University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents

(USC Thesis Other)

Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SUSTAINING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: SIX SIGMA STRATEGIES AND
SUCCESSFUL URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS

by

Alejandro J. Rojas

______________________________________________________________

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

May 2008

Copyright 2008 Alejandro J. Rojas

ii
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this work to those who have worked to make me a
better person, student, educator, husband and friend. To my late father, a long time
USC fan, who would have been extremely proud of his son. To my mother for her
resiliency and commitment to her children which has helped me overcome
tremendous obstacles. Para mis suegros Sr. y Sra. Prado por su apoyo y por
aceptarme como su hijo. Mil gracias! To my teachers who pushed me to do better
and recognized my potential despite my circumstances and behavior; more
specifically, Mrs. Heal, Mr. Moore, Mr. Jiru, Ms. Smith, and Coach Olmedo. To my
cousin Jeff Mora, “I did it king”. To my colleagues and mentors from HLPUSD who
made me a better teacher and administrator by sharing their knowledge of instruction
with me. To my son Gabriel and my daughter Tatiana for inspiring me everyday and
giving me the best years of my life (your daddy loves you very much). To my wife
Cristina who is my hero for the love she has for her family, the wonderful mother she
is to our children, the passion we share for teaching, the courage she has to stand up
for what is right, the strength to make it through the toughest of times, her kindness,
her unwavering faith and for making all my success in life possible. Finally, I would
like to dedicate this work to all of those who have taken the road less traveled
because in the end it has made all the difference.

iii
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee members for their
support and assistance. Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, Dr. Dominic
Brewer and Dr. Edward Vargas have been both mentors and teachers to me. I would
also like to acknowledge all of my Professors in the doctoral program who shared
their knowledge and experience with me. More specifically I would like to thank Dr.
Adrianna Kezar, Dr. Donahue Tuitt and Dr. Robert Rueda for having a significant
influence on my development as an educator and administrator. I would also like to
thank both Dr. Gabriella Mafi and Dr. Kathy Stowe for their leadership and support
of the doctoral program. I would also like to recognize the efforts of my editor
Shantanu Duttaahmed, Ph.D. for his coaching and willingness to work with me
because without his support and direction I could not have finished this project.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the members of the Trojan family who have
helped me along this journey both directly or indirectly. I hope to continue the
tradition of excellence and represent our alma mater well. Fight On!

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ……………………………………………………………….. ii
Acknowledgments …………..…………………………………………… iii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………….. v
Abstract ………………………………………………………………….. vi
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study ……………………………………….. 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review ……………………………………………. 24

Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………… 52

Chapter 4: Findings …………………………………………………….. 63

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions and Implications ………………….. 104

References ……………………………………………………………… 118
Appendices …………………………………………………………….. 124

v
List of Tables
Table 1. District Demographic and Achievement Data …………………….. 65

Table 2. Strategies Survey: Superintendent Responses …………………….. 68

vi
Abstract
Increased accountability from state and federal governments as well as
increased quality demands of the public has forced many urban school district
superintendents to re-think what it means to be successful and how it is they measure
academic success. Increased pressure from the corporate sector has lead many
superintendents to borrow practices from high performing corporations and
successful business leaders in an effort to raise the effectiveness of their school
districts in raising student achievement. Many school district administrators are
reading books like The World is Flat, Good to Great and the work of Peter Senge on
creating learning organizations. We also see the influence of quality improvement
strategies like TQM and the Malcolm Baldridge Award for Quality in school districts
as they use data to drive decision making and monitor the effectiveness of their
instructional programs.
More specifically this study will identify opportunities for urban school
district superintendents to implement Six Sigma in their districts as a means to
improve and sustain student achievement. Six Sigma is a comprehensive and
flexible system for achieving, sustaining and maximizing success. Six Sigma is
driven by a close understanding of customer (student) needs, disciplined use of facts,
data and statistical analysis, and diligent attention to managing, improving and
reinventing processes.

vii
The study participants are successful school district superintendents from
various regions throughout the United States. They all serve or served large urban
school districts and were able to increase student achievement in English and
mathematics for all students. By using a survey and follow up interviews the study
found there is significant similarities between the strategies of successful
superintendents and Six Sigma; furthermore, that potential exists for Six Sigma (if
fully implemented) to assist superintendents in raising and sustaining improved
student achievement.

1
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
Introduction
The skills and knowledge needed to implement wide scale school reform,
once considered to be the province of very specialized qualities, is now a minimum
job expectation for all urban, school district superintendents. For example, in the not
too distant past, urban school district superintendents were considered successful if
they had been fiscally responsible and managed their districts effectively; however,
today, the expectations for successful superintendents are much higher.
Superintendents are now required to manage their school system as well as provide
instructional leadership and raise student achievement for all students. Much of this
increased focus on school reform for urban school district superintendents is due to
policy makers who have not been afraid to impose significant mandates on urban
school districts (Lashway, 2000). “In 21
st
century America, however, especially in
big cities, the stakes have been raised dramatically. Competent management is taken
for granted…Today’s education discussion revolves around a commitment to all
children learning to high standards” (Campbell, Celio, Fuller, Harvey, Immerwahr
and Winger, 2003, p. 7). Tough accountability demands and correspondingly high
stakes testing requirements have forced many superintendents to implement
instructional changes across entire school systems.
According to Campbell, et al. (2003) a survey of superintendents from the
nations largest school districts reported the following:

2
…superintendents believed the structure of the position prevents them from
fulfilling the demands of the job, local school dynamics are driven by
employment demands not instructional needs, they do not control their own
agendas, they are overwhelmed by internal competing power centers, student
performance is increasing but the achievement gap remains, they need to be
freed from current restraints, district governance needs to be reshaped and
crisis empowers their leadership and ability to make change.

This survey involved superintendents from 100 of the nation’s largest urban
school districts and included interviews with superintendents from 40 large districts.
The survey also reported that urban superintendents felt outside forces, like state and
federal accountability requirements, can serve as a catalyst for change because they
felt that the increased pressure creates a unity of purpose (Campbell, et al. 2003).
Title I accountability standards for students on free or reduced lunch, Annual Yearly
Progress (AYP) requirements for all students as articulated in No Child Left Behind
(2001), and the sanctions for long term under-performance create a sense of urgency
for urban school districts and their superintendents.
Research on the role of large urban school district’s central offices found that
they were instructionally effective if the central office had an established
instructional and curricular focus, had consistent and coordinated instructional
activities, and strong instructional leadership from the superintendent (Mac Iver and
Farley, 2003). Districts that were able to raise the academic achievement for all
students as well as close the achievement gap between White students and students
of color also had the following qualities in common: a shared focus (agreed upon
priorities) among the school board members, superintendent and community leaders
on student achievement; developed instructional coherence between standards,

3
instructional frameworks and professional development; and utilized data-driven
decision making (Mac Iver and Farley, 2003).
Marzano and Waters (2006) found that effective superintendents could
influence improved student achievement if they:
- focus their efforts on creating goal oriented districts
- utilize collaborative goal-setting (include all relevant stakeholders, including
central office staff, building-level administrators, and board members)
- ensure that the collaborative goal-setting process results in nonnegotiable
goals (student achievement and classroom instruction)
- set specific achievement targets for schools and students and then monitor the
consistent use of research-based instructional strategies in all classrooms to
reach those targets
- ensure the local board of education is supportive of the non-negotiable goals
for achievement and instruction
- monitor district progress toward achievement and instructional goals and
- allocate the necessary resources to accomplish the district’s goals.
There is sufficient research to support the idea that a superintendent should
develop a comprehensive commitment to improving instruction across the entire
school district, make data driven decisions, monitor instruction and develop a shared
vision in order to facilitate increased student achievement (Marzano and Waters,
2006). There are examples of successful superintendents who have been able to
raise student achievement through the use of effective student data management and

4
data-driven decision making (Bryk, Burney, Fruchter and Simmons, 2006).
However, even with the success stories, the primary challenge that remains for urban
school districts and the superintendents who lead them is to develop a strategy or
strategies that would create an environment for sustained improvements in student
performance. Thus our goal should be to ensure that success is sustained over the
long term as state and federal accountability standards increase aggressively through
2014.
An example of successful comprehensive instructional leadership, which
resulted in sustained improvements in student achievement, is the Boston Public
Schools. In 1996, the Boston Public Schools superintendent Thomas Payzant
implemented a plan called Focus On Children, which outlined a comprehensive five
year district wide reform initiative designed to increase student achievement and
reduce the achievement gap. Payzant’s five year plan called for: Establishing a
curriculum that gives students and teachers access to rigorous content, creating
expectations about instructional practices through a pedagogical approach, providing
extensive support for teachers through a coherent professional development strategy
designed to help them improve their instructional practice, and developing and using
assessments that serve two purposes: formative and summative.
Payzant’s biggest accomplishment may have been his ability to extend his
vision for successful schools across the entire school district, which served to
maintain a district wide focus on foster ownership for the instructional reform (Bryk
et al., 2006). Looking beyond the broad strategies used by Payzant to develop a

5
shared vision among all stakeholders there were specific strategies he used to ensure
that the integrity of the reforms were protected. Two specific strategies that Payzant
used were the use of regular assessments to measure student progress and the use of
on-site coaches to ensure teachers were adequately supported inside the classroom
(Bryk et al., 2006).
Many of the reform efforts undertaken by urban school district
superintendents like Thomas Payzant rely on the evaluation and use of performance
data to drive improvement initiatives for their instructional delivery systems. This
has been common practice in the business sector, and there are many examples in the
corporate world of companies adopting quality assurance programs to improve the
quality of their products, services, and profits. Many of these quality assurance
programs rely on performance data to drive organizational change and improvement.
Programs like Total Quality Management (TQM), ISO 9000, and Six Sigma have
been successful in improving performance and quality for many large multi-national
corporations like General Electric, Xerox, Sony and Federal Express to name a few
(Cavanagh, Neuman & Pande, 2000). It is no surprise that large urban school
districts have adopted elements of these quality assurance programs with very
positive results in improved student achievement through the use of performance
data analysis and data driven decision making.
In the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), under the leadership of
Superintendent Roy Romer and Deputy Superintendent Dr. Maria Ott, the district’s
elementary school’s API scores increased 135 points—double the rate of increase for

6
the rest of the elementary schools in California. In an interview Roy Romer
explained the use of data to drive instruction in LAUSD, “students are tested every
six weeks in decoding, vocabulary, spelling, grammar and other areas. The results
are put online and are used to direct instruction for the following six weeks, after
which students are tested again” (Hanson, 2003, p. 1). In addition, Romer credited
the increase in scores across the district to the use of over 850 curricular coaches
used to train new teachers as part of the district’s induction program (Hanson, 2003).
A report from LAUSD also found that teachers who participated in their
formal induction programs were more committed to the profession, felt more
confident, had an increased self efficacy and feel confident working with colleagues
(Thomas and Newton, 2001). Additionally, Thomas and Newton (2001) reported
that teachers who participated in the induction program were well prepared to meet
the needs of students and where more successful in raising student achievement
(after adjusting for poverty and ethnicity) than teachers who did not participate in a
beginning teacher support program.
Similar success in using student performance data analysis to influence
instructional improvements occurred in Texas. Hector Montenegro, Superintendent
of the Ysleta Independent School District has been able to improve student
performance at very high levels. Ysleta is one of Texas’ largest school districts and
is a high-poverty and high-ethnic minority district; however, the district improved
the number of schools rated as Recognized (distinguished) or Exemplary from one to
44 over a four year period (Center for the Public Priorities, 1998). At the 2007

7
Texas Association of School Administrators Mid-winter conference Superintendent
Hector Montenegro laid out Ysleta’s plan for student achievement. This plan, in
addition to having a shared vision and non-negotiable achievement for all students,
highlights the use of student performance data. The data is used to provide teachers
and administrators with critical performance information necessary to gauge progress
towards student achievement goals. Further supporting the conclusion of educational
research, which confirms that improved instructional delivery and curriculum
monitoring can have a positive impact on student achievement.
There is plenty of evidence that close monitoring of an instructional program
and coaching support for classroom instruction produces positive student
achievement. But how much of the increase can be attributed to increased
instructional supervision instead of instructional leadership? The “Hawthorne
Effect” is a term used by researchers to explain changes in performance of a
particular study group due to nothing more than the subjects being aware they are
being observed (Merrett, 2006). For example, a teacher knows she is going to be
observed over a period of three days by her principal to test the effectiveness of a
reading intervention program and she tells her students the principal will be coming
in to observe the class. The teacher designs three really powerful and differentiated
reading lessons that produce measureable increased reading performance outputs for
all of her students, which may result in the principal concluding the reading
intervention program must be effective and may decide to expand its use throughout
the school site.

8
The Hawthorne Effect would offer the explanation that the increased outputs
were a result of the principal’s presence in the room, which raised the performance
levels of the teacher and the students because someone in authority was observing
them and they responded by working harder; therefore, the improved achievement
had little to do with the new reading program’s effectiveness as an intervention and
had more to do with increased productivity due to the presence of the principal in the
room during the observation.
Critics of school reform could argue the use of curriculum coaches and
student performance data used as tools of observation, or accountability, produce
results because teachers know their principal and district office administration are
monitoring student performance data and so teachers respond by working harder to
ensure more students are successful. Critics could try to attribute successful urban
school superintendents as benefiting from large scale Hawthorne Effects and argue
that if districts paid teachers higher salaries, teachers would work to produce similar
results without all of the instructional supervision and accountability. This paper
will not consider increased salary or benefits as a strategy for superintendents to
improve and sustain student performance.
In the absence of higher salaries there is sufficient research to document
positive correlations between superintendent behaviors and increased student
achievement results such as: setting district goals, developing a shared vision,
allocating resources in support of student goals, monitoring instruction and ensuring
support for professional development (Marzano and Waters, 2006). As state and

9
federal governments increase accountability measures, urban school district
superintendents need to establish effective instructional improvement systems
designed to increase and sustain student performance to meet the higher
accountability targets for all students. This increased accountability requires urban
school district superintendents to develop tools and strategies that facilitate
transformational leadership across entire school systems. Data driven performance
improvement processes like Six Sigma used by some school districts may be able to
provide performance improvement solutions for urban school district
superintendents.
If urban school district superintendents are going to meet the needs of all
students they will have to begin by restructuring the way in which their organizations
learn. According to Peter Senge, “[a] learning organization is an organization in
which people at all levels are, collectively, continually enhancing their capacity to
create things they really want to create” (O Neil, 1995, p. 20). Traditionally schools
were not designed to learn from their outputs; instead, they were set up as producers
of data with little or no analysis, or consumption, of their performance data. The
effectiveness of instructional practices or explanations for why students of color
performed at lower levels than White students were left to social scientists and
psychologists to understand, support and explain. However, increased accountability
from state and federal governments as well as increased quality demands have forced
public schools to become consumers of their own performance data.

10
With the increased demands on urban school district superintendents to
improve student achievement for all students, create a data driven learning
organization, and maximize very limited fiscal resources any new reform efforts
must go beyond the traditional instructional change initiatives, which focus mainly
on curriculum adoption, use and professional development for teachers. Instead
superintendents need a comprehensive system that reaches every level and
department of their organization. Future reform efforts must be far reaching and
change the culture of large school districts. Successful superintendents will be those
who can influence the culture and practices inside and outside of the classroom.
Future educational leaders will have to implement widespread performance
improvement systems that can be used to improve instructional quality, business
services, facilities, transportation services and other district operations. By creating
high performing organizations school district superintendents will maximize their
fiscal and human resources thereby providing more support for the increased
educational needs of an increasingly diverse student population.
According to Cavanagh, Neuman, and Pande (2000), Six Sigma is used by
organizations as an effort to change the culture of an organization, and designed to
improve profitability and competitiveness; moreover, Six Sigma uses a
comprehensive and flexible system to achieve, sustain and maximize success that
many other quality assurance programs were unable to do over the long term. Many
of the elements of Six Sigma are evident in successful urban school districts;
however, they are done in isolation or piecemeal. This is evidenced by the

11
characteristics of successful schools and school districts who have adopted data
driven decision making models and other student data performance analysis practices
to raise student achievement. Where these educational reform models fall short is in
their inability to sustain student achievement and influence the entire school district
as an organization. Six Sigma is data driven and goal oriented organizational reform
system that can assist urban school district superintendents in improving and
sustaining student achievement and simultaneously leverage their human and fiscal
resources, which will increase the support available to them to meet current and
future student achievement benchmarks.
Statement of the Problem
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s report A
Nation at Risk warned that U.S. public schools were in danger of falling behind the
rest of the world jeopardizing our political, social and economic future (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). More recently No Child Left
Behind (2001) increased accountability for public schools. No Child Left Behind
(2001) imposes financial sanctions on schools and school districts that are not able to
meet the needs of all students including significant sub-groups like ethnic minority
students, students with disabilities and language minority students. This increased
pressure to improve student achievement has forced urban school district
superintendents to look for alternative school models, which facilitate improved
instructional delivery and increase student achievement.

12
Many schools and districts have experimented with several models for
improving student achievement: shared decision making, small learning communities
and data driven decision making to name a few. According to Schmoker (2004),
schools and districts across the country have been able to produce improved student
performance using the strength of goal oriented teams. There are numerous
examples of high achieving schools in poverty areas using similar team structures to
increase student performance results; however, these schools lack an ongoing plan to
sustain their success over the long term. Although the Boston Public Schools have
accomplished a lot over ten years their achievement scores for students of color have
reached a plateau and their next challenge is to develop an action plan to meet the
needs of their students for the next ten years (Bryk et al., 2006).
Many successful superintendents have borrowed heavily from performance
improvement models like Six Sigma, but there is minimal evidence that any one
school district has adopted a comprehensive district-wide system for maximizing
student performance and organizational competitiveness. In fact, many educational
reform efforts stop at the school site and rarely influence the way an entire school
system can be leveraged to raise and sustain student achievement. Six Sigma
provides possible answers to the following questions facing many urban school
district superintendents: How does an urban school district superintendent re-
organize a district and its schools in a manner that facilitates organizational learning?
What about an ongoing improvement process designed to maintain instructional
improvement and sustain improved student achievement? What are the steps needed

13
for superintendents to sustain instructional change and improvement? What
strategies do successful superintendents use to control for variation in student
achievement? Is there a proven process for developing an ongoing commitment to
sustained performance improvement?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to examine how successful urban school district
superintendents have used elements of a continuous improvement processes known
as Six Sigma to achieve their improved student achievement results. More
specifically this study will identify opportunities for urban school district
superintendents to implement Six Sigma in their districts as a means to improve and
sustain student achievement. Six Sigma is a comprehensive and flexible system for
achieving, sustaining and maximizing success. Six Sigma is driven by a close
understanding of customer (student) needs, disciplined use of facts, data, and
statistical analysis, and diligent attention to managing, improving and reinventing
processes (Cavanagh, et al., 2000). This focus will review the literature on strategies
used by successful superintendents to raise student achievement and consider the
future challenge for urban school district superintendents’ to sustain student
achievement as accountability requirements increase aggressively annually through
the year 2014. The author will apply the Six Sigma Model as a rubric to identify
how successful superintendents have used elements of Six Sigma to improve student
achievement. The study will also identify how Six Sigma can be used in the future
to sustain increased student performance.

14
Research Questions
The research questions in this study were developed as a result of an analysis
of research on successful urban school district superintendents who raised student
achievement in reading and/or mathematics. Of particular interest to this study is to
evaluate the strategies used by the superintendents to improve student achievement
and identify how the application of Six Sigma strategies can sustain improved
student achievement.
1. Which Six Sigma improvement processes were evident in the
superintendents’ strategies to increase student achievement?
2. Do the benefits of using Six Sigma support the superintendents’
organizational goals for performance improvement?
3. Which Six Sigma organizational core competencies align with what the
superintendents’ believe are best practices for successful school districts?
Importance of the Study
The importance of the study is to provide urban school district
superintendents with an ongoing performance improvement tool to sustain improved
student achievement using a systematic approach. This study will provide
considerations for the use of Six Sigma as a means for sustained continuous
performance improvement in an effort to meet the increasing demands of high
accountability with an increased focus on overall educational quality and a reduction
in the achievement gap.

15
This study will provide urban school district superintendents with Six Sigma
practices that can be used to recreate their districts into learning organizations. The
Six Sigma performance improvement process can be used by superintendents to meet
the increasing accountability benchmarks set forth by No Child Left Behind (2001)
to meet the needs of all students including significant sub-groups by reducing the
variation of educational performance outcomes among all students.
This paper will also be useful in guiding policymakers to ensure they are
allocating resources and adopting policies that support an ongoing performance
improvement process like Six Sigma. In addition, policy makers will benefit from
re-considering current policy in an attempt to identify which policies and funding
practices are currently hindering the implementation of a Six Sigma performance
improvement process in urban school districts.
The Six Sigma tools can be utilized by school site administrators currently
organized into small learning communities or considering how to implement
systemic school wide change without incurring significant expenses to do so. The
Six Sigma system relies on the use of clear goals, data and teams in order to be
effective; therefore, principals and their leadership teams can use the information
provided in this paper to consider possible implementation of Six Sigma practices at
their school site.
The results of this study should provide urban school district superintendents
with an understanding of the Six Sigma process for continuous improvement.
Furthermore, the results will identify the elements of Six Sigma used by successful

16
urban school district superintendents to improve student achievement for all students
including all significant sub-groups. In addition, this study will identify
opportunities for public schools to utilize Six Sigma, a proven performance
improvement practice model from business, as a means of reducing the achievement
gap and meeting the high accountability benchmarks set forth in state and federal
policies.
Limitations
For this study the following limitations are known to exist:
1. Five superintendents were solicited for participation in this study.
2. The five superintendents lead large urban school districts.
3. The five superintendents represented three geographic areas of the United
States: Boston, MA; Los Angeles, CA; Houston, TX; Las Vegas, NV; and
Ysleta, TX and the findings may not be generalizable to areas outside of
these major cities or regions.
4. Findings can be generalizable to districts of the same size and demographic
representations.
5. The data collection method was based upon analysis of a survey and open
ended interviews with the five superintendents. The results may be
subjective.
Delimitations
Delimitations were used to narrow the focus of this study:

17
1. Superintendents selected for this study are current or former superintendents in
large urban public school districts.
2. Superintendents selected for this study were able to raise the performance
levels of students in their districts in one or more subject matter areas and/or
at specific grade levels (elementary or secondary) as measured by their
respective state performance index.
3. Superintendents selected for this study lead districts with more than 30,000
students.
4. Behaviors of superintendents and the perceptions of their behaviors were
studied and the findings may not be representative of other superintendents.
Assumptions
For this study it was assumed:
1. The chosen procedures and methods were appropriate.
2. Superintendents provided honest and candid responses to all survey and/or
interview questions.
3. The notes were taken accurately.
4. The notes were accurately stated or reflected in the study and were an accurate
reflection of the interviewee.
5. A qualitative case study of selected superintendents would provide useful data
and the analysis of the data would provide useful information for all
educators.

18
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API): A number summarizing the performance of a
group of students, a school, or a district on California’s standardized tests. A
school’s number (or API score) is used to rank it among schools of the same type
and among the 100 schools of the same type that are most similar in terms of
students served, teacher qualifications, and other factors.
Accountability: The notion that people or an organization should be held
responsible for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or
sanctioned for their success or lack of success in doing so.
Achievement Gap: A consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between certain groups of children and children in other groups. The data
documents a strong association between poverty and students’ lack of academic
success as measured by achievement tests. And while poverty is not unique to any
ethnicity, it does exist in disproportionate rates among African Americans and
Latinos. The reasons for the achievement gap are multifaceted. They do to some
degree stem from factors the children bring with them to school; however, other
factors contribute to the gap stem from students’ school experiences.
Achievement Test: A test to measure a student’s knowledge and skills.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Adequate Yearly Progress is a set of annual
academic performance benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and
subpopulations of students are supposed to achieve if the state receives funding
under Title I, Part A of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

19
Alignment: The degree to which assessments, curriculum, instruction, textbooks and
other instructional materials, teacher preparation and professional development, and
systems of accountability all reflect and reinforce the educational program’s
objective and standards.
Assessment: Another name for a test. An assessment can also be a system for
testing and evaluating students, groups of students, schools or districts.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA): A program
established with the enactment of Senate Bill 1422 in 1992. The purpose of BTSA is
to implement a cost-effective model for new teacher development in order to
transform academic preparation into practical success in the classroom and to retain
greater numbers of capable beginning teachers.
Benchmark: A detailed description of a specific level of student achievement
expected of students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels.
California Standards Test: Tests that are a part of the Standards Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program and are based on the state’s academic content standards.
Categorical Aid/Categorical Programs: Funds from the state or federal
government granted to qualifying schools or districts for specific children with
special needs.
Core Academic Standards: The basic academic standards that are assessed in the
statewide testing system for K-12 public schools.
Corrective Action (Sanctions): A plan to improve low-performing schools. Under
the federal No Child Left Behind Act, when a school or school district does not make

20
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the state will place it under a corrective action
plan.
Criterion-Referenced Test: A test that measures specific performance or content
standards along a continuum from total lack of skill to excellence. These tests also
have cut scores that determine whether a test-taker has passed or failed the test or has
basic, proficient or advanced skills.
Curriculum: The course of study offered by a school or district.
Disaggregated Data: The presentation of data broken into segments or smaller
groups.
Formative Assessment: Any form of assessment used by an educator to evaluate
students’ knowledge and understanding of particular content and then used to adjust
instructional practices accordingly toward improving student achievement in that
area.
High-stakes Testing: A test that results in some kind of consequence for those who
score low, some kind of reward for those who score high or both.
Intervention Program: Program(s) that provide extra support and resources to help
improve student or school performance.
Multiple Measures: An approach that relies on more than one indicator to measure
a student’s academic strengths and weaknesses.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA programs
provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools.

21
Norm-Referenced Assessment: An assessment in which an individual or group’s
performance is compared to a larger group.
Percentile Ranks: One method to compare a student, class, school or district to a
national norm by ranking them according to how they scored on a given test
compared to others who took the same test with the 99
th
percentile rank being the
highest.
Performance Assessment: Also referred to as alternative or authentic assessment.
Requires students to generate a response to a question rather than choose it from a set
of possible answers provided for them.
Performance Standards: Standards that describe how well or at what level students
should be expected to master the content standards.
Professional Development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to
acquire the knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully.
Proficiency: Mastery or ability to do something at grade-level.
Program Improvement: An intervention under the No Child Left Behind Act for
schools and districts that receive federal Title I funds when for two years in a row
they do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of having all
students proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics.
Sampling: In education research, administering a test to and analyzing the test
results of a set of students who, as a group, represent the characteristics of the entire
student population. Based on their analysis of the data of the representative sample,

22
researchers, educators, and policymakers can infer important trends in the academic
progress of an individual or group of students.
School Board: A locally elected group, usually between three and seven members,
who set fiscal, personnel, instructional, and student-related policies. The governing
board also provides direction for the district, hires and fires the district
superintendent, and approves the budget and contracts with employee unions.
School District: A local education agency directed by an elected local board of
education that exists primarily to operate public schools.
Scientifically Based Research: Research that involves the application of rigorous,
systemic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to
educational activities.
Significant Subgroup: A group of students based on ethnicity, poverty, English
Learner status, and special education designation.
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: Students whose parents do not have a high
school diploma or who participate in the free/reduced price meal program because of
low family income.
Special Education: Programs to identify and meet the educational needs of children
with emotional, learning, or physical disabilities.
Standardized Test: A test that is the same format for all takers. Relies heavily or
exclusively on multiple-choice questions.
Standards: Degrees or levels of achievement based on grade level curriculum.

23
Title I: A federal program that provides funds for educationally disadvantaged
students based on the number of low-income students in a school.
Valid: An adjective that describes the efficacy of a test.
Value-added Systems of Accountability: Models that attempt to measure the value
added by an individual teacher or school to students’ performance over time.
Organization of Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an
overview of the study and it consists of an introduction and background of the
problem; the research questions developed to guide the study; the purpose and
importance of the study; and the limitations, delimitations and assumptions of the
study. It also includes an overview of the methodology and definitions related to the
study. Chapter 2 is a literature review organized into six sections: Industrial Age
Thinking in Schools, Globalization and Changing Educational Demands for U.S.
Schools, Increased Educational Accountability, Six Sigma, Six Sigma Applications
in Education (accountability), and Six Sigma Applications for Superintendents
(process). The historical perspective will provide a background for the need for an
ongoing systemic approach to improving and sustaining improved student
achievement. Chapter 3 is the methodology for the study and details the sampling
strategy, process for instrument development, process for piloting the instrument,
and process for data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 consists of data analysis and
findings of the study, which were guided by the research questions of the study.
Chapter 5 presents a summary, conclusion, and recommendations for future studies.

24
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The literature is organized into six sections: Industrial Age Thinking in
Schools, Globalization and Changing Educational Demands for U.S. Schools,
Increased Educational Accountability, Six Sigma, Six Sigma Applications in
Education (accountability), and Six Sigma Applications for Superintendents
(process). The historical perspective will provide a background for the need for an
ongoing systemic approach to improving and sustaining improved student
achievement.
Industrial Age Thinking in Schools
Stand in the middle of any playground on a public school campus and watch
what happens when the school bell rings. Slowly but surely the entire playground
will empty as all of the students make their way into the classrooms to begin school.
Without much prompting school children are trained to file in and out of class on
command when the school bell rings. Schools operate much like factories did over
100 years ago when American factory workers filed in and out of the factory when
the factory whistle blew to start and end their work day (Cambron-McCabe, N.,
Dutton, J., Kleiner, A., Lucas, T., Senge, P., and Smith, B., 2000). This
industrialized mind set has influenced the organization of schools and school districts
since the creation of modern school systems. It all appeared to be very simple
organize children by age and grade level in order to educationally assemble them as
they pass through the system from one teacher to another. But in today’s urban

25
school districts it has become apparently clear children cannot be educationally
assembled as you would an automobile or television set.
One early example of standardization is Fredrick the Great, the eighteenth-
century Prussian king, who achieved great military victories when he implemented
standardization, drill training and uniformity to transform his army, which in essence
was a large group of thugs and poor draftees, into a well organized fighting machine
(Morgan, 1969). Fredrick the Great implemented standardized equipment and
training regulations that gave him the ability to replace men as needed without the
entire machine breaking down during battle because all of the men had been trained
and equipped in the same manner (Morgan, 1969).
Seventeenth-century scientists like Kepler, Descartes, and Newton
understood the universe operated much like a clock –a large object made up of
smaller pieces that when put together make everything work (Boorstin, 1991). These
scientists were convinced that the world and everything in it could be studied, copied
and ultimately made completely predictable. For over 300 years scientific thought
and eventually the accepted worldview of the industrial age was that like a clock the
world, once all of the parts were analyzed, could be predicted and controlled like a
machine. These scientists believed that God was the ultimate machine maker and in
turn they set out to develop machines to do the work of men as God had created man
to do His work (Ackoff, 1981). This worldview influenced the industrialists of the
nineteenth-century who designed their factories on the machine model of organized
parts contributing to the larger whole in an effort to exert influence or control over

26
the organization through structure and standardization. By 1880, 80% of workers
were employed in mechanized factories where the assembly line changed the
conditions of work and people became interchangeable parts, doing repetitive tasks,
following precise regulations, which were controlled by supervisors (Chandler,
1977).
The concept of standardization played a big role in the organizational
development of schools and school districts. In 1844 the Boston Public Schools
were not centralized and it was school board member Samuel Howe who upon
election to the board implemented a standardized test. The students did poorly on
the test and Howe used it as a catalyst to convince the voters to centralize Boston
schools, which lead to the organization of a single citywide school district and
ultimately influenced the organization of schools around the country (Tyack, 1974).
This assembly line mindset may have initially appeared to increase educational
output, but it also created problems for children who could not learn at the pace of
the assembly line. Students who could not keep up with the speed of the education
systems assembly line were labeled as slow learners or in the end dropped out of the
system altogether. The eighteenth-century social engineers borrowed from the
industrialists assuming that breaking education into smaller parts they could
structure, control and predict learning, which would increase the educational output
of American schools. The biggest failure of the industrialized education system was
the inherent assumption that all children learn the same way.

27
Today’s schools remain heavily influenced by the industrialized worldview;
furthermore, the major assumptions made about learning and how students learn still
prevent our educational system from meeting the needs of all students. Unlike
businesses that can react quickly to changing market demands and increased
competition, public schools are insulated by their school boards, county department
of education, state and federal bureaucracies and so change occurs very slowly
(Cambron-McCabe, et al. 2000). There are small glimpses of innovation in schools;
however, those innovations disappear when the innovator (teacher, principal or
superintendent) leaves and the school system reverts back to its traditional structure.
Our schools are designed on the Newtonian conceptualization of the universe: the
idea schools can manage by separating students into smaller parts, influence occurs
as a result of force exerted from teacher to student, schools conduct complex
planning under the assumption that we can make the educational world predictable,
and we continually search for improved methods of objectively measuring and
perceiving our world (Wheatley, 1999).
This leaves educational leaders looking for a new way of attacking the
performance gaps between and among students. More importantly, urban school
districts must be able to meet the high accountability benchmarks set forth by the
state and federal governments under No Child Left Behind (2001). Today’s high
stakes testing and increased accountability for public schools is in essence a demand
by society (consumers) for better quality schools and better quality (educated)
students. For social, political and economic reasons American schools must improve

28
the quality of education provided to its students if the U.S. is going to compete in a
global marketplace; therefore, educational leaders must find new ways of organizing
their schools and school districts in an effort to raise student achievement for all
students (Cambron-McCabe et al., 2000).
Globalization and Changing Educational Demands for U.S. Schools
Corporations have reorganized themselves in an effort to stay one step ahead
of the world’s changing economic and financial markets only to find themselves one
step behind the constant changing market conditions. Increased global competition
has forced many U.S. companies to rethink their strategic plan and reinvent
themselves for the 21st century. K-12 education has considered itself insulated from
changing economic market conditions; however, technology and globalization has
dragged K-12 education into the global economy kicking and screaming the entire
way. Corporations have torn the top off the K-12 box looked inside and do not like
what they see. K-12 must realign itself within the structure of a global economy or it
will cease to function and could possibly crumble under the weight of its own
inefficiency.
There are many factors contributing to the changing demands of the 21st
century workforce: technological advances, expanded international competition,
changing economic structure, increased pressure for productivity improvement and
demographic changes in the U.S. population. It is important to remember technology
is not limited to computers or new machines that do the work of low-skilled workers.
Technology also creates new jobs requiring people to build, maintain, repair and

29
program computers (Karoly & Panis, 2004). It also requires educated people to
interpret the data computers produce, which if analyzed correctly can increase
productivity and profit. The speed at which technology has created a demand for
educated workers has exacerbated the premium educated workers earn compared to
less educated or less skilled workers. While highly educated workers have
traditionally earned more than less educated workers the convergence of technology
and globalization has accelerated the earnings gap (Karoly and Panis, 2004).
Technology has also increased the ability for smaller countries to compete
with U.S. businesses. Open source programming and the availability of information
over the internet has contributed to the acceleration of technological development
around the world. The mystery of American ingenuity is detailed step-by-step on the
internet and can be downloaded to even the most remote village anywhere in the
world. While the U.S. marveled at technology and its ability to make us better
consumers the rest of the world was trying to exploit technology as a means for
economic and political gain (Friedman, 2005). Technology is changing the way
people think, learn, and work collaboratively.
For many years U.S. companies operated in a top down model and made
decisions based on instinct, tradition, best business practices or case studies. Today
frontline workers can provide real-time data to management who in turn can make
financial, personnel and operational changes in real-time. CEO’s can use a touch
screen computer to pull up detailed operations and financial data about their
organization. It used to be in many organizations business data was known only to

30
executive management who analyzed the information and issued marching orders to
their middle management who in turn gave orders to frontline employees; however,
technology now gives everyone in the organization the opportunity to provide input.
This has flattened many organizations into networks of teams who work together to
maximize business efficiency, productivity and profit. Due to this increased sharing
of information there is a growing need for U.S. workers to develop skills, which
allow them to work in an environment where their productivity data is analyzed,
interpreted and communicated to other employees to maximize productivity.
The Vietnam War demonstrated that technological superiority alone does not
guarantee victory. The U.S. military bombarded the small country of Vietnam with
some of the most modern and highly mechanized instruments of warfare; yet, a well
organized and collaborative group of rice farmers defeated the mighty U.S. military.
U.S. companies should avoid being lulled into the daydream of American superiority
because we surround ourselves with flat screen televisions and iphones. The rest of
the world is quickly competing for the American consumer’s dollars. All around the
world people are exploiting technology in an effort to compete with American
businesses.
International firms are encroaching on markets previously dominated or
controlled by U.S. corporations. The rise of the multi-national corporations is a
direct reaction to the flattening of the world markets. It used to be corporations
existed in isolation and operated locally and in a quasi-international model. Now
they find themselves in competition with firms from all over the world in businesses

31
previously thought to be protected from international competition (Friedman, 2005).
For example, due to advanced technology like the internet small grocery and liquor
stores throughout the U.S. wire money on behalf of migrant workers working in the
U.S. to families throughout Latin America and Mexico in the billions of dollars.
These same small stores sell long distance cards, which are used by their customers
to call home at discounted rates. Twenty years ago banks would not have considered
a local grocery store as a potential competitor for international wiring
transactions/fees and it is doubtful that twenty years ago AT&T was worried the
local grocer may one day become a long distance service provider.
The same can be said for international competition and the U.S. market. In
1960, 20% of the goods produced in the U.S. faced competition from foreign
products; however, by the 1980’s the percentage increased to 70% (Salamon, 1991).
This increase in competition has lead many U.S. companies to form partnerships
with foreign companies. Many U.S. firms have moved back office and data
processing functions overseas as well as the manufacturing of component parts of
American products. In some cases the majority of the parts in American products are
actually made overseas (Salamon, 1991). According to Salamon (1991) the
exporting of jobs has lead to a lowering of wages for new entrants into the U.S. job
market.
Large corporations to a certain extent reduce their exposure to high salaries
by moving jobs overseas where educated workers come with high skills and lower
labor costs. According to Salamon (1991) the federal government from 1963 to

32
1985 spent approximately $282 billion on targeted education and training programs
for the poor. Yet we continue to see a growing learning and earning gap between
skilled and non-skilled workers. The exporting of jobs has affected the processes by
which manufacturers operate thereby making the traditional American
manufacturing line obsolete (Salamon, 1991). Consumers have put a premium on
quality of goods versus quantity of goods. This requires businesses to employ
frontline employees with the skills to communicate with engineers, quality control
managers, marketing directors and their peers in an effort to improve total quality
management.
As the need for low-skilled workers decreases American companies will need
workers who have a wide range of skills including the ability to analyze production
data and do more mental work or symbolic thinking. To remain competitive
American companies are rethinking their organizational structure. The advanced
technological development of information systems has made it easier for employers
to develop non-traditional business organizations. Employees are now able to work
from home, develop alternative work schedules and work from almost any part of the
world (Karoly and Panis, 2004). These alternative business models continue to
flatten the traditional business structure and blur the lines between management and
labor as frontline employees take on increased decision making responsibility.
Organizations must react swiftly to the demands of the global economy or they risk
becoming outdated and obsolete.

33
American productivity has slowed considerably as American workers move
from manufacturing jobs with high productivity values to service jobs that have
lower productivity value (Salamon, 1991). Increased productivity will have to come
from the service sector, which traditionally has had low productivity levels. Highly
skilled workers benefit from the move to a service economy; however, non-skilled
workers displaced by the movement of manufacturing jobs overseas will find it
difficult to find employment in the new service economy (Salamon, 1991). As the
demands for better skilled employees increases there are demographic trends
occurring that indicate skilled workers will be in short supply unless something is
done to increase the investment and development of human capital.
At the same time the economy is demanding more from U.S. workers the
labor force is undergoing a demographic shift. The labor force is increasingly
female and from ethnic minority groups who have traditionally been excluded from
access to higher paying higher skilled jobs (Salamon, 1991). The majority of these
Americans were destined for low paying low-skilled manufacturing jobs, which for
reasons explained above are slowly disappearing from the U.S. labor market. Many
of these Americans are growing up in high poverty urban areas and attending high
poverty schools or they are recent immigrants with little or no formal education.
At a time when the U.S. is in dire need for better educated workers it is
suffering from its own social stratification process. Social stratification is the
process by which members of a society become placed in differing social classes
based on economic and education criteria (Iceland, 2003). While the U.S. considers

34
itself to be the land of equality we continue to see social stratification among
Americans based on economic and social capital. In order to overcome this skills
gap U.S. companies have begun to exert more influence over the American K-12
education system.
We see an increased number of corporate interventions in U.S. schools
including the funding of charter schools and in some cases the establishment of
whole charter school systems funded by corporations. There is definitely a need to
increase the investment in human capital, which is defined as the skills, knowledge,
and abilities of human beings (Salamon, 1991). In the 21st century American
students have fallen behind the rest of the world in math and science proficiency.
Countries like China, India and Russia are producing highly educated students better
suited to fill service sector and technology jobs of the global economy. In these
countries students see math and science as pathways to success while American
students look for the fast way to fortune and fame (Friedman, 2005).
Superintendents must move swiftly to implement system wide organizational
changes that will assist their districts in developing into learning organizations that
can meet the needs of communities and student populations with diverse educational
needs.
Increased Educational Accountability
The National Commission on Excellence in Education published a report in
1983 that brought the state of U.S. public schools to the attention of the American
people. The report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform,

35
warned that the United States public education system was failing the nation’s
children and if not improved would lead to the lowering of America’s economic and
political status in the world (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983). The report described the potential problems for America should the education
system fail to produce students proficient in math and science, which included the
lack of global competitiveness and threats to our national security. It highlighted
America’s decline in educational proficiency compared to other industrialized
nations. According to Gordon (2003) the public schools systems decline in quality
education was a threat to the country’s future. A Nation at Risk (1983) sounded an
educational alarm, which continues to resound over the last 24 years, and has lead to
the increase in educational quality demands and a movement towards increased
accountability for public school schools.
The National Education Goals Panel met in September 1989 and consisted of
President George H.W. Bush and the nation’s governors who met to discuss the state
of the nation’s education system (National Education Goals Panel, 1993). The goal
of the meeting was to develop a comprehensive educational improvement plan for
American public schools. The National Education Goals Panel (1993) created a set
of goals, or benchmarks, designed to improve school readiness, increase high school
graduation rates, and raise the ranking of U.S. students in math and science to
number one in the world. The National Education Goals Panel (1993) focused on
results instead of simply focusing on increased federal and state compliance
requirements. This shifted the lens through which schools were evaluated and U.S.

36
public schools were now going to be evaluated on their ability to produce
measureable results and reduce the achievement gap for students of color or other
disadvantaged groups (National Education Goals Panel, 1993).
The problem for most states was the lack of sufficient or reliable data
sources, which could be used to measure educational performance outputs. In
addition, there were no data collection systems established to measure proficiency
rates, data on school violence, data on high school dropout percentages, performance
data by sub-groups and little efforts to monitor such data in a consistent manner
(National Education Goals Panel, 1993). Congress formed the National Council on
Educational Standards and Testing, which in January 1992 provided for the standard
setting responsibilities of the National Education Goals Panel, which included
publishing the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) at
the same time the panel published its annual Goals report. In response, many states
began adopting statewide content standards and publishing accountability reports and
started aligning curriculum with standardized tests (National Education Goals Panel,
1993).
By March 1994 President Clinton and congress signed into law Goals 2000:
Educate America Act. This law was designed to provide federal support and form
partnerships with the states to continue the work started as a result of the education
reform movements started in the 1980’s (U.S. Department of Education, 1996).
Goals 2000 funding was allocated to the states to support their efforts to implement
performance improvement across their school systems paying particular attention to

37
raising student achievement for all students and closing the achievement gap for
students of color. In addition, states were doing more work to define state academic
standards, develop assessments to measure learning, and strengthen school
accountability (U.S. Department of Education, 1996).
The accountability bar was raised again when President George W. Bush
signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 into law. In addition to increased
federal spending were increased accountability measures, which impacted the entire
education system down to the classroom. No Child Left Behind (2001) outlined
accountability and eligibility requirements for hiring teachers (according to the law
required teachers to be highly qualified according to federal standards), states had to
ensure students were making adequate yearly progress according to their established
benchmarks, school districts were also held accountable for the achievement of
significant sub-groups (students of color, sociologically-disadvantaged, English
language learners, and students with disabilities), school districts had to adopt
curricular and instructional programs that were scientifically researched-based (No
Child Left Behind, 2001). No Child Left Behind (2001) implemented harsh
penalties for school districts and schools whose students were not making Adequate
Yearly Performance (AYP) requirements including but not limited to sanctions and
state take over.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is not a new federal mandate
to improve our schools, in fact; it is the latest reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (Rose, 2004). However, NCLB is different because of

38
its aggressive compliance and performance standards mandates. Schools that do not
demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) are identified and face sanctions
including but not limited to loss of federal funding or termination of staff (No Child
Left Behind Act, 2001). Under NCLB all students in all public K – 12 schools must
be proficient at their grade level by 2014. Starting in 2001 the law established a
minimum proficiency requirement for states and each year the proficiency
requirement had to increase until by 2014 all students in all public schools would be
proficient at their grade level. The law makes no distinction between students with
identified special needs or language issues and requires that 100% of public school
students be proficient at their grade level by 2014.
The biggest criticism of NCLB is not the standards or expectations; instead,
the problems with No Child Left Behind are that it ignores the practical implications
of trying to meet such expectations given the reality of our public schools and it has
done nothing to provide adequate funding for schools to meet the expectations (Rose,
2004). For example, a family emigrates to the United States from a foreign country
in September 2005 and speaks little to no English, in May 2006 their student will
take a state exam designed to test his/her proficiency at grade level in English and
Math. The results of the examinations can range from Far Below Basic (lowest),
Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced (highest). Given that the student just
arrived from a foreign country his/her scores may be in the Far Below Basic to Basic
range more so as a reflection of his/her English abilities rather than a true measure of
what the student knows about the content area. These scores will negatively impact

39
the school’s Academic Performance Index Score (API) as well as the school’s
Annual Yearly Progress Score (AYP).
Furthermore, NCLB requires all students in all public schools to be proficient
by 2014, which means that every school in California will be labeled as not meeting
AYP. Schools who have 95% of their students at grade level today considered to be
some of the best in the nation will not meet their AYP if NCLB is not modified or
amended. The reason why it is so difficult to meet the AYP targets is because the
law requires schools to break down their demographic data by subgroups. This is a
means for making schools accountable for the achievement of significant subgroups
at their school sites (Rose, 2004).
A school may show 80% of their students are at grade level, but when they
desegregate the data to account for subgroups they may see discrepancies in the
performance levels. For example, ABC School is recognized as a high performing
school because 80% of their students score proficient or advanced on the state
exams; however, when the school breaks down the data by ethnicity they realize only
12% of their African American students (as a subgroup) score proficient or
advanced. NCLB requires the school take action to correct the performance of the
subgroup so it is on par with the entire school.
Under this evaluation system the only way to guarantee a school not be
identified as not making AYP would be to ensure the entire school was made up of a
dominant ethnic group (scoring at the proficient or advanced level) and the
admission of ethnic minorities, special education or other potentially significant

40
subgroups remains a relatively small percent of the school population (Rose, 2004).
Under NCLB if a subgroup does not make up a significant percentage of the total
school population then the school is not accountable for their low performance (No
Child Left Behind Act, 2001).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is considered by most to be another
under funded federal mandate (Rose, 2004). Schools districts are scrambling to
comply with NCLB because of the potential loss of federal funding, especially for
urban schools and school districts. Federal funds are used by school districts to
compensate or offer supplemental programs for students who have identified special
circumstances. There are federal entitlement programs that provide school districts
federal monies to compensate for supplemental services offered to students. For
example, school districts are reimbursed for free lunches to students who qualify
under the federal free lunch program. Federal funding is provided to schools and
school districts for providing services to English learners, GATE, special education,
and socio-economically disadvantaged students. The loss of these funds would have
a serious impact on schools and the school district’s ability to meet the compliance
requirements under NCLB. As it stands now most school districts must encroach
upon their general funds to make up for serious deficiencies in federal funding for
these programs –the loss of federal funding due to non-compliance with NCLB could
be catastrophic (McDermott and Jensen, 2005).
Some studies have determined that to adequately support the aggressive
benchmarks for all students, outlined in No Child Left Behind, the federal

41
government would have to increase funding to the states an estimated $84.5 to $148
billion dollars, which is a far cry from the $1 billion in increased funding promised
by President George W. Bush (Fusarelli, 2004). NCLB sets high benchmarks for
student achievement and holds schools to high accountability standards; however,
has yet to arrange for sufficient financial support for public education in an effort to
make the high expectations achievable. NCLB’s draconian method for evaluating
public schools has continued to highlight the ever increasing gap between the
intended purpose of NCLB and the actual results the law is producing. Leaving
school district superintendents in need of a comprehensive performance
improvement system that can assist in raising student achievement, maximize human
and fiscal resources in lieu of increased federal support that may never come.
This historical overview provides the background and current context for
urban school district superintendents. The increased accountability provides
superintendents with leverage to implement instructional performance improvement
initiatives due to the accountability pressures placed on school districts by federal
and state mandates. In addition, our society has become more demanding of public
schools to produce a better quality education for American students and rely on test
results to measure the quality of individual schools as well as school districts and
their superintendents. With the increased pressure to raise and sustain achievement
urban school district superintendents must consider existing non-educational systems
of performance improvement processes to help them meet or exceed their student
achievement goals.

42
Six Sigma
Six Sigma is an ongoing performance improvement process developed to
increase the performance outputs for organizations. Six Sigma is a comprehensive
and flexile system for achieving, sustaining and maximizing business success. Six
Sigma is driven by close understanding of customer needs, disciplined use of facts,
data, and statistical analysis, and diligent attention to managing, improving, and
reinventing business processes. Six Sigma is a flexible system designed to provide
organizations with the tools necessary for improved leadership and performance
(Cavanagh, et al., p. 2000).
According to Cavanagh et al. (2000), there are six major benefits of
implementing Six Sigma in organizations: it generates sustained success (creates the
skills and culture for constant revival or a closed-loop system), sets a performance
goal for everyone (focused on Six Sigma performance level or a level of
performance as close to perfection as possible), enhances value to customers (focus
on needs of customers), accelerates the rate of improvement (helps improve
performance and improve improvement), promotes learning and “cross pollination”
(accelerates the development of and sharing of new ideas throughout an organization
creating a “learning organization”), and executes strategic change (clarifies the
processes and procedures of an organization providing greater ability to make
adjustments when necessary).
Six Sigma organizes itself around six major themes. These themes serve as
the principles upon which the Six Sigma tools and methods are designed to assist

43
organizational leadership implement Six Sigma to improve organizational success.
The themes are a Genuine Focus on the Customer: make the customer top priority;
Data- and Fact-Driven Management: clarify what measures are key to gauging
performance, apply data analysis to understand key variable and optimize results;
Process Focus, Management, and Improvement: process is the key to success and
mastering processes can deliver value to customers; Proactive Management: focusing
on problem prevention instead of firefighting; Boundaryless Collaboration: work to
break down barriers and improve teamwork across organizational lines; Drive for
Perfection and Tolerance for Failure: organizations strive for success but accept and
manage occasional setbacks (Cavanagh et al., 2000).
Six Sigma measurement is based on three major concepts: Start with the
customer (clear definition of goals), Provide a consistent metric (define defects and
defect opportunities), and Link to an ambitious goal (get the entire organization
focused on a performance objective of 99.9997%). Six Sigma focuses on reducing
variations among an organization's outputs and eliminates the temptation for
organizations to use averages as a method for measuring performance. The use of
Greek sigma (σ) is used as a statistical notation representing the standard deviation
of a population. Standard deviation is an indicator of the amount of variation or
inconsistency within a group of items (Cavanagh et al., 2000).
For example, let us say a delivery company had a goal to get their average
delivery time to 15 minutes or less in order to increase customer satisfaction and
increase sales. After one week they record the following delivery times: Monday 10

44
minutes, Tuesday 16 minutes, Wednesday 20 minutes, Thursday 18 minutes and
Friday 8 minutes. The average delivery time was 14 minutes so it would appear the
company was meeting their goal; however, closer analysis of the data would reveal
the delivery company missed their goal 60% of the time. While the average delivery
time of 14 minutes might appear to the company as meeting expectations their
customers who only received on-time delivery two out of five days during the week
would disagree. Applying Six Sigma tools the delivery company would identify
processes that could be improved in order to reduce variation so that on a daily basis
deliveries arrive in the 10 – 14 minute range resulting in near perfect delivery time
everyday during the week. Six Sigma applies the use of statistical analysis with a
focus on reducing variation in order to meet a near perfect score of 6σ or on-time
deliveries of 99.9997%.
The Six Sigma improvement process is as follows: Define, Measure,
Analyze, Improve and Control (DMAIC). According to Cavanagh et al., (2000) Six
Sigma is an ongoing process that is cyclical and does not stand in isolation from
project to project; instead, it creates a culture within an organization of constant
learning and improvement. Each part of the process serves a purpose for the next
part and when put together results in performance improvement. The following is a
summary of the DMAIC model: Define: identify the problem, define requirements,
set goal; Measure: validate problem/process, refine problem/goal, measure key
steps/inputs; Analyze: develop causal hypothesis, identify vital root causes, validate
hypothesis; Improve: develop ideas to remove root causes, test solutions, measure

45
results; Control: establish standard measures to maintain performance and correct
problems as needed (Cavanagh et al., 2000).
Six Sigma has identified five core competencies for successful 21
st
century
organizations: identify core process and key customers; define customer
requirements; measure current performance, prioritize, analyze, and implement
improvements; and expand/integrate the Six Sigma system (Cavanagh, et al., 2000).
Each core competency requires organizations to clarify their core processes and
identify how they add value to through their products or services:
- Identify core process and key customers: develop a clear understanding of the
most critical cross-functional activities in the organization and how they
interface with customers, identify core or value adding processes, clarify the
service(s) provided, and identify how processes move throughout the
organization.
- Define customer requirements: establish standards for performance based on
stakeholder input so that process effectiveness can be accurately measured and
stakeholder satisfaction predicted, develop systems and strategies devoted to
ongoing data gathering, and develop a clear description of goals and
processes.
- Measure current performance: evaluate performance against definable or
measureable goals to establish a system for measuring key outputs and service
processes, create baseline measurements of current performance, and evaluate
current capability to meet goals, develop ongoing measurement systems.

46
- Prioritize, Analyze and Implement Improvements: identify high-potential
improvement opportunities and develop process oriented solutions supported
by factual analysis and creative thinking, identify improvement priorities
based on impact and feasibility, identify process improvement solutions
targeted to specific root causes, new processes are developed to meet new
demands, incorporate new technologies or achieve dramatic increases in
performance.
- Expand and integrate the Six Sigma system: initiate ongoing practices that
drive improved performance, ensure constant measurement, reexamination
and renewal of processes, establish process controls to monitor and sustain
performance improvement, ensure process ownership and management with
cross-functional oversight with input from all stakeholders, develop response
plans to act on key information, develop a six sigma culture positioned for
continual renewal and sustained performance improvement (Cavanagh, et al.,
2000).
Six Sigma Applications in Education: Accountability
For successful urban school district superintendents the challenge is no
longer how to succeed but more importantly how can they sustain success as
accountability benchmarks continue to increase. Marzano and Waters (2006)
identified district leadership responsibilities that have a correlation to increased
student achievement. They identified five district-level leadership responsibilities
with a statistically significant (p < .05) correlation with average student academic

47
achievement. The five responsibilities include: goal-setting process; non-negotiable
goals for achievement and instruction; board alignment with and support of district
goals; monitoring the goals for achievement and instruction; and use of resources to
support the goals for achievement and instruction have parallels to the Six Sigma
core competencies as well as the DMAIC process. This section will identify
similarities between the findings of Marzano and Waters (2006) and Six Sigma
strategies in an effort to highlight correlations between current practices of
successful superintendents and Six Sigma strategies.
Collaborative Goal-setting
Effective superintendents include all relevant stakeholders in establishing
non-negotiable goals for student achievement and work to ensure all stakeholders
support the achievement of stated goals. This responsibility parallels step one in the
Six Sigma process: Define (identify problem(s), define requirements, and set goals).
Non-negotiable Goals for Achievement and Instruction
Effective superintendents through the collaborative goal setting process
establish non-negotiable goals that all stakeholders must work towards in the areas of
student achievement and classroom instruction. Specific achievement targets are set
for the district, school sites and sub-groups of students. Once the goals have been
established they are adopted by individual school sites and action plans are
developed to address the need for improvement. The school district will establish a
district wide framework for instruction design and delivery with a focus on
consistency across the school system. In addition, school administrators support the

48
district improvement initiatives. This responsibility parallels two steps in the Six
Sigma process: Analyze (identify best practices, refine requirements, assess process
design) and Improve (standardize solution, design new process, implement new
process/system).
Board Alignment with and Support of District Goals
Districts with high levels of student performance had a school board
supportive of the non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction. The school
board made the non-negotiable goals a top priority and ensured no other initiatives
detracted focus or resources from the achievement of the district goals. Boards that
adopted comprehensive long term performance improvement goals, which they
supported had a positive impact on student achievement and supported the shared
vision of the district. This responsibility parallels two steps in the Six Sigma
process: Define (identify problem(s), define requirements, and set goals) and Control
(establish standards, correct problems as needed, establish measures and oversight to
maintain performance).
Monitoring Achievement and Instruction Goals
Effective superintendents continually monitor progress towards non-
negotiable goals and work to ensure the goals remain a top priority and all decisions
are made based on performance data analysis. Furthermore, effective
superintendents ensure regular analysis and monitoring of student performance data
is done by the individual school sites and identify their progress towards achieving
stated goals. Gaps between articulated goals and current performance results are

49
identified and steps are taken to improve processes that in turn improve student
achievement. Schools use progress towards their goals as an indication of the
school’s success. Instructional goals are also monitored and discrepancies between
actual instructional practices and the agreed upon instructional models are corrected.
This responsibility parallels three steps in the Six Sigma process: Analyze (identify
best practices, refine requirements, assess process design), Improve (standardize
solution, design new process, implement new process/system) and Control (establish
standards, correct problems as needed, establish measures and oversight to maintain
performance).
Use of Resources to Support the Goals for Instruction and Achievement
Effective superintendents make sure the necessary human and fiscal
resources are expended in alignment with the district’s goals. Superintendents must
be prepared to provide adequate and meaningful for professional development for
teachers and administrators. The professional development should be designed to
improve the knowledge, skills, and competencies teachers and principals need to
achieve the non-negotiable goals. This responsibility parallels three steps in the Six
Sigma process: Analyze (identify best practices, refine requirements, assess process
design), Improve (standardize solution, design new process, implement new
process/system) and Control (establish standards, correct problems as needed,
establish measures and oversight to maintain performance).

50
Six Sigma Applications for Superintendents: Process
Under the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) public schools are required to
meet the needs of all students resulting in 100% proficiency by the year 2014. Urban
school districts are searching for new ways of improving their instructional delivery
system from a results oriented perspective. The tough state and federal requirements
do not allow for explanations or excuses for why urban school student are not
meeting the accountability benchmarks. In fact, Campbell et al. (2003), reported that
urban school district superintendents felt as though the outside push from state and
federal agencies has provided them an opportunity to leverage the high
accountability requirements as a reason to get entire districts focused on teaching and
learning, which although is difficult has been made easier with tough state and
federal mandates. This provides urban school district superintendents wit an
opportunity to implement a systemic performance improvement like Six Sigma.
The Six Sigma focuses on team work, data driven decision making and
starting with a clear goal in mind. Educational researchers like Marzano (2006) and
Schmoker (2004) have documented the power of forming teams (learning
communities) and using student data to drive instruction. In addition, Cambron-
McCabe et al. (2000), write that over the past 100 years a revolution in scientific
thought has been occurring. Scientists are discovering and appreciating a new
scientific view of the world called systems thinking. Cambron-McCabe et al. (2000),
write, “It starts with the assertion that the fundamental nature of reality is
relationships, not things. Our Newtonian culture tells us the world is comprised of

51
things”. Six Sigma provides the tools necessary for educators to develop
relationships within organizations to facilitate learning and creating sufficient
feedback-loops in order to make informed decisions about improving the teaching
and learning process to meet the demands of high stakes testing and increased
educational accountability.
However, what is absent from the literature is evidence of a systemic method
by which superintendents can implement performance improvement processes
designed to meet the demands of the job and still exhibit the behaviors identified by
educational researchers as positively correlating to increased student achievement.
According to Campbell et al. (2003), superintendents felt the structure of the position
makes it almost impossible to meet the expectations of what they were hired to do,
but we know there are successful urban school district superintendents and we can
learn from their example. More importantly this study hopes to identify elements of
Six Sigma used by successful superintendents (intentionally or unintentionally) and
identify opportunities for Six Sigma to provide urban school district superintendents
with an ongoing performance improvement process to sustain increased student
achievement.

52
Chapter 3
Methodology
Introduction
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection
and data analysis of the study. The purpose of the study is to examine how
successful urban school district superintendents used elements of a continuous
improvement processes known as Six Sigma to achieve their improved student
achievement results. More specifically this study will identify opportunities for
urban school district superintendents to implement Six Sigma in their districts as a
means to improve and sustain student achievement.
Research Questions
The superintendents in this study completed a strategies survey and follow up
interview to address the following research questions:
1. Which Six Sigma improvement processes were evident in the
superintendents’ strategies to increase student achievement?
2. Do the benefits of using Six Sigma support the superintendents’
organizational goals for performance improvement?
3. Which Six Sigma organizational core competencies align with what the
superintendents’ believe are best practices for successful school districts?
Research Design
After defining the problem to be studied and conducting a review of the
literature it was determined by the researcher a qualitative case study was the most

53
appropriate method to complete the study. Qualitative research design was used to
develop the research questions for the study. According to Patton (2002) qualitative
research permits the investigator to study specific issues or events in detail; in
addition, data collected is not restricted by predetermined categories and contributes
to the depth of qualitative data. The researcher relied on the comparative case study
approach to qualitative research; more specifically, a comparative case study method
involving four superintendents using a survey and individual interviews.
Although all of the participants completed an initial survey the primary
methodology for gathering data was the individual interviews, which provided the
researcher an opportunity to probe beyond the initial survey responses. The questions
on the survey were taken from the Six Sigma literature and included statements
related to performance goals, monitoring, improvement and control. Through the
individual interviews the researcher was able to gain more specific knowledge about
the strategies used by the participants to raise student achievement.
Upon receiving permission from the University of Southern California and
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) the researcher was able to make the initial
contact via telephone with the selected superintendents. An introductory letter,
consent form and survey was mailed to the participants. The participants were asked
to provide a date and time for the one hour individual interview. The
superintendents were interviewed individually for 30 minutes over the telephone and
were tape recorded to ensure the accuracy of the interview transcription, which was
done at a later time.

54
After each participant completed a survey the researcher contacted the
participant by telephone and asked five follow up questions. Each participant was
asked, “You indicated on the survey your level of agreement with the following
statement (statement re-read) can you please explain your rationale and/or
experiences which influenced your answer?”. The process was repeated five times
and the same questions were asked of all the participants. Each statement on the
survey was taken from the rational explained in the Six Sigma literature; however,
the five follow up questions covered five areas: leveraging federal and state
mandates as a catalyst for change, setting goals, allocation and alignment of human
and fiscal resources to support achievement of goals, collaborative goal setting,
evaluation of current practices, and the disaggregation (analysis of student data).
These statements are aligned with the DMAIC process in Six Sigma and the intent is
to find commonalities between the participants’ strategies and rationale and those of
Six Sigma. The interviews were scheduled for 30 minutes. The interviews were
recorded and transcribed using a word processing program.
Sample and Population
The researcher used purposeful sampling to select the participants for this
study in order to gain more detailed information about the strategies used by
successful urban school district superintendents to improve and sustain student
achievement. Patton (2002) states that the power of purposeful sampling comes
from the selection of information-rich cases the researcher can use to learn about
issues most important to the purpose of the study. The four superintendents selected

55
for the study are unique in that they all were able to raise student achievement in
their districts despite being located in urban areas with high incidences of poverty
and ethnic minority student enrollment. They were also known as data-driven
decision makers who were effective at implementing system-wide instructional
improvement reforms throughout their organizations.
The superintendents selected for the study are considered successful
superintendents and were selected for the study based on the following criteria: they
have a record of raising student achievement according to state and federal
standardized testing and accountability assessments, they were also able to raise
student achievement despite high levels of poverty and high percentages of ethnic
minority students in their schools, and they used student performance data to drive
instructional improvement initiatives. Even though much of the literature suggests
successful superintendents are so because they work collaboratively with all
stakeholders the reality is that wide spread organizational improvement processes,
like Six Sigma, are initiated by the superintendent and therefore only superintendents
were selected for the study.
Instrumentation
A survey, individual interviews and a review of existing
publications/literature about the selected superintendents were used in addressing the
research questions. In addition, literature on Six Sigma was used to develop the
survey questions in order to identify correlations between Six Sigma processes and
the strategies used by the superintendents to raise student achievement; however,

56
specific references or the use of the term “six sigma” were omitted from the survey
and the interviews to avoid undue influence on the participants responses. Every
effort was made to ensure the participants responses relied exclusively on their
experiences in an effort to ensure that any correlations between their strategies and
Six Sigma occurred through the investigation and not because they had some
existing knowledge or schema about Six Sigma which influenced their responses to
the survey or the interview.
The strategies survey is a Likert-scale instrument, which asks the participants
to Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree or Strongly Disagree with 18
statements. The 18 statements are strategies outlined in the Six Sigma process
known as DMAIC, which stands for Define – Measure – Analyze – Improve –
Control and the participants are asked whether they used these strategies in their
work as superintendents. The interview protocols will ask the participants to
elaborate on their survey responses. An example of a probe might be,
“Superintendent A you indicated on your survey that you strongly agree with the
statement: It is important for student data to be reviewed in teams, why do believe
that to be true? or what did you do to ensure that was occurring in your district?”.
No reference to Six Sigma or DMAIC will be made in order to ensure the
participants are relying only on their experience to answer the interview protocols.
The survey and statements were reviewed by the dissertation faculty chair
and was field tested with non-participating superintendents and assistant
superintendents. These survey statements will serve as the basis for the follow up

57
interview wherein the superintendents’ will expand upon their answers in order to
explain and provide a rationale for why they indicated such strong agreement or
disagreement with the survey statement. Each of the survey statements is taken from
the Six Sigma literature and will serve as the actual interview protocol question. The
survey statements and interview question protocol:
1. Federal and State mandates (NCLB, testing, accountability, etc.) can be
leveraged by superintendents to implement systemic instructional
improvement
2. District-level teams are an important part of the instructional improvement
process
3. School-site teams are an important part of the instructional improvement
process
4. It is important for student performance goals to be defined
5. It is important to define for all stakeholders the rationale and potential impact
of systemic instructional improvement initiatives
6. It is important to define for all stakeholders the potential risks for protecting
the status-quo
7. It is important to review student performance data before beginning the process
of defining student performance goals
8. It is important to identify the fiscal and human resources necessary to achieve
defined student performance goals

58
9. It is important to review and measure progress towards student performance
goals regularly
10. It is important for student data collection forms/tools are easy to use and
provide consistent/complete data
11. It is important for student data to be reviewed or analyzed by teams
12. It is important to identify current practices (disconnects, redundancies,
dysfunction) that are counterproductive to defined student performance goals
13. It is important to disaggregate student data to help stratify the problem,
understand reasons for variation in outcomes, and identify potential root
causes
14. It is important to develop a list of innovative ideas for potential solutions then
use stakeholder input to narrow down and qualify potential solutions
15. It is important to pilot solutions and monitor results before expanding system-
wide
16. It is important to compile results data confirming the defined student
performance goals have been met
17. It is important to develop ongoing measures to monitor performance and
continued effectiveness
18. It is important to celebrate the successful efforts of all stakeholders

59
Data Collection
The data collection involved: a strategies survey, individual interviews,
review of existing publications about the selected superintendents, and literature on
Six Sigma for comparison.
Strategies Survey
Each participant completed an 18 question survey. The purpose of the survey
was to gain an initial assessment of each superintendent’s use of Six Sigma strategies
in their districts and identify similarities in the level of agreement between each
superintendent.
Individual Interviews
The individual interviews allowed the researcher to probe for more in-depth
explanations of the superintendent’s responses to the survey questions. It also gave
the researcher a chance to gain additional insight into the superintendent’s
experiences and rationale for the strategies used in their districts to raise student
achievement. The interviews were recorded on audio tape with the permission of the
participants.
Review of Publications
The superintendents selected for the study are well-known in the field of
education and have been the subject of several publications. The publications range
from newspaper articles to in-depth case studies published by non-profit educational
foundations. The researcher searched educational databases, online academic
research services, educational journal publications and other reference materials to

60
gather information on the strategies and achievements of the selected
superintendents.
Six Sigma Literature
The researcher used several articles and a book on Six Sigma to gain
information about Six Sigma including the history of its development, performance
results, use in industry, research and rationale, record of effectiveness and strategic
implementation procedures.
Data Analysis
The researcher used the survey results to compile a small sampling of
similarities and differences in the scoring of the survey by the superintendents. The
researcher then identified the strength of agreement or disagreement with the
statements as scored by the superintendents in an effort to identify a correlation
between the strategies used by the superintendents and Six Sigma strategies. The
recordings of the interviews were reviewed in an effort to identify alignment with
the superintendent’s rationale for implementing specific strategies and correlations
with the Six Sigma process DMAIC. All interviews were analyzed and responses
were categorized by the researcher as aligned with one of five categories: Define,
Measure, Analyze, Improve or Control.
Validity Concerns
The researcher used multiple perspectives to ensure diversity of research.
The superintendents represent different geographical areas of the United States
including school districts located in the eastern, southwestern and western regions.

61
The participants are also diverse in gender, age, ethnicity and professional
background. The researcher used a variety of data collection tools and a diverse
participant selection to ensure methodological and data triangulation using a variety
of sources (Patton, 2002). The use of triangulation in methodology and data
collection ensured the researcher could validate the findings.
Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board
application and procedures were adhered to, including the certification of the
researcher to conduct research using human subjects. All data was collected and
coded to ensure confidentiality of the participants; however, because the questions
and interviews served to confirm what is already publically known about the
participants there was no risk to the participants.
Many of their accomplishments and views on educational reform have been
documented publically. In addition, their selection for the study was due to their
success and recognition as successful superintendents. All participants signed
consent forms. There was no observation and all documents reviewed were public
information, published in educational journals or included in reports commissioned
by non-profit education foundations. All data was kept on a secured computer and
password protected. Although there were no risks to the participants a coding
system was developed to record individual survey results and interview tapes so the
participants answers (data) was not directly identifiable.

62
Summary
This chapter describes the research methods used including a description of:
the research design, sample (participants), data collection tools, data collection
techniques, and the process for data analysis used in this qualitative case study.
Research findings and in-depth analysis will be considered in chapter four.

63
Chapter 4
Findings
Introduction
As school district superintendents struggle to meet the increasing demands of
improving student achievement, and in attempting to close the achievement gap and
to meet the increased accountability standards in state and federal guidelines, they
have to be prepared to change the way their organizations deliver instruction to an
increasingly diverse student population. In addition superintendents are going to
have to develop comprehensive systems for overall organizational improvement in
order to increase their efficiency and reduce waste. In times of declining enrollment,
unfunded federal mandates and fiscal shortfalls at the state level urban school
districts are going to have to work harder and smarter if they are to survive into the
21st century. For years educators have believed that what they do is too unique and
specialized to benefit from the performance improvement initiatives used by the
corporate sector. Contrary to that supposition, this study has attempted to identify
the successful strategies used by urban school district superintendents and to
compare those strategies to the performance improvement processes, called Six
Sigma, used by companies like Motorola and General Electric.
Six Sigma is time tested having being applied in the corporate sector with
great success for multinational Fortune 1000 companies. This program has been
applied as a quality improvement process for manufacturing as well as a tool for
improving customer service. Companies like Xerox, Motorola, and General Electric

64
have used it to increase revenue by reducing waste in addition to improving the
quality of service to their customers. So it is not surprising that we find that may
elements of the common sense and pragmatic approach of the Six Sigma processes
already in place in education when we study successful urban school district
superintendents. The interview data conducted with successful superintendents for
this research study, reveal clear and observable glimpses of the application of Six
Sigma principles and the program’s pragmatic approach to performance
improvement. However, it is at the systemic level of implementation that a
noticeable disparity exists between the corporate sector and the performance
improvement initiatives in education. Compared to Six Sigma’s system-wide,
saturated approach, the reform initiatives within education seem more piecemeal:
This is the distinction that this research study aims to illuminate, and
correspondingly advocates for more systemic reform in the educational sector.
The superintendents selected for this study represent a diverse group of urban
school district leaders from five geographic areas across the United States, and this
group has successfully increased student performance for all students in their district,
but more importantly, and specifically, among the diverse student populations that
they serve.

65

Table 1. District Demographic and Achievement Data

State Dept. of Ed Data Supt.
A
Supt.
B
Supt.
C
Supt.
D
Supt. E
District Enrollment 10683 305967 44735 56770 202000
English Learners 4675 56270 10,289 10,390 113,120
Special Education 1161 32472 5200 11170 20226
Title I 6620 121639 31,762 40,307 188,849
Academic Performance (percent
proficient Eng)
48.8% 65% 87% 72.4% 81%
Academic Performance (percent
proficient Math)
56% 57% 75% 61.9% 66%
Academic Performance
Improvement (Eng) (during
superintendents tenure)
5% 10% 7% 20% 15%
Academic Performance
Improvement (Math) (during
superintendents tenure)
3% 5% 7% 15% 13%

66
While conducting the research only one superintendent mentioned using a
performance improvement system from the industrial sector in his district, called
ISO 9000, which is a quality assurance program used by manufacturers to ensure the
quality and consistency of their products with regard to international standards. Only
two participants acknowledged some limited knowledge of Six Sigma but had a very
general idea of what the program did. However, despite the lack of familiarity with
Six Sigma, the results from the study of the reform efforts utilized by the
superintendents in this study indicate a significant correlation between the strategies,
policies, practices and rationale used by the superintendents to improve student
achievement and some of the more pragmatic practices and the processes within the
six Sigma performance improvement system used by industry. Additionally, a
correlation also exists between what the superintendents suggested that successful
urban school districts must do organizationally in order to be successful in the future
(suggestions that were in the realm of proposition, rather than policies that had
already been executed), and the core competencies that Six Sigma believes
successful organizations must possess to be successful in the 21st century.
In carefully reviewing the responses to the superintendents’ strategies survey
it was clear that the superintendents have in the past or are currently implementing
strategies or establishing processes that are closely aligned, in principle, with the
aims of Six Sigma. However, the survey data reveals once again that these strategies
lack systemic application, and for the most part educational reform strategies often
involve initiatives that are designed to address or improve specific instructional

67
practices. Six Sigma is a saturated approach designed to initiate reform throughout
an organization in order to improve the performance of the entire organization. With
the exception of one superintendent who is applying performance improvement
initiatives at the central office, the other superintendents did not have performance
improvement initiatives, which addressed their organization systemically. Despite
this lack of systemic execution of policies, the majority of the superintendents’
responses to the strategies survey indicated they either “strongly agreed” or “agreed”
with the statements in the survey, which were taken directly from the Six Sigma
literature. While the superintendents did not make specific reference to Six Sigma,
or used terms directly related to or taken from the Six Sigma literature, there was
consistent alignment with some of the philosophy, practices and procedures used by
successful superintendents and those of the Six Sigma performance improvement
system.
There was also very high agreement among all study participants that the
increased accountability measures, both state and federal, but more specifically No
Child Left Behind (2001) with its accountability and AYP requirements, created a
shared sense of urgency and responsibility among all stakeholders. Furthermore, the
superintendents interviewed indicated this increased sense of urgency and shared
responsibility could be leveraged to implement systemic instructional improvement
initiatives and organizational change. The responses from the study participants
indicated a high degree of agreement with statements in the survey (which were

68
directly taken from the Six Sigma literature) as illustrated in the following summary
of the superintendent responses:

Table 2. Strategies Survey: Superintendent Responses

Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Federal and State mandates (NCLB, testing, accountability, etc.) can be
leveraged by superintendents to implement systemic instructional
improvement
1 4
District-level teams are an important part of the instructional improvement
process
3 2
School-site teams are an important part of the instructional improvement
process
2 3
It is important for student performance goals to be defined 3 2
It is important to define for all stakeholders the rationale and potential
impact of systemic instructional improvement initiatives
3 2
It is important to define for all stakeholders the potential risks for
protecting the status-quo
1 2 2
It is important to review student performance data before beginning the
process of defining student performance goals
3 2
It is important to identify the fiscal and human resources necessary to
achieve defined student performance goals
5
It is important to review and measure progress towards student
performance goals regularly
3 2
It is important for student data collection forms/tools are easy to use and
provide consistent/complete data
3 2
It is important for student data to be reviewed or analyzed by teams 3 2
It is important to identify current practices (disconnects, redundancies,
dysfunction) that are counterproductive to defined student performance
goals
2 3
It is important to disaggregate student data to help stratify the problem,
understand reasons for variation in outcomes, and identify potential root
causes
2 3
It is important to develop a list of innovative ideas for potential solutions
then use stakeholder input to narrow down and qualify potential solutions
1 3 1
It is important to pilot solutions and monitor results before expanding
system-wide
1 1 2 1
It is important to compile results data confirming the defined student
performance goals have been met
1 4
It is important to develop ongoing measures to monitor performance and
continued effectiveness
1 4
It is important to celebrate the successful efforts of all stakeholders 2 3

69
Research Questions
Which Six Sigma improvement processes were evident in the superintendents’
strategies to increase student achievement?
Given the responses on the Superintendents Strategy Survey, in addition to
the detailed information provided in the follow up interviews, it appears as though all
of the superintendents are utilizing some of the more obvious and pragmatic Six
Sigma improvement processes as a means for improving student achievement. More
specifically, there is evidence suggesting that the superintendents across the board
used strategies very similar to the Six Sigma DMAIC process, which, as the acronym
is spelled out, is used to: Define performance goals, Measure current performance,
Analyze data, Improve processes, and Control to maintain or sustain improved
performance. However, there exists a large gap between the way such strategies are
used by the superintendents to address instructional improvement concerns and the
systemic implementation of Six Sigma like processes across their organizations,
which would require systemic implementation (of Six Sigma or similar strategies) in
all areas of their school districts.
It is beneficial to look at the specific elements of the DMAIC process as
incorporated in Six Sigma, and see how similar strategies utilized within education
fare in the comparison:
Define Performance Goals
In Six Sigma there are several aspects to defining performance goals. Where
industry and education differ in this instance is that for the private sector goals are

70
tied to customer service, and profit or quality goals as created by the organizational
leadership to increase customer satisfaction and shareholder value. While “customer
service” is not an alien concept in education, in that stakeholder satisfaction,
particularly in our current era of accountability, is critical, educational goals are
provided to superintendents and their boards via federal and state accountability
standards, and success or failure is measured and determined via standardized tests.
Six Sigma’s approach to improving an organizations current performance status can
help both industry and education whether these improvement goals are self-
developed or imposed by federal or state mandates.
The first step towards defining goals in Six Sigma is to gather data on the
needs of your customers. In business this is accomplished through various
techniques including surveys, market research, data warehousing, data mining or
focus groups. In education students’ needs are measured through a variety of data
provided to school systems by county, state and federal agencies. Assuming the goal
for every student is that they are proficient at their grade level, we can use student
data to get an accurate picture of their current performance level including
socioeconomic status, English language proficiency, mathematics proficiency, take
into account special education needs or other learning disabilities, as well as gifted
status. Six Sigma suggests that organizations use multiple measures for gathering
performance data in attempting to discern viable trends. It is important to note that
within the Six Sigma process any action taken to improve performance must be data
driven. Creating a closed loop system by taking into account the needs of the

71
customer, analyzing current performance data and taking corresponding action is key
to successfully implementing Six Sigma within an organization. Too often both
industry and education are paralyzed by the intricacies of the data analysis process
and are unsure of where to begin to improve performance. According to Six Sigma
once the data is analyzed organizations must set realistic goals for performance
improvement, which requires that goals be measureable, achievable and timely. Six
Sigma would advocate that an organization select one or a few areas for
improvement to begin a reform process, rather than setting unrealistic and broad
organizational goals that are doomed to fail as a result of an overambitious scope.
In Six Sigma the second step in defining goals is the development of
performance standards and requirement statements that is to say organizations must
first establish the goals and then clarify these goals through written statements
outlining specifically what the accomplishment of the goals should/will look like.
Again we see that the participants in this study have all made it part of their practice
to start any performance improvement initiative by clearly defining organizational
goals. Superintendent A stated, “you need to have clarity about what you are doing.
You can’t have everyone working in isolation. Stakeholders need to know the
outcomes [expectations] and their role in meeting those outcomes”. This
superintendent felt that having specific expectations, or goals, provides clarity and
support for improvement; therefore, the process of defining of goals needs to be done
as a first step towards implementing any performance improvement strategy.
Superintendent B said, “the importance of defining or setting clear objectives is part

72
of getting stakeholder buy-in and it is important that all stakeholders are included in
the process of setting goals and objectives”. Superintendent B further added that,
“setting goals and objectives across the organization requires a unification of purpose
and priorities. By starting out with clear definitions and expectations. You can
expect better opportunities to achieve your goals”.
Again we see a high correlation between the strategies of the superintendents
and Six Sigma; however, where we see a gap is in the depth of implementation of
these goals throughout the organization. Superintendents did not report that these
same processes are done with other departments within their organizations such as
transportation, maintenance or business services. Furthermore, unlike Six Sigma that
requires organizations to listen closely to the voice of the customer, school districts
often assume that meeting grade level standards is the ultimate or only desired
outcome of the students and communities (ostensibly the “customers”) they serve.
However, if Six Sigma is used systemically, school districts may find that their
students and the communities they serve, in fact want more from their local schools
than just reasonable academic achievement levels. If the schools could indeed meet
other, associated needs of the stakeholders, and have a greater connection to the
community, this deeper connection could in fact accelerate the rate of improved
student achievement.
Measure Current Performance
In Six Sigma measuring current performance is much more involved than any
of the processes currently being used by the superintendents. While all of the

73
participants in the study use student performance data to drive many of the
instructional improvement efforts, we see a gap between the depth and style of
measurement used by the superintendents and Six Sigma. In Six Sigma
measurement is based on observations and data collection. Six Sigma uses multiple
sources to measure all of the practices (steps) within a process to evaluate which
practices (steps) are adding to or taking away from the quality of the desired
outcomes. Where we see a disparity between Six Sigma and the practices used by
the participants to raise student achievement is in the use of observation data. None
of the participants mentioned the regular or sustained use of observations as a
strategy for driving decision making; instead, they used educational research to
identify best practices for improved student achievement from other high achieving
schools and implemented these practices as needed. However, the results of the
surveys and interviews suggest that Six Sigma can offer opportunities for
observation to play a larger role in improving student achievement in our schools.
Where we see similarities between Six Sigma and successful superintendents
is in the use of data to drive decision making. All of the superintendents who
participated in the survey believed that it is very important to have systems in place
to measure your current progress towards your established goals and expectations.
All of the superintendents mentioned they have data management software programs
that are used on a daily basis. These programs can provide them with system-wide
student performance data as well as provide them with a more localized student data
and in many cases the superintendent can drill down to the individual classroom

74
level if needed. Superintendent C said, “it is not enough to look at student data
system-wide, but instead it is very important that districts, principals and teachers
disaggregate the data into student subgroups, which is a truer measure of your
current performance”.
In an effort to reduce the achievement differences, or achievement gaps,
between diverse groups of students many districts must identify struggling subgroups
of students based on ethnicity, language minority students and special needs students
in order to provide them with accelerated or remedial learning interventions. Closing
the achievement gap is a concept closely aligned with the Six Sigma philosophy,
which avoids the use of averages to measure performance and instead uses a
reduction in variation among outputs to measure performance improvement.
According to the participants it is not good enough that the average reading score
increased or the average math score for English Learners improved. What is equally
important is that the learning performance gaps between White students and students
of color close progressively on a sustained level or that the learning performance
gaps between native English speaking students and English Learner students are
similarly and progressively diminished.
All of the superintendents agreed that using data to measure current
performance levels is vital to a school district’s future success. Superintendent B
said, “by using data to set goals and evaluate current status it gets people on the same
page as to where we currently are and where we need to go”. The superintendents
indicated that through collaboration boards, administrators, teachers, parents and

75
students could identify how best to work together to close the gap between their
current status and their expected outcomes. Many of the superintendents referenced
the use of various data management systems; however, these systems had been used
in different ways by each superintendent and had been introduced to their respective
organizations with mixed reactions. Some of the superintendents explained that
initially the use of data and the ability for school administrators to disaggregate
student achievement data was seen as threatening, or intimidating, to the teachers
and their teachers associations. Therefore, during the initial stages of implementing
the use of data analysis software programs the superintendents made agreements
with the teachers associations that only individual teachers would have access to
their individual performance data. School administration could only look at the
school wide data and district wide data.
This was an important step in order to ease the teachers into the practice of
looking at student data. It was important to protect the individual identities of the
teachers so they would eventually be open to the idea of sharing data to improve
student achievement and not have to worry that the data collected was going to be
used as an individual, evaluative tool that further, could be used punitively against
them. Superintendent C said, “the next step was to start analyzing the data to
identify our strengths and weaknesses at the classroom, school site and district
level”.

76
Analyze Data
While the participants indicated they all use data analysis to drive their
instructional improvement initiatives, a significant gap exists between their practices
surrounding data analysis and the depth of the approach to data analysis in Six
Sigma. In the latter, data analysis is used to identify not only defects in terms of
production, but data is also used to identify the opportunities for defects that may
occur during the process. The depth of data use in Six Sigma is radically different
than the data analysis described by the study participants. The participants described
that much of the data analysis that is done in their districts involves reviewing
student performance output data and using that data to make changes to improve the
quality and effectiveness of classroom instruction. However, none of the participants
mentioned the use of data to identify potential opportunities for identifying defects in
the existing process.
Within the Six Sigma approach, organizations must analyze a process, list all
of the requirements for the end product and identify the essential steps in the process
that if done incorrectly will result in a defective end product. None of the
superintendents interviewed for this research study mentioned having a system in
place by which they could detect potential pitfalls in the process in an effort to
protect their performance improvement process from failure; instead, emphasis was
placed on analyzing student data and intervening or providing additional support for
underperforming students, after the fact.

77
If Six Sigma were implemented in school districts an important part of the
data analysis process would be to identify defect opportunities and try to account for
or insulate their instructional improvement initiatives from these defect
opportunities. Where there was some similarity between Six Sigma and the
strategies used by the study participants was that data analysis led to increased
collaboration and a focus on continuous improvement. For example, many of the
superintendents reported that as teachers analyzed their individual data they became
interested in developing a hypothesis for why their students were not achieving,
which lead to conversations with colleagues about student performance and
eventually the identification of best practices.
At the same time district administration and school site administration began
to analyze student performance data for possible causes and opportunities to
implement best practices. Superintendent C said, “in effort to identify best practices
and to assess process design we looked at where the problems or disconnects might
be. We were looking for alternative ways of improving student achievement and
identifying practices, which added value so we could increase student achievement”.
The superintendents indicated that over time teachers became more comfortable
sharing their individual data and analyzing the data in teams. According to the
survey results, all of the superintendents strongly agreed or agreed that it is important
for student data to be reviewed and analyzed by teams. The practice of student data
analysis is currently utilized in all of the districts represented by the participating
superintendents. Superintendent A said, “as we got used to analyzing student data

78
and making instructional decisions based on student data ideas started to spread and
you started to see the same best practices in schools throughout the district”.
Superintendent C said, “as schools analyzed their data … they started
identifying issues and obstacles both on site and off site. The teachers began to
provide the district with more information about how the district could best support
their needs creating a unified sense of purpose”. Superintendent B said, “in order to
make the data a working tool and not something to be afraid of we adopted a growth
model quality assurance system. We do not have strict benchmarks instead schools
are recognized for their annual growth achievement”. All of the superintendents
indicated that monitoring performance through the analysis of student data has
caused many teachers to focus on what could they can do individually and as
members of an instructional team to improve the performance of their students.
Improve Processes
The practices of the superintendents who participated in the study were very
closely aligned to Six Sigma in the area of process improvement. Most likely, the
close similarity here exists because educational research on teacher collaboration and
highly effective schools indicates that identifying priorities, setting goals, working in
teams and shared decision making are essential factors in raising achievement for all
students. So the strategies used by the participants are closely aligned with those of
high performing school districts and mirror to a great extent the improvement
processes found in Six Sigma, which are to prioritize, analyze and implement
improvements. The study participants all indicated that because their decision

79
making was data driven it was easy to identify the instructional areas that needed to
be improved as well as determining which students required their immediate
attention. Superintendent D said, “by looking at data we were able to make
comprehensive curriculum decisions to ensure consistency across the district and
raise the level of achievement for all students”. All of the superintendents indicated
that as improvement initiatives were implemented it caused a shifting of priorities at
the central office and created a need to find additional resources. In order to support
the need for systemic instructional improvement many of the decisions regarding
professional development, human resources and budget allocations were constantly
evaluated and re-prioritized.
Instructional technology and computer hardware was a large budget item for
many of the participants. Superintendent C said, “the district had to focus and cut
out what is not of added value or producing significant results. We can’t do
everything”. This superintendent also became involved in advocating for the
passage of a $200 million bond, which required extensive involvement in the
community and involvement in the political process. Through the bond the school
district was able to afford the purchase of much-needed equipment, technology and
to provide the teachers with a significant salary increase. Superintendent B said, “as
the improvement initiatives began in the school district I was required to go out to
the business community and form partnerships and let them know we were setting
clear expectations, eliminating waste and focusing on successful strategies. I had to

80
let them know they were getting a good return on their investment so if we ask for
more money in the future they will trust we are putting it to good use”.
While the participants indicated they each had mission and vision statements
for their school districts no one mentioned the use of project charters or problem
statement forms as part of their improvement process. It was not expected that the
participants would use these specific documents as they come directly from and are
unique to the Six Sigma process. However, there was no mention of using anything
overtly similar. The project charter is a document which outlines the details of the
performance improvement initiative as follows: problem statement (quantifiable
problem that needs to be fixed), goal statement (desired outcome or goals expressed
in specific measureable terms), constraints (impact the project will have on all team
members), assumptions (clarifies focus of the project), team guidelines (team
norms), team members (who is on the project team) and preliminary project plan
(timelines for project completion including when each phase of the DMAIC process
will be completed). The project charter is an actual form that is prepared by the team
assigned to the project and disseminated to all stakeholders. It is safe to assume that
if the concept of the project charter is explained to the study participants they will
indicate that either at the executive level or at the individual school site level
documents similar to the Six Sigma project charter are completed but the gap is not
so much in whether or not some of the Six Sigma practices have been used as much
as this study aims to identify the opportunities for sustained and improved student
achievement that would occur if Six Sigma were implemented comprehensively.

81
Before a team can write a project charter they must first write a problem
statement, which will begin the process for developing the project charter.
According to Six Sigma the problem statement answers several preliminary
questions: what, where/when, how big and the eventual impact. Each of these
preliminary questions is made up of two or three sub-questions, which required
measurement and other data collection. In the problem statement, the “What”
answers the following questions: which process is involved? what is wrong? and
what is the gap or opportunity?; “Where/When” answers the following questions:
where do we observe the problem/gap? and when do we observe the problem/gap?;
“How Big” answers the following questions: how big is the problem/gap
opportunity? and how will we measure it?; and “Impact” answers the following
questions: what is the impact of the problem/opportunity? and what are the benefits
of action or consequences of inaction?
While there are similarities between the strategies of the study participants
and Six Sigma, the significant gaps that exist, once again have to do with the depth
of inquiry and the corresponding systemic practices required by Six Sigma and the
practices described by the study participants. Although, without a doubt, the
participants have been successful in raising student achievement, the reader should
be reminded that the concerns of this study is in considering the viability of the
application of a systemic and comprehensive program like Six Sigma to assist urban
school district superintendents in improving and sustaining increased student
achievement.

82
Control to Maintain Improved Performance
Another key process unanimously supported by the superintendents was the
need to develop ongoing measures to monitor performance and continue the
improvement process. This aspect of school reform is somewhat aligned with the
final Six Sigma process known as control or redesign, which states that an
organization has to have a system in place for (should this be “continuous” future)
monitoring of performance improvement. Focusing on continuous improvement is
important if an organization is to be sure their performance goals are being met and
success is sustained over the long-term. The superintendents have many different
systems in place to maintain improved performance some use outside consultants
while others use curricular coaches. However, monitoring performance, whether
through the use of interim assessments or interim benchmarking tests to monitor
student progress throughout the school year.
Superintendent C said, “we use a system of benchmarks assessments to take
snapshots of student performance across all grade levels throughout the year in
preparation for state testing in the spring. We have coaches to go out to the school
sites and assist teachers with improving instructional practices but most of the work
is done on sites in small teams”. All of the participants expressed concerns that state
test results arrive too late in the summer and so they have also developed summative
assessments, which gives them an idea of how effective they were in the current
year. Superintendent B is using ISO9000 as a quality assurance program, which
involves “writing a set of standards [expectations] and then working towards meeting

83
those standards. In essence we say what we are going to do then we do what we
say”. In this district benchmarking is done in preparation for state testing but has
developed a value added model to measure student and school site growth towards
proficiency.
An interesting note on the difference between the study participants and Six
Sigma was the lack of agreement by the majority of the superintendents that it was
important to pilot possible solutions before implementing change system wide.
Three of the five participants were neutral or disagreed that it was necessary to pilot
improvement processes. This deviates from Six Sigma, which believes it is very
important to pilot possible solutions in a variety of situations before implementing a
process improvement or redesign. While all of the participants have systems in place
to monitor improved performance they also indicated that solutions to address
shortfalls are often rolled out with little or no piloting. According to Six Sigma
caution should be exercised even if the pilot has successfully produced results. In
fact, before a final roll out Six Sigma requires that any redesigned process or
improvement initiative should include a plan to identify the following: Training (new
approaches to be learned), Documentation (references on how to do things, answers
to frequently asked questions, process maps), Troubleshooting (who will deal with
which issues as they arise), Performance Management (needs, opportunities, revision
of job descriptions, incentives, performance review criteria) and Measurement
(results need to be documented). The study participants indicated they consistently
provided training for any new initiatives but there was no evidence that prior to or

84
soon after the implementation of a new process all of the above mentioned five
elements were addresses systemically.
Do the benefits of using Six Sigma support the superintendents’ organizational goals
for performance improvement?
According to the Six Sigma literature there are six benefits of using Six
Sigma: generates sustained success, sets performance goals for everyone, enhances
value to customers, accelerates the rate of improvement, promotes learning and cross
pollination, and executes strategic change for an organization. The study participants
agreed in spirit and rationale that the benefits provided by a program like Six Sigma
are aligned with the benefits and goals they want for their own school districts.
However, as stated in the previous section similarities in spirit and rationale have not
yet translated into systemic implementation of Six Sigma practices in school
districts. However, the evidence would suggest that if implemented systemically
Six Sigma processes can improve and sustain student achievement for urban school
districts (Cavanaugh et al, 2000).
Generates Sustained Success
As successful as the study participants have been at raising student
achievement, their reform efforts may lack the depth of implementation to sustain
their successes over the long term. Many of the study participants used terms like
“best practices” and “research based strategies”; however, terms like “innovation”
and “inventive” were not used as frequently when describing their improvement
strategies. When one considers sustaining student success over the long term the

85
expectation is that new processes will be created as the demand for universal student
success increases. Superintendent C stated, “we find ourselves implementing
practices that facilitate improved instructional practices but often the educational
system is set up in such a way that [it] prevents us from getting our results in a
timely manner”. Statements like this highlighted the need for urban school districts
to begin to think about redesigning current practices instead of relying on short term
improvement. Six Sigma, if implemented systemically in an organization, offers the
promise of sustained success through continuous improvement, innovation and
invention [redesign].
All of the study participants stated the pressures of No Child Left Behind
(2001) has pushed through tougher accountability standards, but the ostensible
intents of NCLB was flawed in its implementation because unrealistic goals were set,
and more importantly, without the adequate funds to support those goals. Speaking
of current reform efforts, Superintendent C said, “the ideas are well intended but the
overall policy was not thought out very well”. All of the participants agreed that
school districts had a moral and professional responsibility to meet the needs of all
the students they serve. It is also interesting to note, that when the participants spoke
of ways that student achievement could be more effectively improved, they
emphasized the need for school districts to work on an organizational and systemic
level, sharing the responsibility and accountability across all stakeholder groups. All
agreed that shared-data-driven decision helps build the capacity required to improve
student performance and also facilitates getting buy-in from those who have to do the

86
work. When they discussed the problems of getting buy-in for their improvement
initiatives, the issues were due in large part to overcome objections from the teachers
unions.
This shift in educational practice towards collaboration has helped the
superintendents break through many of the barriers that once stifled instructional
change. Superintendent B stated, “we spent a lot of time listening to the concerns of
the teachers and the association because we needed everyone on the same page. The
input they provided to us shaped the way we look at performance. We look for
growth. If we went by strict accountability or overall performance it would be
counterproductive”. Superintendent D was able to design a five year improvement
plan adopted by the entire school district, which significantly improved curriculum
and instruction. Superintendent C continued the work of previous superintendents
who had begun reform initiatives ten years earlier.
The participants all agreed that once student achievement improves, school
districts have to be prepared to sustain their success as state and federal
accountability standards increase aggressively through 2014. As the superintendents
elaborated on their survey responses it became clear there was a need for systemic
organizational improvements in order for the school districts to be prepared as an
organization for the increasing accountability demands of state and federal mandates.
Superintendent C said, “you have to be specific about what you decide to change so
that you are doing work that promotes student learning and is successful. The more

87
success you generate the more your team will feel they can be successful. If you try
too much too fast and you fail then you erode the organizational trust”.
Clearly the accountability standards have increased the pressure felt by urban
school districts to improve student achievement. And in an era of accountability
(that will only get more strenuous as we approach 2014), the benefits of a program
like Six Sigma, which offers the promise of sustained success utilizing tem work and
collaboration, are even greater.
Sets a Performance Goal for Everyone
The first step in Six Sigma is to set goals and standards. Most high
performing institutions operate from a set of established goals or expected outcomes.
Six Sigma has borrowed from other performance improvement programs, which also
use goals to improve quality and performance. The responses from the participants
indicated strong support for the use of goals to improve instructional quality and
increase student achievement. Superintendent A said, “setting goals for people is
important because it provides clarity of expectations. People can work together
better when they have clear goals they have to achieve”. When asked, only
Superintendent B indicated that performance improvement initiatives were being
used at the central office to improve district operations. While all of the participants
had reorganized district operations as needed, only Superintendent B stated his
district was integrating the use of quality assurance programs at the central office.
All of the participants indicated a need to spread performance improvement to all
areas of district operations especially in areas of declining enrollment where

88
increased cost savings can be used to support instructional programs. Most of the
superintendents indicated that performance goals in non-instructional departments
generally applied to supervisors and managers but little or no goal setting was done
at the front line employee level.
One of the benefits of Six Sigma is that it sets goals for everyone in the
organization and challenges all employees to improve their work performance.
According to the Six Sigma literature it has generated millions of dollars in cost
savings annually because companies are working more efficiently. All of the
superintendents agreed that working more efficiently and generating income during
difficult budgetary times is a priority. Therefore, it makes sense that a program like
Six Sigma could assist urban school district superintendents find additional resource
by ensuring that their organizations were working more efficiently thereby freeing up
additional resources to support instructional improvement initiatives. The
participants all sated they are always looking for additional support from federal or
state grants and their local business community. However, none of them mentioned
developing initiatives for improving their operational efficiency, which could be a
significant source of revenue if time was taken to implement a systemic performance
improvement program like Six Sigma.
Enhances Value to Customers
Six Sigma addresses the concept of “value” in several ways, but ultimately
the usage of value within the program boils down to the perception by the customer
that they benefited from having interacted with a business. Value is as much a

89
feeling of satisfaction as it is a dollar amount. Six Sigma offers organizations the
benefit of enhancing a sense of value with their customers. For school districts, the
concepts of value can have a variety of meanings. The value of an education can be
measured by raw performance data (test scores) or it can be based on the perception
by parents that a school is safe and students are learning. The increased pressure for
urban school districts to compete for students because of school choice and open
enrollment policies requires urban school districts to consider how they can increase
their perceived value within the communities they serve. Superintendent D said, “we
had several thousand students leaving our district for private and charter schools.
The parents no longer saw value in our schools so they left and it caused us to re-
think our entire instructional and curricular program. We had to listen to the voices
of those who were leaving in order to find a way to meet their educational needs”.
In Superintendent B’s district they actually use the term “value added” to
describe their quality assurance (accountability) program. Superintendent B said,
“we look at what we do in order to identify if our work adds value to our students.
How much improvement they make after having been with us for a year is important
to us”. Superintendent A said, “Parents are interested in the safety and quality of
learning of their public school, which often drives school districts to implement
student performance improvement initiatives and develop new instructional
programs or services”.
All of the superintendents stated they had at one time or another used the
committee process for gaining support for large program changes or district

90
decisions. What they discovered in the process was that stakeholders would explain
what they see is of value to them and how the district can best meet their needs.
Superintendent A said, “because we are competing for students we have to listen to
our community members about what they see is important to them so we can work to
support their needs or else they leave for districts that will meet their needs”. The
superintendents felt that all of their improvement initiatives both instructional and
organizational are designed to enhance the value of the traditional instructional
delivery service that they provide to their communities and that all of their efforts to
improve are ultimately designed to improve the value of learning in the classroom.
Superintendent C said, “in the end everything we do boils down to improving student
learning”.
Based on the superintendents’ responses we see a high degree of need for
increased value, which is a benefit Six Sigma can provide for school district
superintendents looking to improve the value they offer to the communities they
serve. The power of Six Sigma is that it requires organizations to start with the
customers needs first and then work backwards to increase their ability to meet those
demands. In urban school districts the needs of the community vary and without
listening to the voice of the parents and students any gains in student learning could
stagnate or regress if the gaps between what the students need and what the district is
providing are not in alignment. And it is critical to remember, that the needs of the
stakeholders in a school system are not satisfied by adequate test scores alone. What
stakeholders want from their school district are myriad and complex. It is this

91
researcher’s belief, that utilizing Six Sigma on a comprehensive level, would allow
school districts to hear the complexity of the voices of the communities they serve.
Accelerates the Rate of Improvement
Six Sigma accelerates the rate of improvement because it focuses on
maintaining a cycle of continuous improvement, thereby facilitating continued
innovation and efficiency. As accountability standards increase annually through
2014 the superintendents’ agreed there is a need for systemic prevention,
intervention, remediation and acceleration of student learning. They all agreed that
students from diverse ethnic backgrounds, language minority students and students
with learning disabilities require additional assistance in order to improve their
learning. The study participants discussed how many students enroll in American
schools (whether at age five or 15) with skills two or three years below grade level;
however, public schools are required to teach them grade level standards for the
grade they are enrolled in and not necessarily for the grade level they are prepared
for, requiring them to remediate for skill or knowledge gaps in the students’ learning.
While all of the participants have made great strides in improving student
achievement there exists a needs to accelerate the pace at which students improve as
the federal and state benchmark requirements increase annually through the year
2014.
Each of the study participants explained that they had programs in place to
assist students in meeting grade level standards; however, there is a tremendous need
for accelerated learning as NCLB deadlines approach. Superintendent A said, “we

92
focus on early intervention to be sure we do not let students get too far behind. We
are utilizing a model right now called RTI [Response To Intervention], which gives
struggling students access to interventions early so we can meet their needs now
instead of two or three years later once the student has been referred to special
education. We are providing them with services that were not previously available
to them unless they were able to wade through a lot of bureaucracy and testing”.
In an effort to meet the instructional demands of their students all of the
superintendents indicated a need for continuous performance improvement coupled
with accelerated learning for students that are below grade level. In addition, as
student achievement gains improve, the participants felt that successful school
districts must also have systems in place to improve upon their success resulting in
more innovation and even better performance. This continuous cycle of
improvement feeds important data to key stakeholders who then provide the
information to school site administrators and teachers who then work collaboratively
to identify possible causes and opportunities for improvement. This cycle of
informing and decision making creates a feedback loop resulting in the creation of an
organizational culture that is focused on learning and performance improvement.
However, where the schools and companies that use Six Sigma diverge in
practice is in the idea of establishing systems of continuous improvement. The
nature of school calendars is such that every year is viewed as a new year
independent of the previous year or in setting expectations for the coming year. Six
Sigma practices would suggest that in order to remain innovative and develop

93
continuous cycles of improvement urban school districts will have to adopt a longer
view of students K through 12 and redesign instructional practices to address system
wide instructional improvement needs.
Promotes Learning and “Cross-pollination”
Six Sigma practices rely on a closed loop system of goals, measurement,
analysis and action. The organization keeps itself informed about its successes and
failures. In their follow up interviews the participants alluded to the idea of trying to
create what Senge (2000) calls a learning organization. That is creating a school
district that learns from itself, contains sufficient feedback loops and is designed to
facilitate student and adult learning. Superintendent A said, “you have to be
transparent. All of the information [data] has to be shared by all and you have to be
honest about what the data means for your organization”. Superintendent C said,
“once you have your priorities sometimes things have to go. That is not always easy
for people to understand but if the data is telling you [that] something is not working,
people have to learn to adapt. Sometimes programs that feel good to do are not
producing the intended outcome and it does not make sense to keep them”. The
superintendents found many of their schools are organizing themselves into small
learning communities, which work collaboratively to address performance gaps. As
school sites work together what they learn influences decisions made by the central
office and in some cases have resulted in the implementation of instructional
practices district wide. However, there did not appear to be a clear establishment of

94
a systemic improvement process throughout the organization that was relied upon to
encourage efficiency and innovation throughout the instructional system.
There were several examples of curriculum and instructional practices being
shared and used across the school districts but the examples were more in the nature
of sharing best practices, or good instructional ideas, versus truly redesigning or
reinventing processes for increased student achievement across the entire system.
One superintendent told the story of how the implementation of an instructional
strategy known as Thinking Maps (a strategy used to teach writing) in all classrooms
K-12 started from one elementary school and was eventually embraced by teachers
across the district, which later lead to its adoption as a district-wide instructional
practice. The other participants reported similar examples of collaboration and
shared practices being implemented in their districts, which was creating
opportunities for effective practices to be shared across their districts and for cross
pollination or shared learning to occur.
Superintendent D said, “as consistency grows throughout the district and
effective instructional strategies are practiced at all of the school sites resistance to
change is reduced overtime. The teachers can’t claim that their principal is being
unfair by making them implement instructional improvements because these changes
are happening across the entire school district”.
Superintendent C said, “as instructional practices are identified as effective,
schools start to learn from other schools and lead teachers start to mentor their
colleagues. Soon teachers are developing common assessments and developing

95
common lessons. All of our Algebra teachers give the same assessment at the same
time and use the results to identify strengths and weaknesses in our instructional
program”. All of the participants mentioned that developing a culture of learning
and continuous improvement was important for future success. Here we see very
close alignment with Six Sigma and the strategies of the study participants. It is
important to note that for the most part the superintendents focus on creating learning
teams remained mainly in the curriculum, assessment and instruction area while full
implementation of Six Sigma would facilitate wide spread organizational learning
and cross pollination, which is to say that everyone in the organization would know
how their work impacts the goals of the school district no mater how far removed
from the classroom they may be.
Executes Strategic Change
One of the obvious benefits of implementing Six Sigma is the clarity it
provides to organization that have fully implemented the program. The processes
and practices of Six Sigma provide a consistent and clear reality for the organization
leadership as well as the front line team members. In addition, because Six Sigma is
a process more than it is a “program” it forces Six Sigma organizations to be very
strategic about the changes they would like to make. In Six Sigma it is bad form to
make hasty uninformed decisions. In education too often teachers and administrators
make continuous changes to solve problems instead of being methodical and
deliberate about change using data and detailed analysis. All of the superintendents
in the study have undertaken change initiatives in their districts varying in size from

96
adoption of intervention materials to major budgetary decisions requiring extensive
community and stakeholder support. Each superintendent reported variations of the
same process wherein they established committees made up of important stakeholder
groups that were charged with making recommendations to the superintendent and
the school board about a particular change initiative. However, there was no
universal process for executing strategic change initiatives used by all of the
participants. Unlike Six Sigma there were no standard forms or specific processes in
place. The superintendents utilized a general committee or other shared group
process as a means for gaining wide spread support for their initiatives. The same
was true internally for instructional change initiatives, which often required
significant input from the teachers associations.
The superintendents stated that whether it was introducing new instructional
materials, implementing a new program or offering a new service it was important to
have a process in place for setting group goals and getting stakeholder input. They
were all in agreement that without the buy-in or support of the stakeholder groups
any change initiative was doomed from the start and could undermine the future
change initiatives. Superintendent C said, “you have to be careful because you can’t
just shove change down people’s throat. That is sort of what NCLB did and no one
was prepared for it, which has impacted schools across the country. With all the
accountability and no support, schools feel like they are targets for sanctions. We
have a demand for school principals. No one wants the job. So as a superintendent

97
you have to be sensitive to change and be sure you have processes in place for the
good of all parties involved especially the students in your district”.
As part of any change initiative Superintendent B said, “information should
be available to all especially those who will be most affected by the change. You
have to be transparent because if people think the change is all about you and what
you want as an individual you will not have the support you need. People have to
know what you do, why you do it and how you do it so they can understand the
organization and its purpose”. Many of the superintendents indicated that having a
process in place for implementing change helps to build trust, which is important for
both the organization as well as the superintendent as a leader. Having processes in
place to execute strategic change is a practice used by successful corporations who
have implemented Six Sigma in order to pilot new products, enter new markets,
launch new initiatives or acquire other companies.
The same strategic change occurs in school districts who must cope with
changing demographics, increased competition from charter and private schools, as
well as an increased demand for quality and from the communities they serve. More
importantly, urban school district superintendents must be prepared to implement
strategic change if they are going to meet the high accountability standards of state
and federal mandates; in addition, they must be prepared to meet the needs of a
global society, which requires its citizens to understand and use technology, speak
more than one language, develop an appreciation of diverse cultures and prepare
today’s students for jobs of the future which may not currently exist. It is clear from

98
this research that successful superintendents will be those who have systemic
processes in place to execute strategic change. Six Sigma could be the tool used by
urban school district superintendents to ensure their organizations become more
strategic in both their thinking and practice.
Which Six Sigma organizational core competencies align with what the
superintendents’ believe are best practices for successful school districts?
The study participants in their follow up interviews indicated that school
districts would have to master the practices outlined in the educational research that
contribute to increased student performance. More importantly that school districts
will have to improve their instructional practices to ensure all students are achieving
at high levels. Superintendent B said, “you can’t just be content with sending
students through the system and not have anything to show they are better educated
then when they started with you”. In essence the superintendents believed that as an
organization school districts were going to have to become more competent at
raising student achievement. According to Cavanaugh, et al. (2000) the Six Sigma
system supports five core competencies organizations need to be successful in the
21
st
century:
1. Identify core processes and key customers
2. Define customer requirements (goals)
3. Measure current performance (data)
4. Prioritize, analyze, and implement improvements
5. Expand and integrate the Six Sigma system

99
These five core competencies are referred to as the Six Sigma Roadmap
outline the skills successful companies will need to develop in order to remain
competitive. The superintendents indicated in their interviews that successful school
districts must also develop these same skills if they are going to meet the increasing
accountability benchmarks of state and federal mandates for educational
performance.
Furthermore, there was agreement among the participants that many
attempted educational reforms can fail because they over rely on one person or a
team of people to sustain the reform instead of developing organizational processes
that will support continuous reform and improvement. The superintendents did not
specifically reference the Six Sigma core competencies to describe the essential
skills successful school districts must have to sustain their success; however, there is
a high correlation between what they described to be desired core competencies for
their districts and the Six Sigma core competencies. While there is philosophical
agreement between the study participants and the Six Sigma core competencies there
is significant disparity in the depth and complexity of implementation between the
strategies used by the study participants to increase student achievement and the
strategies they would have used if they had implemented Six Sigma in their districts.
According to the survey responses their was one statement which all of the
study participants indicated they strongly agreed with: It is important to identify the
fiscal and human resources necessary to achieve defined student performance goals.
This indicates agreement that successful school districts will be those who

100
understand how to collaborate as an organization to maximize their resources to
support the goals of the organization. More specifically, urban school districts
because of their size and complexity will need to adopt practices, which develop core
competencies through systemic implementation and continuous improvement.
Superintendent D stated, “our success happened because as a school system we got
better at what we did. We focused not only on instruction but changed the way our
district was organized and how we worked to make things better for all of our
students”.
Discussion
An interesting common note that emerged among the study participants is
that they all shared the ability to initiate and implement wide spread improvement
and change. Again we see evidence that some of the pragmatic and best practices
found in Six Sigma have made their way into education especially among successful
urban school district superintendents. Each of these superintendents were well
versed in collaborative change, shared decision making, data driven decision making
and fiscal responsibility. It came as no surprise to this researcher that elements of
Six Sigma were found in the operational rationales and strategies of these successful
superintendents. Six Sigma is a proven system for performance improvement used
by very successful corporations. With corporate influence over K-12 education
driving many of the educational quality initiatives it comes as no surprise that Six
Sigma practices (although not adopted systemically) are being used.

101
Given the initiatives and ideas already in play in the respective school
districts of the study participants, the results of the survey and follow up interviews
indicate that all urban school district superintendents, including these participants
who have been successful at raising student achievement, could benefit from the
implementation of Six Sigma in their schools districts. Because Six Sigma is a
comprehensive system it provides the opportunity to fundamentally transform urban
school districts in a strategic, data driven, goal and results oriented manner
ultimately resulting in raising and sustaining academic performance for the nation’s
most needy students.
Furthermore, Six Sigma offers urban district superintendents a set of
processes and strategies that can improve school district effectiveness without a
significant restructuring of the current K-12 system. Six Sigma offers a systematic
approach to improving organizational performance as well as student achievement
without the need for a complete overhaul of the existing K-12 educational system. It
offers a pathway towards improving school district effectiveness and overall quality
for all stakeholders. Six Sigma differs from other school reform initiatives because it
can be implemented across K-12 systems producing a more efficient and effective K-
12 district. It provides opportunities to exploit significant revenue generating and/or
cost savings initiatives that otherwise would have been overlooked if system reform
initiatives remained focused only on improving student achievement via the
instructional services.

102
Six Sigma also offers an opportunity for urban school district superintendents
to implement performance improvement initiatives system wide. Six Sigma offers
opportunities for superintendents to engage their classified and certificated staff in
ways that respects each groups unique professional culture and at the same time
allows for each group to engage in improvement initiatives which respects the
differences that exist among each groups work related activities. Six Sigma offers
opportunities for a superintendent to maximize both fiscal and human resources
across their organization in a manner that encourages a laser like focus on improving
performance and generating revenue through cost savings. Many school reform
initiatives focus exclusively on improving instructional quality but forget that student
achievement is also influenced by the systemic operations of an entire K-12 system.
It would be a mistake for superintendents to assume that maintenance, transportation,
grounds and other non-instructional operations can exist independent of any
influence on instruction. In fact, this study would offer the idea that seamless
integration of performance initiatives across K-12 systems do in fact contribute to
improved student achievement. Whether that is through revenue generation via
improved efficiency and cost savings or by making sure physical plant operations
respect instructional time in an effort to avoid disrupting school instruction by
scheduling maintenance and operations after regular school hours.
Six Sigma also offers assistance to failing schools. Given state and federal
policy demands placed on K-12 school systems Six Sigma offers a method for
addressing ineffective school practices by encouraging underachieving schools and

103
school districts to re-think how they approach school improvement initiatives.
Urban school district superintendents who have a record of success can exploit Six
Sigma for its comprehensive approach to organizational performance improvement
as well as its potential to address improved student achievement and reducing the
achievement gap among student groups. Six Sigma offers an alternative to
interventions that only address instructional related activities and refocuses K-12
systems on comprehensive organizational reform efforts designed to support
improved student achievement goals.

104
Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions and Implications
Statement of the Problem
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s report A
Nation at Risk warned that U.S. public schools were in danger of falling behind the
rest of the world jeopardizing our political, social and economic future (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). More recently No Child Left
Behind (2001) increased accountability for public schools. No Child Left Behind
(2001) imposes financial sanctions on schools and school districts that are not able to
meet the needs of all students including significant sub-groups like ethnic minority
students, students with disabilities and language minority students. This increased
pressure to improve student achievement has forced urban school district
superintendents to look for alternative school models, which facilitate improved
instructional delivery and increase student achievement.
Many schools and districts have experimented with several models for
improving student achievement: shared decision making, small learning communities
and data driven decision making to name a few. Correspondingly, many successful
superintendents have borrowed heavily from performance improvement models like
Six Sigma, but there is minimal evidence that any one school district has adopted a
comprehensive district-wide system for maximizing student performance and
organizational competitiveness. Six Sigma provides possible answers to the
following questions facing many urban school district superintendents: How does an

105
urban school district superintendent re-organize a district and its schools in a manner
that facilitates organizational learning? What about an ongoing improvement
process designed to maintain instructional improvement and sustain improved
student achievement? What are the steps needed for superintendents to sustain
instructional change and improvement? What strategies do successful
superintendents use to control for variation in student achievement? Is there a
proven process for developing an ongoing commitment to sustained performance
improvement?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine how successful urban school district
superintendents have used elements of a continuous improvement processes known
as Six Sigma to achieve their improved student achievement results. More
specifically this study will identify opportunities for urban school district
superintendents to implement Six Sigma in their districts as a means to improve and
sustain student achievement. Six Sigma is a comprehensive and flexible system for
achieving, sustaining and maximizing success. Six Sigma is driven by a close
understanding of customer (student) needs, disciplined use of facts, data, and
statistical analysis, and diligent attention to managing, improving and reinventing
processes (Cavanagh, et al., 2000). The researcher applied the Six Sigma Model as a
rubric to identify how successful superintendents have used elements of Six Sigma to
improve student achievement.

106
Research Questions
The research questions in this study were developed as a result of an analysis
of research on successful urban school district superintendents who raised student
achievement in reading and/or mathematics. A particular interest of this study was
to evaluate the strategies used by the superintendents to improve student
achievement and identify, within these efforts, similarities to Six Sigma.
Additionally, the study postulated how the application of Six Sigma strategies can
sustain improved student achievement. In order to find answers to these queries, the
following research questions were formulated to guide the study:
1. Which Six Sigma improvement processes were evident in the
superintendents’ strategies to increase student achievement?
2. Do the benefits of using Six Sigma support the superintendents’
organizational goals for performance improvement?
3. Which Six Sigma organizational core competencies align with what
the superintendents’ believe are best practices for successful school districts?
Methodology
Research Design
After defining the problem to be studied and conducting a review of the
literature it was determined by the researcher a qualitative case study was the most
appropriate method to complete the study, since qualitative research permits the
investigator to study specific issues or events in detail; in addition, data collected is
not restricted by predetermined categories and contributes to the depth of qualitative

107
data. Correspondingly, a qualitative research design was used to develop the
research questions for the study. For this project, the researcher relied on the
comparative case study approach appropriate to qualitative research; more
specifically, a comparative case study method involving four superintendents using a
survey instrument and individual interviews were utilized.
Upon receiving permission from the University of Southern California and
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) the researcher was able to make the initial
contact via telephone with the selected superintendents. An introductory letter,
consent form and survey was mailed to the participants. The participants were asked
to provide a date and time for the one hour individual interview. The
superintendents were interviewed individually for 30 minutes over the telephone and
were tape recorded to ensure the accuracy of the interview.
Sample and Population Participants
The researcher used purposeful sampling to select the participants for this
study in order to gain more detailed information about the strategies used by
successful urban school district superintendents to improve and sustain student
achievement. The four superintendents selected for the study are unique in that they
all were able to raise student achievement in their districts despite being located in
urban areas with high incidences of poverty and ethnic minority student enrollment.
They were also known as data-driven decision makers who were effective at
implementing system-wide instructional improvement reforms throughout their
organizations. Even though much of the literature suggests successful

108
superintendents achieve success because they work collaboratively with all
stakeholders the reality is that wide spread organizational improvement processes,
like Six Sigma, can only be initiated by someone with the vested authority of a
superintendent, thus only superintendents were selected for the study.
Data Collection and Analysis
Instrumentation
Each participant completed an 18 question survey. The purpose of the survey
was to gain an initial assessment of each superintendent’s use of Six Sigma strategies
in their districts and identify similarities in the level of agreement between each
superintendent.
Literature on Six Sigma was used to develop the survey questions in order to
identify correlations between Six Sigma processes and the strategies used by the
superintendents to raise student achievement; however, specific references or the use
of the term “six sigma” were omitted from the survey and the interviews to avoid
undue influence on the participants responses. Every effort was made to ensure the
participants responses relied exclusively on their experiences in an effort to ensure
that any correlations between their strategies and Six Sigma occurred through the
investigation and not because they had some existing knowledge or schema about
Six Sigma which influenced their responses to the survey or the interview.
Data Collection
The data collection involved: a strategies survey, individual interviews,
review of existing publications about the selected superintendents, and literature on

109
Six Sigma for comparison. Although all of the participants completed an initial
survey the primary methodology for gathering data was the individual interviews,
which provided the researcher with an opportunity to probe beyond the initial survey
responses. The questions on the survey were taken from the Six Sigma literature and
included statements related to performance goals, monitoring, improvement and
control. Through the individual interviews the researcher was able to gain more
specific knowledge about the strategies used by the participants to raise student
achievement.
After each participant completed a survey the researcher contacted the
participant by telephone and asked five follow up questions. Each participant was
asked, “You indicated on the survey your level of agreement with the following
statement (statement re-read) can you please explain your rationale and/or
experiences which influenced your answer?” The process was repeated five times
and the same questions were asked of all the participants. Each statement on the
survey was taken from the rational explained in the Six Sigma literature; however,
the five follow up questions covered five areas: leveraging federal and state
mandates as a catalyst for change, setting goals, allocation and alignment of human
and fiscal resources to support achievement of goals, collaborative goal setting,
evaluation of current practices, and the disaggregation (analysis of student data).
Review of Publications
The superintendents selected for the study are well-known in the field of
education and have been the subject of several publications. The publications ranged

110
from newspaper articles to in-depth case studies published by non-profit educational
foundations. The researcher searched educational databases, online academic
research services, educational journal publications and other reference materials to
gather information on the strategies and achievements of the selected
superintendents.
Six Sigma Literature
The researcher used several articles and a book on Six Sigma to gain
information about Six Sigma including the history of its development, performance
results, use in industry, research and rationale, record of effectiveness and strategic
implementation procedures.
Data Analysis
The researcher used the survey results to compile a small sampling of
similarities and differences in the scoring of the survey by the superintendents. The
researcher then identified the strength of agreement or disagreement with the
statements as scored by the superintendents in an effort to identify a correlation
between the strategies used by the superintendents and Six Sigma strategies. The
transcripts of the interviews were reviewed in an effort to identify alignment with the
superintendent’s rationale for implementing specific strategies and correlations with
the Six Sigma process DMAIC. All interviews were analyzed and responses were
categorized by the researcher as aligned with one of five categories: Define,
Measure, Analyze, Improve or Control.

111
Validity Concerns
The researcher used multiple perspectives to ensure diversity of research.
The superintendents represent different geographical areas of the United States
including school districts located in the eastern, southwestern and western regions.
The participants are also diverse in gender, age, ethnicity and professional
background. The researcher used a variety of data collection tools and a diverse
participant selection to ensure methodological and data triangulation using a variety
of sources (Patton, 2002). The use of triangulation in methodology and data
collection ensured the researcher could validate the findings.
Findings by Research Questions
Which Six Sigma improvement processes were evident in the superintendents’
strategies to increase student achievement?
Given the responses on the Superintendents Strategy Survey, in addition to
the detailed information provided in the follow up interviews, it appears as though all
of the superintendents are utilizing some of the more obvious and pragmatic Six
Sigma improvement processes as a means for improving student achievement. More
specifically, there is evidence suggesting that the superintendents across the board
used strategies very similar to the Six Sigma DMAIC process, which, as the acronym
is spelled out, is used to: Define performance goals, Measure current performance,
Analyze data, Improve processes, and Control to maintain or sustain improved
performance. However, there exists a large gap between the way such strategies are
used by the superintendents to address instructional improvement concerns and the

112
systemic implementation of Six Sigma like processes across their organizations,
which would require systemic implementation (of Six Sigma or similar strategies) in
all areas of their school districts.
Do the benefits of using Six Sigma support the superintendents’
organizational goals for performance improvement?
According to the Six Sigma literature there are six benefits of using Six
Sigma: generates sustained success, sets performance goals for everyone, enhances
value to customers, accelerates the rate of improvement, promotes learning and cross
pollination, and executes strategic change for an organization. The study participants
agreed in spirit and rationale that the benefits provided by a program like Six Sigma
are aligned with the benefits and goals they want for their own school districts.
However, as stated in the previous section similarities in spirit and rationale have not
yet translated into systemic implementation of Six Sigma practices in school
districts. The evidence collected from this research study would suggest that if
implemented systemically Six Sigma processes can improve and enable the goal of
achieving sustained student achievement for urban school districts.
Which Six Sigma organizational core competencies align with what the
superintendents’ believe are best practices for successful school districts?
The study participants in their follow up interviews indicated that school
districts would have to master the practices outlined in the educational research that
contribute to increased student performance. More importantly that school districts
will have to improve their instructional practices to ensure all students are achieving

113
at high levels. In essence the superintendents believed that as an organization school
districts were going to have to become more competent at raising student
achievement. According to Cavanaugh, et al. (2000) the Six Sigma system supports
five core competencies organizations need to be successful in the 21st century:
1. Identify core processes and key customers
2. Define customer requirements (goals)
3. Measure current performance (data)
4. Prioritize, analyze, and implement improvements
5. Expand and integrate the Six Sigma system
These five core competencies are referred to as the Six Sigma Roadmap
outline the skills successful companies will need to develop in order to remain
competitive. The superintendents indicated in their interviews that successful school
districts must also develop these same skills if they are going to meet the increasing
accountability benchmarks of state and federal mandates for educational
performance.
Furthermore, there was agreement among the participants that many
attempted educational reforms often fail because they over rely on one person or a
team of people to sustain the reform instead of developing organizational processes
that will support continuous reform and improvement. The superintendents did not
specifically reference the Six Sigma core competencies to describe the essential
skills successful school districts must have to sustain their success; however, there is
a high correlation between what they described to be desired core competencies for

114
their districts and the Six Sigma core competencies. While there is philosophical
agreement between the study participants and the Six Sigma core competencies there
is significant disparity in the depth and complexity of implementation between the
strategies used by the study participants to increase student achievement and the
strategies they would have used if they had implemented Six Sigma in their districts.
Conclusions
As a result of the methodologies and data collections procedures utilized, the
resulting data collected yields the following applicable conclusions both on the
climate of school reform in the United States generally, as well as the specific reform
strategies utilized by the participants in this study:
1. There has been increased influence and pressure from the corporate
sector on public education to improve educational quality in U.S. public
schools.
2. There has been a significant influence of successful leadership
practices and organizational leadership strategies from the corporate sector on
educational leaders.
3. There are elements of Six Sigma strategies used by successful urban
school district superintendents but no evidence the program has been
implemented in its entirety.
4. There is a high correlation between the goals of urban school district
superintendents and the benefits of using Six Sigma.

115
5. Urban school district superintendents are in need of a system designed
to improve and sustain student achievement as well as reduce the
achievement gap among diverse groups of students.
6. Increased demands for improved educational quality are forcing
school districts to pay more attention to the efficiency and effectiveness of
their organization.
7. Unfunded state and federal mandates require school districts to
maximize their fiscal and human resources to meet the needs of all of their
students.
Implications for Future Research
Urban school district superintendents need a comprehensive performance
improvement system to enable sustained student achievement, as well as accountable
improvement in instructional quality, fiscal services and organizational performance.
In order to provide valid information that would enable data driven reform
applications for our schools, more research is needed in the following areas:
1. Instructional Quality: As state and federal accountability benchmarks
increase aggressively through the year 2014 urban school districts will need a
comprehensive instructional performance improvement system in place that
focuses on the needs of the students and communities they serve. It will no
longer be enough for districts to implement new curriculum or intervention
programs. Successful schools and their districts will need to adopt a systemic
approach that influences teacher behavior through observation, collaboration

116
and a focus on continuous improvement. Successful superintendents will
have to redesign their organizations and implement a system for performance
improvement that is clear and provides sufficient support for established
instructional goals. More research has to be done on the depth and
complexity of successful superintendents to identify the detailed practices
and work involved in their instructional improvement initiatives including:
standardized documents, data analysis structures, goal setting processes, and
other work products, which would provide a better understanding of the
relationship between these strategies and Six Sigma.
2. Student Achievement: Successful superintendents must be results
oriented. They must be comfortable being judged on the success of their
students and the ability of the superintendent to raise and sustain student
achievement. Furthermore, successful superintendents will have to shift from
a focus on average student performance improvement to a reduction in the
variation among their student populations. Averaging student performance
can often hide serious gaps or variations among student groups, which gives a
false sense of improved performance. Instead successful superintendents will
be those who are able to raise achievement for all students and
simultaneously close the achievement gaps between student sub-groups based
on race, language ability and socio-economic status. More research would
have to be done to compare the degree of success for school districts that
focus on average success for all students to these school districts which focus

117
on reducing the achievement gaps between student sub-groups. Six Sigma
suggests successful organizations are those, which avoid the averaging
illusion and focus on reducing achievement differences among students.
3. Fiscal Services: Successful superintendents will need to be fiscally
responsible and also find ways to generate resources in a time of severe state
and federal budget cuts as well as declining student enrollment. There was
no evidence in this study that successful superintendents directly address
their fiscal efficiency and use a systemic approach to ensuring not only fiscal
responsibility but also have a performance improvement system in place with
the potential to generate additional resources through improved fiscal
efficiency. More research would have to be done on how Six Sigma, which
has generated millions of dollars in savings and revenue for the corporate
sector, can be applied in education to generate resources for school districts.
4. Organizational Performance: Successful school districts will be
those who have a vision for future success based on a sincere focus on the
need of their students, are data and fact driven decision makers, are focused
on process management and improvement, have proactive and strategic
management, work collaboratively across their organization, strive for
perfection but learn from their mistakes. More in-depth analysis of entire
school systems needs to occur in order to evaluate the culture of successful
school districts to identify the degree to which these elements are in place and
shared by all stakeholders. Six Sigma believes these elements are an

118
essential part of an organization’s commitment to performance improvement
if they wish to implement Six Sigma.

119
References

Ackoff, R. (1981) Creating the Corporate Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher Leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443-449.

Boorstin, D. (1991) The Discoverers. New York: Harry N. Abrams

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2002). Comprehensive
School Reform and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Office of
Educational Research and Improvement No. R-117-D40005. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Boyd, W. L., & Crowson, R. L. (2002). The Quest for a New Hierarchy in
Education: From Loose Coupling Back to Tight? Journal of Educational
Administration, 40(6), 521-533.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for School
Reform. Educational Leadership, 40-44.

Cambron-McCabe, N., Dutton, J., Kleiner, A., Lucas, T., Senge, P., and Smith, B.
(2000). Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Resource. New York:
Currency Doubleday.

Carter, S. C. (2000). No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing High-Poverty
Schools. Washington DC: The Heritage Foundation.

Cavanagh, R., Neuman, R., and Pande, P. (2000). Six Sigma Way: How GE,
Motorola, and Other Top Companies Are Honing Their Performance. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Center for the Public Policy Priorities. (1998) Measuring Up: The State of Texas
Education. Austin, TX: Texas Kids Count Project

Chandler, A. (1977) The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American
Business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research Into Results: A Guide to Selecting
the Right Performance Solutions. Atlanta, GA.: CEP Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

120
Cuban, L. (1992). Managing Dilemmas While Building Professional Communities.
Educational Researcher, 21(1), 4-11.

Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher Leadership that Strengthens Professional Practice.
Alexandria, VA.: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional Policy into Practice: The Power of the
Bottom Over the Top. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3),
339-347.

Datnow, A. (2000). Power and Politics in the Adoption of School Reform Models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357-374.

Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. E. (2001). Managing and Guiding School Reform:
Leadership in Success for All Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,
37(2), 219-249.

David, J. L., & Shields, P. M. (2001). When Theory Hits Reality: Standards Based
Reform in Urban Districts. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts.

Elmore, R. F. (1995). Structural Reform and Educational Practice. Educational
Researcher, 24(9), 23-26.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21
st
Century. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Fullan, M. (1996). Turning Systemic Thinking on its Head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6),
20-23.

Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The Potential Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on
Equity and Diversity in American Education. Educational Policy. 18(1), 71-
94.

Goertz, M. E. (2001). Redefining Government Roles in an Era of Standards Based
Reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 62-66.

Goodson, I. F. (2001). Social Histories of Educational Change. Journal of
Educational Change, 2, 45-63.

Griffin, G. A. (1995). Influences of Shared Decision Making on School and
Classroom Activity: Conversations with Five Teachers. The Elementary
School Journal, 96(1), 29-45.

121
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational Change Over Time: The
Sustainability and Non-sustainability of Three Decades of Secondary School
Change and Continuity. Education Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41.

Hollins, E. R. (2006). Transforming Practice in Urban Schools. Educational
Leadership, 63(6), 48-52.

Iceland, J. (2003). Poverty in America. Los Angeles, CA: University of California
Press.

Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W.A. (2004). 21st Century at Work: Forces Shaping the
Future Workforce and Workplace in the United States. Santa Ana, CA:
RAND Corporation. Summary, pp. xiii-xxxiv.

Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the
21
st
Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations. San Francisco, CA.:
Jossey-Bass.

Lashway, L. (2003). Distributed Leadership. Research Roundup, 19(4), 1-7.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J. and Waters, J. T. (2006). School District Leadership that Works: The
Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. Denver, CO:
McREL.

McKeever, B. (2003). Nine Lessons of Successful School Leadership Teams. San
Francisco, CA: WestEd.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Education Reform. Retrieved on January 18, 2007 from http://
www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

Morgan, G. (1969) Images of Organization. San Francisco: Sage Publications.

Murphy, J., & Shipman, N. (1999). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium: A Standards Based Approach to Strengthening School
Leadership. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(3), 205-224.
National Education Goals Panel (1993) Background on the National Education
Goals Panel. U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research
and Improvement: Washington, DC.

122
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

O Neil, J. (1995) On Schools as Learning Organizations: A Conversation with Peter
Senge. Educational Leadership, Vol. 52, No. 7 (April 1995): 20-23

Ouchi, W. G. (2003). Making Schools Work: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Your
Children the Education They Need. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Salamon, L.M. (1991). Overview: Why Human Capital? Why Now? in D.W.
Hornbeck & L.M. Salamon (Eds.). Human Capital and America's Future.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement.
Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schmoker, M. (2004) Tipping Point: From Feckless Reform to Substantive
Instructional Improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 85, No. 6 (February
2004): 424-432

Schmoker, M. (Ed.). (2006). Results Now: How we can Achieve Unprecedented
Improvements in Teaching and Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional Outcomes
of School-Based Participative Decision Making. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 18(3), 181-198.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A Social Capital Framework for Understanding the
Socialization of Racial Minority Youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1),
1- 40.

Stringer, R. (2002). Leadership and Organizational Climate. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond Islands of Excellence: What
Districts Can Do to Improve Instruction and Achievement in All Schools. The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

123
Tyack, D. (1974) The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

U.S. Department of Education (1996) Goals 2000: Increasing Student Achievement
through State and Local Initiatives. Washington, DC.

Vinovskis, M. A. (1996). An Analysis of the Concept and Uses of Systemic
Educational Reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 53-85.

Weiss, C. H., & Cambone, J. (1994). Principals, Shared Decision Making and
School Reform. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 28 7-301.

Wheatley, M. (1999) Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a
Chaotic World. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

124
Appendix A
October 16, 2007

Dr. SAMPLE, Superintendent
SAMPLE Unified School District
1234 Main Street
City, CA 91234

Dear Dr. SAMPLE:

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to review the information enclosed. You are invited to
participate in a research study. My interest in this study stems from my experience as a middle school
principal and as a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California in the Rossier School of
Education. I am currently in the dissertation stage of my program and seeking assistance from successful
urban school district superintendent to participate in this study. The information in this study will be for
research purposes only.

The purpose of the study is to identify performance improvement strategies used by successful urban school
district superintendents and identify commonalities between those strategies and a continuous performance
improvement process known as Six Sigma. The study may help educational leaders understand the Six Sigma
process and how it can be used to improve and sustain student achievement.

If you agree to participate in this research study the approximate total time required will be 45 minutes to
complete the following assessments: strategies survey (18 statements) and a thirty minute follow up interview.
You may complete the enclosed strategies survey and return it in the enclosed envelope.

Your participation in this study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Any
data collected will be destroyed per your request.

All information you provide will be held in strict confidence by the researcher and dissertation committee
members. All data collected will be associated with a number code and to assure confidentiality.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the research study, please contact Alejandro Rojas or Dr.
Rudy Castruita, at the addresses below:

Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Researcher: Faculty Supervisor:
Alejandro J. Rojas Dr. Rudy Castruita
alejanjr@usc.edu rcastrui@usc.edu
(626) 272-5378

125
Appendix B
Superintendents Strategy Survey

Federal and State mandates (NCLB, testing, accountability, etc.) can be
leveraged by superintendents to implement systemic instructional
improvement

District-level teams are an important part of the instructional improvement
process

School-site teams are an important part of the instructional improvement
process

It is important for student performance goals to be defined

It is important to define for all stakeholders the rationale and potential
impact of systemic instructional improvement initiatives

It is important to define for all stakeholders the potential risks for protecting
the status-quo

It is important to review student performance data before beginning the
process of defining student performance goals

It is important to identify the fiscal and human resources necessary to
achieve defined student performance goals

It is important to review and measure progress towards student
performance goals regularly

It is important for student data collection forms/tools are easy to use and
provide consistent/complete data

It is important for student data to be reviewed or analyzed by teams

It is important to identify current practices (disconnects, redundancies,
dysfunction) that are counterproductive to defined student performance
goals

It is important to disaggregate student data to help stratify the problem,
understand reasons for variation in outcomes, and identify potential root
causes

It is important to develop a list of innovative ideas for potential solutions
then use stakeholder input to narrow down and qualify potential solutions

It is important to pilot solutions and monitor results before expanding
system-wide

It is important to compile results data confirming the defined student
performance goals have been met

It is important to develop ongoing measures to monitor performance and
continued effectiveness

It is important to celebrate the successful efforts of all stakeholders
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

5

4

3

2

1
5 4 3 2 1

5

4

3

2

1
5 4 3 2 1

5

4

3

2

1
5 4 3 2 1

5

4

3

2

1
5 4 3 2 1

5

4

3

2

1
5 4 3 2 1

5

4

3

2

1
5 4 3 2 1

5

4

3

2

1
5 4 3 2 1

5

4

3

2

1
5 4 3 2 1

5

4

3

2

1

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Increased accountability from state and federal governments as well as increased quality demands of the public has forced many urban school district superintendents to re-think what it means to be successful and how it is they measure academic success. Increased pressure from the corporate sector has lead many superintendents to borrow practices from high performing corporations and successful business leaders in an effort to raise the effectiveness of their school districts in raising student achievement. Many school district administrators are reading books like The World is Flat, Good to Great and the work of Peter Senge on creating learning organizations. We also see the influence of quality improvement strategies like TQM and the Malcolm Baldridge Award for Quality in school districts as they use data to drive decision making and monitor the effectiveness of their instructional programs.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement

PDF

How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement

PDF

CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents

PDF

Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

PDF

Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Sustainable reform: a follow-up case study on one urban superintendent’s efforts to improve student achievement

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

PDF

A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent

PDF

Superintendents' entry periods: strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry period

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

Successful communication strategies used by urban school district superintendents to build consensus in raising student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Rojas, Alejandro J. (author)

Core Title Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/15/2008

Defense Date 03/12/2008

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

Tag Educational Leadership,leadership strategies,OAI-PMH Harvest,Six Sigma,student achievement,superintendent,urban school district

Language English

Advisor Castruita, Rudy M. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Vargas, Edward Lee (committee member)

Creator Email alejanjr@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1120

Unique identifier UC1310442

Identifier etd-Rojas-20080415 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-53202 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1120 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Rojas-20080415.pdf

Dmrecord 53202

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rojas, Alejandro 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