University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

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

by

Jacqueline Mora
_______________________________________________________________

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

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Jacqueline Mora

ii

DEDICATION
Dedico este libreto a mi madre, María de la Paz Mora, quien me enseño que lo
más valioso en la vida es tener educación. Más que una madre ella ha sido mi mejor
amiga. Ella es mi fuerza en tiempos débiles, mi amparo en tiempos de tempestad y mi
más fiel aliada. Mi único anhelo es algún día llegar a ser la clase de mujer que ella ha
sido toda mi vida. Gracias por ser tú y permitirme ser yo. Te adoro.
I dedicate this work to my mother, Maria de la Paz Mora, who taught me that the
most valuable thing in life is having an education. More than a mother, she has been my
best friend. She has been my strength in times of weakness, my support in times of
turmoil and my most loyal ally. My only longing is to one day become the kind of
woman she has been all my life. Thank you for being you and allowing me to be me. I
adore you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
With much gratitude to all of those people who have encouraged, challenged and
supported me throughout my educational journey. It is because of your influence that
I’ve had the fortitude to forge ahead and demonstrate that believing in the capacity of a
young Spanish-speaking Latina can impact the life of many. I am particularly thankful to
Dr. Rudy M. Castruita for guiding me through the dissertation process. Many thanks also
to Dr. Michael F. Escalante and Dr. David D. Marsh for honoring me with their expertise,
knowledge and support as my committee members.
I would also like to thank Dr. Jill Manning, my mentor teacher and friend, whose
belief in me has never wavered and who encouraged me to join the Trojan Family.
Thank you to my immediate Trojan Family – the Thursday Night Cohort. Your
friendships and support made this experience even richer. I will miss our times together,
but will cherish all the memories we created and look forward to many more as we
continue on this journey.
Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends, who afforded me the time, space
and absolute support to complete this process. I am eternally grateful for your
understanding, patience, and unconditional love. My success is a reflection of you and
the sacrifices we have made; none of this would have been possible without you-- you
mean the world to me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgments iii

List of Tables vii

Abstract viii

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study 1
Background of the Problem 5
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 15
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations 16
Delimitations 16
Assumptions 17
Definitions 18
Organization of the Study 20

Chapter Two: Literature Review 21
Changing Roles of Superintendents and Districts in an 23
Era of Accountability
Educational Leadership 35
Conclusions 51
Leadership and Student Achievement 52
Theoretical Framework 67
Conclusions 71

Chapter Three: Methodology 73
Introduction 73
Research Questions 74
Research Design 75
Sample and Population 76
Instrumentation 81
Data Collection 82
Data Analysis 84
Summary 85

v

Chapter Four: Findings 86
Introduction 86
Data Findings 90
Research Question 1: Strategies to Initiate and Sustain Change 93
Research Question 1a: Practices to Influence and Shape Instruction 104
for Latino Students
Research Question 1b: Practices to Increase Latino Student 113
Achievement
Analysis and Discussion 117
Research Question 1: Practices to Initiate and Sustain Change to 123
Improve Instruction and Achievement for Latino Students
Research Question 1a: Practices that Influence and Shape 129
Instruction for Latino Students
Research Question 1b: Practices to Increase Latino Student 133
Achievement
Summary 134

Chapter Five: Conclusions 135
Introduction 135
Summary of Findings 137
Conclusions 143
Implications to Practice 145
Recommendations for Future Research 150

References 151

Appendices 160
Appendix A: Superintendents Leadership Practices Survey For 160
Improving The Instruction And Achievement Of Latino Students
Appendix B: Superintendent Structured Interview Protocol 169
Appendix C: Critical Leaders Structured Interview Protocol 171
Appendix D: Survey Cover Letter 173
Appendix E: Information Sheet 174
Appendix F: Table A1: Superintendents Leadership Practices Rated 177
From Very Important To Not Important

vi

Appendix G: Table A2: Superintendents Leadership Practices for 190
Initiating and Sustaining Change Rated from Very Important to
Not Important
Appendix H: Table A3: Superintendents Leadership Practices for 202
Influencing and Shaping Instruction for Latino Students Rated from
Very Important to Not Important
Appendix I: Table A4: Superintendents Leadership Practices 211
for Increasing Achievement for Latino Students from Very
Important to Not Important

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: District and Superintendent Selection Criteria for Survey 77
Table 2: Participants of the Study 78
Table 3: Demographic Data for Participating Superintendents 90
Table 4: Latino Student Achievement as Measured by AYP 85
Table 5: Leadership Practice Rated as Very Important by 94
Superintendents to Initiate and Sustain Change

Table 6: Leadership Practices Rated as Very Important by 104
Superintendents to Influence and Shape Instruction for Latino Students

Table 7: Leadership Practices Rated as Very Important by 114
Superintendents to Increase Latino Student Achievement

Table 8: Leadership Responsibilities and Reoccurring Leadership Practices 120

Table A1: Superintendents Leadership Practices Rated 177
From Very Important To Not Important

Table A2: Superintendents Leadership Practices for 190
Initiating and Sustaining Change Rated from Very Important to
Not Important

Table A3: Superintendents Leadership Practices for 202
Influencing and Shaping Instruction for Latino Students Rated from
Very Important to Not Important

Table A4: Superintendents Leadership Practices 211
for Increasing Achievement for Latino Students from Very
Important to Not Important

viii

ABSTRACT

As schools and districts across the nation and state face the added pressures
brought on by increased accountability through the NCLB Act, school leaders must
reconcile the changing demographics of their districts, the various educational needs of
their students and the political and socio-cultural aspects of such shifts while meeting
expected outcomes (Houston, 2001). The ability to navigate change in demographics and
diversity is significant because on a national level there has been a 57.9% population
increase of Latinos and of these citizens, 31.1% live in California (U.S. Census, 2000).
These changes in demographics and diversity have brought forth many challenges to
districts across the state. The increased accountability has required educational leaders to
re-evaluate the teaching and learning taking place within their districts and the
underachievement of Latino students. The purpose of this study is to examine the
practices that effective urban school district superintendents used to initiate and sustain
change, shape instruction and impact the achievement of Latino students in their district.

1

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Educating our Latino children and providing them with the best quality education
depends on a competent system. According to Zmuda, Kuklis, and Kline (2004), ―a
competent system requires several significant shifts—from unconnected thinking to
systems thinking, from an environment of isolation to one of collegiality, from perceived
reality to information-driven reality, and from individual autonomy to collective
autonomy and collective accountability‖ (p. 13). In an era of accountability, school
improvement efforts need to evolve across different areas of the system, the district, the
school site, and the classroom to support the continuous improvement of instruction and
the academic achievement of all students (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006; Fullan,
1996). A district’s ability to shift to an organization that thrives on systems thinking,
collegiality, data-driven decision making, and collective autonomy and accountability
depends on the superintendent’s ability to initiate, encourage, and sustain this change. It
is the responsibility of the system leader to facilitate the restructuring and reculturing of
the organization so that all of its parts are working interdependently to support the
achievement of all Latino students (Fullan, 2005, 2006; Senge, 1990). The role of
superintendents and their ability to lead their districts toward continuous improvement
has become a national concern.
The political and social context of education has sparked a keen interest in
accountability that began in 1983 with the publishing of the National Commission on
Excellence in Education (NCEE) report, A Nation at Risk. This report argued that the

2

educational system suffered from a diluted curriculum, low expectations for students, a
dearth of instruction time, and low teacher-quality, and outlined specific
recommendations centered on increased expectations for districts, schools, teachers, and
students; furthermore; it identified educators and elected officials as the individuals
accountable for the proposed changes (A Nation at Risk, 1983). The NCEE report
concluded that the state of our current education system was undermining the nation’s
ability to perform in a competitive and global market. States, districts, and schools were
charged with strengthening high school graduation requirements, increasing the time
devoted to teaching new basics by extending the school day and year, improving
preparation programs for teachers, and holding principals and superintendents
accountable for results (NCEE, 1983). The publication of this report and its
recommendations were the catalyst for the accountability movement that continues to
shape educational policy today.
The 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), Goals 2000, required that states begin implementing the NCEE
recommendations by supporting the development of clear and rigorous standards
outlining what all students should know and be able to do at the conclusion of one
academic year (Goals, 1994, 2000). In 2001, the reauthorization of ESEA, No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB), introduced a new form of accountability, requiring that states
develop, implement, and monitor an assessment system that demonstrates students’
academic achievement on a yearly basis. Setting the goal that all students would be at the
proficient level by the year 2014, NCLB brought attention to the learning of children

3

previously ignored (Linn, 2005). Moreover, NCLB required states, districts, and schools
to disaggregate achievement data and to focus on students that were underachieving, with
the ultimate goal of closing the achievement gap among subgroups (Linn, 2005).
The implementation of NCLB ushered in a new era of accountability, in which all
students, including Latino students, are expected to achieve at high levels. This push has
resulted in the development of assessments that attempt to show how much students have
learned and how well teachers, schools, and districts are doing to meet the educational
needs of students and to close the achievement gap for Latino students. Through the
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) reports by state, district, and individual schools, the
federal government monitors progress toward closing the achievement gap. States that
receive Title I funds commit to the goals of the NCLB Act and are given the opportunity
to develop internal monitoring systems that are incorporated into AYP calculations. In
California, the Annual Performance Index (API) is
a single number, ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 that reflects a
school’s or Local Education Agency’s (LEA) performance level, based on the
results of statewide testing. Its purpose is to measure the academic performance
and growth of schools. (CDE, 2008, p.4)

Districts and schools not making adequate progress receive sanctions and run the risk of
being placed on Program Improvement (PI) status. By these criteria, schools are not
making progress when they do not make AYP in the same content area, ELA, or
mathematics school-wide. They also fail to make AYP when any numerically significant
subgroup does not make AYP on the same indicator, such as API or graduation rate for
any numerically significant subgroup or school-wide (CDE, 2008).

4

As schools and districts across the nation and state face the pressures brought on
by increased accountability through the NCLB Act, school leaders must appreciate the
changing demographics of their districts, the various educational needs of their students,
and the political and sociocultural aspects of such shifts, even as they must meet expected
outcomes (Houston, 2001). The ability to navigate change in demographics and diversity
is significant: On a national level there has been a 57.9% population increase of Latinos
since 1990 and, of these individuals, 31.1% lives in California (U.S. Census, 2000).
Furthermore, in the 2007-08 school year, 48.7% of children enrolled in California schools
was Latino (Ed-Data, 2008). It is imperative that superintendents understand the
changing demographics of the district and the sociocultural and political issues that
accompany such shifts if they indeed aspire to improve student achievement (Houston,
2001). To initiate this effort, system leaders must engage the community and facilitate an
evaluation of the current system structures and practices that support the achievement of
Latino students and consequently impact schools and districts performance on AYP and
API (Houston, 2001).
In California, API is measured by the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
program. The California Standards Test (CST) is but one assessment that is administered
yearly to students grades two through 12 in order to measure achievement on grade-level
standards. The language arts CST is administered to students grades two through 11 and
math is administered to grades two through nine. The data from these assessments is
collected and analyzed by the California Department of Education and is published in a
yearly report made available to the public. According to the CST report, in 2008 the

5

percentage of Latino students scoring proficient or higher in language arts was 32
percentage points lower than that of White peers and in math was 21 percentage points
lower (STAR, 2008). Furthermore, the data illustrated that regardless of socioeconomic
status, Latino students continue to underperform as compared to their White counterparts.
This lack of achievement and the push for accountability has meant that educational
leaders must reevaluate the way they do business—that is, must reflect on policy,
systemic structures, and practices to determine how these factors are supporting or
hindering Latino student achievement (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 1996, 2006; Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Schmoker, 2004; Senge, 1990; Waters & Marzano, 2006).

Background of the Problem
The underachievement of Latino students and how best to meet their diverse
educational needs has been a concern since the cessation of the Southwest from Mexico
in 1850 and continues to be in the 21
st
Century (C. Luna, presentation, October 18, 2007).
The initial debate about how to educate these students resulted in the establishment of
segregated schools for Mexican origin students in 1870; by the early 20
th
Century, 85%
of students in California were segregated by school or by classroom (Donato, Menchaca
& Valencia, 1991, 2002). Notably, these segregated schools did not improve the quality
of education for Latino students; on the contrary they contributed to their school failure
(Donato et al., 1991, 2002).
School segregation inherently provided inferior teaching facilities and less then
desirable instruction for Latino students (Donato et al., 1991, 2000; Menchaca, 1995).

6

Educators in the 1920s argued, ―that Mexicans displayed few scholarly skills, lacked
ambition for education, and…preferred leisure to work‖ (Gonzalez, 1994, p. 100). This
popular sentiment was used to validate the lack of resources allocated to Mexican schools
and perpetuated the segregation and marginalization of Latino students. It was common
practice to have Mexican students schooled in the basement of buildings or in rooms with
dirt floors (Donato et al., 1991, 2000; Gonzalez, 1994). Students in these schools also
received less than adequate instruction by teachers who were deemed incompetent to
teach in Anglo schools and therefore had to resort to teaching in Mexican schools
(Donato et al., 1991, 2002). The segregation of Mexican American students, inadequate
facilities, and a lack of culturally responsive pedagogy contributed to inequality in Latino
students’ schooling experience and thus to their failure.
By the 1930s parents and community leaders began working together to demand
change in the education of Latino students. In Alvarez v. Lemon Grove, Judge Claude
Chambers of the Superior Court of California in San Diego ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
on the basis that separate facilities for Mexican American students was not conducive to
their Americanization and in fact retarded the English language development of Spanish-
speaking children. (Donato et al., 2002). Although, the first of its kind, this court case
had little impact on the segregation of Mexican children across the state; it was not until
Mendez v. Westminster in 1946 that the segregation of Mexican American children
became illegal (C. Luna, presentation October 18, 2007). This case has been of great
importance to the schooling of Mexican American children because the ruling made clear

7

that linguistic segregation did not aid in the acquisition of English (Gonzalez, 1994).
Thenceforth, Latino students could no longer be segregated on the basis of language.
Brown v. Board of Education Topeka came about a decade later in 1954 and was
the Supreme Court case that brought an end to segregation in all public schools (Donato
et al., 1991, 2002). Under this new ruling, children could no longer be segregated based
on race, religion, or national origin. Notably, however, this ruling did not improve
schooling for Latino students because they were identified as White and, as a result,
school districts would desegregate schools by pairing Mexican American and African
American students and maintaining their Anglo schools intact. It was finally the
Supreme Court case of Keyes that changed the segregation practice of both African
American and Mexican American students (Donato, et al., 1991, 2002). In this case, the
court ruled that Mexican American students ―were an identifiable minority group . . . that
could not be paired with African Americans in the desegregation process‖ (Donato et al.,
2002, p. 91). The identification of Mexican American students as a minority group
changed the segregation practices of the time to a small degree, but ultimately did very
little to improve the schooling experience for these students.
In 1974 an old issue for Latino students reemerged under the Lau Supreme Court
case. In Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme Court decided that it was not enough to offer
comparable facilities and teach students in English; the schools needed to make
instruction for English Language Learners (ELLs) comprehensible, otherwise students
were, in effect, being denied their right to a quality education (Crawford, 1996). Schools
had to assume their responsibility in providing a meaningful learning experience for

8

students learning English. Unfortunately, the Lau decision did not outline the
pedagogical practices that states and school districts needed to employ— but one thing
was clear: School districts needed to ensure English Language Learners access to the
curriculum (Crawford, 1996). The introduction and passage of Assembly Bill 1329 in
1976 implemented the Lau Remedies in California, requiring that districts and schools
offer Bilingual Education if they had ELLs (Donato et al., 1991, 2002). It appeared that
Latino students would finally receive instruction in a language they understood, while
developing their English proficiency. Unfortunately, public concern about the
effectiveness and purpose of bilingual education began to dominate political debates, so
that by 1986 an initiative was passed designating English as California’s official language
(Crawford, 1996). This resolution was followed in 1998 by the passage of Proposition
227, which made teaching students in their primary language illegal unless specific
criteria were met. Once again, there appears to be a two-tier program in education which
for Latino students offers little or no opportunity to maintain their primary language and
succeed (Crawford, 2002).
A historical perspective of Latino students’ educational experience sheds light on
the many structures and practices that have long been in place and were in fact founded
on assumptions and prejudice instead of evidence. To this day, Latino students continue
to underperform at alarming rates and to attend schools that are ill-equipped and
underfunded (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Noguera, 2003; Vaidero, 2000). Moreover, this
perspective provides leaders a lens through which to view how policy and current

9

practice continues to marginalize and exclude Latino students from accessing the social
capital needed to succeed in school and in society.
If they aspire to improve instruction and impact the achievement of Latino
students, superintendents must ―take on the role of transformative intellectuals, public
intellectuals or critical intellectuals—that is, individuals who engage in critical analysis
of conditions that have perpetuated historical inequities in school and who work to
change institutional structures and cultures‖ (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005, p.
213). The plight of Latino students requires that school leaders be more than just
administrators; educational leadership must mobilize the entire community to create
social change (Houston, 2001). The superintendent and the district office are charged
with the task of analyzing current practice and facilitating a dialogue with all members of
the organization in order to initiate and sustain change (Childress et al., 2006; Fullan,
2005). The superintendent as the system leader is responsible for initiating this change
and for distributing power among individuals in the district office and school sites in a
way that continuously seeks to increase the achievement of Latino students (Elmore,
2000; Schmoker, 2004; Senge, 1990). Although limited research exists that identifies the
superintendent and district office as having a direct impact on student achievement (Glass
et al., 2000), research has linked leadership to the effective functioning of organizations
(Fullan, 2001, 2005, 2006; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Lambert, 2003). Marzano et al.
(2005) identified 21 responsibilities of school leaders and their correlations to student
academic achievement. According to their findings, leadership had a profound impact on
the success of students (Marzano et al., 2005). Additionally, Marzano (2003) identified

10

school-level, teacher-level, and student-level factors that impact student achievement.
Research has shown that the most effective teacher may have a 53 percentage point gain
on individual student achievement and an effective principal may have a 22 percentage
point increase on school-wide student achievement (Marzano, 2003; Marzano et al.,
2005); thus it is reasonable to surmise that a superintendent would have the greatest
impact on student achievement because he/she is able to influence all aspects of the
organization.
Superintendents have the opportunity to directly and indirectly impact the
educational outcomes of students as well as to shape the systems and structures designed
to support instructional improvements (Datnow & Castellano, 2003; Edwards, 2006;
Goldberg & Morrison, 2003; Lashway, 2002a; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The current
political climate requires that superintendents move beyond the managerial aspects of the
job and provide instructional leadership (Lashway, 2000a; 2000b). They are expected to
have curriculum knowledge, an understanding of effective teaching practices, as well as
the ability to initiate reform and develop relationships that will sustain continuous
improvement (Cuban, 1998; Johnson, 1996; Stein & Nelson, 2003). Waters and Marzano
(2006) have identified six district leadership responsibilities that correlate with student
achievement: (a) collaborative goal-setting, (b) setting nonnegotiable goals for
achievement and instruction, (c) aligning the board with and supporting district goals, (d)
monitoring the goals for achievement and instruction, (e) using resources to support the
goals for achievement and instruction, and (f) defining autonomy. Waters and Marzano

11

(2006) have attested that by meeting these six responsibilities, superintendents can have a
positive impact on the achievement of students.
Although the superintendent is ultimately responsible for the academic
achievement of all students, the effort cannot be undertaken by an individual. To meet
the challenges set forth by the NCLB Act and, ultimately, to close the achievement gap
for Latino students, the superintendent needs to become more than an instructional leader;
he/she needs to facilitate a redefinition of the districts’ vision, renewing a commitment to
bringing about systemic change in order to achieve their goals (Fullan, 2005, 2006;
Leithwood, 1992, 1999). To initiate and maintain this type of systematic or second-
order change, district leaders need to move toward a transformational form of leadership.
The transformational leader uses positional power in a facilitative nature to engage board
members, central office leaders, principals, teachers, and community members in
developing organizational goals and in creating and implementing a plan to best meet
those goals (Leithwood, 1992, 1999; Marzano et al., 2005; Northouse, 2007). By
engaging these different stakeholder groups, the superintendent fulfills the following
responsibilities: collaborative goal-setting, creating nonnegotiable goals, aligning board
and supporting district goals, and using resources to support goals (Waters & Marzano,
2006). As the system leader, the superintendent is able to influence and inspire the
district he/she is leading and to build principal and teacher capacity in support of
collective and individual goals (Senge, 1990).
The superintendent must see the entire system as interdependent and guide the
members of the organization in recognizing that the success of Latino students can only

12

be achieved through increased collaboration and shared accountability (Cambron-
McCabe, Cunningham, Harvey, & Koff, 2005; Leithwood, 1992, 1999; Marzano et al.,
2005). Moreover, the superintendent is responsible for ensuring that improving
instruction and achievement for all students, Latino students included, is the driving force
of all decisions made at the district office, school sites, and classrooms (Goldberg &
Morrison, 2003; Marsh, 2000; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Furthermore, district office
leadership needs to have a clear understanding of its part in supporting the continuous
improvement of instruction and student achievement (Marsh, 2000). By providing the
opportunity for central office leadership to define its role in supporting the reform effort,
the system leader reinforces the notion of collective autonomy and accountability.
The demands made of the superintendent are vast and complex and, at times,
he/she must reconcile conflicting roles and interests in pursuit of continuous
improvement. According to Lashway,
As instructional leaders, [superintendents] bear ultimate responsibility for
improving student achievement. As managerial leaders, they have to keep their
districts operating efficiently, with a minimum of friction, yet taking risks to make
the necessary changes. As political leaders, they have to negotiation with multiple
stakeholders to get approval for program and resources. (Lashway, 2002a, p. 3)

As leaders, superintendents need to find new ways to frame situations for members of the
organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). System leaders need to view events or situations
through multiple perspectives. Along these lines, Bolman and Deal (2003) have
identified four perspectives or frames: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic.
Using these frames enables the leader to analyze a situation and shape his/her behaviors
accordingly. In times of fiscal crisis and increased accountability, having the ability to

13

view an event from multiple perspectives and to identify effective strategies are necessary
skills and strategies.

Statement of the Problem
Education as an institution has attempted to meet the changing needs of its student
population through 20 years of reform efforts (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003; Schmoker,
1998, 2004). The move toward developing rigorous standards, the implementation of
standardized measures of student achievement, and sanctions against those schools and
school districts that are not making adequate yearly progress for all students have made
the achievement gap of Latino students a national concern (American Federation of
Teachers [AFT], 2004; Haycock, 2001; Johnston & Vaidero, 2000). This issue is
especially important in California, where 48.7% of the student population is Latino (Ed-
Data, 2008) and where Latino students score lower than their White counterparts by 32
percentage points in language arts and 21 percentage points in math (STAR, 2008).
Therefore, the education of Latino students and how best to meet their educational needs
continues to warrant attention because their achievement persistently lags behind that of
their White peers regardless of socioeconomic status (STAR, 2008).
No Child Left Behind (2001) increased accountability for superintendents and
their districts by setting the goal that 100% of students be proficient by 2014. This
accountability has brought added pressure to superintendents, who are responsible for the
achievement of all students in their district. Thus, the underachievement of Latino
students can no longer be overlooked; it is a challenge that superintendents must rise to if

14

they intend to move their districts forward and meet the goal set forth by No Child Left
Behind.
These growing demands on superintendents have made reform a minimum
expectation of the job (Lashway, 2002a). For superintendents to oversee facilities and to
ensure the fiscal responsibility of their respective districts is not enough; they are also
expected to be transformational leaders who will impact the achievement of all students
(Leithwood, 1992). Superintendents need to ―turn the current process inside out and to
structure learning so that [all] students will use complex skills in practical situations and
challenge their thinking while connecting them to reality‖ (Houston, 2001, p. 5).
Superintendents are responsible for initiating change within the current system and for
ensuring that all students receive a quality education and achieve at high levels (Haycock
2001; Lashway, 2002a; Linn, 2005; Sherman, 2008). In spite of ―the changing
demographics and growing diversity, a fragmenting culture, deregulation in the form of
vouchers and charters schools, decentralization of power, and increased accountability
with no additional power‖ (Lashway, 2002b, p. 7), research has shown that the
superintendent can have a positive impact on student achievement (Waters & Marzano,
2006). Considering all the demands made upon the superintendent and increased
accountability at the federal and state level, research must be conducted to determine
what effective urban superintendents are doing to bring about systemic change and what
positive impact these practices have had on the instruction and achievement of their
district’s Latino students.

15

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the practices that effective urban school
district superintendents have used to initiate and sustain change, to shape instruction, and
to impact the achievement of Latino students in their district. Research has shown that
there are specific leadership responsibilities that positively impact student achievement
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). This study will identify the day-to-day leadership practices
that superintendents utilize to fulfill these responsibilities, to influence the instruction,
and to increase the achievement of Latino students.

Research Questions
The following research questions guide this study:
1) How have urban superintendents initiated and sustained systemic change to improve
instruction and increase Latino student achievement?
(a) What practices do superintendents utilize to influence and shape the
instruction of Latino students?
(b) What practices do superintendents use to increase the achievement of
Latino students?

Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is to make a contribution to the body of research in
the field of educational leadership by identifying a set of promising practices that urban
superintendents utilize to initiate change, influence instruction, and ultimately impact the

16

achievement of Latino students. This study will review the current literature on strategies
and practices used by superintendents to raise student achievement in the present climate
of accountability and it will yield examples of what superintendents do to initiate and
sustain change, and influence instruction, and increase achievement for Latino students.

Limitations
For this study the following limitations are known to exist:
1. A sample of 23 superintendents was invited to participation in this study.
2. Ten superintendents agreed to participate in the survey portion of the study
3. Two superintendents and four critical leaders participated in the interview
portion of the study.
4. The superintendents led urban school districts.
5. Findings can be generalized to districts of similar size and demographic
representations.

Delimitations
The following delimitations were used to narrow the focus of this study:
1. The superintendents selected for this study are current superintendents in
large urban public school districts.
2. Superintendents selected for this study demonstrated growth in the
achievement of Latino students in English language arts and/or
mathematics at the elementary and secondary level as reported by state

17

and federal accountability systems, Academic Performance Index (API),
and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), respectively.
3. Superintendents selected for this study led districts with a Latino student
population that comprised at least 28.7% and a minimum of 29.7% of
students qualified for free or reduced lunch.
4. Behaviors of superintendents were studied and may not be representative
of other superintendents.

Assumptions
For this study, it is assumed that:
1. The chosen procedures and methods were appropriate.
2. Superintendents have a direct or indirect impact on the achievement of
Latino students in urban districts.
3. Participants provided truthful and credible responses to all survey and/or
interview questions.
4. A mixed-methods study of selected superintendents and critical leaders
would provide useful data and the analysis of such data would contribute
to the body of literature on school leadership and the achievement of
Latino students.

18

Definitions
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as follows:
Academic Performance Index (API): California’s measurement of academic performance
and the progress of individual schools in the state. It is one of the main components of the
Public Schools Accountability Act passed by the California legislature in 1999.
Achievement Gap: ―the disparities in standardized test scores between Black and White,
Latina/o and White and recent immigrants and White students‖ (Ladson-Billings, 2006,
p.3).
Academic Performance Index (API): a single number, ranging from a low of 200 to a
high of 1000 that reflects a school’s or Local Education Agency’s (LEA) performance
level, based on the results of statewide testing. Its purpose is to measure the academic
performance and growth of schools (CDE, 2008, p.4).
Adequate Yearly Progress (APY): a measurement identified in the No Child Left Behind
Act (2001) that allows the U.S. Department of Education to determine how every public
school and school district in the country is performing academically, as indicated by
results on standardized tests. Districts are expected to make yearly progress toward the
goal of having 100% of students identified as proficient by 2014.
Distributed Leadership: a leadership approach that recognizes that many people have the
potential to practice leadership within a district (Harris, 2008).
Education Debt: foregone schooling resources that could have (and should have) been
invested in (primarily) low-income kids, the deficit of which leads to a variety of social
problems (e.g. crime, low productivity, low wages, low labor force participation)

19

requiring on-going public resources that could go to reducing the achievement gap.
Without the education debt we could narrow the achievement debt (Haveman, 2006 as
cited in Ladson-Billings).
Instructional Leadership: a leadership approach that centers on teaching and learning and
has the potential to shift the entire culture of the organization to one of continuous
improvement (Peterson, 2002)
Latino: persons from cultures or countries, such as Mexico, Central America, and most of
South America where Spanish is the primary language and whom reside in the United
States.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), which established a framework of standards, testing, and
accountability and mandated all states to report by student subgroup the progress made
toward yearly goals (Linn, 2005).
System Thinkers: individuals who are able to see how all parts of the organization
are interconnected; therefore, they gravitate toward strategies that alter people’s
experiences and mental images of the system (Fullan, 2005; Senge, 1990).
Systems Thinking: the fifth discipline that integrates four others: personal mastery, mental
models, building shared vision, and team learning (Senge, 1990). Systems’ thinking
provides individuals a way to approach problems of practice— not as isolated events but
as part of a greater structure (Fullan, 2005).

20

Transformational Leadership: a leadership approach that occurs when the leader unites
his or her interests with those of the followers in order to bring about significant change
(Northouse, 2007).

Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five distinct chapters. Chapter One provides an
introduction to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study and research
questions to be answered, significance of the study, limitations, delimitations, and the
assumptions and the definition of terms. Chapter Two is a review of the relevant
literature. Chapter Three presents the research methodology used in the study, the
research design, sampling and data collection procedures, analysis procedures, and
summary. Chapter Four presents the findings of the study along with an analysis of the
data. Chapter Five is a summary of the study, conclusions, and possible implications for
practice as well as recommendations for future research.

21

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The move toward increased accountability by NCLB created a framework of
standards, assessments, and accountability that forced districts to take a closer look at the
performance of all their students (Fusarelli, 2004). With its emphasis on student
performance by subgroups, NCLB requires states to disaggregate data to the student level
and work toward closing the achievement gap among subgroups (Fusarelli, 2004; Linn,
2005). Disaggregating the data by subgroups has made public the successes and failures
of school districts and has placed added pressure on superintendents to initiate and
sustain educational reform. Thus, the success of future superintendents will lie in their
ability to improve the quality of instruction and achievement for all students (Houston,
2001; Lashway, 2002b; Sherman, 2008).
In California, Latinos make up approximately 48.7% of students in K-12 public
education and, regardless of socioeconomic status, they continue to underperform
compared to their White counterparts (Johnston & Vaidero, 2000; Sherman, 2008; STAR,
2008). The underachievement of Latino students is not a new phenomenon; they have
long been denied access to quality education through inequitable education laws, policies,
and practices that perpetuate their underachievement today (Donato et al., 1991, 2002;
Gonzalez, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Noguera, 2003; Menchaca, 1995; Vaidero, 2000).
As leaders, superintendents are expected to be the catalyst for educational change
(Kowalski, 1999, as cited by Sherman, 2008) and although it is their responsibility to

22

ensure that all students receive a quality education, this feat cannot be achieved by one
person (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2001, 2005; 2006). Superintendents need to facilitate the
restructuring (Leithwood, 1994) and reculturing (Fullan, 1998) of entire organizations
and mobilize individuals toward a common goal: the improvement of instruction and
achievement for Latino students (Fullan, 2005, 2006; Leithwood, 1999).
This review is designed to identify a set of promising practices that
superintendents use to initiate and sustain systematic changes and to improve teaching
and learning for Latino students. This literature review is presented in five sections. The
first section explains the changing role of superintendents and school districts in an era of
accountability. The section explicates the mandates outlined by the federal government
under the No Child Left Behind Act, the historical underachievement of Latino students,
and the changing roles of and expectations made upon superintendents and their districts.
The second section reviews research on three leadership approaches pertaining to the
superintendency. The section delineates the strategies and practices associated with
instructional, distributed, and transformational leadership approaches and their influence
on instruction and student achievement. The third section reviews research related to the
role of district-level leadership and its impact on facilitating system-wide reform to
improve student achievement; this section also introduces 12 common practices that
reforming districts apply in order to improve instruction and impact student outcomes.
Included in this section is a review of the limited extant research on the practices and
strategies utilized by the superintendent to influence teacher instruction and to affect
student achievement. The fourth section introduces a framework that superintendents

23

may use to initiate and sustain organizational change, influence instruction, and increase
student achievement. This section examines how superintendents may utilize systems
thinking and to initiate and sustain continuous improvement. The last section presents a
synthesis of the literature and final conclusions.

Changing Roles of Superintendents and Districts in an Era of Accountability
Increase in Accountability
The signing of the No Child Left Behind Act on January 8, 2002 enacted a
national wave of new educational policy. For the first time, the federal government
decided to take a more active role in shaping the goals and outcomes for student learning
(Fusarelli, 2004). NCLB established a framework of standards, testing, and
accountability, mandating all states to report by student subgroup the progress made
toward goals on a yearly basis through the creation of a public state, district, and school
report cards (Fusarelli, 2004; Linn, 2005). NCLB ―is designed to improve the academic
performance of American children through the creation of highly qualified teachers and a
unified system of education that creates high academic and behavioral standards and
increases institutional accountability for adequate yearly student progress‖ (Day-Vines &
Patton, 2003, p.1, as cited in Fusarelli, 2004).
According to Lee (2006), ―The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) aims
at ensuring both academic excellence and equity by providing new opportunities and
challenges for states to advance the goal of closing the achievement gap‖ (p.12). Indeed,
the act does outline clear outcome goals, but does very little to support states and districts

24

in reaching such goals. Once law, NCLB was poorly funded and as a result states and
districts did not receive the financial resources to ensure that effective programs were put
in place to support the achievement of all students (Fusarelli, 2004; Lee, 2002, 2006;
Linn, 2005). Thus, state, district, and school leaders became responsible for developing
creative and innovative plans to narrow the achievement gap.
The achievement gap ―refers to the disparities in standardized test scores between
Black and White, Latina/o and White and recent immigrants and White students‖
(Ladson-Billings, 2006, p.3). Initially, the main focus was on the achievement gap
between Black and White students; however, demographic shifts have brought forth a
growing concern with the underachievement of Latino students (AFT, 2004; Donato et al.,
1991, 2002; Lara & Pande, 2001). NCLB has created accountability measures that force
districts and superintendents to change the way they do business and to address the
growing educational disparities of Latino students if they aspire to close the achievement
gap and meet federal mandates.
The Latino Achievement Gap and the Education Debt
The United States has experienced a dramatic change in the educational landscape
(Census, 2008). According to research, the Latino population is the largest and fastest
growing minority group in the United States and, as a group, underachieves at an
alarming rate (AFT, 2004; CDE, 2008; EdTrust, 2006; Haycock, 2001; Rolon, 2003).
Underachievement by Latino students is not a new phenomenon; the achievement gap
can be traced back to 1960 (Donato et al., 2002, 1991; Ladson-Billings, 2005; Lee, 2002;
Noguera, 2003; Vaidero, 2000), and although there was a narrowing between the 1970s

25

and 1980s, at this time it is widening again (Haycock, 2001; Lee, 2002; Vaidero, 2000).
Moreover, substantial evidence exists that Latinos have historically been the most
undereducated population (Donato et al., 1991, 2002; Perez & Salazar, 1997) in the
United States and that this inequity persists today (Landson-Billings, 2006).
The disproportionate number of Latino students failing to meet proficiency levels
on various measures can no longer be ignored. This reality presents an educational and
economic crisis in California, a state in which Latinos comprise 32.5% of the total
population (U.S. Census, 2000) and 48.7% of student enrollment in K-12 education (Ed-
Data, 2008). According to the 2008 STAR Summary Report, though all student
subgroups have shown improvement since 2003, the gap in achievement between Latinos
and Whites has remained unchanged. The percentage of Latino students scoring
proficient or higher on the language arts assessment was 32 percentage points lower than
that of White peers and on the math assessment was 21 percentage points lower (STAR,
2008). This underachievement by Latino students is evident in the data regardless of
socioeconomic status (Johnston & Vaidero, 2000; Sherman, 2008; STAR, 2008).
Furthermore, evidence of this gap is not limited to standardized test scores— it also exists
in dropout rates and in the relative number of students enrolling in honors or advanced
placement classes, taking advanced placement examinations and passing, and being
admitted to colleges and graduate programs (AFT, 2004; Donato et al., 1991, 2002;
EdTrust, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Lara & Pande, 2001; Perez & Salazar, 1997). If
Latino students underachieve regardless of socioeconomic status, a closer examination of
the factors believed to be causing the achievement gap is necessary.

26

Scholars have identified numerous factors impacting the achievement of Latino
students; among them are socioeconomic and family conditions, youth culture and
student behaviors, and schooling conditions and practices. Still, these factors do not fully
explain the underachievement of this population (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Lee, 2002;
Noguera, 2003; Perez & Salazar, 1997; Vaidero, 2000). According to Ladson-Billings
(2006), the focus on the achievement gap is misdirected and a new perspective must be
explored. Educational leaders should consider the underachievement of Latino students
as the result of an education debt that has accumulated over time (Ladson-Billings, 2006).
According to Haveman the education debt refers to the
foregone schooling resources that we could have (should have) been investing in
(primarily) low income kids, which deficit leads to a variety of social problems
(e.g. crime, low productivity, low wages, low labor force participation) that
require on-going public resources that could go to reducing the achievement gap.
Without the education debt we could narrow the achievement debt. (2006, as cited
in Ladson-Billings, 2006, p.5)

This educational debt has been created by historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral
decisions, practices, and policies that have shaped the opportunities afforded to students
of color (Ladson-Billings, 2006).
In the case of Latino students, historical evidence of racial segregation dates back
as early as 1848 (Ferg-Cadima, 2004, as cited by Ladson-Billings, 2006) and in the state
of California is documented as early as 1855 (Menchaca, 1995). This segregation resulted
in the denial of educational opportunities; those public schools that Latino students were
permitted to attend public were of inferior funding, quality, and stature (Donato et al.,
1991, 2002; Gonzalez, 1994; Menchaca, 1995). Although the Latino community has

27

fought diligently for equitable treatment, millions of Latino students enrolled in public
education continue to experience the effects of this historical debt (Ladson-Billings, 2006;
Sherman, 2007).
The economic disparities that have contributed to the education debt can be traced
back to the first segregated school in California that enrolled only Latino students
(Menchaca, 1995). The mere notion of separate schooling resonates with the idea of
differential funding, as has been the case for the educational resources allotted to Latino
students (Garcia, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2006). This underfunding is apparent today in
NCLB, the policy that ―aims at ensuring both academic excellence and equity by
providing new opportunities and challenges for states to advance the goal of closing the
achievement gap‖ (Lee, 2006, p.12). State and district leaders were given a charge: to
improve the instruction and achievement of the neediest students; however, few resources
were allotted to support such changes (Fusarelli, 2004; Linn, 2005). Another relevant
component in the economic debt is the earnings ratios as they relate to years of schooling
(Ladson-Billings, 2006). Research suggests that years in school is linked to higher
earnings— in other words, high school graduates earn more than high school drop outs,
college graduates earn more than high school graduates, and so forth (Brewer,
presentation, September 10, 2008; Ladson-Billings; Fry, 2003). In California, the high
school drop out rate for Latino students is 39.7%, twice as high as non-Latino students
(Rumberger & Rotermund, 2009), therefore adding to the economic portion of the
education debt and limiting Latinos opportunities for upward social mobility.

28

The sociopolitical debt reveals the extent to which communities of color have
been denied access to the civic process (Ladson-Billings, 2006). In California, the first
Congress of 1849 passed a citizenship law that differentiated Mexicans by racial ancestry
and gave full citizenship rights only to White Mexicans; therefore, Mexican mestizos and
Mexican Indians were ineligible to receive citizenship rights (Donato et al., 1991, 2002;
Menchaca, 1995). Further, in 1855 California passed a law prohibiting districts from
using state funds to educate non-White students (Menchaca, 1995) and making it illegal
to educate Latino students in public schools. Not until 1864 was this law changed and
non-White students were permitted to attend public schools in separate facilities
(Hendrick, 1977, as cited by Menchaca, 1995). This accumulating sociopolitical debt has
systematically excluded and denied Latino families access to rights as citizens of this
nation, among which is the right to a quality public education (Donato et al., 1991, 2002;
Garcia 2001; Gonzales, 1994; Menchaca, 1995). Despite the legal action and gains made
through cases such as Alvarez v. Lemon Grove (1931), Mendez v. Westminster (1964),
and Keyes v. School District #1 (1973), Latino children continue to be denied equitable
access to a quality education (Donato et al., 1991, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Sherman,
2008).
Ladson-Billings (2006) terms the final component of the education debt ―the
moral debt.‖ She explains, ―The moral debt reflects the disparity between what we know
is right and what we actually do‖ (p. 8). This moral obligation does not solely reside in
the individual, in a democratic society this personal responsibility must also be joined by
social responsibility (Ladson-Billings, 2006). It is not enough simply to change the law,

29

thereby pronouncing that segregation is unconstitutional, award citizenship rights to
individuals once cast off, or open the doors of the school house to students once denied
the opportunity to learn and hope that equity will happen of its own accord (Ladson-
Billings, 2006). Evidence suggests that historic, economic, sociopolitical, and moral
debts exist, which have accumulated over time and require educational leaders to
facilitate an analysis and reevaluation of the practices and policies that continue to
marginalize and deny access to Latino students (Donato et al., 1991, 2002; Gonzalez,
1994; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Menchaca, 1995).
State, district, and school leaders have the moral responsibility to reflect upon the
institutional practices and policies that have contributed to the educational debt and to
initiate systemic change so that Latino students may have the opportunities needed to
succeed in school and contribute to society (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005). At
the local level, new expectations have been placed on superintendents (Cuban, 1998;
Fuller, Campbell, Celio, Harvey, Immerwahr, & Winger, 2003; Glass, 2001; Houston,
2001; Lashway, 2002a, 2002b; Sherman, 2008). To achieve the goals set out by NCLB,
superintendents need to become system thinkers, individuals who seek to change the
context as they facilitate the process of solving complex education and social problems
(Fullan, 2006).
The Evolution of the Superintendency
Under the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) all children, regardless of race,
ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, are expected to achieve at high levels and it is
ultimately the superintendent’s charge to ensure that this expectation is met (Fuller et al.,

30

2003; Glass, 1992; Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000) however, this accountability has not
always been the case. The superintendency was created in the late 1830s as a response to
the need for school systems to have a top executive overseeing the development of larger
city school districts; by the 1900s most districts had a superintendent (Bjork & Kowalski,
2005; Glass, 1992; Glass et al., 2000). The superintendent’s role has evolved with the
sociopolitical landscape of the times (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005; Glass, 1992; Glass et al.,
2000). According to Bjork and Kowalski (2005), five distinct roles for the
superintendent have evolved over time, those of teacher-scholar, manager, democratic
leader, applied social scientist, and communicator.
Teacher-scholar characterizes the role of the superintendent during the common
school movement from the late 1800s through the early 1900s (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005;
Glass, 1992; Glass et al., 2000). The view of the superintendent was that of master
teacher and the majority of his time was spent supervising instruction and ensuring the
uniformity of the curriculum (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005; Cuban, 1998). Superintendents
of this era viewed themselves as active participants in the teaching profession and did not
conduct any management-related activities or functions (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). This
practice changed during the second decade of the twentieth century. As the country
transitioned from an agrarian to an industrial society, the role of the superintendent
changed as well (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005).
The changing context presented new demands to the superintendent and by 1920,
the superintendent as teacher-scholar transformed into the superintendent as business
manager (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005; Cuban, 1998; Glass, 1992; Glass et al., 2000).

31

School boards shifted their focus to resource management, and expected the
superintendents to concentrate on improving the operations of the organization (Bjork &
Kowalski, 2005). Among the many duties, superintendents were responsible for budget
development and administration, standardization of operations, and the management of
personnel and facilities (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005; Glass, 1992; Glass et al., 2000).
However, as the social context changed so too did the role of superintendent.
The great stock market crash of 1929 initiated a new role for the superintendent.
During this time of economic hardship, the function of the superintendent shifted from
that of manager to democratic leader. The scarce fiscal resources of the 1930s forced
superintendents to engage directly in political activities as they competed with other
government agencies for state funding (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). During these
challenging times, proponents of this more politicized role urged superintendents to
engage the community to gain support for the district’s initiatives (Howlett, 1993, as
cited by Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). By the mid 1950s an ideological shift took place,
bringing to the forefront a keen interest in the everyday practice of teaching and learning
(Bjork & Kowalski, 2005).
As with previous roles, the superintendent as applied social scientist evolved as
the sociopolitical climate changed, characterized by growing dissatisfaction with
democratic leadership after World War II, rapid development of the social sciences,
dissatisfaction with public education, redefinition of school administrators in general as
applied social scientists, and the introduction of systems theory to education (Bjork &
Kowalski, 2005). During this time, superintendents were ―expected to apply scientific

32

inquiry to the problems and decisions that permeated their practice‖ (Bjork and Kowalski,
2005, p. 10). In other words, superintendents were expected to have the expertise to
research deficiencies and provide recommendations to improve the organization (Bjork &
Kowalski, 2005; Glass, 1992; Glass et al., 2000).
The shift from a manufacturing-based to an information-based society marked a
new era for education and the superintendency (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). The
publication of A Nation at Risk (1983) sounded an alarm that the nation’s public schools
were not adequately preparing students to compete in a global economy. The reform
efforts that followed in the early 1990s focused the reform policy arena on the local level,
where ―superintendents had to function as the primary change agents‖ (Kowalski, 2005, p
105). ―Since the 1990’s policy analysts have concluded that meaningful school reform
requires revising institutional climates, including organizational structures and culture‖
(Bjork & Kowalski, 2005, p. 12). Furthermore, the large-scale reform efforts of
educational institutions call for a social systems perspective (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005;
Fullan, 2005, 2006; Senge, 1990). System thinking is the ability to see the various
patterns of interaction among individuals, their interdependence, and how they may be
changed to improve individual and collective effectiveness (Fullan, 2005; Senge, 1990).
The superintendent as effective communicator outlines a new set of expectations that
include engaging others in open political dialogue, facilitating the creation of a shared
vision, building a positive school district image, gaining community support for change,
and keeping the public informed about education (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005).

33

Expectations of the Superintendency in the 21
st
Century
Superintendency has gone through many changes, adapting to the diverse
sociopolitical contexts of American education. Notably, superintendency in the 21
st

Century is not confined to one role but rather is comprised of the many different
functions outlined in the previous section (Cuban, 1998; Fuller et al., 2003; Glass et al.,
2000). However, current expectations of the superintendent are high and often unrealistic,
as resources are misaligned and there is a lack of authority (Fuller et al., 2003; Glass et al.,
2000; Glass, 2001; Lashway, 2002a). Yet, according to Houston, ―superintendents know
they can change the trajectory of children’s lives, alter the behavior of organizations, and
expand the possibilities of whole communities‖ (2001, p 1). The modern superintendent
is expected to negotiate the sometimes conflicting roles of instructional, managerial, and
political leadership (Lashway, 2002a; Thomas, 2001) and is expected to be the catalyst
for social change (Glass et al., 2000; Kowalski, 1999, as cited by Sherman, 2008).
Unlike their predecessors, contemporary superintendents have a new set of
expectations to meet. As outlined by the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), which
requires that all children learn and achieve at high levels (Fuller et al., 2003; Lashway,
2002a; Sherman, 2008); this ―standards-based, [high-stakes] accountability has made
reform not just a trademark of progressive superintendents but a minimum expectation
for the job‖ (Lashway, 2002a, p. 2). In other words, superintendents in the 21
st
Century
will continue to focus on accountability, test scores, standards, and instruction but also
must pay close attention to the social issues that impact the children their organizations
serve (Houston, 2001). Under NCLB superintendents are required to identify and

34

articulate the discrepancies in test scores among students and to facilitate a plan to narrow
the achievement gap (NCLB, 2001; Sherman, 2008).
For superintendents to be successful in narrowing the achievement gap, they will
need to change the way they lead their organizations (Fullan, 2006, 2005; Holye, Bjork,
Collier, & Glass, 2005; Houston, 2001; Senge, 1990). In 2000, The American Education
Research Association (AERA) formed the task force Developing Research in Educational
Leadership to promote and encourage high-quality research in educational leadership
(Hoyle et al., 2005). In 2003 it released its report, What We Know About Successful
School Leadership, summarizing several research-based conclusions about successful
school leadership: (a) leadership has significant effects on student learning, second only
to the effects of the quality of curriculum and teachers’ instruction, (b) a core set of
leadership practices form the ―basics‖ of successful leadership and are valuable in almost
all educational contexts, (c) successful school leaders respond productively to challenges
and opportunities created by the accountability-oriented policy context in which they
work, and (d) successful school leaders respond productively to the opportunities and
challenges of educating diverse groups of students.
The task force’s findings describe a shift in the role of the superintendent from a
less visible manager to a ―highly visible chief executive officer who needs vision,
knowledge, and skills to lead in a new complex world‖ (Hoyle et al., 2005, p 1).
Successful superintendents of the 21
st
Century will be those who find a way of leading
through sharing power (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2001; Goldberg & Morrison, 2003),
mastering the skills of communication (Kowalski, 2005), collaboration (Marzano et al.,

35

2005; Schmoker, 2004; Waters & Marzano, 2006), community building and child
advocacy (Houston, 2001; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003), focusing on instruction and
increasing the achievement of the most underserved children (Ladson-Billings, 2006;
Lashway, 2002a; Sherman, 2008), and understanding that all parts of the system are
interdependent (Fullan, 2005, 2006; Houston, 2001; Senge, 1990).
The following section will discuss three leadership approaches pertaining to the
superintendency. The section delineates the strategies and practices associated with
instructional, distributed, and transformational leadership approaches and their influence
on the instructional practice and achievement of Latino students.

Educational Leadership
Leadership
The expectations of the modern superintendent have shifted dramatically with
local, state, and federal standards that now hold district and school leaders accountable
for all students achieving at high levels (Fuller et al., 2003; Glass et al., 2000; Leithwood
& Riehl, 2003). Educational leaders must not only appreciate the challenges faced by the
changing student population and its diverse needs, but also rise to the challenges and
expectations presented by new technologies for teaching and communication and the
push toward district and school effectiveness measured solely by increasing student
achievement on standardized tests (Fuller et al., 2003; Glass et al., 2000; Kowalski, 2005;
Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Amidst increasing demands and pressures placed on the
superintendent (Fuller et al., 2003; Glass et al., 2000), research has shown that leadership

36

matters significantly (Fullan, 2001, 2005, 2006; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Marzano,
2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Waters & Marzano, 2006); and, although the impact of
effective leadership may be difficult to determine, the effects of poor leadership can be
seen through the perpetual underachievement of underrepresented students (Leithwood &
Riehl, 2003).
In a summary of the findings outlined by the Task Force on Developing Research
in Education, Leithwood and Riehl (2003) have identified two specific functions that
leadership serves: providing direction for the organization and exercising influence on its
members. In today’s world, leaders are expected to mobilize and work with others to
achieve student-learning goals (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Long gone are the days when
a leader was able to lead with an iron fist, impose goals, and hope for results. According
to Leithwood and Riehl (2003), educational leaders need to build and create shared
purpose with members of an organization dedicated to learning for all students. Leaders
affect learning goals directly and indirectly by creating the conditions for others to be
effective and by building the leadership capacity of the members of their organization
(Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).
Similarly, in his book Leadership–Theory and Practice, Northouse (2007) has
proposed that leadership has four essential components: (a) leadership is a nonlinear
process that happens among a leader and his or her followers, (b) leadership involves
influence, without influence leadership does not occur, (c) leadership occurs in a group
context and it involves a common purpose, and, lastly, (d) leadership involves goal
attainment. In other words, leadership is a process by which an individual influences a

37

group to pursue and achieve a common objective (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Northouse,
2007). The leader is charged with the responsibility of initiating the relationship,
creating open channels of communication, and maintaining the relationship in order to
achieve the collective goals of the district (Northouse, 2007).
Kouzes and Posner (2003) have asserted that leadership is not entirely about
personality, but also about practice. Leadership is a dynamic process made up of daily
practices that inspire and mobilize others to act for the benefit of the organization.
Through case studies and questionnaires, the researchers identified five common
leadership practices: (a) model the way, (b) inspire a shared vision, (c) challenge the
process, (d) enable others to act, and (e) encourage the heart. Embedded in these five
practices are actions that can support the development of leadership. Kouzes and Posner
refer to these practices as the Ten Commitments of Leadership. They are: (a) find your
voice by clarifying your personal values, (b) set the example by aligning actions with
shared values, (c) envision the future by imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities,
(d) enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations, (e) search for
opportunities by seeking innovative ways to change, grow, and improve, (f) experiment
and take risks by constantly generating small wins and learning from mistakes, (g) foster
collaboration by promoting cooperative goals and building trust, (h) strengthen others by
sharing power and discretion, (i) recognize contributions by showing appreciation for
individual excellence, and (j) celebrate the values and victories by creating a spirit of
community. According to Kouzes and Posner (2003), success in leadership lies with the
leader’s ability to cultivate and maintain positive and productive relationships. In

38

essence, ―leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who
choose to follow‖ (p. 20).
All three studies identified that leadership serves to influence and facilitate the
development of a collective purpose within an organization. Kouzes and Posner’s (2003)
findings were consistent with findings presented by Leithwood and Riehl (2003), which
suggested that leadership is contingent on the creation of relationships based on trust and
respect and on sharing leadership among the members of the organization for the purpose
of achieving collective goals and aspirations. Thus, educational leadership has the
potential to establish a collective vision and to mobilize an entire community to improve
instruction not just for some students, but for all students.
Although not extensive, the research on educational leadership provides strong
guidance on specific leadership theories or approaches that impact student achievement
(Marzano et al., 2005). Historically, the superintendency has drawn upon a variety of
approaches to lead school districts: lead teacher, democratic leader, social scientist, and
communicator (Glass et al., 2000; Kowalski, 2006). However, the increased
accountability placed on superintendents by NCLB and the continued underperformance
by Latino students (EdTrust, 2006; Fuller et al., 2003; Haycock, 2001; Lashway, 2002a;
Rolon; 2003; Sherman, 2008) has forced a tighter focus on instructional leadership.
Leithwood and Riehl (2003) propose that educational leadership is ―most successful
when focused on teaching and learning‖ (p. 10); however, just focusing on teaching and
learning is not sufficient for continuous improvement (Leithwood & Rieh, 2003).
Leadership must be flexible, taking different forms and adapting to changing social

39

contexts. Thus, a combination of approaches may be better suited for leading the kind of
large-scale reform needed to reduce the long-accumulating educational debt that has
resulted in the underachievement of Latino students (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Peterson
& Barnett, 2005). Three leadership approaches are of particular importance to this study
and will be further explored: instructional leadership, distributed leadership, and
transformation leadership.
The following section is a review of the literature on instructional leadership as it
relates to the superintendent’s ability to initiate and sustain change, shape instruction, and
increase student achievement
Instructional Leadership
The publication of A Nation at Risk (1983) marked a change in the social,
political, and economic context of public education and increased the demands on
superintendents and their districts (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000). The shift from
educational inputs to the social, economic, and academic outcomes of schooling
culminated with NCLB (Hoyle et al., 2005; Lashway, 2002a). New expectations of
superintendents required them to have a broad-based understanding of curriculum and
instruction, to utilize coaching techniques, to consult data to guide decision-making and
to increase the academic success of all students (Elmore, 2000; Lashway, 2002a).
Superintendents are now expected to be instructional leaders and, as a result, bear the
ultimate responsibility for improving student achievement (Cuban, 1998). According to
Peterson and Barnett (2005), understanding the multifaceted roles and responsibilities of
the superintendent as instructional leader continues to be an elusive endeavor. Although

40

extensive research exists on building principals as instructional leaders, only a few
research investigations focus on superintendents as instructional leaders and on their
impact on the academic achievement of their districts (Edwards, 2006; Peterson, 1998,
2002; Petersen & Barnett, 2005; Wirt, 1990). The following is a review of the literature
as it relates to the superintendent as instructional leader.
In an exploratory case study of five district superintendents in California, Petersen
(1998) identified four attributes essential to being a successful instructional leader: (a)
possession and articulation of an instructional vision, (b) creation of an organizational
structure that supports their instructional vision and leadership, (c) assessment and
evaluation of personnel and instructional programs, and (d) organizational adaptation.
Petersen also found that although the superintendent facilitated the creation and
communication of the district’s instructional vision, principals at the respective school
sites implemented the instructional goals and standards (Peterson, 1998). Therefore, it
was important for superintendents to provide opportunities for principals to gain the
knowledge and skills necessary to lead their respective schools as instructional leaders
and to engage their school community in shared decision-making (Peterson, 1998).
From his original case study, Peterson (2002) conducted a follow-up investigation
with principals, community members, and board members, and found a statistically
significant relationship between the articulated vision of the superintendent and the
district’s ability to meet its academic goals and become successful. The research
identified five factors that contributed the most to the academic success of the district.
These factors included: the superintendent’s vision, the organizational mission, program

41

and personnel evaluation, principal influence in decision-making, and school, board, and
community involvement (Peterson, 2002). The findings from this study indicate that the
superintendent’s ability to facilitate the development and creation of a district vision
centered on teaching and learning and that offering opportunities for collaborative
decision-making has the potential to shift the entire culture of the organization to one of
continuous improvement (Peterson, 2002). Furthermore, by modeling the vision,
superintendents establish positive and productive relationships among key stakeholders
and share leadership that maintains the district’s focus on student achievement and
supports the attainment of instructional goals (Peterson, 2002).
In a study of Texas superintendents, Edwards (2006) identified leadership
behaviors associated with the establishment of a district mission, district climate, support
of instructional programs, and systems of practices as having a statistically significant
impact on the district performance on achievement tests. The systems of practice
behaviors of superintendents that had a positive impact on district performance outcomes
included the following: (a) ensure that campus priorities of principals are consistent with
the goals and direction of the district, (b) articulate high expectations for all students,
staff, and campuses, (c) focus on results that foster continuous improvement, (d)
prioritize the allocation of resources to meet district performance goals, and (e) assume
individual responsibility to take the steps to create schools that show continuous
improvement (Edwards, 2006).
Edwards (2006) has proposed that superintendents seeking to improve their
district’s academic achievement articulate high expectations for the entire organization

42

and take the necessary steps to create schools that show continuous improvement by
ensuring that individual school site goals align with the district goal of student
achievement. The findings from this study were consistent with the results presented by
Peterson (1998, 2002), which indicated that developing an instructional vision with clear
goals and standards, sharing power with key stakeholders, and continuously focusing on
the instructional vision and goals of the district contributes to student achievement.
Although only one of these research studies quantified the link between the
superintendent’s instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement, they all
clearly identified that leadership practices and strategies relate to improvements in
instruction. Findings from most of these studies call attention to the importance of a
collective instructional vision, the coordination and socialization of the individuals and
groups responsible for teaching and learning, the development of principals as
instructional leaders, the monitoring and evaluation of instructional and curricular
program implementation, shared leadership and decision-making, and the allocation of
fiscal resources to support the instructional focus (Edwards, 2006; Peterson, 1998, 2002;
Peterson & Barnett, 2005).
The following segment is a review of the literature on distributed leadership as it
relates to the superintendent’s ability to initiate and sustain change, shape instruction, and
increase student achievement.
Distributive Leadership
To lead a district successfully away from the focused inertia of everyday practice
toward a comment to continuous improvement depends upon the capacity of the

43

superintendent to engage the entire community in becoming active participants in the
development and implementation of an instructional vision with identified collective
goals (Edwards, 2006; Peterson, 2002; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004).
Distributed leadership theory recognizes that many people have the potential to practice
leadership within a district; however, the key to success lies in the way that the
superintendent facilitates, orchestrates, and supports that shared leadership (Harris, 2008).
Spillane et al. (2004) characterize distributed leadership as an interactive web of
leaders and followers who periodically change roles as called for by the situation or
sociocontext. The distributed perspective is premised on two key assumptions:
 School leadership is best understood through considering leadership
tasks; and
 Leadership practice is distributed over leaders, followers, and the
school’s situational context (Spillane et al., 2004)
The leadership tasks they indentified include responsibilities specific to instructional
leadership, such as: constructing and selling an instructional vision; developing and
managing a school culture conducive to conversation about instruction by building norms
of trust; collaborating among staff; procuring and distributing resources; supporting
teacher growth and development; and providing for the monitoring of instruction and
innovation. Spillane et al. (2004) contend that successful completion of any leadership
responsibility or activity is contingent in the interaction among leaders, followers, and
their situation. This interaction and negotiation among leaders highlights a key element
in distributed leadership—the notion of interdependency or the understanding that the

44

success of the organization depends on the actions of two or more individuals in a
particular situation (Spillane et al., 2004).
In short, superintendents cannot successfully lead organizations on their own
(Elmore 2000; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Spillane et al.,
2004). Successful superintendents elicit support and invest in the leadership capacity of
the central office and school-based people, as well as of elected board members and
community organizations (Leithwood et al., 2004). Notably, distributed leadership takes
into consideration the practice of leadership as stretched over people and place,
specifically focusing on how leadership practice takes shape in the interaction among
leaders, followers, and their situations. Therefore, distributed leadership, similar to
systems thinking, operates on the premise that leadership practice is an interdependent
phenomenon that relies on the participation of individuals and their interactions within a
particular social context (Senge, 1990).
In a five-year longitudinal intensive case study of eight elementary schools
located in the Chicago Public School District, Spillane and Sherer (2004) identified three
ways that leadership functions can be distributed among organizational leaders:
collaborative distribution, coordinated distribution, and collective distribution.
Collaborative distribution occurs when the leaders and followers have to work together
simultaneously on the leadership activity. In essence, Spillane and Sherer (2004)
establish that collaborative leadership involves a reciprocal interdependency where
practice takes shape in the interactions among people and their situational context.
Coordinated distribution occurs when people work separately or together on different

45

leadership tasks that are arranged sequentially. According to Spillane and Sherer (2004),
coordinated leadership involves a different form of interdependency, what they term a
flow or sequential interdependency. In other words, the leadership practice depends upon
the completion of independent tasks arranged in a particular sequence (Spillane & Sherer,
2004). Collective distribution occurs when two or more leaders act separately but
interdependently in pursuit of a shared goal. The implication of collective leadership is
that interdependence is ―pooled‖ by the actions of two or more leaders and that their
complimentary acts create leadership practice. The superintendent is expected to mobilize
this organizational expertise in order to influence the policies and practices that shape the
educational outcomes of the neediest students (Spillane & Sherer, 2004).
In an investigation of the extent to which the research links distributed leadership
to student outcomes, Robinson (2008) examined the distribution of tasks and the
influence process among leaders. She found that if centered on educational work and
instructional goals, the distribution of tasks has the potential to improve student outcomes;
however, she found no specific qualities related to any of the leadership tasks. With
regard to leader influence, the researcher found that considerable work needs to be done
in order to link the leader’s actions to teacher behaviors and their impact on student
outcomes. Additionally, Robinson (2008) contends that distributed theory is grounded in
theories of power rather than in theories of teaching and learning. Therefore, she
cautions about the use of teacher empowerment as grounds for advocating this form of
leadership, further declaring that it is the responsibility of school leadership to do what is
in the best interest of children, not what is in the best interest of the adults in the building.

46

She recommends that further research be conducted to link distributed leadership to
increased student achievement.
Contrary to Robinson (2008), Elmore (2004) claims that distributed leadership
holds promise for large-scale reform and posits two main tasks for leaders to pursue:
establishing and articulating the ground rules that leaders of various kinds would have to
follow in order to engage in large-scale improvement and modeling how leaders in
various roles and positions would share responsibility in a system of large-scale
improvement. Elmore (2004) further identified five principles that lay the foundation for
system-wide reform: (a) the purpose of leadership is the improvement of instructional
practice and performance regardless of role, (b) instructional improvements requires
continuous learning, (c) learning requires modeling, (d) roles and activities of leadership
flow from the expertise required from learning and improvement, not from the formal
dictates of the institution, and (e) the exercise of authority requires reciprocity of
accountability and capacity. By maintaining the improvement of instructional practice as
the purpose of the organization, it becomes the responsibility of all leaders regardless of
position to buffer noninstructional issues and focus on student learning (Elmore, 2004).
Whereas most of the literature on distributed leadership focuses on the elementary
level (Leithwood et al., 2004; Spillane & Sherer, 2004; Timperely, 2005), promising
practices have been identified that may support large-scale improvement efforts (Elmore,
2004; Leithwood et al., 2004). The research suggests that it is beneficial for some
leadership functions to be performed at all levels of the organization, thus encouraging
people to think differently about how they work (Leithwood et al., 2004). Furthermore, it

47

is imperative that those in formal leadership roles create sociocultural and systemic
conditions within their organizations that support the distribution of leadership and create
flatter leadership structures (Harris, 2008). Notably, distributed leadership is not a ―one
size fits all‖ approach to educational leadership; it merely offers a place to start (Harris,
2008). According to Spillane et al. (2004), this form of leadership involves the
―mobilizing of school personnel and clients to notice, face, and take on the task of
changing instruction as well as harnessing and mobilizing the resources needed to
transform teaching and learning‖ (p. 12). Distributed leadership aims at engaging all
members to transform how teaching and learning takes place within the organization.
The following segment consists of a review of the literature on transformational
leadership as it relates to the superintendent’s capacity to initiate and sustain change,
shape instruction, and increase student achievement
Transformational Leadership
Superintendents of the 21
st
Century must look at the complexity of their role, the
external pressures and the internal possibilities, transforming their approach if they aspire
to lead their organizations successfully (Houston, 2001). Successfully overseeing the
upkeep of ―buildings, buses, books, budgets and bonds‖ (p. 3) is no longer enough.
Superintendents need to ―turn the current process inside out and to structure learning so
that [all] students will use complex skills in practical situations that challenge their
thinking while connecting them to reality‖ (p. 5). Superintendents are expected to be
catalysts for change (Kowalski, 1999, as cited by Sherman, 2008); they are responsible
for transforming the system (Houston, 2001) and for ensuring that students who have

48

been historically underserved receive a quality education and are successful (Haycock,
2001; Lashway, 2002a; Linn, 2005; Sherman, 2008).
Transformational leadership originated with the work of James Burns, who is
considered the founder of contemporary leadership theory (Marzano et al., 2005).
According to Burns (1978, as cited by Marzano et al., 2005), transformational leaders
cultivate ―a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into
leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents‖ (p. 4). Burns further identified two
types of leadership: transactional and transformational, which he placed on opposite ends
of a leadership continuum. Transactional leadership occurs when leaders and followers
trade one thing for another to satisfy their conflicting agendas (Northouse, 2007). In
contrast, transformational leadership occurs when the leader unites his or her own
interests with those of the followers to bring about significant change (Northouse, 2007).
Bass (1985) identified four factors that characterize the behavior of transformational
leaders: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration (cited in Marzano et al., 2005).
According to Leithwood (1992, 1994), transformational leadership approaches are
especially appropriate to the challenges facing schools today. Building on the work of
Bass (1985), Leithwood (1994) developed the transformational model for educational
leadership, noting that school restructuring and reculturing required first and second order
changes. School restructuring refers to the changes in the formal structures of schooling;
reculturing involves changing norms, values, and relationships to foster different ways of
thinking (Fullan, 1998). First order change is incremental and aims at fine-tuning the

49

system through a progression of small steps that do not drastically depart from the values
and norms of the past (Marzano et al., 2005; McRel, 2001). Second order change
involves a dramatic shift from the expected, both in framing and solving a problem,
effectuating deep change that alters the system in fundamental ways and requires new
ways of thinking and acting (Marzano et al., 2005; McRel, 2001).
Leithwood (1994) asserts that instructional leadership approaches focus only on
the technical core of schools. He proposes that essential to the survival of first order
changes for the leader is the restructuring of schools through second order changes.
These types of changes require leadership that is aware of the interdependency of the
entire system (Leithwood, 1994; Senge, 1990). Leithwood further detailed,
―Transformational forms of leadership are especially attuned to the influence of, for
example, organizational structures and culture on the meaning people associate with their
work and willingness to risk change‖ (1994, p. 501).
Leithwood’s (1994) findings posit the following transformational leadership
behaviors: (a) building a shared vision of the school or district, (b) creating and aligning
school and district goals, (c) challenging staff to reexamine some of the assumptions
about their work and to reshape their practice, (d) providing individual support and
development opportunities, (e) modeling best practices and learning-oriented
organizational values, (f) creating organizational structures that support authentic, shared
decision-making opportunities, and (g) establishing high expectations for student and
adult learning. Overall, the findings in this study provide evidence supporting the notion

50

that transformational superintendent leadership behaviors and practices are conducive to
organizational change (Leithwood, 1994).
In their case study of a superintendent leading a midsize school district in North
Carolina, Mullins and Keedy (1998) found that the transformational behaviors of the
superintendent changed the administrative behaviors of principals and the instructional
practices of teachers as well as improved student learning opportunities. Mullins and
Keedy identified three specific behaviors that had significant effects on second order
changes: (a) articulating professional values and beliefs about the district (b) developing
problem-solving skills, and (c) facilitating a collaborative culture. The researchers
concluded that the superintendent improved teaching and learning by cultivating the four
aspects of transformational leadership: individual consideration, intellectual stimulation,
inspirational motivation, and idealized influence. Furthermore, Mullins and Keedy
determined that, by articulating his vision, values, and beliefs about the district, the
superintendent was the most significant factor in facilitating systematic change.
In a metaanalyses of 27 studies, Robinson (2008) examined the impact of various
approaches of leadership on student achievement, identifying five leadership dimensions:
(a) establishing goals and expectations, (b) resourcing strategically, (c) planning,
coordinating, and evaluating teaching and curriculum, (d) promoting and participating in
teacher learning and development, and (e) ensuring an orderly and supportive
environment. The researcher found that the affect of instructional leadership on student
outcomes was three to four times greater than that of transformational leadership. The
author cautioned that many of the studies on transformational leadership focused only on

51

social outcomes, as compared to the academic outcomes of instructional leadership
studies, and that therefore the findings may be skewed.
The research on transformation leadership focuses on facilitating deep changes
that fundamentally alter the system and require individuals and the collective to think and
act in new ways (Fullan 1998; Leithwood, 1994; Marzano et al., 2005; McRel, 2001).
The literature on transformational leadership has identified a set of promising practices
that support the restructuring and reculturing of districts (Fullan 1998; Leithwood, 1994;
Marzano et al., 2005). The research suggests that superintendents should focus on
developing a shared vision, creating and aligning goals, establishing high expectations for
all members, changing organizational structures to support the attainment of the
collective vision and goals, challenging staff members to reexamine their assumptions
about teaching and learning, and reshaping practice (Fullan 1998; Leithwood, 1994;
Marzano et al., 2005; McRel, 2001). Furthermore, if superintendents aspire to meet their
moral obligation to all students, they must be willing to take risks and question the status
quo in the interest of the most underserved students (Leithwood, 1994).

Conclusions
Leadership in the 21
st
Century must be flexible and take different forms in
different social contexts. Superintendents need to shift their attention from what Houston
(2001) terms the ―Killer B’s‖ of buildings, buses, books, budgets, and bonds, to the
―Crucial C’s,‖ which are processes that support creating positive connections,
communication, collaboration, community building, child advocacy, and culturally

52

responsive curriculum. Research suggests that a combination of approaches should be
utilized in order to achieve system-wide reform (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Peterson &
Barnett, 2005).
According to Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999), transformational
leaderships is an expansion of instructional leadership, aiming as it does at increasing
individuals’ efforts in the interest of organizational goals. Additionally, transformational
leadership, like distributed leadership, seeks to engage and mobilize all members of the
organization to transform current practice and improve student achievement within the
district. Thus, instructional, distributive, and transformational leadership approaches,
though different in purpose, share many common practices, so that when simultaneously
used by the superintendent may produce the conditions necessary to examine and
reevaluate the practices and policies that continue to exclude and limit the educational
and social opportunities for Latino students.
The following segment reviews the literature on the role of the district office and
its impact on facilitating system-wide reform to improve instruction and to impact student
achievement. The segment describes the common practices that serve these ends.

Leadership and Student Achievement
District Influence on Student Achievement
To successfully meet the goals of NCLB and, ultimately, to narrow the
achievement gap for Latino students, superintendents will need to change the way they
lead their organizations (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2005, 2006; Houston, 2001; Hoyle et al.,

53

2005; Senge, 1990; Taylor, 2006). To succeed, school-wide reform efforts must be much
broader than they have been historically—they must engage every facet of the system
(Childress et al., 2006). District leaders must come to view their role as an
interdependent part linked to teaching and learning (Childress et al., 2006). According to
McLaughin and Talber (2003), reforming districts view themselves as a unit of change
that is part of a larger system, subscribing to the notion that a ―self-conscious learning
organization promotes and invests in the learning throughout the system‖ (p. 25). The
collective work of the organization ultimately supports or hinders the success of the
reform effort. Research on the role of the district in educational reform identified that the
district played a key role in supporting the implementation of government and district-
level reforms (Leithwood et al., 2004).
In a study of 12 high-performing California school districts, Murphy and
Hallinger (1998) associated district effectiveness with the following practices: strong
instructionally focused leadership from the superintendent and his/her administrative
team; emphasis on student achievement and improvement in teaching and learning;
establishment and enforcement of district goals for improvement; district-wide
curriculum and textbook adoption; district advocacy and support for use of specific
instructional strategies; deliberate selection of principals with curriculum knowledge and
interpersonal skills; systematic monitoring of the consistency between district goals and
expectations and school goals and implementation through principal accountability
processes; direct personal involvement of superintendents in monitoring performance
through school visits and meetings with principals; alignment of district resources for

54

professional development with district goals for curriculum and instruction; systematic
use of student testing and other data for district planning, goal-setting, and tracking
school performance; and generally positive relations among the central office, the school
board, and local communities.
Contemporary research on the effect of the district on standards-based reform has
yielded similar findings. Elmore and Burney’s (1997) case study of New York City’s
District #2 highlighted the importance of (a) instructionally focused professional
development, (b) sustained system-wide focus on improvement, (c) leadership and
relationship building with local and external expertise; and, (d) the decentralization of
responsibility and reciprocal accountability for goal attainment by schools. The actions
taken by the district shaped the behaviors of principals and teachers and ultimately
effected students’ learning opportunities and outcomes (Elmore & Burney, 1997).
Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy’s (2002) study of four successful high-poverty
districts found that these districts in comparison to other districts: (a) focused on
achievement, standards, and instructional practice, (b) created concrete accountability
systems in relation to results, (c) focused on the lowest-performing schools, (d) adopted
district-wide curricular and instructional approaches, (e) established district-wide
professional development and support for consistent implementation, (f) drove reform
into the classrooms by defining the role of central offices of guiding and improving
instruction at the building level, (g) started the reform at the elementary level, and (h)
provided intensive instruction in reading and math to middle and high school students.
The findings in this study were consistent with the results of studies by Murphy and

55

Hallinger (1998) and Elmore and Burney (1997), which showed that increased purposeful
support by the district of local schools in the improvement of teaching and learning has a
direct and indirect impact on the attainment of student achievement goals.
In another study of five high-poverty and high-minority districts, Togneri and
Anderson (2003) identified seven strategies essential for improvement. The factors that
emerged are: (a) publicly acknowledge poor performance and seek solutions, (b) focus
intensively on improving instruction and student achievement, (c) develop a system-wide
framework and infrastructure to support instruction, (d) make professional development
relevant, (e) redefine and redistribute leadership at all levels of the district, (f) undertake
data-based decision making, and (g) recognize that there are no quick fixes. As a result of
these practices, these districts demonstrated academic improvement as measured by
standardized test scores across grades, subjects, and racial/ethnic groups (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003).
In a synthesis of relevant research, Leithwood et al. (2004) have identified 12
common district-level leadership factors that improve student learning: (a) promote a
district-wide sense of efficacy, (b) promote a district-wide focus on student achievement
and quality of instruction, (c) adopt and commit to district-wide performance standards,
(d) develop/adopt district-wide curricula and approaches to instruction, (e) align
curriculum, teaching, learning materials, and assessment to relevant standards, (f) use
multi-measure accountability systems and system-wide data to inform practice, to hold
school and district leaders accountable for results, and to monitor progress, (g) use
targeted and phased focuses of improvement, (h) invest in instructional leadership

56

development at school and district levels, (i) have district-wide job-embedded
professional development that focuses on and supports teachers, (j) place district-wide
and school-level emphasis on teamwork and professional community, (k) try new
approaches to board-district and in district-school relations, and, (l) undertake strategic
engagement with state reform policies and resources. All of these studies illustrate that by
influencing the behaviors of principals and teachers, districts, as units of change, matter
in exponential and positive ways to student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Notably, however, research on school-wide reform efforts has also identified a
multitude of obstacles that threaten continuous improvement. In their research of four
urban districts, Snipes et al. (2002) identified seven substantial challenges: (a)
unsatisfactory achievement, especially for minority, and low-income students; (b) district
histories rife with internal political conflicts, factionalism, and lack of focus on student
achievement; (c) high percentages of inexperienced teachers, compounded by high rates
of teacher turnover and poor working conditions, which thus lead to gross discrepancy in
the capacity of teaching staffs in schools serving different populations; (d) low
expectations and a lack of rigor for lower income and minority students; (e) lack of
instructional coherence across the district; (f) high student mobility, which poses
challenges to continuity in student learning; and (g) unsatisfactory business operations
that lead to difficulties in acquiring the requisite supplies to keep schools and classrooms
functioning effectively. Being cognizant of the challenges that may arise as a result of
restructuring and reculturing the district is important if superintendents aspire to bring
about lasting change (Fullan, 2005).

57

Additionally, Togneri and Anderson (2003) identified major challenges that need
to be overcome through the process of change: (a) traditional structures, policies, and
disjointed professional development that did not support the more complex and
demanding role expectations for teaching, data analysis, and collaboration required of
teachers and principals, (b) dearth of funding resources to support new approaches to
instructional improvement, and (c) lack of expertise in principals expected to carry out
new expectations for instructional leadership in a context of high accountability.
Understanding the obstacles faced by urban school districts throughout the restructuring
process provides district leaders with greater insight into how to initiate and sustain
educational improvements (Fullan, 2005; Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
Research clearly illustrates that the role of the district matters in school-wide
reform (Elmore & Burney, 1997; Murphy & Hallinger, 1988; Snipes et al., 2002; Togneri
& Anderson; 2003). Furthermore, researchers have identified a set of practices among
high-performing districts as supporting improvement efforts. Notably, although these
districts were able to demonstrate achievement gains, many challenges presented
themselves along the way (Snipes et al., 2002; Togneri & Anderson, 2003) — obstacles
that continue to undermine the success of Latino students today (Haycock, 2001; Ladson-
Billings, 2006; Noguera, 2003)
The following segment examines the existing research on the influences of
superintendents on instruction and student achievement. The segment develops a
framework of leadership practices that have been shown to shape instruction and improve
student-learning outcomes.

58

Superintendent Influence on Student Achievement
A shift has occurred in expectations of superintendents, as external and internal
pressures demand greater gains in student outcomes (Sherman, 2008). Superintendents
are the moral agents that set the tone for systematic change in organizations and
challenge the entrenched policies and practices that fail to meet the needs of the most
underserved student populations (Sherman, 2008). To be effective, superintendents need
to move beyond the managerial aspects of the job and provide the kind of leadership that
will transform their organization to meet the demands set out by NCLB (Houston, 2001;
Lashway, 2002a; Sherman, 2008). Superintendents are expected to initiate reform and
develop relationships that will sustain continuous improvement of instruction and
achievement for all students (Fullan, 2005; Lashway, 2002a). Research indicates that to
improve results, school leaders may use a set of common practices that in most
educational context are associated with improvements in student outcomes (Edwards,
2006; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Marzano et al., 2003; Waters & Marzano, 2006;).
Leithwood and Riehl (2003) summarized several research-based conclusions
about successful school leadership. They are: (a) leadership has significant effects on
student learning, second only to the effects of the quality of curriculum and teachers’
instruction, (b) a core set of leadership practices form the ―basics‖ of successful
leadership and are valuable in almost all educational contexts, (c) successful school
leaders respond productively to challenges and opportunities created by the
accountability-oriented policy context in which they work, and (d) successful school
leaders respond productively to the opportunities and challenges of educating diverse

59

groups of students. Thus, the superintendent, as the educational leader of the district, has
the ability to improve the instruction and achievement of Latino students across the entire
system.
Furthermore, Leithwood and Reihl (2003) suggest three broad-based leadership
practices that are important for leadership success:
1. Setting direction: Effective superintendents’ aim at developing collective
goals for their districts and inspiring others to share a vision centered on improved
instruction and student achievement (Leithwood, 2005; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003;
Leithwood et al., 2004). Relevant practices used by superintendents include
identifying and articulating a vision, creating shared meaning, encouraging high-
performance expectations of themselves and others, fostering acceptance and
support of organizational goals, monitoring progress toward goals through use of
multiple indicators, and communicating the vision convincingly and clearly
(Leithwood, 2005).
2. Developing people: Successful superintendents influence the development of
individual members of the organization. Superintendents take a genuine interest
in building the capacities of members and distributing leadership opportunities
that maximize employee capabilities (Leithwood, 2005; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003;
Leithwood et al., 2004).). Some of the leadership practices associated with this
responsibility include encouraging reflection and challenging members to
examine assumptions about their work, showing respect for staff and concern

60

about their feelings and needs, and modeling the desired behavior and dispositions
for staff (Leithwood, 2005).
3. Redesigning the organization: Successful educational leaders attend to all aspects
of the organization and understand that the success of the organization depends
upon the interdependence of all its members (Leithwood, 2005; Leithwood &
Riehl, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2004). Effective superintendents demonstrated the
following practices: facilitate the development of a district culture based on
shared norms, values, and beliefs that promote mutual understanding and respect;
direct structural changes within the organization that will support individual and
collective performance; build collaborative processes that allow others to share in
accomplishments and concerns related to goals; pursue and create positive
interactions with parents, community members, and business and government
liaisons to establish supportive and productive relationships (Leithwood, 2005).
The researchers maintained that mastery of these basics is not a ―silver bullet‖ approach
to success in any particular school context; however, failing to develop these skills would
most likely result in failure (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).
In a study of 10 high-poverty districts in Texas, Reglan, Asera, and Johnson (1999)
found that superintendents influenced improvements in student achievement by (a)
establishing trust among all members of the organization, (b) creating a sense of urgency
for the improvement of academic achievement, (c) setting clear expectations for
principals as instructional leaders, (d) using student achievement data to establish
collective goals that were nonnegotiable, (e) maintaining a clear focus and vision for

61

improvement, (f) expecting collective accountability for student outcomes, and (g)
changing the role of the central office from manager to support provider. The researchers
further asserted that all 10 districts were successful in getting all of their schools to
improve student achievement. This study resembled a study by Leithwood and Riehl
(2003) that suggested the practices superintendents’ model throughout their tenure set
direction for the district, develop relationships among people, and redesign the structures
of the organization and the roles of individuals within the district with the purpose of
supporting student achievement.
In a study of Texas superintendents, Edwards (2006) identified leadership
behaviors associated with (a) defining the district mission, (b) promoting a positive
district learning climate, (c) managing the districts’ instructional program, and d)
engaging systems of practices that have a statistically significant impact on district
performance on achievement tests. Edwards found the leadership behaviors associated
with systems of practice (p < .05) and instructional management (p < .01) had a positive
correlation with increased district performance outcomes.
Specific superintendent systems of practice found to have a positive impact on
district performance include: (a) ensuring that campus priorities of principals are
consistent with the goals and direction of the district, (b) articulating high expectations
for all students, (c) articulating high expectations for all staff, (d) articulating high
expectations for all campuses, (e) focusing on results that foster continuous improvement,
(f) prioritizing the allocation of resources to meet district performance goals, and (g)
assuming individual responsibility to take the steps to create schools that show

62

continuous improvement (Edwards, 2006). The researcher also found a negative
correlation between increase instructional management behaviors and district
performance outcomes, and cautioned the micromanagement of instructional programs.
Edwards (2006) suggests that superintendents seeking to improve their district
performance outcomes should articulate high expectations for the entire organization and
take the necessary steps to create schools that show continuous improvement by ensuring
that individual school site goals align with the district goal of student achievement.
Notably, the results of this study were consistent with the findings presented by Ragland
et al. (1999), which indicated that increased communication and the allocation of
resources directly and indirectly impact district performance outcomes (Edwards, 2006).
In meta-analyses of 27 studies that involved 2, 817 districts and the achievement
scores of 3.4 million students, Waters and Marzano (2006) determined that contrary to
the conception of the district as the ―blob,‖ when district leaders effectively engage in
specific responsibilities, they can have a positive impact on student achievement. The
following four findings emerged from the study: (a) district-level leadership matters, (b)
effective superintendents focus their efforts on creating goal-oriented districts, (c)
superintendent tenure is positively correlated with student achievement, and (d) defined
autonomy for principals and their schools. Their findings suggest that superintendents,
district-level personnel, and school board members can affect student achievement when
they do the ―right work‖ in the ―right way‖ (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
According to Waters and Marzano (2006), a .24 positive correlation exists
between leadership and student achievement. The researchers elaborated on this statistic

63

by posing the hypothetical situation of a superintendent whose measures of leadership
and district-level student achievement were at the 50th percentile. Based on their findings,
if the superintendent’s leadership measure improved by one standard deviation (to the
84
th
percentile), the district’s level of student achievement would jump to the 59.5th
percentile. The researchers assert that the findings of this meta-analyses provide
superintendents with a set of leadership practices that can improve the achievement of
students.
Waters and Marzano (2006) concluded that effective superintendents focus their
energies on creating goal-oriented districts and schools. The researchers further
identified the following six district-level responsibilities that the superintendent should
facilitate that demonstrated a statistically significant correlation to student achievement:
1. Collaborative goal-setting: According to Waters and Marzano (2006),
effective superintendents include all stakeholders, district office staff, school site
administrators, and elected board members, in developing nonnegotiable goals for
the district. This collaboration does not imply that a consensus must be reached,
but that all stakeholders must agree to support the goals. The identified practices
include: (a) developing a shared vision, (b) implementing a goal-setting process to
develop collective goals, (c) developing goals that support the involvement of all
stakeholders, focusing on student achievement, and challenging the status quo,
and (e) communicating clear expectations with all members of the organization
(Waters & Marzano, 2006).

64

2. Nonnegotiable goals for student achievement: Successful superintendents,
according to Waters and Marzano (2006), ensure that the collaborative goal
process results in nonnegotiable goals that focus on student achievement and
classroom instruction. Relevant practices utilized by superintendents included: (a)
modeling understanding of instructional design, (b) establishing clear priorities
among the instructional goals and objectives, (c) incorporating a variety of
instructional strategies that allow for different learning styles, (d) adopting a five-
year nonnegotiable plan for achievement and instruction, and (e) ensuring that the
preferred instructional strategies are proficiently implemented (Waters &
Marzano, 2006).
3. Board alignment and support of district goals: Superintendents ensure that
the local board of education is aligned with and supportive of the nonnegotiable
goals for the continuous improvement of instruction and student achievement
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). Effective practices used by superintendents include:
(a) establishing agreement with the board president on the district goals and on
the type and nature of conflict in the district, (b) establishing an understanding
with the board president on the nature of teaching/learning strategies to be used in
the district, (c) providing professional development for the board members, and (d)
establishing standards with the board president on how to measure the
effectiveness of board trainings (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
4. Monitoring goals for achievement and instruction: According to Waters and
Marzano (2006), effective superintendents consistently monitor district progress

65

toward instructional and student achievement goals to ensure that these goals
remain the driving force behind every action taken by the organization as a unit
and as individual members. Successful practices applied by superintendents
include (a) using an instructional evaluation program, (b) monitoring achievement
through feedback from the instructional evaluation program, (c) annually
evaluating principals, (d) reporting the data to the board on a regular basis, (e)
ensuring that the curricular needs of all student populations are met; (f) observing
classrooms during school visits, and (g) coordinating efforts within the
organization to increase reliability of the system (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
5. Use of resources to support the goals for achievement and instruction:
Effective superintendents ensure that the necessary resources, including time,
money, personnel, and materials, are allocated to accomplish the district’s goals.
Furthermore, a firm commitment to professional development builds on the
knowledge, skills, and competencies needed to accomplish district goals (Waters
and Marzano, 2006). Successful superintendents implemented the following
practices: (a) providing extensive teacher and principal professional development,
(b) training all instructional staff in a common but flexible instructional model, (c)
controlling resource allocation, (d) adopting an instructional and resource
management system supporting the instructional philosophy of the district
(Waters & Marzano, 2006).

66

6. Defined autonomy: Waters and Marzano (2006) state that successful
superintendents set clear, nonnegotiable goals for student learning and instruction,
yet provide principals and their leadership teams the responsibility to develop a
plan of action to meet these objectives. Some of the leadership practices
associated with this responsibility include (a) developing a shared vision and
understanding of ―defined autonomy,‖ (b) using standards for content and
instruction as the basic design principles, (c) committing the district and schools
to continuous improvement, (d) screening, interviewing, and selecting teachers
along with principals, (e) establishing teacher evaluations as a priority for
principals, (f) establishing strong agreed-upon principles/values that direct the
actions of people, (g) ensuring that schools have clear missions focused on school
performance, (h) ensuring the schools practices are characterized by opportunity
for all, (i) maintaining high expectations for school performance, (j) expecting
principals to fulfill instructional leadership responsibilities, (k) developing
principal awareness of district goals and actions directed at goal accomplishment,
and (l) ensuring that homogeneous ability groupings in classrooms do not
segregate students into racial or other inappropriate groups (Waters & Marzano,
2006).
The findings presented by Waters and Marzano (2006) indicated that, ―when
focused on effective classroom, school, and district practices, appropriate achievement
and instructional goals, and effective leadership responsibilities, it is clear that district
leadership matters‖ (p. 21). Although the present study quantified leadership practices as

67

they related to district student performance, notably Zigarelli (1996), in an analysis of
data taken from the National Educational Longitudinal Study for the years 1988, 1990,
and 1992, found no evidence suggesting that ―warm relations between the school and the
administration‖ (p. 107) influenced student achievement.
Although research has demonstrated that the practices used by the superintendent,
district-level, and school-based leadership have shown to improve student outcomes,
Latino students in California continue to underachieve at alarming rates. According to
the California STAR (2008) report, Latino students, regardless of their socioeconomic
status, continue to underperform compared to their White counterparts. This
disproportionate underperformance by the Latino student population can no longer be
overlooked. There is a need for research identifying practices used by superintendents
who have seen academic gains for Latino students in their districts.
The following segment introduces a framework that superintendents may use to
initiate and sustain organizational change, influence instruction, and increase student
achievement. This segment examines how systems thinking may be used by
superintendents to initiate and sustain continuous improvement.

Theoretical Framework
Sustainability and Systems Thinking
In an era of accountability, school improvement efforts need to evolve across
different areas of the system to support the continuous improvement of instruction and
the academic achievement of all students. An effective system is interdependent,

68

systems-thinking, collegial, uses data to drive decision-making, and works toward
developing collective autonomy and accountability (Zmuda et al., 2004). As system
thinkers and leaders, superintendents need to be aware that they are changing the context
as they engage in the process of solving problems (Fullan, 2006). Beyond initiating
large-scale reform and showing results, superintendents face an added challenge: the
continuous improvement of teaching and learning (Fullan, 2005).
According to Fullan (2005), ―sustainability is the capacity of a system to engage
in complexities of continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human
purpose‖ (p. ix). The researcher contended that sustainability is not about keeping things
going in a linear fashion – rather, it is about understanding the inner working of the
organization and developing leadership that will be forward-thinking. In his research on
sustainability, Fullan (2005) identified eight elements necessary for continuous
improvement: (a) public service with a moral purpose, (b) commitment to changing
context at all levels, (c) lateral capacity-building through networks, (d) intelligent
accountability and vertical relationships, (e) deep learning; (f) dual commitment to short-
term and long-term results, (g) cyclical energizing, and (h) the power of leadership or
what he terms the long lever of leadership. These eight elements, when pursued in
combination, mobilize the entire system to engage in collective change (Fullan, 2005).
A key component to the sustainability of system-wide reform lies in the
development of organization leaders that are system thinkers (Fullan, 2005). It is the
interaction among system thinkers and individuals in the organization that begin to create
change within the system (Fullan, 2005; Senge, 1990). According to Senge (1990):

69

human endeavors are also systems. They…are bound by invisible fabrics of
interrelated actions, which often take years to fully play out their effects on each
other. Since we are part of the lacework work ourselves, it is doubly hard to see
the whole pattern of change. Instead, we tend to focus on snapshots of isolated
parts of the system and wonder why our deepest problems never seem to get
solved. Systems thinking is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and
tools that has been developed over the past fifty years, to make the full patterns
clearer and to help us see how to change them effectively. (p. 7)

System thinkers are individuals who are able to see how all parts of the organization are
interconnected and therefore gravitate toward strategies that alter people’s experiences
and mental images of the system (Fullan, 2005; Senge, 1990). Systems thinking is the
fifth discipline that integrates four others: personal mastery, mental models, building
shared vision, and team learning (Senge, 1990). As Senge has explained,
[This fifth discipline] integrates the disciplines, fusing them into a coherent body
of theory and practice. It keeps them from being separate gimmicks or the latest
organization fads. Without systemic orientation, there is no motivation to look at
how the disciplines interrelate….
At the heart of a learning organization is a shift of mind from seeing
ourselves as separate from the world to connect to the world, from seeing
problems as caused by someone or something ―out there‖ to seeing how our own
actions create the problems we experience. A learning organization is a place
where people are continually discovering how they create their reality and how
they can change it. (1990, pp. 12, 13)

Thus, systems thinking provide superintendents a different way to approach problems of
practice—not as isolated events but as part of a greater structure (Fullan, 2005). For
superintendents, one of the greatest problems of practice is the continuous improvement
of teaching and learning coupled with the persistent underachievement of Latino students
(Campbell et al., 2003; Fullan, 2005; Fuller al., 2001; Sherman, 2008).
Although, the superintendent is responsible for initiating change, in order to
sustain reform efforts, systems thinking leadership should be developed across all levels

70

of the organization (Childress et al., 2006; Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2005; Leithwood et al.,
2004; Senge, 1990). Developing systems thinking leaders conveys a common message,
by which individuals collectively begin changing the context in which they work (Fullan,
2005). These systems thinkers model new behavior and do the actual work of
transforming the organization (Fullan, 2005). This change involves deep learning at all
levels of the system and demands that individuals in the organization reevaluate the
current policies and practices that support or impede the success of the most underserved
students (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005; Fullan, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2005).
In order to sustain improvements, superintendents are expected to connect to all
contexts of the organization— the community, the schools, the district, and the system as
a whole so as to construct policies and strategies that support student achievement, to
communicate the message of continuous improvement, and to progress toward goals that
are evaluated throughout the reform effort (Fullan, 2005). As the leader of the
organization, the superintendent has the ability to inform, influence, and inspire the
district and the surrounding community to work collectively toward the organization’s
moral purpose of improving teaching and learning for Latino students (Fullan, 2005).
Additionally, Fullan has outlined 10 guidelines for system leaders that overlap with the
eight elements of sustainability; they are (a) take the reality test, (b) have moral purpose,
(c) get the basics right, (d) communicate the big picture, (e) provide opportunities for
people to interact with the big picture, (f) undertake intelligent accountability, (g)
incentivize collaboration, (h) use the long lever of leadership, (i) design every policy to
build capacity, and (j) grow the financial investment in education. These 10 guidelines

71

require an open dialogue that centers on the reality of Latino students’ educational and
societal experiences (Noguera, 2003). Yet simply discussing the reality of Latino student
underperformance is not enough. As system leaders, superintendents bear the ultimate
responsibility for improving student achievement and for framing situations in a way that
compels individuals to take deliberate action to change how teaching and learning takes
place (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Fullan, 2005; Lashway, 2002b; Senge, 1990).
Fullan (2005) cautions that the work of sustainability is no easy feat, requiring as
it does that superintendents elicit the support of their community, and district and school
site leadership to develop a plan for implementing the eight elements of sustainability.
Deliberate action taken by system thinkers within the organization will maintain the
momentum toward continuous improvement; it is the superintendent’s responsibility to
access, develop, and harness that power to do what is morally right for all students
(Fullan, 2005).

Conclusions
Research has shown that educational leadership needs to be flexible and that a
combination of approaches is better suited for initiating and sustaining system-wide
reform (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Peterson & Bennett, 2005). Three forms of leadership,
instructional (Edwards, 2006; Peterson, 2002), distributed (Elmore, 2004; Leithwood,
Seashore Louis et al., 2004), and transformational (Leithwood, 1994; Mullins & Keedy,
1998), explored in the previous sections have been shown to impact the instruction and
performance of students. Furthermore, Marzano and Waters (2006) determined that

72

leadership at the district level matters and has a positive impact on the achievement of
students. The review of the literature identified specific practices that were found to be
successful at improving instruction and increasing student achievement, and yet Latino
students continue to underperform.
Taking into account the continued underachievement of Latino students in the
state of California, the increased pressure on superintendents to improve instruction and
student achievement, and the dearth of research on the topic, educational researchers
must turn their attention to examining the leadership practices that successful
superintendents have exercised to improve teaching and learning and that have resulted in
academic growth for Latino students in their districts. If superintendents are to lead their
districts successfully in the 21
st
Century, meet the demands set out by the federal and
state governments, and do what is morally right for all students, they will need to acquire
research-based practices that meet the instructional needs of a population that has
historically been underserved. The present study attempts to determine the promising
leadership practices that superintendents use to initiate and sustain school-wide reform
that improves instruction and achievement for Latino students.

73

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The 21
st
Century superintendent’s effectiveness will depend on his or her ability
to initiate and sustain continuous improvement in teaching and learning within their
districts; however, improving the achievement of some students while others lag behind
does not suffice (Houston, 2001; Sherman, 2008). Superintendents must address the
needs of a diverse student population and are required by federal and state law to achieve
at high levels with limited fiscal resources (Houston 2001; Fusarelli, 2004). The federal
mandate NCLB introduced an accountability system requiring all districts to monitor the
academic performance of student subgroups and to make specific achievement goals on a
yearly basis (Linn, 2005). At the state level, Latino students continue to underperform
compared to their White counterparts, regardless of socioeconomic status (Sherman, 2008;
STAR, 2008). Superintendents must address the woeful reality that this
underachievement is occurring in a state in which Latino students constitute 48.7% of the
student population in K-12 public education
As educational leaders, superintendents have the moral obligation to ensure that
all students, regardless of race, receive a quality education and achieve at high levels
(Houston, 2001). Although they are charged with this task, superintendents cannot
achieve it on their own. Superintendents need to work within their organizations to
develop a common vision and goals for the achievement of Latino students (Elmore,
2000; Fullan 2001, 2005, 2006). As leaders, they need to facilitate dialogue about current

74

and past practices and engage the entire community in taking collective action to improve
the instruction and achievement of Latino students (Fullan, 1998; Leithwood, 1994).
This study was designed to identify a set of promising practices that
superintendents use to initiate and sustain systemic changes that influence the instruction
and impact the achievement of Latino students. This chapter outlines the design, the
sample of the study, the instrumentation development, and the procedures used to collect
and analyze data. The primary purposes of this study were (a) to identify the leadership
practices that superintendents in California have reportedly utilized to initiate and sustain
systemic change thus to improve teaching and learning, (b) to determine what practices
superintendents have reportedly used to influence instruction for Latino students, and (c)
to identify what strategies or practices superintendents have reported as most effective for
improving Latino student achievement. More specifically, this study aims to investigate
the possibility that superintendents in California whose Latino student population showed
academic growth as measured by AYP shared a common set of leadership practices and
strategies.

Research Questions
The superintendents who participated in this study completed a survey that
included the following questions:
1) How have urban superintendents initiated and sustained systemic change to improve
instruction and increase Latino student achievement?

75

(a) What practices do superintendents utilize to influence and shape the
instruction of Latino students?
(b) What practices do superintendents use to increase the achievement of
Latino students?

Research Design
In an effort to address the research questions, a mixed-method approach was used
in collecting, analyzing, and reporting the data in the study. A quantitative approach
makes it possible to measure the reactions of a large group of individuals on a set of
questions and to present the findings in aggregate form (Patton, 2002). Approaching a
study through a qualitative lens allows the researcher to explore issues in depth and with
detail (Patton, 2002). One strength of a mixed-methodology is that it allows the
researcher to collect data as comprehensively and completely as possible, thus gaining a
multifaceted understanding of the problem being studied (Patton, 2002). In this study,
two instruments were developed that linked each method and triangulated the data to
strengthen validity (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989).
The research methods incorporated in this study included a survey focusing on the
leadership practices that California superintendents leading urban school districts have
used to improve the instruction and achievement for Latino students. The survey asked
the respondent to rate how significant each leadership practice was with regards to their
work improving instruction and achievement for Latino students. Additionally, the
researcher solicited demographic information from the superintendents in order to gain a

76

greater understanding of the context. As part of the mixed-methods design, a structured
interview was developed, which provided a richer description of the strategies used by
participants to initiate and sustain change and to influence the instruction and increase
achievement for Latino students. According to Greene et al. (1989) the use of a
quantitative survey and a qualitative interview to assess the same phenomenon serves to
triangulate the data and enhance the validity of the study.

Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling was utilized in selecting the districts and the superintendents
who participated in this study. According to Patton (2002), the primary goal of
purposeful sampling is to identify information-rich cases that will support the researcher
in learning about issues that are pertinent to the study and that may not be visible solely
through quantitative measures.

77

Table 1
District and Superintendent Selection Criteria for Survey

District

Superintendent
Academic growth for Latino students in
CST language arts and math for three
consecutive years
Tenure of one or more years at current
district during the time frame of the study
Student population between 15,000 –
60,000
Employed by the district during actual
time of the study
Percentage of Latinos students above, at
or within 20% of state average of 48.7%
Longevity in district verified through
personal communication with
superintendent
Percentage of free/reduced priced meals
above, at, or within 20% of state average
of 49.7%

The primary criterion for selecting districts in California was based on the
academic growth that Latino students have made in language arts and math, as measured
by AYP for the last three years. The researcher sought to study districts with an
enrollment of between 15,000 – 60,000 students and student demographics that are above,
at, or within 20% of the state average in percentage of Latino students and percentage of
students who qualify for free/reduced priced meals. Additionally, the researcher sought

78

to study districts in the three regions of the state, northern, central, and southern
California.
Student performance data for the 2005-06 through 2007-08 school years were
accessed from the California Department of Education Ed-Data Web site and analyzed to
determine the districts that met the selection criteria for student demographics and
academic growth. The superintendent population was further reduced to include only
those individuals who had tenure for three years or more in the same district during the
time frame of the study and who still served as the district superintendent at the time of
the study. An attempt was made to confirm longevity in the district with individual
superintendents via phone call and/or e-mail. Based on the selection criteria, 23
superintendents were included in the survey portion of the study.

79

Table 2
Participants of the Study

Participants

Number Sampled

Instrument Used
Superintendent 10 Superintendent
Leadership Practices
Survey
Superintendent 2 Superintendent Structured
Interview Protocol
critical leader a 2 Critical Leader Structured
Interview Protocol
critical leader b 2 Critical Leader Structured
Interview Protocol

Purposeful sampling was also utilized in selecting superintendents for the
structured interview. According to Creswell (1998), a clear selection of criteria must be
in mind when determining participants for a qualitative study because these individuals
may provide information that is significant to the study. Two superintendents
participated in the structured interview process and were chosen both because their
districts’ Latino populations demonstrated the greatest growth for all three years (as
measured by AYP) and because of their responses on the survey portion of the study.
Purposeful sampling was also employed in selecting the participants of the district’s
leadership team member interviews. Superintendents were asked to select two members

80

of their organization based on their involvement and implementation of the
superintendent’s reform efforts. Participants of these interviews included but were not
limited to assistant superintendents and site principals.
Superintendent 2 reported having earned a doctorate degree and has been leading
his southern California district of almost 22,800 students for the past 8 years and has been
a superintendent for 19 years. Critical Leader 2A reported being in k-12 education for 17
year and an employee of the district for seven years. She had been employed by the
district for seven years. She held the position of Assistant Superintendent of Human
Resources for two years. Critical Leader 2b reported being in K-12 education for 32
years. She had been an employee of the district for 14 years and for the past two years
held the position of Deputy Superintendent of Educational Services. District 2 student
population is 47% Latino, and 63.3% of its students received free or reduced priced meals.
Superintendent 4 reported having earned a doctorate degree and has been leading
his southern Californian district of 22,000 students for the past 4.5 years. However, he
reported nine years experience as a school superintendent. Critical Leader 4a reported
being in K-12 education for 16 years. He had been employed with the district for one
year as Assistant Superintendent of Fiscal Support Services. Critical Leader 4b reported
working in K-12 education for 20 years. He has held the position of Assistant
Superintendent of Facilities and Operations for five years and has been working in his
current district for three years. At the time of the study, District 4 student population was
47% Latino and 46% of its students received free or reduced priced meals.

81

Instrumentation
The instrumentation tools were developed by the researcher and included a survey
that addressed the research questions and an in-depth structured interview protocol. All
superintendents who met the criteria outlined for the study were mailed a paper copy of
the Superintendent Leadership Practices Survey (SLPS). The survey was designed by the
researcher and incorporated research-based practices and strategies in an effort to collect
information about the specific behavior superintendents modeled in their effort to
improve instruction and achievement for Latino students (see Appendix A).
To ensure content validity, a pilot of the survey instrument was conducted with
nonparticipating superintendents and assistant superintendents. Each participant
reviewed the instrument for readability, clarity, and validity. Recommendations and
feedback were received and used to revise the survey instrument and to ensure content
validity. Once revisions were completed, the updated survey instrument was submitted to
the dissertation committee for final approval.
In addition to the survey instrument, one open-ended, structured interview
protocol was developed to gain a deeper understanding of the leadership practices
superintendents used and of their influence on the instruction and achievement of Latino
students (see Appendix B). Patton (2002) has stated that the open-ended, structured
interview approach ―consists of a set of questions carefully worded and arranged with the
intention of taking each respondent through the same sequence and asking each
respondent the same questions with essentially the same words‖ (p. 342). Additionally,
probes or clarifying questions were included in the protocol to ensure that the there was

82

little to no variance in the questions asked of all the participants (Patton, 2002). The
open-ended, structured interview is an effective instrument for qualitative measurements
because the exact instrument is available for inspection by those who will use the study;
variation can be minimized; the interview is highly focused; and the analysis is facilitated
by making responses easy to access (Patton, 2002). However, this instrument does not
allow the interviewer to explore other topics or issues that may arise during the interview,
thus limiting the ability to gain a deeper understanding of the complexities or
idiosyncrasies of the leadership practices and strategies employed by the participants
(Patton, 2002).
To ensure the validity of the interview protocols, a pilot was conducted to review
wording and the clarity of each item. Suggestions and feedback were used to revise the
interview protocol and to ensure the validity of the instrument. The protocol was
submitted to dissertation committee for final approval.

Data Collection
The data collection process began during the fall of 2009, using the
Superintendent Leadership Practices Survey instrument developed by the researcher. The
study followed the seven steps outlined by Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996): (a) define the
research objective, (b) identify the population or sample, (c) determine the variables of
the study, (d) design the instrument, (e) pilot test the instrument, (e) create a cover letter,
and (f) distribute the questionnaire. A cover letter (see Appendix D) and informed
consent form (see Appendix D and E) were included with the survey instrument to

83

explain the purpose of the research and to elicit participation by the superintendents. In
addition, all superintendents who met the criteria for the study were sent a return-
addressed stamped envelope to facilitate return of the surveys. As the surveys were
returned, a record was maintained by the researcher to account for respondents and to
identify non-respondents for subsequent mail-outs.
The data for the qualitative component of the study was collected from two
superintendents using the structured interview protocol developed by the researcher to
gain a deeper understanding of the leadership practices superintendents used and their
influence on the instruction and achievement of Latino students. This qualitative process
began after all surveys were completed and returned. Subsequently, five superintendents
were contacted by letter and e-mail explaining the structured interview portion of the
study and inviting them to participate. The letter was followed by a phone call to
schedule the interview at their leisure.
Formal interviews were conducted with two superintendents and four critical
leaders. All interviews took place in the participants’ office. The structured interview
began with a brief explanation of the study and its purpose, as well as an overview of the
interview process. During the interview, the researcher obtained relevant background
information about each participant, including the number of years in education, the
number of years as superintendent, and the number of years in the current district. In an
attempt to maintain the integrity and consistency of the interview process, all interviews
were conducted using the structured interview protocol. At the conclusion of each
interview, participants were thanked for their time and willingness to participate in the

84

study. To ensure the accuracy of the interview, all interviews were audio-taped with
prior approval from the participant, then transcribed for analysis.

Data Analysis
Data was collected and analyzed based on the five research questions delineated
in the study. The quantitative data collected by the survey instrument was compiled and
analyzed using Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Student Version 15.
The response for each of the survey items was entered into a data set and descriptive
statistics were used to organize and describe the characteristics of the data collection
(Salkind, 2007). SPSS was used to compute the mean, variability, and frequency of score
for each item.
The qualitative data collected from the structured interviews were analyzed to
identify common themes. Since the study’s primary goal was to examine the leadership
practices superintendents employ to initiate and sustain systemic change and to improve
instruction and achievement for Latino students, data was critically analyzed to identify
the most essential leadership practices identified by the participants. One of the greatest
challenges faced in a qualitative study is determining what data is relevant to the study
(Patton, 2002). Creswell (2003) has outlined six steps for analyzing information
collected from a qualitative instrument: (a) organize and prepare the data, (b) read
through the data to gain a general sense of the information, (c) begin a detailed analysis
or coding of the data, (d) identify common themes generated from the coding of data, (e)

85

develop a detailed description of the themes that came about from the research questions,
and (f) provide a personal interpretation of the themes and link back to literature as
relevant.

Summary
This chapter describes the research methods used for this study. The discussion
included a description of the research design, the sample and population to be studied, the
development and administration of the data collection instruments, the data collection
process and techniques, and the process for the data analysis in this mixed-methods study.
The data collection process commenced after the researcher obtained approval from
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board. Procedures for this study
included receiving permission from the superintendent to conduct research in their
district.
Research findings and in-depth analysis will be discussed in following chapter.
The findings will identify promising practices that superintendents use to initiate and
sustain systemic change and to encourage the improvement of instruction and thus the
achievement of Latino students.

86

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-methods study of leadership
practices used by superintendents in California’s urban districts, whose Latino student
population showed academic growth in English language arts and mathematics, as
measured by the federal accountability system, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This
study’s primary purpose was to (a) to identify the leadership practices that
superintendents in California have reportedly utilized to initiate and sustain systemic
change, thus to improve teaching and learning, (b) to determine what practices
superintendents have reportedly used to influence instruction for Latino students, and (c)
to identify what strategies or practices superintendents have reported as most effective for
improving Latino student achievement. Moreover, this study aimed to consider the
possibility that superintendents in California whose Latino student population showed
academic growth as measured by NCLB’s Annual Yearly Progress shared a common set
of leadership practices.
This chapter presents and discusses the findings of the study in reference to the
following research question and sub questions:
1) How have urban superintendents initiated and sustained systemic change to improve
instruction and increase Latino student achievement?
(a) What practices do superintendents utilize to influence and shape the
instruction of Latino students?

87

(b) What practices do superintendents use to increase the achievement of
Latino students?
Using qualitative and quantitative methods, this study aimed to examine and
identify the day-to-day leadership practices that effective urban superintendents use to
initiate and sustain change, shape instruction, and impact the achievement of Latino
students within their district. Three instruments, described in depth in Chapter Three,
were used in the collection of the data: (a) Superintendent Leadership Practices Survey
(Appendix A), (b) Superintendent Structured Interview Protocol (Appendix B), and (c)
Critical Leaders Structured Interview Protocol (Appendix C). At the commencement of
this study, 23 districts were identified based on the selection criteria; therefore, 23
superintendents were invited to participate in the survey portion of this study. Two
subsequent mailings of the survey followed the original mailing and resulted in limited
input by the participants. The data collected in this study consisted of 10 surveys
completed by superintendents in the state of California and a total of six in-depth
interviews with two superintendents and four critical leaders. Data was interpreted and
analyzed using the process of triangulation by which multiple sources of information
were used to support findings. This methodology supported the reliability and validity of
the findings. The findings from the research, as well as a detailed analysis and discussion
of the data, are presented in this chapter and organized according to the research
questions.

88

Quantitative Data
The researcher designed the Superintendents Leadership Practices Survey for
Improving the Instruction and Achievement of Latino Students (SLPS) to gather
information concerning the leadership practices used by urban superintendents to initiate
and sustain change, improve instruction, and increase achievement for Latino students.
The literature-based survey consisted of 67 items divided into three sections. The first
section consisted of demographic information regarding district enrollment, percentage of
Latino students, gender, ethnicity, years of experience as a school superintendent, years
of experience as the superintendent of their current district, and highest degree held. The
second section consisted of 59 items that asked the respondents to rate the importance of
each leadership practice as it related to their overall effort to improve student
achievement in their district. The superintendents rated each item using a 5-point Likert-
type scale. The third section consisted of one open-ended question that asked the
respondents whether there were additional leadership practices not included in the survey
that they used to improve Latino student achievement. See Appendix F for a complete
listing of the superintendent leadership practices, ranked in ascending order.
Qualitative Data
Structured interviews were conducted to provide a richer description of the
practices used by urban superintendents to initiate and sustain change, to influence
instruction, and to increase the achievement level of Latino students. The two district
superintendents and two critical leaders of his/her choosing were interviewed using the
Superintendent Structured Interview Protocol (SSIP) and the Critical Leaders Structured

89

Interview Protocol (CLSIP). The 21-item SSIP was developed to determine (a) the
practices superintendents used to initiate and sustain change, (b) the practices
superintendents used to influence instruction for Latino students, and (c) the practices
superintendents used to increase Latino student achievement. The 18-item CLSIP was
designed to triangulate the data collected from the superintendent interview and survey,
and to strengthen the validity of the study.
Two superintendents were selected from the purposeful sample because their
respective districts showed the greatest academic achievement gains for the Latino
population in ELA and math, as measure by AYP. Each superintendent was interviewed
for approximately 45 minutes and each critical leader for about 30 minutes. To preserve
the accuracy of the data for transcription, both interviews were audio taped.
Superintendent 2 reported having earned a doctorate degree, has been leading his
southern California district of nearly 22,800 students for the past eight years, and has
been a superintendent for 19 years. Critical Leader 2A reported being in K-12 education
for 17 years and an employee of the district for seven years. She held the position of
Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources for two years. Critical Leader 2b reported
being in K-12 education for 32 years. She had been an employee of the district for 14
years and for the past two years held the position of Deputy Superintendent of
Educational Services. District 2 student population is 47% Latino, and 63.3% of its
students received free or reduced-price meals.
Superintendent 4 reported having earned a doctorate degree and has been leading
his southern Californian district of 22,000 students for the past 4.5 years. However, he

90

reported nine years experience as a school superintendent. Critical Leader 4a reported
being in K-12 education for 16 years. He had been employed with the district for one
year as Assistant Superintendent of Fiscal Support Services. Critical Leader 4b reported
working in K-12 education for 20 years. He has held the position of Assistant
Superintendent of Facilities and Operations for five years and has been working in his
current district for three years. At the time of the study, District 4 student population was
47% Latino, and 46% of its students received free or reduced priced meals.

Data Findings
Background Information of Sample and Population
The initial population of the study consisted of 10 superintendents who led urban
districts in the state of California; whose Latino student population demonstrated growth,
as measured by AYP; and, who maintained tenure during the timeframe of the study. At
the time of the study, the ten superintendents led districts with an average enrollment of
23,897 students, of which 46.01% was identified as Latino. Three of the superintendents
were female, seven were male, and all identified themselves as White. On average, these
superintendents reported having 7.6 years of experience as superintendent and 5.1 years
tenure in their current district. Seven reported having earned a doctorate and three earned
a master’s degree. Table 3, below, delineates the demographic data collected from the
SLPS.

91

Table 3
Demographic Data for Participating Superintendents
Measure

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std.
Deviation

Enrollment 10

17000

48000

23897.50

8647.579

Latino 10

25.0

56.0

46.010

9.3076

Region 10

2

3

2.90

.316

Gender 10

1

2

1.30

.483

Ethnicity 10

1

1

1.00

.000

Years of Experience 10

1.0

19.0

7.600

5.2957

Years in Current
Position
10 1.0 11.0 5.150 3.1977
Education 10 1 2 1.70 .483

92

Achievement data collected for the timeframe of the study demonstrated that all 10
superintendents showed measurable growth for the Latino student population in their
respective districts for three consecutive years, as measured by AYP in English language
arts (ELA) and math. The largest gains in English language arts were achieved by district
4, 2, and 1; and, in Math, by districts 4, 1, and 6. Table 4, below, highlights the academic
gains for each district’s Latino subgroup.

93

Table 4
Latino Student Achievement as Measured by AYP

District

06
ELA

07
ELA

08
ELA

06
MATH

07
MATH

08
MATH
1 26.90 30.60 35.60 35.40 39.40 43.60

2 30.00 30.90 35.60 34.60 35.60 38.60

3 32.40 32.70 36.00 40.60 41.90 42.10

4 32.20 33.00 45.60 37.80 40.20 51.20

5 32.20 32.20 36.60 36.30 37.10 40.10

6 31.00 33.40 35.60 34.70 39.40 41.80

7 32.20 32.70 37.10 38.60 39.90 41.80

8 32.60 35.20 37.70 36.20 38.00 39.50

94

Table 4, Continued
9 38.10 38.30 39.80 46.40 46.70 47.40

10 32.70 34.60 35.80 33.50 36.00 38.10

Research Question 1: Strategies to Initiate and Sustain Change
Quantitative Findings
An analysis of the survey data revealed that 9 out of the 10 superintendents rated
10 practices as being ―very important‖ to initiating and sustaining district-wide change.
These 10 practices received a mean score of 4.0, the highest rating in the survey
instrument. Further study of the data showed an additional 12 practices rated as ― almost
very important” by superintendents (mean score of 3.8 – 3.9 out of 4.0). The survey also
demonstrated that nine superintendents believed that 19 practices were ―substantially
important‖ (mean of 3.50 -3.78 out of 4.0) to their efforts to initiate and sustain change to
improve instruction and achievement for Latino students within their districts. Table 5,
below, identifies the specific leadership practices that were rated as very important by
superintendents.

95

Table 5
Leadership Practice Rated as Very Important by Superintendents to Initiate and Sustain
Change

Item

Leadership Practice
Q19 Ensure that the goal of improving instruction and achievement of Latino students is a
priority and nonnegotiable
Q20 Communicate clear performance expectations to all members of the organization
Q24 Maintain a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino student achievement
Q28 Develop the instructional leadership capacity at the district and school level to support
continuous improvement
Q30 Establish high expectations for student and adult learning across the district
Q38 Monitor the consistency between district goals and school goals through the principal
accountability process
Q39 Supervise and evaluate principals annually
Q56 Ensure that school practices are characterized by high expectations and opportunity
for all students
Q59 Change the focus of the district office from manager to support provider
Q60 Support the instructional leadership of principals by district level management through
school visits, feedback, support, and coaching

96

The 10 superintendents, on average, rated two leadership practices as a
―somewhat important‖ (mean of 2.0 – 2.7 out of 4.0) characteristic of their work to
initiate and sustain change. These practices are as follows: (a) including key community
leadership in the nonnegotiable goal-setting process that focuses on Latino student
achievement and challenging the status quo and (b) adopting a five-year nonnegotiable
plan for achievement and instruction that includes specific goals for Latino students.
Therefore, 55 of the 57 leadership practices presented in the survey instrument
were rated, on average, as an ―important‖ (mean of 2.8 out of 4.0) or higher aspect of
their work toward initiating and sustaining change in the instruction and achievement of
Latino students. A closer look at the survey results revealed that 41 out of the 57
practices presented in the instrument were rated as a ―substantially important‖ (mean of
3.5 out of 4.0) or higher part of their work to initiate and sustain change by 9 out of the
10 superintendents. Notably, one superintendent left items 35–43 blank on the survey
instrument. For a complete listing of the practices used by superintendents to initiate and
sustain change see Appendix G.
Qualitative Findings
An analysis of the transcribed interviews revealed four leadership responsibilities
as they related to practices superintendents used to initiate and sustain change within their
organizations. These themes are as follows: (a) shared vision, (b) commitment to deep
learning, (c) commitment to goals for instruction and Latino student achievement, and (d)
restructuring the organization. Additionally, these themes supported the practices

97

identified by superintendents in the SLPS as being very important to initiating and
sustaining change.
Shared Vision
Superintendent 2 focused on the importance of bringing others along in the
process of finding the right instructional approach to implementing district-wide change
and to earning the commitment of members of the organization to this change. In this
superintendent’s words:
We did a lot of research about what works. We spent quite a bit of time … going
into the literature, looking at different options, going and visiting places that had
implemented those things and then talking…. It was the process…you spend your
time to research, then you actually go look, [do] some beta testing at a couple of
schools and implement. You just have to keep at it. Once you’ve committed to a
path you will never be successful if you’re not persistent. You have to persist on
data.

The interview with Critical Leader 2a supported these assertions:
I think everything he has done, he was pretty clear when he came into the district
that he had certain priorities, certain areas that interested him, but then he took kind
of a ramp up approach. He included key leadership in the process and it didn’t
happen overnight.

Superintendent 4 echoed the importance of building a collective vision and emphasized
during the interview that making any change within a district requires first developing a
collective vision. In this superintendent’s words:
I think you have to have a vision of where you want to go. You have to have an
organizational vision and you have to have your priorities straight….we
assembled a 52-member task force that represented all stakeholders and
[collaborated in the development] of the strategic plan. Our number one core
value is the most respected one out there: Kids are the highest priority in all we do.

98

Data from the interview conducted with Critical Leader 4b supported this finding:
One of the important things he has done is he put together the strategic plan. Any
leader to move an organization forward, number 1, needs obviously a mission,
goals and identified outcomes, how [to] track those outcomes. He has developed
this very well.

That both superintendents focused on including members of the organization during the
different stages of the process supports the survey finding that to initiate and sustain
change superintendents should support a collective vision that represents the most current
research based practices in teaching and learning and that incorporates promising
practices for Latino student achievement (mean score of 3.8); foster a district culture
based on shared norms, values, and beliefs that promote mutual understanding and
respect (mean score of 3.9); maintain a clear focus on improving instruction and
achievement (mean score of 4.0); and establish high expectations for student and adult
learning across the district (mean score of 4.0).
Commitment to Deep Learning
In the interview, Superintendent 2 emphasized the importance both of principals
being in the classroom to observe instruction and of providing training to ensure district-
wide cohesiveness about what effective instruction looks like. In that superintendent’s
words:
It’s not good to have one principal say… boy that was a good lesson, and another
one to say… aw, that wasn’t too good. So, we need to be using the same criteria.
We need to look with the same set of eyes. So you and I, we see the same thing,
[we] have a reasonably close assessment of that same thing we are seeing. [If
there is a discrepancy] we have to take action to deal with that. The way we do
that is by training [the] person that is not viewing things, [who] is not calibrated
with the rest of the staff.

99

Additionally, Superintendent 2 addressed the importance of teachers in the delivery of
instruction, particularly in English Language Development, which in their district focuses
primarily on Latino students:
The piece that seems to be working really well, the ELD piece is fascinating to me,
it’s working really well in some places and it’s working not so well in other
places. I think it has to do with the teacher – that’s the variable. If it’s a matter of
training, we’ll provide the training.

The data collected from Critical Leader 2b interview revealed similar findings:
I think he has been a strong proponent and supporter of our professional
development (PD) departments, which did not exist prior to his arrival in the
district. There are professional development opportunities centered in classroom
instruction and behavior management right now. There is also quite a bit of PD in
customer service and office administration issues to make sure that whether it’s a
transportation office, a maintenance office, a personnel office, that the structural
pieces to be effective, that customer services pieces are explained and modeled
and there’s an expectation there.

Although Superintendent 4 never explicitly identified the link between the
practice of Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and professional development for
district-level management, principals, and teachers, his interview revealed that PLCs
were a forum in which to discuss instruction, share best practices, and develop plans of
action that would lead to an increase in achievement for Latino students. As he said:
Before the principal’s meeting they have their own PLC…if I’ve got a principal
whose school [is succeeding] I want them to share [their] strategies and best
practices. I want to take their teachers…to schools that are not there and say this
is what we’re doing and duplicate what is successful and what’s not successful set
aside….Our teachers do most of our professional development.

In reference to the professional development opportunities afforded to members of his
cabinet and his governing board, the superintendent stated that:

100

We’ve been reading books as a team. [We] read Good to Great, Disrupting
Class…we read Five Dysfunctions of a team….We just finished reading The Oz
Principle - talks about above the bar, it’s accountability within the organizations.
It’s a tremendous book….It really talks about people having below the bar
expectations and looking within for solutions. A lot of our professional
development is good reading.

These findings were further supported by the interview data collected by Critical Leader
4b, who said:
The superintendent set up an atmosphere where we are always looking internally
at ourselves to improve. We’re not satisfied with status quo. That has been the
consistent message…if you believe in status quo this is not the district for you.
That is why we have workshops and we read these books, The Oz Principle, and
we are always trying to improve our own abilities and learn more. We understand
that learning is a lifelong process and we never stop. We acknowledge people’s
expertise, be we also acknowledge what we don’t know.

Both superintendents discussed the importance of providing members of their
organizations with opportunities to learn and grow as professionals. These practices are
consistent with the findings from the superintendent survey, which identified the practice
of providing individualized support and development opportunities to district office
personnel and school site leadership (mean score of 3.88) and training to strengthen the
knowledge and skill of principals as instructional leaders (mean score of 3.9); developing
the instructional leadership capacity at the district and school level to support continuous
improvement (mean score of 4.0); maintaining a clear focus on improving instruction and
Latino student achievement (mean score of 4.0) as being very important to the change
process.
Commitment to Goals for Instruction and Latino Student Achievement

101

According to Superintendent 2, all members of the organization must know what
is expected of them with regard to the instructional goals for the district:
Those [District Site Support Team] feedback sessions are for us to make sure that
the principal knows what we expect. So, we are monitoring the principals based
on what’s happening in their classrooms. Then the principals are held
accountable of their assessments of their teachers on a daily basis, that structure
gives us a way to know what is happening in those classrooms and if we are
meeting our instructional goals.

Furthermore, Superintendent 2 stressed the importance of providing training to build
leadership capacity within the organization. Yet, the goal of this training is to improve
instruction and increase student achievement, and this expectation is nonnegotiable. As
Superintendent 2 said:
We have to take action to deal with [the lack of instructional understanding]. The
way we do that is by training that person that is not viewing things, is not
calibrated with the rest of the staff. The other part of it, what we do is…you can’t
work here if you can’t do that work.

Critical Leader 2a’s interview data reinforced these findings:
We have District Site Support teams and we go out to walk with principals and
walk the classrooms and the teachers all know what we are looking for that month.
[The superintendent] is a member of a District Site Support team and he goes out
and walks classrooms with everyone else. It’s a continual feedback loop.
On the other side when we have individuals who just absolutely refuse to follow
the district vision and how we are getting there and those types of things he
supports leadership in taking disciplinary measures against those individuals.

This sentiment was echoed by Critical Leader 2b:
I would say that people are held accountable, that you can’t be less than a B+
employee, what ever you are doing. What we are doing is too important to
accept mediocrity. We really work hard with the employees to give them every
opportunity to be a B+ or better and then we will try to convince them to do
something else if they can’t get there.

102

Throughout his interview Superintendent 4 highlighted his commitment to the strategic
plan that was developed under his leadership. He further emphasized how all decisions
have to support the instructional vision of the district, which is known by all members of
the organization. He added:
[The strategic plan] is not a big binder that sits on a shelf because it’ll get lost, no
one will look at it. It’s in every single classroom, in every office, in every
department in our schools. It’s real simple…kids are number one and teachers are
number two.

Let me give you an example: every single agenda item on our board has to quote
the strategic plan. If it doesn’t quote our strategic plan and support it, we should
not be doing it. It’s the walk your talk stuff – that’s really helped us keep our
focus on instruction and student achievement.

The interview data collected from Critical Leader 4b supported the findings from the
superintendent interview:
Even in a meeting when someone gets out of line, we refer back to our strategic
plan. Every item we bring to our board agenda, we have to outline and identify
which part of the strategic plan it aligns to. It’s hard for me sometimes, being in
Facilities, but I have to make sure that what I am doing is supporting our mission,
goals, and priorities that center on students and learning.

These findings support data collected from the superintendent survey, by which
participants identified strategies that are very important for initiating and sustaining
change. They are ensuring that school practices are characterized by high expectations
and opportunity for all students (mean score or 4.0); communicating clear performance
expectations to all members of the organization (mean score of 4.0); monitoring the
consistency between district goals and school goals through the principal accountability
process (mean score of 4.0); supervising and evaluating principals (mean score of 4.0);

103

and ensuring that the goal of improving instruction and achievement of Latino students is
a priority and is nonnegotiable (mean score of 4.0).
Restructuring the Organization
Both superintendents discussed the need to restructure the organization to initiate
and sustain change. According to Superintendent 2, the District Site Support teams
changed the focus of district leadership in large part due to site visits that focused on
improving instruction and increasing student achievement. In the words of
Superintendent 2:
We have what we call the District Site Support (DSS) teams that go out…[to] the
schools a minimum of three times a year and they go through all the classrooms
and give feedback…to the principals about what is happening in those classroom.

Superintendent 4 discussed at length the many administrative changes that took place in
the effort to move the district forward:
I made a lot of changes; I made 104 administrative changes in four years. There’s
not anybody in the cabinet that was here when I came in. I had nice people, but
they had set the bar very low….That was the number one issue in our school
system, we really did not have above the bar expectations.

This finding was further supported by the data collected from Critical Leader 4a:
To close the achievement gap for Latino students and English Learners, the
superintendent pretty much reorganized the Instructional Support Services
division and put a leader in there that understood all those best practices in
teaching and that was able to then get it down to those that are in the classroom.

Findings from the superintendent interviews supported those of SLPS, which revealed the
importance of changing the focus of the district office from manager to support-provider
(mean score of 4.0); maintaining a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino

104

student achievement (mean score of 4.0); and supporting the instructional leadership of
principals with school visits from district-level management (mean score of 4.0).

Research Question 1a: Practices to Influence and Shape Instruction
for Latino Students
Quantitative Findings
An analysis of the survey data revealed that 9 out of the 10 superintendents rated
11 practices as being ―very important‖ to shaping and influencing instruction for Latino
students. These 11 practices received a mean score of 4.0, the highest rating in the
survey instrument. A more thorough study of the data identified an additional nine
practices as ―almost very important‖ by 9 out of 10 superintendents (mean score of 3.8 –
3.9 out of 4.0). Table 6, below, shows the leadership practices that superintendents rated
as very important to influencing and shaping instruction for Latino students.

105

Table 6
Leadership Practices Rated as Very Important by Superintendents for Influencing and
Shaping Instruction for Latino Students
Item Leadership Practice
Q19 Ensure that the goal of improving instruction and achievement of Latino students is a
priority and is nonnegotiable
Q20 Communicate clear performance expectations to all members of the organization
Q21 Model shared beliefs and learning-oriented values
Q24 Maintain a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino student achievement
Q28 Develop the instructional leadership capacity at the district and school level to support
continuous improvement
Q30 Establish high expectations for student and adult learning across the district
Q38 Monitor the consistency between district goals and school goals through the principal
accountability process
Q39 Supervise and evaluate principals annually
Q56 Ensure that school practices are characterized by high expectations and opportunity for
all students
Q59 Change the focus of the district office from manager to support-provider
Q60 Support the instructional leadership of principals by district level management through
school visits, feedback, support, and coaching

The survey also revealed that nine superintendents believed that 13 practices were
―substantially important‖ (mean of 3.50 -3.78 out of 4.0) to their efforts to influence and
shape instruction within their districts.

106

The 10 superintendents, on average, rated two leadership practices as a
―somewhat important‖ (mean of 2.0 – 2.7 out of 4.0) characteristic of their efforts to
influence and shape instruction for Latino students. These practices are as follows: (a)
including key community leadership in the nonnegotiable goal-setting process that
focuses on Latino student achievement and challenging the status quo, and (b) adopting a
five-year nonnegotiable plan for achievement and instruction that includes specific goals
for Latino students. Therefore, 41 of the 43 leadership practices presented in the survey
instrument were rated, on average, as an ―important‖ (mean of 2.8 out of 4.0) or higher
aspect of their effort to reshape instruction to support Latino student learning. Further
study of the survey results revealed that 32 out of the 43 practices presented in the
instrument were rated a ―substantially important (mean of 3.5 out of 4.0) or higher part of
the work by 9 out of the 10 superintendents. Notably, one superintendent left items 35–
43 blank on the survey instrument. See Appendix H for a listing of the superintendents’
leadership practices for influencing and shaping instruction for Latino students, rated
from ―very important‖ to ―not important.‖
Qualitative Findings
A thorough analysis of the interview data revealed the practices that supported the
following leadership responsibilities: (a) shared vision, (b) commitment to deep learning,
(c) commitment to goals for instruction and Latino student achievement, and (d)
restructuring the organization. These responsibilities were identified and developed in
the previous section.

107

Three additional responsibilities have been identified and will be explored in this
section: (a) changing context, (b) reciprocal accountability and vertical relationships, and
(c) long lever of leadership. These themes support the practices identified in the SLPS by
superintendents as being very important to influencing and shaping instruction for Latino
students.
Changing Context
According to Superintendent 2, addressing the instructional needs of Latino
students meant that it was first necessary to conduct an open discussion of underlying
assumptions held by the teaching force that may inadvertently be lowering expectations
and limiting Latino student performance. According to Superintendent 2:
I think it’s very clear that [Latino students] are a significant subgroup in our
district and in many of our schools. We have had to re-educate some of our older
teachers in particular that ―those kids‖ are still our kids…that has to be modeled
from the top. Every single kid that walks through the door at one of our schools is
our kid, they are all important regardless of whatever characteristics they
have….It’s a cultural thing that we’ve had to talk about, work on. We are not
perfect yet, but I think we are much better than we were.

Superintendent 2’s emphasis on addressing the beliefs and practices that influence
instruction and learning for Latino is consistent with the practice identified in the SLPS
of challenging staff to reexamine some of their assumptions about Latino student
achievement and thus to reshape practice (mean score of 3.8); emphasizing that
instruction is the key to improving Latino student learning (mean score of 3.9); ensuring
that school practices are characterized by high expectations and learning for all students
(mean score of 4.0); modeling shared beliefs and learning-oriented values (mean score of
4.0); and maintaining a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino student

108

achievement (mean score of 4.0). These practices were identified as very important to
shaping and influencing instruction for Latino students.
These findings were further supported by the interview data collected from
Critical Leader 2b:
I think [the superintendent] has engaged the entire community in reflecting on the
needs of the Hispanic students. The Hispanic population in this city is
growing....It’s not a population that we can treat as a very minor number, that we
can ignore. We have to do things differently. We have to be hiring more people
who are bilingual to staff our offices; more teachers that are bilingual [and to]
make sure our teachers are trained again on ELL strategies.

Superintendent 4 highlighted his belief that students need role models, which
meant that instructional leadership needed to be representative of the population it was
serving in order to support Latino achievement:
It took key leadership…in some cases [it took] bringing in a bilingual/biliterate
administrator that understood instruction and would connect with the community
and if I did not have a bilingual/biliterate [administrator], I need to have a Title I
teacher who could make that connection, or a community liaison. I’d be negligent.
If we are talking about Latino students, they need to have that language
connection, that cultural connection.

This finding was further supported by the data collected from Critical Leader 4a’s
interview:
[The superintendent] has shuffled our principals quite often…he taps into [their]
expertise and he understands the demographics of a certain site-specific area [and]
he understands what person would best lead that [school].
He hires the right people for the right seats; people who have experience,
knowledge, are bilingual, who understand assessment and understand the needs of
this population.

Superintendent 4’s belief in and practice of having key leadership be representative and
knowledgeable of the instructional practices that support the population being served

109

align with the deliberative selection and assignment of principals based on knowledge
and skills and on their ability to sustain school improvements (mean score of 3.78). These
practices were identified as being very important to shaping and influencing instruction
for Latino students.
Reciprocal Accountability and Vertical Relationships
According to Superintendent 2, to accomplish the district-wide implementation of
instructional approaches, accountability systems must be in place to foster relationships
across the district:
I think you have to monitor and make sure people are [implementing the
initiative]. Unfortunately, not everybody will do it; just on their own. So, we set
up systems to monitor our principals, our teachers - to be sure that we have
weekly, if not daily [knowledge] of what is happening in those classrooms.

Additionally, Superintendent 2 stressed the importance of developing relationships to
support teaching and learning at the school level by district leadership:
We have what we call the DSS [District Site Support] teams that go out; those
DSS teams are out at the schools a minimum of three times a year and they go
through all the classrooms and give feedback…to the principals about what is
happening in those classroom.

This finding was further supported by Critical Leader 2b:
We support the implementation [of Direct Interactive Instruction] at the
superintendent level and the cabinet level by visiting schools on a monthly basis
in teams and when we walk through the classrooms we’re looking to see that
those strategies are implemented. We literally give feedback memos to the staffs
when we leave.

[The superintendent] expects through his leadership that we build relationships
with principals, teachers, and students to support learning.

110

Superintendent 4 echoed the importance of reciprocal accountability and relationship-
building within the organization for improving effectiveness:
We talk about PLCs in schools, I had departments who were working really hard,
but they weren’t talking to other departments. This dysfunction was affecting our
schools. Now, we have a cabinet meeting every Monday and following the
cabinet, all the departments meet with each other and talk to each other because
you make one decision in Special Ed, it affects the Fiscal side, the Human
Resource side, and the Instructional side – it’s all interrelated. It’s like all the
pieces of the puzzle were there but on one has had time to put them together.

Critical Leader 4a further supported this finding when he discussed the expectations
outlined by the superintendent:
The superintendent constantly communicates the vision and direction for the
district. He is clear about his expectations and everybody knows their role in
that…He expects us to work together, to be accountable for our actions and to
show improvement [regardless] of the lack of funding or lack of staff
development…he still expects people to put in the time and effort, to not just sit
back…status quo is not ok in this district.

Furthermore, Critical Leader 4b delineated the interrelationship among different
components of the district:
It really all happens at the sites in the classrooms. The vision is started at the
governing board, principals influence teachers to do the job in the classroom, but
without clear leadership from principals it’s not going to happen, without the
district support for principals it’s not going to happen and without the high
expectations from the governing board and the superintendent to execute them,
it’s not going to happen.

According to both superintendents, the role of the district office has undergone changes
in its relationship to instruction and student achievement. This modification supports the
belief that practices very important to improving instruction for Latino students include
clearly defining expectations for principals, and ensuring they fulfill their instructional
leadership responsibilities (mean score of 3.9); communicating clear performance

111

expectations to all members of the organization (mean score of 4.0); monitoring the
consistency between district goals and school goals through the principal accountability
process (mean score of 4.0); changing the focus of the district office from manager to
support-provider (mean score of 4.0); and supporting the instructional leadership of
principals by district-level management through school visits, feedback, support, and
coaching (mean score of 4.0)
Long Lever of Leadership
Consistent with the survey findings, Superintendent 2 stressed the importance of
leadership within the organization improving teaching and learning to ensure continuous
improvement. As Superintendent 2 said:
Systems depend on people, I believe in hiring great people, giving them clear
direction, letting them do their work, and providing training.

Our director of Secondary Education is an expert…I hired him specifically to help
us identify what works and then teach our people, train our people to use those
things, so that our students got the benefit of it on a day-by-day basis.
I think my biggest leadership practice is not anything that I’ve done, as much as
it’s just…hiring somebody that is really gifted and is ready to lead us.

This finding was further supported by Critical Leader 2a:
[The superintendent] hired a director who has a strong vision and the instructional
focus took off from there. He hired several coaches and they provide professional
development each month at our leadership meetings. We have an instructional
focus each month that centers on Direct Interactive Instruction and specific
strategies for Latino students and English Language Learners.

Superintendent 4 reinforced this finding throughout his interview and stated that the most
important practice is hiring people and respecting them enough to allow them to do their
work:

112

I think, as superintendents, one of the best things we do is hire the very best
people we can find…the brightest people and that includes people that understand
instruction, best practices, professional learning communities, English Language
Learners, and data and assessment. You hire the best people, you hire the best
principals you can find and I hire the people that will work with teachers. Then
you need to mentor them and stay out of the way.

This finding is further supported by the data collected during the interview with Critical
Leader 4a:
I think part of what [the superintendent] had to do was…move principals out,
change leadership positions at the district office, shuffle people…because they are
not providing the leadership and then bringing in the right people to be able to
give not only leadership but provide the support and staff development and
provide clear direction as to what is needed to help students.

Both superintendents focused on hiring and supporting people who would provide
the kind of leadership needed to move forward with the district’s instructional focus and
take the organization to a higher level. These finding support the SLPS practices of
deliberately selecting and assigning principals based on knowledge, skills, and their
ability to sustain school improvements (mean score of 3.78); of providing professional
development to strengthen the knowledge and skills of principals as instructional leaders
(mean score of 3.9); and of developing the instructional leadership capacity at the district
and school level to support continuous improvement (mean score of 4.0).

Research Question 1b: Practices to Increase Latino Student Achievement
Quantitative Findings
An analysis of the survey data revealed that 9 out of the 10 superintendents rated
nine practices as being a ―very important‖ aspect of their efforts to increase Latino

113

student achievement. These nine practices received a mean score of 4.0. The survey data
further revealed that four practices rated as ―almost very important‖ by all 10
superintendents (mean score of 3.8 – 3.9 out of 4.0). Table 7, below, highlights the
practices superintendents identified as very important to increasing achievement for
Latino students.

114

Table 7
Leadership Practices Rated as Very Important by Superintendents to Increase Latino
Student Achievement
Item Leadership Practice
Q19 Ensure that the goal of improving the instruction and achievement of Latino
students is a priority and is nonnegotiable
Q20 Communicate clear performance expectations to all members of the
organization
Q21 Model shared beliefs and learning-oriented values
Q24 Maintain a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino student
achievement
Q28 Develop the instructional leadership capacity at the district and school level to
support continuous improvement
Q30 Establish high expectations for student and adult learning across the district
Q34 Train district-level management, principals, and teachers on the use of data to
drive instruction and performance
Q38 Monitor the consistency between district goals and school goals through the
principal accountability process
Q39 Supervise and evaluate principals annually

The survey also revealed that nine superintendents believed that eight practices were a
―substantially important‖ (mean of 3.50 -3.78 out of 4.0) aspect of their work toward
increasing the achievement levels of Latino students.

115

The 10 superintendents, on average, rated two leadership practices as a
―somewhat important‖ (mean of 2.0 – 2.7 out of 4.0) characteristic of their efforts to
influence and shape instruction for Latino students. These practices are (a) including key
community leadership in the nonnegotiable goal-setting process that focuses on Latino
student achievement and challenging the status quo, and (b) adopting a five-year
nonnegotiable plan for achievement and instruction that includes specific goals for Latino
students. Therefore, 31 of the 33 leadership practices presented in the survey instrument
were rated on average as an ―important‖ (mean of 2.8 out of 4.0) or higher aspect of their
work to reshape instruction to support Latino student learning. Further study of the
survey results revealed that 21 of the 33 practices presented in the instrument were rated
as a ―substantially important‖ (mean of 3.5 out of 4.0) or higher part of their work by 9
out of the 10 superintendents. Notably, one superintendent left items 35–43 blank on the
survey instrument. For a complete listing of the practices used by superintendents to
increase Latino student achievement refer to Appendix I.
Qualitative Findings
An analysis of the interview data revealed the following leadership
responsibilities: (a) shared vision, (b) commitment to deep learning, (c) commitment to
goals for instruction and Latino student achievement, and (d) reciprocal accountability
and vertical relationships. These concepts were introduced in the previous two sections.
One additional responsibility has been identified and will be developed: (a) data-driven
decision making.

116

Data-Driven Decision Making
Superintendent 2 identified that data use supported the implementation of the
district’s instructional approach in large part because teachers were included in the
process and were discussing student performance. Thus, as Superintendent 2 explained:
Professional learning communities [are] a strategy for getting teachers and
principals…to analyze data and use it specifically for instruction. We were getting
data from our younger teachers who were really committed. We were getting
great results and then the other strategy was once those results began to skew,
then you could use those result…to compare and so then when you put a
professional learning community team together, those teachers who are doing
what were asking, who are getting good results begin to have peer influence on
the folks that don’t.

Critical Leader 2a supported this finding during her interview:
There is a loop and it’s setting the expectation for Latino students, actually not
just Latino students—all students. It’s about setting the expectation of what
proficiency is, holding the right people accountable. It’s about looking at the data,
identifying the methods research show are effective, monitoring, holding people
accountable, measuring, and looking at where the gap is. We have narrowed it
down to where each teacher knows exactly what their target kids are, what
questions they missed and why. The power is in what is going to be done about it
—the strategy to support learning—that’s where sharing best practices comes in.

Superintendent 4 shared similar views on the use of data to increase Latino student
achievement:
We use benchmark data pool called EADMS where our teachers develop
benchmark assessments…they get the results in 24 hours. [Data] does drive
[instruction] and I think, it reinforces and makes instruction better when you can
do benchmark assessment and go back and re-teach. Know that those kids did not
get it, go back and re-teach that standard. I think that when you share it really
does help.

This outlook was supported by the interview data collected from Critical Leader 4b:
I think restructuring how we look at data and assessment [is important]. We use
EADMS to have teachers develop benchmark assessments and continually look at

117

the data and understanding which children have the issues and addressing those
issues and providing interventions for them. It’s all in reading the data.

According to both superintendents, to influence and shape instruction, data must
be the focus of discussion. This concentration, in turn, creates a sense of the exigency of
focusing on improving instruction and achievement for students. This finding is
consistent with the leadership practice of creating a keen sense of the necessity to
improve Latino student achievement and to close the achievement gap (mean score 3.9);
using Latino achievement data to establish collective goals and monitor progress (mean
score of 3.9); and to train district-level management, principals, and teachers on the use
of data to drive instruction and performance (mean score of 4.0). The following section
is a synthesis of the qualitative and quantitative findings as they relate to current research
on superintendent leadership responsibilities and practices that initiate and sustain change
to improve instruction for Latino students.

Analysis and Discussion
With external accountability measures demanding more of our schools, leaders
and districts across the state of California need to change their approaches to teaching and
learning. Superintendents and school districts need to move away from working in
isolation toward engaging in the reflective work of continuously improving all facets of
the organization to ensure that every student receives a quality and equitable education
(Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006; Elmore 2002; Fullan 2005,). Although most of
the research in effective teaching and learning stems from the class and school level,

118

studies on the effects of district-level leadership on instruction and achievement have
identified districts that have, in fact, improved teaching and learning for all students
(Edwards, 2006; Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003). Along with meeting increasing accountability, school districts and
their leadership are expected to sustain their efforts and continue to improve learning in
the hopes of meeting the moving target of AYP (Fullan, 2005).
The data collected from the survey instrument and the structured interviews with
two Superintendents and four Critical Leaders revealed eight leadership responsibilities.
These responsibilities clearly aligned to the research on sustainability, school-level, and
district-level leadership (Edwards, 2006; Fullan, 2005; Peterson & Barnett, 2005; Togneri,
2003). These responsibilities are as follows:
1. Shared Vision
2. Commitment to Deep Learning
3. Commitment to Goals for Instruction and Latino Student Achievement
4. Restructuring the Organization
5. Changing Context
6. Reciprocal Accountability and Vertical relationships
7. Long Lever of Leadership
8. Data-Driven Decision Making
Although these responsibilities emerged under specific research questions, the practices
that support these responsibilities are not confined to the question they answered. The
leadership practices identified by superintendents may serve multiple functions and may

119

be used to fulfill various leadership responsibilities of leaders within an organization. In
fact, many of the practices associated with each of the identified responsibilities emerged
across the data collected for the three questions. Table 8, below, identifies the various
leadership practices associated with each of the leadership responsibilities.

120

Table 8
Leadership Responsibilities and Practices
Leadership
Responsibility
Leadership Practice

Shared Vision Maintain a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino student
achievement.
Establish high expectations for student and adult learning across the district.
Commitment to
Deep Learning
Developing the instructional leadership capacity at the district and school
level to support continuous improvement.
Maintaining a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino student
achievement.
Commitment to
Goals on
Instruction and
Latino Student
Achievement
Ensuring that school practices are characterized by high expectations and
opportunity for all students
Communicate clear performance expectations to all members of the
organization.
Monitor the consistency between district goals and school goals through the
principal accountability process.
Supervise and evaluate principals annually.
Ensuring that the goal of improving instruction and achievement for Latino
students is a priority and nonnegotiable.

121

Table 8, Continued
Restructuring
the Organization
Changing the focus of the district office from manage to support provider.
Maintaining a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino student
achievement.
Supporting the instructional leadership of principals by district level
management through school visits, feedback, support and coaching.
Change Context Communicating clear performance expectations to all members of the
organization.
Monitor the consistency between district goals and school goals through the
principal accountability process.
Changing the focus of the district office from manager to support provider.
Supporting the instructional leadership of principals by district level
management through school visits, feedback, support and coaching.
Assume individual responsibility and take the necessary steps to create
schools that show continuous improvements for Latino students.

122

Table 8, Continued
Reciprocal
Accountability
Communicating clear performance expectations to all members of the
organization.
Monitoring the consistency between district goals and school goals through
the principal accountability process.
Changing the focus of the district office from manager to support-provider.
Supporting the instructional leadership of principals by district-level
management through school visits, feedback, support, and coaching.
Long Lever of
Leadership
Develop the instructional leadership capacity at the district and school level
to support continuous improvement.
Change the focus of the district office from manager to support-provider.
Data-Driven
Decision
Making
Train district-level management, principals, and teachers on the use of data
to drive instruction and performance.

The following section will synthesize the survey and interview findings through
an analysis of current research on superintendent leadership practices as they relate to
initiating and sustaining change to improve the instruction and achievement for Latino
students.

123

Research Question 1: Practices to Initiate and Sustain Change to Improve
Instruction and Achievement for Latino Students
Shared Vision: Moral Purpose
The data revealed that both superintendents believed that the development of a
collective vision focused on research-based practices that support teaching and learning
for all students was essential in moving the district forward. Additionally, both
superintendents stressed the importance both of including all stakeholders in the process
of determining the direction of the district and of using data to drive those decisions.
This finding is consistent with research by Peterson and Barnett (2005) and Hoyle et al.
(2005), which asserts that an organizational vision based on best practices of teaching and
learning supports the improvement of instruction within a district.
These two superintendents did more than endorse a vision focused on improving
instruction; they moved their districts toward identifying their moral purpose.
Superintendent 4 discussed the need to have ―above the bar‖ expectations for students
who were falling behind. He stated that there was no reason to come to work if
individuals were simply maintaining the status quo; he wanted to see learning and
improvement being undertaken by all members of the organization. Additionally,
Superintendent 2’s focus on bringing others along in the process of identifying best
practices for teaching English Learners and Latino students demonstrated his respect for
the members of the organization. These practices also align to Fullan’s (2005) notion of
moral purpose, by which leaders (a) raise the bar for student learning, (b) treat people

124

with respect, and (c) alter the social environment. Developing a collective vision and/or
strategic plan changed the direction of the district and improved teaching and learning for
the better.
In summary, qualitative findings from the interviews regarding the development
of a collective vision to support teaching and learning supported both the findings of the
quantitative survey and the research findings presented by Hoyle et al. (2005), Fullan
(2005), and Peterson and Barnett (2005). Furthermore, the responsibility to develop an
organizational vision or moral purpose falls under the collaborative goal-setting process
identified in the meta-analysis study by Waters and Marzano (2006), which demonstrated
that district-level leadership does, in fact, impact the instruction and achievement of
students.
Commitment to Deep Learning: Building Capacity
Consistent with the research findings reported by Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy
(2002), Leithwood, et al. (2003), Elmore (2004), and Waters and Marzano (2006),
Superintendent 2 emphasized the importance of having a professional development
program that builds principal and teacher leadership capacity, and thus ensures a cohesive
instructional program across the district. However, unlike Superintendent 2, who was
very specific in delineating the professional development opportunities that the district
offers its employees, Superintendent 4 was probed about the district’s training and
professional development programs. Superintendent 4 stated that teacher-leaders did
most of their professional development at the site level and that principals, like teachers,
held monthly Professional Learning Community sessions before their administrative

125

meeting to discuss instruction, share best practices, and identify next steps. He reinforced
the importance of sharing and of building on organizational knowledge in order to
maximize efficiency.
During their interviews, both superintendents emphasized their commitment to
building capacity among the members of the organization. Superintendent 2 discussed
the walk-throughs conducted by the District Site Support Teams and how they provided
feedback and coaching to principals and teachers. Superintendent 4 expressed that
sharing best practices among teachers at various sites is a valuable effort. The
commitment of these superintendents to building lateral capacity across schools and the
district and to providing learning opportunities for their members are two elements that,
according to Fullan (2005), are crucial to sustainability. By providing members with
opportunities to share their practices, the superintendents facilitate the distribution of
leadership and knowledge among the members of the organization, thus supporting the
instructional vision of the district (Harris, 2008). Furthermore, their high expectations for
adult learning, as evidenced by PLCs and classroom walk-throughs centered around
teaching and learning, illustrate the development of a culture dedicated to solving
problems of practice (Fullan, 2005).
Thus, the qualitative findings from the interviews that focused on professional
development opportunities through the use of Professional Learning Communities,
classroom walk-throughs, and teacher-led trainings supported the findings of the survey
and the research presented by Snipes, Doolittle, and Herlihy (2002), Leithwood et al.
(2003), Elmore (2004), and Waters and Marzano (2006).

126

Commitment to Goals for Instruction and Latino Student Achievement: All
Children Will Learn
A thorough study of the interview transcripts revealed that both superintendents
were dedicated to their districts’ instructional and achievement goals. Superintendent 2
discussed the different systems in place to support the district instructional goals for all
students. The commitment of the superintendent and the district to improving instruction
for Latino students was evidenced by the following statement about the instructional
leadership of principals: ―…you can’t work here if you can’t do that work.‖
Superintendent 4 emphasized how all decisions had to align with the goals and priorities
set out by the strategic plan. This practice helped keep the team focused on instruction
and student achievement, ultimately resulting in the district’s exiting Program
Improvement. The superintendents’ commitment to the district goals is consistent with
the findings presented by Togneri and Anderston (2003), and Leithwood et al. (2004),
which assert that a district-wide focus on improving instruction has a positive impact on
student achievement.
Although both superintendents highlighted the importance of a leader’s
commitment to the instructional and academic goals of the district, neither actually
elaborated on the practices they used to develop these goals. Furthermore, when probed
further about the nonnegotiable goals for achievement for Latino students,
Superintendent 2 stated, ―They are no different than any other student in this district.
They will achieve to their capacity,‖ and Superintendent 4 echoed this sentiment, ―Real
simple, all kids can learn.‖ Such remarks suggest that the superintendents did not, in fact,

127

develop specific achievement goals for Latino students, but that their expectation was
that all students could achieve regardless of their background. This notion was further
supported by the quantitative findings centered on both the development of nonnegotiable
goals and the interview data collected from Critical Leader 2a, who said:
The most important leadership practices [the superintendent uses], I would say is
having high expectations for Latino student learning and paying attention,
focusing [on Latino students], the better research says that when you look at
something you change it…just by focusing on [the Latino] group we have seen
improvement. It’s not all we have done, but I’d say it’s the most important thing,
the first thing that has to happen before all these other instructional strategies go
into place.

According to the data from the survey, 10 superintendents, on average, rated two
leadership practices as a ―somewhat important‖ (mean of 2.0 – 2.7 out of 4.0)
characteristic of their work to initiate and sustain change. These practices meant (a)
including key community leadership in the nonnegotiable goal-setting process that
focuses on Latino student achievement and challenging the status quo and (b) adopting a
five-year nonnegotiable plan for achievement and instruction that includes specific goals
for Latino students. The leadership practice of including key community leadership in
the nonnegotiable goal-setting process focused on Latino student achievement and
challenging the status quo received a mean score of 2.5. Deeper analysis of the survey
data revealed that one superintendent indicated not using this practice and a second
superintendent rated it as not important. Seven of the ten superintendents rated this
practice as important or very important to initiating and sustaining change. The practice
of adopting a five-year nonnegotiable plan for achievement and instruction that includes

128

specific goals for Latino students received a mean score of 2.00. A closer look at the data
revealed that each of the ratings in the Likert-scale of 0-4 had a frequency of 2.
In summary, the qualitative findings from the interviews illustrated that the
superintendents were committed to the district’s instructional and achievement goals.
These findings aligned with research by Togneri and Anderston (2003) and Leithwood et
al. (2004), which affirms that a district-wide focus on improving instruction has a
positive impact on student achievement. Additionally, there was a misalignment between
the qualitative findings and the survey findings on nonnegotiable goals for instruction and
student achievement.
Restructuring the Organization: Systems to Improve Instruction and Achievement
for Latino Students
Consistent with the research findings of Snipes et al. (2002), Togneri and
Anderson, (2003), and Leithwood et al. (2004), both superintendents restructured their
organizations to increase effectiveness in meeting the district’s instructional and
achievement goals. Superintendent 2 emphasized the district office’s shift in focus from
manager to support-provider for the schools across the district. The superintendent and
district-level management undertake school visits, which allow them to provide specific
feedback to principals and teachers on the delivery of instruction and implementation of
district-wide instructional approaches. Superintendent 4 discussed how he made 104
administrative changes during his tenure. These changes were due to the low
expectations that permeated the organization. He also restructured the Instructional
Support Services division and hired a leader who understood second language acquisition

129

and whose expertise would support the district’s instructional and achievement goals for
Latino students. He transformed the culture of the district office from one of
fragmentation and isolation, to one of cooperative learning, teamwork, and verifiable
results.
Thus, the qualitative findings from the interviews regarding the restructuring of
the organization to support the district’s instructional goals coincides with the results of
the quantitative survey and the research findings presented by Snipes et al. (2002),
Togneri and Anderson (2003), and Leithwood et al. (2004). Furthermore, the
redistribution of leadership responsibilities and the shift away from regarding teaching
and learning as solely the responsibility of the school sites create a sense of
interdependency and collective purpose for the organization as a whole (Childress,
Elmore, & Grossman, 2006; Fullan, 2005).
The following section will synthesize the survey and interview findings through
an analysis of current research on superintendent leadership responsibilities and practices
as they relate to influencing and shaping the instruction for Latino students.

Research Question 1a: Practices that Influence and Shape Instruction for Latino
Students
Changing Context: Challenging the Status Quo
An analysis of the data revealed that both superintendents believed in the contexts
of their organizations. Throughout their interviews they discussed the structural and
cultural changes that took place within their organization and how these changes

130

supported the instructional goals and achievement for Latino students. This finding is
consistent with the research by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), Leithwood (2005),
and Walters and Marzano (2006), which asserts that to improve teaching and learning,
the context in which individuals interact must be conducive to discussions that center on
instruction.
Both superintendents set out to restructure and reculture the districts they were
leading. Superintendent 2 discussed the need to reeducate teachers on sound practices and
to provide them with opportunities to reflect on how their practices and low expectations
were limiting Latino student achievement. Superintendent 4 assessed the demographic
make-up of his district and evaluated whether his district leadership was representative of
the population it served. Furthermore, he ensured that the individuals he hired had the
knowledge and expertise to serve Latino students. Through their efforts, these
superintendents are creating a community with new beliefs and new ways of doing things
--they are changing their systems (Fullan, 2005). In summary, those qualitative findings
from the interviews concerned with changing the organizational context to support
purposeful interactions among individuals who focus on instruction supported the
findings of the quantitative survey and the research findings presented Marzano et al.
(2005), Leithwood (2005), and Waters and Marzano (2006).
Reciprocal Accountability and Vertical Relationships: Strengthening
Interdependence
Consistent with the research findings reported by Togneri and Anderson (2003),
Leithwood et al. (2004), Elmore (2004), and Childress et al. (2006), both superintendents

131

emphasized the importance of holding all members of the organization accountable for
improving instruction. Superintendent 2 discussed the importance of having systems to
monitor the implementation of the instructional approach adopted by the district. This
effort was actualized through vertical relationships among district-level leadership, site
leaders, and teacher-leaders that developed during the school walk-throughs. These
walk-throughs provided feedback to principals and teachers and held them accountable
for the practices taking place in the classroom; however, the members of the District Site
Support team were also accountable to the school sites and needed to provide them with
feedback that would support their continuous improvement.
On the other hand, Superintendent 4 focused on building relationships and
accountability among the different facets of the district office in order to support teaching
and learning at the site level. This goal was achieved through weekly meetings dedicated
to discussing the strategic plan. Although each of the superintendents focused on
different aspects of the organization, they both highlighted the importance of building
relationships within the district to encourage accountability and support the instructional
goals of the district. The practices used by the superintendents to hold all members
accountable and to develop vertical relationships highlights the interdependence of the
organization. Superintendents are responsible for seeing how all of the puzzle pieces
come together and for enabling members of the organization to see the bigger picture
(Fullan, 2005).
Thus, the qualitative findings from the interviews that focused on the importance
of building relationships and holding all members of the organization accountable for

132

their role in the improvement of instruction commensurate with findings in the survey
and with the research presented by Togneri and Anderson, (2003), Leithwood et al.
(2004), Elmore (2004), and Childress et al. (2006).
Long Lever of Leadership: Developing System Thinkers
A thorough study of the interview transcripts demonstrated that both
superintendents regarded leadership as the key to improving teaching and learning for all
students and to ensuring the continuous improvement of the district. This finding is
consistent with the research by Marzano (2003), Leithwood and Riehl (2003), Fullan
(2005), Edwards (2006), and Waters and Marzano (2006), which attests that leadership
has a significant effect on teaching and learning. Both superintendents had just hired an
individual for a key leadership role to support the instructional vision and achievement of
Latino students. They stressed the importance of hiring individuals who understand
instruction, best practices, and the use of data to drive instruction, and who have
knowledge of language acquisition and the needs of the English Learners.
Superintendent 2 believed that that his ―biggest leadership practice…is hiring
somebody that is gifted and ready to lead….‖ Superintendent 4 shared this same
sentiment and stated that the best thing he can do for his organization is ―hire the very
best people.‖ The development and hiring of leadership within an organization is key to
the sustainability of their reform efforts (Fullan, 2005; Senge 1990). The mark of a great
leader is not only his or her impact on student achievement but the number of leaders
they mentor and leave behind to continue the important work of ensuring Latino students
are given the opportunities they need to be successful (Fullan, 2005).

133

In summary, the qualitative findings from the interviews illustrated that the
superintendents understand the significance of long lever of leadership and are committed
to hiring the best individuals to move the district forward. These findings align to those
from the qualitative survey and support the research on leadership by Marzano (2003),
Leithwood and Riehl (2003), Fullan (2005), Edwards (2006), and Waters and Marzano
(2006).
The following section is a synthesis of the qualitative and quantitative findings.
These findings will offer analysis using current research on superintendent leadership
responsibilities and practices as they relate to increasing achievement for Latino students.

Research Question 1b: Practices to Increase Latino Student Achievement
Data-Driven Decision Making
An analysis of the data revealed that both superintendents stressed the importance
of data to drive instruction and decision making at the district and site level. Throughout
this portion of the interview, the superintendents discussed the use of data during their
professional learning communities meeting at the site and district level. This finding
aligns to the research by Togneri and Anderson (2003), Leithwood et al. (2004), and
Waters and Marzano (2006), which affirms the use of data as a tool to shape instruction
and increase student achievement.
Superintendent 2 discussed the power of data and teacher collaboration by
pointing out that when teachers get results, they influence their peers. This sentiment was
shared by Superintendent 4. Furthermore, they both stressed that the use of data by

134

teachers changed instructional practice and increased the achievement of Latino students
because they knew who those students were and what areas to target during instruction.
In summary, the qualitative findings from the interviews regarding the use of data
to improve instruction and increase achievement for Latino students supported the
findings of the quantitative survey and the research findings presented by Togneri and
Anderson (2003), Leithwood et al. (2004), and Waters and Marzano (2006).

Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings based on the data collected through a
qualitative and quantitative approach and was followed by a detailed analysis and
discussion of how those findings related to the research questions and their roots in the
relevant research presented in Chapter Two. The chapter identified eight leadership
responsibilities that emerged from the findings and 12 leadership practices that
superintendents identified as very important to improving the instruction and
achievement for Latino students. As noted, the 12 identified practices surfaced among all
eight responsibilities. The findings presented in this study were based on multiple data
sources, which served to strengthen their validity. The summary, conclusions, and
implications of this study are presented in the following chapter.

135

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Increased accountability for student achievement has forced superintendents as
system leaders to maintain their focus on the continuous improvement of teaching and
learning within their organizations. As leaders of school systems, superintendents are
expected to transform organizations from systems that provide opportunities for some
students to systems that ensure the achievement of historically underserved and
disenfranchised students. In California, where approximately 48.7% of students in public
education are Latino and— regardless of socioeconomic status— continue to
underachieve compared to their White peers (Johnston & Vaidero, 2000; STAR, 2008),
superintendents now face a moral imperative to be catalysts for initiating and sustaining
systematic reform (Houston, 2000). To achieve this feat, as the system leader, the
superintendent needs to mobilize and leverage resources across the district to focus on
improving teaching and learning and on how best to meet the educational needs of Latino
students. Although the demands of the superintendent are vast and complex, research has
shown that superintendents indeed have an impact on student achievement (Fullan, 2005;
Leithwood, 2005; Waters & Marzano, 2006). Thus, understanding what effective
superintendents do so that we can initiate and sustain change to improve instruction and
achievement has become vital to the education of Latino students.
The purpose of the study was to examine the practices that effective urban
superintendents used to initiate and sustain change, shape instruction, and increase the

136

achievement of Latino students within their urban school districts. Waters and Marzano
(2006) have identified specific leadership responsibilities that positively impact student
achievement. This study aimed to identify specific practices that superintendents have
used to foster systematic change and to improve instruction and achievement for Latino
students. One research question and two sub questions guided this study:
1) How have urban superintendents initiated and sustained systemic change to improve
instruction and increase Latino student achievement?
(a) What practices do superintendents utilize to influence and shape the
instruction of Latino students?
(b) What practices do superintendents use to increase the achievement of
Latino students?
The study warranted a mixed-methods approach in the collection, analysis, and
reporting of data. The quantitative approach afforded assessment of the reactions of a
group of individuals; whereas the qualitative lens allowed the researcher the opportunity
to explore issues in more depth and detail (Patton, 2002). Three instruments developed
for this study linked each method and triangulated the data to strengthen validity (Greene,
Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). A survey was developed that focused on research-based
leadership practices used by superintendents in districts that had shown significant
growth for their Latino student population, as measured by Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP). The survey requested that respondents rate the importance of each practice in
reference to their work to initiate and sustain change to improve the instruction and
achievement for Latino students. The survey was followed by an in-depth interview with

137

two superintendents and two critical leaders within their organization. This data was
used to triangulate the findings from the survey instrument.
The researcher used purposeful sampling to select the districts and the
superintendents to participate in the study. The goal of purposeful sampling is to identify
information-rich cases that will support the researcher in learning about the issues related
to the area of study. Based on the criteria, the researcher identified 23 districts and their
respective superintendents, who were then invited to participate in the survey portion of
the study. Three mailings of the survey were completed and a total of 10 superintendents
participated in this portion of the study. From this sample, the three superintendents with
the greatest academic gains in language arts and math were invited to participate in the
in-depth interview component; two agree to participate. The current study was limited by
the inherently small sample size (N = 10). Despite multiple attempts by the researcher to
increase participation, only 43% of the superintendents responded to the survey. As a
result, the validity of the findings is compromised.

Summary of Findings
The current study used the Superintendents Leadership Practices Survey for
Improving the Instruction and Achievement of Latino Students (SLPS), the
Superintendent Structured Interview Protocol (SSIP), and the Critical Leader Structured
Interview Protocol (CLSIP) to collect data relevant to the one research question and two
sub questions. This section summarizes the significant findings of this study.

138

Research Question 1: Practices to Initiate and Sustain Change
The following section summarizes the findings relating to the practices
superintendents use to initiate and sustain change to improve instruction and achievement
for Latino students. The survey data collected indicated 41 leadership practices as
essential to the superintendents’ efforts to improve instruction and achievement for
Latino students. Of these practices, 10 were rated as very important (mean score of 4.0)
to their work and 31 leadership practices were rated as being almost very important
(mean score of 3.8 to 3.9 out of 4.0) or substantially important (mean score of 3.5 to 3.78
out of 4.0). Overall, superintendents identified 41 leadership practices that supported
their efforts to initiate and sustain systemic change and were responsible for
improvements in the instruction and achievement of Latino students.
These practices, coupled with the data collected from the interviews with
superintendents and the critical leaders, revealed four superintendent leadership
responsibilities and specific practices that are supported by the research on sustainability,
district-level, and school-level leadership (Fullan, 2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006). First,
each of the organizations had a clear sense of direction and purpose. That the actions of
all members were guided by the shared vision developed and embraced by the district
was evident. The superintendents’ commitment to high expectations of learning for all
had created a shift in the norms and values of the organization rendering it unacceptable
for Latino students to fall behind. The superintendents modeled this belief on a daily
basis and this modeling created a higher sense of accountability and commitment by the
members of the organization.

139

With a shared vision centered on teaching and learning for all members of the
organization, both superintendents expressed a commitment to deep learning.
Professional development programs and structures created and implemented by the entire
district supported this commitment. Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and
classroom walk-throughs with immediate feedback created opportunities for teachers,
principals, and district-level leadership to discuss teaching and learning with an emphasis
on closing the achievement gap for Latino students. In addition, by utilizing the expertise
of teacher-leaders to promote the vision that all students can learn and achieve at high
levels, superintendents invested in the leadership capacity within the organization while
reinforcing the instructional goals of the district. Although neither of the superintendents
elaborated on the practices through which instructional and achievement goals for the
district were developed, the superintendents and their governing boards were very
evidently unwavering in their commitment to goals for instruction and Latino student
achievement. This commitment was manifest in the professional development
opportunities they offered in PLC meetings focused on data analysis and discussions of
best practices to meet the needs of Latino students and through the demand for nothing
less than excellence from their principals, teachers, and district leaders.
Furthermore, if leaders within the organization were performing below
expectations, the superintendents took the necessary steps to intervene and, when
necessary, make a change in leadership. Intolerance for mediocrity in performance by
school-site leaders and teachers was also evident at the district level through the
restructuring of the organization. In order for superintendents as system leaders to

140

initiate and sustain change, leadership within the district office needs to support the
instructional and achievement goals of the district. When this effort fails, the
superintendent is morally responsible to restructure through administrative changes or by
dismantling and creating departments to serve the needs of students. Additionally, the
superintendents altered the focus of the district office from manager to support provider;
from departments working in isolation to departments collaborating on decisions that
impact teaching and learning at all levels; and from not having any experts in language
acquisition and culturally relevant pedagogy to creating departments focused on
improving instruction and achievement for Latino students.
Research Question 1a: Practices to Improve Instruction for Latino Students
The collected survey data identified 33 leadership practices as essential to the
superintendents’ efforts to influence and shape instruction for Latino students. Of these
practices, 11 were rated as very important (mean score of 4.0) to their work and 23
leadership practices were rated as being almost very important (mean score of 3.8 to 3.9
out of 4.0) or a substantially important aspect (mean score of 3.5 to 3.78 out of 4.0).
Thus, superintendents rated 31 leadership practices as essential in their efforts to
influence and shape instruction for Latino students.
The interview data highlighted three leadership responsibilities that aligned with
the findings in the survey and substantiated that superintendents have the ability to
influence and shape instruction for Latino students (Leithwood, 2005; Marzano, Waters,
& McNulty, 2005; Waters & Marzano, 2006). The essence of leadership is to influence
others to support a shared vision/moral purpose. This study revealed that both

141

superintendents set out to change the context of their organizations. First order changes
included setting up systems and structures that held individuals accountable for
implementing the instructional vision of the district through the use of PLCs, walk-
throughs, and feedback from district support providers, and by focusing on the
underachievement of Latino students. These structural changes embedded accountability
throughout the system and encouraged teachers and principals to develop relationships
with district leadership. The reciprocal accountability and vertical relationships
increased trust within the organization and distributed responsibility for implementing the
instructional vision of the district across all facets of the organization. These structural
shifts supported the deeper changes that needed to take place in order for the
superintendent to improve instruction for Latino students
To influence and change the belief systems that limit Latino student learning, the
superintendents held conversations about past practices, beliefs, and values that influence
classroom instruction. These second-order changes were achieved through the use of
research and data as a tool to break down unfounded beliefs and to provide teachers with
promising practices to support instruction. In addition, both superintendents hired
individuals who were representative of the underserved population and who possessed
the knowledge and skills necessary to helping the district improve instruction for Latino
students. Superintendents, as system leaders, are responsible for developing leadership
within the organization and for hiring individuals that will take the district to the next
level of improvement. Both superintendents highlighted the long lever of leadership,
stressing its potential to sustain the improvement of instruction and achievement for

142

Latino students— or to undermine the whole reform. For this reason, both
superintendents believed that this factor was the most important leadership practice they
used throughout their work. According to the survey, the practice of selecting and
assigning of principals based on knowledge and skills and their ability to sustain school
improvements was rated as substantially important (mean of 3.78 out of 4) and was the
only item on the survey that addressed the selection of personnel in relation to continuous
improvement. However, throughout the interviews, superintendents and critical leaders
identified their hiring practices as vital to the instructional vision of the district and to
ensuring that all students, Latinos included, receive a quality education and achieve at
high levels.
Research Question 1b: Practices to Increase Achievement for Latino Students
The collected survey data identified 21 leadership practices as vital to the
superintendents’ efforts to increase achievement for Latino students. Of these practices,
9 were rated as very important (mean score of 4.0) to their work and 12 leadership
practices were rated as being almost very important (mean score of 3.8 to 3.9 out of 4.0)
or a substantially important aspect (mean score of 3.5 to 3.78 out of 4.0). Consequently,
superintendents rated 21 leadership practices as necessary to their efforts to increase the
achievement Latino students.
The practices identified in the survey and the data collected from the interviews
with superintendents and critical leaders revealed an additional superintendent leadership
responsibility critical to increasing the achievement of Latino students: To initiate and
sustain change within an organization, leaders need to support their members to identify

143

any urgent need that warrant a shift in current thinking and practice. Superintendents in
both districts created various opportunities for district leadership, principals, and teachers
to use achievement data to identify gaps in learning thus to alter the focus and direction
of the district. This data-driven decision making process revealed to all members of the
organization that Latino students were not achieving at high levels and gave
superintendents the leverage to make the necessary changes. Furthermore, as Latino
student achievement increased across the district, data served to highlight the successes
across the district in support of its continuous improvement.

Conclusions
The findings of this study revealed eight superintendent responsibilities from
which emerged a set of practices considered very important by the participants in order to
initiate and sustain change to improve instruction and achievement for Latino students.
The responsibilities are as follows:
1. Shared Vision and Sense of Moral Purpose
2. Commitment to Deep Learning and Building Capacity
3. Commitment to Goals for Instruction and Latino Student Achievement
4. Restructuring the Organization
5. Changing Context and Challenging the Status Quo
6. Reciprocal Accountability and Vertical Relationships
7. Long Lever of Leadership
8. Data-driven Decision Making

144

Although the findings were presented by research question, the responsibilities
and practices do not work in isolation and are not exclusive to the question they answered.
To gain a better understanding of the findings, taking a holistic approach, a systems
thinking approach, in which all interactions among leadership and members of the
organization are linked and interdependent is necessary. Thus, the practices identified
under each question are not separate practices but rather are interconnected and part of a
greater purpose: the collective efforts of organization members to improve teaching and
learning for Latino students.
The survey revealed a total of 43 leadership practices that are critical to
superintendents’ work in moving a district toward continuous improvement. Of these
practices, 12 were rated as very important (mean score of 4.0) to their work and 31
leadership practices were rated as being almost very important (mean score of 3.8 to 3.9
out of 4.0) or a substantially important aspect (mean score of 3.5 to 3.78 out of 4.0).
Thus, superintendents rated 31 leadership practices as essential in their efforts to create
systemic change to support Latino student achievement. Additionally, the 12 practices
identified as very important surfaced in all of the interviews and across the research
questions. Therefore, according to the findings, these practices are the most effective for
initiating and sustaining change to improve the instruction and achievement of Latino
students.

145

Implications to Practice
The findings and conclusions in this study may provide insight and guidance to
those individuals charged with the continuous improvement of public education.
Moreover, this study cites specific research-based responsibilities and practices for
initiating and sustaining change to improve the instruction and achievement of Latino
students.
Superintendent Leadership Responsibilities and Practices
1. Shared Vision and Sense of Moral Purpose: an urban superintendent leadership
responsibility that entails, (a) maintaining a clear focus on improving instruction
and achievement, (b) establishing high expectations for student and adult learning
across the district, (c) facilitating the development of a district culture based on
shared norms, values, and beliefs that promote mutual understanding, and (d)
supporting a collective vision that represents the most current research-based
practices in teaching and learning and that identifies promising practices for
Latino student achievement.
2. Commitment to Deep Learning and Building Capacity: a superintendent
leadership responsibility that involves (a) developing the instructional leadership
capacity at the district and school level to support continuous improvement, (b)
maintaining a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino student
achievement, (c) providing individualized support and development opportunities
to district office personnel and school-site leadership, (d) providing professional
development to strengthen the knowledge and skills of principals as instructional

146

leaders, and (e) providing individualized support and development opportunities
to district office personnel and school-site leadership
3. Commitment to Goals for Instruction and Latino Student Achievement: urban
superintendent leadership responsibility requires (a) ensuring that school practices
are characterized by high expectations and opportunity for all students, (b)
communicating clear performance expectations to all members of the organization,
(c) monitoring the consistency between district goals and school goals through the
principal accountability process, (d) supervising and evaluating principals, and (e)
ensuring that the goal of improving instruction and achievement of Latino
students is a priority and is nonnegotiable.
4. Restructuring the Organization: a superintendent leadership responsibility that
includes (a) changing the focus of the district office from manager to support
provider, (b) maintaining a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino
student achievement, and (c) supporting the instructional leadership of principals
by district-level management through school visits
5. Changing Context and Challenging the Status Quo: an urban superintendent
responsibility that entails (a) modeling shared beliefs and learning-oriented values,
(b) maintaining a clear focus on improving instruction and Latino student
achievement, (c) challenging staff to reexamine some of its assumptions about
Latino student achievement and to reshape practice, (d) emphasizing that
instruction is the key to improving Latino student learning, (e) ensuring that
school practices are characterized by high expectations and learning for all

147

students, and (f) deliberately selecting and assigning principals based on
knowledge, skills, and ability to sustain school improvements.
6. Reciprocal Accountability and Vertical Relationships: a superintendent leadership
responsibility that requires (a) communicating clear performance expectations to
all members of the organization, (b) monitoring the consistency between district
goals and school goals through the principal accountability process, (c) changing
the focus of the district office from manager to support provider, (d) supporting
the instructional leadership of principals by district-level management through
school visits, feedback, support and coaching, (e) clearly defining expectations for
principals, and ensuring they fulfill their instructional leadership responsibilities,
and (f) assuming individual responsibility and taking the steps necessary to
creating schools that show continuous improvement for Latino students.
7. Long Lever of Leadership: a superintendent leadership responsibility that involves
(a) developing the instructional leadership capacity at the district and school level
to support continuous improvement, (b) providing professional development to
strengthen the knowledge and skills of principals as instructional leaders, and (c)
deliberately selecting and assigning principals based on knowledge, skills and,
ability to sustain school improvements
8. Data-Driven Decision Making: an urban superintendent practice that includes (a)
creating a sense of urgency around improving Latino student achievement and
closing the achievement gap, (b) using Latino student achievement data to
establish collective goals and monitor progress, (c) using Latino performance data

148

to design prevention and intervention programs, and (d) training district-level
management, principals, and teachers on the use of data to drive instruction and
performance.
District and School Administrators
1. Leadership is key to initiating and sustaining change to improve the instruction
and achievement of Latino students. To change a district’s trajectory from one
that is failing Latino students to one that is demonstrating continuous
improvement, superintendents need to hire and mentor individuals that will
support the reform efforts and that have the vision to take the district to the next
level of excellence.
2. District and school-level leaders must understand their role in the continuous
improvement of instruction and achievement for Latino students. Developing a
strategic plan can support the alignment between the vision and moral purpose of
the district and the actions taken by the members of the organization.
Implementing a strategic plan supports the alignment of resources and ensures
that all members have a clear understanding of the instructional goals for the
district. Furthermore, with such deeper understandings, all members support the
reform efforts and strengthen interdependence, which leads to sustainability.
3. As system leaders, district and school-level administrators need to build vertical
and lateral relationships that focus on improving instruction for Latino students.
These relationships need to support the continuous improvement of individual
schools. District-level administrators need to provide feedback that principals and

149

teachers may use to improve the teaching strategies implemented in their daily
practice to support Latino student achievement.
4. Effective instructional reform requires that all members of the organization be
active participants in the work toward continuous improvement. District and
school-site leadership must build the professional capacity of the individuals they
oversee through professional development opportunities centered on discussing
Latino student achievement data and developing plans focused on the district’s
identified best practices for improving instruction.
School Governing Boards
1. Governing boards may utilize the findings from this study as a tool to gain a
better understanding of the leadership knowledge and skills that superintendents
should possess in order to initiate and sustain change to improve instruction for
Latino students. Furthermore, these findings may serve as criteria by which to
evaluate the effectiveness of the superintendent leading the district.
2. Understanding the responsibilities and practices superintendents have to initiate
and sustain change and to support the continuous improvement of the district
requires that governing boards provide the superintendent with the flexibility to
hire key leadership and provide support should the dismissal of employees
resistant to implementing the vision and moral purpose of the district become
necessary.

150

Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study contribute to the literature on urban superintendents and
Latino student achievement. Prior to this study, researchers knew little about the
practices superintendents were using to initiate and sustain change to improve the
instruction and achievement for Latino students, a subgroup that continues to
underachieve in California and across the nation. Despite the limitations of this study,
the current findings provide some insight into the practices urban superintendents use to
initiate and sustain change to improve the instruction and achievement for Latino students.
The findings also indicate areas of future research:
1. It is suggested that a follow-up study be conducted that may increase the sample
size from 10 to 23 superintendents in California; subsequent studies could also
include the Southwest states and states in the East Coast that have shown gains in
the academic achievement of Latino students.
2. Further study is needed on the process of developing nonnegotiable goals for
Latino student achievement. A future case study approach may identify how
superintendents facilitate the goal-setting process to ensure that Latino student
achievement is a district focus.

151

REFERENCES
American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (2004). Closing the achievement gap: Focus on
Latino students. Policy Brief, (17). Washington, DC.

Bjork, L. G., & Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Contemporary superintendent. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry choice and leadership.
(3
rd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cambron-McCabe, N., Cunningham, L L., Harvey, J., & Koff, H.R. (2005). The
superintendent’s fieldbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cambron-McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. (2005). Educating school leaders for social
justice. Education Policy, 19(1), 211-222.

Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A., (2006, November). How to manage urban
school districts. Harvard Business Review, 55-68.

Crawford, J. (1996). Summing up the Lau decision: Justice is never simple. Retrieved
from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/summing.htm.

Crawford, J. (2002). Agenda for inaction: A critique of the national research council
report improving schooling for children. Retrieved from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/agenda.htm.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

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

Cuban, L. (1998). The superintendent contradiction. Education Week, 18(7), 43-56.

Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2003). Success for all. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.),
Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 187-208). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

152

Donato, R., Menchaca M., & Valencia, R. (1991). Segregation, desegregation, and
integration of Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R. Valencia (Ed.).
Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s.
(pp.27-58). New York, NY: The Falmer Press.

Donato, R., Menchaca M., & Valencia, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation, and
integration of Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R. Valencia (Ed).
Chicano school failure and success: Past, present and future (2
nd
ed.), (pp.70-
109). New York, NY: The Falmer Press.

Education Trust. (2006). EdWatch 2006 state summary reports. Education watch
California: Key education facts and figures: Achievement, attainment and
opportunity from elementary school through college. Retrieved from
www.edtrust.org.

Edwards, C. A. (2006). Superintendents instructional leadership: Meeting the needs of
diverse populations. Stephenville, Texas.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). School variation and systemic instructional
improvement in community school district #2, New York City. University of
Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, High Performance
Learning Communities Project.

Fry, R. (2003). Hispanic youth dropping out of U.S. schools: Measuring the challenge.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Fullan, M. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 420-
423.

Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21st century: Breaking the bonds of dependency.
Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6-10.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

153

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winger, A., (2003). An
impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair. Seattle, WA:
Center on Reinventing Public Education.

Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity
and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 21-93.

Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. (6
th
ed.).
New York: Longman.

Garcia, E. E. (2001). Hispanic education in the United States: Races alas. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Garcia, G. E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student cultural diversity:
Understanding and meeting the challenge (3
rd
ed.), (p. 3-39). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.

Glass, T., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. (2000). The study of the American superintendency
2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Arlington:
American Association of School Administrators.

Glass, T. E. (1992). The study of the American superintendency: America’s education
leaders in a time of reform. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.

Glass, T. E. (2001). Superintendent leaders look at the superintendency, school boards
and reform. ECS issue paper. Education Commission of the States: Denver, CO.

Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.). Leadership lessons from
comprehensive school reforms (p. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gonzalez, G. (1994). Labor and community: Mexican citrus workers in a southern
California County 1900-1950. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

154

Guinier, L., & Torres, G. (2002). The miner’s canary: Enlisting race, resisting power,
transforming democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to evidence. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(2), 172-188.

Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11.

Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It's not just a job, it's a calling.
Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 429-33.

Hoyle, J. R., Bjork, L. G., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). Superintendent as CEO.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Johnson, S. (1996). Leading to change: The challenges of the new superintendency.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnston, R.C., & Vaidero, D. (2000). Unmet promise: Raising minority achievement.
Education Week, 19(27), 1-19.

Kelleher, P. (2002). Core values of the superintendency. School Administrator, 59(2), 28-
31.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). Leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishing.

Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school superintendent as communicator. Journal
of Communication in Education. 54(2), 101-117.

Kowalski, T. J. (2006). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In T.J.
Kowalski (Ed.). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases (2nd ed.),
(pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understand
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.

Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA:
ACSD.

Lara, J., & Pande, G. (2001, May/June). Latino students and secondary school education.
Gaining Ground Newsletter, 1-4, ED456949.

155

Lashway, L. (2002a). Superintendent in an age of accountability. ERIC Digest, 161.
Eugene, OR.

Lashway, L. (2002b). Trends in school leadership. ERIC Digest, 162. Eugene, OR.

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward
equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.

Lee, J. (2006). Tracking the achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the
gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcomes
trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.

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

Leithwood, K. (1999). The effects of transformational leadership on organization and
student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2),
112-129.

Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership. Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student
Success, Temple University.

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

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning. University of Minnesota: Center for
Applied Research and Educational Improvement.

Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1993). Total quality leadership: Expert thinking plus
transformational practice. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7(4),
311-37.

Linn, R. L. (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student
Testing.

156

Marsh, J. A. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature
on the relationship of districts with states, schools, and communities. Palo Alto:
CA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy at Stanford University.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
ACSD.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ACSD.

McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school
reform. Washington: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.

McRel. (2001). Leadership for school improvement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continental
Research for Education and Learning.

Menchaca, M. (1995). The Mexican outsiders: A community history of marginalization
and discrimination in California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Mullins, A., & Keedy, J. (1998). Examining a superintendent’s transformational
leadership: From the model to successful practice. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1986). The superintendent as instructional leader: Findings
from effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 24, 213-
236.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1998). Characteristics of instructionally effective school
districts. Journal of Educational Research, 81, pp175-181.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A Nation at Risk.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership–theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

157

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

Perez, M. S., & Salazar, D. R. (1997). Economic labor force, and social implications of
Latino educational and population trends. In A. Darder, R.D. Torres, & H.
Gutierrez (Eds.). Latinos and education: A critical reader, (pp.45-79). New York,
NY: Routledge.

Petersen, G. J. (1998, April). Demonstrated actions of instructional leaders: A case study
of five superintendents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Petersen, G. J. (2002). Singing the same tune: Principals’ and school board members’
perceptions of the superintendent’s role in curricular and instructional leadership.
Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 158-171.

Petersen, G. J., & Barnett, B. G. (2005). The superintendent as instructional leader:
Current practice, future conceptualizations, and implications for preparation. In L.
G. Bjork & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice and development (p. 109-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Ragland, M. A., Asera, R., & Joseph, J. F., (1999). Urgency, responsibility, efficacy:
Preliminary findings of a study of high-performing Texas school districts. Austin,
TX: University of Texas at Austin, Charles A. Dana Center.

Robinson, V.M.J., (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and
educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241-256.

Robinson, V.M.J., Lloyd, C.A., & Rowe, K. J., (2008). The impact of leadership on
student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Rolon, C. A. (2003). Educating Latino students. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 40-43.

Rumberger, R. W., & Rotermund, S., (2009). Ethnic and gender differences in
California high school graduation rates. Santa Barbara, CA: University of
California, California Dropout Research Project.

Salkind, N. J. (2007). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

158

Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional
improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 424-432.

Senge, P. M., (1990). Fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization
(Rev. ed.). New York: Doubleday.

Sherman, W. H., (2008). No child left behind: A legislative catalyst for superintendent
action to eliminate test-score gaps? Education Policy, 22(5), 675-704.

Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of
how urban school systems improve student achievement. Washington, DC:
Council of the Great City Schools.

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

Spillane, J. P., & Sherer, J. Z. (2004). A distributive perspective on school leadership:
Leadership practices as stretched over people and place. Evanston, IL:
NorthwesternUniversity, Distributed Leadership Study.

Stein, Mary K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.

Taylor, E. (2006). A critical race analysis of the achievement gap in the United States:
Politics, reality, and hope. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 71-81.

Thomas, J. Y., (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The
quest to define effective leadership. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed At Risk.

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory to practice. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395-420.

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do
to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: Learning
First Alliance.

Vaidero, D. (2000). Lags in minority achievement defy traditional explanations.
Education Week, 19(28), 18-22.

Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect
of superintendent leadership on student achievement-A working paper. Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

159

Wirt, F. (1990). The missing link in instructional leadership: The superintendent, conflict,
and maintenance: Project report. Urbana, IL: National Center for School
Leadership.

Zigarelli, M. A. (1996). An empirical test of conclusions from effective schools research.
The Journal of Educational Research, 90(2), 103-110.

Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of
continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

160

APPENDIX A
SUPERINTENDENTS LEADERSHIP PRACTICES SURVEY FOR IMPROVING THE
INSTRUCTION AND ACHIEVEMENT OF LATINO STUDENTS

Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to complete this survey about
leadership practices used to improve instruction and increase achievement for Latino
students. Your responses will remain strictly confidential and will be reported in
aggregate form to ensure that your contributions to this study are not linked to you or
your district.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Please complete the following items by filling in the blank or circling the accurate
descriptor.

1. School district enrollment: _______________

2. Percentage of Latino students in the district: _______________

3. Region in California where district is located: Northern Central Southern

4. Gender: Male Female

5. Ethnicity: _______________

6. Years of experience as superintendent: _______________

7. Years of experience as the superintendent of your current district: _________

8. Highest educational degree obtained: Masters Doctorate

161

SUPERINTENDENT LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
Please complete the following items by rating the importance of each leadership practice as it
relates to your effort to improve the instruction and achievement of Latino students in your
district.

Do
Not
Use
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important

Important
Very
Important
9. Emphasize that strong instruction is
the key to improving Latino student
learning

0

1

2

3

4
10. Create a sense of urgency for
improving Latino student achievement
and closing the achievement gap

0

1

2

3

4
11. Support a collective vision that
represents the most current research
based practices in teaching and learning
and identifies promising practices for
improving Latino student achievement

0

1

2

3

4
12. Develop nonnegotiable goals for
improving Latino student achievement
with the Board of Education

0

1

2

3

4
13. Work with the board to analyze
factors affecting Latino student
achievement

0

1

2

3

4
14. Work with the board to assess the
strengths and weaknesses of the district

0

1

2

3

4
15. Work with the board to consider the
options and strategies for improving
Latino student achievement and develop
a plan of action

0

1

2

3

4
16. Include principals and teacher-leaders
in the development of nonnegotiable
goals for the district’s Latino students

0

1

2

3

4

162

Do
Not
Use
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important

Important
Very
Important
17. Include key community leadership in
the nonnegotiable goal setting process
and focus on Latino student achievement
and challenging the status quo

0

1

2

3

4
18. Use the goal-setting process to foster
acceptance and support for instructional
goals specifically targeted at Latino
students

0

1

2

3

4
19. Ensure that the goal of improving
instruction and achievement of Latino
students is a priority and nonnegotiable

0

1

2

3

4
20. Communicate clear performance
expectations to all members of the
organization

0

1

2

3

4
21. Model shared beliefs and learning-
oriented values

0

1

2

3

4
22. Adopt a 5-year nonnegotiable plan
for achievement and instruction that
includes specific goals for Latino
students

0

1

2

3

4
23. Facilitate the identification of district-
wide instructional approaches and ensure
that they are fully implemented

0

1

2

3

4
24. Maintain a clear focus on improving
instruction and Latino student
achievement

0

1

2

3

4
25. Challenge staff to re-examine some of
their assumptions about Latino student
achievement and reshape practice

0

1

2

3

4

163

Do
Not
Use
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important

Important
Very
Important
26. Provide individualized support and
development opportunities to district
office personnel and school site
leadership

0

1

2

3

4
27. Ensure that all personnel understand
their part in the improvement of
instruction and Latino student
achievement regardless of position in the
district

0

1

2

3

4
28. Develop the instructional leadership
capacity at the district and school level to
support continuous improvement

0

1

2

3

4
29. Invest in the develop a district wide
professional development plan that is
focused on curriculum and instruction
and how to best meet the instructional
needs of Latino students

0

1

2

3

4
30. Establish high expectations for
student and adult learning across the
district

0

1

2

3

4
31. Facilitate the development of a
district culture based on shared norms,
values and beliefs that promote mutual
understanding and respect

0

1

2

3

4
32. Direct structural changes within the
district that support individual
performance toward nonnegotiable goals
for Latino student achievement

0

1

2

3

4
33. Pursue and create positive
interactions with parents, community and
business members to establish supportive
and productive relationships

0

1

2

3

4
34. Provide district level management,
principals and teachers training on the
use of data to drive instruction and
performance

0

1

2

3

4

164

Do
Not
Use
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important

Important
Very
Important
35. Institute a multi-measure
accountability system and system-wide
use of data to inform practice, monitor
progress and hold district and school
leaders accountable for Latino student
achievement

0

1

2

3

4
36. Assessment and evaluation of
personnel and instructional programs

0

1

2

3

4
37. Deliberate selection and assignment
of principals based on knowledge and
skills and ability to sustain school
improvements

0

1

2

3

4
38. Monitor the consistency between
district goals and school goals through
the principal accountability process

0

1

2

3

4
39. Supervise and evaluate principals
annually

0

1

2

3

4
40. Direct personal involvement in
monitoring performance through school
visits and individual meetings with
principals

0

1

2

3

4
41. Provide lateral capacity building
opportunities for principals and teacher-
leaders within the district to learn from
and contribute to Latino student
improvement

0

1

2

3

4
42. Ensure that the curricular needs of
Latino students are met and that
homogeneous ability groupings do not
deny access to quality instruction

0

1

2

3

4
43. Use of school site visits and walk-
throughs to hold principal’s accountable
for school and Latino student
improvements

0

1

2

3

4

165

Do
Not
Use
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important

Important
Very
Important
44. Use an instructional evaluation
program to monitor achievement toward
district goals

0

1

2

3

4
45. Monitor the district’s nonnegotiable
goals for the instruction and achievement
of Latino students

0

1

2

3

4
46. Alignment of district resources to
support district goals for curriculum,
instruction and Latino student
achievement

0

1

2

3

4
47. Use of Latino student achievement
data to establish collective goals and
monitor progress

0

1

2

3

4
48. Use of Latino student performance
data to design prevention and
intervention programs

0

1

2

3

4
49. District-wide curriculum and
textbook adoption in all content areas
including English Language
Development

0

1

2

3

4
50. Include principals and teachers in the
selection of state adopted curriculum

0

1

2

3

4
51. District advocacy and support for use
of preferred instructional approaches and
curricular programs

0

1

2

3

4
52. Provide professional development to
strengthen the knowledge and skills of
principals as instructional leaders

0

1

2

3

4

166

Do
Not
Use
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important

Important
Very
Important
53. Clearly define the expectations for
principals and ensure they fulfill their
instructional leadership responsibilities

0

1

2

3

4
54. Establish classroom visits and teacher
evaluation as a priority for principals

0

1

2

3

4
55. Ensure principals facilitate the
development of a school vision and
mission that aligns with the districts
nonnegotiable goals for Latino student
achievement

0

1

2

3

4
56. Ensure that schools practices are
characterized by high expectations and
opportunity for all students

0

1

2

3

4
57. Ensure that principals communicate
Latino student performance and progress
toward goals with teachers and school
community

0

1

2

3

4
58. Redefine and redistribute leadership
roles at the district level to support
district and school improvement

0

1

2

3

4
59. Change the focus of the district office
from manger to support provider

0

1

2

3

4
60. Support the instructional leadership
of principals by district level
management through school visits,
feedback, support and coaching

0

1

2

3

4
61. Create the organizational structures
that support authentic shared decision
making opportunities

0

1

2

3

4

167

Do
Not
Use
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important

Important
Very
Important
62. Develop a system-wide framework
and infrastructure that supports the
instructional vision and nonnegotiable
goals for Latino student achievement

0

1

2

3

4
63. Pursue funds to initiate and sustain
reform efforts

0

1

2

3

4
64. Prioritize the allocation of resources
to meet district performance goals for
Latino students

0

1

2

3

4
65. Recognize the contributions by
showing appreciation for individual
excellence

0

1

2

3

4
66. Celebrate and communicate to all
stakeholders when district goals are met

0

1

2

3

4
67. Assume individual responsibility and
take the necessary steps to create schools
that show continuous improvement for
Latino students

0

1

2

3

4

168

PLEASE DISCUSS ANY LEADERSHIP PRACTICES THAT YOU BELIEVE
IMPROVED THE INSTRUCTION AND ACHIEVEMENT OF LATINO STUDENTS
IN YOUR DISTRICT AND THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SURVEY.

Thank you for participating in this study. Please return the survey in the enclosed
envelope.

169

APPENDIX B

SUPERINTENDENT STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. How many years have you been working in K-12 education?
2. How many years have you held the position of superintendent?
3. How long have you been working as superintendent in your current district?
4. Please describe your leadership style.
5. As superintendent, how do you think you can influence instruction and affect
student achievement?
Initiate and Sustain Reform Questions:
6. What reform efforts have you initiated to improve teaching and learning for
Latino students and how did you approach the process?
7. How did you launch the reform?
8. What leadership practices did you use?
9. What were your reasons for selecting these leadership practices?
10. What specific leadership practices have you used to sustain those improvements?
11. What were your reasons for selecting these practices?
Instructional Questions:
12. What leadership practices have you used to develop an instructional vision that
addresses the needs of Latino student?
13. What research based promising practices does the district use to improve
instruction for Latino students?
14. What leadership practices do you use to improve instruction for Latino students?

170

15. What were your reasons for selecting these practices?
16. How have these practices improve instruction for Latino students?
Achievement Questions:
17. What strategies have you used to develop a shared vision for Latino student
achievement?
18. What are the nonnegotiable goals for Latino student achievement?
19. What are the most important leadership strategies that you have used to improve
Latino student achievement in your district?
20. What were your reasons for selecting these leadership practices?
21. How have these practices impacted Latino student achievement?
22. As superintendent, how do you engage the entire community to reflect on current
and past practices and their impact on Latino student achievement?

171

APPENDIX C
CRITICAL LEADERS STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Background Questions
1. How many years have you been working in K-12 education?
2. What position do you currently hold?
3. How many years have you held the position?
4. How long have you been working in your current district?
5. Please describe your superintendent’s leadership style.
6. How do you think the superintendent can influence instruction and affect student
achievement?
Initiate and Sustain Reform Questions:
7. What reform efforts has the superintendent initiated to improve teaching and
learning for students?
8. How did the superintendent launch the reform?
9. What specific leadership practices has the superintendent used to sustain those
improvements?
Instructional Questions: 
10. What leadership practices has the superintendent used to develop an instructional
vision that addresses the needs of Latino students?
11. What research based promising practices does the district use to improve
instruction for Latino students?

172

12. What leadership practices has the superintendent used to improve instruction for
Latino students?
13. How has the superintendent’s efforts improved instruction for Latino students?
Achievement Questions:
14. What leadership practices has the superintendent used to develop a shared vision
for Latino student achievement?
15. What are the nonnegotiable goals for Latino student achievement?
16. What are the most important leadership practices the superintendent used to
improve Latino student achievement in your district?
17. How has the superintendent’s efforts impacted Latino student achievement?
18. How has the superintendent engaged the entire community to reflect on current
and past practices and their impact on the quality of instruction and achievement
of Latino student?

173

APPENDIX D
SURVEY COVER LETTER
July 17, 2009

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

Dear Dr. Sample,

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to review the information
enclosed in this packet. You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study
that may determine what leadership strategies and practices urban superintendents in
California use to improve instruction and achievement for Latino students. The current
study may serve as a useful best-practices resource for those superintendents who strive
to improve teaching and learning in their districts.
My name is Jacqueline Mora and I am a graduate student at USC in the Rossier School of
Education’s Ed.D. program. My dissertation committee chairman is Dr. Rudy Castruita.
If you agree to participate in this research study the approximate total time required will
be 20 minutes to complete a survey instrument. You may complete the enclosed
superintendent survey and return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope
along with the signed statement of consent. You may also be invited to participate in a
60 minute interview at a time and place convenient to you and the researcher.
Your participation in the study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at anytime
without penalty. All information obtained in connection with this study will be held in
strict confidence by the researcher and dissertation committee members.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the participation in this study, you can
contact Jacqueline Mora or Dr. Rudy Castruita at the University of Southern California.
Thank you very much for your time and assistance.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Mora

Researcher: Faculty Supervisor:
Jacqueline Mora Dr. Rudy M. Castruita

174

APPENDIX E

INFORMATION SHEET

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

SUPERINTENDENTS AND LATINO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: PROMISING
PRACTICES THAT SUPERINTENDENTS USE TO INFLUENCE THE
INSTRUCTION AND INCREASE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LATINO STUDENTS

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Jacqueline Mora and Dr.
Rudy Castruita at the University of Southern California because you are an urban school
superintendent in California. This research study will be the basis for a dissertation done
in completion of the Ed.D. program. A total of 25 subjects will be selected from all
urban superintendents in California to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to determine the leadership practices that effective urban
superintendents in California have used to initiate and sustain systemic change and to
improve the instruction and achievement of Latino students.

PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey that
consists of demographic items and that requests that you rate the importance of each
leadership practice as it relates to your overall effort to initiate and sustain systematic
change and improve the instruction and academic achievement of Latino students in your
districts, and one open-ended question that asks you if there are any additional leadership
practices that you have used to improve student achievement that were not included in the
survey.

You may also be asked to participate in a one hour interview at a time and place
convenient to you and the researcher. The interview will be audio-taped with your
permission and include questions about leadership practices and strategies used to initiate
and sustain change, improve instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students.
You can continue with your participation if you decline to be audio-taped; hand-written
notes will be taken.

175

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks to you for participating in this study. Any discomforts that
you may experience with questions may be managed by simply not answering the
question.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECT AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from the study. However, your participation in this study
may add to the professional knowledge and understanding about the leadership strategies
and practices used to initiate and sustain systemic change and improve instruction and
achievement for Latino students. The findings will benefit other superintendents who
strive to improve teaching and learning in their districts.

PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for your participation in this study.

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

Only the researcher and the dissertation committee members will have access to the data
associated with this study. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked
file cabinet and a password protected computer.

The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at anytime without consequence of any kind. You may also refuse to
answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at anytime and discontinue participation without penalty.
You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your participation in
this research study. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research subject,
contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement,
Stonier Hall, Room 224A, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or
uprib@usc.edu.

176

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Jacqueline Mora at moraj@usc.edu or Dr. Rudy Castruita, Faculty Supervisor, at
rcastrui@usc.edu.

177

APPENDIX F
SUPERINTENDENTS LEADERSHIP PRACTICES RATED FROM VERY
IMPORTANT TO NOT IMPORTANT
Table A1:

Superintendents Leadership Practices Rated From Very Important To Not Important

Item

Leadership Practice

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean
Std. Deviation

Q19

Ensure that the goal of
improving instruction and
achievement of Latino students
is a priority and nonnegotiable

10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0
Q20 Communicate clear
performance expectations to all
members of the organization
10 4.00 4.00 4.00 0
Q21 Model shared beliefs and
learning-oriented values
10 4.00 4.00 4.00 0
Q24 Facilitate the identification of
district-wide instructional
approaches and ensure that they
are fully implemented
10 4.00 4.00 4.00 0

178

Table A1, Continued
Q28 Develop the instructional leadership
capacity at the district and school
level to support continuous
improvement
10 4.00 4.00 4.00 0
Q30 Establish high expectations for
student and adult learning across
the district
10 4.00 4.00 4.00 0
Q34 Provide district level management,
principals and teachers training on
the use of data to drive instruction
and performance
10 4.00 4.00 4.00 0
Q38 Monitor the consistency between
district goals and school goals
through the principal accountability
process
9 4.00 4.00 4.00 0
Q39 Supervise and evaluate principals
annually
9 4.00 4.00 4.00 0
Q56 Ensure that school practices are
characterized by high expectations
and opportunity for all students
10 4.00 4.00 4.00 0

179

Table A1, Continued
Q59 Change the focus of the district office
from manger to support provider
10 4.00 4.00 4.00 0
Q60 Support the instructional leadership
of principals by district level
management through school visits,
feedback, support and coaching
10 4.00 4.00 4.00 0
Q09 Emphasize that strong instruction is
the key to improving Latino student
achievement
10 3.00 4.00 3.90 0.3162
Q10 Create a sense of urgency for
improving Latino student
achievement and closing the
achievement gap
10 3.00 4.00 3.90 0.3162
Q31 Facilitate the development of a
district culture based on shared
norms, values and beliefs that
promote mutual understanding and
respect
10 3.00 4.00 3.90 0.3162

180

Table A1, Continued
Q47 Use of Latino student achievement data to
establish collective goals and monitor
progress
10 3.00 4.00 3.90 0.3162
Q48 Use of Latino student performance data to
design prevention and intervention
programs
10 3.00 4.00 3.90 0.3162
Q52 Provide professional development to
strengthen the knowledge and skills of
principals as instructional leaders
10 3.00 4.00 3.90 0.3162
Q53 Clearly define the expectations for
principals and ensure they fulfill their
instructional leadership responsibilities
10 3.00 4.00 3.90 0.3162
Q26 Provide individualized support and
development opportunities to district
office personnel and school site
leadership
9 3.00 4.00 3.89 0.3333

181

Table A1, Continued
Q11 Support a collective vision that
represents the most current research
based practices in teaching and
learning and that identifies promising
practices for improving Latino
student achievement
10 3.00 4.00 3.80 0.4216
Q25 Maintain a clear focus on improving
instruction and Latino student
achievement
10 3.00 4.00 3.80 0.4216
Q66 Celebrate and communicate to all
stakeholders when district goals are
met
10 3.00 4.00 3.80 0.4216
Q67 Assume individual responsibility and
take the necessary steps to create
schools that show continuous
improvement for Latino students
10 3.00 4.00 3.80 0.4216

182

Table A1, Continued
Q35 Institute a multi-measure accountability
system and system-wide use of data to
inform practice, monitor progress and
hold district and school leaders
accountable for Latino student
achievement
9 3.00 4.00 3.78 0.441
Q37 Deliberate selection and assignment of
principals based on knowledge and skills
and their ability to sustain school
improvements
9 3.00 4.00 3.78 0.441
Q40 Direct personal involvement in
monitoring performance through school
visits and individual meetings with
principals
9 3.00 4.00 3.78 0.441
Q14 Work with the board to assess the
strengths and weaknesses of the district
10 2.00 4.00 3.70 0.6749

183

Table A1, Continued
Q23 Facilitate the identification of district-
wide instructional approaches and ensure
that they are fully implemented
10 2.00 4.00 3.70 0.483
Q27 Ensure that all personnel understand their
part in the improvement of instruction and
Latino student achievement regardless of
position in the district
10 2.00 4.00 3.70 0.6749
Q46 Alignment of district resources to support
district goals for curriculum, instruction
and Latino student achievement
10 3.00 4.00 3.70 0.483
Q49 District-wide curriculum and textbook
adoption in all content areas including
English Language Development
10 3.00 4.00 3.70 0.483
Q54 Establish classroom visits and teacher
evaluation as a priority for principals
10 2.00 4.00 3.70 0.6749

184

Table A1, Continued
Q36 Assessment and evaluation of personnel
and instructional programs
9 2.00 4.00 3.67 0.7071
Q44 Use an instructional evaluation program
to monitor achievement toward district
goals
10 2.00 4.00 3.60 0.6992
Q50 Include principals and teachers in the
selection of state adopted curriculum
10 1.00 4.00 3.60 0.9661
Q51 District advocacy and support for use of
preferred instructional approaches and
curricular programs
10 2.00 4.00 3.60 0.6992
Q57 Ensure that principals communicate
Latino student performance and progress
toward goals with teachers and school
community
10 3.00 4.00 3.60 0.5164

185

Table A1, Continued
Q29 Invest in the development of a district
wide professional development plan that
is focused on curriculum and instruction
and how to best meet the instructional
needs of Latino students
10 2.00 4.00 3.50 0.8498
Q33 Pursue and create positive interactions
with parents, community and business
members to establish supportive and
productive relationships
10 2.00 4.00 3.50 0.7071
Q61 Create the organizational structures that
support authentic shared decision making
opportunities
10 2.00 4.00 3.50 0.7071
Q63 Pursue funds to initiate and sustain reform
efforts
10 3.00 4.00 3.50 0.527
Q65 Recognize contributions by showing
appreciation for individual excellence
10 3.00 4.00 3.50 0.527

186

Table A1, Continued
Q41 Provide lateral capacity building
opportunities for principals and teacher-
leaders within the district to learn from
and contribute to Latino student
improvement
9 2.00 4.00 3.44 0.7265
Q42 Ensure that the curricular needs of Latino
students are met and that homogeneous
ability groupings do not deny access to
quality instruction
9 1.00 4.00 3.44 1.0138
Q43 Use of school site visits and walk-
throughs to hold principal’s accountable
for school and Latino student
improvements
9 1.00 4.00 3.33 1
Q58 Redefine and redistribute leadership roles
at the district level to support district and
school improvement
10 1.00 4.00 3.30 0.9487

187

Table A1, Continued
Q15 Work with the board to consider the
options and strategies for improving
Latino student achievement and develop a
plan of action
10 2.00 4.00 3.20 0.7888
Q55 Ensure principals facilitate the
development of a school vision and
mission that aligns with the districts
nonnegotiable goals for Latino student
achievement
10 0.00 4.00 3.20 1.3166
Q13 Work with the board to analyze factors
affecting Latino student achievement
10 2.00 4.00 3.10 0.7379
Q45 Monitor the district’s nonnegotiable goals
for the instruction and achievement of
Latino students
10 0.00 4.00 3.10 1.4491
Q62 Develop a system-wide framework and
infrastructure that supports the
instructional vision and nonnegotiable
goals for Latino student achievement
10 0.00 4.00 3.10 1.2867

188

Table A1, Continued
Q64 Prioritize the allocation of resources to
meet district performance goals for Latino
students
10 2.00 4.00 3.10 0.8756
Q18 Use the goal-setting process to foster
acceptance and support for instructional
goals specifically targeted at Latino
students
10 0.00 4.00 3.00 1.4142
Q16 Include principals and teacher-leaders in
the development of nonnegotiable goals
for the district’s Latino students
10 0.00 4.00 2.90 1.2867
Q12 Develop nonnegotiable goals for
improving Latino student achievement
with the Board of Education
10 0.00 4.00 2.80 1.3984
Q32 Direct structural changes within the
district that support individual
performance toward nonnegotiable goals
for Latino student achievement
10 0.00 4.00 2.80 1.4757

189

Table A1, Continued
Q17 Include key community leadership in the
nonnegotiable goal setting process and
focus on Latino student achievement and
challenging the status quo
10 0.00 4.00 2.50 1.1785
Q22 Adopt a 5-year nonnegotiable plan for
achievement and instruction that includes
specific goals for Latino students
10 0.00 4.00 2.00 1.4907

190

APPENDIX G
SUPERINTENDENTS LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INITIATING AND
SUSTAINING CHANGE RATED FROM VERY IMPORTANT TO NOT
IMPORTANT
Table A2
Superintendents Leadership Practices for Initiating and Sustaining Change Rated from
Very Important to Not Important
Item Leadership Practice N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation

Q19

Ensure that the goal of
improving instruction and
achievement of Latino students
is a priority and nonnegotiable
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q20 Communicate clear
performance expectations to all
members of the organization
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q24 Maintain a clear focus on
improving instruction and
Latino student achievement
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q28 Develop the instructional
leadership capacity at the
district and school level to
support continuous
improvement
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

191

Table A2, Continued
Q30 Establish high expectations for
student and adult learning across the
district
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q38

Monitor the consistency between
district goals and school goals
through the principal accountability
process
9

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q39 Supervise and evaluate principals
annually
9

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q56 Ensure that school practices are
characterized by high expectations
and opportunity for all students
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q59 Change the focus of the district office
from manger to support provider
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q60 Support the instructional leadership of
principals by district level
management through school visits,
feedback, support and coaching
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

192

Table A2, Continued
Q09 Emphasizing that instruction is the
key to improving Latino student
learning
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q10 Create a sense of urgency for
improving Latino student
achievement and closing the
achievement gap
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q31 Facilitate the development of a
district culture based on shared
norms, values and beliefs that
promote mutual understanding and
respect
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q47 Use of Latino student achievement
data to establish collective goals
and monitor progress
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q48 Use of Latino student performance
data to design prevention and
intervention programs
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q52 Provide professional development
to strengthen the knowledge and
skills of principals as instructional
leaders
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

193

Table A2, Continued
Q53 Clearly define the expectations for
principals and ensure they fulfill their
instructional leadership
responsibilities
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q26 Provide individualized support and
development opportunities to district
office personnel and school site
leadership
9

3.00

4.00

3.89

0.3333

Q11 Support a collective vision that
represents the most current research
based practices in teaching and
learning and that identifies promising
practices for improving Latino student
achievement
10

3.00

4.00

3.80

0.4216

Q25 Challenge staff to re-examine some of
their assumptions about Latino
student achievement and reshape
practice
10

3.00

4.00

3.80

0.4216

Q66 Celebrate and communicate to all
stakeholders when district goals are
met
10

3.00

4.00

3.80

0.4216

194

Table A2, Continued
Q67 Assume individual responsibility and
take the necessary steps to create
schools that show continuous
improvement for Latino students
10

3.00

4.00

3.80

0.4216

Q35 Institute a multi-measure
accountability system and system-
wide use of data to inform practice,
monitor progress and hold district and
school leaders accountable for Latino
student achievement
9

3.00

4.00

3.78

0.441

Q37 Deliberate selection and assignment
of principals based on knowledge and
skills and their ability to sustain
school improvements
9

3.00

4.00

3.78

0.441

Q40 Direct personal involvement in
monitoring performance through
school visits and individual meetings
with principals
9

3.00

4.00

3.78

0.441

195

Table A2, Continued
Q14 Work with the board to assess the
strengths and weaknesses of the
district
10

2.00

4.00

3.70

0.6749

Q23 Facilitate the identification of district-
wide instructional approaches and
ensure that they are fully
implemented
10

2.00

4.00

3.70

0.483

Q27 Ensure that all personnel understand
their part in the improvement of
instruction and Latino student
achievement regardless of position in
the district
10

2.00

4.00

3.70

0.6749

Q46 Alignment of district resources to
support district goals for curriculum,
instruction and Latino student
achievement
10

3.00

4.00

3.70

0.483

Q49 District-wide curriculum and textbook
adoption in all content areas including
English Language Development
10

3.00

4.00

3.70

0.483

196

Table A2, Continued
Q54 Establish classroom visits and teacher
evaluation as a priority for principals
10

2.00

4.00

3.70

0.6749

Q36 Assessment and evaluation of
personnel and instructional programs
9

2.00

4.00

3.67

0.7071

Q44 Use an instructional evaluation
program to monitor achievement
toward district goals
10

2.00

4.00

3.60

0.6992

Q50 Include principals and teachers in the
selection of state adopted curriculum
10

1.00

4.00

3.60

0.9661

Q51 District advocacy and support for use
of preferred instructional approaches
and curricular programs
10

2.00

4.00

3.60

0.6992

Q57 Ensure that principals communicate
Latino student performance and
progress toward goals with teachers
and school community
10

3.00

4.00

3.60

0.5164

197

Table A2, Continued
Q29 Invest in the development of a district
wide professional development plan
that is focused on curriculum and
instruction and how to best meet the
instructional needs of Latino students
10

2.00

4.00

3.50

0.8498

Q33 Pursue and create positive interactions
with parents, community and business
members to establish supportive and
productive relationships
10

2.00

4.00

3.50

0.7071

Q61 Create the organizational structures
that support authentic shared decision
making opportunities
10

2.00

4.00

3.50

0.7071

Q63 Pursue funds to initiate and sustain
reform efforts
10

3.00

4.00

3.50

0.527

Q65 Recognize contributions by showing
appreciation for individual excellence
10

3.00

4.00

3.50

0.527

198

Table A2, Continued
Q41 Provide lateral capacity building
opportunities for principals and
teacher-leaders within the district to
learn from and contribute to Latino
student improvement
9

2.00

4.00

3.44

0.7265

Q42 Ensure that the curricular needs of
Latino students are met and that
homogeneous ability groupings do not
deny access to quality instruction
9

1.00

4.00

3.44

1.0138

Q43 Use of school site visits and walk-
throughs to hold principal’s
accountable for school and Latino
student improvements
9

1.00

4.00

3.33

1

Q58 Redefine and redistribute leadership
roles at the district level to support
district and school improvement
10

1.00

4.00

3.30

0.9487

Q15 Work with the board to consider the
options and strategies for improving
Latino student achievement and
develop a plan of action
10

2.00

4.00

3.20

0.7888

199

Table A2, Continued
Q55 Ensure principals facilitate the
development of a school vision and
mission that aligns with the districts
nonnegotiable goals for Latino
student achievement
10

0.00

4.00

3.20

1.3166

Q13
Work with the board to analyze
factors affecting Latino student
achievement
10

2.00

4.00

3.10

0.7379

Q45 Monitor the district’s nonnegotiable
goals for the instruction and
achievement of Latino students
10

0.00

4.00

3.10

1.4491

Q62 Develop a system-wide framework
and infrastructure that supports the
instructional vision and nonnegotiable
goals for Latino student achievement
10

0.00

4.00

3.10

1.2867

Q64

Prioritize the allocation of resources
to meet district performance goals for
Latino students
10

2.00

4.00

3.10

0.8756

200

Table A2, Continued
Q18 Use the goal-setting process to foster
acceptance and support for
instructional goals specifically
targeted at Latino students
10

0.00

4.00

3.00

1.4142

Q16 Include principals and teacher-leaders
in the development of nonnegotiable
goals for the district’s Latino students
10

0.00

4.00

2.90

1.2867

Q12 Develop nonnegotiable goals for
improving Latino student
achievement with the Board of
Education
10

0.00

4.00

2.80

1.3984

Q32 Direct structural changes within the
district that support individual
performance toward nonnegotiable
goals for Latino student achievement
10

0.00

4.00

2.80

1.4757

Q17 Include key community leadership in
the nonnegotiable goal setting process
and focus on Latino student
achievement and challenging the
status quo
10

0.00

4.00

2.50

1.1785

201

Table A2, Continued
Q22 Adopt a 5-year nonnegotiable plan for
achievement and instruction that
includes specific goals for Latino
students
10

0.00

4.00

2.00

1.4907

202

APPENDIX H
SUPERINTENDENTS LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INFLUENCING AND
SHAPING INSTRUCTION FOR LATINO STUDENTS RATED FROM VERY
IMPORTANT TO NOT IMPORTANT
Table A3:
Superintendents Leadership Practices for Influencing and Shaping Instruction for Latino
Students Rated from Very Important to Not Important
Item Leadership Practice N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation

Q19

Ensure that the goal of improving
instruction and achievement of
Latino students is a priority and
nonnegotiable
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q20 Communicate clear performance
expectations to all members of the
organization
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q21 Model shared beliefs and learning-
oriented values
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q24 Maintain a clear focus on
improving instruction and Latino
student achievement
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

203

Table A3, Continued
Q28 Develop the instructional leadership
capacity at the district and school level
to support continuous improvement
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q38 Monitor the consistency between
district goals and school goals through
the principal accountability process
9

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q39 Supervise and evaluate principals
annually
9

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q56 Ensure that school practices are
characterized by high expectations and
opportunity for all students
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q59 Change the focus of the district office
from manger to support provider
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q60 Support the instructional leadership of
principals by district level management
through school visits, feedback,
support and coaching
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

204

Table A3, Continued
Q09 Emphasizing that instruction is the key
to improving Latino student learning
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q47 Use of Latino student achievement data
to establish collective goals and
monitor progress
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q48 Use of Latino student performance data
to design prevention and intervention
programs
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q52 Provide professional development to
strengthen the knowledge and skills of
principals as instructional leaders
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q53 Clearly define the expectations for
principals and ensure they fulfill their
instructional leadership responsibilities
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q26 Provide individualized support and
development opportunities to district
office personnel and school site
leadership
9

3.00

4.00

3.89

0.3333

205

Table A3, Continued
Q11 Support a collective vision that
represents the most current research
based practices in teaching and
learning and that identifies promising
practices for improving Latino student
achievement
10

3.00

4.00

3.80

0.4216

Q25 Challenge staff to re-examine some of
their assumptions about Latino student
achievement and reshape practice
10

3.00

4.00

3.80

0.4216

Q67 Assume individual responsibility and
take the necessary steps to create
schools that show continuous
improvement for Latino students
10

3.00

4.00

3.80

0.4216

Q37 Deliberate selection and assignment of
principals based on knowledge and
skills and their ability to sustain school
improvements
9

3.00

4.00

3.78

0.441

Q40 Direct personal involvement in
monitoring performance through
school visits and individual meetings
with principals
9

3.00

4.00

3.78

0.441

206

Table A3, Continued
Q23 Facilitate the identification of district-
wide instructional approaches and
ensure that they are fully implemented
10

3.00

4.00

3.70

0.483

Q27 Ensure that all personnel understand
their part in the improvement of
instruction and Latino student
achievement regardless of position in
the district
10

2.00

4.00

3.70

0.6749

Q46 Alignment of district resources to
support district goals for curriculum,
instruction and Latino student
achievement
10

3.00

4.00

3.70

0.483

Q49 District-wide curriculum and textbook
adoption in all content areas including
English Language Development
10

3.00

4.00

3.70

0.483

Q54 Establish classroom visits and teacher
evaluation as a priority for principals
10

2.00

4.00

3.70

0.6749

Q44 Use an instructional evaluation
program to monitor achievement
toward district goals
10

2.00

4.00

3.60

0.6992

207

Table A3, Continued
Q50 Include principals and teachers in the
selection of state adopted curriculum
10

1.00

4.00

3.60

0.9661

Q51 District advocacy and support for use
of preferred instructional approaches
and curricular programs
10

2.00

4.00

3.60

0.6992

Q57

Ensure that principals communicate
Latino student performance and
progress toward goals with teachers
and school community
10

3.00

4.00

3.60

0.5164

Q29 Invest in the development of a district
wide professional development plan
that is focused on curriculum and
instruction and how to best meet the
instructional needs of Latino students
10

2.00

4.00

3.50

0.8498

Q61 Create the organizational structures
that support authentic shared decision
making opportunities
10

2.00

4.00

3.50

0.7071

208

Table A3, Continued
Q41 Provide lateral capacity building
opportunities for principals and
teacher-leaders within the district to
learn from and contribute to Latino
student improvement
9

2.00

4.00

3.44

0.7265

Q42 Ensure that the curricular needs of
Latino students are met and that
homogeneous ability groupings do not
deny access to quality instruction
9

1.00

4.00

3.44

1.0138

Q43 Use of school site visits and walk-
throughs to hold principal’s
accountable for school and Latino
student improvements
9

1.00

4.00

3.33

1

Q15

Work with the board to consider the
options and strategies for improving
Latino student achievement and
develop a plan of action
10

2.00

4.00

3.20

0.7888

209

Table A3, Continued
Q55 Ensure principals facilitate the
development of a school vision and
mission that aligns with the districts
nonnegotiable goals for Latino student
achievement
10

0.00

4.00

3.20

1.3166

Q45 Monitor the district’s nonnegotiable
goals for the instruction and
achievement of Latino students
10

0.00

4.00

3.10

1.4491

Q62 Develop a system-wide framework and
infrastructure that supports the
instructional vision and nonnegotiable
goals for Latino student achievement
10

0.00

4.00

3.10

1.2867

Q18 Use the goal-setting process to foster
acceptance and support for
instructional goals specifically targeted
at Latino students
10

0.00

4.00

3.00

1.4142

Q16 Include principals and teacher-leaders
in the development of nonnegotiable
goals for the district’s Latino students
10

0.00

4.00

2.90

1.2867

210

Table A3, Continued
Q17 Include key community leadership in
the nonnegotiable goal setting process
and focus on Latino student
achievement and challenging the status
quo
10

0.00

4.00

2.50

1.1785

Q22 Adopt a 5-year nonnegotiable plan for
achievement and instruction that
includes specific goals for Latino
students
10

0.00

4.00

2.00

1.4907

211

APPENDIX I
SUPERINTENDENTS LEADERSHIP PRACTICES FOR INCREASING
ACHIEVEMENT FOR LATINO STUDENTS FROM VERY IMPORTANT TO NOT
IMPORTANT
Table A4
Superintendents Leadership Practices for Increasing Achievement for Latino Students
from Very Important to Not Important
Item Leadership Practice N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation

Q19

Ensure that the goal of improving
instruction and achievement of
Latino students is a priority and
nonnegotiable
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q20 Communicate clear performance
expectations to all members of the
organization
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q21 Model shared beliefs and learning-
oriented values
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q24 Maintain a clear focus on
improving instruction and Latino
student achievement
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

212

Table A4, Continued
Q28 Develop the instructional leadership
capacity at the district and school level
to support continuous improvement
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q30 Establish high expectations for student
and adult learning across the district
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q34

Provide district level management,
principals and teachers training on the
use of data to drive instruction and
performance
10

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q38 Monitor the consistency between
district goals and school goals through
the principal accountability process
9

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q39 Supervise and evaluate principals
annually
9

4.00

4.00

4.00

0

Q09 Emphasizing that instruction is the key
to improving Latino student learning
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

213

Table A4, Continued
Q10 Create a sense of urgency for
improving Latino student achievement
and closing the achievement gap
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q47 Use of Latino student achievement data
to establish collective goals and
monitor progress
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q48 Use of Latino student performance data
to design prevention and intervention
programs
10

3.00

4.00

3.90

0.3162

Q67 Assume individual responsibility and
take the necessary steps to create
schools that show continuous
improvement for Latino students
10

3.00

4.00

3.80

0.4216

Q35 Institute a multi-measure accountability
system and system-wide use of data to
inform practice, monitor progress and
hold district and school leaders
accountable for Latino student
achievement
9

3.00

4.00

3.78

0.441

214

Table A4, Continued
Q37 Deliberate selection and assignment of
principals based on knowledge and
skills and their ability to sustain school
improvements
9

3.00

4.00

3.78

0.441

Q40 Direct personal involvement in
monitoring performance through school
visits and individual meetings with
principals
9

3.00

4.00

3.78

0.441

Q27 Ensure that all personnel understand
their part in the improvement of
instruction and Latino student
achievement regardless of position in
the district
10

2.00

4.00

3.70

0.6749

Q46 Alignment of district resources to
support district goals for curriculum,
instruction and Latino student
achievement
10

3.00

4.00

3.70

0.483

Q36 Assessment and evaluation of
personnel and instructional programs
9

2.00

4.00

3.67

0.7071

215

Table A4, Continued
Q57 Ensure that principals communicate
Latino student performance and
progress toward goals with teachers
and school community
10

3.00

4.00

3.60

0.5164

Q41 Provide lateral capacity building
opportunities for principals and
teacher-leaders within the district to
learn from and contribute to Latino
student improvement
9

2.00

4.00

3.44

0.7265

Q42 Ensure that the curricular needs of
Latino students are met and that
homogeneous ability groupings do not
deny access to quality instruction
9

1.00

4.00

3.44

1.0138

Q43 Use of school site visits and walk-
throughs to hold principal’s
accountable for school and Latino
student improvements
9

1.00

4.00

3.33

1.0

Q15 Work with the board to consider the
options and strategies for improving
Latino student achievement and
develop a plan of action
10

2.00

4.00

3.20

0.7888

216

Table A4, Continued
Q13 Work with the board to analyze factors
affecting Latino student achievement
10

2.00

4.00

3.10

0.7379

Q45 Monitor the district’s nonnegotiable
goals for the instruction and
achievement of Latino students
10

0.00

4.00

3.10

1.4491

Q62 Develop a system-wide framework and
infrastructure that supports the
instructional vision and nonnegotiable
goals for Latino student achievement
10

0.00

4.00

3.10

1.2867

Q16 Include principals and teacher-leaders
in the development of nonnegotiable
goals for the district’s Latino students
10

0.00

4.00

2.90

1.2867

Q12 Develop nonnegotiable goals for
improving Latino student achievement
with the Board of Education
10

0.00

4.00

2.80

1.3984

217

Table A4, Continued
Q32
Direct structural changes within the
district that support individual
performance toward nonnegotiable
goals for Latino student achievement
10

0.00

4.00

2.80

1.4757

Q17 Include key community leadership in
the nonnegotiable goal setting process
and focus on Latino student
achievement and challenging the status
quo
10

0.00

4.00

2.50

1.1785

Q22 Adopt a 5-year nonnegotiable plan for
achievement and instruction that
includes specific goals for Latino
students
10

0.00

4.00

2.00

1.4907

Abstract (if available)

Abstract As schools and districts across the nation and state face the added pressures brought on by increased accountability through the NCLB Act, school leaders must reconcile the changing demographics of their districts, the various educational needs of their students and the political and socio-cultural aspects of such shifts while meeting expected outcomes (Houston, 2001). The ability to navigate change in demographics and diversity is significant because on a national level there has been a 57.9% population increase of Latinos and of these citizens, 31.1% live in California (U.S. Census, 2000). These changes in demographics and diversity have brought forth many challenges to districts across the state. The increased accountability has required educational leaders to re-evaluate the teaching and learning taking place within their districts and the underachievement of Latino students. The purpose of this study is to examine the practices that effective urban school district superintendents used to initiate and sustain change, shape instruction and impact the achievement of Latino students in their district.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

Increasing Latino access to higher education: A suburban district's design and implementation

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Effective practices employed by superintendents' leadership teams that impact student achievement

PDF

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

How Latinos ascend to the superintendency

PDF

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

PDF

Data-driven decision-making practices that secondary principals use to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

Asset Metadata

Creator Mora, Jacqueline (author)

Core Title 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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/24/2010

Defense Date 03/30/2010

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

Tag increase student achievement,influence instruction,Latino student achievement,OAI-PMH Harvest,promising practices,student achievement,superintendents,urban school districts

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy M. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Creator Email jacquelinemora@msn.com,jmora@gusd.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2949

Unique identifier UC1153761

Identifier etd-Mora-3688 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-311442 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2949 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Mora-3688.pdf

Dmrecord 311442

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mora, Jacqueline

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