Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Investigating promising school leadership practices in two California charter schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Investigating promising school leadership practices in two California charter schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INVESTIGATING PROMISING SCHOOL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
IN TWO CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS
by
Grace Kim
________________________________________
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 Grace Kim
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables……………………………………………………………….………..iii
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………..iv
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….v
Chapter 1……………………………………………………………………………...1
Chapter 2…………………………………………………………………………….15
Chapter 3…………………………………………………………………………….74
Chapter 4…………………………………………………………………………….88
Chapter 5…………………………………………………………………………...141
References………………………………………………………………………….158
Appendix A………………………………………………………………………...184
Appendix B………………………………………………………………………...185
Appendix C………………………………………………………………………...186
Appendix D………………………………………………………………………...188
Appendix E………………………………………………………………………...192
Appendix F………………………………………………………………………...194
Appendix G………………………………………………………………………...196
Appendix H………………………………………………………………………...199
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Profile of Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School 92
Table 2: Demographic Profile of California Academy of Liberal Studies 116
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: School leadership as a means of accomplishing school-wide
student achievement 11
Figure 2: Leadership Ability and Student Achievement 36
Figure 3: Theory of Action- How Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School
May Lead to Higher Student Achievement 100
Figure 4: Theory of Action- How CALS May Lead to Higher Student
Achievement 127
v
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify and to explore programs related to
school leadership in two California charter schools. Four research questions guided
this study: (a) What policies, programs, and processes are used to improve teacher
and administrative leadership (school leadership) in charter schools? (b) How are
resources used to implement the programs related to school leadership successfully?
(c) What challenges have charter schools faced in implementing the programs related
to school leadership, and how are these problems addressed? (d) What evidence
exists that these programs relating to school leadership may be related to positive
educational outcomes?
Qualitative case study methods were used in this research. The use of
different type of instruments -- pre-site interviews, principal interviews, lead teacher
interviews, document analysis, and observations -- produced a triangulation of data,
which strengthened the validity of the findings.
The findings illustrated that similar benefits and challenges were experienced
at both schools. Implementation of the programs related to school leadership
produced positive results including increased teacher leadership, collaboration,
empowerment, improved student achievement, and parent satisfaction. This study
revealed that the programs related to school leadership aided in improving student
achievement and in creating a collaborative school culture.
The goal of this study was to disseminate implementation details and benefits
of the programs related to school leadership through USC’s Online Compendium of
vi
Promising Practices in order to assist other school districts and policy makers who
wish to improve student achievement.
1
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued the
report A Nation at Risk, highlighting the crisis in American education (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The commission reported that
American students were falling behind students from around the world, endangering
national security and prosperity. Now, 26 years later, the education system still
remains in a state of crisis. Each year, the United States spends more than $550
billion on K-12 public schools (Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2008). A student
attending public school in 2008 can expect taxpayers to spend $9,266 on his or her
behalf--an increase of 69% over the average per-pupil expenditure in 1980 (Snyder
& Dillow, 2007).
Regrettably, data show that an increase in funding does not equate to an
increase in academic achievement. The National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) exam consistently shows that a significant percentage of students fail to
meet a basic standards of learning. In 2007, results from NAEP showed that 33% of
fourth graders and 26% of eighth graders scored “below basic” in reading (Lee,
Grigg, & Donahue, 2007). Moreover, 18% of fourth graders and 29% of eighth
graders scored “below basic” in mathematics (Lee, Grigg, & Dion, 2007). Students
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds scored lower than their peers. And, among
students who were eligible for the free and reduced-price school lunch program, 50%
of fourth graders and 42% of eighth graders scored “below basic” in reading (Lee,
Grigg, & Donahue, 2007). In 2006, the National Center for Education Statistics
2
reviewed the performance of American adults and students on international tests.
The review found that American students were not excelling compared to
international students and that, in some subjects, they were performing below
average compared to other developed nations. In math, American 15-year-olds
ranked 21
st
of 29 countries, and in science, they ranked 16
th
(Snyder, Tan, &
Hoffman, 2006).
Despite the fact that average per-pupil spending in public schools has
increased by 128%, from $4,060 in 1970 to $9,266 in 2005, students’ performance
on long-term measures of academic achievement has not risen proportionately
(Snyder & Dillow, 2007). For example, 17-year-olds attained the same average score
of 285 in 2004 as in 1971, in the National Assessment of Educational Progress
reading exam (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). Also, the average
scores of 13- and 9-year-old students were only modestly higher (4 points and 9
points, respectively) in 2004 than in 1971.
While the decline in the relative standing of U.S. students was startling and
disturbing to many educators, parents, and policymakers (Brouillette, 2002), state
legislatures moved to tighten graduation requirements and mandate high-stake tests,
which would be used to judge the effectiveness of public schools. The most recent
federal legislation in K-12 education, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of
2001, has established new regulations and requirements for states for receiving
federal funding for education. Most importantly, the law requires states to test
students annually from grades 3 to 8 and once in high school and to report student
performance and progress toward proficiency, known as adequate yearly progress
3
(AYP) (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Schools that fail to meet AYP goals
are subject to remedies including school choice, after-school tutoring, and school
restructuring (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Regrettably, after 6 years,
NCLB has demonstrated the limits and potential dangers of expanding federal
authority in education without grasping the central purposes of NCLB, which are
adopting higher academic standards and providing school choices to students (Lips,
2008). A 2006 study by University of California researchers found that the gap
between state and NAEP proficiency scores had widened in 10 of 12 states examined
since NCLB was enacted (Fuller, Gesicki, Kang, & Wright, 2006). In addition, the
Department of Education reported that only 1% of eligible students took advantage
of the federally mandated public-school-transfer option between 2004 and 2005
(U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
The range of suggestions for improving public education is highly diverse,
from smaller classes, higher teacher salaries, and greater expenditures to tighter
governmental control and holding schools accountable for student performance
(Peterson & Campbell, 2001). Some researchers have called for more flexibility,
competition, and parental choice. With a growing number of families benefiting from
the freedom to choose among several schools, research suggests that school choice is
having a positive impact (Lips, 2008). Moreover, expanding choice within the public
school setting is yielding positive results. Hoxby (2004) found that students in
charter schools were more likely to be proficient in reading and math than were
students in the nearest comparable public school. Therefore, charter schools carry the
potential to reverse long-standing trends in education in the United States. This
4
study focuses on promising school leadership practices in two California charter
schools and how charter schools are implementing school leadership programs
successfully to improve student achievement.
The Role of Charter Schools
Charter schools are publicly sponsored, which makes them autonomous and
substantially free of direct government control, but are held accountable for
achieving certain levels of student performance and other specified outcomes
(Cookson, 1995). According to the U.S. Charter Schools website, charter schools are
designed to:
• Increase opportunities for learning and access to quality education for
all students;
• Create choice for parents and students within the public school
systems;
• Provide a system of accountability for results in public education;
• Encourage innovative teaching practices;
• Create new professional opportunities for teachers;
• Encourage community and parent involvement in public education;
• Leverage improved public education broadly (U.S. Charter Schools,
2006)
Shanker (1988a & b) suggested that bureaucracy in public schools prevented
teachers from acting as true professionals and believed that teachers should be
empowered to innovate and improve public education. In addition to ideas related to
5
teacher leadership, several other education reform concepts and beliefs set the stage
for the charter school movement: (a) a belief that families should be able to choose
among a variety of public schools; (b) a belief that competition in public education
would lead to higher performing schools; (c) a belief in decentralization and
deregulation--that each school should be a self-governing community with authority
to make decisions related to students and classrooms; and (d) a belief in higher
standards and greater accountability in public schools (Finn, Manno, & Vanourek,
2000; Hassel, 1999; Nathan, 1996). In order to attract and retain charter school
clients such as parents and students, charter schools must demonstrate positive
student achievement results, thereby diminishing the longstanding monopoly of
under-performing, district-assigned public schools (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003).
Therefore, charter schools have the potential to improve educational equity by
providing school choice opportunities to parents where promising practices are
designed to improve student achievement based upon local community needs.
By reducing the level of bureaucratic regulation and control, charter schools
are free to innovate and create more effective and efficient programs to better serve
their students. In addition, a charter is a performance contract that details the
school’s mission, its program and goals, the population served, and ways to assess
success (Bulkley & Schneider, 2007). Charters are granted for fixed lengths of time
(usually 3 to 5 years). In time, the body that authorized the charter would review the
performance of the school and decide whether or not to renew it. Therefore, by
allowing citizens to start new public schools with this kind of autonomy, making
them available tuition-free to any student, and holding them accountable for results
6
and family satisfaction, proponents of charter schools hope that this new mix of
choice and accountability will not only provide students with stronger learning
programs than local alternatives, but will also stimulate improvement of the existing
public education system. With charter schools, it is accountability that makes
freedom promising since no charter is permanent; it must be renewed at regular
intervals or revoked. Continued funding, which is tied to student enrollment, also
depends on educational results (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Moreover, charter schools are laboratories of innovation with the idea of
organizational creativity. According to a federal study, “realizing an alternative
vision for schooling” was most often cited by charter founders as the primary reason
for starting their schools (Pioneer Institute, 1998). A California study found that 78%
of the state’s charters were experimenting with new institutional practices, compared
with 3% of public schools; 72% of charters were implementing site-based
governance, compared with 16% of conventional schools; and two-thirds of charters
had adopted increased parent participation practices, compared with 14% of public
schools (Corwin & Flaherty, 1995). A Massachusetts study found that Bay State
charters were engaged in innovative practices while implementing “good old-
fashioned educational practices” (Rosenblum Brigham Associates, 1998).
Therefore, charter schools seek a certain type of leadership that promotes
leadership practices that are aligned with the charter schools’ mission. For instance,
from their study of 17 charter schools, Wohlstetter and Griffin (1997) concluded that
charter school leaders commonly shared an “outlaw mentality” and a sense of
entrepreneurship. Having worked in the public school system, many charter school
7
leaders were dissatisfied with public school governance and perceived themselves as
challenging the status quo. They saw the flaws in public education and started
charter schools to challenge the public school system. Secondly, the study found out
that charter school leaders possessed a sense of entrepreneurship (Wohlstetter &
Griffin, 1997). Since their fiscal autonomy had granted charter schools the power to
provide teachers with the freedom to seek out and utilize alternative resources and
various types of support, charter school leaders worked to establish linkages in order
to bring new ideas about teaching and learning into the schools. Finally, the study
showed that there was a sense of collaboration between administrators and teachers
in charter schools that they had studied (Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1997). The study
concluded that school leadership provided the compass for development and
sustenance of the charter school as a learning community. A key component of this
leadership was negotiating many role demands within the school (Wohlstetter &
Griffin, 1997).
The key elements in the concept of charter schools involved site-based
management and increased teacher participation in decision making (Malloy, 2003).
They also included changing the school governance structure by empowering
teachers and systematically providing opportunities in shared decision-making
processes regarding curriculum and instruction (Rowan, 1990; Smylie, 1994). With
increased autonomy and reduced bureaucratic control, school leaders in charter
schools were granted much flexibility and many opportunities to innovate their
leadership practices. Unlike in public school settings, school leaders in charter
schools were able to change, implement, and innovate their programs and practices
8
as needed. With effective school leadership practices aligned with fundamental
concepts, which included greater autonomy and less bureaucracy, many charter
schools showed that they had improved student achievement with populations
similar to those of public school settings.
Promise of School Leadership to Improve Student Achievement
While school leadership may not be the only answer to most major problems
confronting American education today, research indicates that school leadership
practices and quality are important elements of student achievement (Hoachlander,
Alt, & Beltranena, 2001; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982; National Conference of
State Legislatures, 2002; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003). Moreover, many
researchers indicated that effective school leaders impacted student achievement
(Whitaker, 2003) and that strong leadership is a key factor in successful schools
(Onoye, 2004). Leithwood and Riehl (2005) noted major findings on school
leadership summarized by the following claims.
First, leadership has notable effects on student learning. Strong school
leadership is essential for better student academic achievement since the school
leader holds the most important role in the school system. School districts that have
been most successful in improving student achievement have visionary school
leaders who developed district policies focusing on both adult and student learning
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2002). Likewise, exemplary schools
have an effective school leader who sets the tone for the rest of the school and
engages all stakeholders in school-wide efforts to improve student learning.
9
Second, a core set of leadership practices forms the basis of successful
leadership, which has been proven to be valuable in almost all educational contexts.
Lambert (2003) introduced four leadership capacity strategies essential for school
leaders. Those four leadership capacities included developing reciprocal
relationships, creating a shared purpose, involving everyone in a decision-making
process, and sustaining the shared vision. Each strategy included possible activities
that could be implemented. For instance, establishing collaborative norms, solving
problems, using evidence in discussions, and peer-coaching are some examples of
developing reciprocal relationships that can be used in any educational setting
(Lambert, 2003).
Third, successful school leaders responded productively to challenges and
opportunities created by the accountability-oriented policy context in which they
worked. Recent legislation, including the 2001 federal No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB), placed tremendous pressure and responsibility on school leaders by holding
them accountable for student performance. The school leaders’ roles and
responsibilities have changed from handling managerial duties to examining multiple
ways to improve student achievement. It is true that the enactment of NCLB has
placed higher expectations on school leaders, but there has also been agreement on
what an effective leader should do (Bowles, King, & Crow, 2000). Ideally, school
leaders should be passionate about learning and have a clear vision for how schools
can promote high levels of achievement for all students. These school leaders are
charismatic and decisive, and they have the people skills to work collaboratively and
supportively to transform school culture. Effective school leaders are familiar with
10
current research on instruction and how to apply its lessons in making curriculum
more effective. They can tackle multiple problems simultaneously while establishing
priorities. Effective school leaders also plan and manage resources, and they
understand when plans need to be abandoned or modified. They know how to
motivate others, hold them accountable, evaluate them fairly, and reward them
appropriately. Finally, effective school leaders are able to refine their skills and learn
new ones, adapting to new circumstances by deepening their knowledge and abilities
(Hoachlander et al., 2001).
Like Leithwood and Riehl (2005), Kotter & Heskett (1992) asserted that
successful school leaders are able to provide vision and establish direction for
teachers in order to motivate, inspire, and produce change in school settings.
Likewise, effective school leaders bring their knowledge, skills, and behaviors to the
school context. In combination with the instructional programs, resources, staff, and
goals/ mission of the school, they often impact the behavior of others and build
consensus through a collaborative process. Oftentimes, successful school leaders are
purposeful about turning their schools into effective organizations. They transform
mediocre schools into great schools by developing and counting on contributions
from other stakeholders in their schools to strengthen the schools’ culture, to modify
organizational structures, and to build collaborative processes (Center for
Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, 2005). Redesigning the
organization from the inside out requires school leaders to identify and capitalize on
the competence of others and requires much collaboration. As Glickman (2003)
observed, “In successful schools, principals are not threatened by the wisdom of
11
others; instead, they cherish it by distributing leadership” (p. 56). Figure 1 depicts
the link between school leadership and student achievement.
Figure 1. School leadership as a means of accomplishing school-wide student
achievement
Purpose of the Study
With the ideas of choice, less bureaucracy, accountability, and autonomy,
charter schools offer a ground to improve and reinvent public education (Finn et al.,
2000). Despite the data on student achievement in charter schools, very little
research has explored school leadership programs and practices in charter schools.
One would assume that if detailed case studies that illustrated the programs and the
strategies related to the implementation of promising school leadership practices in
charter schools were conducted, then conditions and programs supporting high
student achievement would be more widespread, especially in public schools serving
similar populations. According to Bardach (2003), such knowledge would need to be
analyzed and compiled into an easy-to-use format, such as a compendium, so that it
Leaders’
Background
School Features
- Instructional Program
- Resource Acquisition/
Allocation
- Staff Quality
- Goals/Mission
- Culture
School Context
Teacher
Behaviors
Student
Achievement
Effective School
Leaders’
Knowledge,
Skills, and
Behaviors
12
would be accessible to the public. In order for charter schools to realize the goal of
serving as laboratories for innovation, a study to gather and relay information on the
specific educational practices they are instituting, and on the conditions that support
high-quality implementation of such reforms, had to be conducted (Bulkley & Fisler,
2003).
The purpose of this present study was to examine promising practices with
respect to administrative and teacher leadership in two California charter schools:
Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School in Chula Vista and the California
Academy for Liberal Studies (CALS) in Eagle Rock. This study was composed of
two case studies that were qualitative in nature. Data collection focused on
identifying the policies, processes, and programs that facilitated effective school
leadership leading to high student achievement, utilizing all sources available such as
interviews, observations, and analysis of relevant documents. Promising leadership
practices that facilitate the enhancement of student achievement would offer
educators and policymakers new tools and strategies for professional development
while improving management practices. Hence, it was important to identify such
promising practices that could be replicated in public school settings to help improve
student learning, program effectiveness, and school success.
This study is one of ten dissertations from a thematic dissertation group
investigating a variety of promising practices in California charter schools, such as
Alameda Community Learning Center and Bay Area School of Enterprise (Center on
Educational Governance, 2009). Other topics under investigation are arts-themed
schools, literacy for English Language Learners, high school reforms, parent
13
involvement, project-based learning, school-university partnerships, special
education, student discipline/behavior, and math and science education through the
use of technology. Using the analysis and research findings that were obtained from
various dissertations and an interactive website, Multiple Measures of Accountability
for California Charter Schools (MMACCS), this study has been developed to
facilitate the sharing of promising practices across educators in the public school
system. In addition to the compendium of promising practices, the MMACCS
website contains a comprehensive, quantitative database of school performance
indices (MMACCS, n.d.). MMACCS is being developed under USC’s Center on
Educational Governance, located in the Rossier School of Education.
Significance of the Study
Given the absence of knowledge on how school leadership programs and
practices can improve student achievement in charter schools, this study explored
leadership practices in two selected settings using case studies. Consequently, this
study proposed an idea and provided guidance to current school leaders and
policymakers in a public school setting as a way to increase student achievement.
This study fulfilled the need for detailed research on school leadership practices in
charter schools and revealed effective school leadership programs and the practices
in a detailed manner.
In addition to analyzing and explaining promising leadership practices in
charter schools, this study has been essential for its exploration of the underlying
belief system of charter schools, such as anti-bureaucratic philosophy, market-based
14
curriculum, and teacher professionalism (Garn, 1999), and how those ideas were
linked to student achievement at those schools.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 presented the introduction, the statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, and the significance of the study. Chapter 2 is a review of
relevant literature on school leadership. It addresses the following topics: definitions
of school leadership, different models of school leadership, teacher leadership, and
the relationship between school leadership and student achievement. Chapter 3
identifies the research questions and explains the research design, data collection
instruments, and the data collection processes and procedures. Chapter 4 presents the
study’s findings, with a focus on promising leadership practices that were used
effectively to improve school performance. Chapter 5 offers implications of this
study for practice, and presents recommendations to guide future policy and
research.
Conclusion
This chapter has provided the introduction and the overview, the background,
the relationship between school leadership and student achievement, the elements of
school leadership in charter schools, and the purpose of the study. The purpose of the
study has been to present promising school leadership practices at two California
charter schools, which may possibly be replicated in a public school setting for
increased student achievement. The next chapter will illustrate relevant literature on
school leadership and leadership theories.
15
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
As described in the previous chapter, the purpose of the present study is to
identify promising processes, policies, and programs regarding school leadership in
two California charter schools. This chapter summarizes major theories and research
on school leadership. First, different types of leadership are defined, including how
the concept of leadership has changed over time. Next, the importance of school
leadership and influences on student achievement are discussed. Third, different
kinds of school leadership, such as principal leadership and teacher leadership, are
explained, including how their ideas are implemented in order to realize increased
academic development of students at charter schools. Although school leadership
often refers only to administrative leaders, the present study focuses on both teacher
and administrative leadership because both impact student achievement. In the
following review, the term school leadership refers to both teacher and
administrative leadership at school sites unless otherwise specified.
A charter school is an autonomous, publicly funded entity that operates on
the basis of a contract between the group that organizes the school and a sponsor,
usually the local school district or state education agency (Fusarelli, 2002). From its
inception, the charter school movement relied on principals and teachers as critical
components of school organization (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). Although
governance of charter schools may differ at various school sites, the underlying
charter school idea emphasizes the participation of all stakeholders, including
principals, teachers, parents, and students, in various decision-making processes over
16
governance and school operations. As a growing body of literature indicates the
importance of school leadership in charter schools (Wells, Artiles, Carnochan, &
Cooper, 1998; WestEd & University of Southern California, 1998), this study aims
to highlight key practices of principal and teacher leadership as well as to explain the
need for leadership development and the challenges that school leaders have faced in
charter schools.
Definitions of Leadership
This section begins with changes in the historical development of school
leadership to describe how the concept of leadership changed over time. Although
many theories and definitions of leadership exist, development of the concept of
school leadership for this study can be summarized in three views: traditional
perspective, instructional leadership, and shared leadership. The traditional approach
in school leadership involves a “top-down” style of management and governance;
instructional leadership evolved in the 1980s with increased accountability of school
leaders to improve student achievement; shared leadership provides and nurtures
opportunities for all stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process. In
addition, theories and major studies on shared and distributive leadership are
provided. This section ends with a definition of school leadership for this study.
Historical Development of School Leadership
This section focuses on the historical development of school leadership,
including the traditional perspective, instructional leadership, and shared leadership.
The traditional perspective on school leadership involves a leader, such as a
principal, who assumes full responsibility for the group in a hierarchical
17
organization. In the 1980s, the idea of school leadership evolved into instructional
leadership due to an emphasis on improving the academic achievement of students.
The concept of shared leadership has emerged recently as teachers take on more
leadership roles and responsibilities in a school setting.
Traditional perspective on school leadership. Leadership has been
intimately linked to the effective functioning of complex organizations throughout
the centuries (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). In fact, leadership is critical to
the success of any institution or endeavor (Marzano et al., 2005). Likewise, beliefs
about the importance of school leadership are similar to those regarding leadership in
other types of organizations, such as corporations or financial institutions. Given the
fact that leadership is vital to the successful functioning of many aspects of a school
(Marzano et al., 2005), conventional knowledge in school leadership sustains the
traditional belief of hierarchical, top-down approaches as the most appropriate form
of school leadership. This paradigm was characterized by authoritarian managerial
leadership styles. The leaders in early school leadership approaches led unilaterally,
making organizational decisions alone and delivering those decisions for followers to
carry out. Furthermore, leaders were perceived as powerful and charismatic
(Northouse, 2006). The context and other individuals and aspects in the school
environment were secondary components in this framework where leaders’
responsibilities encompassed management and leadership functions and roles.
In Northouse’s (2006) survey of literature on leadership, he stated that many
studies have focused on leadership as a trait or a specialized role. The trait
perspective suggests that certain people in our society have special inborn qualities
18
that make them leaders. This view limits leadership capabilities to only those who
are believed to have special characteristics. In assigned leadership, leadership is
based on a formal title or a position in an organization. These two perspectives of
leadership limit the opportunities to conduct any leadership processes to only those
who possess these qualities or positions. Rejecting two traditional views of
leadership, Northouse suggests that leadership is defined as a process whereby an
individual influences a group of other individuals to achieve a common goal in
which leaders and followers both are part of the leadership process; thus leadership
can be learned and is available to everyone (Northouse, 2006).
Consonant to Northouse’s statement on leadership, researchers have
documented that these top-down and “pecking order” styles of school leadership do
not necessarily create effective change (Cuban, 2004; Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2000).
Moreover, the increasing complexity of school issues today demands a closer look at
all aspects of school leadership, including organization, structures, functions,
processes, roles, formal and informal leaders, followers, specifics of the
environment’s situation, and interactions. The hierarchical aspect of more traditional
school leadership approaches has been criticized as being too controlling and as
being likely to stifle the skills and leadership ability of others in the organization
(Elmore, 2004; Murphy, 2000), yet hierarchical leadership still predominates in
school contexts today. As explained by Muijs and Harris (2003), “The vast
leadership literature however reveals that it is largely premised upon individual
rather than collective action, and a single view of leadership continues to dominate,
equating leadership with headship. Possibly, this is because schools as organizational
19
structures remain largely unchanged, equating leadership with status, authority, and
position” (p. 437).
At least three developments have been identified as precursors for the
changes in school leadership paradigms: (a) severe criticism of authoritative
leadership, which has produced more inclusive leadership practices; (b) the
establishment, in the last decade, of a relationship between school leadership and
school improvement; and (c) added emphasis on the responsibilities and roles of
classroom teachers in processes of effective school restructuring (Andrews &
Crowther, 2002). Therefore, over the last 30 years, a new model of school leadership
has appeared, focusing on the manner in which school leadership affects
instructional outcomes and the role of school leaders in the process (Hallinger,
2003).
Instructional leadership. As curricular reform and the effective schools
movement took place in the last quarter of the 20
th
century, the conceptualization and
structure of leadership, as conceived by the early theories of leadership, began to
evolve. At the center of this transformation was the changing focus on the role of the
principal, traditionally characterized by organizational management and leadership
duties (Lemahieu, Roy, & Foss, 1997). Increased demands on school leadership
functions and processes associated with curriculum and instruction, as opposed to
solely leadership roles, added pressure externally as well as internally, therefore
creating the conditions and buy-in necessary for a change (Kezar, 2001).
Instructional leadership thus emerged, as a result of higher standards and
20
expectations for school leaders to reorganize, develop, and supervise instructional
practices in school settings.
Curriculum, instruction, and learning purposes and functions became a part
of the instructional leadership paradigm, thereby expanding conventional leadership
and management responsibilities and practices (Howe, 1994). However, although
instructional leadership recognized and incorporated curriculum, instruction, and
learning components, leadership functions were still the sole responsibility of school
principals. These new components, traditionally within the realm of teachers’ roles
and functions, were beyond principals’ areas of professional training and expertise.
In their exploration of instructional leadership, Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-
Gordon (2001) specified five categories of instructional leadership and suggested
specific recommendations to increase student achievement by encouraging the
participation of teachers in instructional leadership. These included: (a) Direct
assistance, which can be used to gather classroom data. Supervisiors, mentors, and
coaches can work with teachers to develop and to reflect on classroom instruction
and engage in classroom-based improvement. Direct assistance from mentors,
supervisors, and coaches can increase the teacher’s decision-making responsibility
by empowering teachers, thus enhancing the teacher’s capacity to empower students;
(b) Group development, which can assess and improve group culture by gathering
and analyzing data on how teachers treat each other. Enhancing dialogue, empathy,
trust, and collaboration within teams will improve the functioning of those teams and
ultimately affect the way that teachers work with students. (c) Professional
development, which fosters teachers’ pedagogical, cognitive, emotional, social, and
21
ethical development. It provides teachers opportunities to enhance their teaching
through learning and leading. By incorporating critical reflection, professional
dialogue, and collaborative learning, teachers develop their instructional leadership
dedicated to the continuing improvement of teaching and learning. (d) Curriculum
development, in which teachers design and develop a curriculum that promotes a
community of learners at the school. By understanding students’ background and
prior knowledge, teachers can design a curriculum that best fits the students by
helping them to make connections with academic learning and their background
knowledge. More detailed explanation on teachers designing curriculum and
instruction will be explained under teacher leadership. (e) Action research, which
gathers data to assess the gap between a vision or an academic goal and reality, plans
for change aimed at bridging the gap, integrates the tasks of bringing the change,
evaluates results, and revises the action plan in a cycle of continuous improvement.
Contrary to the ideas and recommendations of Glickman et al. (2001) on
instructional leadership, Owens (2001) commented that while school leaders have
general responsibility for the instructional programs of schools, their authority to
control the instructional behavior of teachers is rather limited. He added, however,
that school leaders do have access to bureaucratic means to structure the work of
teachers and, thereby, have the indirect means of influencing the instructional
behavior of the school--for example, control of time (instructional time and time
schedules), the assignment of students to classes (how many and what kind),
grouping (heterogeneously or homogeneously), and control of resources (p. 117).
Unlike the perspective of Glickman et al. (2001) on instructional leadership,
22
Owens’s view of instructional leadership focuses school leaders’ responsibility and
influence on shaping effective structure and governance for better improvement of
student performance.
In addition, the literature suggests that effective instructional leadership must
be rooted in the school culture which incorporates peer coaching, reflective
discussion, collaboration, study groups, analysis, and exploration to foster
professional communication among educators (Blasé & Blasé, 2000). With the
instructional leadership model, teachers started to assume formal and informal
leadership roles with increased emphasis on teacher participation in leadership
activities. Instructional leadership provided teacher empowerment through various
reform efforts. Standards-based and systematic reforms promoted the devolution of
authority and the transformation of the governance landscape through site-based
management and shared decision making (Malen & Ogawa, 1988).
Curriculum and instruction are essential tenets of instructional leadership, yet
the organization’s political, structural, and managerial roles drive its daily
functioning and fully occupy the time of those in formal positions, including the
principal. Under the instructional perspective, teachers are in charge of delivering
instruction in their classrooms yet have minimum say on instructional leadership
decisions. While instructional processes and structures have received a new and
more imperative meaning as a result of this leadership paradigm, research on this
leadership model has established a new connotation of school as a place for learning
and instruction and a principal as an instructional leader as a result (Blasé & Blasé,
1999). Equally important, research on this model has established that effective
23
instructional leadership practices are rooted in the school culture. Consequently,
creating a school mission and building a positive school culture are associated with
instructional leadership (Blasé & Blasé, 1999; Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger & Heck,
1996a & b).
Shared leadership. For a long time, leadership paradigms in the public
schools have placed the sole responsibility of school leadership functions and roles
on site administrators such as principals. As a result, the leadership field has focused
its attention on the behaviors, mindsets, and actions of the leader in a team or
organization. This paradigm has dominated our thinking in organizational behavior
for decades. Nevertheless, principals are expected to serve the often conflicting
needs and interests of many stakeholders, including students, parents, and teachers.
As a result, many scholars and practitioners have argued the job requirements far
exceed the reasonable capacities of any one person (Davis, Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). In addition, leadership functions are so numerous that
it is no longer possible for one person to consistently live up to all that is expected in
the role (Copland, 2001; Kimball & Sirotnik, 2000). Thus, in recent years, a few
scholars have challenged this notion, arguing that leadership is an activity that is
shared or distributed among members of a group or organization (Pearce & Conger,
2003). Emerging research points to the need for the development of collaborative
decision-making strategies, distributive leadership practices, a culture of collegiality,
and processes for organizational change (Davis et al., 2005).
This calls for shared leadership models (Davis et al., 2005; Elmore, 2004;
Gronn, 2000). Shared leadership refers to leadership that is not determined by a
24
position of authority but rather by an individual’s capacity to influence peers and by
the needs of the team at any given moment. In addition, each member of the team
brings unique perspectives, knowledge, and capabilities to the team. In their
exploration of shared leadership, Pearce and Conger (2003) listed many benefits of
shared leadership: First, shared leadership may improve the experience of work by
offering individuals opportunities for meaningful impact in their groups. Second,
shared leadership turns individuals from subordinates into fellow executives, and
into partners (Drucker, 2000), Third, shared leadership reaches beyond the limits of
individual leader capability since an individual vertical leader is less likely than the
team as a whole to have the knowledge and skills required to effectively lead the
team (Pearce & Sims, 2000; Perry, Pearce, & Sims, 1999). Thus, shared leadership
differs from the traditional view of leadership, which is authoritative and
bureaucratic, by offering opportunities to individuals and tapping their talents and
skills. Thus, ideas and notions of shared leadership paved a way for teacher
leadership, which will be explained under that heading later.
Theoretical Framework
The conceptual framework for school leadership is based on the theories of
leadership. For the purpose of this study, shared leadership and distributive
leadership are used as the theoretical framework for understanding this study--that is,
the relationship between the implementation of school leadership programs and
processes, and student achievement at charter schools, and how an increase in these
leadership practices incorporating shared and distributive leadership affects student
achievement.
25
Shared leadership. Traditional models of organizational leadership have
often been characterized as hierarchical, where a leader is an individual at a higher
level of authority or rank and who is the central directive figure setting the vision for
effective performance, communicating organizational policies, and enforcing
institutional control (Bass, 1990; Cox, Pearce, & Perry, 2003; Halal, 1994; Hatch,
1997). In reality, many units within organizations are composed of members often
chosen because each person represents unique knowledge and capability in a key
function of the organization (Cox et al., 2003; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). In this case,
the actual authority afforded to a formal or appointed leader in reality may be limited
because the appointed leader is dependent on the expertise of the team members for
accomplishing objectives. However, even in these teams, members may look to a
team leader as the person who sets directions and resolves questions that arise about
the team’s ultimate goal.
An alternative leadership approach is one in which team members each
assume some responsibility for the elements needed for leadership of a work group.
Members of the team may share the leadership responsibilities within the team. This
can lead members to feel they are part of a unit where each person jointly
participates in helping to lead the team through different situations (Pearce &
Conger, 2003). Shared leadership is a concept that has developed from a realization
that leadership can be effectively shared or distributed among members of a group or
a team (Pearce & Conger, 2003). While vertical leadership models depict a team
leader as being responsible for assuring team communication, integration, and
coordination (Cox et al., 2003), shared leadership models depict the team members
26
as the source of a collaboration process in which the functions of leadership are
shared. In this process, the team members exert influence on one another to forge a
direction that the team needs to accomplish its objectives (Cox et al, 2003; Seers,
Keller, & Wilkerson, 2003). The collaborative process of shared leadership often
results in improved team effectiveness, group productivity, and performance,
particularly in complex task situations (Cox et al., 2003; Klenke, 1997; Laschinger,
Finegan, & Shamian, 2001; Laschinger & Wong, 1999; O’May & Buchan, 1999;
Pearce, 1997; Perry et al., 1999).
In their quantitative study of 71 management teams comparing vertical (top-
down) and shared leadership as predictors of effectiveness, Pearce and Sims (2002)
found both vertical and shared leadership to be significantly related to team
effectiveness using multiple regression, although shared leadership appears to be a
more useful predictor of team effectiveness than vertical leadership.
In addition, in her review of literature and recommendations on shared
leadership, Lambert (1998, 2003) asserts the importance of developing leadership at
all levels of the organization. She states that everyone has the right, responsibility,
and ability to become a leader. By suggesting leadership as a shared responsibility
for the shared purpose of community, she emphasizes the fact that instructional
leadership is everyone’s responsibility, not just the principal’s; thus, it involves the
connections and learning processes among individuals in a school community by
learning together, constructing meaning and knowledge collectively and
collaboratively (Lambert, 1998, 2003).
27
Furthermore, in his analysis of various school reforms, Barth (1990) highlights
the idea of becoming a community of leaders. By stating that everyone deserves a
chance to become a leader and that all teachers can lead, he proposes the idea of
ensuring that students, teachers, and principals all become school leaders in some
ways. He states that everyone within the school is capable of leading and becoming
an active member in a community of learners. He also believes that collegiality will
facilitate the professional growth of teachers, thus aiding teachers in eliciting the best
from students and promoting them to achieve higher results.
Moreover, in his survey of theory and research on leadership, Yukl (2002)
summarized his recommendations on effective leadership. Those include (a) helping
to interpret the meaning of events; (b) creating alignment on objectives and
strategies; (c) building task commitment and optimism; (d) building mutual trust and
cooperation; (e) strengthening collective activity; (f) organizing and coordinating
activities; (g) encouraging and facilitating collective learning; (h) obtaining
necessary resources and support; (i) developing empowering stakeholders; and (j)
promoting social justice and morality. Echoing what Lambert (1998, 2003) and Barth
(1990) have stated, Yukl focuses on shared aspects of leadership around a common
goal by the participation and collaboration of all stakeholders. It is notable that many
studies in school leadership have focused on shared aspects of leadership and the
importance of constructing knowledge in a collective and collaborative manner. On
the other hand, another group of scholars has focused on forming a “professional
community” in which a community of learners (teachers, students, and a principal,
all stakeholders in a school) develops, influences, and assists one another in their
28
professional practice by constant reflection, communication, and feedback, resulting
in better understanding of the practice and improving the practice at the school.
These professional communities may be developed in teams of teachers or as a
school-wide.
The emphasis on peer-to-peer influence creates unique leadership situations
within teams utilizing shared leadership. For example, work groups that emphasize
the practice of shared leadership empower members to address issues that directly
affect their performance and role within the team (Porter-O’Grady & Wilson, 1995;
Spooner, Keenan, & Card, 1997). Engaging in this participation requires members to
work in relationship with other group members to set the direction and complete the
tasks that directly affect the team and themselves (Fletcher & Kaufer, 2003). As
individuals act autonomously and participate in the leadership responsibilities of the
team, group members may also experience an increase in accountability (Laschinger
& Wong, 1999; Spooner et al., 1997). Members participate in setting the directions
and goals for the team, but they are also responsible for helping to achieve those
goals. Therefore, members encourage and expect teammates to share in the process
of setting the direction and goals for the team as well as helping the team to
accomplish those tasks that bring the goals to fruition. With this approach, no one
member of the team is completely responsible or completely exonerated should the
group fail to meet its obligations. In shared leadership, responsibility and
accountability for tasks are distributed to all members of the team (Pearce & Conger,
2003).
29
Likewise, under the shared leadership model, the vision for a school is to
ensure that all stakeholders, including teachers, students, parents, and school leaders,
become school leaders (Barth, 1990). Thus, the capacity of shared leadership resides
among all members of the school community (Lambert, 1998). The concept of
shared leadership implies empowerment of teachers and community members to take
responsibilities and tasks in partnership with the school leaders (Taylor, n.d.). Under
shared leadership, school leaders are responsible for assisting to build capacity in the
school and fostering opportunities for teachers to develop the skills necessary to
participate in shared leadership activities (Taylor, n.d.). With shared leadership, the
school will be an inclusive community with mutual responsibility and high
expectations, where everyone contributes and benefits. In that case, student
achievement is seen as everyone’s responsibility (Taylor, n.d.).
Distributive leadership. Often used interchangeably with shared leadership,
distributive leadership involves tapping talents and skills of individuals in a group
and organizing those diverse competencies into a coherent whole (Elmore, 2000).
Distributive leadership does not necessarily mean that no one is responsible for the
overall performance of the organization, but rather that particular knowledge and
skills can complement one another for the accomplishment of the goal of the group
(Elmore, 2000).
In his examination of school leadership and school reform efforts, Elmore
(2000) wrote the following about rationales for distributive leadership: (a) It is nearly
impossible to perform complex tasks without widely distributing the responsibility
for leadership (guidance and direction) among people in various roles in the
30
organization and without working to create a common culture or set of values,
symbols, and rituals (p.16); (b) Distributive leadership means multiple sources of
guidance and direction following the contours of expertise in an organization made
coherent through a common culture (p.16). In this case, the performance of the group
is enhanced by utilizing multiple competencies and aptitudes of individuals with a
common goal in mind, usually improvement of instruction.
Similar to the ideas of Elmore (2000) on distributive leadership, Spillane
(2005) stated, in his discussion of distributive leadership using the Distributive
Leadership Study (School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern
University, 2004), distributive leadership is about leadership practice rather than
leaders or their roles, functions, routines, and structures. Under distributive
leadership, leadership practice is viewed as a product of the interactions of school
leaders, followers, and their situation. Rather than viewing leadership practice as a
product of a leader’s knowledge and skill, distributive leadership defines it as the
interactions between individuals and their situations; thus, leadership practice takes
shape within the interactions. Moreover, in distributive leadership, leadership is
viewed as a system of practice comprised of a collection of interacting components
among stakeholders rather than the sum of the practices (Spillane, 2005).
One of many responsibilities of school leaders in distributive leadership is to
enhance the skills and knowledge of teachers at the school and utilize those skills
and knowledge to create a common culture of expectations, holding the school
together in a productive relationship and holding individuals accountable for their
contributions to the collective result (Elmore, 2004). School leaders can develop a
31
community of leaders by openly articulating the goal/mission and involving teachers
in the decision-making process (Barth, 1990). In addition to sharing responsibilities
and tasks, teachers utilize their leadership capabilities since their leadership is proven
to be a major untapped resource for improving our nation’s schools (Barth, 1990).
The concept of teacher leadership will be explained in depth in a later section. Thus,
distributive leadership provides fertile ground for sustaining long-term commitments
to the desired goals of equity in a school setting. Concepts of shared and distributive
leadership emphasize the notion that achieving equitable outcomes for all students
cannot be mandated nor accomplished without the support and expertise of school
staff at all levels (Leverett, 2002).
In conclusion, the two relevant leadership theories explored are shared and
distributive leadership theories. According to Barth (2001), the “concept of shared
leadership in schools goes to the heart of principal/teacher relationships” (p. 449).
The relationships of teachers and principals may have “more impact on the quality
and character of the school--and on the accomplishment of youngsters--than any
other factor” (Barth, 2004, p. 105). Murphy (1999), as cited in Datnow and
Castellano (2001), noted that teaching and administration must be connected so that
organizational forms and administrative structures take form around the most
productive work on the core technology of schooling (p. 9). It appears, in fact, that
connecting teaching and administration requires “substantial change in working
relationships between teachers and administrators, as well as between the
institutional structures and cultures that hold them in place” (Datnow & Castellano,
2001, p. 220).
32
As mentioned in the literature, successful school leaders establish direction,
create vision, and motivate and inspire teachers and stakeholders (Kotter & Heskett,
1992). They facilitate coherence through providing mission and are able to align,
empower, and create a culture for better learning (Onoye, 2004). Although many
definitions of leadership may be vague, successful school leaders have common
characteristics that are essential to the success of schools (Maxwell, 1999; Bennis &
Goldsmith, 1997). Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) contend that there is no
agreed-upon definition of leadership. Yukl (2002) adds, “The definition of leadership
is arbitrary and very subjective. There is no ‘correct’ definition” (pp. 4-5). However,
given the widely accepted fact that strong leadership is crucial for school
effectiveness (Daresh, 1998; Sammons, Hillman, & Mortimore, 1995; Sheppard,
1996) and for school improvement (Hallinger & Heck, 1999; Stoll & Fink, 1996), it
is important to establish a working definition of school leadership.
This dissertation, Investigating Promising School Leadership Practices in
Two California Charter Schools, may help to provide the basis for a working
definition of school leadership. Based on previous research, the following definition
was formulated for this study: Leadership is a process of influence guiding the
achievement of desired purposes. Successful leaders develop a vision for their
schools based on their personal and professional values. They articulate this vision at
every opportunity and influence their staff and other stakeholders to share it. The
philosophy, structures, and activities of the school are geared toward the
achievement of this shared vision.
33
Thus, this definition of school leadership emphasizes the importance of
working on the same vision and goal as an organization among all stakeholders,
including the principal and teachers. Similar to the ideas of shared and distributed
leadership, this definition highlights sharing of influence and vision in order to
achieve a common goal--increased student achievement in a school setting. Although
this definition implies the ideas of shared and distributed leadership, this definition
of leadership emphasizes the fact that a leader is the ultimate decision maker
especially needed in critical moments. Thus, the definition of leadership used for this
study is built on the ideas of shared and distributed leadership with the emphasis on
the power and authority of a leader as the ultimate decision maker and the one who
guides the organization while all stakeholders participate in the decision-making
processes. Next, this review will present the importance of school leadership and
how school leadership impacts student achievement.
Importance of School Leadership
As leadership has become a key concept in the organization, management,
and administration of educational organizations and systems (Bennett & Anderson,
2003), it has been noted that high quality or effective leadership is positively related
to both effective individual and organizational performance (DeGroot, Kiker, &
Cross, 2000; Den Hartog, House, Hanges, & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1999; Howell &
Avolio, 1993). Specifically, “As educators and policy makers attempt to improve
education at the K-12 level, they examine school leadership since it plays a critical
role in fostering effective teaching and learning” (Murphy & Beck, 1995). Many
researchers assert that school leadership is a key factor in improving student
34
achievement and establishing successful schools (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2004; Onoye, 2004; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003; Whitaker,
2003). Exemplary schools have an effective school leader who facilitates staff
members’ engagement in school-wide efforts to improve student learning (National
Conference of State Legislatures, 2002). The school leader develops programs
focusing on instruction by establishing a clear vision and a shared institutional
mission. School leadership shapes goals, culture, and structure of the school (Fullan,
2001). In addition, it determines classroom conditions such as the content of
instruction, the size of classrooms, and the forms of pedagogy used by teachers. A
wide array of factors regarding effective school leadership, including those in the
school and the classroom, assist to facilitate teachers’ sense of professional
community and conditions that are directly responsible for student learning
(Leithwood et al., 2004).
As previously mentioned, research on leadership has highlighted its bearing
on the effectiveness of group performance and student achievement. Although
empirical studies that have examined particular practices that increase performance
or student achievement are few, a number of studies have examined how school
leadership impacts student achievement and the relationship between school
leadership and student performance. This section presents relevant research on how
school leadership impacts student achievement.
In their meta-analysis of 70 quantitative studies on effects of school
leadership on student achievement, Waters et al. (2003) demonstrated that there is a
substantial relationship between leadership and student achievement with a
35
correlation between leadership and student achievement of .25. They listed 21
specific leadership responsibilities significantly correlated with student achievement,
including communication, culture, focus, intellectual stimulation, involvement in
curriculum and instruction, monitoring/evaluation, visibility, etc. Their findings also
indicated that an increase in leadership ability would translate into mean student
achievement that is 10 percentile points higher, which represents a statistically
significant difference in achievement (Waters et al., 2003).
Similarly, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) demonstrated the
importance of leadership ability and its potential impact on student achievement in
their analysis of 69 studies on school leadership since 1970, including a survey of
more than 650 principals on how effective leaders behaved in relation to student
achievement. The typical study in their analysis used questionnaires asking teachers
about their perceptions of the principal’s leadership behaviors because teachers are
thought to provide the most valid information regarding behaviors of the principal
(Ebmeier, 1991; Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides, 1990). Then, the average score for
the teachers’ responses within each school was correlated with the average
achievement of students in that school. What Marzano et al. (2005) found was that
one could predict strong growth in student performance as leadership ability
increased. The average correlation between these two characteristics in their review
of the data was approximately .25. Figure 2 below shows how significant growth in a
leader’s ability can have significant effects on improved student achievement.
36
Figure 2. Leadership Ability and Student Achievement: Predicted
Increase in Student Achievement When Leadership Ability Improves
from 50th Percentile to 84th and 99
th
Percentile.
Of 21 leadership responsibilities developed in Waters et al. (2003), several
specific leadership practices were found to be more strongly related to student
achievement than the others. Among the practices most highly correlated with
student achievement were:
1. Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of school practices and their
impact on learning (.27 average correlation).
2. Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment (.25 average
correlation).
3. A change agent who is willing to and actively challenges the status quo
(.25 average correlation).
37
4. Seeking input by involving teachers in the design and implementation of
decisions and policies (.25 average correlation).
5. Managing the culture of the school by fostering shared beliefs and a sense
of community and cooperation (.25 average correlation).
The authors noted the powerful nature of effective leadership and its impact on
student achievement, emphasizing that in one study a correlation of .05 was noted.
This translated into an achievement differential of as much as one standard deviation
or as much as 19 percentile points. From this meta-analysis, it is important to note
that traits of instructional leadership, such as monitoring and evaluating effective
school practices and knowledge of curriculum and instruction, were listed as factors
that are correlated with student achievement. Additionally, it is evident that practices
that correlate with student achievement include ensuing commitment from
stakeholders by involving everyone, especially teachers, in a decision-making
process in order to facilitate a positive culture of school and a sense of community at
the school.
Some studies analyzed an indirect impact of school leadership on
organizational conditions and student achievement. In the quantitative study of 1,762
teachers and 9,941 students by Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) exploring the relative
effects of transformational leadership practices on selected organizational conditions
and student engagement, they concluded that there were strong effects of
transformational leadership on organizational conditions and moderate but still
significant total effects on student engagement. Whereas Waters et al. (2003) and
Marzano et al. (2005) demonstrated a direct effect of school leadership on student
38
achievement, the study by Leithwood and Jantzi offered a perspective on the indirect
impact of school leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement.
Thus, leadership impacts student achievement both directly and indirectly with
shared responsibilities and higher commitment for student learning.
Most researchers agree that the first step for school leaders is to bring out a
“deep level of commitment to ensure the best for each and every student” (Navarro
& Natalicio, 1999, p. 601). Ensuring commitment from all stakeholders in order to
increase student achievement may be a challenging task, and it must be
institutionalized before specific practices can be implemented. Waters (2007) has
identified the following specific traits designed to guide school leaders in leading
efforts to close the achievement gap.
1. Collaborative goal setting to develop goals that reflect necessary changes
to enhance student achievement.
2. Ensuring that there are non-negotiable goals for student achievement and
instruction and they are based on relevant research.
3. Ensuring that resources are dedicated to professional development of
teachers and tracking student progress toward district goals.
4. Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of district instructional
programs and the instructional needs of students from diverse
populations.
5. Superintendents providing autonomy to principals to run their schools
while expecting alignment on district achievement and instructional goals
and the use of resources for professional development.
39
In order for school leaders to be successful in leading schools that close the
achievement gap and demonstrate a measurable increase in student achievement,
they must have a concrete plan that identifies measurable goals for academic success,
and they need to allocate resources to realize the goal. School leaders’ visibility on
school campus through frequent monitoring and evaluating are also crucial. When
school leaders, especially principals, are granted their autonomy in school
governance, school leaders are able to exercise flexibility and freedom on making
decisions for their schools while maintaining their accountability.
Similarly, Waters and his colleagues (2004) identified salient characteristics
and conditions that are necessary to develop a purposeful leadership community to
increase student achievement. Those characteristics include a consensus for working
together, connections among key members of the community, shared leadership
responsibility, consensus about the ways the team works together, and team building
on strengths in addition to addressing weaknesses (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,
2004).
Thus, researchers suggest that effective school leadership, both
administrative and teacher leadership, is essential for improving student learning
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2002) since effective school leaders
make a difference in improving instruction and pedagogy (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Their top priority is teaching and learning as they challenge curriculum and assist to
create effective instructional practices that will raise student achievement. Moreover,
effective school leaders may need to properly focus on practices most likely to have
a positive impact (Marzano et al., 2005) including shaping the nature of school
40
conditions such as the content of instruction, the size of classrooms, and the forms of
pedagogy most conducive to student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004). Effects of
school leaders result in a creation of a professional community where continuous
practices of learning and teaching are the norms of the school (Leithwood et al.,
2004). In this section, several pieces of literature listing key behaviors of successful
school leaders and how they have utilized their leadership practices to improve the
academics of students were explained. In the following sections, principal and
teacher leadership and how they incorporate their leadership to increase student
achievement will be explained.
School Leadership
School leadership, specifically principal and teacher leadership, has been the
subject of public attention and scrutiny in the past two decades. In this review of the
literature, empirical studies as well as theoretical and interpretive work on principal
and teacher leadership are presented. Literature on school leadership in this study is
two-fold: Principal leadership and teacher leadership. Studies on principal leadership
highlighted principals’ behaviors affecting student achievement and how they
attempt to shape school culture in a positive manner. Dimensions of principal
leadership in charter schools are also explained. In addition, definitions of teacher
leadership, characteristics of teacher leaders, and roles of teacher leaders, including
developing instruction and curriculum, participating in decision making,
empowering through professional growth, facilitating school change, and managing
the school, will be explored. Teacher leadership in charter schools, which includes
41
roles such as instructional leader and decision maker in school governance and
operations, will be described at the end.
Principal Leadership
Principals, regardless of the student population they serve, are held
accountable for student achievement in their schools. Although some literature finds
that the direct effect of principals on student achievement is near zero (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996a & b; Leithwood et al., 1999; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003), it is
generally agreed that principals make a difference in student learning by
demonstrating behaviors (e.g., reflective practices, instructional practices, etc.) that
affect school environment, which in turn influences achievement of students
(Matthews, 1976; Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Staine, 2004). In addition, many
researchers noted the principal as the single most influential person in any school
(Marzano et al., 2005). At the same time, charter schools require the same kind of
quality leadership as traditional public schools (Bulkley & Fisler, 2002) although the
role, functions, and expectations of principals at charter schools may be different
(Dressler, 2001). Past literature regarding the impact of principal leadership on
student achievement can be categorized into three groups: principals’ behaviors
affecting student achievement, principals changing school culture, and principal
leadership in charter schools.
Principals’ behaviors affecting student achievement. A growing body of
literature has investigated principal behavior and student achievement, and many
researchers have noted that there are positive correlations between the practices of
school principals and student academic achievement (Cotton, 2003). Notably, in their
42
review of research on the principal’s role in school effectiveness from 1980 to 1995,
Hallinger and Heck (1996a) concluded that principal leadership can make a
difference in student learning although principal leadership is mediated by other in-
school variables (e.g., school culture and environment). This study also emphasized
that functions of the principal included sustaining a school-wide purpose focusing on
student learning and the significance of understanding how principals can improve
school outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a).
Specifically, several behaviors that are cited throughout the research as being
associated with increased student achievement include communicating high
expectations, setting goals, using data analysis, leading instruction, and hiring the
most qualified staff (Carter, 2001; DuFour, 2002; Duttweiler & Hord, 1987; Lezotte,
1992a, 1992b). By demonstrating these behaviors, principals set the culture of the
school and establish high expectations of academic success.
In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature on the
principal as an instructional leader, and the importance of effective leadership on
school performance has been well documented in the literature (Gates, Ross, &
Brewer, 2001; Leithwood, 1988; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Senge, 1990; Waters et al.,
2003). The National Association of Elementary School Principals (2001) defined
instructional leadership as “leading learning communities.” This definition views
principals as facilitators, guiding and encouraging an educational environment in
which administrators and teachers work collaboratively to diagnose and solve the
problems facing their schools. Moreover, Blasé and Blasé (2000) defined
instructional leadership in a series of seven principal behaviors: (a) making
43
suggestions, (b) giving feedback, (c) modeling effective instruction, (d) soliciting
opinions, (e) supporting collaboration, (f) providing professional development
opportunities, and (g) giving praise for effective teaching.
In addition to those findings, in Leithwood’s (2005) study of 63 case studies
of successful principal leadership from seven countries, the researcher identified
some variables linking principals’ practices to student learning:
1. Time on task: from teaching effects research (Smyth, 1987, and identified in
the Australian report);
2. Quality of instruction/instructional climate: reports from Norway, Australia,
and the United States (Biddle & Dunkin, 1987);
3. Curriculum: identified in Australian, Norwegian, and U. S. reports;
considerable additional evidence links between better ideas for instruction
and engaging students to improvements in their learning (Brophy, 2003);
4. Safe and orderly climate: identified in the Australian and U. S. reports, a
school variable for an effective school (Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993);
5. School culture: identified in all country reports, has been a significant focus
for principals’ intervention (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Dart, 1990);
6. Teacher commitment: a key part from the reports from England, China, and
Denmark, such commitment is supported by previous evidence (Dannetta,
2002).
The study by Leithwood (2005) supports the fact that the effects of principal
leadership are not limited to the arena of instruction but rather touch every aspect of
the school environment. Other researchers have identified principals’ effects on
collective teacher efficacy (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000), the sense of professional
community (Louis & Kruse, 1995), organizational learning processes (Silins &
Mulford, 2004), school goals (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b), teacher capacity
44
and experience (Glass, 2002), and procedures for monitoring student progress
(Walberg, 1984) as other factors impacting student learning.
Principals of high-achieving schools monitor assessment of every student
(Carter, 2001). The principal as a leader of instruction utilizes data analysis of
assessments to develop strategies for improvements (DuFour, 2002). Analysis of
assessments can also assist the principal in planning meaningful staff development.
In addition, in Thompson’s (2002) interview of five principals at successful middle
schools, one principal responded that the most important skill for administrators is to
“collect, analyze, and use data to make informed decisions about programs and
practices that affect student achievement” (p. 39). Bell (2001) agreed, citing research
indicating that regular use of assessment as a diagnostic tool to reach academic goals
is a critical leadership behavior for high-achieving, high-poverty schools.
A small number of researchers reported characteristics of successful principal
leadership in high-poverty, high-achieving schools. In a recent study of 21 schools,
which have 75% or more students qualifying for free or reduced-lunch programs and
have attained between the 65
th
and 80
th
percentiles on national standardized tests,
Carter (2001) identified five principal behaviors related to the success: autonomy
over school finances and the selection of teachers, establishing their own curricula,
and utilizing innovative and flexible ways with their budgets. The results found that
principals at these high-poverty, high-performance schools select their own faculty--
the most qualified teachers--and work with them to determine what will be taught.
Additionally, several studies have revealed the principal’s role in increasing
student achievement in particular subjects (e.g., reading, etc.) For instance,
45
Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis (1996) found that principals have contributed to
reading achievement of students through creation of a positive instructional climate
by setting high teacher expectations, offering students opportunities to learn,
explicitly explaining the clear mission of the school, and effective grouping for
instruction. In addition, in the study by Teisinger (2000) of the principal’s role in
increasing student achievement in a low-performing elementary school, the
researcher found three factors that contributed to the students’ improvement in
literacy: Implementation of a research-based literacy program that focused on
effective instruction; a unique system of building leadership capacity among the
teachers and support staff; strong instructional leadership provided by the principal.
In this study, the author concluded that the principal’s transition into a
transformational leader coincided with increases in student achievement in literacy
and there was a direct link between student achievement, the strength of the school’s
literacy program, the development of teachers as school leaders, and the principal’s
transformative leadership.
As the relationship between principal leadership and student achievement has
been widely investigated, in the study by Leithwood and Riehl (2005) analyzing 63
case studies of successful principal leadership from seven countries, the researchers
defined three successful leadership practices across contexts: setting directions,
developing people, and redesigning the organization. They are covered in more detail
in the following paragraphs.
Setting directions: Evidence reviewed by Leithwood and Riehl (2005)
suggested that successful leadership creates a compelling sense of purpose in the
46
organizations by developing a shared vision, assisting to build consensus about
short-term and long-term goals, and demonstrating high expectations. Reports from
different countries describe how successful leaders utilize these practices in ways
specifically suited to their contexts. For instance, goal setting was closely linked to
the demands for greater accountability. And, in Australia, shared vision focused on
learning over the life span. However, student learning was central to the direction in
setting activities of successful school leaders in all counties.
Developing people: Leithwood and Riehl (2005) also stated successful
principals’ practices in these countries included providing support and intellectual
stimulation (e.g., reflection), and modeling important values and practices.
Australian principals, for example, were reported to support staff members in times
of crisis, acknowledge their accomplishments, and engage them in critical reflection.
Principals in the United States were reported to mentor their colleagues, as well as
model the values and instructional practices considered productive for their schools.
Most successful leaders were reported to be visible and accessible to staff, students,
and parents, being readily available to provide assistance as needed, a feature
highlighted particularly in the reports from Sweden and Denmark.
Redesigning organization: Leithwood and Riehl (2005) also included
building a collaborative school culture, creating structures to encourage participation
in decision-making, and building productive relationships with the community as
practices of successful principals. Successful principals in most countries encouraged
cultures of collaboration by distributing leadership; there was a particular emphasis
in Norwegian cases.
47
From these data, the authors concluded that successful principal leadership
practices are common across contexts in their form, but highly adaptable. This study
has shown that effective principals in different countries, including the United States,
demonstrate similar behaviors in order to achieve academic excellence. Principals in
these countries are not only instructional leaders, but also supporters of fostering an
environment encouraging high student achievement, and creators of positive school
culture/atmosphere demonstrated by open communication and rapport providing an
environment that facilitates learning.
In shaping school culture, Sullivan’s (2004) study on leadership
characteristics and practices of school leaders impacting student achievement found
that the culture of the school was the responsibility of the leadership as it focuses on
coherence and building a community of learners working to improve student
achievement. Social activities such as celebration and appreciation of
accomplishments may result in a positive school culture. Principals must initiate and
arrange the celebration, making a statement of their appreciation for the effort and
commitment needed to make success a reality (Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Marshak &
Klotz, 2001). To keep the staff members energized, principals must be positive,
supportive, and encouraging (Thomas, 2000). When the leadership is encouraging to
the teachers, teachers are more likely to support, encourage, and be positive with
their students. Through many recognitions and celebrations, teachers are motivated
(Sweeney, 2000) although an emotionally satisfying worksite does not necessarily
result in the achievement of organizational goals and student success (Lashway,
1996).
48
Numerous studies have attempted to explain the relationship between the
behaviors of principals and student achievement. It is generally agreed among
researchers that principals’ behavior positively affects academic achievement of
students. Specifically, Scheerens and Bosker (1997) found that principal behaviors
that are more closely associated with the student (classroom-level) produced more
robust relationships than did principal behaviors at the school level. In addition,
recent research regarding principal behavior resulting in student achievement can be
summarized into eight common traits: (a) recognizing teaching and learning as the
main business of the school; (b) communicating the school’s mission clearly and
consistently to all stakeholders; (c) fostering standards for teaching and learning that
are high yet attainable; (d) providing clear goals and monitoring the progress of
students toward meeting them; (e) spending time in classrooms and listening to
teachers; (f) promoting an atmosphere of trust and sharing; (g) building an effective
staff and making professional development a top priority; and (h) not tolerating
ineffective teachers (Education Week, 1998). These ideas provide an insight into
which behaviors affect student achievement and may guide principals and other
school leaders in identifying their priorities in achieving their goals. The results of
the studies emphasize the importance of school leadership by identifying the specific
behaviors that are connected to increasing student academic improvement.
Principals shaping school culture. In addition to many studies and
recommendations on principal behaviors for improving student achievement,
researchers have recently identified an indirect relationship between
principals creating an educational environment and student achievement (Hallinger
49
et al., 1996; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1994, Heck, 1993; Witziers et al., 2003).
Contrary to many studies that analyzed principals’ behaviors, these scholars take an
indirect approach in explaining the effect of principal leadership on student learning
by observing how principals reshape school culture/atmosphere, contributing to
teacher efficacy and commitment, exhibiting a focus on high expectations, and
establishing tangible goals, ultimately resulting in an increase in student
achievement.
In their examinations of the teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational
health of schools, surveying 179 teachers randomly selected from 37 elementary
schools in New Jersey, Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) found that a healthy school
climate--one with strong academic emphasis and principal influence--is conducive to
the development of teachers’ beliefs that they can influence student learning.
Similarly, in their quantitative analysis at 24 schools (8 elementary, 8 middle, and 8
high schools) on principal leadership and school performance, Marks and Printy
(2003) found that transformational leadership of a principal is a necessary, but
insufficient, condition for instructional leadership. However, the results from this
study suggested that strong transformational leadership by the principal is essential
in supporting commitment of teachers and the effectiveness of integrated leadership,
transformational and instructional, in eliciting the instructional leadership of teachers
for improving school performance.
Moreover, a few studies have examined the principal’s impact on teacher
development and school effectiveness. In Leithwood’s (1992) review of literature on
the principal’s role in teacher development, he summarized three dimensions of
50
teacher development that principals can influence: development of professional
expertise, psychological development, and career-cycle development (p. 87). While
some scholars do not agree with the idea of principals demonstrating a direct impact
on student achievement, Leithwood (1992) expanded the responsibilities of
principals, which included establishing a school culture based on norms of
collaboration and professional inquiry and reshaping teaching as a collaborative
professional expertise. Additionally, a study by Hallinger et al. (1996) examining
principal’s effects on reading achievement in 87 elementary schools in Tennessee
revealed no direct effect of principal instructional leadership on student achievement
but supported the belief that a principal can have an indirect effect on school
effectiveness through actions that shape the school’s learning climate. Effective
principals create the conditions for successful schooling by providing coherence to
their schools’ instructional programs, conceptualizing instructional goals, setting
high academic standards, staying informed of policies and teachers’ concerns,
making frequent classroom visits, creating incentives for learning, and maintaining
student discipline (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982). Therefore, the results of
both studies by Leithwood (1992) and Hallinger et al. (1996) support the indirect
effects of principal leadership on student achievement and how principals engage in
an important role in school effectiveness.
Thus, successful principal leadership includes shaping school culture by
sharing vision, providing support for instruction, fostering collaboration, and
facilitating greater teacher commitment. In an analysis of the impact of leadership
and culture on student achievement, Jellander (2004) pointed out that the principal
51
guides the school to a culture of sharing a vision that strives for academic excellence.
Similarly, Liberati’s (2004) study of the influence of school site leadership on culture
and student achievement demonstrated that it is the principal who shapes a strong
positive school culture by expressing a genuine concern for all stakeholders. In his
study, Liberati (2004) showed that principals shaped the culture of the school by
demonstrating shared decision making, building trust, focusing on academic
improvement of students, setting high expectations, and becoming involved in every
aspect of the school function.
In addition to creating a positive school culture, principals may also increase
teachers’ efficacy by setting feasible goals, clarifying standards, and linking actions
that affect student outcomes. Leadership actions contributing to teacher efficacy
include emphasizing accomplishment (Lee, Buck, & Midgley, 1992), giving frequent
feedback (Chester & Beaudin, 1996), and promoting academic emphasis in the
school (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993). Principals also contribute to increasing teacher
efficacy in instruction through persuasion (inspirational messages and affirmations of
teacher competence by sharing decision making) and vicarious experience (providing
opportunities for teachers to observe each other’s success). The relationships among
teacher efficacy and various dimensions of teacher commitment have been amply
demonstrated at the individual level (Ross, 1998). However, fewer studies have
examined the path at the collective level. Goddard (2002) found that collective
teacher efficacy was associated with teacher influence over school decisions, and
Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2000) concluded that collective teacher efficacy
influenced teachers’ willingness to assist each other, and Jex and Bliesse (1999)
52
asserted that collective efficacy contributed to higher commitment in a military
setting. Teachers who are more committed to the values of an organization and to its
members are more likely to adopt instructional practices recommended by the
organization, assist colleagues, and work harder to achieve organizational goals.
Such commitment would contribute to higher student achievement (Koh et al. 1995;
Park, 2004).
Previous research noted that increasing teachers’ efficacy, commitment, and
principal leadership responsibilities for teachers are associated with increased student
achievement by setting high expectations to improve the quality of educational
opportunities. High expectations are the norm for principals of high-achieving
schools (Duttweiler & Madden, 2001); however, setting high expectations is not
enough to realize the goal of increased student achievement. Principals must not only
communicate high expectations to their staff (Verona & Young, 2001), but they must
also establish tangible goals and hold teachers accountable for reaching them (Carter,
2001). Many researchers argue that teachers set the high standards for students as
principals set high standards for teachers (Jackson & Davis, 2000). Especially,
Picucci, Brownson, Kahlert, and Sobel (2002) reported that principals in high-
poverty, high-performing middle schools in Texas exhibited a clear focus of high
expectations for student performance. At these schools, principals promoted their
expectations “through dialogue, action, and symbolic gestures” (Picucci et al., 2002,
p. 38). Clark and Clark (2002) added that principals must believe that all students
can be successful learners in order to make learning the top priority.
53
Principal leadership in charter schools. In realizing the goal of high
academic achievement of students, principals at charter schools are no different than
district-run public schools. Effective schools are those characterized by clear and
academically oriented goals with teachers who are well qualified and work together
and who are led by principals who are truly instructional leaders. Moreover,
principals at effective schools have a clear vision of the school and are sufficiently
knowledgeable about teaching and education to help teachers and students work
toward desired educational goals and are able to overcome challenges in school
operations.
Several authors reported that the principal is the critical figure in starting and
operating successful charter schools (Wells et al., 1998; WestEd & University of
Southern California, 1998). Often as a founding member of a charter school, the
principal sets the school’s goals and articulates the priorities (Chubb & Moe, 1990).
At the same time, Dressler (2001) noted, the ultimate responsibility of a principal at
a charter school would be to ensure that the school is accountable and responsive to
their constituencies. Daresh and Playko (1997) mentioned that the role of a principal,
including principals in charter schools, is becoming more complex and difficult each
day while greater pressures are being placed on the shoulder of principals. From a
study of 17 charter schools in Colorado, Dressler argued that being a charter school
principal is very much like being a superintendent in a small school system but with
possibly more responsibilities and tasks to accomplish, especially in school
management and governance. For instance, responsibilities of principals at charter
schools include the following: staff supervision, facility management, teaching and
54
counseling, discipline, school governance, grant writing, reporting and management,
keeping vision alive, budgeting, being an instructional leader, fiscal direction,
directing curriculum, staffing (hiring, firing, and evaluating), budgeting, accounting,
reporting, support from parents, and raising, and public relations (Dressler, 2001).
Charter school principals also work with a governing board in selection of
staff members, developing, and overseeing the school. In addition, they manage the
day-to-day operation of school purchases, apply for grants, and write out discipline
policies. They write policy and procedures along with the governing board and
attend board, advisory, and PTA meetings and functions (Dressler, 2001). In meeting
so many responsibilities as school leaders, principals at charter schools are perceived
by teachers as instrumental to the schools’ success (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). In
their analysis of 40 charter schools, Malloy and Wohlstetter noted that the teachers
viewed principals as facilitators of a team, as well as being instructional and
curricular leaders. A teacher from this study highlighted the fact that the principal’s
main concern is curricular excellence, which can be one of the traits of successful
school leaders. From the literature (Owens, 2001; Glickman et al., 2001), it is
generally agreed that effective principals set priorities by focusing on instruction
despite countless responsibilities and tasks that need to be accomplished.
With addition to limited time and resources, charter school principals face
other challenges at their school sites similar to principals at public schools. In
Dressler’s (2001) study, charter school principals’ descriptions of educational
challenges were similar to principals in traditional schools. Common challenges
identified were working with the home school district, handling public relations,
55
communicating with parents, and maintaining a positive image of the school. Lack of
time to complete the many leadership and school tasks was also a challenge. The
majority of the principals indicated that they spent much time and effort on fund-
related arenas, including accounting, budgeting, looking for alternative sources of
revenue (e.g., grant writing), and finding funds to construct new facilities (Dressler,
2001).
Despite numerous challenges and responsibilities, charter schools raise new
and clearer expectations for principals (Dreesler, 2001). By examining the programs
and processes involved in school leadership, including principal leadership,
invaluable insights would be gained regarding appropriate leadership behavior with a
focus on desirable outcomes. Although principals of charter schools may or may not
emerge from traditional public schools (Dressler, 2001), leadership, especially
principal leadership, was among the most important factors that constitute successful
charter schools (Sarason, 1999).
In light of research on principal leadership discussed in the literature, it is
apparent that the quality of principal leadership has a notable relationship to student
achievement, directly and indirectly. Principals impact student achievement by
demonstrating their practices and behaviors directly on instruction, including
monitoring assessments and providing constructive feedback to teachers. Moreover,
principals indirectly affect student achievement by helping to increase teachers’
efficacy and commitment, thus resulting in higher student achievement. In extension,
principals can change the culture of the school positively or negatively by their
actions and behaviors.
56
Interestingly, some studies discuss the idea that the effectiveness of the
principal depends on the receptiveness and perception of teachers to the acts of the
principal (Andrews, Soder, & Jacoby, 1986). The results from the study by Andrews
et al. indicated that teachers’ perceptions of the principal as an instructional leader
are critical to the achievement of students in reading and math. Although many
studies reported that principal leadership is critical to student achievement, it is
logical to infer that principal leadership is not the only aspect crucial to student
success. In order to realize higher student achievement, the desire of all educators
beyond the principal (Johnson & Asera, 1999) utilizing all possible resources
(Matthews, 1976) and strategies for improvement of learning needs to be mustered.
In summary, as stated in previous literature, principals impact every
dimension of school by demonstrating behaviors that affect student achievement and
shaping school culture through many activities and interactions with stakeholders.
Principal leadership in charter schools is crucial as it tends to include more
obligations, as school leaders and, sometimes, founding members of their schools,
than even their public school counterparts.
Teacher Leadership
While teacher leadership within a classroom is a long-established tradition
(Lortie, 1975), the concept of teacher leadership is relatively unique as teachers are
establishing leadership roles outside of the classroom or in non-instructional areas
(Lieberman, 1992; Smylie & Denny, 1990). Since leadership has tended to be
associated with ascribed authority and position (Crowther & Olsen, 1997), leadership
traditionally has been perceived to reside with school administrators where power is
57
exerted downward to teachers (Yarger & Lee, 1994). Researchers claim that the
theme of teacher leadership is still an underdeveloped topic (Crowther & Olsen,
1997) both conceptually and in practice. However, many researchers agree that
teacher leadership is essential to change and improvement in a school (Killion, 1996;
Whitaker, 1995) and that genuine, long-lasting school change initiatives must derive
from teachers (Kelley, 1994).
Charter schools recognized teachers as critical components of school
governance from the inception of the charter school movement (Malloy &
Wohlstetter, 2003). As a part of the charter school idea, rooted in citizens designing
and governing their own schools (Smith, 1997), charter schools were based on a
belief that teachers are professionals who should be actively involved in the
operation and management of schools (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). With increased
autonomy, flexibility, and innovation, teacher leaders have more control over school
governance and operations to enhance student performance and the quality of
education (Wohlstetter, Wenning, & Briggs, 1995) in charter schools, as will be
shown in the examination of literature at the end of this section.
Definition of teacher leadership. While definitions of teacher leaders
abound in the literature (LeBlanc & Shelton, 1997), the term teacher leadership is
often misunderstood (Moller & Pankake, 2006). This lack of clarity can lead to
confusion that results in obstacles to teachers who take on leadership roles (Moller &
Pankake, 2006). Fortunately, over the last 20 years, a body of knowledge about
teacher leadership has emerged. York-Barr and Duke (2004) defined teacher
leadership as the process by which teachers, individually or collectively, influence
58
their colleagues, principals, and educational practices with the aim of increased
student learning and achievement. This definition of teacher leadership does not
identify a person or a set of characteristics; instead, it examines leadership as an
organizational quality that is influenced by teachers, staff members, and others.
Fullan (2004) supports this perspective by stating that teacher leadership is the key to
the new revolution in transforming schools.
In her in-depth case studies of three lead teachers--each with a different
focus, geographical location, and role--Wasley (1991) reinforces York-Barr and
Duke’s (2004) ideas on teacher leadership by listing three empowering
responsibilities for teacher leaders: (a) the autonomy to decide which strategies they
will use; (b) the freedom to experiment with those techniques with students and with
other teachers; and (c) the opportunities to be engaged in learning about the
foundations of the methods they recommend to their colleagues. In her study,
Wasley concluded that, in order for teacher leadership to become a reality, teachers
must be given sufficient support for their work. Further, she suggested that school
culture be altered to accommodate these new skills and abilities that teachers
developed. The principal’s role in this process is to create a school culture in which
the teachers’ knowledge, interests, talents, and skills are maximized. In time,
teachers come forward to take on leadership roles and responsibilities to become
powerful change agents who transform the methods of instruction in the school
(Moller & Pankake, 2006).
Teachers as leaders. Contrary to traditional perspectives on leadership,
shared and distributive leadership call for teacher leadership and teachers’
59
participation in school governance. Many scholars support the idea of teacher
leadership by highlighting many benefits of teachers being leaders of the school.
Barth (1990), in his reflection of experiences as a school principal with a literature
review on school reforms, lists the following benefits of teacher leadership: (a) A
“win-win” situation: When teachers are enlisted and empowered as school leaders,
everyone can win since teachers’ concerns are frequently better understood by their
fellows and the principal gains influence and demonstrates leadership by entrusting
some leadership responsibilities to other teachers. Being accorded leadership
generates new leadership. (b) Attracting more able teachers to the profession: By
engaging teachers in leadership activities, they were empowered and challenged to
choose to remain in teaching. Leadership opportunities will bring out the best from
their students as well. Teacher leadership will raise student achievement. (c)
Ownership and commitment: By providing teachers with leadership opportunities,
one accords them with recognition. Therefore, they will work harder, better, and
longer. In short, research suggests that the greater the participation in decision
making, the greater the productivity, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment. (d) Community building: Teacher leadership offers possibilities for
improving teaching conditions and replaces the solitary authority of the principal
with a collective authority. It provides a constructive format in which teachers can
interact and help transform schools into contexts for learning, and participation in
leadership builds community (Barth, 1990).
As teachers begin to believe in their leadership capabilities, including
involvement in curriculum development; professional development; and gaining
60
experience in organizational, administrative, and interpersonal skills (Lieberman,
Saxl, & Miles, 2000), teacher leaders take on increased school-wide responsibilities,
and in so doing affect teaching and learning throughout the school site.
Roles of teacher leaders are numerous, as mentioned by many scholars in the
literature. Devaney (1987) (as cited in Lieberman, 1988) wrote about six arenas in
which teachers can demonstrate their leadership at the school level, which include
the following: (a) Lead teachers continue to teach and to improve their own teaching;
(b) Lead teachers organize and lead well-informed peer reviews of school practice;
(c) Lead teachers participate productively in school-level decision making; (d) Lead
teachers organize and lead in-service education for their colleagues; (e) Lead
teachers advise and assist individual teachers; and (f) Lead teachers participate in the
performance evaluation of teachers.
Additionally, Sherrill (1999) states that teacher leaders include clinical
faculty, clinical educators, teachers-in-residence, master teachers, lead teachers, and
clinical supervisors, while Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann (2002) define
teacher leaders as those teachers who lead within and beyond the classrooms.
Crowther et al. explain that teacher leaders contribute to a community of teachers
and influence others towards improved educational practice.
Similar to Crowther et al. (2002), Forster (2001) asserts that teacher
leadership is both a right and a responsibility of all teaching professionals and that all
teachers must be educational leaders in order to optimize the teaching and learning
experience for themselves and their students. Teacher leaders set their students’
learning as their primary goal and work within their own classrooms to improve
61
student achievement (Merideth, 2007). Additionally, teacher leaders collaborate with
other educators to extend their learning, advance successful school improvement
efforts through professional development, and support shared vision and values. In
their survey of literature on teacher leaders, Crowther, Ferguson, and Hann (2009)
wrote about multiple responsibilities of teacher leaders, including facilitating
communities of learning by professional learning and synthesizing new ideas,
striving for pedagogical excellence, nurturing a culture of success, and emphasizing
high expectations for student achievement. From these roles of teacher leaders listed,
it is clear that no one person could assume all the leadership responsibilities required,
and in order to be enacted, teacher leadership had to be shared. Thus, this expanded
notion of teacher leadership not only lifted the burden from individuals but also
provided the criteria for distributing and sharing the work of leadership as school
leadership may be enhanced by different knowledge and skills of all stakeholders.
The major roles of teacher leaders can be summarized into the following four: (a)
improving student achievement, (b) extending their own learning, (c) collaborating
for school improvement, and (d) supporting shared vision and values (Merideth,
2007). In the following sections, different responsibilities of teacher leaders will be
explained in depth.
Development of curriculum and instruction. While teacher leaders hold
many leadership responsibilities, several researchers identified that teacher
leadership is grounded in classrooms (Fay, 1992; McLaughlin & Yee, 1988; Wasley,
1991). They assert that teacher leadership stems from teachers being leaders in
instruction and pedagogy (Little, 1988; Odell, 1997). Since teaching, learning, and
62
teacher leadership are inextricably linked (Odell, 1997), teacher leaders are
concerned about interaction with their students, their knowledge and implementation
of their academic discipline, their relationships with educational stakeholders, and
their own professionalism (Merideth, 2007).
Hargreaves (2003) emphasizes a process of learning in teacher leaders’
classrooms as well as collaborating in building curriculum with other school leaders
and teachers for enhanced learning and instruction. Thus, teacher leaders make
curricular decisions that reflect best practices in instruction and assessment within
their own classrooms (Merideth, 2007). School leaders’ involvement in curriculum
and instruction establishes a school as a unit of curricular improvement and planning
as curricular planning, and changes are shared among all teachers and teacher
leaders. Snell & Swanson (2000) conclude that a teacher leader with subject and
pedagogical expertise is well suited for being a curricular leader since the authority
stems from credibility as an expert classroom practitioner. Therefore, teacher
leadership promotes enhanced attention to targeted instructional strategies and
conditions (Mojkowski & Fleming, 1988). As schools become more responsive to
community and student needs (Lindelow, 1981), they focus attention on issues
central to improving the performance of student populations (Duttweiler & Mutchler,
1990).
Participation in school decision making. While teacher leaders develop
instruction and pedagogy with other stakeholders, they are also gaining greater
influence by participating in school decision-making processes (Casner-Lotto, 1988;
Devaney, 1987; Johnson, 1990). Teacher leaders participate in the area of school-
63
wide decision making and governance, which was traditionally reserved for
administrative fiat (Danielson, 2006). These areas include staff selection, budgeting,
and teacher evaluation. Teacher leaders also serve on site councils and make
contributions to mentoring and professional development. As teacher leaders become
involved in the school decision-making process (Leithwood, Jantzi, Ryan, &
Steinbach, 1997), schools benefit from better decisions (Barth, 2001). Also, those
decisions that are the results of collaborative decision-making processes are more
likely to fulfill the needs of students (Weiss, Cambone, & Wyeth, 1991) since
teacher leaders bring a wide range of perspectives and expertise related to learning
and instruction (Burke, 1992). Thus, these decisions tend to lead to school
improvement and increased student learning (Hart, 1995; Rallis, 1990).
Researchers agree that settings in which teacher leaders are encouraged to
collaborate, to participate in school-site decision making, to engage in professional
learning, and to reflect upon their pedagogy foster effective teacher leadership (Snell
& Swanson, 2000). Hence, teacher leadership promotes a school culture that teachers
are fully empowered as partners in shaping policy, creating curriculum, managing
budgets, improving practice, and bringing added value to the goal of improving
education for students (Boles & Troen, 1996). As teacher leadership develops in a
learning community and a learning culture (Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb,
1995), it provides new opportunities for professional learning (Smylie, 1995).
Professional growth. As previously mentioned, the power of teacher
leadership is mediated through heightened professionalism (Crowther et al., 2002;
Troen & Bolles, 1994; Yarger & Lee, 1994), which can be accomplished through
64
professional development and growth (Hart, 1994). Researchers suggest that teacher
leadership and teacher professional development are inextricably linked (Doyle,
2000) emphasizing the importance of professional development in teachers’
knowledge and skills (Killion, 1996). As teacher leaders participate in and conduct
professional development activities, they facilitate professional learning (Smylie,
1995) and intellectual growth (O’Hair & Reitzug, 1997) while developing new
opportunities (Stone, Horejs, & Lomas, 1997) for enhanced learning. As researchers
indicated, teacher leadership is proposed as an avenue for the professional growth
(Manthei, 1992) of those exercising leadership as well as other teachers at the school
(Darling-Hammond et al., 1995; Smylie, 1996). In that case, teacher leaders are not
only making learning possible for others, but are learning new concepts
simultaneously, as well (Lieberman, Saxl, & Miles, 1988). Thus, many researchers
recognize teacher leadership as a resource for the teacher’s professional development
(Hart & Baptist, 1996).
Teacher leaders participate in professional development and growth in many
ways. Researchers indicate that the most powerful professional development
opportunities are those where the teachers contribute to some form of learning
community (Swanson, 2000). Teacher leaders not only take part in professional
development activities, but also solicit reflection and provide a basis for
collaborative learning culture since professional learning derives from a network and
support of teachers engaging in learning efforts. Teacher development is most
effective when there is a balance between demonstration of specific approaches, the
reflection, and analysis needed to build the process of thinking (Lyons & Pinnell,
65
1999). Hence, teacher leaders become inquirers and researchers through different
professional development activities.
Professional growth and development of teacher leadership construct a
learning community. As Stone et al. (1997) and Darling-Hammond et al. (1995)
explained, the strongest benefit of teacher leadership is professional learning and
creation of a learning culture. Previous research highlights the facts that schools
benefit from becoming collaborative learning communities and that effective teacher
development depends on building a community of learners (Lyons & Pinnell, 1999).
In a professional learning community, for instance, staff development is
cooperatively planned by teachers and teacher leaders involving sharing of
information and resolution of problems. Professional development becomes a
collective responsibility of teachers and teacher leaders who share ownership of it.
Communities of professional practice are energized through activities such as
establishment of study groups, action research teams, and establishing forums for
teachers and school leaders to work together (Murphy, 2005).
Engagement in facilitating school change. While teacher leadership
promotes professional practice (Stone et al., 1997) and is vital to student learning
(McKeever, 2003), teacher leaders engage in a process of instructional change as
well as in school improvement efforts. Since teacher leaders are well informed about
the academic performance of the students, they are uniquely equipped to initiate
changes in curriculum that better meet the needs of the students (Johnson & Boles,
1994). Moreover, teacher leaders facilitate and monitor instructional change (Hall &
Hord, 1987).
66
Researchers indicate that teacher leadership promotes a change at the school
level (Smylie, Conley, & Marks, 2002) as teacher leaders hold the potential for a
school change (Conley, 1997; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001; Lieberman, 1992). In
fact, some researchers claim that the evidence of teacher leadership can be seen best
in teacher leaders’ influence in bringing change in a school (Brownlee, 1979).
Teacher leadership fosters change by hastening the pace of change (Troen & Bolles,
1994; Urbanski & Nickolaou, 1997) and by overcoming resistance to change
(Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001). By becoming powerful agents for school
development (Smylie, Wenzel, & Fendt, 2003), teacher leaders sustain momentum in
a school’s improvement efforts (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001) and promote the
development of a culture of continuous improvement (Copland, 2003). Since
participation of teachers and teacher leaders may be the most critical component in
the entire course of change (Lieberman, 1992), the prospects for improving
education can be significantly increased if policy makers nurture, support, and
multiply emerging opportunities for teacher leaders to facilitate change (Urbanski &
Nickolaou, 1997).
School management. While teacher leaders exercise an array of
responsibilities in facilitating school improvement, many researchers consistently
reported that managerial tasks are a central element of teacher leadership (Doyle,
2000; Leithwood et al., 1997; Wasley, 1991). A key dimension of the management
domain of teacher leadership involves usage of administration in service of enhanced
learning and teaching for improved student performance (Murphy, 2005). Teacher
leaders demonstrate their administrative skills (Boles & Troen, 1996) as they manage
67
time, set priorities, delegate tasks and authority, take initiative, monitor progress, and
coordinate many strands of responsibilities (Lieberman et al., 1988). Responsibilities
relating to school management also involve confronting and overcoming barriers
(Crowther, 1997; Miller, Moon, & Elko, 2000) and building a supportive structure at
school (Lieberman et al., 1988). Skills in securing and using resources effectively
often characterize teacher leaders as well (Miller et al., 2000). Thus, teacher
leadership entails administrative skills as well as organizational diagnosis, knowing
how and where to intervene to mobilize resources for better results, which is
essential for the success of the schools and students (Lieberman et al., 1988).
Despite the challenges in teachers becoming leaders, including time
constraints, difficulties in building trust among teachers, and possible initial hostility
and resistance toward taking additional responsibilities and tasks in order to
transform teachers into leaders (Lieberman et al., 2000), benefits of teacher
leadership outweigh constraints as teacher leaders work and develop all parts of the
school that facilitate student learning.
Teacher leadership in charter schools. Past literature on teacher leadership
in charter schools argued that teachers in charter schools, with autonomy over
personnel and budget, are given freedom to make many decisions related to school
governance and operations (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). As one of the first charter
proponents, Budde (1988) spoke of empowering groups of teachers developing
educational charters--teachers who are in charge of presenting educational plans to
the local school board and implementing budgetary and hiring authority at the
schools. By extending Budde’s idea, many early charter proponents believed in
68
teacher leadership--that is, empowered teachers participating in the design and the
organization of charter schools (Hassel, 1999; Kolderie, 1990; Nathan, 1996)--and
discussed the educational benefits of teacher leadership in innovating and improving
public education.
Although teachers are actively involved in every aspect of school governance
and operations in a charter school, the leadership of teachers at a charter school can
be explained in two major areas, instruction and school governance. Teacher
leadership in instruction includes processes such as involvement in designing and
implementing professional development, designing and teaching curriculum,
evaluation, and analyzing student data. Teacher leaders at a charter schools are also
involved in school governance and operational arenas, such as participation in
making personnel decisions, reviewing school finance, and renewing the charter. In
developing school leaders, charter schools use their educational philosophies and
school missions to recruit and screen teachers who share similar visions and goals for
teaching and learning (Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998).
Teacher leaders’ participation in instruction. By design, charter schools
are intended to be places that offer more autonomy and flexibility over instruction to
teachers. Past research, including the study of teachers’ working conditions in charter
schools by Malloy and Wohlstettter (2003), addressed the fact that teachers are
attracted to charter schools because of increased freedom, flexibility, and
empowerment (Ascher, Jacobowitz, McBride, & Wamba, 2000; Finn, Manno, &
Vanourek, 2000; Koppich, Holmes, & Plecki, 1998; Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998) in
school decision making, especially in instruction, despite longer hours and some
69
difficult working conditions (Bierlein, 1997; Charter Schools Development Center,
1998; Corwin & Flaherty, 1995; Finn et al., 2000; Koppich et al., 1998).
Teacher leaders at charter schools exercise a high degree of autonomy and
involvement in decision making in instruction. With freedom from district
regulations, rules, and curriculum mandates, school leaders at charter schools make
decisions about curriculum and instructional strategies that meet specific students’
needs. In addition, charter school teachers are autonomous over classroom
instruction. For instance, teachers exercise full control over classroom scheduling of
subjects and lessons. Often, teachers make decisions about instruction collectively as
grade-level teacher teams and school-wide. Teacher leaders at charter schools
participate in school-wide decision-making processes in instruction by involvement
in curriculum committees or councils. It must be noted that many charter school
teachers believe that autonomy over the educational programs promotes teacher
accountability and contributes to school improvement and overall effectiveness
(Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). This aligns with the ideals of charter schools from
their inception and the intention of policy makers for charter schools to develop a
professional culture of involvement and participation by all stakeholders, especially
teachers, for creating more effective schools (Nathan, 1996; Wohlstetter et al., 1995).
Teacher leaders’ participation in school governance. As identified in the
literature, charter schools have more autonomy and flexibility, especially in school
governance and operations, than traditional public schools due to the former’s
independence from school districts and to waivers from state laws and regulations as
a result of student/ parental choice (Wohlstetter et al., 1995). Although autonomy for
70
charter schools varies considerably across states and authorizers, teachers at charter
schools generally exercise autonomy in developing innovative ways of organizing
the school, including configurations of class sizes and grades, staffing, and use of
staff time (Arsen, Plank, & Sykes, 1999).
In his introduction and exploration of charter schools, Nathan (1996) spoke
of teacher leaders’ roles as critical decision makers on budget, personnel, curriculum,
and instruction—roles originally conceived as teacher empowerment. Additionally,
many teachers at charter schools are involved significantly in the staff selection
process (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003) and recruit teachers who share similar visions
and goals for teaching and learning (Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998). This results in
recruiting teachers who will “fit” in the school’s philosophy (Podgursky & Ballou,
2001) by purposeful selection of those teachers; charter schools desire and attract
more determined and dedicated teachers, resulting in a culture of commitment and
motivation amongst colleagues (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003).
A culture of commitment (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003) and learning is
apparent among teachers at charter schools as each school’s philosophy and
mission/vision are constructed and implanted collaboratively. Many studies showed
that teachers chose to work in charter schools because they sought like-mind
colleagues who shared their vision of teaching and learning (Finn et al., 2000; Horn
& Miron, 1999; Khouri, Kleine, White, & Cummings, 1999; Miron, 2000). Indeed,
in many states, collaboration with other teachers emerged as a key reason for
teachers choosing charter schools. Those states included Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, California, and Arizona (Charter Schools Development
71
Center, 1998; Horn & Miron, 1999; Khouri et al., 1999; Massachusetts Department
of Education, 1998; Miron & Nelson, 2000; Mulholland, 1999). In Vasudeva and
Grutzik’s (2000) study of California charter schools, teachers stated that they
experienced an increased sense of professional identity and enjoyed opportunities to
collaborate with like-minded teachers who were passionate about educational
reform. With ideas of autonomy, collaboration, and the culture of commitment,
school leadership, including teacher and principal leadership, in charter schools is
defined as “the compass for development and sustenance of the charter school as a
learning community” (Wohlstetter & Griffim 1998, p. 19).
As stated throughout this literature review, there is a considerable agreement
that teacher leadership, at charter and non-charter schools, is a very promising factor
in the improvement of schools (Barth, 1988). In fact, teacher leadership is often
presented as an instrument (Smylie et al., 2002) and a pre-condition for school
improvement (Datnow & Castellano, 2003). Many researchers defined the idea that
teacher leadership is connected to constructing effective schools (Smylie et al., 2003)
and improved school performance (Stone et al., 1997). Hence, teacher leadership
enhances the overall picture of student learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 1995;
Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001).
In summary, as many researchers wrote about teacher leadership and its
effect on student achievement, they advocated teacher leaders who are developing
curriculum and instruction, participating in the school decision-making process and
professional development opportunities, facilitating change, and managing the
school. Moreover, teacher leaders are prepared and guided by principals who
72
demonstrate effective leadership. In this case, principal leadership may be an
antecedent for producing and nurturing teacher leadership. On the other hand, it may
be interpreted that teacher leaders are likely to become principals who exert effective
principal leadership since teacher leaders who proactively take on responsibilities in
decision making and various activities in school governance are more likely to be
familiar with the knowledge and skills required to become successful school leaders.
Summary
The existing research on school leadership emphasized the relationship
between school leadership and student achievement. The literature indicates that
effective school leadership, both principal and teacher leadership, is vital to a
successful school (Marzano et al., 2005). As mentioned previously in this chapter,
effective leadership builds a clear mission and goals (Bamburg & Andrews, 1990;
Duke, 1982; Marzano et al., 2005), sets the overall climate of the school and the
climate of individual classrooms (Griffith, 2000; Villani, 1996), holds expectations
for curriculum and instruction (Eberts & Stone, 1988; Oakes, 1989), and promotes
student opportunity to learn (Duke & Canady, 1991; Murphy & Hallinger, 1986).
With increased efficacy and commitment, teacher leaders participate in developing
curriculum, school decision making processes, professional growth, and facilitating
change in schools. Additionally, as charter schools have promoted teacher and
principal leadership from the beginning, teachers and principals at charter schools
participate in decision-making processes in all school aspects including instruction,
governance, and school operations.
73
The literature emphasized a necessity to develop strong school leadership in
order to increase student achievement. While typically charter schools promote
shared teacher-and-principal leadership as teachers and principals participate in
decision-making processes, to our knowledge no study has investigated promising
school leadership programs and practices in charter schools. Unfortunately, although
it has been recognized that school leadership impacts student achievement, the
empirical examination of the relationship between specific leadership practices and
student performance has remained relatively unexplored. Thus, this study intends to
fill the gap in literature by identifying and exploring programs that increase principal
and teacher leadership (school leadership) and its impact on student achievement in
two charter schools. Understanding the routes by which school leaders improve
student outcomes is a worthy goal of research in this case. This study also aims to
demonstrate how these theories, including shared and distributive leadership, are
utilized in realizing higher student achievement. In chapter 3, research design,
methods, and data instruments, including the nomination process, site-visits,
interviews, and data analysis, will be described and explained.
74
Chapter 3
Methodology
The purpose of the present study is to identify promising processes, policies,
and programs regarding teacher and administrative leadership (school leadership) in
two California charter schools. In addition, this study aims to investigate the
implementation of promising practices, specifically related to school leadership, in
these two charter schools. First, this chapter will provide a detailed explanation and
justification for the chosen research question and selected sample. Next, the research
questions and data collection instruments will be presented. Finally, the data
collection process and data analysis procedures will be explained.
Research Design
The present study seeks to investigate promising school leadership practices
and programs in two California charter schools. Daley, Norman, Weingarten, &
Chaves (2005) define promising practices as school-level practices, primarily related
to curriculum and instruction, which “convey a sense of both innovation and
potential impact” (p. 6). This study is designed to share knowledge of the
implementation of innovative practices in exemplary charter schools, which were
nominated and selected based on their outstanding leadership programs and
development strategies. These innovative practices, or promising practices, refer to
new ideas that have not been widely disseminated yet have potential to impact the
broader educational community (Wohlstetter & Kuzin, 2006). By investigating the
programs relating to school leadership, this study intends to collect and disseminate
the knowledge acquired from those who implanted the innovation, such that the
75
information might be useful to a broader community of educators. However, since
the purpose of the study is not to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the impact of
leadership programs on student achievement, the term best practices is not used. The
knowledge collected in this study will contribute to USC’s web-based Compendium
of Promising Practices, which will allow others to replicate, adopt, and experiment
with promising practices (Bardach, 2004; Grayson, 2007). The unit of study in this
research was school leadership programs, including their structures, resources, and
processes. This study was guided by the following four research questions:
1. What policies, programs, and processes are used to improve teacher and
administrative leadership (school leadership) in charter schools?
2. How are resources used to implement the programs related to school
leadership successfully?
3. What challenges have charter schools faced in implementing the
programs related to school leadership, and how are they addressed?
4. What evidence exists that these programs relating to school leadership
may be related to positive educational outcomes?
In order to examine the research questions, a qualitative research design--
specifically, descriptive case studies--was employed. Qualitative research offers
opportunities for conducting exploratory and descriptive research “that assumes the
value of context and setting, and that searches for a deeper understanding of the
participants’ lived experiences” (Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p. 39). Additionally,
qualitative data focus on naturally occurring ordinary events in natural settings
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Qualitative case study research is especially suited for
76
“in-depth study of a phenomenon in its natural context and from the perspective of
the participants involved in the phenomenon (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). In addition,
qualitative research design aims to uncover the interaction of significant factors
characteristic of the phenomenon by concentrating on a single phenomenon or entity
(case) (Merriam, 1991).
Since the purpose of this study is to understand the benefits, challenges, and
general implementation issues associated with programs related to school leadership,
a descriptive case study under qualitative research design was chosen as an
appropriate mechanism for an in-depth study of the topic in its natural setting
(Creswell, 2003; Yin, 2003). A descriptive case study allows the researcher to
understand the complexities of program implementation, with little or no interruption
of its natural setting (Merriam, 1998). Also, case studies provide direct observations
in natural settings and consist of a “detailed account of the phenomenon” (Merriam,
1998, p. 38). In order to obtain a holistic account of the variables associated with
successful implementation of school leadership programs and practices, Malena and
Moxley (2002) recommend using a case study method in identifying and
investigating program goals and challenges for deeper understanding of a situation
and experience. Since this study intends to explain the details of the practices in
school leadership with a goal of educators replicating them in other educational
settings, the case study method is the most appropriate choice for the design of this
study.
There are numerous advantages to using case studies as a method for
investigation. First, case studies provide a rich and holistic account of a given
77
phenomenon, which assists the investigation of unique cases such as innovations.
Additionally, a case study, which is conducted in a natural setting, can advance one’s
understanding of the ways in which new knowledge is applied. Since the research
conditions of a case study are not tightly controlled, this allows the researcher to
pursue important yet unanticipated topics of inquiry. Case study also provides
intuitions and insights that quantitative data does not; offering rich descriptions of
processes and phenomena.
It is also important to acknowledge the limitations of using case study
research. Despite the many strengths, case studies are rather lengthy and detailed for
busy consumers to read (Merriam, 1997). Additionally, the use of a natural setting,
coupled with the fact that the participants are not randomly selected, makes case
study highly context specific and not necessarily reliable, valid, or generalizable.
Finally, case studies are limited by the sensitivity and integrity of the researcher;
therefore, the investigator is more prone to rely on his or her own instincts and
abilities, and it is challenging for the researcher to remain free from bias during the
data collection and analysis processes (Merriam, 1998). Given the purpose of this
study, the strengths of a case study outweigh the limitations.
Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability
Reliability. Reliability exists when the findings of the study can be
replicated. Exact replication of data and the usage of the traditional definition of
reliability can be problematic since a qualitative study--specifically, a descriptive
case study--investigates unique cases in a natural setting. However, reliability in a
qualitative study should emphasize the fact that the results are consistent with the
78
data collected instead (Merriam, 1998). To ensure the consistency of data in this
study, the triangulation method was used. In addition, triangulation across multiple
data collection methods and across different information sources enhances the
reliability, validity, and generalizability of this study. The purpose of triangulation is
not to produce the same results using different sources; but its purpose is for
consistency as different types of data and sources may yield varied results due to the
types of inquiry and individual perspectives (Patton, 2002).
Validity. Internal validity is based on the construction of reality and is a
strength of the qualitative method (Merriam, 1998). Merriam (1997) explains that
internal validity is enhanced by the following six strategies: triangulation, member
checks, long-term observation, peer examination, participatory or collaborative
modes of research, and clarifying the researcher's biases. In this particular study,
triangulation of both data collection methods and sources was achieved by including
individual interviews as well as document analysis. The interviews provided detailed
information with regard to the principals' and teachers' perceptions of the
implementation of school leadership programs. Various documents were
also analyzed for the purpose of comparing the school's documented intentions as
they relate to practices and processes of these school leadership programs.
Furthermore, the collaborative nature of the thematic dissertation group allowed the
researcher to engage in both collaborative research and peer examination during
various parts of the study. The objective input of colleagues helped to highlight and
clarify any potential biases and assumptions made by the researcher (Merriam,
79
1997). Thus, these strategies enhance how closely the research findings compare
with reality (Merriam, 1998).
Generalizability. Generalizability refers to the degrees to which the results
of one study can be applied to other settings (Merriam, 1998). Given that this study
involves the investigation of promising practices related to school leadership
programs, these charter schools, as unique settings, cannot be assumed to be
representative of all charter schools; also, the findings are specific to the local
contexts of the schools studied and, therefore, cannot be generalized to other charter
school leaders or charter schools. Providing a detailed description will enable others
to determine whether or not the results are generalizable and can be transferred to
their situation.
In this case, generalizability of this study involves a logical and thoughtful
attempt to consider a holistic approach in order to extrapolate the promising practice.
Extrapolations are “applicability of findings to other situations under similar, but not
identical, conditions” (Patton, 2002). Since the intent of this compendium is to offer
ideas and guidance about leadership innovations, not recipes that can be
systematically replicated, extrapolations rather than generalizability are likely to
occur. While this study may not be generalizable to school sites beyond those
studied, it may be extrapolated to enhance the possibility of dissemination of
promising practices to other schools so that they may benefit from lessons learned in
this environment.
80
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
This study was part of a thematic dissertation group that investigated various
promising practices in charter school settings. The results from each investigation
were contributed to USC’s web-based Compendium of Promising Practices (Center
on Educational Governance [CEG], 2009). Utilizing a backward process, the
thematic dissertation group members, along with the committee chair and the
MMACCS Promising Practices Working Panel (listed in Appendix A), developed
the MMACCS Promising Practices Compendium template, which detailed the
information that was collected by each dissertation group member at the various
school sites during the data collection process (see Appendix B). The contents of the
compendium included the profile of the charter school, the goal of the promising
practice, the theory of action, implementation details, resource requirements,
supporting documents, and recommended resources. Subsequently, the contents of
the template guided the design of all data collection instruments and research
protocols, which were developed by thematic dissertation group members
collaboratively. In this manner, the researchers ensured an internally consistent focus
during the data collection process so that all components of the compendium could
be investigated with respect to each promising practice.
Selection of Study Participants
Nomination process. In an effort to identify exemplary charter schools
implementing promising leadership programs in California, an advertisement calling
for nominations of schools with promising practices was printed in the June 2005
issue of The Charter Journal (see Appendix C). The Charter Journal is a quarterly
81
publication of California Charter School Association (CCSA), with a circulation of
11,000 in California and nationwide. As a follow-up to the initial advertisement, a
reminder was published in E-blast on July 11, 2005, which is the list serv of CCSA.
E-blast sends a biweekly newsletter regarding charter school news and updates from
CCSA to 4,000 subscribers in the charter school community.
In addition to collaborating with CCSA, nominations from charter school
experts from the California Department of Education’s charter school division, the
Charter School Development Center, and CCSA were received in July and August of
2005. These charter school experts routinely provide technical assistance to charter
schools across the state; therefore, they were familiar with exemplary charter schools
and thought to be a reliable source for nominations. In addition, researchers used
their own knowledge-based research to nominate schools for their promising practice
areas (e.g., school leadership). By the end of the nomination process in the fall of
2005, schools with promising practices had been nominated and a form had been
filed with the Center for Educational Governance’s (CEG) website (see Appendix
D). The purpose of the nomination form was to identify specific promising practices
at each school. The total number of nominations received was five.
Selection criteria and screening interviews. In order to narrow the number
of schools down to two, the criteria for selecting promising practices were set based
on the following criteria:
• One year or more that promising practices had been
implemented
• Charter schools that were open more than a year
82
• Demonstration of innovative practice
• Evidence of positive change
• Potential for replication
The underlying purpose of defined selection criteria for promising practices
is as follows: searching for exemplary schools that have already established a
program that promoted outstanding teacher and administrative leadership (school
leadership) development which possibly led to their student achievement. In the
selection of two schools, the nominated schools’ websites and relevant documents
were reviewed in addition to information from the nomination form. For most of the
schools nominated, the researcher was able to obtain the relevant charter and
program reports from the web, including each school’s demographic and
achievement data from the California Department of Education website. As a result
of the screening process, the five nominations were narrowed down to two
exemplary charter schools in California. In accordance with the guidelines of the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California, an
application to IRB was submitted and approved before data collection began in fall
2005.
Instrumentation
As stated earlier, the instrumentation that guided this study was developed by
the template for the MMACCS promising practices compendium (see Appendix B).
Therefore, the principal and lead teachers were interviewed about issues such as (a)
description of promising leadership practices, (b) goal of promising practices, (c)
theory of action for promising practices, (d) history of promising leadership practices
83
at the school, and (e) evidence of impact (e.g., evaluation reports). The following
sources were used to obtain information pertaining to the four research questions:
Pre-site interviews with principals, on-site interviews with principals at each school,
on-site interviews with lead teachers, and document analysis. Triangulation across
data sources depicts the relationship between each data collection instrument and the
individual research questions (see Appendix E).
Pre-site interviews. Prior to visiting the school site, the researcher conducted
a pre-site phone interview during October 2005 and January 2006 to inform the
school of the researcher’s participation in the study, as well as to collect general
information regarding the promising practice. Each interview was conducted with the
school principal and lasted approximately 10-20 minutes. The purpose of the pre-site
interview was to introduce the study, gather background information about the
principal, and discuss the scheduling and logistics information for a 2-day site visit
(see Appendix F). Principals were also asked to provide copies of school documents,
such as protocols that were used in the program implementation and charter renewal
documents, and to identify individuals involved in the implementation of the
promising practice.
Site visits. The site visits to each California charter school were conducted
over a 2-day period; the visit to Feaster-Edison was conducted in October, 2005,
while the visit to CALS took place in January, 2006. The rationale for the site visit
was to collect details of how the programs relating to school leadership was
implemented at each school site. During the visits, an interview with the principal
and interviews with lead teachers were used for data collection. Throughout the data
84
collection process, many sessions (interviews and observations) were tape recorded
and later transcribed to ensure accuracy and comprehensiveness. The research
questions guided the data collection process, and information from each data
collection instrument addressed one or more of the research questions.
Interviews. One-on-one interviews were conducted with the principal and
lead teachers in each charter school. All questions for interviews were open-ended
and designed to encourage the respondents to share their leadership practices.
Interviews give important insight about information that may not be readily observed
(Merriam, 1998) and provide meaningful knowledge from individuals that helps
researchers gain an understanding of their experience. Interviews of principals and
lead teachers were guided by the template for the MMACCS promising practices
compendium (see Appendix B). Interviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes and were
taped as the researcher was taking notes. The interviews and the notes from each
interview were coded to protect the confidentiality of participants and then were
input into a computer file for analysis.
Principal interviews. The principal or administrator interview was the first
interview conducted at the school site and lasted approximately 50 minutes. At
CALS, both the principal and the assistant principal were interviewed while only the
principal was interviewed at Feaster-Edison. An on-site principal interview protocol
was used to garner information about the implementation details, theory of action,
goals, challenges, lessons learned, resources, and recommended resources of
programs related to school leadership (Appendix G). The purpose of the principal
interview was to gather general information regarding program implementation as
85
well as to understand the implementation of school leadership programs from an
administrative perspective. The principal also shared information regarding the
history and details of the program implementation.
Lead teacher interviews. The lead teacher interviews were conducted with
teachers who participated in the leadership programs at the two schools. At Feaster-
Edison, lead teacher interviews were conducted with three teachers: one kindergarten
teacher, a 2
nd
grade teacher, and a 5
th
grade teacher. All teachers in this study were
participants of the mentoring program. At CALS, lead teacher interviews were
conducted with two teachers: one math and one humanities teacher. Both teachers
were current participants of the leadership program at CALS. Each lead teacher
interview averaged about 40 minutes in length. A semi-structured protocol, which
was developed by the thematic dissertation group members, was used to conduct the
interview (Appendix H). The purpose of the lead teacher interviews was to gain a
better understanding of the implementation process of programs related to school
leadership from its inception to its present state at each school.
Document analysis. In order to enhance the researcher’s understanding of
programs relating to school leadership at each school, a variety of documents
obtained from the principals, including charter renewal documents and handbooks,
were collected and analyzed. Merriam (1997) stated that document analysis is a
valuable data collection method due to the fact that documents are generally free,
accessible, and stable in that data are objective and unaltered by the presence of the
researcher. Using the document collection form that is included in Appendix I, the
researcher obtained the school’s charter documents and a dissertation written by the
86
director of CALS on their leadership program. In this particular study, document
analysis was important due to the retrospective nature of the implementation of the
leadership programs at each school. Since the researcher was not able to observe and
to witness the implementation process over time, given the limited time frame of this
study, the documents provided the researcher a perspective of the programs from
beginning to end. Furthermore, information collected from document analysis was
combined with data from interviews to provide a holistic view of the phenomenon
being investigated (Merriam, 1998).
Data Analysis
Anfara, Brown, and Mangione (2002) suggest that researchers should make
qualitative research processes more public by providing sufficient description and
details about coding structures and data analysis procedures. Such description
allows for independent judgments about the fit between research questions and
analytic techniques. As Miles and Huberman (1994) note, qualitative data analysis is
an iterative process with codes and themes evolving as data are synthesized, often
requiring researchers to refine frameworks.
Data collection methods addressed the study’s purpose through examination
of four research questions using interviews and document analysis. The information,
which was collected via the various data collection procedures, was coded in the
following manner: Data obtained from the different sources were reviewed and
compared to identify key themes as they pertained to the research questions. During
the initial coding process, codes were guided by the research questions and the
contents of the Compendium. Members of the dissertation group used the same
87
coding process, adapted to their specific research questions and themes. The coding
process enhanced reliability and consistency of this study by triangulating
information across multiple data sources. As stated previously, Appendix F provides
a detailed description of each data source corresponded to each research question.
Information regarding the description, goal, theory of action, and history of the
promising practice was collected through the nomination form, the interviews with
principals and lead teachers, and analysis of relevant documents. An understanding
of the resources necessary for implementation was gathered through the interviews
with the principal and lead teachers as well as the analysis of documents relating to
the promising practice. The interviews also provided implementation details
including lessons learned. Finally, data from the nomination form and interviews
divulged evidence of the impact and the benefits of the promising practice. Thus,
triangulation of collected data provided a means to increase reliability and validity
through the use of multiple sources of data (Merriam, 1998).
In this chapter, the research questions and research design were identified,
and the data collection instruments and data collection process and procedures were
explained. Furthermore, the chapter demonstrated how the four research questions
were connected to the study methods. Lead teacher interviews, principal interviews,
and document analysis were conducted as a part of the research design. In the next
chapter, the qualitative analysis of interviews with the principals and lead teachers
and the study of original documents are discussed.
88
Chapter 4
Findings
The purpose of this study was to investigate a school leadership program as a
promising practice for increasing student achievement at two California charter
schools. This study applied qualitative descriptive case study methods to conduct the
investigation. Interviews, observations, and document analysis were used to gather
insights into program implementation and to share promising practices through the
USC Compendium of Promising Practices sponsored by the Center on Educational
Governance. Site visits to two charter schools lasted for two days. Feaster-Edison
Charter Elementary School (Feaster-Edison) was visited in October and November
2005, while California Academy for Liberal Studies (CALS) was visited in January
2006.
Chapter 4 is divided into two sections that present the research findings from
Feaster-Edison and CALS, respectively. Each section begins with background
information on the school, followed by a description of a promising practice. The
goal of the promising practice is then discussed as it relates to the theory of action.
The theory of action depicts how these promising practices at the two charter schools
may be related to increased student achievement. Finally, each section provides
implementation details, including resource requirements and recommended sources
for others interested in replicating the promising practice for school improvement.
Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School
Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School is a conversion charter school
located in the city of Chula Vista, an urban fringe of San Diego, about seven miles
89
north of the U.S./Mexican border. Prior to converting to charter status, Feaster-
Edison was operated by the Chula Vista Elementary School District until 1997, when
the district granted Feaster-Edison charter status. The impetus for converting
originated with teachers, staff, parents, and students in the community who viewed
charter status as a means to revitalize the current educational community of the
school and to create a learning environment that promotes high academic standards
and student achievement for all (Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School, 2007).
The mission of Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School is to “use
resources, research, and data to provide a world class education for all students”
(Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School, 2007). In order to achieve its mission,
the school commits to creating instructional excellence and a dedicated and
passionate learning community by utilizing current research on teaching and learning
to improve instructional practice for the success of students (Feaster-Edison Charter
Elementary School, 2007). Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School is a part of
Edison Schools, Inc. which is a for-profit educational management organization that
operates a network of public schools nationally. Utilizing the Edison model, which
nurtures the development of school leadership from all stakeholders, school
governance at Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School incorporates a shared
decision-making model (Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School, 2007), where
leadership is shared by all stakeholders involved in the educational process of
students.
With an enrollment of 1,060 students in kindergarten through sixth grade,
Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School consists of a diverse student population
90
with a majority of Hispanic students: 920 Hispanic students, 47 whites, 46 African
Americans, 25 Filipinos, 3 Native Americans, 3 Pacific Islanders, and 2 Asians
(including 14 multiple/ no response). At the present time, 607 students are English
Language Learners (ELLs), which equates to 57.3% of the student population, and
772 students qualify for free and reduced lunches, which equates to 72.8% of the
student population (California Department of Education, 2009). The school employs
64 teachers and 2 administrators. Like many other charter schools, the teachers are
not members of a teachers’ union. Per pupil spending per year at the school is
approximately $2,000. Table 1 below depicts the demographic profile of Feaster-
Edison Charter Elementary School.
Description of the Promising Practice: The Mentoring Program
The mentoring program was succinctly described by the principal at Feaster-
Edison as a program that provides hands-on experience in school leadership for
teachers by providing them with many opportunities to experience school leadership
roles and giving them a perspective of a school leader (personal communication,
October 31, 2005). The mentoring program intends to promote leadership of teachers
through many activities such as meetings, professional development, and shadowing
activities, in order for them to enrich their knowledge of learning and instruction,
better develop their ways of teaching, and become leaders within the school and the
district.
The mentoring program at Feaster-Edison consists of admission to the
program through either a recommendation by the principal, self-nomination, or
nomination by peers; attendance of a leadership team meeting during the summer;
91
enrollment in preliminary administrative credential courses at San Diego State
University; regular meetings with the principal; principal shadowing days;
observation days; mock interviews; and a culminating activity of becoming a
principal for a day. Each component of the mentoring program including the
inception of the program is described on next page.
92
Table 1: Demographic Profile of Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School
(2008-09)
____________________________________________________________________
Variable Value
Status Conversion
Charter authorizer Chula Vista Elementary School District
Year chartered 1997
Grades served K-6
Students served 1060
Student population
Ethnicity African American: 4.3% (46)
Asian: 0.2% (2)
Hispanic: 86.8% (920)
White: 4.4% (47)
Native American: 0.3% (3)
Pacific Islander: 0.3% (3)
Filipino: 2.4% (25)
Multiple/ No Response: 1.3% (14)
Student populations Free/ Reduced Lunch: 72.8% (772)
Students with disabilities: 55
English Language Learners: 57.3%
(607)
Number of full-time administrators 2
Number of full-time teachers 64
Teachers in a collective bargaining unit No
Type of school Site-based
Website http://www.cvesd.org/feaster-
edison/default.aspx
93
Inception of the mentoring program. The mentoring program at Feaster-
Edison started in 2000 under the supervision of Dr. Francisco Escobedo, who was
then principal at Feaster-Edison Charter School. At the time, he was also an adjunct
professor at San Diego State University. His dual functions led to the school and the
university collaborating on the mentoring program and conceiving the idea of a
program that nurtures teachers in becoming leaders at the school and in the school
district. Thus, he intended for the teachers participating in the mentoring program to
pursue an administrative credential program at San Diego State University or a
master’s program at the same university as a part of the mentoring program.
Nomination process. The nomination process for the mentoring program
starts around the end of June every year for teachers who are interested in pursuing
leadership opportunities. According to the principal at Feaster-Edison, the
nomination process can be in one of the following forms: (a) self-nomination, (b)
nomination by peers, and (c) recommendation by the principal (personal
communication, December 3, 2009). Of the teachers who are nominated, three or
four teachers are selected and first appointed as curriculum coordinators or teacher
leaders (personal communication, December 3, 2009). The appointment as lead
teachers, either in the curriculum coordinator or teacher leader position, allows those
teachers to gain admittance to the mentoring program (personal communication,
December 3, 2009).
Leadership Team Meeting. Once appointed to leadership positions and
having gained admittance to the mentoring program, teacher leaders are to attend a
two-day leadership team meeting in summer, usually right before school starts in
94
September (personal communication, December 3, 2009). The leadership team
consists of teacher leaders, curriculum coordinators, the principal, and the assistant
principal. The purpose of the leadership team meeting is to review academic
achievement data from the previous academic year, to prepare a budget, and to
prioritize the instructional focus for the upcoming academic year (personal
communication, December 3, 2009). Teacher leaders and the participants in the
mentoring program also go over their plans (e.g., enrollment at San Diego State
University, observation, shadowing days, etc.) for the upcoming year (personal
communication, December 3, 2009).
Enrollment at San Diego State University. Once selected for the mentoring
program, teachers were required to take courses and enroll in the preliminary
administrative services credential program at San Diego State University. Some
chose to enroll in the Master’s Degree in Instruction program, obtaining their
administrative credential simultaneously. Once appointed as lead teachers or
curriculum coordinators, some teachers may get a head start on the mentoring
program by taking the classes at San Diego State University during the summer
before school starts. According to the teacher participants in the program, the
benefits of enrollment at San Diego State University are three-fold: (a) Gaining new
knowledge, (b) Gaining skills--becoming more capable teachers, and (c) Getting
opportunities to make connections with other teachers (sharing knowledge).
First, teachers participating in the mentoring program discussed gaining new
knowledge through taking classes at San Diego State University as a part of this
program. The classes at San Diego State University cover areas such as principles of
95
educational administration, special problems in educational leadership, instructional
improvement and evaluation, and curriculum design and management (San Diego
State University College of Education, 2006). Many teachers mentioned that through
these classes they became familiar with recent research and literature in education,
including new information on teaching and learning, and that they learned better
ways of teaching (personal communication, October 31, 2005).
Second, teachers gained new skills to become more capable teachers through
the classes at San Diego State University. By applying their new knowledge in their
classroom settings, teachers gained skills in their teaching methods often by trial and
error. Through discussions and study groups within the university classes, teachers
were exposed to ideas and methods with which they had not been familiar.
Last, these classes provided teachers opportunities to make connections with
other teachers by sharing knowledge. Teachers are often confined to their
classrooms, not easily able to interact with other teachers, especially teachers from
other schools. Professional development classes such as the ones offered by San
Diego State University let teachers meet and initiate productive conversations
regarding their professional development in instruction and school leadership.
Although taking classes at San Diego State University in addition to their
duties and responsibilities at the elementary school can be burdensome for teachers,
many view this experience as an opportunity for professional development in gaining
new knowledge about teaching and learning; this, in turn, allows them to develop
improved methods of teaching and to reach out to students, and makes the overall
96
experience quite beneficial for those teachers (personal communication, October 31,
2005).
Meetings, shadowing days, observation, and mock interviews. With the
principal as a mentor, teachers who are participating in the program involve
themselves in meetings, shadowing days, and observation days. During the semester,
the principal meets with each teacher frequently to discuss issues of school
leadership, finance, and other relevant topics at least once every two weeks for about
an hour. According to the principal, the actual time for the regular meeting varies
with different teachers and depends on topics or issues of interest to them. The
regular meeting usually takes place in the principal’s office after school or at some
other place on campus. Shadowing days take place roughly five times a year and are
a part of the preliminary administrative services credential program at San Diego
State University. The phases for shadowing days are as follows: First, the teacher is
assigned with an active administrator (a principal or an assistant principal) within his
or her own district and shadows the administrator for one or two days. Second, the
teacher also observes and assists the principal for one or two full days, interacting
with different teachers and parents and dealing with issues on school leadership.
Third, a follow-up meeting is scheduled to discuss the experiences and lessons
gained from shadowing.
During observation days, teachers follow the principal when he conducts his
weekly observations of teachers in each classroom. Observation days take place
about once a month, usually both in the mornings and the afternoons for about an
hour or two. During the observation, teachers follow the principals in different
97
classrooms and communicate with the principals about issues on instruction.
Teachers might take some notes on what they have observed and on their reflections
during the observation. Furthermore, teachers who are participating in the mentoring
program are provided with opportunities to shadow a principal on site to see “what a
real day is like with a real principal” in order to gain the perspective of a school
leader (personal communication, October 31, 2006). In any given year, teachers who
are in the mentoring program are provided with approximately five opportunities to
shadow a principal. During the shadowing days, teachers have opportunities to assist
the principal on matters or issues related to school governance or school leadership;
however, teachers are more likely to observe and takes notes during their observation
days. Many teachers in the mentoring program highlight the fact that they gained
firsthand experience by interacting with the principal and that they viewed things in
the processes of the mentoring program that they never saw as a teacher (personal
communication, October 31, 2005).
Mock interviews occur right before the culminating activity (principal-for-a-
day) takes place. By playing the role of interviewees while principals serve as
interviewers, teachers have the opportunity to see what qualities a prospective
employer looks for; after mock interviews, participants are provided with feedback
for their improvement.
Principal-for-a-day. Finally, an opportunity to become a principal for a day
is given to teachers who have accomplished all the activities listed above. When an
active administrator, usually a principal or an assistant principal, is expecting to be
absent from the campus for some reason, that administrator asks the teacher (who
98
has successfully completed all the activities, including admission to the program,
enrollment at San Diego State University, meetings, shadowing, and observation) to
take on the role of the principal for one full day. The assumption of duties is
complete; the administrator absents himself or herself from the office. The principal-
for-a-day activity usually includes a meeting between the teacher and the principal
the day before to go over responsibilities and duties, and a similar meeting the day
after for a debriefing. Even though the teacher takes the responsibilities for one full
day, there are always administrators on campus that day who can assist the teacher,
such as the assistant principal or the dean of students, in case of any unexpected
emergencies.
Goals of the Promising Practice
The main goal of the mentoring program is to increase student achievement
through facilitating and promoting leadership by teachers. By enabling teachers to
collaborate and to refine ideas among teacher leaders, the mentoring program
promotes improved quality in teaching, a norm of continuous critical inquiry and
continuous improvement (personal communication, November 1, 2005).
Additionally, by providing multiple opportunities for teachers’ professional
development, teachers gain deeper knowledge about instruction and develop better
ways of teaching (personal communication, October 31, 2005), which can have a
notable effect on student achievement.
Figure 3 at the end of this section demonstrates how the mentoring program
may link to student achievement. Teachers believed that the different phases of the
mentoring program provided multiple professional development venues for teachers.
99
For example, taking classes at San Diego State University provided them an
opportunity to gain new knowledge about teaching, and shadowing and observing a
principal provided a very hands-on, practical experience as a school leader (personal
communication, October 31, 2005). Both of these activities enriched their teaching,
ultimately resulting in improved student performance.
Additionally, the goal of this program included nurturing future school
leaders within the Chula Vista Elementary School District. As one lead teacher
mentioned, the unspoken goal of the mentoring program is “fostering new leaders for
the future leadership community within the Chula Vista Elementary School District”
(personal communication, November 1, 2005). This program aims to provide the
perspective of a school leader to classroom teachers by giving them multiple
opportunities to experience a school leader’s life within the school. By participating
in various activities in the mentoring program, teachers become more confident in
voicing what they expect of the school, more active in the school community, and
more willing to do more in making changes. The mentoring program provides
teachers opportunities to contribute to a community of teachers and influence others
toward better practice in teaching and learning (personal communication, October
31, 2005). Teachers also assume leadership opportunities, gaining “insight by
immersing [themselves in] school leadership roles in [a] real-life setting” (personal
communication, November 1, 2005).
By providing multiple activities that involve many dimensions of school
leadership, the program aims for teachers and future school leaders to develop their
leadership capabilities and confidence in their responsibilities and abilities by
100
immersing themselves in activities related to school leadership before taking on
“real” jobs as school leaders (personal communication, November 1, 2005).
Figure 3. Theory of Action--How Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School
May Lead to Higher Student Achievement
Implementation of the Promising Practice
History. The current principal at Feaster-Edison believes that the mentoring
program originated from the delegated leadership model of Edison. Under Edison’s
delegated leadership model, there are houses (grade-level) and a lead teacher in each
house. He states, “The lead teachers who had received the delegated authority
wanted more duties and responsibilities as a leader” (personal communication,
October 31, 2005). The lead teachers in each house became more proactive about
their tasks and wanted to “step up.” Therefore, when Dr. Escobedo became principal
at Feaster-Edison, he offered guidance to those lead teachers who wanted to “move
up” by providing them mock interviews for becoming administrators. Dr. Escobedo
Ingredients for
success: professional
development,
leadership, school
vision and mission,
staff training and
development, resources
& funding
Promising
practice:
mentoring
program.
Short term goal: develop
more administrative skills for
teachers and create
environment of distributive
leadership in which teachers
take “ownership,” feel “ in
charge”; experience
empowerment, are proactive,
validated, trusted, and
supported by administration.
Long term
goal: high
performing
school
organization.
101
became a mentor who provides guidance for teachers interested in becoming school
leaders.
At the present time, the program is in the process of being formalized since
virtually nothing has been documented and written about it. The current principal at
Feaster-Edison has stated that his job over the next year or two will be to take the
systems and processes of the mentoring program and formalize them for better
sustainability. The details of sustainability of the mentoring program will be
presented later in this chapter.
Time. In implementation of the mentoring program, the principal spends
approximately 3 to 4 hours a week with the teachers for regular meetings and 2 hours
a day for classroom observations. Teachers participating in the mentoring program
spend about 6 hours per week in taking courses on school leadership at San Diego
State University, 1 to 2 hours per week meeting with the principal and sharing ideas,
2 to 3 hours per month for observation, 2 to 3 days per semester for shadowing the
principal, and 1 to 2 days per year as principal-for-a-day. Teachers who are currently
participating in the program stated that they spend much of their personal time in
reading relevant articles and reflecting on issues of school leadership.
While mentoring has not yet been instituted as a formal program, it is already
a part of the culture at Feaster-Edison (personal communication, October 31, 2005).
Therefore, time commitment to the program can also be on a “need-basis” since
“teachers work whenever they can find time even after school or during weekends at
home” (personal communication, October 31, 2005). From the principal’s
perspective, there is a great emphasis on “collaboration and developing the network”
102
in regard to the use of time because the principal needs time to work individually
with teachers who are in the mentoring program (personal communication, October
31, 2005). The current principal at Feaster-Edison explained how time commitment
and dedication to the mentoring program are related to the school culture:
This is more of a program that developed connections, networks, and
people’s passions. So, it is not like something that we give a packet to
teachers and say, “Here. This is how we did it.” It [the mentoring
program] has become a part of the culture here. There is a
commitment to the program because we have a reputation as being a
breeding ground for the administrators in the district. We want to
continue the culture of administration. (personal communication,
October 31, 2005)
Therefore, despite time constraints due to multiple tasks and responsibilities and the
possibility of teacher burn-out, teachers and the principal commit themselves to the
mentoring program since collaborative dedication to instruction is already a part of
the culture of the school.
Lessons learned. Several challenges of the mentoring program were reported
by those interviewed, and time was one of the greatest challenges for implementing
the program. Since most of the teachers who are participating in the mentoring
program take on some kind of leadership role at the school, teachers often feel
pressure to “keep everything in balance,” with multiple responsibilities as lead
teachers, participating in and fulfilling the requirements of the mentoring program,
and meeting the needs of the students in their own classrooms (personal
communication, November 1, 2005). Many lead teachers who have previously
participated in the mentoring program indicated time management as one of the top
challenges of the program since “there are so many things going on” and the lead
103
teachers are usually responsible for so many duties, such as arranging a schedule for
collaboration and organizing their grade-level. Teacher participants in the program
often spend personal time to ensure that they are leading the grade-level effectively
as well as focusing on their own classrooms (personal communication, October 31,
2005).
In addition to the challenges faced by teachers participating in the mentoring
program, school leaders are challenged with reduced resources in school funding.
Feaster-Edison recently experienced a district-wide budget cut, and school leaders
had to terminate the employment of four technology teachers and a number of
literacy teachers. Because of that recent deficit in school funding, the school is
experiencing a “ huge cut back on personnel, resources, and services” that they offer
to students (personal communication, October 31, 2005). As a result, Feaster-Edison
is currently looking for alternative avenues of funding to supplement the mentoring
program.
Another challenge of the mentoring program is selection of teachers. When
hiring new teachers, school leaders at Feaster-Edison purposely select teachers who
seem to have their teaching philosophy aligned with Feaster-Edison’s in order to
facilitate continuation of the mentoring program. The principal explicitly mentioned
that during the interview process he searches for a new teacher’s “proactiveness and
passion” toward education and “willingness to make a difference with students.” He
noted, “Frankly, I don’t care how many years of experience one has in the district.
The amount of years is not a crucial factor to reveal their attitude and their passion.
But, I do care about people who are passionate about their students” (personal
104
communication, October 31, 2005). Since it is expected that teachers participate and
collaborate throughout different phases of the mentoring program from the hiring
process, teachers at Feaster-Edison are likely to be proactive and to get involved in
the decision-making process and in the mentoring program as well.
For achieving long-term sustainability of the mentoring program, the
principal and lead teachers cite some critical factors. First, the mentoring program at
Feaster-Edison is not a formal program and has not yet been documented on paper.
The current principal is only now in the process of documenting it. The program has
been passed down orally for 6 years from the previous principal. Moreover, much of
the efficacy of the program has depended upon the personal leadership of the
principal. Fortunately, the current principal at Feaster-Edison was the academic
director there 2 years ago and was already familiar with the mentoring program.
However, many lead teachers who are in the program expressed a deep concern
about stability of the mentoring program since they feel that the program itself
depends heavily on who the principal is and how he/she might sustain or even
change the program. A lead teacher explained, “I think it is in the air all the time.
There is a fear that came along when Francisco left. ‘Okay, who is going to come in
and what is going to happen?’ So, it has always been an issue” (personal
communication, November 1, 2005).
The principal at Feaster-Edison indicated that there is a strong urgency to
formalize the mentoring program to make it replicable. The principal stated, “I am in
the position of taking a culture that has been informal in the past and working on
formalizing it a little more [from where] there were no committees, no bodies in
105
place…We were very informal before” (personal communication, October 31, 2005).
Currently, Feaster-Edison is in the process of formalizing the processes of the
mentoring program by consolidating their achievements and trying to put procedures
and protocols in place so that the program can continue.
Evidence of impact. Although Feaster-Edison experienced challenges
implementing the mentoring program, the school has experienced considerable
success with the promising practice, including improvement and success in student
achievement.
The impact of the mentoring program at Feaster-Edison can be tracked in the
following three areas: (a) General benefits, (b) Impact on teachers, and (c) Impact on
students.
General Benefits. According to teachers and the principal at Feaster-Edison,
they experience a variety of benefits as a result of implementing the mentoring
program. Teachers cite the mentoring program as an “an opportunity to become a
school leader” by collaborating and working together with different school leaders
and grasping best practices from them (personal communication, November 1,
2005). They get “the first-hand experience” to be in the situation that school leaders
face every day (personal communication, November 1, 2005). They are also given
opportunities to see and experience daily issues through a school leader’s point of
view. Through the mentoring program, teachers have begun to broaden their school
leader perspective. The teachers realize “what it really takes to become a school
leader” by participating in the program. For instance, one lead teacher who is
currently participating in the mentoring program feels that “being a school leader is
106
not just about instruction.” He realized, however, how demanding it can be as a
school leader to fulfill each and every person’s wishes and requests. He stated, “They
[teachers, parents and students] are coming to you and each one feels like those
needs are the only needs. They want to feel valued. So each one takes time and
energy” (personal communication, November 1, 2005).
Another benefit of the mentoring program includes building a network and
collegiality among prospective school leaders who share similar leadership goals in
schools. One lead teacher noted that she was able to meet with professors,
superintendents, and teachers from other districts through classes at San Diego State
University and build collegiality with them, and she felt that was a big benefit of the
program. She stated, “I have made friends that I will probably have for the rest of my
life. And we are all doing the same things and going for the same goals. So that is the
benefit” (personal communication, October 1, 2005).
Additionally, the principal and lead teachers cite various factors that have
contributed to successful implementation of the mentoring program. Many teachers
credit Edison’s leadership structure as one of the factors of its success. Moreover, the
majority of the lead teachers feel that they have benefited from the Edison’s
leadership structure where teachers collaborate within each house (grade-level) and
take on more leadership roles as “they move up the ladder.” One lead teacher states,
“I went through the whole chain. I was a senior teacher, I was a math trainer, and I
became a lead teacher. All teachers are responsible for meeting every day
collaborating. Taking leadership roles is not a choice” (personal communication,
October 30, 2005). Another lead teacher felt that the mentoring program at Feaster-
107
Edison benefited greatly from the collaborative leadership model of Edison schools,
which provides ample opportunities for cooperation among teachers. She explained,
“I think that’s what really enables so many teachers to go through the program
specifically at our school. It is not really a choice that the teachers collaborate here”
(personal communication, November 1, 2005). The school leadership structure at
Feaster-Edison enhances teachers’ leadership skills, helping them to become “mini-
leaders” or “mini-administrators.” Therefore, the school leadership structure
provides aspiring school leaders a chance to work as a school leader before they
actually become one. Teachers are developing the skills that they are going to need
when they become school leaders on a larger scale (personal communication,
November 1, 2005).
Impact on teachers. A lead teacher attributes his academic success to the
sense of empowerment he developed in the course of the program, during which
teachers are given opportunities to share their ideas on improving the school’s
approaches to instruction. He feels that the mentoring program provides people the
insight that they need in leadership roles as well as managing and communicating
with other teachers. He stated that at Feaster-Edison he learned to work with others
and to guide them towards a vision of a successful school.
At Feaster-Edison, teachers who are participating in the mentoring program
are required to work with others, and collaboration is not just a part of the program,
but rather the culture of the school. Teachers frequently collaborate with other staff
members in implementing school programs, discuss instructional issues, and work on
curriculum collaboratively. Teachers teach and learn from each other on what they
108
know about teaching, learning, and leading. Since there is such a high level of
collaboration, outcomes are strongly associated with collegiality, and there is higher
level of morale and trust among staff. With teachers in the mentoring program in
charge, staff members at Feaster-Edison constantly collaborate in order to gain
higher student achievement. For instance, teachers produce consensus on goals by
mutually helping one another, participating in decision-making processes, and taking
opportunities to increase their own learning.
Besides the mentoring program’s evidence of impact through high levels of
collaboration and communication among staff members, other evidence of the
program’s creation of excellence is to be found in the fact that currently there are
“eight acting administrators in Chula Vista Elementary School District who are
Feaster-Edison alumni” (i.e., products of the mentoring program) (personal
communication, October 31, 2005). Additionally, “70% of them or more are at
principal level” (personal communication, October 31, 2005). Thus, the school has
become a “minor league” that produces qualified prospective school leaders in Chula
Vista Elementary School District, and the basis of its teacher leader development is
the mentoring program. District officials have been impressed by “how Feaster-
Edison has been providing new and innovative ways to foster new school leaders
including the mentoring program and how teachers are taking charge of their
instruction and leadership” (personal communication, October 31, 2005). The
implication is that school leaders are promoted on merit from the ranks of the best
teachers; Feaster-Edison is supplying a disproportionate number of excellent teachers
109
and prospective school leaders to the Chula Vista Elementary School District
because of the mentoring program.
Other evidences of impact include intangible lessons on improved school
leadership and organization, lessons that the teachers have received during the
mentoring program. Many teachers in the mentoring program have mentioned that
they feel the school prepares them for becoming school leaders. They feel that they
have learned invaluable lessons and strategies to prepare themselves as school
leaders. They feel that they know how to deal with and react to difficult situations at
schools, such as uncooperative parents and teachers and budgeting of limited
resources that can affect instruction. One lead teacher said, “What I learned is that I
needed to come up with a way of how I would effectively focus on instruction,
student achievement, and leadership” (personal communication, November 1, 2005).
Teachers in the mentoring program share participation in school governance, discuss
school leadership, and collaborate among school staff. They constantly discuss their
practices, and those conversations about teaching and learning are frequent,
continuous, concrete, and precise. Teachers in the mentoring program work together
on curriculum by planning, designing, researching, and evaluating it.
Impact on students. Although there is no direct evidence of how the
mentoring program affects student achievement, in accordance with Creswell (2003),
there does seem to be a quasi-experimental correlation between the implementation
of the program and improved student achievement as measured by increased test
scores since the inception of the mentoring program. In the 6 years that Feaster-
Edison has been implementing the mentoring program, their API scores have gone
110
up from below 400 to well within the 700 range (California Department of
Education, 2006); participants in the mentoring program attribute this objectively
measured improvement at least in part to the program itself.
While students’ quantitative performance data are important, student
performance not only includes student scores, but also is displayed by maturity, a
positive attitude toward learning, and collaboration among students. Observations of
many classrooms and interviews of many teachers have demonstrated that students
are mature and seem to feel very at ease collaborating with other students. As one
teacher said, “Students are expected to be well-behaved, engage in inquiry and
learning at Feaster-Edison,” and “When teachers trust each other and work together,
students do the same” (personal communication, November 1, 2005).
In summation, the mentoring program at Feaster-Edison is effective. While
direct cause-and-effect cannot be ascertained, as is often the case in such quasi-
experimental situations that examine a phenomenon after the fact (Creswell, 2003),
there does seem to be a correlation between the implementation of the program and
improvement in the school’s objectively measured test scores. Also, Feaster-Edison
teaching personnel have been recognized as excellent teachers through the promotion
of many of them to leadership positions--in numbers proportionally greater than
those for the other schools in the district. Students have exhibited increased maturity,
collaboration, and positive attitude toward learning. Finally, testimony by the
teachers themselves attests to their experience of being more effective, which, in
turn, would logically manifest itself in such things as improved test scores.
111
Resource Requirements
In this section, required resources for things such as budget, staffing,
facilities, and professional development requirements in order to facilitate the
mentoring program are listed and explained. Although there is no required budget for
implementation of the mentoring program, many teachers have sought out and
received a grant such as the APLE Program administered by the state and have
demonstrated much effort in seeking alternative methods of funding to support the
program. Staffing requirements include reorienting existing personnel into the
program--in other words, selecting a small group of teachers (3-4 teachers, as
mentioned previously under the nomination process) from the existing pool of
teachers. Facility requirements include usage of existing school facilities, mainly
classrooms, to conduct the program. Professional development is embedded
throughout many phases of the mentoring program by providing theory and first-
hand experiences on school leadership.
Budget. The collaboration with San Diego State University was made
possible through a grant called the APLE Program: The Assumption Program of
Loans for Education (State of California, 2007). The APLE Program is a loan
forgiveness program provided from the State of California to teachers who are
teaching in Title I urban school settings, and the program can be used for pursuing
their higher education. At Feaster-Edison, a handful of teachers received the APLE
Program grant in the amount of $11,000 over a 5-year period, which was mostly
used towards their tuition at San Diego State University. Some teachers search for
alternative avenues of funding the program, such as scholarships and fellowships on
112
their own from San Diego State University. It seems that the program does not have
any major funding sources other than the APLE program, therefore, to gain multiple
funding sources other than the APLE program, some teachers and school leaders
apply for a private grant to supplement the mentoring program. According to one
lead teacher, teachers at Feaster-Edison had “to apply for a grant to set aside money
for teacher release time” for collaboration (personal communication, October 31,
2005).
Staffing. The program involves re-orienting existing personnel into a new
paradigm of collaborative relationships with each other, students and parents, and the
administrative staff. Also, through the program, teachers learn how to access new
modalities of teaching and modes of approaching the material they teach and the
students for whom they are responsible. As such, there is no additional staff required
to implement the mentoring program.
Facilities. There are no special facility requirements to implement the
mentoring program. The principal at Feaster-Edison said that the teachers and school
leaders need “just a big enough campus to conduct mock interviews so that one can
administer the interviews,” which is a part of the mentoring program (personal
communication, October 31, 2005). Teachers also utilized existing classrooms to
observe the teachers during their evaluation and observation, and a classroom to
conduct conferences to discuss and evaluate findings from the mentoring program
during and after school.
Professional development. Teachers who are participating in the mentoring
program attend classes every week at San Diego State University for fulfillment of
113
either the master’s degree program or their administrative credential, or both
(personal communication, November 1, 2005). Some lead teachers state that most of
the “professional development comes from the field experience” (personal
communication, November 1, 2005). They feel that professional development is not
only earned from reading literature and collaborating with other teachers, but also
comes from experiences such as “shadowing the principals and attending the school
board meetings and other training, etc.,” since those experiences enhance knowledge
and skills of a school leader as well (personal communication, November 1, 2005).
Recommended Resources
The list below includes the resources, such as books and websites, that have
helped Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School develop their mentoring program.
Books.
• ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) books
on leadership--www.ascd.org
• Covey, S. R. (2004). Seven habits of highly successful people. New York,
NY: The Free Press.
• Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning. Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development.
• Johnson, S. (1998). Who moved my cheese? An amazing way to deal with
change in your work and in your life. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam.
• Tzu, S. (2003). Art of war: The oldest military treatise in the world.
Philadelphia, PA: Running Press Book Publishers.
Websites.
114
• San Diego State University College of Education--http://edweb.sdsu.edu
• Chula Vista Elementary School District--http://www.cvesd.k12.ca.us/
• Edison Schools--http://www.edisonschools.com/home/home.cfm
California Academy for Liberal Studies Charter Middle School
The California Academy for Liberal Studies (CALS) Charter Middle School
opened as a start-up charter school on September 11, 2000, authorized by the Los
Angeles Unified School District (Rodriguez, 2006). CALS was established to offer
an alternative to existing public middle schools serving the communities of northeast
Los Angeles. CALS is operated by Partnerships to Uplift Communities (PUC
Schools), a charter school development and management organization. PUC Schools
is a 501 c(3) public benefit corporation.
In the last 5 years, CALS has grown into a school community dedicated to its
core belief that “every student enrolled will graduate from high school and enter and
succeed in the college or university of his/her choice” (Rodriguez, 2006). The
mission of CALS Charter Middle School is to offer every enrolled student a dynamic
learning environment within a small community committed to educational excellence
and personal integrity (Rodriguez, 2006). The mission statement emphasizes guiding
and nurturing students to help them discover their unique talents and to achieve their
full potential. The mission of the school also focuses on preparing students for the
successful transition to college and inspiring students toward a lifelong commitment
to intellectual growth, so they will enrich and serve the communities in which they
live (Rodriguez, 2006).
115
At the present time, CALS serves 257 students in grades 6 through 8. The
student body is comprised of 250 Hispanics, 3 Asians, 2 whites, 1 Filipino, and 1
African American. The school has 44 English Language Learners (17.1%), which is
relatively low in comparison with the district average of 32.1%. 215 students receive
free/ reduced meals (83.7%), which is a little higher than the district average of
74.7%. The school had a total of 13 full-time teachers and 2 full-time administrators.
Table 2 provides important details relating to demographics and other information
pertaining to CALS.
116
Table 2: Demographic Profile of California Academy for Liberal Studies (2008-
09)
Variable Value
Charter status Start-up
Charter authorizer Los Angeles Unified School District
Year chartered 2000
Year opened for operation with students 2000
Grades served 6-8
Students served 257
Student population
Ethnicity African American: 0.4% (1)
Asian: 1.2% (3)
Hispanic: 97.3% (250)
White: 0.8% (2)
Native American: 0% (0)
Pacific Islander: 0% (0)
Filipino: 0.4% (1)
Multiple/ No Response: 0% (0)
Special Population Free/ Reduced Lunch: 83.7% (215)
Special needs: 28
English Language Learners: 17.1% (44)
Number of full-time administrators 2
Number of teachers 13
Teachers in a collective bargaining unit No
Type of school Site-based
Website
http://www.pucschools.org/calschartermiddleschoool
____________________________________________________________________
117
Description of the Promising Practice: Action Research by Teachers
By definition, action research is a cyclical process in which teachers and
school leaders determine questions to research, based on their school or classroom
situations; collect and analyze data from multiple sources to answer the questions;
study, select, and implement interventions; and then reflect on and evaluate their
lessons learned (Stinger, 1996). Action research projects conducted by teachers at
CALS focus on “research into practice” (personal communication, January 30,
2006). Since teachers select their own action research topics based on concerns in
their classrooms, the teachers are more likely to be enthusiastic about the research
than if research topics were arbitrarily chosen for them. Teachers also are able to
embed recommendations from their projects into their classrooms immediately.
The principal at CALS believes that the entire CALS campus “is built upon
the idea of action research” because teachers in virtually every classroom are
conducting some kind of action research project (personal communication, January
30, 2006). The ultimate goal of action research at CALS is to increase the high
school graduation rate and college entrance and graduation rates of Latino students
in northeast Los Angeles as aligned with the mission of the school; thus, all of the
“mini” action research projects occurring often have overlapping foci in an attempt
to move students closer towards reaching the goals. In summary, according to the
executive director, the action research project at CALS is not a separate project but is
fully embedded in the school’s operations, culture, and values encompassing
multiple methods in realizing the vision of “ensuring high school graduation and
preparing students for college success” (personal communication, June 21, 2006).
118
An action research project may be undertaken by teachers acting alone or
conducted by groups of teachers. The executive director believes that teachers at
CALS are empowered and are willing to take initiative for their research. There is no
formalized process for initiating action research although there are steps suggested
by various researchers. Teachers may individually choose to conduct action research
on their self-identified topics. In the case of team projects, the school leaders at
CALS may sometimes suggest forming a group of teachers based on their interests or
their content expertise, or teachers may pair up independently (personal
communication, July 5, 2006).
CALS was founded in response to the educational needs of Latino students
and the desires of teachers and parents in northeast Los Angeles (Rodriguez, 2006).
Over the past decade, educators, parents, administrators, and community members
had sought the creation of a charter school as a vehicle for closing the achievement
gap between Latino and white students. An overarching goal of CALS is to increase
the high school graduation rate of its Latino students and to encourage more Latino
students to graduate from a college or university. Of those who graduate from high
school, it is expected that a higher percentage of CALS students, when compared
with the state and district average, will enroll and graduate from a college or
university (Rodriguez, 2006). The action research projects at CALS mostly target
helping students achieve these goals.
Investigation and continuous improvement have become part of the school
culture and staff culture based on action research conducted by teachers at CALS.
The faculty at CALS noted that action research allows “teachers to explore” new
119
teaching methods, new approaches or anything that might improve student learning.
This action research culture encourages–some might say, almost requires--one to
have a vision or a goal, and to initiate action accordingly. The assistant principal
stressed the uniqueness of action research at CALS:
We are not about taking other people’s curriculum; we are about
creating ours. That is why we use action research at our school. We
see the need of conducting action research in our school. We create,
we put it to the test, and we always work on making it better.
(personal communication, January 27, 2006)
According to lead teachers and the principal at CALS, the action research
project aims “to find a way to make the aspects of different instruction work, based
on students’ needs” (personal communication, January 27, 2006). Many teachers and
school leaders at CALS follow the process for basic action research in order “to find
what works for the students in their instruction” (personal communications, January
27, 2006). Teachers who are implementing their own projects not only assess their
students’ learning, but also reanalyze, review, and reflect on their own teaching
methods and plans of instruction. In effect, action research represents a focus of
continuous improvement at CALS.
Coherence across the various projects is maintained by retaining the focus on
improving student achievement. Since action research projects at CALS engage the
whole faculty in collaborative investigations directly related to school and classroom
practices, teachers are constantly analyzing what they are doing in an ongoing effort
to improve student achievement.
120
An action research project at CALS typically starts when a teacher or an
administrator identifies an important educational problem or a concern in their
course curricula or teaching practice. Then teachers and school leaders analyze
available data to implement the following steps in the process:
Identify a problem or a concern regarding learning and
instruction;
Collect and analyze data;
Study, select, implement interventions; and
Reflect, evaluate on lessons learned (personal
communication, January 30, 2006).
This sequence of steps differs slightly from those proposed by Stinger (1996), as the
sequence has been adapted by the CALS administrators and faculty as specifically
appropriate to the needs at CALS.
Many teachers chose to conduct an action research project as a part of their
degree fulfillment at Fielding University, usually towards a master’s degree in
Education. The action research is conducted in partnership with Fielding University,
which is a private university located near Santa Barbara, California, that offers
graduate education and other certificate programs under three schools: the School of
Psychology, the School of Educational Leadership and Change, and the School of
Human and Organization Development (Fielding University, 2006). Several teachers
at CALS have already completed and earned their master’s degrees in Education at
Fielding University using action research projects implemented at CALS for their
thesis topics. This university-school collaboration continues, for “there are a lot of
teachers who are interested and pursuing their master’s degrees” (personal
communications, January 30, 2006).
121
Teachers at CALS believe that all action research projects impact classroom
instruction and student performance; however not all projects take place in the
classroom. For example, a project that the assistant principal at CALS is conducting
is called a “Parent Engagement Strategy,” which seeks to resolve the issue of moving
parents from being passive “customers” of public instruction to active agents and
“owners” of CALS (personal communication, June 21, 2006). This particular action
research project does not involve classroom instruction directly, but teachers at
CALS believe that student achievement will be a byproduct of the intervention.
Another example of using action research that encompasses larger scale
movements at the school can be found in the CALS homework policy project, which
teachers conducted collaboratively (personal communications, January 30, 2006).
Teachers at CALS first identified the ineffectiveness of the homework policy
through increasing number of students who did not turn in their homework
assignments. The original policy at CALS stated that students who did not turn in
their assignments or had not finished their homework would attend the after-school
“homework club,” a space where students could finish their homework. When
teachers analyzed the data regarding the policy, they realized that this program did
not effectively reduce the number of students who did not turn in homework or finish
assignments (personal communications, January 30, 2006). Teachers then identified
the names of students who were participating in the homework club, the number of
times they were required to attend the club, the names of teachers who referred
students to the homework club, and the grades students received at the end of the
trimester; from this analysis they were able to identify patterns. The patterns showed
122
that most students using the homework club were those who had difficulty
understanding content or lacked reading or writing skills required to demonstrate
mastery in their homework assignments. Teachers realized that many students were
not turning in their homework, not because they were lazy or careless, but because
they had difficulty understanding the content and completing the assignments.
Therefore, teachers at CALS working collaboratively developed an intervention plan
and decided that instead of hiring outside tutors, each teacher would take turns in the
homework club and provide instruction, especially to at-risk students, to address
their academic gaps in content understanding and skills (personal communications,
January 30, 2006). This intervention lasted for a full academic year (2004-05).
Currently, the principal and teachers are reanalyzing the data regarding the
homework club to assess the extent to which the intervention has been effective.
Another notable example of an action research project at CALS is a study
conducted by a 7th grade math teacher (personal communications, January 30,
2006). Following the stages outlined previously, the teacher first listed the key
standards (learning targets) that students needed to master in 7th grade mathematics,
such as number sense or mathematical reasoning. Then, she generated a pre-test,
which determined which skills students possessed at the beginning of the course.
From the results of the pre-test, the teacher noted which skills that students had
mastered in the previous grade and which skills they were lacking in. This spread
between prior-knowledge and learning objectives served as a “roadmap” for the
teacher’s curriculum design in mathematics (personal communications, January 30,
2006).
123
Some interventions have become school-wide as a result of action research
conducted in a classroom. A good example of this is the “Characteristics of Good
Writing” project. Teachers at each grade level decided what would be expected of
students’ writing, and posters were then made for each classroom, with these
expectations. In this way, students knew what the expectations were, and were able
to see the consistency in expectations from class to class. This project was first
conducted by an assistant principal at CALS, and after it proved beneficial for the
students in her class, the school staff made a decision to broaden its scope to all
classrooms in the school (personal communication, June 23, 2006).
Goals of the Action Research
As stated earlier, the main goal of action research at CALS is to increase the
high school graduation rate and college entrance, which resonates the mission of the
school (California Academy for Liberal Studies, 2000). In addition, the goals of the
action research projects conducted at CALS are three-fold: (a) To increase teacher
inquiry, (b) To improve classroom instruction, and (c) To help align curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. First, teacher inquiry leads to identifying a concern or a
problem in instruction, ultimately leading to finding a solution to the problem.
Additionally, teachers at CALS seek to improve their instructional methods in order
to improve performance of students. Finally, as teachers constantly inquire about the
effectiveness of their teaching method, they have begun to see the “whole picture” of
instruction that includes aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment with a
focus on one goal, that of increasing student achievement.
124
Goal #1: To increase teacher inquiry. Throughout different phases of
action research, teachers naturally inquire about various approaches to solve a
problem including collaborative investigations related directly to school and
classroom practices (personal communication, June 23, 2006). Natural inquiry that is
rooted in intellectual curiosity can be the beginning of identifying and ultimately
solving a problem. In the implementation of action research projects, teachers work
independently and collaboratively by inquiring and collaborating on a topic or a
problem of concern. From teacher inquiry either by one teacher or a group of
teachers, new knowledge and skills in instruction are borne and developed.
Goal #2 To improve classroom instruction. Another goal of action research
is to improve classroom instruction by identifying effective interventions. At CALS,
most action research projects revolve around a problem of concern about instruction
in a classroom (personal communications, January 30, 2006). As teachers are
constantly in pursuit of effective instruction and appropriate assessments to improve
student performance, they aim to identify new instructional practices, including
innovative teaching methods, curriculum content, and assessments, through their
action research projects (personal communications, January 30, 2006). Many
teachers and the principal at CALS believe that sharing new knowledge gained
through action research with colleagues has led to a collaborative culture in the
school, a culture that assists teachers in developing tools to effectively monitor
student progress and to identify effective instructional methods (personal
communications, January 30, 2006).
125
Goal #3 To help align curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Finally,
the goal of action research at CALS emphasizes alignment and coherence of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Throughout the action research process,
teachers understand and gain deeper knowledge of what is being taught (learning
standards and curriculum), how it should be taught (instruction), and how it should
be tested (assessment) (personal communications, January 30, 2006). Many teachers
at CALS have highlighted the importance of coherence in curriculum and how
“assessment and standards drive instruction” (personal communications, January 30,
2006). By using various assessments and standards utilizing the processes of action
research to identify subject knowledge and skills necessary to master content,
teachers are able to generate coherence and alignment in their instruction, thereby
making instruction much more effective (personal communications, January 30,
2006).
Theory of Action for the Promising Practice
Many times, an action research project is started because of a teacher’s
personal interest or observation of a problem, yet whatever the initiating cause,
teachers who are in the action research project follow a basic routine (Stringer, 1996)
and are able to create a process in which “teachers are reflecting upon what they
teach, making changes, and moving forward” (personal communication, January 30,
2006). The action research project is aligned with a focus on improving instruction at
CALS to increase coherence at the school and the likelihood of improving student
learning.
126
As the project is not a “top-down” program but evolves from students,
teachers at CALS believe that an “action research project will help overall student
achievement in general” since teachers are “willing to make changes in their
instructional plans along the way, being flexible, and not being uniform in how they
teach and what they are doing in the classrooms” (personal communication, January
27, 2006). Thus, action research allows flexibility and creation of many different
ways to approach instruction to meet the needs of students.
Action research at CALS, which varies slightly from the routine proposed in
the theoretical literature, is motivated by the teachers’ interest in improving
classroom instruction, increasing teacher motivation, empowering teachers, and
aligning curriculum with instruction and assessment. To reiterate, it starts with a
teacher-identified need or a concern in a classroom and involves a short-term goal of
aligning curriculum with instruction and assessment and a long-term goal of
improving student achievement. When action research achieves notable results, the
practice becomes school-wide for promoting greater student achievement. This
routine is illustrated in Figure 4.
127
Figure 4. Theory of Action--How CALS May Lead to Higher Student
Achievement
Implementation of the Promising Practice
History. In 2000, Dr. Ref Rodriguez, executive director at CALS, instituted a
partnership with the master’s program at Fielding University to provide opportunities
for teachers to pursue their master’s degrees in the school of Education. This
program included an action research component (personal communication, January
27, 2006) as a part of the fulfillment of the program. According to Dr. Rodriguez, he
learned about action research when he was pursuing his master’s degree at California
State University at Los Angeles. He realized that it was an instrument for social
change and believed that teachers could use the process to tackle and to solve
challenging educational problems (personal communication, June 21, 2006).
PUC Schools offered scholarships for teachers who participated in the
master’s degree program at Fielding to pay for their tuition during the course of the
program, and this financial assistance created motivation for busy teachers to pursue
Teacher-initiated
promising practice:
action research
Short term goals: To
improve classroom
instruction; to increase
teacher motivation and to
empower teachers; and to
align curriculum with
instruction and
assessment.
Long term goal:
improved student
achievement.
128
higher degrees. The master’s degree program also provided a “cohort program”
where teachers felt like “they were in charge of their learning communities,” and this
feeling of empowerment was “motivating for a lot of teachers” (personal
communication, January 27, 2006). At this time, about half of CALS teachers were
enrolled in master’s degree programs in Education with Fielding University
(personal communication, January 27, 2006). The school-university partnership
provided external “motivation for teachers” to begin this type of intensive
professional re-assessment and “boosted professionalism and the effectiveness of
teachers and school leaders at the school” (personal communication, January 27,
2006). Despite the partnership with the university, however, teachers at CALS do not
seem to believe that their action research projects are limited to fulfillment of their
graduate education but rather that the projects are “ongoing research” at the school
(personal communication, January 27, 2006) and not something that will be done and
stopped suddenly.
Time. The duration of time for start-up, planning, and collaboration depends
on the particular action research project, although according to those interviewed,
most projects are completed in one academic year or less. Additionally, as many
teachers pointed out, much of their personal time is invested throughout different
phases of the action research in identifying the problem, collecting data,
implementing different intervention methods, reflecting, and evaluating the results.
Moreover, much time is spent informally during discussions and dialogue with other
teachers and the principal regarding conducting the research in a collaborative
manner.
129
Teachers at CALS did not receive daily planning time. However, they
seemed to collaborate before and after school to analyze, reflect, and plan with their
colleagues. Teachers at CALS stated they were always discussing, collaborating, and
openly asking for feedback from one another (personal communication, January 27,
2006). Since they did not receive the extra time for collaboration in their formal
schedules, they tried to collaborate whenever they could and whenever time allowed.
Lessons Learned: Challenges
Several challenges encountered while implementing action research at CALS
have involved time and high expectations for teachers. Challenges related to time
include time management issues, especially lack of time. In addition to lack of time,
teachers at CALS were expected to conduct action research as it was embedded in
the “culture of the school” (personal communication, January 27, 2006). At the end
of this section, steps for sustainability despite these challenges are presented.
While teachers and school leaders have experienced improvement in their
instruction as a result of action research, many teachers who participated have stated
that they were faced with a time management challenge in implementing their
projects, juggling their time between many different duties and responsibilities.
According to the executive director at CALS, time is the most challenging factor in
implementing action research. He adds, “By the month of June, our teachers are
exhausted” since action research requires extra time and effort in its completion
(personal communication, June 21, 2006). The assistant principal at CALS stated
that she was juggling too many responsibilities: Her duties ranged from planning
parent meetings to student discipline. In order to assist with prioritizing time, school
130
leaders at CALS divided up school responsibilities, with the assistant principal
handling managerial and student discipline issues and the principal focusing on
instruction. The assistant principal stated, “It is overwhelming because there are so
many things that we need to do” besides action research (personal communication,
January 27, 2006).
For all teachers at CALS, participating in action research has been a high
expectation set from their initial employment although they do not get paid extra for
conducting that research (personal communication, June 21, 2006). Although
resistance against taking on extra duties, tasks, or action research might have been
possible at some other schools, the teachers at CALS view action research as a part
of the school mission and as an important means to achieve that mission (personal
communication, June 21, 2006). According to the executive director at CALS, most
teachers there look at action research and its results as a collaborative work, rather
than an individual achievement (personal communication July 3, 2006). Therefore, a
learning cycle that incorporates collaboration and sharing ideas among staff as a
process for action research was taken into consideration and easily incorporated
throughout the phases of the research. Trying out innovative learning strategies as
part of the action research process, however, can be time-consuming and resource-
dependent.
Despite the challenges, faculty at CALS has cited various factors that have
contributed to successful implementation of action research projects. The majority of
teachers felt that the “school leaders as well as the whole staff were very supportive”
of action research (personal communication, January 27, 2006). Teachers who
131
participated felt “very trusted by school leaders and comfortable,” especially since
there was a cohort of colleagues conducting action research together. In addition,
“having the school leaders acknowledge the importance of action research” was
helpful to the teachers interviewed (personal communication, January 27, 2006).
Faculty knew that “conducting action research was a lot of work” and having support
of the school leaders provides both “ample resources and mentorship” in different
stages of the process. Teachers at CALS emphasized the importance of school
leaders “recognizing the staff who are going the extra mile” by conducting action
research--“that is what makes the improvement effort worthwhile” (personal
communication, January 27, 2006).
Educators at CALS cite a variety of support factors that are necessary for
long-term sustainability of action research at the school. First, noting that most of the
projects are individualized, the principal at CALS mentioned that there is a need for
greater levels of collaboration, or as he put it, “gathering more school-wide data”
More teamwork, he posited, would help the whole school move towards improved
student achievement in its mission to educate students (personal communication,
January 30, 2006). The principal also mentioned it was critical that teachers who are
implementing action research projects receive feedback and that this feedback will
encourage them to continue those practices that produce positive results.
Specifically, it is important to examine how and why improvement has occurred, so
that teachers can continue those successful practices in the next research cycle by
reflecting on them and eliminating unsuccessful practices (personal communication,
January 30, 2006).
132
Evidence of Impact: Benefits
Numerous benefits were experienced by teachers, students, and parents at
CALS as a result of action research. These benefits include: (a) Teachers becoming
purposeful in what they were teaching, with clearer objectives and more purposeful
usage of instructional time, and being empowered by gaining knowledge and by
becoming “experts” through action research, which stimulated their intellectual
motivation, (b) Students gaining in their quantitative performance over time, (c)
Parents seeing a positive impact on students’ overall educational environment and
sense of contentment and satisfaction.
Impact on teachers. Teachers became experts and more purposeful in what
they were teaching through action research. Teachers became more aware of what
students needed and less concerned about what they, the teachers, wanted to teach
students (personal communication, January 27, 2006) because the action research
process involves inquiry regarding a problem or a concern. Teachers are encouraged
to question critical matters that seem to affect students’ learning, and teachers focus
to find out what the problem really is and its cause (personal communication,
January 27, 2006). Thus, throughout different phases of action research, teachers
may see the necessity to utilize their instructional time more effectively or to change
the method of instruction to a more efficient mode (personal communication,
January 27, 2006). In that way, learning becomes more purposeful and focused.
Another benefit of action research is that the process “stimulates the internal
motivation of teachers” to become better at what they are teaching. According to the
principal, teachers are motivated to make a difference in the students’ learning
133
process, and they take voluntary action accordingly (personal communication,
January 30, 2006). Action research at CALS has inspired teachers to improve their
teaching skills by stimulating their motivation and intellectual curiosities. Teachers
emphasized that participating in action research encourages--sometimes almost
requires--questioning; gaining new knowledge and skills; gathering and analyzing
data; and engaging in discussions, collaboration, and multiple intervention methods
in order to find a solution to a problem by stimulating teachers’ motivation and
intellectual curiosity. Thus, as a result of action research, teachers state they feel
empowered as professionals. This idea of empowerment caused by a sense of
ownership of knowledge and attainment has made teachers at CALS feel that they
are making a difference in students’ lives and their learning (personal
communication, January 27, 2006). Rather than following the district’s pacing plan
and teaching the scripted curriculum, teachers at CALS have been able to define a
problem backed by student data, initiate a change in instruction to a more effective
way, and attempt to meet or exceed academic standards by using multiple methods.
As explained by a new teacher who is currently participating in an action research
project, “It is making a really big difference because I focus on my teaching and my
assessment techniques as I am constantly trying to refine them. I feel that I am
becoming a more professional teacher” (personal communication, January 27, 2006).
Teachers report that they feel empowered to become “mini-leaders” on what they are
researching and teaching due to action research and the knowledge they attain
(personal communication, January 27, 2006). Teachers also are more likely to pursue
134
action research projects in the areas that they are interested in, ultimately becoming
experts on their topic of inquiry (personal communication, June 9, 2006).
Impact on students. Action research has demonstrated many benefits for
students including increased student motivation towards learning as evidenced by the
quality of their work and academic improvement. Although these academic
improvements at CALS cannot be directly related to action research, teachers and
school leaders at CALS believe that it has had an impact on student academic
growth.
CALS’ API grew from 676 to 719, a 43-point increase from the 2004 to the
2005 academic year (California Department of Education, 2006). At CALS, while
API for all students was 719, the Hispanic population received 718 and socio-
economically disadvantaged students received 719, which showed a very small
discrepancy (California Department of Education, 2006). These gains at CALS
correlate with those found by a study of a similar action research project at another
site. Rodriguez (2006) found tangible results from action research in terms of the
increase in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced on the
California Standards Test (CST). Specifically, the CST scores in Rodriquez’s (2006)
test sample increased from 7% in 2003 to 29% in 2004, and to 31% in 2005 (pp. 39-
45). In Language Arts, the increase was from 19% in 2003 to 22% in 2004, and to
31% in 2005 (Rodriguez, 2006, pp. 39-45). Thus, although there is no evidence of a
direct cause-and-effect relationship between the initiation of the CALS action
research project and the improved test scores, there is a correlation between the
inauguration of the project and improvement of the test scores, and as well, evidence
135
in the literature states that action research does positively impact student
achievement.
Impact on parents. Although the parents are not directly involved with
action research, they have experienced the benefits. Compared to before the
beginning of the project, parents now seem to be more satisfied with the school’s
influence on their children’s lives. Parents at CALS are actively involved in the
school and the students’ learning process as the school continuously facilitates
engagement of parents as a way to pursue student academic success; thus, parents
have expressed a greater sense of fulfillment in their experience at CALS (personal
communication, January 27, 2006). In part, these perceptions are supported by such
measurable data as a growing waiting list for admission, a staff turnover rate lower
than other schools in the district, an attendance rate that hovers at 97%, which is very
high for a middle school, and a reputation for academic achievement in the
community and the district (personal communication, June 21, 2006).
Resource Requirements
Resource requirements to implement action research include budget, staffing,
facilities, and professional development of teachers. A very small amount of the
school budget is spent on implementation of action research, according to the
assistant principal at CALS, and the funding for action research is mostly attained by
various fundraising events at the school throughout the academic year. In addition,
although no additional staffing is required to implement action research, purposeful
selection of teachers is crucial for the school and the implementation and
sustainability of action research. No special facilities are required, nor is formal
136
training needed before conducting action research; however, teachers attend
professional development days twice a year and often commit themselves to take
additional classes through Fielding University.
Budget. As stated above, very little of the budget is spent on action research
projects, most costs being borne by fundraising (personal communication, January
27, 2006). The principal stated that the school does pay for activities and supplies
related to action research after prior discussions and appropriate rationales for the
purchases (personal communication, January 30, 2006). For instance, the school paid
for a charter bus for the parents’ excursion to a local Cal State University campus as
part of the action research project on parent involvement. On another occasion, “The
school conducted workshops for parents on parenting skills by bringing in the Parent
Institute,” and a part of the money that was raised through various fund raising
efforts was spent for the event (personal communication, January 27, 2006).
Staffing. Although no additional staffing is required to conduct action
research, teachers and school leaders believe that selection of teachers at CALS is
critically linked to the successful implementation and continuation of action
research. According to the executive director at CALS, the school purposely selects
teachers who are especially suited for action research, and interviews with
prospective teachers typically cover action research to determine if there is a “fit”
since it is so ingrained in the culture of the school. The school seeks teachers with a
teaching philosophy aligned with the school’s mission, and who are passionate about
teaching and action research, willing to conduct action research as a part of processes
137
of instruction, willing to collaborate with other teachers, and eager to contribute to
the professional community of teachers (personal communication, June 21, 2006).
Although action research is not specifically mentioned in the school charter,
teachers and school leaders speak about teacher leadership, teacher empowerment,
and their confidence that teachers drive the instruction program at CALS (personal
communication, June 21, 2006). These benefits can be linked to the action research
process, which gives teachers a procedural tool and institutional culture to access
multiple resources in order to prepare and deliver engaging curricular lessons
customized to the needs of students (personal communication, June 21, 2006).
Facilities. No special facilities are needed to conduct action research, and
regular classrooms were sufficient to implement it.
Professional Development. According to the executive director at CALS,
there is no formal process or training that prepares teachers to conduct action
research. However, teachers often take classes at Fielding University for their
professional development and attend professional development days dedicated to
action research. Teachers at CALS often pursue a master’s degree at Fielding
University and take additional classes on the history and methods of action research
for their professional development (personal communication, June 21, 2006). These
classes provide a theoretical perspective of action research as they initiate and
implement the program (personal communication, June 21, 2006). In addition,
formalized professional development days twice a year are devoted to reporting and
sharing knowledge on action research projects among all staff members and to
reflecting on lessons learned from the various projects (personal communication,
138
July 5, 2006). The purpose of these in-service days is to enable teachers at CALS to
learn from the various action research projects and to build upon that shared
knowledge (personal communication, July 5, 2006).
Many teachers at CALS feel that professional development is embedded in
the action research projects since teachers and school leaders constantly reflect on
and analyze student work with continuous inquiry and collaboration, and change
curriculum design to accommodate student needs if it seems necessary (personal
communication, January 27, 2006). Just as students are in the midst of their own
learning cycles, so are teachers continually involved in their own learning cycles, as
reflected in the school’s renewal charter, which states, CALS teachers continuously
reflect, revise, and improve their teaching methods and provide innovative
instruction that prepares students for college (Rodriguez, 2006).
Recommended Resources
The following books and websites related to action research were used and
recommended by staff members at CALS in implementation of action research.
Books.
• Anderson, G. L., Herr, K. G. & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own
school: An educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Calhoun, E. F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-
renewing school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America's schools. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
139
• Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Websites.
• Fielding Graduate University--www.fielding.edu
• Partnerships to Uplift Communities (PUC) Schools--
www.pucschools.org
Summary
The findings and analyses that correspond to sections of the MMACCS
compendium template including description of each promising practice, goals of the
promising practice, evidence of impact, challenges and benefits, and resource
requirements have been presented in chapter 4. The two charter schools, Feaster-
Edison Charter Elementary School and California Academy for Liberal Studies, have
each taken a different approach to implement programs related to school leadership.
Feaster-Edison implemented the mentoring program, developing teachers’ leadership
abilities and skills, while CALS incorporated action research as a means to achieve
higher student achievement through improved instructional practice. While both
schools had increased student achievement in mind, the mentoring program at
Feaster-Edison aimed to broaden perspectives on school governance and leadership
by developing teachers as school leaders, and action research at CALS developed a
culture of inquiry and collaboration. The mentoring program has allowed teachers to
experience being school leaders and to participate in decision-making processes
school wide; action research has focused on teachers gaining knowledge and skills in
instruction in order to improve student achievement in one classroom, although
140
many action research projects have become school-wide movements if they have
proven successful.
Chapter 5, which follows, is organized around the four research questions,
presenting how findings from this study compare to the literature presented in
chapter 2. Additionally, suggestions for further study and recommendations for
policy and practice will be summarized.
141
Chapter 5
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to explore promising practices regarding
teacher and administrative (school) leadership at two California charter schools.
While Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School (Feaster-Edison) and California
Academy for Liberal Studies (CALS) used different programs on school leadership,
both schools faced challenges and benefits similar to those reported in the literature
review in chapter 2. The results from this study will be disseminated through USC’s
online promising practices compendium, under the auspices of the Center on
Educational Governance. This chapter is organized by the four original research
questions, presented in chapter 3, and under each section, findings from Feaster-
Edison and CALS are compared to the literature on school leadership. This chapter
concludes with implications of this study and suggestions for practice.
Connections to Prior Research
Research Question One: What policies, programs, and processes were used to
improve school leadership in two charter schools?
The two schools explored in this study, Feaster-Edison and CALS,
implemented two distinctively different but equally successful programs related to
school leadership, the mentoring program at Feaster-Edison and action research at
CALS.
Feaster-Edison utilized the mentoring program as a vehicle to provide
teachers with opportunities to experience school leadership and to empower teachers
throughout the process. Many teachers at Feaster-Edison described the mentoring
142
program as one that provides “hands-on experience of school leadership for teachers
through many opportunities providing a perspective of a school leader” (personal
communication, October 31, 2005). The mentoring program intended to promote
school and district leadership in teachers through many activities, such as leadership
meetings, professional development opportunities, and shadowing activities. The
program consisted of admission through either a recommendation by the principal,
self-nomination, or a nomination by peers; enrollment in preliminary administrative
credential courses or in a master’s program in Education at San Diego State
University; regular meetings with the principal; principal shadowing days;
observation days; mock interviews; and a culminating activity of becoming a
principal for a day.
The other school, CALS, provided action research as a way to improve
teachers’ instructional practice and a way for them to become experts in their area of
instruction. Action research at CALS involved a cyclical process in which teachers
and school leaders identify a problem or a concern based on their school or
classroom situations; collect and analyze data from multiple sources; study, select,
and implement interventions; and then reflect on and evaluate their lessons learned.
The principal at CALS believed that the entire campus was “built upon the idea of
action research” because teachers in every classroom were conducting some kind of
action research project (personal communication, January 30, 2006). The ultimate
goal of those projects at CALS is to increase the high school graduation rate and
college entrance and graduation rates of Latino students in northeast Los Angeles as
aligned with the mission of the school; thus, the “mini” action research projects often
143
have overlapping foci in an attempt to move students closer towards reaching the
goals.
Although literature on identifying and exploring programs relating to school
leadership is not abundant, Gickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (2001) listed action
research as one of the five categories of instructional leadership and as a method to
encourage participation of teacher leaders. Throughout the processes of action
research at CALS, teacher leaders were able to make curriculum decisions that
reflected best practices (Merideth, 2007) while exercising a high degree of autonomy
and involvement in instruction in their own classrooms and school-wide. At Feaster-
Edison, since the school governance structure is rooted in the idea of shared
leadership (Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School, 2007), teachers in the
mentoring program perceived school leadership as an activity that is shared and
distributed among all stakeholders (Pearce & Conger, 2003). The program also
provided opportunities for teachers to bring out their leadership qualities and skills in
order to “become a community of leaders” (Barth, 1990) because a sense of
community is seen as one purpose of shared leadership (Lambert, 1998, 2003). Thus,
the experiences at both schools reflect the conclusions of previous research that
facilitating teacher and shared leadership through these two programs is an effective
method of improving school leadership. Additionally, although research on practices
of school leadership and its effect on student achievement data has been
inconclusive, educators at both schools believed that these programs and the
processes related to school leadership positively influence school culture and
144
develop a professional community, ultimately resulting in an increase in student
achievement.
Research Question 2: How were resources used to implement promising practices
successfully?
Resources such as funding, staff, and professional development were
necessary to successfully implement programs relating to school leadership at both
schools. The schools experienced challenges in funding, usually in general funds,
due to district budget cuts; however, both schools found ways to utilize the resources
available and were able to finding funding for the programs related to school
leadership. In addition, while Feaster-Edison experienced difficulty retaining some
teacher leaders due to their promotion within the district, both schools were able to
attract, hire, and retain high quality teachers through purposeful selection as
principals at both schools knew that the sustainability of the programs depended
primarily on teachers. Being a charter school which has an authority to select its own
faculty attracted teachers who agreed and were passionate about the programs
offered. Professional development opportunities, which often introduced skills
required for the programs and time for collaboration among teachers at each school,
were offered to participating teachers before and during the programs.
Funding
As previously mentioned in chapter 4, only a small portion of the school
budget was spent on action research projects at CALS --teachers, students, and
parents raised most of the money that was needed for these projects throughout the
academic year through fundraising events (personal communication, January 27,
145
2006). Similarly, school leaders at Feaster-Edison recently faced the challenge of
reduced resources when they experienced a district-wide budget cut. Because of the
reduced, funding, the school experienced a “cut back on personnel, resources, and
services” offered to students, which negatively impacted the implementation of the
mentoring program (personal communication, October 31, 2005). As a result, the
school had to look for alternative avenues of funding to sustain the mentoring
program and saw the need to become flexible in using resources. By realizing that
they could no longer rely on just one source of school funding, some teachers and
school leaders applied for a private grant to supplement the mentoring program.
As finances in a school or district could be unstable and unpredictable,
literature suggested that knowing how and where to intervene and mobilize resources
for better results was essential for the success of the schools and students
(Lieberman, Saxl, & Miles, 1988). In the case of the two schools in this study,
limited funding was available for the programs; however, school leaders, along with
teacher leaders, effectively managed and promoted the programs with those limited
resources. The process of resource allocation demonstrated a balance based on
communication, collegiality, and flexibility. At CALS and Feaster-Edison, faculty
members were well informed about pertinent fiscal matters and budget planning that
involved shared fiscal decision-making processes. Although faced with fiscal
limitations, schools leaders at both schools kept communications open with staff
members and seeked to acquire necessary resources when they became available
(Miller, Moon, & Elko, 2000) by many conducting fundraising events and applying
for grants. Therefore, findings at both schools supported literature that stated it was
146
necessary for stakeholders to remain vigilant and to align resources toward the
school’s primary mission, improved academic performance, especially in this time of
uncertainty in school funding (Kedro, 2004).
Staff
Although no additional staffing was required for the school leadership
programs at either school, staff selection and retention were critically linked to the
success of those programs. As with the maximization of scarce funding, school
leaders at CALS and Feaster-Edison strove for maximum efficiency with human
resources. Leaders were purposeful in selection of new personnel and set high
expectations for teachers from the very beginning of their employment. At CALS,
school leaders expected all teachers to conduct action research from the time of
initial employment. At Feaster-Edison, the principal searched for teachers who
shared a similar educational philosophy and who were willing to participate
proactively in school decision-making processes (personal communication, October
31, 2005). At both schools, it was expected that teachers implement the school
leadership programs in addition to their regular duties and responsibilities.
Many teacher leaders in charter schools are involved in the staff selection
process (Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003) and are likely to recruit teachers who share
similar visions and goals for teaching and learning (Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998). As
leaders at both schools recognized the importance of hiring an excellent breed of
teachers for the development and sustainability of the school leadership programs,
they aimed to recruit more determined and dedicated teachers who would be able to
implement and to continue the programs in the future utilizing their authority to
147
select their own faculty. Similarly, each charter school had a strong mission
statement, which served as a magnet, to attract teachers who agreed with and were
passionate about the programs offered by the schools. As demonstrated in both
schools, this resulted in a school culture of collaboration with teachers who were
like-minded and in a culture of commitment and motivation among colleagues
(Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003).
Professional Development
At CALS, teachers who were participating in action research were required to
attend a two-day professional development session annually. In addition, teachers
had opportunities to take classes on action research while pursuing a master’s
program at Fielding Graduate University and, once steeped in the theoretical
perspective, to initiate their own action research (personal communication, June 21,
2006). Many teachers at CALS felt that professional development was embedded in
the action research projects since teachers expanded their knowledge and skills
through different phases (personal communication, January 27, 2006).
The same principle applied to teachers at Feaster-Edison. They also were not
required to take additional professional development courses except for a two-day
leadership team meeting during summer since they were taking classes towards their
master’s degrees at San Diego State University, and they felt that the program was
clearly equivalent to professional development courses for teachers. Also, since the
embedded professional development activities at both schools were ongoing and
relevant to what they were teaching, the teachers felt that those activities were
effective.
148
Literature emphasized the importance of providing professional development
opportunities fostering teachers’ cognitive, pedagogical, and collaborative learning
(Glickman et al., 2001) in order to develop instructional leadership (Blasé & Blasé,
2000). Teachers involved in action research examined their own practice, often
sought affiliation with their colleagues, and participated in different forms of
problem-solving activities. Those practices made professional learning personal,
collegial, and communal. Professional development, thus, eventually came to be an
expected, sought after, and ongoing part of teaching and school life (Lieberman,
1995). Especially at CALS, where teachers were able to develop their instructional
leadership through action research, they found themselves in a learning cycle of
continuous professional development: The more they learned, the more they opened
up to new possibilities, and the more they sought to learn. The cycle brought an
awareness of the possibilities for student learning inherent in new pedagogical
approaches (Lieberman, 1996) as seen at CALS through action research. At both
schools, professional learning became the expectation of teachers and school leaders
and an integral part of the school culture as it derived from teachers forming a
learning community (Swanson, 2000).
Research Question 3: What challenges have charter schools faced in implementing
the programs relating to teacher and administrative (school) leadership, and how
were they addressed?
Both Feaster-Edison and CALS faced similar challenges in implementing
programs related to school leadership. Two major challenges, time and staff, and
149
they ways these two schools addressed the challenges will be explained in this
section.
Time
Many teachers who participated in this study described time management and
lack of time as the greatest challenges. Some researchers have stated that the greatest
barrier to teacher leadership is time (Barth, 2001), and teachers at both schools
juggled many responsibilities and duties as they spent their personal time to fulfill
their obligations. While the amount of time needed for collaboration and fulfilling
different leadership roles was difficult to estimate, teachers at CALS stated they were
always discussing, collaborating, and openly asking for feedback from one another
as a part of action research despite lack of daily scheduled planning time. Teachers at
CALS regarded collaboration as part of action research and school culture,
something that they ought to do and that was expected from them (personal
communication, January 27, 2006). Conversely, teachers at Feaster-Edison received
their 40-minute daily planning time; however, school leaders and teachers at Feaster-
Edison were also spending personal time to fulfill their responsibilities, and thus
were always in need of more time (personal communication, October 31, 2005).
Beyond time spent to fulfill their obligations, teachers seemed to struggle
with lack of time to reflect, learn, and plan (Merideth, 2007). Findings from both
schools emphasized the need to employ creative ways to provide more time for
teachers in curricular development and collaboration. For instance, teachers could be
released for collaboration and instructional development. Also, team planning time
could be offered to allow for planning and analyzing data as teachers discussed
150
different ideas, coordinated interdisciplinary curricular teaching/projects, and shared
technical skills. Although there was a growing concern at both schools about
teachers, especially teacher leaders, fulfilling too many responsibilities, many
teachers made time for collaboration a priority and juggled different responsibilities
since effective utilization of time was expected from the beginning.
Staff
Another challenge that both schools faced was related to issues on staffing.
As Feaster-Edison enjoyed many successes in the mentoring program, the school
was challenged with the issue of retaining teacher leaders who were being recruited
as principals and assistant principals within the same school district. For instance, the
teacher leaders who participated in the mentoring program often received offers to
become principals or assistant principals at other schools. As a result, the school had
to replace about two to three teachers every year (personal communication, October
31, 2005). These personnel losses created instability and increased costs in
recruitment and professional development at the school. It may be necessary for
Feaster-Edison to put more effort into providing a more desirable working
environment with increased support for teachers, attractive salaries, and benefits in
order to retain quality teachers.
Research Question 4: What evidence exists that the programs relating to school
leadership may be related to positive educational outcomes?
At both Feaster-Edison and CALS, there is noteworthy evidence that the
programs related to school leadership may result in positive educational outcomes,
including positive impact on teachers and students. Impact on teachers consisted of
151
increased teacher leadership, collaboration, a culture of inquiry among teachers,
positive school culture, shared leadership, and a sense of empowerment spawned by
active participation in decision-making processes. Impact on students included
improvement in their quantitative performance data, and demonstration of positive
attitudes toward learning, collaboration with peers, and maturity.
Teacher Outcomes
At both schools, teachers seemed to be empowered and enjoyed taking
leadership roles during many phases of the school leadership programs. Teachers
willingly took on extra responsibilities, made commitments, and had a sense of
ownership of their tasks. They were committed to be part of the professional learning
community. Through the leadership programs at both schools, teacher leaders were
empowered and became more committed by gaining responsibilities for areas
traditionally reserved for school leaders, such as instruction, assessment, and
decision making (Lieberman & Miller, 1999). Many teachers at both schools
expressed their ownership of and dedication to the programs. With their deep
commitment to student learning and their willingness to work hard, teacher leaders at
both schools have created norms of excellence in teaching and learning. As
mentioned in an earlier section, teachers were expected to take on additional
responsibilities, to conduct the programs related to school leadership, and to
collaborate with colleagues from the moment they were hired (personal
communication, October 31, 2005). This culture of high expectations may be the
result of the purposeful selection of teachers who agree with the school’s mission
and an emphasis in school autonomy; teachers being able to make decisions on
152
educational programs, develop new approaches in the classroom, and take leadership
responsibilities at the school. As a result, the norm of teacher collaboration and
professional inquiry at both schools was created with high expectations from the
beginning.
As Lambert (1998) highlighted the importance of collaboration and shared
responsibilities for shared leadership, both schools fostered collaboration that
stemmed from shared goals by recognizing the necessity to work together to achieve
them. Collaboration was evident and was demonstrated especially when teacher
leaders worked together to make decisions on various issues of schooling.
At Feaster-Edison and CALS, a positive school culture was cultivated
through these leadership programs. Barth (2001) stated that when teacher leaders
become owners, investors, and professionals of their practice, they cultivate a sense
of ownership and the norm of professional inquiry. The teachers and school leaders
at both schools set the professional norms of shared leadership: It is apparent that
each school’s culture directly influences how willing the teachers will be to take on
positive leadership roles (Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001) and that teacher leadership
can be encouraged or impeded depending on school culture and climate. Although
institutionalizing teacher leadership can be a challenging task at first, both schools
demonstrated fostering a school culture in which classroom teachers were
empowered as partners in shaping policy, improving practice, and bringing added
value to the goal of improving education for children (Boles & Troen, 1996). That is,
the settings where teachers are encouraged to collaborate, to participate in school-site
153
decision making, to engage in ongoing learning, and to reflect upon their pedagogy
were created and nurtured at both schools.
The principal at Feaster-Edison took initiatives to redistribute his leadership
among staff members by willingly delegating leadership responsibilities to teacher
leaders and by developing collaborative decision-making processes at the school
(personal communication, December 3, 2009). Although delegation of authority and
sharing power can be a challenging task for some principals, the principal at Feaster-
Edison demonstrated developing participation and collaboration among all
stakeholders (Yukl, 2002). Thus, the principal’s role to empower teachers by sharing
authority and decision-making processes is essential (Prestine, 1991) as the
collaborative process of shared leadership often results in improved team
effectiveness, group productivity, and performance by turning individuals into
leaders and reaching beyond the capabilities of an individual leader (Pearce &
Conger, 2003).
Student Performance
Teachers and school leaders agreed that the improvement in academic
performance evidenced at Feaster-Edison and CALS was the result of the successful
implementation of a clear educational vision and a shared mission by teachers and
other stakeholders for improved school leadership. As mentioned earlier, Feaster-
Edison’s API has improved from below 400 to well within the 700 range in the last 6
years. In addition, CALS’ API grew from 676 to 719, a 43-point increase, from 2004
to the 2005 academic year (California Department of Education, 2006). At CALS,
while API for all students was 719, the Hispanic population received 718 and socio-
154
economically disadvantaged students received 719 (California Department of
Education, 2006), which demonstrates that the achievement gap among different
races and incomes is almost non-existent at CALS. Although quantitative data on
student performance are impressive, educators at Feaster-Edison emphasized
qualitative measures such as positive attitude of students toward learning, ease of
collaboration and participation during the learning process, and maturity of students
as great affirmation of their successful implementation of the programs related to
school leadership as well.
Implications for Practice
This study has generated several implications and recommendations for
future practice. Suggested strategies including shared decision making in which all
stakeholders participate in decision-making processes, managing and scheduling
time effectively and creatively, and helping teachers to balance their workload to
avoid teacher burnout, will be explained in this section.
The shared decision-making process has proven to be crucial for establishing
and nurturing school leadership at both schools. Shared decision-making processes,
commitment and empowerment of teachers, and creation of a professional learning
community fostered enhanced learning for both teachers and school leaders. The
practices observed at both schools demonstrated a more democratic, communal, or
communitarian school system by incorporating a shared decision-making process in
school governance. In addition, as Barth (1990) mentioned, these processes and
procedures removed barriers between teachers and school leaders in developing
collegiality and a community of leaders within the school.
155
With increased participation of all stakeholders through shared decision-
making processes, teachers were offered opportunities to engage in school
governance in collective efforts. As Crowther, Ferguson, and Hann (2009)
emphasized, when teachers feel valued as members of a coherent community and
empowered as decision makers, they are able to empower their students by offering
them choices and by including them in decisions affecting their own institution.
Therefore, teacher leadership is connected to teacher learning (Darling-Hammond,
Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995), which leads to enhanced student performance.
School leaders may need to find creative ways to arrange time for
collaboration. For many teachers, finding time for teacher leadership often conflicted
with classroom obligations. As some teachers stated, even extra time provided for
leadership functions is not enough. In order to implement school leadership
programs effectively, school leaders must restructure teachers’ schedules to provide
time for teachers to assume leadership roles (Stone, Horejs, & Lomas, 1997).
In addition to time constraints, teacher workload may be an obstacle to
teachers transforming themselves into leaders; therefore, school leaders may need to
assist in maintaining balance in scheduling teachers’ time. Because teacher leaders
can be consumed by endless responsibilities, as seen at both schools, principals may
assist in monitoring and balancing the teachers’ workloads carefully. For instance,
principals may help teachers find time by releasing them from their classrooms or
providing additional time for collaboration in their schedules. Especially with
additional duties as a teacher leader, the latter can experience possible burnout and
can become less effective in implementing school improvements.
156
Principals also should determine the extent to which decision-making
responsibilities are burdensome for teachers and whether it serves to enhance the
work of teachers and aid school improvement. Providing teachers opportunities to
balance various commitments and to delegate leadership roles in order to focus on
primary responsibilities would be beneficial. Arranging teachers’ schedules
effectively so that teachers’ assumption of leadership roles will not put unreasonable
demands on their limited time will assist teachers in avoiding possible burnout.
Conclusion
The findings from the present study provide some initial information on
questions regarding programs and processes of teacher and administrative (school)
leadership at two California charter schools. It must be noted that these two schools
were selected because they offered different programs and used dissimilar strategies
for school leadership development. Each case highlighted a different context in terms
of school mission, location, student population, and faculty characteristics.
Therefore, the findings from this story were specific to the local contexts of the two
schools studied and, therefore, cannot be generalized to other schools. Additionally,
there is not one single approach to school leadership development that is best for all
schools. However, the MMACCS compendium, which contains findings from this
study, will provide information online about promising practices used by charter
schools in California, as the intent of the compendium is to assist schools that are
looking to improve their performance. Therefore, the compendium will serve as an
efficient means of communicating promising practices to educators in the field.
157
In conclusion, this study has provided a first step in disseminating promising
leadership practices from California charter schools to the field. Although additional
research is still needed in this area of investigation, the present study is able to
provide some practical ideas for educators involved in designing and implementing
leadership practices with the ultimate goal of increased student performance. In
addition, by presenting the words of educators who reveal critical issues, concerns,
and lessons related to programs on school leadership, the MMACCS compendium
will serve to encourage educators at both charter schools and public schools by
offering a steppingstone on the road to innovative success in student achievement.
158
References
Andrews, D., & Crowther, F. (2002). Parallel leadership: A clue to the contents of
the "black box" of school reform. International Journal of Educational
Management, 16(4), 152-159.
Andrews, R., Roger, S., & Jacoby, D. (1986). Principal roles, other in-school
variables and academic achievement by ethnicity and SES. American
Educational Research Association
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on
stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7),
28-38.
Arsen, D., Plank, D., & Sykes, G. (1999). School choice policies in michigan: The
rules matter. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Ascher, C., Jacobowitz, R., McBride, Y., & Wamba, N. (2000). Reflections from new
york city's charter schools and charter authorizers. New York, NY.: New York
University, Institute for Education and Social Policy, School of Education.
Bamburg, J., & Andrews, R. (1990). School goals, principals and achievement.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2, 175-191.
Bardach, E. (2003). Creating compendia of best practice Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 22(4), 661-665.
Bardach, E. (2004). Presidential address- the extrapoliation problem: How can we
learn from the experience of others? Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 23(2), 205-220.
Barth, R. S. (1988). School: A community of leaders In A. Lieberman (Ed.),
Building a professional culture in schools (pp. 129-147). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 6-443.
Barth, R. S. (2004). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and
principals can make the difference Retrieved from ERIC
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Bell, J. (2001). High-performing, high-poverty schools. Leadership, 31(1), 8-11.
159
Bennett, N., & Anderson, L. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking educational leadership .
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (1997). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a
leader . Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
Biddle, B. J., & Dunkin, M. J. (1987). Effects of teaching. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The
international encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 119-124).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Bierlein, L. A. (1997). The charter school movement. In D. Ravitch, & J. P. Viteritti
(Eds.), New schools for a new century (pp. 37-60). New Haven, CT.: Yale
University Press.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals' instructional leadership and teacher
development: Teachers' perspectives Educational Administration Quarterly, 25,
349-378.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers'
perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools
Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 130-141.
Boles, K., & Troen, V. (1996). Teacher leaders and power: Achieving school reform
from the classroom. In G. Moller, & M. Katzenmeyer (Eds.), Every teacher as a
leader: Realizing the potential of teacher leadership (pp. 41-62). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management
role of the principal Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 34-64.
Bowles, B., King, D., & Crow, G. (April, 2000). Viable principal candidates:
Superintendents' perspective. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Brophy, J. (2003). Teaching . Philadelphia, PA: the Laboratory for Student Success,
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory, Temple University Center
for Research in Human Development and Education.
Brouillette, L. (2002). Charter schools: Lessons in school reform . Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Brownlee, G. D. (1979). Characteristics of teacher leaders Educational Horizons,
57(3), 119-122.
Budde, R. (1988). Education by charter: Restructuring school districts. . Andover,
MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and
the Islands.
160
Bulkley, J., & Schneider, M. (2007). Charter schools: Hope or hype?. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2002). A review of research on charter schools. CPRE Web
Paper Series, , October 20, 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre_pdfs/WP-01.pdf
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice
Educational Policy, 17(3), 317-342.
Burke, C. (1992). Devolution of responsibility to queensland schools: Clarifying the
rhetoric critiquing the reality Journal of Educational Administration, 30(4), 33-
52.
California Department of Education. (2006). Accountability progress reporting
(APR) . Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/index.asp
California Department of Education. (2009). School profile: Fiscal year 2008-09 .
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education (Ed-Data: Education Data
Partnership). Retrieved from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us
Carter, S. C. (2001). No excuses: Lessons from twenty-one high performing, high
poverty schools. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
Casner-Lotto, J. (1988, Expanding the teacher's role: Hammond's school
improvement process. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 349-353.
Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (2005). The role of
principal leadership in improving student achievement No. 2009) Retrieved
from http://www.centerforcsri.org/files/September%20newsletter.pdf
Center on Educational Governance. (2009). Retrieved December 6, 2009, from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/products/compendium_of_promising.
html
Charter Schools Development Center. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school
reform: A study of ten california school districts. . Los Angeles, CA: University
of California, Los Angeles.
Chester, M., & Beaudin, B. (1996). Efficacy beliefs of newly hired teachers in urban
schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 233-257.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and america's schools
Retrieved from ERIC
161
Clark, S., & Clark, D. (2002). Making leadership for learning the top priority. Middle
School Journal, 34(2), 50-55.
Conley, D. T. (1997). Roadmap to restructuring: Charting the course of change in
american education. second edition. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5207 (cloth:
ISBN-0-86552-136-0, $34.95 prepaid plus postage and handling; paper: ISBN-
0-86552-137-9, $23.95 prepaid plus postage and handling). Retrieved from
ERIC
Cookson, P. W. (1995). School choice: The struggle for the soul of american
education. . New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.
Copland, M. A. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (7),
528-533.
Copland, M. A. (2003). Building the capacity to lead: Promoting and sustaining
change in an inquiry-based model of school reform In J. Murphy, & A. Datnow
(Eds.), Leadership for school reform: Lessons from comprehensive school
reform designs (pp. 159-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Corwin, R. G., & Flaherty, J. F. (1995). Freedom and innovation in California's
charter school. Dallas, TX: Southwest Regional Laboratory.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of shared
leadership and distributed influence in the innovation process: How shared
leadership can enhance new product development team dynamics and
effectiveness. In C. L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership:
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 48-76). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Crowther, F., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2009). Developing teacher leaders: How
teacher leadership enhances school success . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Crowther, F., & Olsen, P. (1997). Teachers as leaders: An exploratory framework
International Journal of Educational Management, 11(1), 6-13.
162
Crowther, F. (1997). Unsung heroes: The leaders in our classrooms. the william
walker oration, 1996. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(1), 5-17.
Retrieved from ERIC database.
Crowther, F., Kaagan, S. S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher
leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Corwin Press, Inc.,
A Sage Publications Company, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-
2218 (paperback: ISBN-0-7619-4562-8, $29.95; hardcover: ISBN-0-7619-4561-
X, $65.95). Tel: 800-818-7243 (Toll Free); Fax: 800-417-2466 (Toll Free); e-
mail:(TRUNCATED): http://www.corwinpress.com. Retrieved from ERIC
Cuban, L. (2004). A solution that lost its problem: Centralized policymaking and
classroom gains. In N. Epstein (Ed.), Who's in charge here? the tangled web of
school governance and policy (pp. 104-130). Washington, DC: Education
Commission of the States.
Daley, G. A., Norman, J. S., Weingarten, J., & Chavez, R. (2005). Learning from
charter schools in los angeles No. Planning, Assessment, and Research Division
Public No. 266). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District
Program Evaluation and Research Branch.
Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice .
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dannetta, V. (2002). What factors influence a teacher's commitment to student
learning? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(2), 144-171.
Daresh, J. C. (1998). Professional development for school leadership: The impact of
U.S. educational reform. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(4),
323-333.
Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1997). Beginning the principalship: A guide for new
school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Preess.
Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher
leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 96(1), 87-107.
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2003). Leadership and success for all. In J. Murphy,
& A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership for school reform: Lessons from
comprehensive school reform (pp. 187-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. E. (2001). Managing and guiding school reform:
Leadership in success for all schools. Educational Administration Quarterly,
37(2), 219-249.
163
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals . Stanford, CA: Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute.
Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading
schools in times of change . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
De Groot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review
organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 356-371.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. (1999).
Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories:
Are attributes if charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?
The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219-256.
Devaney, K. (1987). The lead teacher: Ways to begin In A. Lieberman (Ed.),
Building a professional culture in schools (pp. 85-86). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Doyle, M. (2000). Making meaning of teacher leadership in the implementation of a
standards-based mathematics curriculum Retrieved from ERIC database.
Dressler, B. (2001). Charter school leadership Education and Urban Society, 33,
170-185.
Drucker, P. (2000). Knowledge work Executive Excellence, 17(4), 11-12.
DuFour, R. (2002). The learning centered principal Educational Leadership, 59(8),
12-15.
Duke, D. (1982). Leadership functions and instructional effectiveness. NASSP
Bulletin, 66, 5-9.
Duke, D., & Canady, L. (1991). School policy. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Duttweiler, P. C., & Mutchler, S. E. (1990). Organizing the educational system for
excellence: Harnessing the energy of people. Austin, TX: Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory.
Duttweiler, P., & Hord, S. (1987). Dimensions of effective leadership . Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Duttweiler, P., & Madden, M. (2001). Special report on standards, assessment,
accountability, and interventions. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention
Center.
164
Eberts, R., & Stone, J. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals
make a difference? Economics of Education Review, 7, 291-299.
Ebmeier, H. (1991, April). The development of an instrument for client-based
principal formative evaluation. American Educational Research Association
Chicago.
Education Week. (1998, January, Quality counts '98: The urban challenge Education
Week, 100-101.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership . Washington, DC:
The Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/downloads/building.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (1999). Leadership of large-scale improvement in american education
Elmore, R. F. (2004). Building a new structure for school leadership In R. F. Elmore
(Ed.), School reform from the inside out (pp. 87). Boston, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Fay, C. (1992). Empowerment through leadership: In the teacher's voice In C.
Livingston (Ed.), Teachers as leaders: Evolving roles (pp. 57-90). Washington
DC: National Education Association.
Feaster-Edison Charter Elementary School. (2007). Feaster charter school charter
revision 2007-2012. Chula Vista, CA: Retrieved from
http://www.cvesd.org/feaster-edison/charter-board.aspx
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action:
Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fletcher, J. K., & Kaufer, K. (2003). Shared leadership: Paradox and possibility In C.
L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and
whys of leadership (pp. 21-47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Forster, E. M. (2001). Teacher leadership: Professional right and responsibility
Action in Teacher Education, 19(3), 82-94.
Foster, R. (2001). Constructivist leadership in high school Paper Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Toronto,
Ontario.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change (1st ed. ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8),
581-584. Retrieved from ERIC database.
165
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Corwin
Press, A SAGE Publications Company. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA
91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail:
order@sagepub.com; Web site: http: //www.corwinpress.com. Retrieved from
http://www.corwinpress.com/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book226704
Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E., & Wright, J. (2006). Is the no child left behind act
working? the reliability of how states track achievement No. Working Paper No.
06-1). Berkeley, CA: University of California and Stanford University, Policy
Analysis for California Education.
Fusarelli, L. D. (2002). Charter schools: Implications for teachers and administrators
Clearning House, 76(1), 20-24.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An
introduction (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Garn, G. A. (1999). Solving the policy implementation problem: The case of arizona
charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(26)
Gates, S., Ross, K., & Brewer, D. (2001). Leading to reform: Educational leadership
for the 21st century . Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Glass, G. V. (2002). Teacher characteristics. In A. Molnar (Ed.), School reform
proposals: The research evidence (pp. 95-112). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Glickman, C. D. (2003). Holding sacred ground: Essays on leadership, courage, and
endurance in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2001). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Goddard, R. D. (2002). Collective efficacy and school organization: A multilevel
analysis of teacher influence in schools. Theory and Research in Educational
Administration, 1, 807-818.
Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure and impact on student achievement American Educational Research
Journal, 37(2), 479-507.
Goleman, D. (2002). The new leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into the
science of results. London: Little Brown.
Grayson Jr., C. J. (2007, Benchmarking: What it is, how it works, and why educators
desperately need it Education Week, 26 (21), 33-34.
166
Griffith, J. (2000). School climate as group evaluation and group consensus: Student
and parent perceptions of the elementary school environment. The Elementary
School Journal, 101(1), 35-61.
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership.
Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317-338.
Halal, W. E. (1994). From hierarchy to enterprise: Internal markets are the new
foundation of management The Academy of Management Executive, 8, 69-84.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process.
SUNY series in educational leadershipPublication Sales, SUNY Press, State
University of New York-Albany, SUNY Plaza, Albany, NY 12222 ($18.95).
Retrieved from ERIC database.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership: How has the model evolved and what
have we learned? American Educational Research Association, Montreal,
Canada.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership,
and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-549.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). The principal's role in school effectiveness: An
assessment of methodological progress. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D.
Corson, P. Hallinger & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational
leadership and administration (pp. 723-783). The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1999). Next generation methods for the study of
leadership and school improvement In J. Murphy, & K. Louis (Eds.), Handbook
of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 141-162). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1994). Introduction: Exploring the impact of
principal leadership. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5, 206-218.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 329-351. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/0305764
032000122005
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school
effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44. Retrieved
from ERIC database.
167
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of
insecurity. Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY
1002 ($56). Tel: 212-678-3929; Tel: 800-575-6566 (Toll Free); Fax: 212-678-
4149; Web site: http: //www.tcpress.com. Retrieved from ERIC
Harris, A. (2002). Leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances.
International Congress of School Effectiveness and School Improvement
Copenhagen.
Hart, R., & Baptist, B. (1996). Developing teacher leaders: A state initiative In G.
Moller, & M. Katzenmeyer (Eds.), Every teacher as a leader: Realizing the
potential of teacher leadership (pp. 85-100). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Hart, A. W. (1994). Creating teacher leadership roles. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 472-497. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Hart, A. W. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. Elementary
School Journal, 96(1), 9-28. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Hassel, B. C. (1999). The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling
the promise. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern
perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Heck, R. H. (1993). School context, principal leadership and achievement: The case
of secondary schools in Singapore. The Urban Review, 25, 151-166.
Heck, R., Larsen, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990, April). Principal leadership and
school achievement: Validation of a causal model. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Hoachlander, G., Alt, M., & Beltranena, R. (2001). Leading school improvement:
What research says. Berkeley, CA: MPR Associates Inc. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019
b/80/1a/03/62.pdf
Horn, J., & Miron, G. (1999). Evaluation of the michigan public school academy
initiative. . Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, Evaluation Center.
Howe, W. (1994). Beyond garbage cans: An analysis of theory and research in
educational leadership and recommendations for the future. Paper Presented at
the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
168
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of
consolidated-business-unit performance Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6),
891-902.
Hoxby, C. (2004). Achievement in charter schools and regular public schools in the
united states: Understanding the differences (working paperHarvard University
Program on Education Policy and Governance.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the
organizational health of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents
in the 21st century . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Jellander, J. A. (2004). Successful urban schools: A case study on the impact of
leadership and culture on student achievement (Doctor of Education, University
of Southern California).
Jex, S., & Bliesse, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of
work-related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(3), 349-361.
Johnson, J. F., & Asera, R. (Eds.). (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine
high-performing, high-poverty urban elementary schools . Austin, TX:
University of Texas, Charles A. Dana Center.
Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers, power, and school change. In W. H. Clune, & J. F.
White (Eds.), Choice and control in american education (Vol.1 ed., pp. 343-
370). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Johnson, S. M., & Boles, K. C. (1994). The role of teachers in school reform In S. A.
Mohrman, & P. &. A. Wohlstetter (Eds.), School-based management:
Organizing for high performance (pp. 109-137). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2001). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping
teachers develop as leaders . Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Kedro, M. J. (2004). Aligning resources for student outcomes: School-based steps to
success . Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
Kelley, J. A. (1994). The national board for professional teaching standards: Toward
a community of teacher leaders In D. R. Walling (Ed.), Teachers as leader:
Perspectives on the professional development of teachers (pp. 299-313).
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
169
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the
21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations . San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Khouri, N., Kleine, R., White, R., & Cummings, L. (1999). Michigan's charter
school initiative: From theory to practice . Lansing: Michigan Department of
Education.
Killion, J. P. (1996). Moving beyond the school: Teacher leaders in the district office
In G. Moller, & M. Katzenmeyer (Eds.), Every teacher as a leader: Realizing
the potential of teacher leadership (pp. 63-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Kimball, K., & Sirotnik, K. (2000). The urban school principalship: Take this job
and ...! Education and Urban Society, 32(4), 535-543.
Klenke, K. (1997). Leadership dispersion as a function of performance in
information systems teams. The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, 8, 149-169.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational
leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 319-333.
Kolderie, T. (1990). Beyond choice to new public schools: Withdrawing the
exclusive franchise in public education. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy
Institute.
Koppich, J., Holmes, P., & Plecki, M. L. (1998). New roles, new rules? the
professional lives of charter school teachers. Washington, DC: Center for the
Advancement of Public Education and National Education Association.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed. ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools . San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement .
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2001). Promoting nurses' health:
Effect of empowerment on job strain and work satisfaction. Nursing Economics,
19, 42-52.
170
Laschinger, H. K. S., & Wong, C. (1999). Staff nurse empowerment and collective
accountability: Effect on perceived productivity and self-rated work
effectiveness. Nursing Economics, 17, 308-324.
Lashway, L. (1996). The strategies of a leader . Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 406718 database.
LeBlanc, P. R., & Shelton, M. M. (1997). Teacher leadership: The needs of teachers.
Action in Teacher Education, 19(3), 32-48. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Lee, J., Grigg, W. S., & Dion, G. S. (2007). The nation's report card: Mathematics
2007 No. NCES 2007494). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences.
Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2007
Lee, J., Grigg, W. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2007). The nation's report card: Reading
2007 No. NCES 2007496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007496
Lee, M., Buck, R., & Midgley, C. (1992). The organizational context of personal
teaching efficacy. American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA.
Leithwood, K. (1988). Description and assessment of a program for the certification
of principals. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education.
Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership and educational accountability: Toward a
distributive perspective In T. J. Kowalski (Ed.), Twenty-first century challenges
for school administrators (pp. 11-25). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Understanding successful principal leadership: Progress on a
broken front. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 619-629.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Dart, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: How
principals can help reform school cultures School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 1(4), 249-280.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Ryan, S., & Steinbach, R. (1997). Distributed leadership
in secondary schools Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary principal in
program improvement Review of Educational Research, 52, 309-339.
171
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school
leadership In W. Firestone, & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for
research on educational leadership (pp. 22-47). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-126. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for
changing times. changing education series. Taylor and Francis Group, 7625
Empire Drive, Florence, KY 41042. Tel: 800-634-7064; Fax: 800-245-4742.
Retrieved from ERIC
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. review of researchThe Wallace Foundation, Five
Penn Plaza, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10001. Tel: 212-251-9700; Retrieved
from http://www.wallacefoundation.org
Lemahieu, P., Roy, P., & Foss, H. (1997). Through a lens clearly: A model to guide
the instructional leadership of principals Urban Education, 31(5), 582-608.
Leverette, L. (2002). Warriors to advance equity: An argument for distributive
leadership Retrieved from
http://www.temple.edu/lss/pdf/spotlights/700/spot709.pdf
Lezotte, L. (1992). "Principal" insights from effective schools. Education Digest,
58(3), 14-17.
Lezotte, L. W. (1992). Learn from effective schools. Social Policy, 22(3), 34-36.
Retrieved from ERIC database.
Liberati, M. A. (2004). The influence of school site leadership on culture and student
achievement in the urban setting: A case study (Doctor of Education, University
of Southern California).
Lieberman, A. (1992). Teacher leadership: What are we learning? In C. Livingston
(Ed.), Teachers as leaders: Evolving roles (pp. 159-165). Washington DC:
National Education Association.
Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1995). The work of restructuring schools: Building from the
ground up. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
172
Lieberman, A. (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning. In M. W. McLaughlin, & I. Oberman
(Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers-transforming their world and their
work. New York, NY and Alexandria, VA: Teachers College Press and ASCD.
Lieberman, A., Saxl, E. R., & Miles, M. B. (1988). Teacher leadership: Ideology and
practice In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools (pp.
148-166). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lieberman, A., Saxl, E. R., & Miles, M. B. (2000). Teacher leadership: Ideology and
practice The jossey-bass reader on educational leadership (2nd ed., pp. 403-
420). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lindelow, J. (1981). School-based management In S. C. Smith, J. A. Mazzarella &
P. K. Piele (Eds.), School leadership: Handbook for survival (pp. 94-129).
Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, ERIC Clearning House on Educational
Management.
Lips. D. (2008). A nation still at risk: The case for federalism and school choice No.
No. 2125). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation Backgrounder.
Little, J. W. (1988). Assessing the prospects for teacher leadership In A. Lieberman
(Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools (pp. 78-105). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study . Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Louis, K., & Kruse, S. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on
reforming urban schools . Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (1999). Teacher development: The best investment in
literary education In J. S. Gaffney, & B. J. Askew (Eds.), Stirring the waters:
The influence of marie clay (pp. 197-220). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Malen, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (1988). Professional patron influence on site-based
governance councils: A confounding case study Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 10(4), 251-270.
Malloy, C. L. (2003). Teacher professionalism in charter schools: An exploratory
study (Doctor of Philosophy, University of Southern California). Dissertation
Abstract International, 64 (12), 4295A. (from Dissertations and Theses
database)
173
Malloy, C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools. 35(2),
219-241.
Manela, R. W., & Moxley, D. P. (2002). Best practices as agency-based knowledge
in social welfare. Administration in Social Work, 26(4), 1-23.
Manthei, J. (1992). The mentor teacher as leader: The motives, characteristics and
needs of seventy-three experienced teachers who seek a new leadership role
Retrieved from ERIC database.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance:
An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Marshak, J., & Klotz, J. (2001). Sage advice your professors never shared. Principal
Leadership, 2(4), 21-24.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning
(McREL).
Massachusetts Department of Education. (1998). The massachusetts charter school
initiative . Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.
Matthews, K. M. (1976). The principal and student achievement The Georgia
Principal, 12(2), 29-38.
Maxwell, J. C. (1999). The 21 indispensable qualities of a leader: Becoming the
person others will want to follow . Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
McKeever, B. (2003). Nine lessons of successful school leadership teams: Distilling
a decade of innovation. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Yee, S. M. L. (1988). School as a place to have a career In A.
Lieberman (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools (pp. 23-44). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Merideth, E. M. (2007). Leadership strategies for teachers . Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1991). Case study approach in education: A qualitative approach.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
174
Merriam, S. B. (1997). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Miller, B., Moon, J., & Elko, S. (2000). Teacher leadership in mathematics and
science: Casebook and facilitator's guide. Heinemann, 361 Hanover Street,
Portsmouth, NH 03801-3912 ($21). Tel: 603-431-7894; Fax: 603-431-7840 or
603-431-4971; web: http://www.heinemann.com. Retrieved from ERIC
Miron, G. (2000). The initial study of pennsylvania charter schools . Kalamazoo:
Western Michigan University, Evaluation Center.
Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2000). Autonomy in exchange for accountability: An initial
study of Pennsylvania charter schools. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan
University, Evaluation Center.
Mojkowski, C., & Fleming, D. (1988). School-site management: Concepts and
approaches Retrieved from ERIC database.
Moller, G., & Pankake, A. (2006). Lead with me: A principal's guide to teacher
leadership . Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
Morley, I. E., & Hosking, D. (2003). Leadership, learning, and negotiation in a social
psychology of organizing [Rethinking Educational Leadership ] (pp. 43-59).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Morrison, K. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory. London: Routledge
Falmer.
Mujis, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership-improvement through
empowerment?: An overview of the literature. Educational Management and
Administration, 31(4), 437-448.
Mulholland, L. A. (1999). Arizona charter school progress evaluation . Tempe:
Multiple Measures of Accountability in California Charter Schools (MMACCS).
(n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2005, from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/proj_mmaccs01.html
Murphy, J. (1999). Reconnecting teaching and school administration: A call for a
united profession Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.
175
Murphy, J. (2000). Governing america's schools: The shifting playing field. Teachers
College Record, 102(1), 57-84.
Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement .
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy, J., & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based management as school reform:
Taking stock. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin/Sage.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1986). The superintendent as instructional leader:
Findings from effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration,
24(2), 213-236. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Nathan, J. (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for american
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2001). Leading learning
communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do .
Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic
progress: Three decades of student performance in reading and mathematics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2005464.pdf
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/title.html
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2002). The role of school leadership in
improving student achievement Retrieved from
http://www.nscl.org/programs/educ/leaderoverview.pdf
Navarro, M. S., & Natalicio, D. S. (1999, Closing the achievement gap in el paso: A
collaboration for K-16 renewal. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 597-603.
Nettles, S. M., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct
effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school
improvement policy Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736.
Northouse, P. G. (2006). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Oakes, J. (1989). Detracking schools: Early lessons from the field. Phi Delta
Kappan, 73, 448-454.
176
Odell, S. J. (1997). Preparing teachers for teacher leadership. Action in Teacher
Education, 19(3), 120-124. Retrieved from ERIC database.
O'Hair, M. J., & Reitzug, U. C. (1997). Teacher leadership: In what ways? for what
purposes? Action in Teacher Education, 19(3), 65-76. Retrieved from ERIC
database.
O'May, F., & Buchan, J. (1999). Shared governance: A literature review.
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 36, 281-300.
Onoye, K. J. (2004). A case study of a successful urban school: Climate, culture, and
leadership factors that impact student achievement. (Doctor of Education,
University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstract International, 65 (9),
3239A.
Owens, R. (2001). Organizational behavior in education: Instructional leadership
and school reform. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Park, I. (2004). Teacher commitment and its effect on student achievement.
American Educational Research Association San Diego, CA.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pearce, C. L. (1997). The determinants of change management team (CMT)
effectiveness: A longitudinal investigation. Unpublished University of
Maryland, College Park, MD.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). In Pearce C. L., Conger J. A. (Eds.), Shared
leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. . Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors
of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,
directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172-197.
Pearce, C., & Sims, H. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of
leadership. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in the
interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 115-139). New York, NY.: JAI.
Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (1999). Empowered selling teams: How
shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 19, 35-52.
Peterson, P. E., & Campbell, D. E. (Eds.). (2001). School vouchers and public
education. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
177
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A
resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Picucci, A. C., Brownson, A., Kahlert, R., & Sobel, A. (2002). Driven to succeed:
High-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools. volume I: Cross-
case analysis of high-performing, high-poverty, turnaround middle schools.
University of Texas at Austin, Charles A. Dana Center, 2901 North IH-35, Suite
3.200, Austin, TX 78722-2348. Tel: 512-471-6190; Fax: 512-471-6193; Web
site: http://www.utdanacenter.org. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Pioneer Institute. (1998). Poll finds higher satisfaction rate among charter school
parents (Policy Directions No. 3)
Podgursky, M., & Ballou, D. (2001). Personnel policy in charter schools.
Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Porter-O'Grady, T., & Wilson, C. K. (1995). The leadership revolution in health
care: Altering systems, changing behaviors. . Gaithersburg, MD.: Aspen
Publishers, Inc.
Prestine, N. A. (1991). Completing the essential schools metaphor: Principal as
enabler The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL.
Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School
Journal, 83, 427-452.
Rallis, S. F. (1990). Professional teachers and restructured schools: Leadership
challenges In B. Mitchell, & L. L. Cunningham (Eds.), Educational leadership
in changing contexts of families, communities, and schools (pp. 184-209).
Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
Razik, T., & Swanson, A. (2001). Fundamental concepts of educational leadership .
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Riley, K., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (2001). Leadership for change . London: Routledge
Falmer.
Rodriguez, R. (2006). Evaluation of an urban charter middle school serving
predominantly latino students (Doctor of Education, Fielding Graduate
University). Dissertations and Theses,
Rosenblum Brigham Associates. (1998). Innovation and massachusetts charter
schools. (pp. 6). Boston, MA.: Massachusetts Department of Education.
Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J.
Brophy (Ed.), Research on teaching (pp. 49-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
178
Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the
organizational design of schools. Review of Research in Education, 16, 353-389.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective
schools: A review of school effectiveness research . London, UK: Office for
Standards in Education and Institute of Education, University of London.
San Diego State University, College of Education. (2006). Academic programs. San
Diego, CA: San Diego State University, College of Education. Retrieved from
http://edweb.sdsu.edu/programs.php
Sarason, S. B. (1999). Commentary: Leadership and charter schools International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 2(4), 379-381.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
School of Education and Social Policy. (2004). The distributed leadership study .
Chicago, IL: Northwestern University. Retrieved from
http://dls.sesp.northwestern.edu
Seers, A., Keller, T., & Wilkerson, J. (2003). Can team members share leadership?
foundations in research and theory In C. L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger (Eds.),
Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 77-102)
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY.: Doubleday.
Shanker, A. (1988a), Conventional plots new course: A charter for change New York
Times, pp. E7.
Shanker, A. (1998b). Charter schools: Option for other eighty percent School
Administrator, 72
Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional
leadership. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325-344. Retrieved
from ERIC database.
Sherrill, J. A. (1999). Preparing teachers for leadership roles in the 21st century
Theory into Practice, 38(1), 56-61.
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning organizations: Effects on
teacher leadership and student outcomes School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 15(3/4), 443-466.
Smith, F. L. (1997). Guidance for the charter bound, the school administrator:
Charter schools set sail across america. School Administrator, 54(7), 18-22.
179
Smylie, M. A. (1994). Redesigning teachers' work: Connections to the classroom.
Review of Research in Education, 22, 129-177.
Smylie, M. A. (1996). Research on teacher leadership: Assessing the state of the art.
In B. J. Biddle, & Good, T. L.: Goodson, I. F. (Eds.), International handbook of
teachers and teaching (pp. 521-592). Dordrecht, Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Smylie, M. A., Wenzel, S. A., & Fendt, C. R. (2003). The chicago annenberg
challenge: Lessons on leadership for school development In J. Murphy, & A.
Datnow (Eds.), Leadership for school reform: Lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 135-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Smylie, M. A. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. Elementary School
Journal, 96(1), 3-7. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Smylie, M. A., & Denny, J. W. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and
ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 26(3), 235-259. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Smyth, W. J. (1987). Time. In M. J. Dunkin (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of
teaching and teacher education (pp. 372-380). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2007). Digest of education statistics 2006. No.
NCES 2007-017). Washington, DC and Kensington, MD: National Center for
Education Statistics and American Institutes for Research (CRESS).
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman, C. M. (2008). Education statistics 2007
No. NCES 2008-022). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics (ED).
Snyder, T. D., Tan, A. G., & Hoffman, C. M. (2006). Digest of education statistics
2005. NCES 2006-030. . Washington, DC and Kensington, MD: National Center
for Education Statistics (ED) and American Institute for Research (RESS).
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in
schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and
teachers' extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 649-
659.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributive leadership The Educational Forum, 69, October
24, 2009.
Spooner, S. H., Keenan, R., & Card, M. (1997). Determining if shared leadership is
being practiced: Evaluation methodology. Nursing Administration Quarterly,
22, 47-57.
180
Staine, D. F. (2004). Perceptions of instructors in the los nietos school district
regarding the relationship between site leadership and student achievement
(Doctor of Education, University of Southern California).
State of California. (2007). California student aid commission: Assumption program
of loans for education (APLE) . Sacramento, CA: State of California. Retrieved
from http://www.csac.ca.gov/doc.asp?id=111
Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools . Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Stone, M., Horejs, J., & Lomas, A. (1997). Commonalities and differences in teacher
leadership at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Action in Teacher
Education, 19(3), 49-64. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners . Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sullivan, E. E. (2004). Who will lead them?: Analyzing the characteristics of
leadership practice that impact student achievement and school culture in an
urban school beating the odds. (Doctor of Education, University of Southern
California).
Swanson, J. (2000). What differentiates an excellent teacher from a teacher leader?
Retrieved from ERIC database.
Sweeney, J. (2000). Accountability can drive student achievement Thrust for
Educational Leadership, 29(4), 14-19.
Talyor, B. (n.d.). Shared leadership Retrieved from
http://web.grps.k12.mi.us/Superintendent/community-leadership.html
Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools do make a difference: Lessons learned
from a 10-year study of school effects. New York, NY.: Teachers College Press.
Teisinger, E. V. (2000). A study of the principal's role in increasing achievement in
literacy in a low-performing elementary school. (Doctor of Education,
University of Southern California).
Thomas, G. (2000). Six steps to surviving standards. Thrust for Educational
Leadership, 29(5), 12-15.
Thompson, S. C. (2002, October). Advice from the field. Principal Leadership, 3(2),
36-40.
181
Troen, V., & Bolles, K. (1994). Two teachers examine the power of teacher
leadership In D. R. Walling (Ed.), Teachers as leaders: Perspectives on the
professional development of teachers (pp. 275-286). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta
Kappa Educational Foundation.
U.S. Charter Schools. (2006). Retrieved April 4, 2006, from
http://www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs_docs/o/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Executive summary: The no child left behind
act of 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Innovations in education: Successful charter
schools. . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Department releases interim report on school
choice and supplemental education services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2008/04/04032008a.html
Urbanski, A., & Nickolaou, M. B. (1997). Reflections on teacher leadership
Educational Policy, 11(2), 243-254.
Vasudeva, A., & Grutzik, C. (2000). Teachers' perspectives on charter school reform:
Lessons from California Teaching and Change, 7(3), 235-257.
Verona, G., & Young, J. (2001). The influence of principal transformational
leadership style on high school proficiency test results in new jersey
comprehensive and vocational-technical high school American Educational
Research Association Seattle, WA.
Villani, C. J. (1996). The interaction of leadership and climate in four suburban
schools: Limits and possibilities (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University,
New York).
Walberg, H. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational
Leadership, 41(8), 19-27.
Wasley, P. A. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of reform and the realities of
practice . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Waters, T. (2007). Value added leadership: Implications for policy and practice
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2004). McREL's balanced leadership
framework: Developing the science of educational leadership ERS Spectrum,
Retrieved from http://128.220.219.39/olms/data/resource/4883/0404mcrel.pdf
182
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. A
working paper Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, 2550 South
Parker Road, Suite 500, Aurora, CO 80014. Tel: 303-337-0990; Fax: 303-337-
3005; Web site: http://www.mcrel.org. For full text: http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/
Leadership Organization Development (TRUNCATED). Retrieved from ERIC
database.
Weiss, C. H., Cambone, J., & Wyeth, A. (1991). Trouble in paradise: Teacher
conflicts in shared decision making No. (Occasional Paper #8)). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University, National Center for Educational Leadership.
Wells, A. S., Artiles, L., Carnochan, S., & Cooper, C. W. (1998). Beyond the
rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten california school districts. Los
Angeles, CA: UCLA Charter School Study.
WestEd, & University of Southern California. (1998). The findings and implications
of increased flexibility and accountability: An evaluation of charter schools in
Los Angeles Unified School District. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Whitaker, T. (1995). Informed teacher leadership: The key to successful change in
the middle level school NASSP Bulletin, 79(567), 76-81.
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter
the most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and
student achievement: The illusive search for an association Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.
Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. (1998). Creating and sustaining learning communities:
Early lessons from charter schools (OP-03). Philadelphia: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education.
Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. C. (1997). Creating and sustaining learning
communities: Early lessons from charter schools. Paper presented at the Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Wohlstetter, P., & Kuzin, C. A. (2006). USC's compendium of promising practices:
Innovations in charter schools Retrieved from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education.cegov.exec_summary.pdf
Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United
States: The question of autonomy. 9(4), 331-358.
183
Wohlstetter, P., & Smith, J. (2006). Improving schools through partnerships:
Learning from charter schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(6), 464-467. Retrieved
from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v87/k0602toc.htm
Yarger, S. J., & Lee, O. (1994). The development and sustenance of instructional
leadership In D. R. Walling (Ed.), Teachers as leaders: Perspectives on the
professional development of teachers (pp. 223-237). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta
Kappa Educational Foundation.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). Team development manual (2nd ed.). Aldershot,
England: Gower.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
184
Appendix A
MMACCS PROMISING PRACTICES WORKING PANEL
Carol Barkley State Department of Education, Charter
Schools Office
Roberta Benjamin Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD), Director, Charter Schools
Development Office
William Firestone Professor, Rutgers University
Kristi Kahl Program Administrator, Long Beach
Unified School District (LBUSD)
Rebecca Kilburn RAND, Director, Promising Practices
Network
Sharon Kinney Horn Director of Evaluation & Dissemination,
U.S. Department of Education
Meg Palosic Co-Director, Synergy Charter Academy
Ting Sun California Charter School Association
(CCSA), Vice President, Leadership &
Quality
By the 2006 Thematic Dissertation Group, University of Southern California,
Center on Educational Governance.
185
Appendix B
CONTENTS OF THE COMPENDIUM: TYPES OF DATA TO BE COLLECTED
Goal of Promising Practice
Description of Promising Practice
Theory of Action for Promising Practice
Implementation Details:
History
Time (start-up/planning time; time PP has been in place)
Lessons learned (benefits, challenges, next steps for sustainability)
Evidence of impact
Resource Requirements:
Budget information
Staffing (level and type of staff expertise needed)
Facility/space
Professional development/training
Other (e.g., technology)
Supporting Documents and Materials (printable in PDF format):
Lessons plans
Parent contracts
Video to support PP
Staff development manuals
Evaluation reports (data demonstrating results of PP)
Recommended Resources for Additional Information:
Books
Articles
Websites
Sources of technical assistance
Potential funding sources
186
Appendix C
ADVERTISEMENT CALLING FOR NOMINATION OF SCHOOLS
IN THE CHARTER SCHOOL JOURNAL
Multiple Measures of Accountability for California Charter Schools
Do you know of a charter school implementing an innovative policy,
practice, or program that should be widely disseminated?
If so, then here’s your chance to share!
What do we want?
Nominations of charter schools with Promising Practices
The University of Southern California’s Center on Educational Governance (CEG),
in partnership with CCSA, is requesting nominations of charter schools with
Promising Practices in the following 12 areas:
1. Administrative and teacher leadership
2. Arts – themed charter schools
3. English language development in the primary grades
4. Increasing high school graduation rates
5. Integration of career and vocational education
6. Parent involvement
7. Project-based learning
8. School-university partnerships
9. Special education
10. Student discipline
11. Uses of technology for instruction in middle school math and science
12. Uses of time for teaching and learning
Why do we want your nominations of Promising Practices?
We are developing a compendium of promising practices that can inspire educators
to develop useful policies, practices, and programs that will improve student
performance.
187
What criteria will we use to select Promising Practices?
• Demonstration of innovative practice
• Evidence of positive change
• Potential to transfer and be useful to other schools
And what do schools get if their Promising Practices are selected?
• Recognition and award at the annual CCSA conference!
• Publicity!
• One-year membership to MMACCS!
Ready to nominate? If so, then log on to
www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/
and complete the nomination form.
Deadline for nomination is July 15, 2005
Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4039 • (213) 740-0697[phone] • (213) 749-2707[fax] • www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/
188
Appendix D
NOMINATION FORM
INTRODUCTION:
CEG developing compendium of Promising Practices (General purpose)
We are investigating Promising Practices in 12 areas; in subsequent years,
additional areas will be included
Define “Promising Practice” and give concrete examples (e.g., Parent
Volunteer Catalogue)
Selection by educational researchers at USC. Selection criteria include:
Evidence of positive change
Innovativeness of Promising Practice
Potential for transferability and usefulness across school sites
Benefits of participating
Opportunity to present at annual CCSA conference in spring
Recognition in form of a plaque; awarded by CCSA and USC at annual CCSA
conference
Publicity in the local newspaper
Free one-year membership to MMACCs
Site visits in Fall 2005
SECTION I
Please complete all questions.
1. Title of your Promising Practice:
_________________________________________________________________
In which general area does your Promising Practice fit it? (Please select one
category):
_____ Administrative and teacher leadership
_____ Arts – themed charter school
_____ English language development in elementary school
189
_____ Increasing high school graduation rates
_____ Integration of career and vocational education
_____ Parent involvement
_____ Project-based learning
_____ School-university partnerships
_____ Special education
_____ Student discipline
_____ Uses of technology for instructional purposes in middle
school
_____ Uses of time for teaching and learning
2. What is the objective/goal of the Promising Practice?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
____________
3. How long has the Promising Practice been implemented?
________________________
4. Provide a brief summary (100 words) of your Promising Practice:
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
________________________________________
190
5. Documentation of evidence for Promising Practice success (mark all that
apply):
_____ No data exist to support the results of this practice
_____ Anecdotal evidence
_____ Internally-conducted evaluation
_____ Externally-conducted evaluation
6. Please indicate the perceived areas of positive changes produced by your
Promising Practice:
a. Positive changes for target population (mark all that apply):
_____ Students
_____ Teachers
_____ Parents
_____ Other (Please specify:
______________________________)
b. The changes were in the following areas (mark all that apply):
_____ Academic achievement (e.g., increased knowledge and
skills)
_____ Attitudes/Behavior (e.g., improved attendance;
decreased drop- out rate; decrease in discipline
problems)
_____ School Operation/Management (e.g., improved cost
effectiveness; expansion/efficiency of service delivery)
_____ Other (Please specify;
_____________________________)
191
SECTION II
Contact Information: Please include contact information for any follow-up
questions.
1. Name of Nominator:
______________________________________________________
2. Key Contact Name for Nominated School:
_____________________________________
3. School Name:
____________________________________________________________
4. School Address:
__________________________________________________________
5. School Phone Number/ fax/ email address:
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
____________
6. Summer Contact Information:
_______________________________________________
192
Appendix E
TRIANGULATION ACROSS DATA SOURCES
Data Sources
Research
Questions and
Type of Data
Nom.
Form
Principal
Pre-site
Interview
Principal
On-site
Interview
Lead
Teacher
Interview
Archival
Documents
1.What policies,
programs, and
processes are
used to improve
teacher and
administrative
leadership (school
leadership) in
charter schools?
Description of
Promising
Practice
X X X X X
Goal X X X X
Theory of Action X X X X
History X X X
2. How are
resources used to
implement
programs related
to school
leadership
successfully?
Time X X X
Budget X X
Staffing X X X
Facilities X X
Professional
Development
X X X
193
Research
Questions and
Type of Data
Nom.
Form
Principal
Pre-site
Interview
Principal
On-site
Interview
Lead
Teacher
Interview
Archival
Documents
3. What
challenges have
the charter
schools faced in
implementing the
programs related
to school
leadership, and
how are they
addressed?
Implementation
Details: Lessons
Learned
X X X
4. What evidence
exists that these
programs relating
to school
leadership result
in positive
educational
outcomes?
Implementation
Details: Evidence
of Impact
X X X X
Implementation
Details: Benefits
X X X X
194
Appendix F
PRE-SITE INTERVIEW FORM
School Name: _________________________________
Date:_________________________________________
Name of Interview Subject:_____________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________
Start Time: _____ End Time: ______ Total Time (minutes): _____
[Introduction]
I am working with the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of
Education. We are studying promising practices in California charter schools.
Through a nomination process, your school was selected as having success in/with a
program regarding school leadership. The purpose of this interview is to learn more
about the program regarding school leadership at your school and to schedule a site
visit at a time this fall when it is convenient for you.
The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-based
compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s Center on
Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread new knowledge
and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to improve school
performance.
By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to display at your
school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local press releases.
This preliminary interview should take only around 5-10 minutes. Is now a good
time? (If not, when would a better time be to talk with you?) Do you have any
questions for me before we begin?
A. Background—Laying the Foundation
1. How long have you been the Principal at this school?
2. Would you tell me about your background and previous experience in
education?
3. How long has this school been using the program regarding school
leadership?
195
4. Who else on campus is involved with the program regarding teacher
leadership?
[Probe for lead teachers, teachers, parents]
B. Scheduling and Logistics
5. We are planning to visit schools some time this fall, in October or
November. The visit will last no more than 2 days and I would like to
speak with you again, along with the other people you mentioned who are
involved with the program regarding school leadership. If possible, I
also would like to observe a professional development session related to
school leadership and to visit a few classrooms.
a. What month and days are best to visit your school?
b. Will it be possible to attend a professional development session
related to school leadership during the visit?
c. Will I be able to observe a few classrooms during my visit?
6. Who should I speak to with about arranging the visit and scheduling
interviews? I can [send, fax or e-mail] a list of people I would like to
interview during my visit, along with a scheduling grid.
For future contacts, is it best to communicate with you by phone, or do you prefer
fax or email?
FAX: __________________________ TEL: ____________________
EMAIL: _______________________
[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. I will send the scheduling grid to [PERSON] in
the next day or two, and if it can be returned to me by [DATE], that would be very
helpful.
I look forward to visiting your school on ___________, and will plan to contact you
the week before to confirm the visit and interview schedule. Again, thank you for
participating in USC’s Compendium.
196
Appendix G
PRINCIPAL ON-SITE INTERVIEW FORM
School Name: _________________________________
Date:_________________________________________
Name of Interview Subject:________________________________________
Researcher:
______________________________________________________________
Start Time: ______ End Time: _____ Total Time (minutes): ________
[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are studying promising
practices in California charter schools. Through a nomination process, your school
was selected as having success in/with the program relating to school leadership.
The purpose of this interview is to learn more about the school leadership program at
your school.
The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-based
compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s Center on
Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread new knowledge
and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to improve school
performance.
By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to display at your
school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local press releases.
This interview should take around 60 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?
A. Theory of Action and History
1. Can you briefly describe the program relating to school leadership at your
school?
2. What is the goal of the program relating school leadership?
197
3. Please tell me about the history of the program relating to school leadership at
your school.
(Probe: How/why did it get started, who were the people initially involved in
developing the practice?)
4. Can you tell me a little about your role as Principal with respect to the program
relating to school leadership?
5. Who have been the main people involved with the planning and implementation
of the program relating to school leadership?
6. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the successful implementation
of the program relating to school leadership?
7. How do you think that the program relating to school leadership will lead to
school improvement and higher student achievement?
B. Implementation Details
8. How long has the program relating to school leadership been in place?
9. How much start up/planning time was needed to implement the program
relating to school leadership?
10. How much planning or collaboration time on a monthly basis is needed to
maintain implementation of the program relating to school leadership?
11. What do you see as the next steps for ensuring sustainability of the program
relating to school leadership?
12. How do you know the program relating to school leadership is making a
difference? [What is the evidence of impact?]
13. What are the benefits of implementing the program relating to school
leadership?
(Probes: Benefits for students, staff, administrators, and parents)
14. What are the challenges of implementing the program relating to school
leadership?
(Probes: Challenges for students, staff, administrators, and parents)
15. What lessons have you learned by implementing the program relating to school
leadership?
198
C. Resource Requirements
16. How much of your budget is spent on the program relating to school
leadership?
17. What is the level of staff expertise required with respect to the program relating
to school leadership?
18. What facilities are needed to carry out the program relating to school
leadership?
19. How much professional development time has been devoted to implementing the
program relating to school leadership?
20. Do you think the training/professional development that has been conducted
meets the needs for people to implement the program relating to school leadership
effectively?
(Probe: What other types of PD do you think would be helpful to effectively
implement promising practice?)
D. Recommended Resources for Additional Information
21. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing the
program relating to school leadership?
22. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing the
program relating to school leadership?
23. Are there any websites that have been helpful to you in learning about the
program relating to school leadership?
24. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful to you in
implementing the program relating to school leadership?
25. Additional comments:
[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are invaluable for
our research.
199
Appendix H
LEAD INTERVIEW FORM
School Name: _________________________________
Date:_________________________________________
Name of Interview Subject:_______________________________________
Position:______________________________________________________
Researcher:
_____________________________________________________________
Start Time: _____ End Time: ______ Total Time (minutes): ________
[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are studying promising
practices in California charter schools. Through a nomination process, your school
was selected as having success in/with a program relating to school leadership. The
purpose of this interview is to learn more about the program relating to school
leadership at your school.
The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-based
compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s Center on
Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread new knowledge
and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to improve school
performance.
By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to display at your
school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local press releases.
This interview should take around 60 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?
200
A. Theory of Action and History
1. Can you briefly describe the program relating to school leadership at your
school?
2. What is the goal of the program relating to school leadership?
3. Please tell me about the history of the program relating to school leadership at
your school.
(Probe: How/why did it get started, who were the people initially involved in
developing the practice?)
4. Can you tell me a little about your role as lead teacher with respect to the
program relating to school leadership?
5. Who have been the main people involved with the planning and implementation
of the program relating to school leadership?
6. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the successful implementation
of the program relating to school leadership?
7. How do you think that the program relating to school leadership will lead to
school improvement and higher student achievement?
B. Implementation Details
8. How long has the program relating to school leadership been in place?
9. How much start up/planning time was needed to implement the program
relating to school leadership?
10. How much planning or collaboration time on a monthly basis is needed to
maintain implementation of the program relating to school leadership?
11. What do you see as the next steps for ensuring sustainability of the program
relating to school leadership?
12. How do you know the program relating to school leadership is making a
difference? [What is the evidence of impact?]
13. What are the benefits of implementing the program relating to school
leadership?
(Probes: Benefits for students, staff, administrators, and parents)
201
14. What are the challenges of implementing the program relating to school
leadership?
(Probes: Challenges for students, staff, administrators, and parents)
15. What lessons have you learned by implementing the program relating to school
leadership?
C. Resource Requirements
16. How much of your budget is spent on the program relating to school
leadership?
17. What is the level of staff expertise required with respect to the program relating
to school leadership?
18. What facilities/technology are needed to carry out the program relating to
school leadership?
19. How much professional development time has been devoted to implementing the
program relating to school leadership?
20. Do you think the training/professional development that has been conducted
meets the needs for people to implement the program relating to school leadership
effectively?
(Probe: What other types of PD do you think would be helpful to implement
promising practice effectively?)
D. Recommended Resources for Additional Information
21. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing the program
relating to school leadership?
22. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing the
program relating to school leadership?
23. Are there any websites that have been helpful to you in learning about the
program relating to school leadership?
24. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful to you in
implementing the program relating to school leadership?
202
25. Additional comments:
[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are invaluable for
our research.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify and to explore programs related to school leadership in two California charter schools. Four research questions guided this study: (a) What policies, programs, and processes are used to improve teacher and administrative leadership (school leadership) in charter schools? (b) How are resources used to implement the programs related to school leadership successfully? (c) What challenges have charter schools faced in implementing the programs related to school leadership, and how are these problems addressed? (d) What evidence exists that these programs regarding school leadership may be related to positive educational outcomes?
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools
PDF
Through the eyes of art: uncovering promising practices in arts-themed learning in California charter elementary schools
PDF
Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools
PDF
Writing across the curriculum: exploring promising practices in two California charter schools
PDF
School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools
PDF
A study of promising practices in two California charter schools: using technology to increase parent involvement
PDF
The integration of academics into career-technical education in two California charter schools
PDF
The factors present in an outperforming charter middle school: a case study focusing on promising practices, school leadership, and cultural norms
PDF
A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study
PDF
A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement
PDF
Influences on principals' leadership practice
PDF
Recognized American school counselor association model programs: a case study of school counselor leadership
PDF
Scaling up charter management organizations: understanding how policies, people and places influence growth
PDF
Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school
PDF
Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study
PDF
The awareness and practice of intentional leadership
PDF
The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
School-to-work programs in urban districts in the state of California: a leadership perspective
PDF
How and why does a district network schools?
PDF
Charter schools, data use, and the 21st century: how charter schools use data to inform instruction that prepares students for the 21st century
Asset Metadata
Creator
Kim, Grace
(author)
Core Title
Investigating promising school leadership practices in two California charter schools
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
02/08/2010
Defense Date
01/14/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
charter schools,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school leadership
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Wohlstetter, Priscilla (
committee chair
), Genzuk, Michael (
committee member
), Rueda, Robert S. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
gak@usc.edu,gak3049@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2843
Unique identifier
UC1168432
Identifier
etd-Kim-3459 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-302043 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2843 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Kim-3459.pdf
Dmrecord
302043
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Kim, Grace
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
charter schools
school leadership