Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Defined autonomy: how superintendents work with principals to create the defined autonomy at schools necessary for improved student achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
Defined autonomy: how superintendents work with principals to create the defined autonomy at schools necessary for improved student achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
DEFINED AUTONOMY: HOW SUPERINTENDENTS WORK
WITH PRINCIPALS TO CREATE THE DEFINED
AUTONOMY AT SCHOOLS NECESSARY FOR
IMPROVED STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
by
David Cash
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 David Cash
ii
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to the following individuals:
My wife, Heather, who has been supportive and enthusiastic throughout the
process of completing this dissertation. I appreciate how she encouraged my work and
was always a great listener.
My son, Woody, who has had to grow up with his father as a school
administrator, yet has remained grounded in who he is as a young man. My hopes,
dreams and aspirations for the future, can be seen clearly in his growth from a child to a
young man.
My daughter, Ella, who has lived her entire life with me as a doctoral student at
USC, and has never complained about where her daddy is!
Dr. Rudy Castruita, my committee chair, who is an outstanding role model for
public school superintendents. He is a treasure of knowledge and expertise on the
subject of leadership.
Dr. Michael Caston, who has been a tremendous role model, teacher and mentor
in my work as an educator. He has been an inspiration to me, as I have worked to
complete this study and has truly changed my life as an administrator.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the three superintendents and principals who so
graciously gave of their time to participate in this study. I would like to acknowledge
Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, who is one of the clearest and most creative thinkers I have
come in contact with during my work at USC.
I would also like to thank the professors I had the privilege to meet during the
course of study including Steven Fish, Margaret Chidester, Keith Howard, William
Maxwell, Dennis Hocevar, Dominic Brewer, and Anthony Knight.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION........................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER ONE:
The Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Introduction................................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem................................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study.............................................................................. 7
The Importance of the Study ................................................................. 8
Research Question................................................................................. 8
Assumptions.......................................................................................... 9
Limitations............................................................................................. 9
Delimitations......................................................................................... 10
Research Design and Methodology....................................................... 11
Definition of Terms ............................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study...................................................................... 12
CHAPTER TWO:
Review of Related Literature.................................................................... 14
Introduction.............................................................................................. 14
Community............................................................................................... 14
Public Opinion of School Performance.............................................. 16
Movement toward Accountability Programs...................................... 17
External Community Accountability for Public Schools ......................... 18
California Accountability Programs................................................... 18
Federal Accountability Programs....................................................... 21
California’s Response to Federal Accountability Programs .............. 23
District Superintendent and School Principal........................................... 30
Conclusion................................................................................................ 34
CHAPTER THREE:
Introduction.............................................................................................. 36
Research Question.................................................................................... 36
Research Design....................................................................................... 37
Sample and Populations ........................................................................... 40
v
Instrumentation and Data Collection........................................................ 41
Research Procedure.................................................................................. 45
Timeline of the Study: Table 3.1............................................................. 46
Validity Concerns..................................................................................... 48
Ethical Considerations.............................................................................. 49
Summary................................................................................................... 49
CHAPTER FOUR:
Results and Analysis................................................................................. 50
Research Question.................................................................................... 51
Interview: Superintendents................................................................. 51
Shared Vision..................................................................................... 51
Non-negotiable Goals......................................................................... 54
Instructional Leadership..................................................................... 55
Student Achievement.......................................................................... 57
School Resources................................................................................ 60
Major Findings related to Research Question .......................................... 60
Superintendents.................................................................................. 60
Principal Interviews.................................................................................. 61
Shared Vision..................................................................................... 62
Non-negotiable Goals......................................................................... 63
Instructional Leadership..................................................................... 64
Student Achievement.......................................................................... 64
School Resources................................................................................ 65
Major Findings Related to Research Question......................................... 67
Principals............................................................................................ 67
Comparison between Superintendents and Principals........................ 67
Document Analysis.................................................................................. 68
Internal Memorandums and Presentations to Principals .................... 68
Public Documents............................................................................... 69
Leadership Team Documents............................................................. 69
Summary................................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER FIVE:
Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................... 72
Conclusions.............................................................................................. 75
Superintendents.................................................................................. 75
Principals............................................................................................ 78
Recommendations.................................................................................... 80
Concluding Remarks................................................................................ 81
REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 84
vi
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Superintendent Protocol................................................. 88
APPENDIX B: Principal Protocol........................................................... 89
vii
ABSTRACT
The processes and strategies utilized by superintendents to provide “defined
autonomy” for school principals, was identified in a case study of three superintendents
and three principals. Analysis of the case studies of these superintendents and principals
was used to determine what strategies and processes were used.
The review of the literature indicates that there has been a significant change in
the manner in which superintendents lead school districts. Working directly with
principals to improve student achievement is part of this change. Literature related to
the organization of schools, how schools and districts are being held accountable for
student achievement is examined.
This study is a qualitative case study analysis that involved interview and
document analysis. Three superintendents and three principals were interviewed. The
superintendents worked in school districts that had experience at least a three
consecutive year improvement in student achievement as measured by the Academic
Performance Index.
The results of the study suggest that there are some common strategies, new to
the superintendency, being used to create and provide the “defined autonomy” for
principal and schools to improve student achievement.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
The creation and development of the community that supports local public
school districts has long been the task of the elected School Board and the
superintendent. The role of the superintendent in public education has evolved over
time. After decades of a slow evolution from implementer of School Board policy to
manager of the school district’s organization, the pace of evolution and change is now
much more rapid. As this change has taken place, the superintendent’s work with the
public school community has changed. This change in the superintendent’s work has
coincided with significant changes in both the external communities that direct and
support public schools and the internal community that is the public school system.
Communities were previously satisfied with managerial competence and equal
access to education as sufficient responsibilities for the superintendent. Managerial
competence is now a given and it is in the area of student achievement that new
responsibilities have emerged for superintendents. These new responsibilities have
been driven by the external community. The legislature, the judiciary and the economic
realities created by an ever demanding public education consumer, parents, are now
demanding that academic achievement for students is the most important responsibility
of the public school system.
2
The rapidity of the change in superintendent responsibilities can be attributed to
the changing expectations of external communities and the district’s responses to those
changes. One of the most significant changing expectations is in the area of account-
ability for student achievement. No longer will external communities accept the work
of public schools without a public accounting for that work. As a result, there are
comprehensive accountability systems at both state and federal levels that have resulted
in a public demonstration of a school district’s work. This represents a dramatic change
from the “loose coupling” model of the previous decades where external evaluation of
public education was buffered by district administration.
These changes in how external communities are responding to public education
have in turn changed the role and responsibilities of the superintendent to the internal
communities of the school district. Faced with the political and legal consequences for
poor student performance, superintendents are redefining their roles and their
responsibilities in curriculum and instruction (Petersen, 1999; Waters & Marzano,
2006). As these responsibilities are being redefined, so is the relationship the
superintendent has with the internal communities of the school district.
Superintendents have always had to respond to the external communities and
work with internal communities. It is the nature of the response to external
communities and the type of work with internal communities that is changing. While
there is no doubt that the time for support by external communities is critical to the
success of the superintendent, it is in the changing relationship with internal
communities, that is contributing to the redefinition of the responsibilities of the
3
superintendent. How well the superintendent works with internal communities in
response to the new demands of the external communities will be a major factor in
determining the success of the superintendent.
Background of the Problem
By the end of the 1970s, the concept of “loose coupling” as a model for school
organization had become predominant (Elmore, 2000). Loose coupling was defined as
that where decisions regarding the technical core of education (what should be taught,
when it should be taught and how it should be evaluated) were to be made by classroom
teachers and not be the school or district (Meyer &Rowan 1992; Rowan 1990; Weick
1976;). School site administrators and district level administrators were not seen as
contributors to this technical core (Elmore, 2000). At the same time, research was
concluding that this “technical core” remained unclear, uncertain and most likely
without the strength to withstand external evaluation (Lortie, 1975). The role of
administration was seen as simply to protect this technical core from external evaluation
and scrutiny, with the superintendent charged with the task of creating an organization
that protected teachers from external evaluation. Therefore, as teachers worked alone in
their classrooms, administrator’s roles were limited to creating the organization that
would not disrupt the technical work being done in those isolated classrooms.
There is no specific management model that school districts can employ that
leads to the systematic and ultimately systemic teaching and learning strategies that
result in ongoing improvement in student achievement. Corporate executives exhort
school districts to behave as if they are businesses. However, school districts remain
4
distinctly different from businesses (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). One of
those significant differences is the role of the district CEO, the superintendent. School
district stakeholders, both external to the district (legislators, bureaucrats, judges,
special interest groups) and internal (students, parents, teachers, administrators) often
have strong and divergent differences in the direction of the district. These divergent
differences include vocal parents insistent upon specific curriculum or programs; state
and federal mandates regarding uses of revenue that are often disconnected from student
achievement; opportunities for revenue growth that are nonexistent; and the divergent
demands of an elected governance body (the school board) that may have their own
agenda unrelated to the academic achievement of the students in the school district.
New roles for the district office and the superintendent are emerging. As
Childless et al. (2006) notes, “District leaders must come to view their organizations as
integrated systems whose interdependent parts are directly linked to the work of
teachers and students in classrooms” (pp. 1-13). For Childress et al. (2006), this
translates to the district office development of a strategy that helps teachers know what
to do and what not to do in relationship to the non-negotiable goals of improving
student achievement.
The paternalistic view that increasing student performance, especially for those
students who have traditionally been underserved, can be dismissed so long as there is
evidence that we are trying hard has given way to the view that all children must be
academically proficient. While there is no doubt that effort is critical, it is academic
performance that matters. In this new era of accountability, a culture of collaboration,
5
with high expectations for all students, is essential (Defour, 1991; DuFour, Eaker, &
DuFour, 2004; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Many, 2006). In the spirit of, we are all
working together, the accountability that is necessary for meeting those high
expectations becomes part of the new role and responsibilities of the superintendent.
Statement of the Problem
The notion that top-down management and hierarchical control are successful
strategies in educational leadership has been set aside in favor of a more collaborative
approach. The literature is replete with the belief that there is a new approach, one that
is built on shared information, values and interests (Childress et al., 2006; Johnson,
1995), and it is this new approach that creates the probability that leadership can
accomplish the important task of improving student achievement. Successful
superintendents recognize the need to listen carefully, develop and nurture relationships
within the community (both internally and externally). While superintendents may have
little control or influence in the external community, the internal community, where the
teaching and learning takes place, provides a tremendous opportunity for making a
positive difference in student achievement.
The literature has emphasized the power and importance of school based
leadership (Marzano & Waters, 2005) and the influence that superintendents have on
student achievement has recently been studied through the work of Tim Waters and
Robert Marzano at McREL (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Their findings indicate that
there is a positive correlation between effective superintendents and student achieve-
ment. The responsibilities of an effective superintendent were identified as:
6
1. Collaborative goal setting
2. Non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction
3. Board alignment and support of district goals
4. Monitoring goals for achievement and instruction
5. Use of resources to support achievement and instruction goals
Their meta-analysis begins the exploration of what these responsibilities are and how
effective superintendent’s utilize these responsibilities to increase student achievement.
In addition to identifying a correlation between these responsibilities of an
effective superintendent and student achievement, Waters and Marzano (2006) found
what they called “a surprising and perplexing finding” (p. 4). It is this additional
finding that forms the basis of this study. Waters and Marzano reported this additional
finding as “defined autonomy.” Defined autonomy was defined as the relationship
school principals have with superintendents where nonnegotiable goals in teaching and
learning are given to schools, but schools are given the responsibility and authority to
determine how best to meet those goals. It is this “surprising and perplexing finding” of
defined autonomy and its important correlation to superintendency effectiveness that
forms the basis of the research problem.
The understanding of these new responsibilities superintendents have in working
with the internal community of schools and how those responsibilities are created and
defined is important. Identifying the processes and strategies that superintendent’s
utilize to create the defined autonomy when working with school principals and their
7
schools can help other superintendent’s be more effective in increasing student
achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to describe the role of the superintendent in
working with school principals in creating the defined autonomy necessary to meet the
non-negotiable goals of student achievement. A recent meta-analysis of leadership
studies has provided concrete evidence regarding the role principals have in increasing
academic achievement for students (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). A
significant conclusion was that leadership alone was not positively related to student
academic achievement. However their meta-analysis noted that specific leadership
responsibilities were related to student achievement. One of these findings was in the
area of site-based autonomy. The meta-analysis performed by Marzano et al. (2005)
indicated that there was a positive correlation between increased site autonomy and
increased student achievement.
Since the finding of defined autonomy was considered to be “surprising and
perplexing” by Waters and Marzano (2006), little is know about how this important
internal community (the school principal) and the superintendent work to create the
shared vision and understanding of defined autonomy. This study identified
superintendents in Southern California who are successful internal community, (as
limited in this study to school principals) relationship builders. Their behavior was
examined and the following question related to their behavior was addressed: What are
the processes and strategies used by the superintendent in working with principals to
8
create the shared vision and understanding of defined autonomy in order for the
schools to meet the non-negotiable goals in student achievement?
The Importance of the Study
This study can assist superintendents in understanding the processes and
strategies necessary to create and sustain the defined autonomy between the district
and individual schools. An ability to understand these new responsibilities of the
superintendent will help prioritize the work of superintendents. Since the study
identifies the behaviors required to create the shared vision of defined autonomy, both
superintendents and school principals benefit from the identification of these strategies.
Since this responsibility has been positively correlated with an increase in student
achievement, it may be an important part of future educational and training programs
for school administrators.
Research Question
The research questions identified in this study were developed as a result of an
analysis of the research in community building, school district relations, leadership and
student achievement, accountability systems and the responsibility of the superintendent
in each of these areas. The following question was identified and addressed in this
study: What are the processes and strategies used by the superintendent in working with
principals to create the shared vision and understanding of defined autonomy in order
for the schools to meet the non-negotiable goals in student achievement?
9
Assumptions
For this study, it was assumed that:
1. The chosen procedures and methods were appropriate.
2. Superintendents and principals provided accurate and candid responses to
all 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 that the analysis of that data, would provide usefully information
for all educators.
Limitations
For this study, the following limitations are known to exist:
1. Only three superintendents in Southern California were used for this study.
Three superintendents were chosen to study as a result of their district’s
student achievement increases (as measured by the Academic Performance
Index) over a 3-year period. As a result, the results may not be
generalizable.
2. The data collection method was based upon analysis of open-ended
interviews of three superintendents and six principals in three districts.
The results may be subjective.
10
3. The Academic Performance Index was used to identify superintendent
success. This is a single indicator of school district success and does not
take into account many other indicators of success such as graduation rate,
college admission rates, SAT/ACT scores, attendance rates or other
assessments.
Delimitations
Delimitations were used to narrow the focus of this study. These were identified
as:
1. Superintendents that were selected for the study are current
superintendents in public school districts in Southern California.
2. Superintendents that were selected for the study had been superintendents
in their school districts for at least 3 years.
3. Behaviors of superintendents and the perceptions of their behaviors by
principals in their districts were studied; the findings may not be
representative of other superintendents.
4. Superintendents selected for this study work in school districts having
between 5,000 and 20,000 students.
5. School district superintendents were selected from districts that had an
increase in student achievement over a 3-year period as measured by the
Academic Performance Index (API).
11
Research Design and Methodology
Understanding the strategies used by superintendents to create the defined
autonomy identified with increased student achievement was accomplished by
interviewing superintendents and principals in Southern California public school
districts where those superintendents were known for their success in improving student
achievement over their tenure.
Two levels of data collection were utilized:
1. Structured interviews of superintendents where open-ended questions were
used to obtain responses
2. Structured interviews of principals (identified by the superintendent)
where open-ended questions were used to obtain responses
Definition of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API)
A number summarizing the performance of a group of students, a school, or a
district on California’s testing program.
Accountability
The notion that people or an organization can and should be held responsible for
outcomes.
Community
A group with shared beliefs and values.
12
External Community
In an educational setting, those intermediary organizations that influence public
schools such as the judiciary, the legislature and administrative agencies
Internal Community
In an educational setting, those directly involved in the core mission of
education, students, parents, teachers, administrators and school board members
No Child Left Behind Act
The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
School Board
A locally elected group, between three and seven members, who set fiscal,
personnel, instructional, and student-related policies. The School Board also hires,
evaluates and terminates the superintendent.
School District
A local education agency directed by an elected local School Board that exists
primarily to operate local public schools.
Strategies
Specific tactics used to carry out a plan or method.
Superintendent
The highest ranking administrative position within a school district.
13
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1
1. Background, purpose of the study
2. Research questions and rationale for study
3. Design methodology and purpose
4. Terms
Chapter 2
Literature review in four areas:
1. Community in public education
2. “Loose coupling” model of district organization
3. Accountability systems: state and federal
4. Role of superintendent in improving student achievement
a. Relationship between superintendent and principal
Chapter 3
Research procedures:
1. Sample selection
2. Interview questions
3. Data collection
4. Analysis
Chapter 4
Research findings
14
Chapter 5
1. Summary of findings
2. Conclusions from findings
3. Recommendations
References and Appendices
15
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The literature is organized into four areas: (a) community; (b) the impact of
external communities on the role and responsibility of the superintendent, specifically
the impact of California accountability programs and the 2002 No Child Left Behind
Act; (c) the organizational model of “loose coupling”; and (d) how the relationship
between the district superintendent and school principal has changed in order to ensure
that the student learning required by accountability programs is defined. Within the
framework of the organization of public schools, the role and responsibilities of the
superintendent have been well defined as managerial in nature. As that framework has
changed through the impact of community demands, identified for this study as
accountability programs, the relationship between the superintendent and school
principal is changing.
No longer completely autonomous or buffered from external observation and
evaluation, schools must respond to the community demand for academic achievement.
An examination of community, the creation and response to, accountability progress
and the changing role of the superintendent in working with schools helps understand
this change from an organizational structure defined as “loosely coupled” to one of
“defined autonomy.”
16
Community
Understanding the concept of community will help sharpen the focus in
answering the research question because it is the processes and strategies created and
defined by the superintendent in response to demands by the school community that
have changed. The school community is easily and appropriately divided into two
areas: (a) internal and (b) external. The internal community is defined as those
individuals and organizations that are responsible for the core mission of schools.
These would include students, parents, teachers, staff, school board and administration.
The external community is defined as those individuals and organizations that are
external to the core mission of public schools, teaching and learning. These external
community members consist of the legislature (state and federal), the courts (state and
federal), business, and other governmental agencies.
Others have described external and internal publics with the internal community
comprised of those who work with school districts and external communities being
made up of those who provide financial and emotional support for school systems
(Kaplan & Norton, 1996). In the broader sense, community has been identified in the
literature as a group with shared values and beliefs (Furman & Starratt, 2002). Included
within this concept, is the belief that a sense of being part of something, of belonging to
a group is a universal value (Sergiovanni, 1995). However, while these views are
important in an examination of how schools and districts create, sustain and/or develop
the idea of community, they do not address the issues that superintendent’s face with
several distinct communities both inside and outside of the school district.
17
Mathews (1997) argued that public school systems have lost their connection to
the public they were intended to serve. As a result, school districts are losing their
legitimacy in the communities where the decision as to who controls the school system
has emerged in the myriad of public policies and practices such as site-based
management, vouchers, charter schools, private schools, mayoral take-over and state
take over (Mathews, 1997). All of these actions by the external community have been
in response to the belief that the internal community, specifically teachers and
administrators, have not responded to the needs of other members of the internal
community, students and parents. This has led to the belief that the internal community
leaders cannot address the needs, as identified by students and parents, and as a result, it
is the external community that must step in and create the changes necessary to regain
public confidence in the legitimacy of schools. If school districts are not seen as
legitimate by either the internal or external communities, then the role that
superintendents play in recreating the social compact that communities and school
districts have is a critical one.
Public Opinion of School Performance
Each year, the Gallup Organization asks parents to assess schools. The results
of this poll are reported in the Phi Delta Kappan each year. Of interest, the literature
for the past 30 years has been replete with statements that the support for public schools
and the belief in the legitimacy is declining (Mathews, 1997). However, in 1974, the
Gallup Poll results indicating that 48% of the public gave public schools a grade of A or
B and again in 2006, 49% of the public gave public schools a grade of A or B. (Rose &
18
Gallup, 2006). With such a small change in public opinion over the past 33 years, the
idea that the external communities have needed to create an accountability system that
holds schools accountable as a result of a decline in the legitimacy of public schooling
is an interesting observation. The behavior of superintendents in working with
principals, in the context of current accountability systems and in light of the high
marks public schools are given is worthy of study.
Also of interest is the support for vouchers and parental choice through charter
schools. Over the past 13 years, support for vouchers has ranged from a low of 24% in
1993 to a high of 46% in 2002 with 36% of the public supporting vouchers in the 2006
poll. While there remains some significant misunderstanding regarding charter schools,
there is significant support for charter schools with 53% of the public in favor of charter
schools. (Rose &Gallup, 2006).
Despite these seemingly positive findings, it remains that over 50% of the public
does not rate their public schools as excellent, and over 50% of that same public is in
favor of alternatives to the public school system. It is within this context, that for the
past 25 years, that the external community has worked to create opportunities for
alternatives (vouchers, charter schools, magnet schools, academies, public funded-
privately managed schools) and has also created significant accountability systems for
public schools. The changes demanded by the external community has resulted in
significant changes in the processes and strategies that members of the internal
community use in order to best meet the needs of students in their schools.
19
Movement toward Accountability Programs
Much of recent literature discusses the need to create communities within the
school community and to recognize that educational leaders must be “community
builders” (Doyle, 2004). The communities within schools are identified as professional
learning communities for staff and learning communities for students (Dufour et al.,
2004). This focus by the internal community on community building has been in
response to the external community’s action regarding the perceived failing legitimacy
of public schools. The beliefs that schools are not responsive to public concerns, are
not responding to the public’s priorities reflect the diminishing belief that schools
belong to everyone in the community, and that they serve an important and enduring
public purpose. One such belief is that schools have not produced the academic results
required for the creation of successful and productive citizens. As a result,
accountability systems created by external communities have been imposed on schools.
External Community Accountability for Public Schools
The nature of the school community, external and internal, has changed over the
past 25 years as some members of the internal community (students and parents) have
determined that school staff cannot make the changes necessary to respond to student
needs. The external community has taken the lead in responding to the concerns by
imposing a significant accountability system that is external to the work local schools
perform. This accountability system has in turn, shaped the processes and strategies that
superintendents must utilize in order to work with principals in meeting the objectives
of the accountability programs.
20
California Accountability Programs
External communities have created accountability systems in school finance
(Proposition 13), the make-up of school communities [Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563
(1974)], teacher qualifications (No Child Left Beyond Act, 2002) and student learning
(Public Schools Accountability Act, 1999 and No Child Left Behind Act, 2002) through
court decisions, legislation and executive action. In California, an accountability
system of student academic achievement has been part of public schools for over 30
years. There is a long history of accountability requirements by the external
community. While the most comprehensive piece of California’s accountability system
was created through the Public Schools Accountability Act (1999), there is a significant
history of accountability for student achievement in California. Understanding, the
history and the extent of student achievement accountability programs is important in
framing the questions inherent in the changing processes and strategies used by
superintendents in working with principals to improve student achievement.
For over 30 years, students in California took academic tests in an accountability
program called the California Assessment Program. This assessment program utilized a
multiple choice format and matrix sampling design to measure effectiveness of schools
and school districts. During the late 1980s, the usefulness of the test results came into
question, as they did not provide individual student scores. At this same time,
significant curriculum reform was taking place in California through the leadership of
State Superintendent of Instruction Bill Honig. Curriculum frameworks in the areas of
21
language arts, mathematics and science were adopted. These frameworks emphasized
the need for a different assessment system.
In 1991, Governor Wilson signed legislation that created the California Learning
Assessment System (CLAS). The intent was to develop the test over a period of 5 years.
Unfortunately, CLAS turned out to be extraordinarily controversial for some members
of the California internal community (parents and students), and when they organized
significant opposition, the external community (legislative and executive branches of
state government) eliminated the program. Governor Wilson’s vetoed the funds for
CLAS in September 1994 and the elimination of the funds for the California
Department of Education to administer the CLAS. During the next 4 years, districts
were allowed to utilize their own individual commercial vendors for annual
assessments.
In 1995, AB 265 became law and created the California Assessment Academic
Achievement Act. This Act required that no later than January 1, 1998, the creation of
statewide content standards and an assessment program was to measure school
performance, school district performance, and pupil performance (AB 265). In 1997,
SB 376 became law creating the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR).
SB 376 was reauthorized by SB 233 in 2001. These laws required an assessment
program that provided comparable scores for individual students and group scores
(grade-by-grade, from all schools, school districts, counties, and the state), SB 376
(1997).
22
The history of California’s accountability programs consists of repeated
attempts to create a system that could withstand significant opposition and also sustain
support. The unwavering support for an accountability system created by the legislature
has been significant. Having individual scores for individual students and comparison
scores for schools and districts, has resulted in a significant change in the relationship
internal and external communities have with schools. Through the public posting and
acknowledgement of schools’ scores, the external community (state legislature) has
created a method for the internal community (students and parents) to identify specific
strengths and weaknesses in individual student achievement, teachers’ classroom
instruction, schools’ instructional programs, and school districts academic achievement
for all students. All of which continues to prompt the need for change in the processes
and strategies used by superintendents in working with school principals to increase
student achievement.
Federal Accountability Programs
The federal government has, despite a deep held belief by many that it should
not, had a significant impact on local schools. The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was the single largest source of federal support for K-12
education. The ESEA was part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty in 1965, and it
has been providing over $10 billion per year in federal assistance to poor schools and
communities. The ESEA included Title 1. Title 1 of the ESEA of 1965 created a set of
specific programs monitored and evaluated by the United States Department of
Education. These programs resulted in the distribution of federal monies to schools and
23
school districts with a high percentage of students from low income families. The
ESEA was authorized through 1970 and has been reauthorized every 5 years. There
have been three major reforms in the reauthorizations: (a) 1994 Improving America’s
School Act (IASA), (b) 1999 Education Excellence for All Children Act, and (c) 2002
No Child Left Behind Act.
The 1994 Improving Schools Act included a focus on changing the way
education was delivered. The 1994 IASA encouraged comprehensive systemic reform
in school systems through upgrading instructional strategies and improving professional
development for teachers (Public Law 89-10, 20 U.S.C. Section 6301 et seq.). An
important component was Title VI, which replaced part of Title 1. Title VI’s purpose
was to assist local educational reform efforts, support states to accomplish the National
Education Goals, provide funding to states to assist local districts to implement
promising reforms and meet the needs of at risk students. Starting in 1998, states
receiving Title 1 funds must have developed rigorous academic standards and have in
place a statewide assessment system.
The federal government’s passage of the Improving America’s Schools Act of
1994 (IASA) required states to develop a standards-based approach in measuring the
academic achievement of Title 1 schools. As a response, the California Department of
Education in their required plan in conformance with IASA created the Standards-
Based Accountability System, which began in 1997-1998. This action by the CDE was
in response to the requirements for continued receipt of Title 1 funds. Within 1 year,
the passage of PSAA prompted by the work of the Office of Policy and Evaluation’s
24
Steering by Results committee, reframed the entire accountability landscape in
California. (Steering by Results, Office of Policy & Evaluation, CDE, 1997; SBX1
Public School Accountability Act).
California’s Response to Federal Accountability Programs
The problems this legislation was designed to address include what is found in
the legislative intent noted in the beginning of Education Code Section 52050.5,
“Recent assessments indicate that many pupils in California are not now, generally,
progressing at a satisfactory rate to achieve a high quality education,” Education Code
Section 52050.5 (c). The design of the policy was based on two important ideas: (a)
student achievement must be measured (this was required by the reauthorization of
ESEA in 1998), and (b) that schools should be the principal unit of accountability.
The Public Schools Accountability Act (PSSA), states that the intent of this
accountability system is to improve student academic achievement. The external
community (legislative and executive branches of government) continued to move
forward with the creation of a system that implicitly recognizes the belief that schools
have not meet the academic achievement needs of the children who attend those
schools. No longer would the role and responsibility of the superintendent be to buffer
the technical core of teaching and learning from scrutiny. The legislation intended to do
all of the following (Education Code Sections 52050-52055):
1. Encourage teachers to develop “the ability to inspire pupils to become
lifelong learners.”
25
2. Create ongoing teacher professional development that improves
competency in “content and pedagogy.”
3. Stakeholders and community are involved in the accountability system and
supportive of education.
4. Help identify “causes of pupil failure,” and design remediation efforts.
5. Be collaborative, encouraging and change practices to improve student
achievement.
6. The state will be helpful for schools in supporting schools to “improve
pupil achievement.”
7. Support for and provide efforts to sustain high quality programs for
students.
8. Active involvement of parents.
The PSAA attempts to improve student learning by leveraging three important
areas:
1. Focus on student learning.
2. Extrinsic incentives are necessary to motivate educators to do a better job.
3. Building capacity (through funds) in lowest performing schools.
The legislation reflected the belief by the external community that schools that
were failing because the internal community was incapable of making the necessary
changes. There was a large emphasis on enforcement and sanctions with multiple
bureaucratic interventions. Schools that are identified as underperforming were
required to contract with an external evaluator [Education Code Section 52054 (a)].
26
The need for someone outside the school to make the changes necessary to improve
reflected the underlying belief that the internal communities were no longer trusted to
make the changes required. After contracting with an external evaluator, the schools
were then required to solicit input from their internal communities in order to create a
“school site and community team” to complete a review of the school and then to
develop a plan for improvement [Education Code Section 52054 (a-j)].
California has now eliminated the underperforming schools program as a result
of the lack of funding to pay for external evaluators. However, schools and districts
that remain underperforming are still sanctioned. If the school and/or district receives
funds through the federal Title 1 program, it may be subject to identification as a
Program Improvement school. The Program Improvement school sanctions are both
public (public identification as a ‘failing’ school) and long range (the school must
demonstrate improvement for 2 years and meet the performance targets before leaving
Program Improvement). This labeling of schools and districts as failing by the external
community was instituted in order to motivate internal communities to do a better job in
educating students (NCLB, 2002).
ESEA was reauthorized in December 2001 with the new title of No Child Left
Behind Act of 2002. The purpose of the law was to provide an accountability system
for schools that will result in increased student achievement, to help schools create
additional opportunities for under achieving students and to reduce the achievement
gaps among subgroups of students (Cronin, Kingsbury, McCull, & Bowe, 2005).
27
Accountability Programs and School Organization
The key evaluation of the effectiveness of NCLB is whether it has resulted in an
increase in student achievement. The underlying rationale for a federal student
achievement accountability system, is that it can force a change in the way public
schools work that, in turn. results in an increase in academic achievement for all
students. The requirements of these accountability systems were significant in every
aspect of school district operation: (a) personnel, (b) curriculum and instruction, (c)
finance, and (d) management. The clear intent was that the usual business of schools
would be required to change.
The new expectations, created through these accountability programs by the
external communities, were placed upon a school organization that had not changed in
many years. The organization of schools has remained virtually the same for over 100
years, while changes have been made around the edges of how schools are organized
structurally (block scheduling, vouchers, charter schools), and how schools were
organized for instruction has not seen any significant changes. The typical instructional
organization has remained virtually unchanged, especially in secondary schools where
one teacher teaches a single subject to 150 students each day for 55 minutes.
The idea that schools would respond to the changes necessitated by the
accountability results was based on the belief that schools could change. The change
would be one of both structure and instruction because the existing organization was not
producing the results required by new accountability programs. Those responsible for
the management of districts would now be required to lead the district through the
28
changes required by accountability programs. This would require a change in the role,
responsibilities, and the relationships of the district superintendent and school principal.
Organizational Model of “Loose Coupling”
In the late 1960s, a view of the organization of schools emerged that many felt
mirrored the practices of school communities (Weick, 1967). This view held that
administrators had very little control over what happened in the classroom and that
teachers had a high degree of autonomy about what occurred in their classrooms. This
idea was expressed in organizational theory as a model of “loose coupling” (Weick,
1967). Most of the discussion regarding loose coupling had to do with the relationship
between the teachers and administrators (both school and district). However, the theory
of loose coupling is one that is appropriately applied to the relationship that has existed
between superintendents and school principals.
The technical core of education, teaching and learning, was left to teachers
individual decisions. The infrastructure that was built to organize and support schools
was not utilized to exercise any control over the teaching and learning decisions. In
fact, this infrastructure was designed to protect or buffer this technical core from
external observation and evaluation. Schools were organized around single subject
classrooms and specific grades, both structures designed to isolate teachers. As a result,
structural innovations rarely resulted in significant changes to the technical core,
teaching and learning (Elmore, 1995/2000/2002).
In this model, superintendents did not lead or manage instruction. Instead,
superintendents were concerned with the structural issues that face schools and school
29
districts. These would include working with and responding to external communities in
the areas of facilities, budgets and compliance with legal mandates. A successful
superintendent was one that managed the external communities and created the “logical
confidence” that schools and school districts were doing what was expected of them
without any real influence on the technical core of teaching and learning.
Superintendents were able to ignore student achievement as they built the
organizational structures that this “logic of confidence” required. Bell and bus
schedules that have students getting to and from school on time, a balanced budget,
student safety, well-maintained schools were success markers for superintendents
(Rowan & Miskel, 1999). Creating the mental picture for the external community of
“good schools” became more important in ensuring that students were actually learning.
Ensuring that the external communities remained confident that schools were
performing appropriately, superintendents were able to ignore that the work of teaching
and learning. Superintendents continued to allow the teaching and learning decisions to
be determined by individual teachers’ beliefs and practices, as to what works best as
opposed to paying attention to student learning outcomes.
Through this logic of confidence, superintendents were able to maintain the
myth that the bell curve is the appropriate representation of student achievement. The
bell curve is an academic achievement distribution pattern that guarantees to produce
winners and losers in schools. Instead of a focus on improving the achievement of
students performing poorly, the belief was that those poor performing students simply
represented the bottom part of the bell curve. Their failure was not only an option but
30
also an expectation in schools. There would always be student who would never be
successful. In response to the built in system for student failure, external communities
(legislative and executive branches of state and federal government) have created
systems requiring academic achievement accountability for all students. Moving from
an organizational model of protecting the technical core to one of examination of the
technical core will require a significant change in the processes and strategies
superintendent’s utilize in working with school principals.
While external communities continued to expect reform and innovation from
school districts, superintendents kept reform and innovation limited to the structures of
schooling. Block scheduling, modular courses, dress code, elimination of lockers,
special programs that removed students from regular instruction were all examples of
reform and innovation that had little to do with the technical core of teaching and
learning. External communities were satisfied that schools were changing, so long as
the focus was on the structures of schools, instruction continued to be left to individual
teachers working in their classrooms.
The relationships between the external communities, where compliance with
legal mandates while maintaining the appearance of school norms was seen as
successful, was sustained through an elected board and an appointed superintendent.
Superintendent tenure was based on the ability to maintain a majority on the school
board, while board members were elected based on their ability to either sustain or
denigrate the existing school district structures.
31
The idea that the superintendent would be an instructional leader is consistently
challenged by both external and internal community demands. As external community
demands grow, the possibility that the power of the superintendent to engage the
internal community as an instructional leader is eroded as a result of having to build
political coalitions that gain the support of the external community. The relationships
between external communities and the superintendent have changed as the logic of
confidence in public schools has been replaced by the belief in the failed legitimacy of
schools. How the superintendent responds to the new demands for student learning, in
the context of an organizational model that cannot sustain the demands of the external
communities, forms the basis of the processes and strategies superintendents must now
use with school principals in defining, creating and sustaining the defined autonomy
necessary to meet these new non-negotiable goals in student achievement.
District Superintendent and School Principal
As was discussed above, the belief that formal authority is not a part of the
organization in schools, has created a gap between the teaching and learning required by
accountability systems and what actually occurs everyday in schools. As a result of
goals that some view are in conflict and the belief that the relationship between teaching
and learning is largely uncertain, school administrators have been expected to close off
classrooms from external communities. There is some administrative control and
direction, such as assignments of students to classrooms, but what happened behind the
doors in the classrooms was not subject to administrative control or direction. In order
for districts and schools to meet the requirements as determined by the external
32
communities, a significant change must take place in the theory and practice of school
district leadership. Some of that change takes place in the processes and strategies that
superintendents have in working with principals to meet the non-negotiable goals of
student achievement.
The idea that every school in some way is different from each other is a built in
discriminator when attempting to identify generalizable leadership behaviors or
responsibilities. The often heard phrases, “that won’t work in my classroom” or “that
school (where the identified behavior is exhibited) is different than my school,” have
created, for some, the belief that there is no common framework for school leadership.
The idea that there might be common behaviors superintendents can engage in, when
working with principals, that exist within a framework for leadership while maintaining
the school autonomy is an important concept to discover. As the external community
continues to require, through legislative and executive actions, increased accountability
in student achievement, the need to identify the processes and strategies
superintendent’s engage in when working with principals to meet the student
achievement goals is essential.
As was noted above, the organizational model of loose coupling created the
relationship between teacher and principal that was focused on limiting the examination
of teaching and learning. A successful principal protected teachers from external
evaluation and the focus was on creating the conditions for teaching and learning. A
successful superintendent had a well-managed district where the budget was balanced,
33
buses ran on time, schools were safe and clean, appropriate staff was hired and fired,
and materials were ordered and available at all the schools (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005).
The relationship between principals and student achievement has been identified
by the belief that the leadership of school principals makes a difference in the academic
achievement of students. This belief has been supported in the literature for many years
because why else would school districts hire principals to lead schools. Numerous
studies have identified principals as having a direct link to student achievement and
while most of these studies identified specific behaviors successful principals engage in,
there was no mention of how the principal interacted with the superintendent in
assuming responsibility for student achievement (Brookover, Beamer & Efthim,
Hathaway, Lezotte, & Miller, 1982; Edmonds, 1979; Weber, 1971). What was
consistent in the researcher’s observations was that principals were responsible for
creating the conditions for student achievement, whether there was an actual
improvement in student achievement was either not discussed or determined not to be
something within the responsibility or control of the school principal.
A significant source of information in this area is found in Kathleen Cotton’s
(2003) book Principals and Student Achievement: What the Research Says. Cotton
reviewed over 55 reports on the impact principal leadership has on student achievement.
Her conclusion was that principal leadership does have an effect on student achieve-
ment but that most of the impact is indirect as it is “mediated through teachers and
others” (2003). The others’ that Cotton is describing are other teachers at the school,
support staff, parents, and the attitudes of other students. It is how the principal works
34
with members of the schools’ internal communities that create the conditions for student
achievement. Cotton does identify 25 specific categories of behavior that principals can
engage in that positively impact student achievement (2003). Of interest, is that some
of the identified principal behaviors that support an increase in student achievement
appear to be in conflict with each other. For example, one behavior is identified as
“collaboration” while another is identified as “support of teachers’ autonomy” (2003).
Recently, Marzano et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 69 studies
involving approximately 1.4 million students and concluded that there is a quantitative
correlation of .25 between the leadership behaviors of principals and the average
academic achievement of students in the school (Marzano, et al., 2005). While the
authors caution readers regarding this single number and instead describe specific
leadership responsibilities that have a positively related impact on student achievement,
this remains a significant finding. Marzano et al. go on to identify, “The 21
Responsibilities of the School Leader.” (p. 41, et seq.)
With the changing expectations of the external community, where all students
must achieve at a certain level and that no student can be ignored, the idea that schools
can be deemed as successful because the majority of their students are achieving at high
levels is no longer seen as valid. The role and responsibilities of the principal have
changed from creating the conditions for learning to insuring that all students achieve at
a specific level. The idea that some students will never learn, a belief supported by the
bell curve, cannot exist in the public schools working within the new accountability
systems. Therefore, how schools meet the non-negotiable goal of student achievement
35
for all students is important to understand. The behaviors and responsibilities that
principals exhibit and engage in are critical to meeting these non-negotiable goals.
Marzano et al. (2005) identified specific behaviors but also did not identify how
the principal’s behaviors interacted with the district superintendent. The question arose,
what influence, if any, did district superintendents have on student achievement? If the
research was clear that principals could engage in specific responsibilities that created a
positive impact on student achievement, what role and responsibility did the
superintendent have in working with school principals?
In a working paper, published in 2006, J. Timothy Waters and Robert J.
Marzano (2006) addressed the issue of district leadership and student achievement.
This paper reported the preliminary results of a meta-analysis of the influence of school
district leaders on student achievement. From their meta-analysis, Waters and Marzano
concluded that there were five school district leadership responsibilities that impacted
student achievement. In addition, they discovered that an effective superintendent
creates the conditions of “defined autonomy” with their principals. These conditions
were identified as setting “clear, non-negotiable goals for learning and instruction, yet
providing school leadership teams with the responsibility and authority for determining
how to meet those goals.” (Waters & Marzano, 2005, p. 4)
Conclusion
The changes in the expectations of the external community and the creation of
accountability systems that require all students to achieve at specific levels, is requiring
a change in the internal communities of public schools. Specifically, the organizational
36
model of schools must change. Moving from a model that emphasized the maintenance
of a private practice in teaching and limiting external evaluation of learning, to one
where the examination of the practices of teaching and of the extent of student
achievement are public, requires a change in the processes and strategies district
leadership must engage in to meet the challenges created by the new accountability
systems.
In a changing organizational model, leadership behaviors must change. In their
meta-analysis, Waters & Marzano (2006) identify 22 specific practices used by the
superintendent to “fulfill superintendent responsibilities” in the area of defined
autonomy. While these practices are identified, it is also now important to understand
the processes and strategies superintendent’s use in working with principals to create
the conditions for defined autonomy. As was noted above, the superintendent’s role
and responsibility in the area of student achievement will change. A significant part of
this change will be the work superintendent’s engage in with school principals.
37
CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the design of the study, the identification of the three
superintendents, data collections methods and data analysis processes are described.
The purpose of the study was to identify the behaviors and strategies in which
superintendents engage when creating defined autonomy for school principals. As a
result of a significant finding, specifically that giving principals defined autonomy to
carry out the non-negotiable goals in student achievement results in an increase in
student achievement, it became important for superintendents to discover how this
autonomy can be created. This study required a careful use of open-ended interview
questions with three superintendents in Southern California as well as two principals
from each of their school districts.
Research Question
The research question was developed from a review of the literature and the
meta-analysis done by Marzano and Waters (2006): What are the processes and
strategies used by the superintendent in working with principals to create the shared
vision and understanding of defined autonomy in order for the schools to meet the non-
negotiable goals in student achievement?
The identification of defined autonomy was in contradiction to an earlier finding
that site autonomy was a key element in increasing student achievement (Marzano,
2003). Therefore, how superintendents, working with principals, create defined
autonomy would be relevant to superintendents working in the field.
38
Research Design
Qualitative research was determined to be a useful method for answering the
research question. Qualitative research helps insure that the researcher can study
specific issues in depth, as a result, it was determined that a qualitative study utilizing
the case study approach, which provides a focus on the “naturally occurring, ordinary
events in natural settings” (Miles & Huberman, 1994), should be done in order to
discover the data that could help answer the research question. A case study approach
provides a method to collect, organize and analyze data (Patton, 2002). The qualitative
design of this study is grounded in the local context of the superintendency and their
relationship with school principals. The purpose of the study was to obtain information
from each case (superintendent). The unit of analysis is the superintendent with a focus
on the strategies and behaviors a superintendent engages in when creating the defined
autonomy for the principals s/he works with in their district. By utilizing a case study,
the in-depth analysis of the work of three successful superintendents could be obtained.
In-person interviews with three superintendents were conducted. These
interviews were purposeful. Questions, as noted in Appendix A were open-ended but
structured. This created the local groundedness, where the data “were collected in close
proximity to a specific situation . . .” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 10). In addition, the
in-person interviews of the school principals contributed to the richness and holistic
data that provides the opportunity for answering the research question (Appendix B).
The researcher gathered the raw data, which came from interviews of the
superintendents and principals as well as documents, provided by interviewees in
39
response to interview questions. With this case data, a case record was created for each
superintendent. The purpose of the case record is to create an organized structure to use
during the case analysis. It is critical that the case record be complete and manageable
so that the analysis can be conducted. Stenhouse (1977) states that the case record,
Should make no concessions to the reader in terms of interest of communication.
It is a condensation of the case data aspiring to the condition that no interpreter
requires to appeal behind it to the raw data to sustain an interpretation. (p. 67)
The case record approach was used because it provided sufficient detail to make
clear the focus of the research, while at the same time, providing specific data about
each of the superintendents.
This study utilizes a case study approach with purposeful sampling. A case is
defined as “phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context” (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The case study approach is described by Patton (2002) as:
The case study approach to qualitative analysis constitutes a specific way of
collecting, organizing, and analyzing data; in that sense it represents an analysis
process. The purpose is to gather comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth
information about each case of interest. (p. 298)
This is a multiple case approach because three Southern California superin-
tendents were studied. The multiple case approach is used to create useful kinds of
instances where typical or representative instances are found as well as negative or
disconfirming instances (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This helps to clarify concepts and
provide data that may be generalizable beyond the case study.
Patton (2002) describes the power of purposeful sampling as follows: “The
logic and power of purposeful sampling derive from the emphasis on in-depth
40
understanding” (p. 230). Patton goes on to discuss the importance of identifying
“information rich” cases to study. It is with these “information rich” case studies that
data helpful in answering the research question is found.
It is very important that the sampling strategy support the study’s purpose. The
purpose of the study is to understand the behaviors and strategies that superintendents
utilize to create the defined autonomy in increasing student academic achievement.
The validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative inquiry
have more to do with the information richness of the cases selected and the
observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher than with the sample size.
(Patton, 2002, p. 227)
This study utilized the document analysis and interviews for data collection.
The primary source for data was the interviews, however; some documents identified
through the interview process by the subjects were also included in the data collected.
Patton describes the usefulness of documents
Records, documents, artifacts, and archives–what has traditionally been called
“material culture” in anthropology–constitute a particularly rich source of information
about many organizations and programs (Patton, 2002).
Interviews provided the most important source of data for the case studies. The
purpose of interviewing “is to allow us to enter into the other person’s perspective . . .
We interview to find out what is in and on someone else’s mind, to gather their stories“
(Patton, 2002, p. 341)
The standardized open-ended interview question format was utilized in this
study. This approach was chosen as opposed to the informal conversational interview
41
or the general interview guide approach because the opportunities to analyze data across
the cases would be possible.
Sample and Populations
As was noted above, purposeful sampling was used to select the three
superintendents for this study. Patton notes that purposeful sampling:
. . . should be judged according to the purpose and rationale of the study
. . . . The sample, like all other aspects of the qualitative inquiry, must be judged
in context . . . . Random probability samples cannot accomplish what in-depth,
purposeful samples accomplish, and vice versa. (Patton, 2002, p. 236)
The three superintendents selected to participate were identified based on their
district’s increase in student achievement over the past 3 years. Student achievement
was measured through the use of the Academic Performance Index (API). All three
districts demonstrated an increase in the district API over a 3-year period (2004-2006).
The superintendents had been employed in these districts for over 3 years to help insure
the possibility that their behaviors and strategies were in place during the period of time
when API scores increased.
District A is located in Orange County, California. It is an urban school district
that educates over 16,000 students in Grades 9-12. It is a high school district that has
four elementary districts sending students to the high school district. In 2004, the
district’s base Academic Performance Index (API) was 741. In 2006, the district base
API had increased to 776. There are six comprehensive high schools, one alternative
high school and one continuation high school in the district. The superintendent in
42
District A is in his 4th year as the superintendent, but has worked in the district for over
30 years.
District B is located in Los Angeles County, California. It is an urban school
district that educates over 14,000 students in Grades 9-12. It is a high school district
that has five elementary districts that sends their students to this high school district. In
2004, the district’s base Academic Performance Index (API) was 629. In 2006, the
district API had increased to 684. There are five comprehensive high schools, one
alternative high school, and one continuation high school. The superintendent in
District B is in her 5th year as the superintendent in the district.
District C is located in Los Angeles County, California. It is a suburban school
district that educates over 14,000 students in Grades K-12. It is a unified school district.
In 2004, the district’s base Academic Performance Index was 839. In 2006, the district
API had increased to 865. There are nine elementary schools, three middle schools, two
comprehensive high schools, and one continuation high school. The superintendent in
District C is in his 4
th
year as the superintendent in the district. He had previously been
a superintendent in another district for 4 years.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The predominant method for data collection was through the interview process.
The reasons for using the interview process for obtaining data to answer the research
question were many. It allowed the researcher to obtain a detailed description of the
behaviors and strategies used by superintendents. In addition, as a result of
interviewing principals, the researcher was able to integrate multiple perspectives that
43
created a more holistic description of the strategies and behaviors of each
superintendent.
The relationship between the interviewer and interviewee is important. There
are culturally accepted roles of the interviewer and interviewee that should not be
disturbed. It is important to establish rapport and trust so that respect is developed,
which helps indicate to the interviewee that they are valued as an important source of
information that is desired by the interviewer. The purpose of the interview is to obtain
good information that provides data that is deep, detailed, vivid, nuanced and rich
(Rubin & Rubin, 2002).
The interview protocols were designed to obtain information that would answer
the research question. The interview protocols are enumerated in Appendices A and B.
The questions were carefully designed for both groups. Questions for superintendents
were designed to provide data from their perspective and experiences while questions
for the principals were designed to support, confirm or disaffirm the data obtained from
superintendents. The purpose of these questions was to elicit the understandings and
experiences of superintendents and principals in a manner that answered to the research
question.
The interview process involved the use of a standardized open-ended structured
interview. These standardized open-ended structured questions were followed up with
probes, when necessary, to clarify or probe to gather more data in response to an
answer. The purpose was to translate the research question into questions that were
easier for interviewees to answer from their own experience. The main purpose of the
44
questions was to elicit the understandings and experiences of the superintendents and
principals in a way that provides data to answer the research question. For example,
superintendents were asked about the strategies they used in developing a shared vision
with their principals regarding the non-negotiable goals of student achievement. While
principals were asked from their perspective how the superintendent works with them to
develop the shard vision for student achievement at their own school. This method of
questioning provides the researcher with a cross section of data surrounding one issue
that reveals the perspectives of both the superintendent and principal in an area central
to the research question.
The interview protocols were piloted to insure that both the protocols and
procedures were organized and understandable by the subject. Importantly, the pilot
helped insure that the questions would inform the research question. The subjects used
to pilot the interview protocols were easily accessible in Los Angeles County,
California. The pilot study revealed that the interview protocols were clear and
answerable. In addition, the pilot revealed that the interviewees could be longer than
originally anticipated (60 minutes), and as a result, when scheduling interviews with the
subjects, the researcher noted that the interview might last as long as 90 minutes.
The pilot study revealed that the questions asked of principals were helpful in
providing additional data that either confirmed or disaffirmed the superintendent’s
answers to the similar questions. For example, both superintendents and principals
were asked from their perspectives how a common understanding of instructional
leadership by principals is provided at their schools was answered in a manner that
45
provided both support for and an understanding of superintendent behaviors in creating
defined autonomy for school principals.
Probes were used to help manage each interview by clarifying the length of
answers and the degree of detail necessary to obtain sufficient data. In addition, probes
were used to clarify unclear phrases and to fill in missing steps, unknown to the
interviewer until the time of the interview, in identifying strategies and behaviors.
Examples of the probes that were used are:
“Could you tell me a little more about that?”
“What happened next?”
These probes allowed the researcher to be able to obtain the depth of detail
helpful in answering the research question. It was believed that these follow-up
questions or probes, allowed the researcher to gain more depth and understanding about
a concept suggested through an answer by the interviewee that spoke to the research
question.
In addition to the in-depth interview process for data collection as described
above, documents that were provided to the researcher by the interviewees in response
to interview questions were also reviewed. These documents included agendas of
administrative meetings with principals and superintendents; memorandums from the
superintendent to principals; and agendas and memorandums from principals to staff at
their schools.
46
Research Procedure
Contacts were established with three superintendents based upon the criteria
noted above. In a phone conversation, the research study was explained and access to
interview the superintendents and one principal from their district was requested and
obtained. It was suggested that the superintendents provide the date and time that fit
within their schedules for the interviews. Those dates and times were secured. The
principals were contacted via telephone with the research study explanation and access
to interview requested and obtained. The Information Sheet was provided to both
superintendents and principals.
All interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded. The interviews of the
superintendents lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. The interviews of the principals
lasted between 40 and 60 minutes. The timeline of the study is described in Table 3.1.
Data Analysis
The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The data from the interviews
were coded based upon the following themes and strategies identified by the researcher.
The researcher in an effort to make sense of the volume of data in order to create some
meaning across the individual subjects did this content analysis. Without a coding
scheme, “there is chaos and confusion” (Patton, 2002, p. 463).
1. Shared Vision (SV). The way in which the superintendent works with
principals to establish a shared vision in the district.
47
Table 3.1. Timeline of the Study
Event
Date
Research
methods
DOC INT
Complete research proposal March-July, 2007
Pilot interview questions June-July, 2007 X
IRB process June-August, 2007
Qualifying exams August, 2007
Establish relationship with superin-
tendents that have been identified for
participation in the study
August, 2007 X X
Establish relationship with principals
that have been identified for
participation in the study
September, 2007 X X
Conduct data collection, interviews and
document reviews
September-October, 2007 X X
Data organization, transcriptions, coding October-November, 2007 X X
Data analysis November, 2007-
March, 2008
Initial submission to committee February, 2008
Dissertation defense March, 2008
Final submission to the Graduate school April, 2008
Note. DOC- Document Analysis, INT–Interview.
2. Non-negotiable goals (NNG). The way in which the superintendent works
with principals in defining the non-negotiable goals for student
achievement
3. Instructional Leadership (IL). How does the superintendent create,
support and maintain his and the principals’ leadership in curriculum,
instruction and assessment.
48
4. Student Achievement (SA). How does the superintendent create the
conditions for school autonomy that are focused on student achievement
5. School Resources (SR). How are school resources aligned to increase
student achievement?
6. Communications (C). How the superintendent communicates with
principals
The documents provided by interviewees in response to interview questions
were also analyzed to determined themes and strategies that created defined autonomy
for principals.
The analytical strategy that was applied to this study is based on an organization
of the important processes (strategies and behaviors) that superintendents engage in to
create defined autonomy with their principals. The processes described by both
superintendents and principals form the basis of the analysis. Patton (2002) states that:
“Distinguishing important processes becomes the analytical framework for organizing
qualitative descriptions” (p. 465).
The process of constructing the case study where the raw data (interviews,
documents) is assembled to construct a case record where the raw data is organized into
a condensed and manageable file, which results in the creation of a case study where the
story of each individual subject is told is the primary method of data reduction in this
research study.
49
The case studies are told first in a thematic manner with themes coded as above,
and then a comparison across all three case studies is made to identify and highlight
similarities and differences between the superintendents.
Validity Concerns
Validity was obtained through the use of multiple sources of data. The multiple
sources allowed triangulation of the data to occur. Triangulation is not just three
different data points, but instead, is a process that provides for the opportunity to test
consistency in the data results. In this study, data triangulation was used as sources of
data were obtained from three different sources: (a) interviews of superintendents,
(b) interviews of principals, and (c) a review of documents (Denzin, 1978).
In the instant case, there are different kinds of data that have been elicited from
different kinds of inquiries. What superintendents stated in response to interview
questions provided different data that what principals stated in response to similar
interview questions. These different data provided for an opportunity to fully
understand that different types of inquiry can be “sensitive to different real-world
nuances” (Patton, 2002, p. 477).
Ethical Considerations
Respect for interviewees and confidentiality were attended to throughout the
research study. The Internal Review Board process as defined and prescribed by the
University of Southern California was adhered at all times. All data was kept in a
secure, locked and password protected computer. All transcribed data and documents
were kept in a locked cabinet in the office of the researcher.
50
All participants were given an information letter regarding the study and were
fully informed of the use of the data. The documents provided to the researcher were
public records and thus open to the public. Districts, superintendents and principals
were given pseudonyms. For example:
1. District A
2. Superintendent A
3. Principal A-1
These pseudonyms were given to districts, superintendents and principals to
protect their anonymity.
Summary
This chapter has provided a description of the research methods used in this
study. Specifically (a) a description of the research design, (b) the instrumentation and
data collection, (c) the sample and population, (d) research design, (e) research
procedures, (f) timeline, (g) validity, and (h) ethical concerns have been addressed. The
analysis of the data and the findings of the researcher will be described in the next
chapter.
51
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The findings in this chapter are based on data gathered from interviews and
document analysis. Six individual interviews were conducted. Three superintendents
and three principals were interviewed. Documents, provided voluntarily by
superintendents were also analyzed.
The chapter is organized to present the data in a manner that addresses the
research question. Data was coded based upon the following ideas, as defined in
chapter 3: (a) shared vision, (b) non-negotiable goals, (c) instructional leadership, (d)
student achievement, and (e) school resources. These ideas formed the framework for
the strategies and processes utilized by superintendents in working with principals. The
data from the interviews conducted of the superintendents will be followed by the data
from the interviews of the principals.
Superintendents. Three superintendents were interviewed. These superin-
tendents were from three school districts in Southern California.
Principals. Three principals were interviewed. One principal from each of the
three districts for a total of three.
Document analysis . Documents related to the three districts, including Vision
Statements, Mission Statements, memorandums from superintendents to principals,
district goals, and school goals were reviewed.
Summary of findings. Specific to the research question is reported. First, a
summary of findings from the superintendent interviews. Second, a summary of
52
findings from the principal interviews and third a summary of findings regarding both
sets of data.
Research Question
What are the processes and strategies used by the superintendent in working
with principals to create the shared vision and understanding of defined autonomy in
order for the schools to meet the non-negotiable goals in student achievement?
Interview: Superintendents
The context of each of the school districts is important to note as each of the
districts has unique features. Two of the districts are defined as urban by the United
States Department of Education with the Third District being defined as suburban. All
three districts are in Southern California with two in Los Angeles County and the third
in Orange County.
Superintendents reported a significant change in the processes and strategies
they utilize in working with principals over the past 5 years. From a focus on managing
the school organization to a focus on teaching and learning has been the primary shift
for superintendents. This change in content resulted in a change in the processes and
strategies they used as superintendents when working with school principals. These
changes are noted below as they relate to Shared Vision, Non-negotiable Goals,
Instructional Leadership, Student Achievement, and School Resources.
Shared Vision
The change in content from management to instruction (teaching and learning)
prompted superintendents to focus on student achievement when working with
53
principals. Within the overarching goal of improving student achievement, the
development of a shared vision for student achievement was seen as an important
strategy to employ. All three superintendents utilized both formal and informal
approaches to the development of a shared vision.
The formal approach to development of a shared vision was uniformly
approached through the use of “continuous conversations.” These superintendents felt
the need to have a “conscious effort that conversations are always about student
achievement.” Superintendents utilized three common processes: (a) one-one meetings
with principals, (b) district principal meetings, and (c) leadership team meetings.
The superintendent formalized the one-on-one meetings as part of a regularly
scheduled visit. In one district, these meetings had agendas and were based on the areas
principals had identified while in the other two districts, these one-one meetings were
part of a regularly scheduled visit by the superintendent to observe classrooms where
there was no written agenda. While all three district superintendents utilized the one-
on-one approach, only one superintendent meet privately with the principal for 1-2
hours to discuss issues related to student achievement while the other two included
those conversations as they went from classroom to classroom during a visit. All three
superintendents felt that at “every opportunity student achievement is a topic of the
conversation.” These one-one meetings were seen by superintendents as the
opportunity to focus on the development of a shared vision.
District principal meetings are regularly scheduled events where superintendents
work with principals to develop a shared vision for student achievement. All three
54
superintendents reported that these meetings were an essential strategy critical to the
success of sustaining a focus on student achievement. In these meetings, student
achievement data is presented and analyzed with discussions regarding what next steps
should be taken in order to continue to improve student achievement. These meetings
have formal agendas that are developed by the superintendent. While they were often
administration discussed during the principal meetings, all three superintendents
reported that the focus of the meeting was always related to “sharpening their (the
principals) understanding of the vision of the district.”
Leadership team meetings where all district management staff attend provide
these superintendents with the opportunity to “set specific agendas” that “purposely
arrange opportunities” for principals to take leadership roles in helping to share and
further define the vision of the district. This process results from the belief that in order
for principals to “truly develop the shared vision, they have to apply it . . .”
As these superintendents changed the content of their relationships with
principals from management to instructional leadership, the processes and strategies
changed from check and control to one based on continuous conversations. “The idea
that I would provide immediate and corrective feedback made me remember all of the
coaching work I did as a principal when working with teachers.” The mentoring of
principals through the continuous conversations and the coaching of principals through
the one-to-one meetings, principal and leadership team meetings, were new
responsibilities for these superintendents as they utilized those opportunities to develop
the understanding of the shared vision of the district.
55
Non-negotiable Goals
The non-negotiable goals for student achievement in all three districts were
clearly articulated by all three superintendents. What was interesting was that all three
focused on student achievement but did so differently. One superintendent’s non-
negotiable goals were actual achievement targets while the other two were more
focused on more general goals. All three superintendents expected that schools would
internalize the goals, and do something differently based upon the context of the school.
All three superintendent’s theory of action was based on changing teaching practices.
Superintendents in the districts with the more general goals, however, utilized
some unique strategies. The difference between these two (targets and generalized
goals) can be found in the idea that the targets were identified as “specific increase over
the previous year,” while the generalized goals were “opening access to higher level
courses.” The more specific the non-negotiable goal, the smaller the area within which
principals could exercise autonomy. Therefore, the two superintendents with more
general non-negotiable goals spent more time with individual principals. One
superintendent stated, “It’s a tutorial--it’s very personalized,” when discussing the work
with principals around the non-negotiable goals.
Instead of having everyone on the same page with very specific ideas, the more
general non-negotiable goals created less likelihood that all principals understood the
non-negotiable goals in the way in which the superintendent intended. As a result, in
those districts, superintendents spent more time personalizing their conversations with
56
principals to ensure that, while the expectation was each school would define their own
way, there was no misunderstanding about the goals.
Instructional Leadership
All three superintendents reported that the biggest change in the relationship
between superintendent and principal is in the area of instructional leadership. Two of
the three superintendents reported that their work had changed significantly from the
first part of their superintendency to the past 5 years. As stated previously, the idea of
control and compliance in the management functions changing to that of being an
instructional leader at the school, resulted in a change in relationship between
superintendent and principal.
There were two strategies used by all three superintendents in the area of
instructional leadership, along with one strategy used by two of the superintendents.
All of the processes and strategies utilized by the superintendents are based upon the
value of professional development. The idea that knowledge and understanding in
teaching and learning is important to all school leadership, underlies the two commons
strategies of having staff read common literature (books and articles), and infusing all
district leadership meetings with professional development in areas of importance to
teaching and learning.
Utilizing strategies akin to professional development was new and different for
these superintendents. All three reported that it reminded them of work they had done
as principals when working with teachers at their schools. Interestingly, all three
superintendents had also been central office administrators in the area of curriculum and
57
instruction. “Having had the opportunity to be responsible for professional
development has helped tremendously in my work with principals.” While the
strategies utilized in professional development are not new and unique to each
superintendent, they were new and unique responsibilities for the superintendency. “As
the Assistant Superintendent for Education Services, I never saw the superintendent
work with principals on specific issues related to teaching and learning. Instead it was
my responsibility as the Assistant Superintendent to do so.”
All three superintendents discussed the books they had assigned to the principals
to read, and how these books had been used to support specific ideas or concepts that
are intended to promote change within the district. When working with a principal, if
the superintendent noted some specific area of weakness, then something like an
Individual Education Program would be set up to support the principal. This program
would include members of the leadership team in addition to the superintendent. The
idea is “to create support networks around the principal, to compensate for that area of
weakness until it became a strength.”
The strategy of using principal meetings as the place for professional
development was highlighted by all three superintendents. The idea that meetings were
about the administrivia of the district was noted by all three superintendents and
rejected as an effective strategy for improving student achievement. Instead, principal
meetings are seen now as opportunities for learning where principals interact with ideas
related to “change, leadership, instructional strategies and professional development.”
Superintendents report that both the directed study and the opportunities for open-ended
58
discussions have been effective strategies they are using to increase the principals
instructional leadership capacity.
Two of the superintendents reported that a powerful strategy was taking
principals to conferences as a group. They agreed that they were able to do this because
their urban districts were smaller and so this was affordable. At these conferences,
principal behavior is specifically directed to accomplish tasks identified by the
superintendent. For example, who attends what workshops during the conference was
pre-determined by the superintendent. In addition, prearranged conversations took
place where the principal sat down with a principal to talk about a specific issue related
to their instructional leadership at the school site. Finally, the informal time
(conversations at meals, walking to the events), where “the superintendent really sets
the tone,” were seen as informal opportunities to continue the instructional leadership
work of principals both individually and as a group.
Student Achievement
“If the superintendent really enjoys fishing, there’s going to be a lot of talk
about fishing.” Importantly, all superintendents sets the agenda for what the
conversations are about even in the most informal settings. If the superintendent’s
agenda is about student achievement than the processes and strategies on how best to set
that out for the principals is important.
The use of data to set the tone for a focus on student achievement was common
in all three districts. The strategy of using data to discuss student achievement was
evident, as all three superintendents knew the student achievement data in their districts.
59
The strategy that if the superintendent knows the data, so must the principal and then so
must the teacher and so must the student, was evident as superintendent’s knowledge
and use of data was a significant strategy shared by all three.
Superintendents reported that using data and understanding how to understand
the data were new strategies. Superintendents reported using data to help principals
determine what programs were effective in improving student achievement at schools.
One superintendent reported that when he asked questions about a particular program
for English learner students and the principal could not answer the questions that at their
next meeting he brought 3 years of data. Using this data, the superintendent helped the
principal understand how the program may not have resulted in any improvement in
student achievement. Another superintendent stated that prior to making a presentation
about the district’s student achievement results on the California Standards Tests, she
spent hours of time learning about how the cut scores for the achievement levels helped
create the aggregate score on each school’s Academic Performance Index. “If I
expected principals to be accountable to their staffs for understanding how their
school’s API could increase, it was essential that I know how they (principals) could
make that happen.”
The use of plans and reports that are evaluated by the superintendent is a
strategy utilized by all three superintendents. Plans are required by principals and are a
tool to focus the conversation on student achievement. What achievement targets are
determined in what areas and for what group of students are items that are key
components of the plans. Superintendents tell principals that the plans are designed to
60
describe how they will meet the non-negotiable goals in student achievement, while he
annual reports provide an evaluation of the school’s success in meeting those goals.
The topic of student achievement is “embedded in our conversations, it’s
embedded in our training, it’s imbedded in our professional learning community
workshops.” Superintendents believe that the most significant part of their job is to
help principals “facilitate the journey toward improved student achievement.”
Providing principals with the tools to have conversations with teachers regarding
student achievement, what to look for in classrooms, how best to utilize formative
assessment tools are all significant strategies superintendents utilize in keeping the
focus on student achievement.
One of the superintendents reported that he worked with principals in
developing a specific protocol for working with teachers regarding student
achievement. Another superintendent would debrief principals after their joint
observations of classrooms about what they saw that represented poor, good and great
instruction. Formative assessments were seen as critical parts of a focus on student
achievement. Superintendents reported that insuring schools utilized formative
assessments was best done by asking principals to review the results in principal
meetings and/or one-to-one meetings.
The use of books and articles focused on improving student achievement
through curriculum, instruction and assessment were strategies used by all three
superintendents. The formal meetings with principals will include at least 30% of the
time spent on professional development for principals. This professional development
61
will take place in the context of improving student achievement with specific areas
including evaluation of curriculum, research on effective instructional strategies, and
professional learning communities.
School Resources
Superintendents work with principals in examining their work through the “lens
of student achievement.” An effective strategy that is far different than the past when
superintendents did not examine where school resources were allocated, but only that
they were allocated within the budget is to speak with principals to insure that
everything they do “is aligned with our instructional direction.” It is within this
direction that principals have flexibility on how to utilize school resources.
Within the non-negotiable goals of student achievement, principals are expected
to create a plan that identifies how the school will use the allocated resources. All three
superintendents indicated that this flexibility was also limited. For example, one district
had two schools with the Primary Years Program of the International Baccalaureate
Program. While other schools may have had the resources to implement the program at
their school, it was not in the best interest of the district to have more than two sites
with this program. As a result, other schools were able to go out and specifically
identify themselves as having other distinctive instructional programs that they may not
have implemented if not for the limitations placed by the superintendent.
Major Findings Related to Research Question
Superintendents
1. Superintendents engaged in similar strategies in working with principals:
62
(a) one to one conversations with principals regarding curriculum,
instruction and student achievement; (b) the use of professional literature
as a method to increase all principal’s knowledge regarding student
achievement; and (c) the use of student achievement data as the subject
matter for discussion regarding the non-negotiable goals in student
achievement.
2. Providing or creating defined autonomy is a new process for
superintendents.
3. A focus on curriculum, instruction, assessment and student achievement
are part of purposeful conversations that superintendents have with
principals. These purposeful conversations are based on the individual
needs of principals.
4. Superintendents report little concern over the process by which schools
meet the non-negotiable goals, and are more interested in providing
opportunities for discussion, reflection and understanding by the principals
of student achievement at their schools.
5. It is clear that the theory of action for superintendents is that increased
student achievement is a result of a focus on: (a) professional
development for administrators and teachers, and (b) the use of student
achievement data to support a continuous conversation regarding student
achievement.
63
Principal Interviews
Three principals were interviewed, one from each of the districts. All three of
the principals were high school principals who had been principals in the district for
over 5 years. Each of the principals had worked with a previous superintendent in the
district, and all were quick to point out how their work with superintendents had
changed in the past 5 years.
Principals indicated that the one-to-one meeting allowed principals to speak
candidly about their work toward achievement of the non-negotiable goals. All three
principals indicated that these meetings were significant contributors in creating a
trusting environment so that in the principal meetings, honest and candid conversations
took place.
Shared Vision
The development of a Shared Vision was seen uniformly as an important part of
the processes that had changed in the past 5 years. Principals reported that the use of
one-to-one meetings and principal meetings were significant strategies utilized by
superintendents in the development of a Shared Vision for student achievement at each
of their schools. At these meetings, a discussion regarding district goals, expectations,
analyzing student achievement data were common strategies utilized by the
superintendent.
“It is important for my superintendent to talk to us [principals] about each of our
schools, who we are, how we use our leadership, and how we work reaching our goals
for the school.” It was apparent that principals felt the communication was not a
64
monologue but more of a dialogue with good questions being asked by superintendents.
Questions asked by superintendents that helped to create “a clear sense of the pros and
cons of an issue, and the opportunity to grow by seeing other dimensions to that issue
that maybe I could not have seen.”
Non-negotiable goals
Principals reported that the strategy of constancy and consistency in the message
regarding increasing student achievement were obvious to them as the non-negotiable
goals related to student achievement. “I have a clear expectation from my
superintendent that I am expected to increase student achievement.”
Principals were expected to participate in identifying specific targets and/or
goals related to student achievement. These targets/goals were discussed at principal
meetings with all principals, where achievement data was shared, as well as in the one-
to-one meetings with their superintendents. Of interest, was that in the district where
specific targets were identified (e.g., 55% of English learners will be proficient in
English/language arts as measure by the CST), superintendents were consistent in
discussing only the CST results.
All three principals reported that the non-negotiable goals were part of a larger
discussion about their own school and personal goals. In these conversations,
superintendents made it clear to principals that while the goals for the district were non-
negotiable relative to student achievement, that it was important to have a
comprehensive conversation about the principal’s goals and the goals for the school.
65
Again, interestingly in the district that identified specific targets for schools, there was
much less input from the school regarding the identification of the non-negotiable goals.
Instructional Leadership
Trust seems to be an essential element in the big idea of instructional leadership.
A superintendent states, “It is who you hire that sets the tone.” Once the right person is
the principal, and then the superintendent must trust that the principal will be an
instructional leader for the school. This translates to making the right decisions, for the
right reasons at the right time with an understanding that at every school in the district,
it will look somewhat differently. One principal put it that her superintendent trusts that
she knows how to do this that he will not micromanage and that she will be allowed to
make decisions that will benefit her school.
Principals stated that it is because they feel trusted by their superintendent.
They have the autonomy when working with their school communities to take risks and
take advantage of opportunities when they arise. For example, one principal stated that
her school received a large grant of over $500,000. The superintendent never
questioned the use of the funds, but simply asked questions about the grant which the
principal felt allowed her to engage in a thinking process that not only made the
program better, but helped her as a principal. Through this questioning, the
superintendent “caused me [the principal] to believe that he trusted my judgment.”
Student Achievement
There is a clear expectation from the superintendent to the principals that the
focus is on student achievement. “I am expected to increase student achievement for
66
the total group, for subgroups, for targeted groups. There is a clear expectation that this
is the major purpose in my role as a principal.”
With a focus on student achievement, superintendents require principals to have
an in-depth understanding of student achievement. This requirement is expressed
through one-on-one meetings, principal meetings and in one district, the use of
principals to make presentations to the entire leadership team regarding student
achievement for various subgroups of students. The private and public accountability
for student achievement was seen by principals as a way to insure that principals not
only understand their own school’s data, but that of the district.
In the principal meetings, superintendents use student achievement data to get
principals to analyze data, insuring that principals have a “sense of working together.”
Yet, it was clear from the principals that while they worked together in understanding
the data and the expectations regarding improving student achievement were uniform,
the approach to meeting those non-negotiable goals were different. “So then, as a
principal, there is a level of personal understanding of what the data indicates, what I do
now with my school and what the school needs to do, is yet for me to figure out.”
Superintendents expect and hold principals accountable for identifying goals
within the non-negotiable goals based upon their own particular school’s needs.
School Resources
Principals were very clear that in the past, superintendents were very concerned
with the budget at each school. The difference now is that while principals have much
more control, superintendents ask a lot of questions about why expenditures are made.
67
“The superintendent is always asking me why we are spending over $50,000 per year
on instructional assistants. What data supports that decision results in an increase in
student achievement?”
In the past, the superintendent would not question the specific expenditure but
be concerned only with the bottom line.
Principals reported that the Single Plan for Student Achievement, while not a
superintendent created strategy, has been used by superintendents as a strategy to
consistently discuss student achievement and school resources. In the past, the
superintendent would only insure that the numbers added up, now the addition is a
“given, and it [the Plan] is something we talk about all year long.” The emphasis on
student achievement has changed the strategies superintendents’ use when working with
principals in the area of school resources. Decisions are only questioned in relation to
the ability of the principal to demonstrate that there is evidence that the resource
allocation supports student achievement.
Major Findings Related to Research Question
Principals
1. One-on-one meetings are the most effective strategy for principals to
clearly understand the vision of the district. Principals appreciated the
attention and focus from the superintendent.
2. Public accountability to other principals in understanding student
achievement data not only at their school, but in the district is new for
68
school principals and an effective strategy by superintendents to insure
understanding.
3. Continuous conversations were expected and seen by principals as way to
help them keep their focus on the non-negotiable goals related to student
achievement.
4. Principals felt trusted by superintendents in the area of instructional
leadership, and this allowed them to take risks without fear of sanction.
This risk taking further increased the autonomy principals and schools had
within the district’s non-negotiable goals of improving student
achievement.
Comparison between Superintendents and Principals
Principals identified the same strategies that superintendents identified in
helping to create the defined autonomy for principals. Interestingly, superintendents and
principals saw these strategies as deliberate and thoughtful. The big ideas of shared
vision, non-negotiable goals, student achievement, and school resources were easily
identified.
Document Analysis
Documents were not requested, but were voluntarily provided by two of the
three superintendents. These superintendents provided them to further illustrate an
answer during the interview used documents. Documents were requested from the third
superintendent after the interview, so that all three superintendents provided written
information.
69
The documents were easily separated into three broad categories: (a) internal
memorandums and PowerPoint presentations to principals from the superintendent, (b)
documents intended for the general public, and (c) those for the district’s leadership
team (which included all administrators in the district). Not all districts provided the
same amount of information, but there was enough from each district to help provide
additional data to answer the research question.
Internal Memorandums and Presentations to Principals
These documents were used to clearly communicate the vision of the district and
to help the superintendent create the shared vision with each of the principals. The
memorandums were of two types: (a) specific to individual principals, and (b) general
to all principals. The specific memorandums were part of the “individualized tutorials”
strategy utilized by superintendents that recognized principals have specific strengths
and weaknesses. One superintendent used the following language to describe this: “If
it is a weakness that relates to just not knowing something or not having the background
knowledge, then we set up an IEP [Individualized Educational Program], which is then
part of their personal learning goals.”
The general memorandums are opportunities to recall, remind and refocus the
vision of the district. It is part of the superintendent’s strategy to “reframe it,
reintroduce it, as it is like a teacher teaching a lesson.”
Principals uniformly understand that the memorandums from superintendents
were significantly different in the past 3 years than they had been in the past. The
70
content of the memos was focused on student achievement issues that related to
teaching and learning.
Public Documents
All three superintendents utilized written communication intended for the
general public as also a strategy in working with principals. Interestingly, one
superintendent stated that when a principal sees in our Report to the Community that we
are focused on a particular student achievement issue, it removes any remaining
opportunity to “opt out” from understanding.
Leadership Team documents
Documents provided in this area consistently primarily of PowerPoint
presentation slides. These documents were used to clarify, reinforce and introduce new
ideas to the leadership teams (which always include principals). Information regarding
student achievement data, the allocation of school resources, and the vision of the
district were key elements in all of these documents.
Interestingly, in all three districts, these presentations were also used as a way to
“purposely arrange opportunities” for new learning. Superintendents understood that in
the context of their district’s existing culture and norms, a strategy to introduce new
ideas was through the use of presentations to the leadership team. Whether it was
through the exploration of a book or research, these documents were utilized to frame
the discussion and therefore the thinking.
71
Summary
The major findings of the study are summarized as follows, as evidence suggests
that:
1. Superintendents use the big ideas of Shared Vision, non-negotiable goals,
student achievement, and school resources as the framework for specific
communication strategies when working with principals.
2. Three common strategies include: (a) one-to-one meetings with the
superintendent and principal, (b) principal meetings where all principals
attend, (c) leadership team meetings where all members of the leadership
team attend.
3. Superintendents engage in a continuous conversation with principals
regarding the non-negotiable goals.
4. The content of communication between superintendents and principals has
changed from management issues (books, buildings, and buses) to
leadership (curriculum, instruction and assessment).
5. Superintendents recognize the principals must be trusted within the area of
instructional leadership: (a) trust leads to greater opportunities for schools
as principals take risks; (b) getting superintendent trust requires a
demonstration of knowledge in curriculum, instruction and assessment;
(c) principals needing help in curriculum, instruction and assessment were
treated as individuals and given “tutorials” to help them become
instructional leaders.
72
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The literature on the superintendency indicates that over the past 5 to 10 years, a
striking change in the role and responsibility of the public school superintendent has
taken place. This change is best noted as that from being the manager of the
organization to being the instructional leader of the district. This change has prompted
not only the opportunity for superintendents to change their behavior in redefining their
role, but the change has also provided for a change in the processes and strategies
superintendent’s use in working with school principals. The emphasis on student
achievement as a result of the accountability measures (NCLB, PSAA) has helped to
reshape the responsibility of the superintendent away from a focus on buildings, bonds,
budgets, and buses to that of teaching and learning.
The purpose of the study was to examine the strategies and processes
superintendents use in working with principals to create defined autonomy for
principals and schools in order to improve student achievement. Waters and Marzano’s
(2006) recent meta-analysis on superintendent behavior found this “defined autonomy”
creation as an important component in successful superintendent behavior. What
“defined autonomy” looked like in a successful school district would be important to
understand. In being able to identify strategies and processes that superintendents
utilize in districts where there had been a steady and ongoing improvement in student
achievement (as measured by the Academic Performance Index), other superintendents
could learn from these strategies and implement them in their own districts.
73
This study is significant because the accountability measures currently in place
make it impossible for superintendents to ignore teaching and learning. The No Child
Left Behind Act (1999) states that 100% of all children will be proficient in English/
Language Arts and mathematics by the school year 2013-2014. With proficiency being
defined by the State of California as specific cut scores on the California High School
Exit Exam (for students Grades 9-12) and on the California Standards Test (for students
Grades 2-8), there is a clear understanding of the legal definition of proficiency.
Schools and districts must meet annual goals for all students and those same goals for
specified student subgroups, including members of racial and ethnic minorities,
economically disadvantaged students, English-language learners, and children with
disabilities.
As a result of significant sanctions, for schools and school districts that are tied
to poor student achievement scores, the superintendent’s focus must be on improving
student achievement. Sanctions would include for schools receiving Title 1 aid,
offering students the chance to transfer to other public schools, and the possibility of
restructuring and State takeover of the district. This focus on every child and the
assessment of every child’s proficiency each year, makes for a very different role that
superintendents play in a school district; a role with specific responsibilities that
certainly existed prior to NCLB, but one without sanctions for failure.
The study focuses on a single research question: What are the processes and
strategies used by the superintendent in working with principals to create the shared
vision and understanding of defined autonomy in order for the schools to meet the non-
74
negotiable goals of student achievement? The question was answered through
interviews with three superintendents and three principals. In addition, two of the three
superintendents provided documents that further illustrated answers to interview
questions. These documents were not solicited by the interviewer, but were voluntarily
supplied by the superintendent as further support of their answer(s).
While the study investigated superintendent behavior in working with principals,
the interviews of principals were important to better understand the impact of
superintendent behavior and the relative success of the superintendent’s use of the
specific strategies and processes. While the superintendent may engage in specific
strategies when creating defined autonomy, if the principal was not affected by the
strategy, the superintendent’s use of that strategy would not have been effective. The
study sought to understand the behaviors of three Southern California superintendents
by focusing on how those superintendents interacted with principals in the areas of:
1. Development of a shared vision
2. Identification and understanding of non-negotiable goals
3. Instructional leadership development
4. Leadership in the areas of curriculum, instructional strategies and
assessment
5. School resources for attainment of the non-negotiable goals
The data was coded into five areas:
1. Shared Vision
2. Non-negotiable Goals
75
3. Instructional Leadership
4. Student Achievement
5. School Resources
These areas were addressed in both data from superintendents and principals.
They were the common and recurrent themes identified both in the literature (Waters &
Marzano, 2006) and were used to help sort and analyze the data from the interviews.
Conclusions
Superintendents
The data collected and analysis created the context in which to answer the
research question. It was clear that several significant conclusions could be drawn
regarding specific strategies and processes used by successful superintendents.
1. Superintendents engaged in similar strategies in working with principals:
a. One-to-one conversations with principals regarding curriculum,
instruction and student achievement.
b. The use of professional literature as a method to increase all
principal’s knowledge regarding student achievement.
c. The use of student achievement data as the subject matter for
discussion regarding the non-negotiable goals in student
achievement.
2. These similar strategies were based on the superintendent’s stated
understanding that a focus on teaching and learning was important as the
basis for their relationship with principals.
76
3. Providing or creating defined autonomy is a new process for
superintendents. All superintendents reported that their work with
principals had changed significantly over the past 5 years. The changed
focus required significant professional development for themselves as
superintendents. All superintendents reported that working with
principals on the substance of teaching and learning, required a
commitment to stay current with recent literature regarding curriculum,
instruction and assessment.
4. A focus on curriculum, instruction, assessment and student achievement
are part of purposeful conversations that superintendents have with
principals. These purposeful conversations are based on the individual
needs of principals.
5. All superintendents reported that teaching, coaching and mentoring for
principals was done on an individual basis. This required superin-
tendents to assess the knowledge and skills of each principal in order to
understand how best to coach individual principals. The use of research,
journal articles, and professional literature is a new strategy by the
superintendents in providing a focus on teaching and learning. This new
strategy requires superintendents to be not only familiar with the works
chosen, but also engaged in reading. All three superintendents reported
that they are constant consumers of research from internet sources, books
from conferences they have attended and scholarly articles from various
77
journal publications. Being familiar with current research is no longer
sufficient, being conversant is important, but all three superintendents
reported that they must know it well enough to teach it to their
principals.
6. Superintendents report little concern over the process by which schools
meet the non-negotiable goals, and have invested little time in
compliance related activities.
Being willing to let schools define themselves within the non-negotiable goals
of student achievement was a consistent strategy used by superintendents. The interest
of superintendents lay in the schools’ ability to meet the goals regarding improving
student achievement. How these goals were reached, while of interest, was no longer
the primary focus of inquiry for superintendents. Superintendents reported with pride
how schools were able to distinguish themselves from others as they utilized their local
interests and resources to establish their unique pathways for success. However, it was
also clear that superintendents understand that an important strategy was to ask
questions of the principal. The purpose of the questions was to require principals to
view their schools’ work with a critical lens, and be able to answer tough questions
about the actions that were taken or not taken.
5. It is clear that the theory of action for superintendents is that increased
student achievement is a result of a focus on:
a. Professional development for administrators and teachers
b. Student achievement data
78
The focus on professional development was seen as a very critical new strategy
by superintendents. The amount of time each superintendent spent engaged in the area
of teaching and learning was the largest part of each superintendent’s work week.
While principals were expected to attend professional conferences and workshops to
learn about new ideas in teaching and learning, superintendents were the most
significant source of professional development for principals.
There was a consistent expectation that student achievement data was to be
understood by principals. In order to insure that principals did have a thorough
understanding, superintendents engaged principals in conversations about student
achievement data. Superintendents believed that their use of data made it impossible
for principals not to have a firm and thorough understanding of student achievement
data. This new strategy by superintendents required again a significant amount of new
work for superintendents.
Principals
The data collected and analysis created the context in which to answer the
research question, and it was clear that several significant conclusions could be drawn
regarding the impact to principals of the specific strategies and processes used by
successful superintendents.
1. One-on-one meetings are the most effective strategy for principals to clearly
understand the vision of the district. Principals appreciated the attention and focus from
the superintendent,
79
Veteran principals stated that the change in superintendent behavior regarding
their relationship with principals was most significant in the one-on-one meetings. In
these meetings, principals were given individual attention that helped sharpen their
focus on the work at their school. Principals reported that superintendents provided
direction through the questions they asked as opposed to mandating specific actions to
be taken.
2. Public accountability to other principals in understanding student
achievement data, not only at their school but in the district, is new for school principals
and an effective strategy by superintendents to insure understanding.
The use of student achievement data by superintendents to engage principals in
discussions regarding the non-negotiable goals was viewed by principals as a significant
impetus for their own understanding of achievement data. Principals stated that when
student achievement is discussed by the superintendent there is a clear message that
principals are expected to be able to do the same with their staff. In discussing
achievement data with all the principals, each individual principal’s need to understand
not only their own school’s achievement data, but that of the other schools in the district
was understood to be important.
3. Continuous conversations were expected and seen by principals as way to
help them keep their focus on the non-negotiable goals related to student achievement.
Knowing that superintendents would expect principals to be ready for and able
to discuss the student achievement goals at each meeting insured that principals were
knowledgeable about the goals and making progress toward attainment. The continuous
80
conversations with principals made it clear to the principals that student achievement
was the most important goal of the district.
4. Principals felt trusted by superintendents in the area of instructional
leadership and this allowed them to take risks without fear of sanction. This risk taking
further increased the autonomy principals and schools had within the district’s non-
negotiable goals of improving student achievement.
Recommendations
The conclusions of the study suggest the following recommendations:
1. Aspiring superintendents should seek training in curriculum, instruction
and assessment for student achievement as they prepare for the role of the
superintendent.
2. Systems and support structures are important and need to be developed for
superintendents. Aspiring superintendents must seek or be provided with
mentoring or coaching from superintendents who have demonstrated
significant success in understanding curriculum, instruction and
assessment, as well as success in communicating their understanding to the
principals in their districts.
3. Universities and professional organizations should place more emphasis on
curriculum, instruction and assessment in their training programs. Having
access to and developing understanding of current research is critical for
superintendents.
81
4. Universities should introduce training programs and courses of study in the
area of communication building practices that prepare aspiring
superintendents to sustain the kinds of strategies and processes in their
school districts.
5. Superintendents should utilize the strategies of one-to-one meetings,
continuous conversations with principals regarding student achievement,
and the shared reading and discussion of professional literature with their
principals.
6. A strong and organized professional development model is important
toward the dissemination of the research and the practice of implement-
tation by aspiring and current superintendents. Understanding how the
strategies work and how they are implemented by superintendents is
important in order to fully implement these strategies.
7. Superintendent search firms should develop a profile of the strategies and
processes used by superintendent’s to create the defined autonomy for
principals in attaining the non-negotiable goals for student achievement.
This profile should be shared with boards of education when engaged in
the hiring of a superintendent.
Concluding Remarks
This study validates and provides further understanding of the meta-analysis
done by Waters and Mazono (2006) that found a new responsibility for successful
superintendents was working with principals in creating “defined autonomy” for
82
meeting the non-negotiable goals of improving student achievement. The strategies
successful superintendents engage in were found to be similar across the case studies,
suggesting that within those three districts, superintendents have found strategies and
processes that created the “defined autonomy” necessary for school principals to meet
the non-negotiable goals.
Superintendents were engaged in new behaviors that reflect a change in the role
and responsibility of the superintendent from a manager of the district’s resources
(bonds, buildings, books, and buses) to an instructional leader in the areas of teaching
and learning. This change resulted in the employment of new strategies when working
with principals. The principals indicated that the strategies were effective and were
producing the intended results.
A further study of superintendents in districts that have not been
successful in improving student achievement (as measured by the Academic
Performance Index) could provide additional clarification regarding the benefits of the
strategies identified in this qualitative study. If these strategies are not being utilized by
superintendents in districts where academic performance is not improving, additional
support to the conclusion that these strategies are effective in improving student
achievement might be gained. A question for further study would be to determine
whether the processes and strategies utilized by the superintendents in this case study
would be the same as those used by superintendents leading large urban school districts.
83
That there was a significant similarity between the three districts regarding
superintendent strategies, suggests that these strategies might be significant in helping
superintendents engage in their new role as an instructional leader that is focused on
improving student achievement. This insight would be helpful for both
superintendent’s new to their position and veteran superintendents working in districts
that have not sustained continuous student achievement.
84
REFERENCES
Bjork, L., & Kowalski, R. (Eds.) (2005). The Contemporary Superintendent:
Preparation, Practice, and Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Brookover, W., Beamer, L., Efthim, H., Hathaway, D., Lezotte, L., & Miller, S. (1982).
Creating effective schools. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006, November). How to manage urban
school districts. Harvard Business Review, 1-13. [Reprint.]
Cotton, K. (2003). Principal’s and Student Achievement. What the research says.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cronin, J., Kingsbury, C., McCall, M., & Bowe, B. (2005, April). The impact of the no
child left behind act on student achievement and growth (2005 ed.). [Research
Brief.] Lake Oswego, OR: Author.
Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods (2d ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Doyle, L. H. (2004). Leadership for community building: Changing how we think and
act. The Clearing House, 77(5), 196-199.
Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. E. (1991). Creating the new American school: A principal’s
guide to school improvement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Dufour, R., Eaker, R. Karhanek, G., & Dufour, R. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Dufour, R. ,DuFour, Rebecca., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,
37(2), 15-24.
Elmore, R. (1995, December). Structural Reform and Educational Practice.
Educational Researcher, 24, (9), 23-26.
Elmore, R. (2000, Winter). Building a new structure for school leadership.
Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
85
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: The
Albert Shanker Institute.
Furman, G., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Leadership for Democratic community in schools.
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 105-133.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Translating strategy into action: The balanced
scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Curriculum and Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisions and Curriculum Development.
Mathews, D. (1997). Is there a public for public schools. New York: Kettering
Foundation.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1992). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as
myth and ceremony. In J. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational
environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 25-48). Newbury Park: Sage.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pascopella, A. (2006, November). Boston’s perseverance. District Administration.
Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.districtadministration.com
Patton, Michael (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3
rd
ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, G. (1999, May). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: An
examination of five California superintendents. [Article reprint.} Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 7(18).
Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2006). Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll: Of the public’s
attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 41-53.
86
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the
organizational design of schools. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in
education (pp. 353–392). Washington, DC: AERA.
Rowan, B., & Miskel, C. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational
organizations. In J. Murphy, & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Educational Administration (2
nd
ed., pp. 359-383). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. (1995). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How Is it Different?: Why Is
it important. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Stenhouse, L. (1997). Case study as a basis for research in a theoretical contemporary
history of education. East Anglia, UK: Centre for applied Research in
Education, University of East Anglia.
Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools.
Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wieck, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely-coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
87
APPENDIX A
SUPERINTENDENT PROTOCOL
1. What strategies do you use to develop a shared vision for student
achievement with your principals?
2. What are the non-negotiable goals for student achievement?
3. How do you develop a common understanding of these non-negotiable
goals?
4. What behaviors and strategies do you use to maintain high expectations in
student achievement for schools?
5. How do you help principal’s fulfill their instructional leadership
responsibilities?
6. How do you monitor that a principal’s actions are directed toward the
attainment of the non-negotiable goals in student achievement?
7. As the superintendent, how do you provide leadership to principals in the
area of curriculum development?
8. As the superintendent, how do you provide leadership to principals in the
area of instructional strategies?
9. As the superintendent, how do you provide leadership to principals in the
area of the evaluation of student achievement?
10. What strategies do you use to create an effective instructional staff at each
school?
11. What strategies do you use when working with principals to insure that
school resources are aligned with the district’s non-negotiable goals for student
achievement?
88
APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL PROTOCOL
1. How does your superintendent develop a shared vision for student
achievement at your school?
2. What are the non-negotiable goals for student achievement?
3. What strategies does your superintendent use to develop a common
understanding for you regarding these non-negotiable goals?
4. What strategies does the superintendent use to help you be the instructional
leader for your school?
5. How does the superintendent provide leadership in the area of curriculum
development?
6. How does the superintendent provide leadership in the area of instructional
strategies?
7. How does the superintendent provide leadership in the area of evaluation of
student achievement?
8. What strategies does the superintendent use to insure your work is directed
toward the attainment of the non-negotiable goals in student achievement?
7. What strategies does the superintendent use to insure that your school
resources are aligned with the district’s non-negotiable goals for student achievement?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The processes and strategies utilized by superintendents to provide "defined autonomy" for school principals, was identified in a case study of three superintendents and three principals. Analysis of the case studies of these superintendents and principals was used to determine what strategies and processes were used.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement
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
The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies
PDF
California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals
PDF
The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement
PDF
Resource allocation to improve student achievement
PDF
Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase 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 impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
PDF
Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts
PDF
21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals
PDF
Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools
PDF
Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cash, David
(author)
Core Title
Defined autonomy: how superintendents work with principals to create the defined autonomy at schools necessary for improved student achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2008-05
Publication Date
04/18/2008
Defense Date
03/13/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
defined autonomy,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy M. (
committee chair
), Caston, Mike (
committee member
), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
dcash@cusd.claremont.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1158
Unique identifier
UC1280170
Identifier
etd-Cash-20080418 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-60182 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1158 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Cash-20080418.pdf
Dmrecord
60182
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Cash, David
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
defined autonomy