cultivating the skills and knowledge of their own in-house experts. This
effort therefore has the potential to increase the school’s instructional capacity. In
addition, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Martin both promoted the school’s leadership capacity
through their work with the Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT). This effort
was especially prevalent in how both principals conducted their weekly/biweekly
leadership team meetings. Both principals included key school leaders in the decision-
making process (professional development agendas, grade-level content agendas, etc.).
Both principals also ensured a supportive leadership for developing and sustaining a
professional learning community. In short, the leadership practices of both principals
demonstrated the indirect path through which the school principal played a role in
advancing school effectiveness. As found in the literature review, school leadership is a
“central ingredient” (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 1) for raising student achievement by
creating the necessary conditions and influencing key school processes.
Recognizing that the “linkage between principal leadership and students are
inextricably tied to the actions of others” should not be seen as a negative or a weakness
of the principal’s role” (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Rather, the researchers remind leaders
that achieving organizational results through the actions of others is the essence of
leadership.

192
Research Question Four
In response to Research Question Four, What leadership support structures enable
leader practice, the data collected from principal interviews, teacher interviews, and
document analysis suggested that both principals, Mr. Anderson of University Park
Elementary School and Ms. Martin of Exposition Way Middle School, with the support
of their coach and through participation of the DPCI, demonstrated successful
implementation of the effective support structures that enable leader practice.
As discussed in Chapter Two, according to current researchers (Bolman & Deal,
2003; Murphy, 2002), one of the primary goals of an effective leader is to influence
teacher practice and student learning outcomes. In order for this aim to be accomplished,
leaders must gain, through preparation, a conceptual understanding of the learning
process and transference of knowledge (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Murphy, 2002).
In considering the relationship between leadership support structures and principal
practice, the data presented suggested that in order for principals to develop effective
leadership practices, preparation programs must be strategically organized to transition
learners with practice, feedback and support through separated, simulated, and integrated
continuum. Critical to this finding is the need for preparation programs to provide
learners with strategies to overcome barriers to strategic thinking and operational
planning.
The data collected from both case studies through principal and teacher interviews
indicate that Principal Anderson and Principal Martin have shown improvement in their
practice from the fall to spring visits through the benefit of two support structures that

193
enabled their professional practice. The first was the principals' opportunity to receive
support through a coach as part of the DPCI program. Both principals attribute much of
the success at their schools to increased confidence gained through work with their coach.
In addition, both principals feel this extra confidence has allowed them to be better
communicators with their staff, resulting in a clearer, more focused approach to handling
issues of instructional planning, data analysis, and student performance. Second, both
principals have received support through shared leadership from their extended
leadership team, known as CILT. Principal Anderson and Principal Martin were able to
draw guided information from their leadership team and utilize the team's classroom
observations to help create a system of trust and accountability. This process led to a
collaborative model of leadership that allowed both principals to utilize the efforts of
their leadership teams in assisting them in what Marzano (2005) describes as an effective
means of targeting needs and securing the necessary resources for maximizing student
opportunities to learn.
The district’s collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh’s Institute for
Learning, which has been instrumental in working closely with a number of school
district’s nationwide in an effort to improve professional development programs for
educational leaders, has also been essential. Whether preservice or in-service, programs
should be research-based, have curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic
contexts, use cohort groupings and coaches/mentors, and be structured to enable
collaborative activity between the program and area schools (Davis et al., 2005).

194
Research Question Five
In response to Research Question Five, How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a
coaching tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders, the data
collected from principal interviews and the VAL-ED assessment suggested that both
principals, Mr. Anderson of University Park Elementary School and Ms. Martin of
Exposition Way Middle School, have reviewed the results from the assessment and have
utilized the instrument as a coaching tool for becoming more effective leaders.
The stakes of having effective school leaders are high in today’s climate of
system-wide accountability where American public schools are charged with the daunting
tasks of improving student achievement and closing performance gaps among the
subgroups of an increasingly diverse student population (Catano & Stronge, 2006; Portin
et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2000). Effective leadership assessment can be an integral part
of a standards-based accountability system.
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education or VAL-ED was designed
to provide a summary of effectiveness of a principal's learning-centered leadership
behaviors during the current school year. A comprehensive picture of the principals has
emerged and was reported with input from teachers, the principal's supervisor, and his or
her own self-report. Respondents to the VAL-ED were asked specific actions that affect
core components of learning-centered leadership. The effectiveness ratings, based on
evidence, range from 1 (ineffective) to 5 (outstandingly effective) for each of 72
leadership behaviors. The results were interpreted against both norm-referenced and

195
standards-referenced criteria that highlight areas of strength and possible areas for
improvement.
The VAL-ED provided the researcher with technically sound scores; however, i
these scores be used along with other information when making important evaluative
decisions. A response rate of greater than or equal to 75% is high, 50% to 74% is
moderate, and below 50% is low. The response rate for Principal Anderson's school,
Exposition Way Middle School, was 16%. The response rate for Principal Martin's,
Exposition Way Middle School, was 54%. When response rates are low, the creators of
the VAL-ED suggest that scores be interpreted with extreme caution.
A comprehensive picture of both principals has emerged and has been reported with
input from teachers, the principal's supervisor, and their own self-report. Although both
schools had a low participation rate, utilizing the VAL-ED instrument as a coaching tool
to qualify leadership practice and in assisting principals in becoming more effective
leaders can be beneficial.
A sense of urgency is part of the environment of educational settings today as
students struggle to meet the high standards set by their state and nation, and as teachers
work toward improving educational quality and experiences for all students.
Achievement gaps persist, and parents of students who attend low-performing schools
increasingly seek to escape the offerings of public education (Knapp et al., 2003). The
need for strong educational leadership is unmistakable. Schools need leadership that
brings about significant improvement in learning and closes the achievement gap.

196
Implications for Future Research
The findings in this study suggested promising practices for supporting the
development of urban school leaders who are able to influence teacher practice and
students outcomes. Principal interview data, teacher focus group data, and the VAL-
ED Leadership survey responses substantiate some of the benefits gained from a leader’s
participation in the Dunkin Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI). Though the findings in
this study are hopeful in citing strategies to support leadership capacity building, more
questions emerged regarding the effectiveness of the school administrator and the impact
of his/her leadership on student learning and policies that mandate high levels of student
performance without support structures.
In preparing 21st century leaders to advance educational policy in urban schools,
more empirical research is needed to support principal practice. Many of our nation’s
universities and colleges offer courses in leadership, pedagogy, and management;
however, as evidenced by current educational research (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007;
Marzano, 2003), these methods do not easily transfer to practice. Educational leaders,
colleges, and universities may benefit from knowing how strategies and support
structures function in tandem to mitigate the gap between what is taught in programs and
what is actually transferred to practice.
As discussed throughout this study, learning is a complex construct as the processes
of thinking, studying, remembering, and paying attention are not observable (Ormrod,
2006). As students matriculate through schools, formative and summative assessments
are employed to measure learning outcomes. Theorists posit that the role of the school

197
leader is to establish a context where student learning occurs (Marzano, 2005; O’Day,
1995; Spillane & Halverson, 2011). However, this study does not document how or if
change in leader practice influenced student achievement solely based on participation in
the DPCI program.
In the era of accountability, standards continuously sway the pendulum of
educational policy. In an attempt to hold states and school districts accountable for
providing equitable instruction for all students, content standards serve as the springboard
to student performance. Federal policies, such as the NCLB (2002), mandate educating
100% of America’s school-age children to proficiency in English and mathematics by
2013-14, creating a sense of urgency on the educational front. However, the intent of
standards and NCLB, though ambitious, are earnest attempts to close the nation’s
achievement gaps. If experts in the field continue to report the need for skilled leaders
who are able to lead the charge of improving student achievement, then one may ask,
what good is policy when capacity to meet the demands does not exist (Hentschke &
Wholstetter, 2004).
As schools fail to meet the requirements of NCLB, more sanctions are imposed
that require an even greater leadership capacity to remedy. School districts with a high
concentration of low-performing students are realizing that these targets are challenging
to achieve. Specifically, the adaptive challenges that confront urban schools are
inextricably bound to the social, economic, and political conditions of the urban
environments in which the schools reside (Miller, 1995).

198
According to this study, the DPCI program provided both principals with
information about creating and implementing clear achievable vision and mission
statements and about the importance of systems thinking in a standards-based context.
However, the findings do not reveal a specific practice for meeting the demands of
educational policy, thus, suggesting that additional information is needed to support
principal development.
In summary, this study presented findings connected to improving principal
practice through a structured leadership preparation program with support structures.
To further inform the field literature, additional empirical evidence is needed in the area
of teacher and leader preparation and leadership practice on teacher practice and student
outcomes, and of additional support structures needed to fully implement educational
policy to benefit all children, specifically, school-aged children who reside in urban
communities.

Implications for Policy and Practice
Our nation's urban schools, particularly those in most need, are poorly matched to
current popular reforms. A large number of urban schools can be described as schools
with high concentrations of the "hard to teach," economically disadvantaged, limited
English speaking, minority student populations who perform in the lowest quartiles of
academic achievement. For those who lead urban schools, different expectations,
different obligations, and different city histories require far more skills and political
finesse than those required of their colleagues in racially isolated suburbs (Cuban, 2001).

199
This study has many implications for policy and practice. Early findings suggest
that the Dunkin Principal Coaching Initiative can serve as a national leadership
preparation model for departments of education throughout the country. The DPCI is
predicated on the core standards, which align with the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISSLC) Standards, 2008. The district-wide initiative, though
demanding, has aided leaders within Dunkin Independent School District. As the nation
approaches the reauthorization of NCLB (2002) and 2013, intensive support is needed to
prevent districts and states all over the nation from falling prey to sanctions of program
improvement. As a matter of policy, all urban and suburban school leaders should be
mandated to attend preparation programs focused on pedagogy and authentic
opportunities for implementation.
In addition, as a matter of practice, all leaders should be able to adopt and
implement leadership practices that are indicative of improved and sustained student
outcomes. Given the adaptive changes, such as a student population that performs in the
lowest quartiles of academic achievement, school violence, poverty, and community
control, all of which urban school leaders confront on a daily basis, intensive support is
paramount to success. Although increasing evidence shows that urban schools leader who
have been well prepared are a critical lever to increase student achievement, a shortage of
rigorous research on their practice exists and little is known about how leadership
practice actually influences student achievement (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982;
Goldring & Pasternack, 1994; Hallinger et al.1996; Supovitz & May, 2003; Supovitz,
Poglinco, & Snyder, 2003), more research is needed.

200
Limitations of the Study
Though these two information-rich case studies have provided useful information
about the phenomenon of improving leadership practice through a well-organized
effective preparation program, many limitations exist. That this study was conducted over
a six-month time period, presented a challenge in substantiating the impact of leader
practice on teacher practice over time. Also, considering the small sample size of
respondents to the teacher interview questions and VAL-ED assessment survey,
determining the degree of leadership practice on teacher practice is difficult. The
combined sample in the two case studies consisted of two principals, two supervisors,
and 79 teachers at two urban schools (only a 16% VAL-ED teacher response rate for
Exposition Way Middle School and a 54% VAL-ED teacher response rate for Exposition
Way Middle School). This small sample size makes it difficult to identify a significant
relationship between changes in leader practice and the leader’s participation in the DPCI
program. Therefore, having a more representative sample, consisting of other urban
leaders and more teachers could have provided greater insight on the impact of leadership
practice on teacher practice over time.
Also, due to the limited timeframe, the opportunity to study the relationship
between the principal and assigned principal coach through an interview of the coach was
unavailable. Perhaps a longer period of study would have yielded additional findings
regarding the impact of support received from the coach on principal practice.
Nevertheless, issues surfaced in this study regarding effective preparation programs
and support structures needed to influence teacher practice. Hence, these data serve as the

201
foundation for critical discourse to match leader preparation programs to the needs of
leaders, teachers, and students. Also caution should be taken as this study reflects
preliminary findings based on year one data of a possible three-year longitudinal study
(funding permitting).

Conclusion to Study

High stakes accountability policy, crucial differences in expectations and
obligations, and the social, political, and economic context distinguish the tasks required
of urban school leaders from those required of leaders in other districts. Researchers view
urban education as the process of teaching and learning that takes place in complex
urban-metropolitan settings typically characterized by broad diversity in race, ethnicity,
gender, class, culture, and language abilities. Urban settings have a mature service-
delivery infrastructure characterized by sociopolitical stratification and unequal access by
citizens to services. The study of urban education involves the critical examination of the
manner in which issues of broad diversity may intersect in complex ways to marginalize
and adversely affect the learning and teaching process for some populations. The
adaptive challenges that confront urban schools are inextricably bound to the social,
economic, and political conditions of the urban environments in which the schools reside
(Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Ill-prepared urban school leaders often fail to address factors in
the larger social context that affects the distribution of equal educational opportunities in
urban schools. These differences call into question the prevailing assumption within the
logic of standards-based reform that the leadership capacity required to accelerate the rate

202
of learning of the lowest performing students is the same across districts (Tyack &
Cuban, 1995).
Although increasing evidence shows that urban school leaders who have been
well prepared are a critical lever to increase student achievement, a shortage of rigorous
research nonetheless exists on their practice and little is known about how leadership
practice actually influences student achievement (Bossert et al., 1982; Goldring &
Pasternack, 1994; Hallinger et al., 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Supovitz & May, 2004;
Supovitz & Poglinco, 2001). Preparing and supporting urban school leaders to
successfully address the adaptive challenges presented by their context and to provide all
students with access to a high-demand, rigorous curriculum that closes achievement gaps
requires a dramatic change in the traditional way in which urban school leaders are
identified, prepared to lead, and supported (Elmore, 2000; Heifetz, 1998).
The Dunkin Independent School District is leading the charge in preparing skilled
school leaders through the DPCI program. As stated by Mr. Anderson, principal of
Exposition Way Middle School School, “Having confidence to effectively run a school is
critical. The DPCI program not only has increased my confidence, but has given me the
necessary skills required to navigate the waters of a successful principal.” The findings in
this study contribute to conversations about preparing and supporting school leaders to
influence teacher practice, building upon the capacity of school leaders by focusing on
what they need to know and be able to do in order to provide the guidance and direction
of sustained instructional improvement leading to higher student achievement. As more
research is conducted around these issues, the findings in this study will inform the field

203
about additional empirical evidence regarding what skills, support structures, and
practices effectively prepare a population of urban school leaders who are able to impact
student practice and student achievement.

204

REFERENCES

Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., Schofield, J.
W., & Stephan, W. G. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for
teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3) 196-
203.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation, New York: Free
Press.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to
critiques. New York: Free Press.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row.

Billings & Gomez, (2001). Just showing up: Supporting early literacy through teachers'
professional communities. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (9), 675-680.

Blackmore, J. (2002). Leadership for socially just schooling: More substance and less
style in high risk, low trust times? Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 198-222.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interaction: Perspective and method. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1992). Images of leadership. Your board’s leadership style
depends on how you see schools. The American School Board Journal, 179(4),
36-39.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role
of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64.

Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative
framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77-108.

Brown, K. M. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a
transformative framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly,
42(5), 700-745.

205
Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1985). An empirical investigation of the school as
community. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Education.

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

Cambron-McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. M. (2005). Education school leaders for social
justice. Educational Policy, 19(1), 201-222.

Capper, C. Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a Framework for Preparing
Leaders for Social Justice. Journal of Educational Administration. Journal of
Educational Administration, 44(3), 209-224.

Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do?
Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. National
Association of Secondary School Principals, NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 221-228.

Clark, B. (1975). The organizational saga in higher education. In J.V. Baldridge and T.E.
Deal (eds.), Managing Change in Educational Organizations (pp. 98-108).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1975.

Clark, J. A. (2006). Social justice, education and schooling: Some philosophical issues.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(3), 272-287.

Cohen (2007). Making change: instruction and it improvement. Phi Delta Kappan. 83(1)
184-185.

Coldren, A. F., & Spillane, J. P. (2007). Making connections to teaching practice: The
role of boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational Policy, 21(2),
369-396.

Copland, M. A., & Blum, D. (2007). Developing district-wide expertise in leaders’
ability to analyze and improve instructional practice. Seattle, WA: Center for
Educational Leadership.

Corwin (1976). Perspectives on organizations: viewpoints for teachers. American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Creswell, J. W. (1994, 2003). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2005) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2
nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Crosby, E. A. (1999). Urban schools: Forced to fail. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(4), 298-303.

206

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

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2005a). Professional development schools. Schools for
developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005b). Professional development schools: Early lessons,
challenge and promise. In Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). Professional development
schools. Schools for developing a profession (pp. 1-27). New York: Teachers
College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary
programs. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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

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

Davis (1976). Teaching strategies for the college classroom. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Westview Press

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

Day (2000). The life and work of teachers [electronic resource] : international
perspectives in changing times. Thousand Oaks, CA: Falmer Press

Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Dittmer, L. (1977). Political culture and political symbolism: Toward a theoretical
synthesis. World Politics, 4, 552-581.

Donaldson, G. A. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose,
and practice. New York and London: Teachers College Press.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: a handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

207

Edelman, M. (1971). Politics as symbolic action. New York: Academic Press.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor, Educational Leadership, 37,
15–24.

Elmore, R. F. (1999). Building a new structure for school leadership. American Educator,
23(4), 6-13.

Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative
for professional development in education. Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker
Institute.

Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. Essays. The Educational Forum, 69(2),
134-142.

Elmore, R. F. (2006). Breaking the cartel. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(7), 517-518.

Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic
change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 159-188.

Evans, R. (1996). The Human side of school change: Reform, resistance and the reallife
problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Freire (1990). Politics and education. UCLA Latin American Center Publications.

Fullan, M. (1991). The best faculty of education in the country: a fable. Submitted to the
Strategic Planning Committee. Faculty of Education, University of Toronto.

Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.

Gewirtz, S. (1998). Conceptualizing social justice in education: Mapping the territory.
Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), 469- 484.

Giles, C. (2008). Capacity building: Sustaining urban secondary schools as resilient self-
renewing organizations in the face of standardized educational reform. Urban
Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 40(2), 137-163.

Goldfarb, K. P., & Grinberg, J. (2002). Leadership for social justice: Authentic
participation in the case of a community center in Caracas, Venezuela. Journal of
School Leadership, 12(2), 157-173.

Goldring, E., & Pasternack, R. (1994). Principals’ coordinating strategies and school
effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 1-15.

208

Hale, E.L., & Moorman, H.N. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national
perspective on policy and program innovations. Institute for educational
Leadership, Washington DC and Illinois Education Research Council,
Edwardsville, IL.

Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to
instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration,
30(3), 35-48.

Hallinger, P. (2001). Leading educational change in East Asian schools. International
Studies in Educational Administration, 29(2), 64-75.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice
of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 33(3), 329-351.

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

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and
student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996) A Critical perspective on teacher participation in urban
schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 45-79.

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

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

Heck, R. H. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a
causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94-125.

Heifetz (1998). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Houle, J. C. (2006). Professional development for urban principals in underperforming
schools. Education & Urban Society, 38(2), 142-159.

209
Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192-212.

Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1994). The nature of man. The Journal of Applied
Corporate Finance, 7, 4-19.

Johnson, J. F., Jr., & Uline, C. L. (2005). Preparing educational leaders to close
achievement gaps. Theory Into Practice, 44(1), 45-52.

Karpinski, C. F., & Lugg, C. (2006). Social justice and educational administration:
mutually exclusive? Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 278-292.

Knapp, M., Copland, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for
school and district leaders. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching Policy.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F., IV. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of
education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68.

Lashway, L. (2003). The mandate to help low-performing schools. Clearinghouse on
educational policy management. Available from
http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest169.html

Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effect on
gains in achievement for early secondary students. American Journal of Education
104(2), 103-147.

Leech, D., & Fulton, C. R. (2008). Faculty perceptions of shared decision making and the
principal's leadership behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district.
Education, 128(4), 630-644.

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

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.

Leithwood (2004). School leadership in the context of accountability policies.
International Journal of Leadership In Education, 4(3), 217-236.

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

Leithwood, K. A., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

210

Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary principal in
program improvement, Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309–339.

Leithwood, K., Riedlinger, B., Bauer, S., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Leadership program
effects on student learning: The case of the Greater New Orleans School
Leadership Center. Journal of School Leadership, 13(6), 707–738.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning. New York: Learning from Leadership
Project Executive Summary.
Levin, B., Gaskell, J., & Pollock, K. (2007). What shapes inner-city education policy?
Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 61, Retrieved from
http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/currentissues.html

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

Lieberman, A., Falk, B., & Alexander, L. (1994). A Culture in the Making: Leadership
in Learner-Centered Schools. In J. Oakes & Karen Hunter Quartz (Eds.), Creating
New Educational Communities: Schools and Classrooms Where All Children Can
Be Smart, the 94th NSSE Yearbook.

Lockwood, A. (2005). Principal leadership for accountability: Optimizing the use of Title
II resources. Retrieved from www.nwrel.org/planning/reports/accountability

Louis, K. S., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4),
757-798.

Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does Professional Community Affect the
Classroom? Teachers' Work and Student Experiences in Restructuring Schools.
American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575.

MacGilchrist, B., Myers, K., & Reed, J. (1997). The intelligent school. London: Paul
Chapman.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen:
Universitesforlaget.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.

211
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J. (2005). A new era of school reform: Going where research takes us.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Training.

Maslow, A. (1943). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.

McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman.

McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley,
M., Gonzalez et al. (2008). From the field: A proposal for educating leaders for
social justice, Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 111-138.

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

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M.
Meyer et al. (eds.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78-109). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Miller (1995). An American imperative : accelerating minority educational advancement.
Harftford, CT: Yale University Press

Miller, R. & Rowan, B. (2006). Effects of organic management on student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 219-253.

Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 176-91.

Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing
concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly,
41(1), 154-191.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: a
research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership &
Management, 27(2), 179-201.

Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. V. (2009). Rebuilding organizational capacity in turnaround
schools: Insights from the corporate, government, and non-profit sectors.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(1), 9-27.

212

Nelson-Barber, S. (1999). A better education for every child: The dilemma for teachers of
culturally and linguistically diverse students. Retrieved from
www.mcrel.org/products/diversity/rt1chapter2.html

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional
capacity. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Nevarez, C., & Wood, J. L. (2007). Developing urban school leaders: Building on
solutions 15 years after the Los Angeles riots. Educational Studies: Journal of the
American Educational Studies Association, 42(3), 266-280.

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. A report to the
public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Alexandria, VA and Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, and the National Association for Secondary School Principals.

Normore, A. H., & Blanco, R. (2006, Fall). Leadership for social justice and morality:
Collaborative partnerships, school-linked services and the plight of the poor.
International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10, Special issue.
Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership-theory and practice (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

North, C. E. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of "social
justice" in education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 507-535.

Ormrod, J. (2006). Educational psychology developing learners. New Jersey: Pearson
Education, Inc.

Orr, T. (2006). Learning the superintendency: Socialization, negotiation, and
determination. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1362-1403.

Orr, M. T., Byrne-Jimenez, M., McFarlane, P., & Brown, B. (2005). Leading out from
low-performing schools: The urban principal experience. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 4(1), 23-54.

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

Patton, M.C. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

213
Pepper, K., & Thomas, L. H. (2002). Making a change: The effects of the leadership role
on school climate. Learning Environments Research, 5(2), 155-66.

Pitner, N.J. (1988). The study of administrator effects and effectiveness. In N. Boyan
(Ed.), Handbook of research in educational administration (pp. 99-122). New
York: Longman.

Pole, P. & Morrison, M. (2003). Ethnography for education. London: Open University
Press.

Portin, B. S., Knapp, M. S., Alejano, C. R., Marzolf, E. (2006). Roles, responsibilities,
and authority of school leaders: Patterns in current research, theory, and
practice. State of the field monograph published by the University of Washington
Center for Teaching and Policy and The Wallace Foundation.

Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1983) Effective schools: a review. Elementary School Journal,
83, 427-452.

Reeves (2005). Planning for diversity: policy and planning in a world of difference.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New
York: Longman.

Rost, J.C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.

Rusch, E. A., & Horsford, S. D. (2008). Unifying messy communities: Learning social
justice in educational leadership classrooms. Teacher Development, 12(4), 353-
367.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Inclusion: A matter of social justice. Educational Leadership,
61(2), 25-29.

Schein, E., Organisational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1985.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results NOW: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements
in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.

214
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.
New York: Currency Doubleday.

Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, XLII(4), 325-44.

Silins, H. C. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional
leadership and school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 5(3), 272-298.

Southern Regional Education Board. (2007). Good principals aren’t born – they’re
mentored: Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need? (Learning-
Centered Leadership Program). Atlanta, GA: Author.

Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: reflections and empirical
evidence. School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 73-91.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.

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

Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Getting principal mentoring right:
Lessons from the field. Atlanta, GA: The Wallace Foundation.

Stefkovich, J., & Begley, P. T. (2007). Ethical school leadership: Defining the best
interests of students. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
35(2), 205-224.

Supovitz, J., & May, H. (2003). The relationship between the implementation of
America’s choice and student learning in Plainfield, New Jersey. The Consortium
for Policy Research in Education.

Supovitz, J., Poglinco, S., & Snyder, B. (2003). Moving mountains: Successes and
challenges of the America's Choice comprehensive school reform design.
Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Suskavcevic, M. & Blake, S. (2004, March 5-7). Changes in pre-service teachers attitudes
toward science. Paper Presented at SUN Conference, El Paso, TX.

215
Suskavcevic, M. & Blake, S. (2004, August 2-4). Procedural and Conceptual
Understanding of Electricity Phenomena by Non-Science Majors. Paper presented
at the American Association of Physics Teachers Conference, Sacramento, CA.

Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1985). A differential analysis of effectiveness in middle
and lower SES schools. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 20(2), 38-44.

Theoharis, G. (2007a). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory
of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-
258.

Theoharis, G. (2007b). Navigating rough waters: A synthesis of the countervailing
pressures against leading for social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 17(1),
4-27.

Theoharis, G. (2008). Woven in deeply: Identity and leadership of urban social justice
principals. Education and Urban Society, 41(1), 3-25.

Thomas, K.T. (2000). Physical education for children : daily lesson plans for elementary
school. London: Open University Press.

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

Webb, P. T., Neumann, M., & Jones, L. C. (2004). Politics, school improvement, and
social justice: A triadic model of teacher leadership. The Educational Forum,
68(3), 254-262.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Education systems as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21,1-19

White, R.W. (1960). Competence and the psychosexual stages of development. In M.R.
Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Seminar on Motivation. Lincoln, University of Nebraska.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1
st
ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.

216
Young, M., Fuller, E., Brewer, C., Carpenter, B., & Mansfield, K. (2007). Quality
Leadership Matters. Austin: University Council for Educational Administration.
Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to
build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 643-670.

217
APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
************************************************************************

Independent School District Principal Coaching Initiative

You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by graduate student
researchers under the supervision of Margaret Reed, Ph.D. (faculty advisor) from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. You have been
invited to volunteer for this study because of your participation in the Independent
School District Principal Coaching Initiative. The results of this study will contribute
to the completion of graduate student dissertations. You must be at least18 years of age to
participate. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you
do not understand before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with your family
or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of participation in the Principal
Coaching Initiative on principals’ ability to adopt and implement research based
leadership practices associated with the Independent School District Principal
Coaching Initiative. Over time, the study anticipates assessing the effects of leadership
practice on teacher practice and student outcomes.

PROCEDURES
All principals and all of their teachers will be asked to take an on-line leadership survey
(approximately 30 minutes) in the fall and spring and to participate as case study schools.
You will be asked to provide researchers with school documents (i.e., school
improvement plan) for review and to participate in a 45 minute interview in fall 2009 and
one follow up interview in spring 2010. A researcher will shadow you for approximately
two hours once in the fall and once in the spring. And finally, please provide us with a
list of your teachers to facilitate the identification of a teacher leader to distribute survey
access codes among teachers and to facilitate the identification of a select group of
teachers (about 6) to participate in similar interview, observation, and survey activities.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

218

There are no substantial risks to you should you decide to participate in this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS/RISKS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY

Your participation in this study will significantly contribute to the field of educational
leadership as it will provide insights about the phenomenon of leadership. With a greater
understanding of how educational leaders lead, the training and preparation of such
leaders can be tailored to better meet the needs of new administrators entering the field.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

There is no monetary compensation for participation. However, all principals will have
access to a copy of the results of their leadership survey. This information can be used to
identify strengths and weaknesses in a leader’s current practice of learning centered
leadership behaviors and to plan future professional development activities. The results
can be interpreted based upon performance levels across the standards based components
and in comparison to the norm group.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

There are no potential conflicts of interest.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as
required by law.

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. All data from interviews will be transcribed. All data from observations,
interviews and document analysis will be stored in a secured data analysis program to
which only the investigator has access. You name and that of the school to which you are
affiliated will not be used in the reporting of research findings. Pseudonyms will be used
to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable information will be included in
this study. The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or
audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be
protected or disguised.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

219
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study. Though
not anticipated, the investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances
arise which warrant doing so.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You
are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research
study. If you have any questions about your rights as a study subject or you would like to speak
with someone independent of the research team to obtain answers to questions about the research,
or in the event the research staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Dr. Margaret
Reed, Faculty Advisor. Margaret Reed: margarcr@usc.edu

EMERGENCY CARE AND COMPENSATION FOR INJURY
If you are injured as a direct result of research procedures not done primarily for your own
benefit, you will receive medical treatment; however, you or your insurance will be responsible
for the cost. The University of Southern California does not provide any other form of
compensation for injury.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been
given a chance to ask questions. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction,
and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

□ I agree to be audio-taped

□ I do not want to be audio-taped

Name of Subject

Signature of Subject Date

220
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.

Name of Investigator

Signature of Investigator Date

221

APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL INVITATION LETTER

September 21, 2009

Dear Principal __________,

The Principal Coaching Initiative is well under way. This initiative is a powerful
leverage for the District to provide research-based structures that hold promise for
building the capacity of principals to meet adaptive challenges that present barriers to
closing achievement gaps, creating quality teaching and learning environments, and
preparing all students with 21
st
century skills.
This letter is a follow up to last week’s orientation, led by my Faculty Advisor, Dr. Reed,
regarding the study. As a case study school participant, your active role in the research
component of the initiative is critical to the advancement of the project. The study will
seek to investigate the efficacy of the coaching model for preparing and supporting
principals to significantly impact leader practice and outcomes for professional practice.
In the upcoming weeks, with your assistance, data will be collected from the following
sources:
• Administration of the VAL ED Survey (to principal, supervisor, and all teachers)
• Observation of the principal leading a professional learning session
• Classroom observations (20-30 minutes with 3 teachers)
• Interviews (30-45 minutes with the principal; and 3 teachers)
• School improvement plan
I will be on your campus on Monday and/or Tuesday, September 28 and 29 to begin the
data collection process. To schedule these data collection opportunities, discuss next
steps, and answer any questions which you might have about participation in the research
component, I will be contacting you by phone no later than Wednesday, September 23.
To facilitate this conversation, please send me, via email, a copy of your agenda for the
September 28 professional learning day. Also, please let me know what might be a good
day and time for me to contact you over the next 2 days (September 22-23).
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation. I look forward to
working with you and your staff on this exciting project.
Sincerely,
Chuck
Flores

USC
Co-‐Investigator,
SPCI

500-‐5000

charleaf@usc.edu

222
APPENDIX C

LETTER OF SUPPORT

223
APPENDIX D

OUTCOMES CHART

Table D1

Outcomes Chart

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

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

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

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

Vision for Learning
A. Developing vision
B. Articulating vision
C. Implementing vision
D. Stewarding vision
Instructional Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Hiring and allocating staff
C. Supporting staff
D. Instructional time
Curricular Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Expectations, standards
C. Opportunity to learn
D. Curriculum alignment
Assessment Program
A. Knowledge and involvement
B. Assessment procedures
C. Monitoring instruction and curriculum
D. Communication and use of data
Communities of Learning
A. Professional development
B. Communities of professional practice
C. Community-anchored schools
Resource Acquisition and Use
A. Acquiring resources
B. Allocating resources
C. Using resources
Organizational Culture
A. Production emphasis
B. Accountability
C. Learning environment
D. Personalized environment
E. Continuous improvement
Social Advocacy
A. Stakeholder engagement
B. Diversity
C. Environmental context
D. Ethics

224
APPENDIX E

PREINTERVENTION PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW

Research Question # 1
How does participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Imitative (SPCI)
program prepare principals for the unique challenges of an urban context?
1. What are your expectations about how SPCI will support you in recognizing
professional practice of teachers addressing the unique challenges of an urban
context?

Research Question # 2
How does participation in Southwest Principal Coaching Imitative (SPCI) program
influence the knowledge and leadership practices of urban school principals?
1. What experiences and training have you had to prepare you for your current
position?

2. How do you see yourself as a leader in an urban school?

3. How does your leadership practice foster or help student learning?

4. How would you define the “gap” at your school? Please describe that gap and
ways in which you and your staff have decided to close the gap.

Research Question # 3
How does an urban school principal create organizational structures (climate) and
processes that promote effective teacher practices and improve student outcomes?
1. What organizational structures have you created or sustained that promote
effective teacher practices and improve student outcomes?

2. Does your school have a school wide vision? How was the school’s vision
developed and who was involved? Describe how it drives the instructional
program? How does it impact decision-making? (Provide examples)

3. How is the school’s vision aligned with the elements of a standards based
instructional program?

4. In what ways is the vision used at your school to achieve equitable student results
5. How often do you observe classroom instruction and how do you provide
feedback?

6. What are the classroom practices that support student learning? How did you
promote these practices? What new instructional strategies/ practices will teachers

225
implement to improve performance of low performing students? To maintain
performance of higher performing students?

7. From your perspective, what are the three most important instructional priorities
at your school and how do they support student achievement and impact teaching
and learning in core content areas?

8. What role does data disaggregated by student subgroup play in your school's
efforts to support student achievement?

9. What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting identified
state standards?

10. How are your teachers given opportunity to discuss core issues of practice?

Research Question # 4
What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
1. What systems are in place to support instruction and insure that the school is a
safe, clean, and orderly environment that is conducive to learning?

2. What are the roles of AP’s, Coaches, Coordinators and other staff?

3. How would you characterize the relationship between administrators and teachers
at this school – collaborative, competitive?

4. What resources, whether inside or outside the school, have been most important?

5. In what ways is your work supported at this school?

6. Where and to whom can you go if you need to try out an idea before moving
forward? Has this strategy worked for you in the past? If so why? If not, why
not?

7. What additional support do you need to realize results and achieve the goals of
your school wide vision?

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

226
[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about that
is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for their
cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it is done
and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.

227

APPENDIX F

POSTINTERVENTION PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Research Question # 1
How does participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI)
program prepare principals for the unique challenges of an urban context?
1. What have you learned about providing ongoing Professional Development to
teachers and staff?

2. What challenges does your school continue to face in spite of participation in
SPCI?

Research Question # 2
How does participation in the Southwest Principal Coaching Initiative (SPCI)
program influence the knowledge and leadership practices of urban school
principals?
1. How has participation in the SPCI program influenced your knowledge and
leadership practices as an urban school principal?

2. Now that you have completed your coursework for this year, how has your
perception of leadership changed?

3. How does your leadership practice foster or help student learning?

4. What makes you school vision achievable and worth fighting for?

5. How do you ensure that the vision and its goals get implemented?

6. What evidence will you look for that improvement has occurred?

Research Question # 3
How does an urban school principal create organizational structures (climate) and
processes that promote effective teacher practices and improve student outcomes?
1. How has SPCI supported you in recognizing effective practice of teachers?

2. How has what you learned from the SPCI increased your ability to support
student learning?

3. How was the school’s vision developed and how does it drive the instructional
program? How does it impact decision-making? (Provide examples)

228
4. How often do you observe classroom instruction and how do you provide
feedback?

5. What are the classroom practices that support student learning? How did you
promote these practices?

6. From your perspective, what are the three most important things your school does
to support student achievement?

7. What instructional or curricular priorities have been most important?

8. What role does data disaggregated by student subgroup play in your school's
efforts to support student achievement?

Research Question # 4
What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
1. What systems are in place to support instruction? What are the roles of AP’s,
Coaches, Coordinators and other staff?

2. What systems are in place to ensure that the school is a safe, clean, and orderly
environment that is conducive to learning?

3. How would you characterize the relationship between administrators and teachers
at this school – collaborative, competitive?

4. What resources, whether inside or outside the school, have been most important?

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

[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about that
is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for their
cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it is done
and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.]

229
APPENDIX G

PREINTERVENTION TEACHER INTERVIEW

1. What is the school’s vision and how has it been communicated to the staff?

2. How is teaching and learning supported in your school?

3. What are the instructional priorities at your school? How do they impact teaching
and learning in your content areas?

4. How were these priorities determined?

5. Tell us about the Professional Development opportunities you’ve had.

6. How has PD impacted your instructional practice?

7. In what areas is your school focusing its improvement efforts for this year? Why?
Could you describe them for me?

8. Are all teachers working on these improvement areas? In what ways?

9. How often do administrator(s) visit your classroom? What kinds of feedback do
you receive?

10. How are teachers held accountable for implementing the improvement strategies?

11. How do you use data to improve teaching and learning?

12. What opportunities exist for you and other teachers to work in collaboration
around issues of practice?

13. How has collaboration impacted your instructional practice?

14. How often do come together and how do you spend your time?

15. How do you encourage parents to participate in their children’s learning process?

16. Is the school a safe, clean, and orderly place that is conducive to learning?

[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about that
is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for their

230
cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it is done
and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.]

231
APPENDIX H

POSTINTERVENTION TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

(Questions are created in alignment with the knowledge and dispositions of the ISLLC
standards as defined by the New Teacher Center at University of California Santa Cruz)

1. How do you think the coaching has influenced the principal’s practice?

2. How has it impacted your teaching?

3. What support does your principal have in identifying and implementing the
school improvement initiatives?

4. What has the principal done to promote the success of all students within the
larger cultural context?
• How has the principal communicated the school’s vision?
• What are some of the high expectations that your principal has
communicated to you and the faculty?
• How does your principal ensure continuous school improvement?
• How does your principal provide feedback with regard to meeting school
goals?

5. How has your principal encouraged growth for students?
• How have you been supported in providing high quality, rigorous
instruction?
• What new teaching strategies have you incorporated into daily lessons?
• What kinds of learning opportunities have you been provided with?
• How does the principal provide you with the support that you need to
ensure that your classroom teaching and learning activities meet the needs
of all students?

6. Which students/groups at your school are having the most success demonstrating
proficiency on school-wide measures? Why? Which students/groups at your
school are having the greatest difficulty demonstrating proficiency on school-
wide measures? Why?
• What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting
identified state standards?

7. From your perspective, is this working? Is so, why? If not, why not? What
evidence can you cite in support of your answer?

8. What are the organizational structures that your principal has in place that
promote a safe and efficient learning environment?

232
• How do you bring concerns in this area to your school leader?
• Do you feel you are included in high stakes decision-making and in what
ways?
• In what ways are families and the community incorporated into the
decision-making to ensure student success?

9. How have resources been distributed to facilitate achievement of the improvement
goals? Do you believe that these resources are sufficient to achieve the goals?
Why? Or Why not?

10. Does the school culture respect diversity?
• How is the value of education promoted as an opportunity for social
mobility?
• How is diversity celebrated at your school?

11. How are you held accountable for this work?

12. What evidence will you look for that improvement has occurred?

[Concluding Remarks/Questions: Is there anything else that we haven't talked about that
is important for us to know about your school or your students? Thank them for their
cooperation and time. Inform them that I will share the study with them once it is done
and that I might need to contact them for follow-ups.]

233
APPENDIX I

PRE/POST INTERVENTION OBSERVATION PROTOCOLS

Pre: _____ Post:_____
Focus
Research Question #3 ~ How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
Setting People
Type of Meeting:

Location of Meeting:

Duration of Meeting:

Frequency of Meeting:

Who attends the meeting? (e. g.,
certificated only, certificated & classified,
students, parents, etc.)

Who facilitates the meeting? (Principal,
assistant principal, facilitator, department
head, etc.)

Is there a particular committee, department,
group, or person that has specific
responsibilities, or reports out during every
meeting? Explain

Routines/Procedures Content/Focus
What seems to be some of the normal
procedures? (e. g., sign-in sheets,
announcements, celebrations, review of
minutes or agendas, seating arrangement,
etc.)

What are the goals of the meeting? Circle
all that apply

• Professional development/training
• Sit and get of information
• Collaboration among department or
grade level
• Combination of the above
• Other __________________

What is the focus of the meeting? Circle all
that apply.

• Curriculum and Instruction
• Analyzing Data
• District & Site Announcements
• Facilities and Management
• Discipline/Students
• Student Grades
• District Problems/Complaints
• Variety of Information
• Other ___________________
Who seems to be responsible for preparing
the content/focus of the meeting?
Nonverbal Communication Additional Comments & Questions
What is the tone and attitude of the

234
participants? Circle all that apply

• Engaged/Interactive/Ask questions
• Complaining (Length of meeting,
students, parents, school issues, etc.)
• Off-task behaviors/comments/questions
• Uncooperative/rude/disruptive
• Leaves early
• Other _______________________

What outside factors or school issues seem
interfere with the goal of the meeting?

235
APPENDIX J

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOLS--

DEPARTMENT CURRICULUM MAPS

Research Questions:
1. How does participation in the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership (PIL) program
prepare principals for the unique challenges of the urban context?
2. How does PIL influence the knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices of urban
school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improved student
outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?

 Unit Focus & Title

 Unit Objectives

 Essential Questions

 Standards Met

 Texts & Other Sources

 Evidence of
differentiated
instruction/strategies

 Formative Assessments

 Summative Assessments

236
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOLS (CONTINUED)

Meeting Agendas and Minutes
 Type of Meeting
(Faculty, Dept., PLC,
SLC, Grade Level,
Special Program, Etc.)
& Date

 Attendance

 Facilitator

 Focus Areas of Meeting

 Decisions made
regarding or impacting
teacher instruction and
practices

 Decisions made
regarding or impacting
student access and
achievement

 Decisions made
regarding or impacting
the school’s
organizational structures

 Decisions made
regarding or impacting
the school’s
stakeholders (parents,
district level personnel,
community, students,
etc)

237
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOLS (CONTINUED)

Single Plan for Student Achievement
Comprehensive
Needs Assessment

 API Data

 AYP Data

 Standardized
test data

 AMAO’s

 District
Assessments

 Other Findings

 Achievement
Goals for
Students
Reading/Writing:

Math:

Plan for Student
Achievement

 Measures 1 - 6

238
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOLS (CONTINUED)

WASC Document Analysis Protocol
Chapter 1: School Profile

Chapter 2: Analysis of
Data

Chapter 3: Progress
Report

Chapter 4: Organization

Chapter 4: Curriculum

Chapter 4: Instruction

Chapter 4: Assessment &
Accountability

Chapter 4: Climate and
Culture

Chapter 5: Action Plan

239
APPENDIX K

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

____pre ____post

Research Question #3: How does an urban school principal create (and sustain)
organizational structures (climate) and processes that promote effective teacher practices
and improve student outcomes?

1. Content: According to the teacher, the purpose of this lesson was. What is the
activity being observed? Who are the participants?

2. Strategies: How are the participants being observed
learning/participating/applying skills, knowledge and concepts? What are they
doing?

3. Alignment: Design of the lesson was reflective of best practices and consistent
with the Professional Development training that staff has received. The
instructional strategies and activities reflected attention to issues of access, equity,
and diversity for students.

240
APPENDIX L

FALL VAL-ED RESULTS:

UNIVERSITY PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248
APPENDIX M

FALL VAL-ED RESULTS: EXPOSITION WAY MIDDLE SCHOOL

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256
APPENDIX N

SPRING VAL-ED RESULTS: EXPOSITION WAY MIDDLE SCHOOL

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Achieving higher levels of learning for all children has become the 21st century educational challenge across the nation. Substantial evidence exists that principals can have a profound effect on the learning climate, educational programs, and professional norms of practice in schools

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school

PDF

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

PDF

Building capacity for leadership in urban schools

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools

PDF

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

PDF

Factors that may lead to an urban high school‘s outperforming status: a case study of an institution‘s achievement in the age of accountability

PDF

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

PDF

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

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

PDF

In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school

PDF

Factors contributing to the high performance of an urban high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Hert, Christopher J. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/22/2010

Defense Date 04/08/2010

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

Tag capacity building,Education,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,support, VAL-ED,urban schools

Place Name Dallas (city or populated place), Texas (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Reed, Margaret (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Creator Email chert@cvusd.k12.ca.us,hert@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3208

Unique identifier UC1318446

Identifier etd-Hert-3884 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-358917 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3208 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hert-3884.pdf

Dmrecord 358917

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hert, Christopher J.

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