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
/
Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context
(USC Thesis Other)
Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
BUILDING AND SUSTAINING EFFECTIVE SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
THROUGH PRINCIPAL MENTORING IN AN
URBAN SCHOOL CONTEXT
by
Helena J. Yoon
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Helena J. Yoon
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Mun Cha Yoon and Sung Woo
Yoon. Thank you, Mom, for being my first and most influential teacher. Thank you
for always sharing your wisdom and imparting your words of comfort. Thank you,
Dad, for your blazing spirit and passing on that torch of resilience. Thank you for
being a fighter and survivor–for demonstrating what it means to persevere in the
face of challenging circumstances.
This is also dedicated to my sister and brother, Maria Yoon and Leo Yoon.
Thank you, Maria, for a good dose of reality checks along the way. Thank you,
Leo, for all your prayers and encouragement. Thank you for being a great little
brother and listener. Yes, to the Yoon Family–Fight On!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge the following people for their support of and faith in my
achievement. My dissertation committee chair, Dr. Margaret Reed, provided
valuable leadership throughout this very rigorous process. Dissertation committee
members Dr. Kathy Stowe, Dr. Dennis Hocevar, and Dr. Stuart Gothold gave
positive feedback and perspective.
A very special acknowledgement is made to my colleagues and
collaborators, Kimberly Vladovic and Stacey Badawi. What does it take to thrive in
a doctoral study? A strong support structure provided by these two individuals
made it possible for me to see the finish line. I am especially grateful for their
unwavering support and the opportunity to have collaborated with them during this
endeavor. I have deep admiration for their high intelligence, sheer competence, and
commitment to the work.
I also acknowledge my core group of friends: Truc-Linh, Laura, Kate, and
Holly. I thank them for their enduring friendship and affection that they have
provided throughout this experience. I am grateful for unyielding confidence in me
provided by my John Burroughs Team: Principal Mirta Mckay, Debbie Lee, Jean
Pryor and Susy Blair.
I thank the participants and staff of the Richmond Elementary School in
Brad County School District. I am thankful for the opportunity to have conducted
the research study at the school. Their deep commitment to the children of the
Richmond‘s learning community is unmistakable. I left Richmond School greatly
inspired and humbled by the experience.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................viii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ ix
Chapter 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ............................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................... 2
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 5
Research Questions......................................................................................... 6
Significance of the Study ................................................................................ 7
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................. 9
Definition of Terms ...................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................... 10
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 12
Urban School Context .................................................................................. 14
Standards-Based Accountability Reform ..................................................... 16
The Role of Context in School Leadership .................................................. 19
Effective School Leadership ......................................................................... 21
Professional Learning Community ............................................................... 23
The Role of Principal Leadership in Effective Schooling ............................ 25
Leadership Defined ....................................................................................... 27
Instructional Leadership ............................................................................... 28
Transformational Leadership ........................................................................ 32
Learning-Centered Leadership ..................................................................... 34
Leadership for Social Justice ........................................................................ 37
Effective Support Systems: Coaching and Mentoring ................................. 40
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 48
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................... 49
Design ........................................................................................................... 49
Intervention ................................................................................................... 51
Context of EdisonLearning Schools ....................................................... 51
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program (ELPMP) ........................... 51
Treatment ................................................................................................ 52
EdisonLearning Leadership Roles and Standard Rubric ........................ 55
Participants and Setting ................................................................................ 55
Sample .................................................................................................... 55
v
Setting ..................................................................................................... 56
Instrumentation and Procedures: Survey, Interviews, Observations ............ 61
Survey ..................................................................................................... 61
Interview ................................................................................................. 65
Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 67
Observations ........................................................................................... 67
Document Analysis................................................................................. 68
Instrumentation and Procedures: Documentation Analysis .......................... 68
Quantitative ............................................................................................ 68
Qualitative .............................................................................................. 69
Triangulation .......................................................................................... 70
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................. 70
Chapter 4: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS ................... 73
Findings to Address Research Question 1 .................................................... 74
Data Collection Instruments ................................................................... 74
Report of the Data ................................................................................... 78
Pre-Intervention VAL-ED Survey .................................................... 78
Post-Intervention VAL-ED Survey .................................................. 83
Principal Observation Data ............................................................... 87
Documents Reviewed ....................................................................... 89
Principal Pre-Intervention Interview Data ........................................ 91
Principal Post-Intervention Interview Data ...................................... 94
Teacher Interview Data .................................................................. 100
Analysis of the Data ............................................................................. 103
Guidance and Direction .................................................................. 104
Assistance With Problem-Solving Strategies ................................. 111
Support in Developing Technical Knowledge and Skills ............... 111
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1.................................... 112
Findings to Address Research Question 2 .................................................. 113
Data Collection Instruments ................................................................. 113
Report of the Data ................................................................................. 114
Interview: EdisonLearning Executive Director .............................. 114
Questionnaire: EdisonLearning Mentors ........................................ 115
Principal Interview: Post-Intervention Data ................................... 117
Document Analysis: Whole School Design Handbook .................. 119
Analysis of the Data ............................................................................. 120
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2.................................... 123
Findings to Address Research Question 3 .................................................. 124
Data Collection Instruments ................................................................. 124
Report of the Data ................................................................................. 125
Field Observations .......................................................................... 125
The Online VAL-ED Survey Data ................................................. 126
Pre-Intervention Principal Interview .............................................. 127
Post-Intervention Principal Interview ............................................. 129
Teacher Interview Data .................................................................. 132
Analysis of the Data ............................................................................. 137
Enhanced Internal Capacity as Professionals ................................. 139
Focused on Improving Instruction .................................................. 147
Implemented a Shared Vision ......................................................... 148
vi
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3.................................... 153
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 154
Chapter 5: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS ..................... 156
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................... 156
Methodology ............................................................................................... 157
Discussion of Findings ............................................................................... 158
Research Question 1: Impact of Mentoring on Leadership Practice .... 158
Research Question 2: Organizational Structures That Support the
Implementation of Mentoring ......................................................... 164
Research Question 3: Ways in Which the Leader‘s Practice
Impacts Teacher Practice ................................................................ 166
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................. 169
Implications for Future Research ............................................................... 170
Implications for Policy and Practice ........................................................... 171
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 172
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 174
APPENDICES
A. SUPPORT LETTER FROM THE EDISONLEARNING
PRINCIPAL MENTOR PROGRAM .................................................... 181
B. TEACHER POST-INTERVENTION INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS .... 182
C. MENTOR QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................. 184
D. USC-EDISON LEADERSHIP STUDY QUESTIONS FOR
TRAINERS OF EDISON MENTORS .................................................. 185
E. PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ........................................... 186
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographics of Teachers in the Brad County School District
for 3-Year Period ................................................................................. 58
Table 2: Process of Triangulation of Data Used in the Study ........................... 71
Table 3: Timeline of the Study .......................................................................... 72
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for the study ................................................... 47
Figure 2: Brad County School District enrollment and demographics (total
enrollment 308,554 students for the 2007-2008 school year) ............. 57
Figure 3: Demographics of teachers in the Brad County School District
for 3-year period .................................................................................. 58
Figure 4: Richmond school enrollment and demographics (total enrollment
was 725 students for the 2007-2008 school year) ............................... 59
Figure 5: Sample from the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in
Education (VAL-ED) questionnaire highlighting the core
component High Standards for Student Learning at the
intersection of principal planning ........................................................ 64
Figure 6: Sample of overall effectiveness score on the Vanderbilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) ........................... 69
ix
ABSTRACT
This study examined the impact of participation in EdisonLearning‘s
Mentor/Protégé program on an urban school principal‘s leadership practice. This
mixed-methods case study investigated the following three questions:
1. How does working with an EdisonLearning mentor affect the leadership
practices of an urban school principal?
2. What organizational structures support the implementation of a mentor
model?
3. In what ways do the leadership practices of the principal affect the pro-
fessional practice of teachers?
Quantitative data were collected pre- and post-intervention, which was the
online administration of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
(VAL-ED) survey, an instrument that provided a summary of the principal‘s and
the teachers‘ perceptions of leader effectiveness on learning-focused leadership
behaviors that have been found to correlate with student achievement. In addition,
qualitative data were collected via interviews with the principal, teachers, the
Executive Director of EdisonLearning, and a questionnaire completed by
EdisonLearning mentors. Document analysis and a field observation of the
principal were conducted to collect data on the principal‘s leadership practices.
Key findings were that the mentor provided the novice principal with
guidance and support, assistance with problem solving, and development of
technical knowledge and skills. Four structures were determined to support
effective implementation of the mentoring model: (a) mentor training, (b) planning
tools, (c) time, and (d) relationship. Findings indicated that the principal created
x
specific school climate/learning conditions for teachers, such as support for
professional growth, time for collaboration, and a book study. There was evidence
that these conditions had a positive influence on the teachers‘ practice: however,
the extent to which these practices were impacted could not be determined.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
―Our nation‘s underperforming schools and children are unlikely to
succeed until we get serious about leadership‖ (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe,
Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007, Introduction).
Given today‘s realities and rhetoric of school reforms and demand for
accountability, leadership expectations for school leaders are at an all-time high.
Specifically, educational leaders are charged with delivering high-performance
outcomes for every student. The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation
of 2002 is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
which is driving the demand for stringent performance-based accountability.
Aiming to promote highest academic achievement for all students, NCLB is a
nationwide reform initiative based on state standards and assessments to evaluate
student learning and school performance. However, the federal legislation has
failed to produce the required changes for raising student achievement, especially
in areas where the need is greatest: in the urban school setting.
NCLB has become synonymous with high-stakes testing and accountability.
NCLB establishes rigorous standards for students; however, whether high levels of
performance are attainable by every child has come into serious question. Specific-
ally, under NCLB, by 2013-2014, all students must perform at the proficient
level—a lofty goal considering a complex set of changing targets throughout the
states and varying definitions of what is considered proficient as determined by
each state. In the meantime, all schools are mandated to meet Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP), a barometer for schools‘ academic success.
2
Typically, African American and Hispanic students comprise the low-
income minority subgroup under NCLB who are often relegated to schools in the
urban setting. In fact, a majority of these schools are located in high-poverty areas,
with about 40% of the student population on free or reduced-price lunch (Anyon,
1997). Essentially, the students are educationally marginalized due to poverty and
their minority status (e.g., English learner, low income). The fact remains that
learners in the urban school setting bring with them diverse set of needs that school
leaders must be prepared to meet. Low-income minority students do not have
access to educational opportunities because resources such as funding, access to
highly qualified teachers, and rigorous coursework are not afforded to them in an
equitable manner (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Normore & Blanco, 2006). Further-
more, whereas students from middle to upper class receive additional academic
support outside of the school (e.g., from family and private tutors), urban students
rely heavily on schools for their academic growth and achievement (Goldenberg,
Gallimore, Reese, & Garnier, 2001). Sadly, public schools in urban settings have
persistently failed to provide equal opportunities and access to quality teaching and
rich learning (Darling-Hammond, 2004). Despite reform efforts over time, there are
overwhelming disparities in the level of student achievement between poor and
minority students and their White and Asian counterparts (Anyon; Darling-
Hammond, 2004).
Statement of the Problem
With the advent of the federal NCLB accountability system, there is an
increasing spotlight on school leadership to improve the educational conditions of
students who have historically been denied access to equal educational
3
opportunities. Moreover, due to inherent challenges that surround the urban school
context (e.g., high poverty, racial isolation), a critical need exists for a sustained
effort to turn around underperforming schools and to direct school leaders‘
attention to the education of underserved students (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008).
Both implicitly and explicitly, school leaders are being held accountable for
student learning and ensuring high-quality instruction for all students. For example,
not only are principals confronted with public pressure and scrutiny to deliver high
performance outcomes; they face serious consequences for failing to meet rigorous
standards set forth by the state. These consequences range from mild to severe for
leaders whose schools are in noncompliance with the law. Specifically, the ramifi-
cations for their failure include restructuring of schools to possible job loss and
even school closures. In light of this context, a new type of leadership is required to
change the status quo and to lead urban schools to ensure that every child has an
opportunity to attain an excellent education.
According to Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom
(2004), effective school leadership, particularly in the urban context, demands
specific leadership practices and behaviors by school leaders to bring forth lasting
improvements in student learning. For instance, strong instructional leadership
practices such as fostering a clear vision, providing professional development, and
instructional expertise have shown to effect change (Hallinger, 2003). Urban school
leaders must also exercise practices of transformational leadership, thus fundament-
ally transforming and reshaping the school culture (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).
For example, transformational leaders must work to cultivate a collegial work
environment in which teachers are invited to ―share leadership functions‖
(Hallinger, 2003, p. 325). However, little is known about the process of and
4
conditions for reshaping the school culture and the learning community. Never-
theless, prominent researchers have found that principals play a prominent role in
the success of their students indirectly, ―through their influence on other people or
features of their organizations‖ (Leithwood et al., p. 13; Marzano, Waters, &
McNulty, 2005; Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, & Porter, 2006).
The leader‘s capacity to be successful in the urban setting will be shaped
not only by contextual factors (e.g., student demographics, socioeconomic status,
parent education level) but also by characteristics such as the belief and value
system that leaders bring to the school community (Murphy et al., 2006). For
example, urban school principals must enact practices of learning-centered leader-
ship as ―social advocates‖ to attain the highest level of student achievement
(Murphy et al., p. 28). These leaders ―honor diversity‖ (p. 28) to ensure that their
students and families are valued and supported throughout the learning process.
Furthermore, urban school leaders must lead for social justice, being prepared to
address and eliminate ―marginalization in schools‖ (Theoharis, 2007, p. 223).
However, according to Theoharis, there is a lack of research studies that ―address
the ways in which leaders enact justice‖ (p. 222). Finally, principals must have an
effective support structure in place to sustain their effort to assure that poor and
minority students achieve at high levels (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, &
Meyerson, 2005). However, there are limited empirical data demonstrating a
positive link between support structure (i.e., mentoring and coaching) for school
leaders and student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Given the research reviewed, missing from the literature is a ―well-defined
set of leadership practices‖ (Leithwood et al., 2004) for raising student perform-
ance. Furthermore, based on Hallinger‘s (2003) analysis of research, it remains
5
unclear what particular leadership practices are directly linked to student achieve-
ment. In fact, Hallinger and Heck (1996) contended that the influence of principals‘
behaviors on student learning is often indirect. Therefore, given the gaps and con-
cerns raised, it is problematic that school leaders today are not adequately equipped
with a repertoire of skills and strategies to combat the overwhelming challenges of
urban schooling (Cuban, 2001; Davis et al., 2005; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).
Thus, they are ill prepared to lead in school contexts where ―racial isolation, ethnic
conflict, and economic disparities‖ (Cuban, p. 5) have greatly stunted the achieve-
ment level of low-income minority students. Particularly, the question remains,
what type of training and leadership practices is required for school leaders to stay
the course and reverse the pattern of student achievement for low-income minority
students?
According to Davis et al. (2005), while there are findings on how principals
influence the school improvement process, ―less is known about how to help prin-
cipals develop the capacities that make a difference in how school functions and
what students learn‖ (p. 4). The purpose of this study was to address this concern.
This research study focuses on principal practice and the support structure (i.e.,
mentoring) required for school leaders to be successful in leading an urban school.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to fill in empirical gaps in knowledge about
the conditions under which effective leadership can be realized and sustained in an
urban school context. Specifically, the study explores a principal‘s participation in
the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program (ELPMP), a support structure for
raising student achievement. The EdisonLearning mentoring implements practices
6
that are research based. The study seeks to expand understanding of a principal‘s
leadership practice in promoting a more equitable and effective student learning
environment in the urban school setting. Data were collected to determine the
leader‘s change in practice and how these factors were shaped or reshaped by her
participation and experiences in the program.
The study was designed to demonstrate effective school leadership practices
through the lens of an integrated leadership model. In fact, it is argued that a new
kind of leadership is needed in urban schools to challenge the status quo and turn
around low-performing schools. This will require a move toward a composite of
effective leadership practices embedded within the framework of (a) instructional
model, (b) transformational model, (c) learning-centered model, and (d) leadership
for social justice. In short, it will require more than instructional leadership and
transformational leadership practices to be successful. Specifically, given the
unpredictable nature of urban school settings (e.g., high teacher turnover, transi-
ence) and challenges inherent in the context, leaders must be knowledgeable and
flexible with regard to instructional, transformational, and learning-centered models
of leadership and their respective practices and behaviors. Most important, the
driving force behind the work of urban school leaders must be their unrelenting
commitment to leading for social justice.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to find out how a principal‘s participation in
a leadership support program (i.e., EdisonLearning mentoring) affects the leader-
ship practices of an urban school administrator. Organizational structures that
support the implementation of the mentoring model were examined, as well as the
7
effect of leader practice on teacher practice. Three research questions were
addressed:
1. How does working with a mentor from ELPMP affect the leadership
practices of an urban school principal?
2. What organizational structures support the implementation of the mentor-
ing model?
3. In what ways do the leadership practices of the principal affect the pro-
fessional practice of teachers?
Significance of the Study
According to Anyon (1997), there has been no significant improvement in
inner-city schools despite numerous reform efforts spanning several decades. Yet
since the implementation of the federal NCLB in 2002, many principals work in the
context of educational policies aimed at holding their organizations publicly more
accountable. More than ever, school leaders must be fully equipped to lead in
today‘s complex time where the stakes are high and the challenges of the urban
context are overwhelming. Through a professional development model such as
EdisonLearning mentoring, school leaders have at hand a promising strategy to
improve leader practice, teacher practice, and student learning (Neufeld & Roper,
2003). In addition, mentoring provides an ongoing opportunity to be supported in
the leader‘s work to address context-specific needs (Davis et al., 2005) of the
principal and the setting. Not only does mentoring provide new and reflective
learning; it develops the leader‘s personal and instructional capacity to drive whole-
school change (Neufeld & Roper).
8
Effective leadership practices, skills, and knowledge base that are necessary
for the urban setting are identified as they emerged from the study as a result of the
leader‘s participation in EdisonLearning mentoring. The findings can guide current
and future school leaders to improve the core technology of teaching and learning
and, thereby, raise student achievement. Furthermore, findings can inform and
guide professional development training in the area of support for school leaders to
help them to sustain their work in the urban school setting.
Based on the review of research reported in the School Leadership Study by
Davis et al. (2005), a combination of key leadership practices, characteristics (e.g.,
values and belief system) that leaders bring to the context, and support systems
(e.g., mentoring and coaching) hold great promise for producing high-quality
teaching and learning. Moreover, leadership that is cultivated for equity and equal
access (i.e., leading for social justice) at all levels of the organization will enhance
school performance (Theoharis, 2007).
Hence as noted, it is incumbent on school leaders to create working condi-
tions that cultivate an environment in which teachers collaborate and emerge as
teacher leaders (Weinbaum et al., 2004). This will become especially critical in the
urban school context, given the limited resources (e.g., funding, shortage of quali-
fied teachers) and constraints of the setting in which all school leaders are held to
high standards regardless of the context. This research study holds the potential to
shed light on key practices and conditions for successful school leadership that
ultimately influence student achievement.
9
Limitations of the Study
The study has several limitations. While all participants of the EdisonLearn-
ing training share the same conditions and join a network of mentors to improve
their mentoring skills, a principal may not be paired with a strong mentor. In
particular, the outcome of mentoring may be influenced by the level of experience,
knowledge, and skills of the individual mentor. In addition, although EdisonLearn-
ing mentoring is implemented at the system-wide level in EdisonLearning schools,
the willingness of the novice principal to participate in mentoring may influence
the degree of his/her involvement in the process. Moreover, any major changes in
staff or additional leader training may affect leader influence and his/her impact on
teacher practice. These confounding variables during the study may skew the
effects that EdisonLearning mentoring has on leader practice and skills.
There may also be subject rater biases with the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) instrument. The VAL-ED is a 360˚ measure-
ment tool to determine leader effectiveness. In particular, the VAL-ED is adminis-
tered to the principal, his/her teachers, and supervisor to provide a comprehensive
view of leader performance in the areas of (a) planning, (b) implementing, (c) sup-
porting, (d) advocating, (e) communicating, and (f) monitoring on six core com-
ponents: (a) high standards for student learning, (b) rigorous curriculum, (c) quality
instruction, (d) culture of learning and professional behavior, (e) connections to
external communities, and (f) performance accountability. However due to the halo
effect, evaluations may be ―positively skewed‖ as a result of favorable feelings
toward the leader, regardless of his/her actual effectiveness (Webb, L. D., &
Norton, 2009, p. 135). It was critical that this instrument was administered as
intended and that participants completed every section of the VAL-ED.
10
Definition of Terms
The following operational definitions are offered to provide clarity of
meaning as related to application in this study.
360º survey assessment: An evaluation tool that provides a comprehensive
view of the school leader by assessing the perspectives of various stakeholders (i.e.,
teachers, supervisor, parents, students, other colleagues, and classified staff mem-
bers who interact with the school leader) on principal performance.
Achievement gap: The discrepancy in student academic performance as
compared by subgroup outcomes.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC): The national
standards for principal and leadership behavior.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB): The reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, NCLB is a federal bill that provides
money to schools that receive Title I funds.
Protégé: The principal who works with an EdisonLearning mentor.
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED): The data
collection instrument used in this study to quantify leadership practice, based on the
ISLLC standards and developed by Joseph Murphy at Vanderbilt University. It is a
360º survey assessment.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. In chapter 1 an overview of
the study and the problem of the study are defined. Chapter 2 provides a literature
review on effective school leadership and support structures required for the princi-
pal in the urban school context. Chapter 3 describes the methodology, instrumenta-
11
tion, and participants in the design of the study. Chapter 4 reports the findings of
the study. Chapter 5 examines the findings and presents their implications.
12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Given the widening achievement gap between low-income minority
students and their White and Asian counterparts, school leaders must navigate the
tensions between policies and realities of school circumstances to improve student
learning (Leithwood & Riehl, 2005). In particular, determining effective leadership
practices in urban schooling has become increasingly important as high-stakes
accountability and students‘ academic outcomes have taken center stage. The 2002
NCLB, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, drives the demand for stringent outcome-based accountability. Aiming to
promote highest academic achievement for all students, it is a nationwide reform
initiative based on state standards and standardized assessments to evaluate student
learning and school performance. According to Chrismer, Hodge, and Saintil
(2006), NCLB is one of the nation‘s ―most ambitious educational initiatives‖
(p. 458) but it has fallen short of reaching its potential. Specifically, while the
performance-based accountability system seeks to ―galvanize‖ (Elmore, 2000, p. 2)
and direct educators to focus on improving low-performing schools, many schools
with high proportions of poor and minority students continue to fall behind. A
majority of these schools are heavily concentrated in urban settings (Anyon, 1997).
Currently, there exists a stark contrast in academic performance between
minority students and students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds and
their White and Asian counterparts. The 2000 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) data in mathematics revealed that, while 34% of the nation‘s
White eighth-grade students scored at the proficient or above level, only 9% of the
13
Latino students and 5% of the African American students achieved the proficient
level. Conversely, 68% of the nation‘s eighth-grade African American students and
60% of the nation‘s eighth-grade Latino students were performing below the basic
level in mathematics, compared to 23% of the nation‘s White eighth-grade students
(U.S. Department of Education, 2000). In reading, the achievement gap was
equally startling. For example, there was about a 3.5- year achievement gap in the
reading level between high-income and low-income students and about a 3.5-year
gap between African American and White students on the 2003 NAEP in language
arts. Other indicators of disparity are evidenced by high school dropout rates, low
enrollment in Advanced Placement courses, and low college completion rates
(Education Trust, 2004a, 2004b). Today‘s NCLB accountability system generates
staggering amounts of data highlighting achievement inequity in urban schools. As
a result, a major spotlight is placed on school-level factors that affect student
performance, including school leadership.
This chapter reviews literature on effective school leadership and the type
of leadership approach needed to lead change in urban school settings, given their
history of achievement disparity among student groups. The review examines
components of effective leadership development and support systems that build
leader capacity to enhance professional practice and learning outcomes for urban
school students. The following section provides a description of the context of
urban schools that presents major challenges to leaders who are focused on closing
the achievement gap.
14
Urban School Context
Urban schools today face unique and significant challenges. Urban school
settings are often characterized by a long history of poor school performance, along
with low expectations of students and a lack of qualified teaching staff (Diamond,
Randolph, & Spillane, 2004). Generally located in densely populated areas, the
urban school is commonly characterized by high levels of poverty. Anyon (1997)
noted that over 40% of students who attend public schools in major urban cities
received free or reduced-price lunches. Vanderhaar, Muñoz, and Rodosky (2007)
identified a large body of research that concluded that poverty was one of the
strongest predictors of student achievement. Indicators of underperformance such
as poor standardized test scores, lower graduation rate, failing academic perform-
ance, and grades frequently pervade urban schools. Moreover, widespread through-
out these schools are not only low academic achievement but dilapidated facilities
and equipment (Anyon), which further attests to the dire needs of the setting. In
short, there is an extensive history of school failure and neglect in urban school
communities.
An urban school setting typically reflects diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, and
linguistic populations as well as varying levels of education, English proficiency,
and SES. It may be constituted of high concentrations of low-income Hispanic and
African American families. In fact, large numbers of immigrant children identified
as English learners (EL) are heavily concentrated in various urban cities in
California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, New York, and New Jersey (Capps et al., 2005).
The tremendous rise in the number of EL students reflects one of the fastest-
growing populations of school-age children. However, with the increase in student
enrollment, Fry (2007) noted that ELs demonstrate lagging achievement. For
15
example, at various grade levels EL students were among the farthest behind.
Based on the 2005 analysis of NAEP test scores, about 51% of eighth-grade EL
students were falling behind their White counterparts in reading and mathematics
(Fry).
Racial isolation pervades urban school settings due to the geographic loca-
tions of the schools. Although African American and Hispanic students comprise
the majority of students in public schools in large cities, the demographics of the
teaching staff do not always reflect those of the student population. This presents a
challenge because the teachers‘ socioeconomic backgrounds, values, and life
experiences and the backgrounds of the students are vastly different (Weiner,
2000). The implication is that the teachers‘ ability to make meaningful connection
to students‘ lives may be limited.
There are also challenges to recruiting and retaining a group of highly
qualified and talented teachers in the urban school setting (Bryk, Camburn, &
Seashore-Louis, 1999; Seashore-Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996). This has a clear
impact on the professional community and the school‘s knowledge base. The
instructional program of the school and its ability to sustain program coherence are
adversely affected. Therefore, according to Seashore-Louis et al., the ―problems
and failures of our educational system are nowhere more apparent‖ (p. 5).
Concerns involving lack of parental support, inadequate funding, low levels
of parent education and income, gangs, violence, substandard housing, and health
care are all stark realities of life in urban communities (Normore & Blanco, 2006).
Hence, urban students bring to school more than educational needs. Given these
circumstances and features of the urban community, school leaders need a specific
set of knowledge and skills to be effective in high-poverty urban schools. The
16
challenges differ dramatically from those of high-performing schools in affluent
suburban areas due to inherent social issues related to poverty, race, class,
language, gender, and power structures in the urban setting. Thus, socioeconomic,
political and organizational conditions impinge on classroom teaching and learning
(Anyon, 1997). Seashore-Louis et al. (1996) asserted that social problems stem-
ming from these conditions make urban schools both ―vulnerable and demanding
places for teachers‖ (p. 12). Ultimately, the complexities and demands of the urban
context inevitably influence how school leaders exercise leadership practices,
behaviors, and tasks.
Standards-Based Accountability Reform
This section describes how federal and state accountability policies influ-
ence leaders‘ work in urban schools. The implications for the ways in which the
policy context both supports and constrains the work of an urban school leader are
discussed.
In response to the widespread achievement gap between low-income and
minority students and their high-performing middle- and upper-class White and
Asian counterparts, NCLB legislation was enacted into federal law in 2002. The
landmark legislation brought standards and accountability to the forefront of the
schooling agenda. This was especially significant for urban schools with high
concentrations of minority children and children from low-income families. Many
of these schools are identified as Title I schools, and they traditionally suffer from
low student performance. These schools with high poverty levels receive supple-
mental funds to support student learning. NCLB requires educational leaders to
meet their professional obligations and ensure that every child has access to
17
standards-based curriculum and quality teaching. As a result, rigorous standards,
standards-based curricula, and high-stakes testing remain a powerful force behind
NCLB in its mission to improve student achievement.
Four key principles of K-12 education are embodied in NCLB: (a) greater
accountability for student performance, (b) increased local control and flexibility,
(c) high-quality teachers using scientifically based practices, and (d) expanded
options for parents (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003). In terms of accounta-
bility, NCLB requires schools to make AYP toward meeting testing targets for
every subgroup (i.e., ethnicity, special education, English learners, and economic-
ally disadvantaged). By 2014, all students must demonstrate proficiency in reading
and mathematics as defined by each state. NCLB also establishes minimum
standards for teacher quality.
Despite the enactment of NCLB and its rigorous focus on standards and
student achievement, schools with low-income minority students continue to
demonstrate dismal academic performance. Darling-Hammond (2007) contended
that achievement gaps and access to educational opportunities between White and
non-Asian minority students remain ―large‖ and ―growing‖ (p. 318). For example,
in 2002 the reading level of the average African American and Hispanic 12th-grade
students was at the level of the average White eighth-grade student.
Graduation rates in many states have taken a steep fall, with the ―strongest
decreases for Black and Latino students‖ (Darling-Hammond, 2007, p. 321).
Children in urban communities are more likely to be taught by uncertified school
teachers than are students in predominately White schools. Darling-Hammond
(2007) presented alarming data based on the 2001 work of Shields et al. (as cited in
Darling-Hammond, 2007) on the disparities in access to well-qualified teachers.
18
More than 20% of uncertified teachers serve in 20% of schools with a high number
of minority students, and the number of these teachers is increasing in many high
poverty schools. Similarly, in 2001, students attending highly segregated minority
schools in California were ―more than 5 times as likely‖ to be taught by uncertified
teachers than were their peers in suburban schools (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
These statistics have serious implications for student achievement because
teacher quality is ranked as one of the strongest predictors of student achievement
(Darling-Hammond, 2004, 2006, 2007; Marzano et al., 2005). Urban students are
denied access to equal opportunities to learn from well-qualified and experienced
teachers. The distribution of ―underqualified‖ (Darling-Hammond, 2004, p. 1939)
teachers in low-performing schools experienced a 4% increase from 20% in 1997-
1998 to 24% in 2000-2001. Moreover, urban schools face high teacher turnover,
which exacerbates lack of access to meaningful and coherent learning. In short,
students in urban school settings are deprived of high-quality instruction. Urban
students are thus denied opportunities to attain high standards set forth by the state
and access to rigorous curricula because they are relegated to instruction by
untrained and unqualified teachers.
Schoen and Fusarelli (2008) argued that, by having state report cards
publicly display each subgroup‘s achievement, NCLB has created a sense of
urgency for school leaders. The legislation demands that educators focus their
attention on meeting the needs of historically underserved students. At the same
time, the persistent pattern of student failure and public reporting of underperform-
ing schools has also created ―high anxiety‖ (p. 193) levels for urban leaders, as well
as a ―high threat‖ (p. 194) work environment for many educators. The high-stakes
standards of NCLB not only guide student learning; NCLB also demands a set of
19
clear guidelines for teachers and school leaders (e.g., California Standards for the
Teaching Profession, California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders,
and Interstate School Leadership Licensure Consortium Standards). These rigorous
standards provide a common language and vision to inform and monitor pro-
fessional practice of educators. They assure equitable learning opportunities and
outcomes for student learning.
Although several factors influence student success, quality instruction has
its place in ensuring academic achievement by low-income and minority students.
Promoting rigorous instruction requires that urban school leaders enact leadership
practices associated with instructional leadership, learning-centered leadership,
transformational leadership, and social justice leadership theory to lead urban
schools successfully. An integrated leadership model that will guide the process is
essential (Fuhrman, 2003). The theoretical bases for these leadership frameworks
will soon be explored.
The Role of Context in School Leadership
This section discusses the role of context in school leadership. It provides
insights into how context closely interacts with leadership practices and behaviors.
Urban schools require a specific type of leader who is prepared to work in a
community with culturally and linguistically diverse students and to effectively
confront issues related to the urban school context. In order to be successful, it is
imperative for school leaders to learn the culture of the community and the values
of its people and to remain sensitive to the needs of the school community. The
contextual setting drives the work of urban school leaders in their efforts to
advance student learning. Also required are organizational systems (e.g., necessary
20
funding for professional development, district policies aimed at supporting leader
practice, time) to sustain the leader‘s efforts to promote meaningful teaching and
learning. Therefore, school principals must exercise leadership attuned to the urban
context by establishing a fit between the school community and its institutional
structure (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998). The demands of the school site will
influence the type of work that leaders are expected to perform. Contextual factors
can constrain or enable the leader‘s capacity to be successful as outlined in pro-
fessional standards for school leaders (WestEd, 2003, p. 2). However, it is import-
ant to note that effective leadership has the potential to ameliorate contextual
factors and change the existing conditions.
Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis (1996) found the effect of contextual vari-
ables, such as principal gender, student socioeconomic background, and parental
involvement, to be significant in their influence on leader effectiveness. For
example, these factors influence instructional leadership activities. Leaders‘
capacity for success is shaped not only by contextual factors but by characteristics
that they bring to the school community, such as experience, gender, personal
values, and beliefs (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Murphy et al. (2006) confirmed that
leadership behaviors and practices are greatly shaped by what individual leaders
bring with them to their leadership role. According to the authors, the characteris-
tics include past work experiences (e.g., Title I coordinator, academic coach),
personal qualities (e.g., motivation, outcome driven), knowledge base accrued over
time, and personal value and belief system. These four conditions influence how
leadership is enacted and deployed. In many cases they impact how leaders interact
with stakeholders in the community and influence their approach to curriculum and
instruction.
21
Effective School Leadership
As Leithwood et al. (2004) underscored, the success of high-performing
schools depends on how well leaders ―interact with the larger social and organiza-
tional context‖ (p. 23) in which they are situated. This section focuses on effective
school leadership practices and behaviors that have been shown to demonstrate
positive impact on student outcomes.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), empirical studies of the relationship
between school leadership and student academic achievement are limited. How-
ever, based on 35 years of research on school leadership, they conducted a meta-
analysis designed to synthesize and construct general ideas about effective principal
leadership behaviors. They identified 21 categories of leadership behaviors or
responsibilities that demonstrated a statistically significant relationship to student
achievement. They highlighted the significance of these responsibilities of school
leaders to their ―effective execution of leadership‖ (p. 64). Some of the key
responsibilities which have been correlated to improved learning are (a) situational
awareness; (b) flexibility; (c) discipline, in terms of protecting teachers from
external distractions; (d) monitoring and evaluating; (e) outreach, advocating for
the school; (f) change agent; (g) knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment; (h) focus on clear, concrete goals; (i) culture; and (j) communication.
These central leadership practices are captured in the elements of effective
leader practices found in research by Leithwood et al. (2004). The three categories
identified by the authors were ―setting directions,‖ ―developing people,‖ and
―redesigning the organization.‖ Leadership practices under each category delineate
how quality leaders achieve high impact for student learning. First, school leaders
set directions by developing shared goals, sharing a sense of purpose and vision,
22
and communicating high expectations. Second, school leaders develop faculty and
other staff members by providing the support and conditions necessary to improve
schooling practices. Third, school leaders redesign the organization by building a
productive and collaborative school culture.
Hallinger and Heck (1996) similarly defined successful leadership practices
under the broad categories of ―purposes,‖ ―people,‖ and ―structures and social
systems‖ (as cited in Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 23). Again, the practices of each
category align to findings about successful leadership reported by Marzano et al.
(2005). Furthermore, Davis et al. (2005) asserted that effective school leaders influ-
ence student achievement through their influence on teachers and school processes.
The categories and responsibilities mentioned encompass the ―basics of good
leadership‖ (Leithwood et al., p. 23) and are deemed necessary components of
successful leadership practice.
The ISLLC (2008) standards are national standards for educational leader-
ship practice that reflect fundamental elements of effective leadership. For each
standard, indicators of the relevant knowledge, dispositions, and performances
required of school leaders aspiring to meet the standard have been identified. The
following are six standards published by the Council of Chief State School Officers
for what leaders should know and be able to do to promote the success of every
child: (a) setting a widely shared vision for learning; (b) developing a school cul-
ture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional
growth; (c) ensuring effective management of the organization, operation, and
resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment; (d) collaborating
with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests
and needs, and mobilizing community resources; (e) acting with integrity, fairness,
23
and in an ethical manner; and (f) understanding, responding to, and influencing the
political, social, legal, and cultural context (ISLLC).
Based on these national ISLLC standards, one leadership practice that has
been found to promote student learning is the implementation of professional
learning communities. School leaders must create the conditions that promote
professional learning communities in order to influence student learning outcomes.
This is especially necessary and instrumental to reshaping the school culture.
Professional Learning Community
This section briefly explores the role of professional learning communities,
a key indicator of leadership practice under ISLLC standard 2: developing school
culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff pro-
fessional growth (ISLLC, 2008).
Throughout the history of schooling, the professional lives of teachers
revolve around the classroom setting (Seashore-Louis et al., 1996). In particular,
teachers work in isolation from their peers due to institutional structures built
around the school environment. Under these conditions there is a traditional lack of
interaction among teachers. However Seashore-Louis et al. argued that the class-
room is not the only context for their work. Rather, it is outside the classroom set-
ting that teachers interact in ways that may be the critical link to student success.
One of the key responsibilities of a school leader is to create the conditions that
promote professional learning communities and collective work of teachers in the
school. This is vital to reshaping the school culture. In short, promoting the work
of professional learning communities is an effective means to raise student
24
achievement while building on the strengths of teacher practice and increasing the
school‘s instructional capacity (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001).
Notable researchers in the area of professional learning community are
Valerie Lee and Julia Smith (1996). They argued that ―education revolves around
the work done by teachers‖ (p. 104). Therefore, teachers take key positioning in
accomplishing the core work of schools, such as teaching and learning. Lee and
Smith explored school restructuring through organizational reforms that target
teachers and teaching. They closely examined changing roles and relationships of
teachers within schools. They reported three major findings: (a) Achievement gains
are higher in schools when teachers take collective responsibility for students‘
academic success or failure, (b) more cooperation among teachers leads to higher
achievements, and (c) the distribution of achievement gains is more socially equit-
able in schools when there is a high level of collective responsibility for student
learning (Lee & Smith, 2001).
The link between teachers‘ collective responsibility for student learning and
positive gains in student outcomes is particularly powerful for lower-achieving
minority students and students from lower SES. These outcomes suggest that
student learning can be influenced by changing how teachers conduct their work.
The organization of teachers‘ work lives substantially affects student learn-
ing. Seashore-Louis et al. (1996) contended that supportive leadership is an essen-
tial ingredient for developing and sustaining a professional learning community.
Grounded in the broad social and moral purposes of schooling, school leaders must
cultivate collective commitment to meet the educational needs of students who are
most at risk of academic failure. This is necessary for creating lasting changes in
the urban school context. However, based on a large body of literature, there is no
25
set of prescribed approaches to professional learning communities. What is absent
from the literature are concrete strategies for structuring and modeling such com-
munities. In short, the effectiveness in teaching and learning are enhanced when the
quality of schools and workplaces is improved (Seashore-Louis, 1994).
The Role of Principal Leadership
in Effective Schooling
Principals play an essential role in creating the structure for teachers to
collaborate and engage in professional learning communities. While principals have
indirect influence on student achievement, they have direct influence on teacher
practice, which in turn influences student achievement. As described in this section,
school leadership has a profound effect on student outcomes.
A substantial amount of literature concludes that educational leadership
plays a pivotal role in effective schooling (e.g., Davis et al., 2005; Leithwood, n.d.;
Leithwood & Riehl, 2005). Leithwood and Riehl reported that, although the effects
of leadership on school outcomes are primarily indirect, school leaders influence
student outcomes. They do so by creating the necessary conditions and processes
that enable others to be effective. Leithwood presented a related finding from
Hallinger and Heck‘s (1996) review of large-scale quantitative studies on the
overall leader effects: Despite small effect size of combined direct and indirect
leader influence on student outcomes, the conclusion is nonetheless ―educationally
significant‖ (p. 3).
Murphy et al. (2006) confirmed that, while the impact of leadership on
student outcomes is indirect, the influence of leadership is significant, especially in
schools that are in a ―downward spiral‖ (p. 2). Similarly, Davis et al. (2005) found
that the effects of successful leadership were ―considerably greater‖ in schools that
26
were in more difficult circumstances. In sum, educational leadership is a critical
and necessary element for turning around underperforming schools. Leithwood et
al. (2004) underscored the importance of school leadership by concluding that it is
―second only to classroom instruction‖ (p. 5) out of the many school-level factors
influencing student learning. Therefore, it can be inferred that the necessity to build
and enhance leadership capacity in schools is compelling, particularly for urban
schools serving low-income minority students. In fact, the urban school context
demands a new type of leadership to influence student outcomes.
To determine whether principals make a difference in student learning,
Hallinger et al. (1996) conducted a study in which they examined principal prac-
tices. They found that principals played an important role in student achievement
by influencing school-level instructional processes. In particular, these principals
achieved successful outcomes by ensuring access and opportunities for students to
learn, establishing appropriate academic policies, and carefully monitoring teacher
practices. These key leadership practices are closely aligned to the ISLLC standards
and the tenets of the learning-centered leadership framework, which examined
below. Although the study did not yield evidence of direct effect on student
achievement, principals‘ leadership and influence on school climate were found to
be statistically significant in the relationship between school leadership and school
climate variables.
According to Hallinger (2003), variables such as a shared vision and clear
school mission impact learning opportunities and teacher expectations for student
achievement. Herein lies the indirect path through which school leaders influence
student performance outcomes. School leaders must build a collegial school climate
by creating the structure to support student learning (Weinbaum et al., 2004). Since
27
there are hosts of mediating factors that impact student success, it is difficult to
determine direct effects of principal leadership on student learning. Hallinger et al.
(1996) highlighted that the effect of principal effort and impact on student achieve-
ment is ―inextricably tied‖ to the actions of those who exhibit influence in the
classroom. Hallinger and Heck (1996) contended that the essence of leadership is
achieving results through others.
Leadership Defined
Urban school leaders must be equipped with knowledge and skills to create
the necessary infrastructure to improve teachers‘ instructional practice, which in
turn impacts student success. This section examines various leadership theories in
an attempt to unpack the meaning of leadership.
Northouse (2007) stated, ―Leadership is a highly sought-after and highly
valued commodity‖ (p. 1). According to Bolman and Deal (2003), given almost any
social ills, leadership is offered as a ―panacea‖ for overcoming the problem (p.
336). The concept of leadership is a universal one that has long been a topic of
discussions held by history‘s great thinkers (Marzano et al., 2005). Today, leader-
ship continues to spark great interest regarding its critical role and exemplary prac-
tices of leadership required for managing a successful enterprise. This is evident in
books such as Good to Great (Collins, 2001), Leading in a Culture of Change
(Fullan, 2001), and Leadership Challenge (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Leadership has been defined, redefined, conceptualized, and reconceptual-
ized through many lenses over time. Northouse (2007) described school leadership
as a process in which an individual is able to influence a group in order to achieve a
shared goal. Elmore (2000) offered a focused definition of leadership, calling it the
28
―guidance‖ and ―direction‖ of instructional improvement (p. 13). Bolman and Deal
(2003) summed up leadership as a ―subtle process‖ in which the leader and the led
mutually influence ideas and actions in collective efforts to attain a shared goal
(p. 339). Among the variations of how leadership is defined, one can gather that its
meaning is multifaceted and complex. Furthermore, educational leadership is a
concept that is not easily defined and agreed upon. As Leithwood (n.d.) noted, in
efforts to provide a narrow definition of what leadership means there is a danger of
trivializing the concept rather than reaching clarity in its meaning.
Instructional Leadership
This section examines a range of theories of leadership, such as instruc-
tional leadership, transformational leadership, learning-centered leadership, and
leadership for social justice. In light of formidable challenges presented in the
urban school context, it is argued that an integrated model of leadership is required
to turn around low-performing schools. It is also argued that one type of leadership
approach is insufficient to bring forth the dynamic change needed to reverse the
pattern of school failure; rather, each leadership model must build on the other to
enhance leaders‘ ability to exercise a wide range of leadership practices and effect
second-order change. Leadership practices are described through four distinct
lenses in order to understand the principal‘s influence on student learning. First, the
framework for instructional leadership is examined.
School leaders play an important role in improving teaching and learning
(Coldren & Spillane, 2007; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood, n.d.; WestEd, 2003).
Therefore, enhancing and supporting classroom instruction is assumed to be the
central responsibility of school leaders. In essence, high-quality student
29
performance is attributed to high-quality leadership focused on instructional
excellence (Vanderhaar et al., 2007). It can be concluded from Moving Leadership
Standards Into Everyday Work (WestEd, 2003) that instructional leadership is at
the heart of ensuring student achievement. Improving classroom practices of
teachers is a central tenet of this leadership model (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Vanderhaar et al. noted that, in characterizing effective principals, instructional
leadership behaviors are critical factors that impact student achievement.
Essentially, it is the responsibility of the principal to inform teachers regarding
―new educational strategies, technologies, and other tools‖ to promote successful
teaching (Quinn, 2000, as cited in Vanderhaar et al., p. 18).
During the effective schools movement in the 1980s, instructional
leadership materialized as a model focused on improved educational outcomes
(Hallinger, 2003). Instructional leadership theory took early roots in effective
principal leadership at the elementary schools in urban communities. According to
Hallinger (2007), the instructional leadership perspective is identified as directive
leadership with a focus on curriculum and instruction. For schools that have failed
over time, maintaining a strong instructional focus has been key to successful
improvement. Leithwood et al. (2004) pointed out that principals in inner-city
schools find it necessary to engage in a more ―direct and top-down‖ approach to
leadership than do those in suburban settings (p. 10). This is due to the organiza-
tional context of the urban school setting, which demands a heavy emphasis on the
instructional role of the principal. In light of today‘s focus on high academic
standards and performance-based outcomes, the pendulum has shifted back to
seeking strong instructional leadership in the schools. Hallinger (2007) asserted,
30
―Principals now find themselves at the nexus of accountability and improvement
with the clear expectation that they will function as ‗instructional leaders‘‖ (p. 3).
However, Leithwood et al. (2004) argued that the concept of instructional
leadership is not well defined in terms of its specific leadership practices. The
following three dimensions nonetheless comprise the constructs of instructional
leadership: (a) defining the school‘s mission, (b) managing the instructional
program, and (c) promoting a positive school learning climate (Hallinger, 2003).
First, the principal is responsible for ensuring and communicating the school‘s
academic mission. Second, the principal is highly involved in the instructional
process by managing the instructional program. Specifically, this entails the
principal leading the process of supervising and monitoring classroom instruction,
as well as student progress, and providing organization and alignment of the school
curriculum. Third, the principal creates a structure in which to support a school
culture where instructional time is valued and high standards and expectations set
the stage for continuous improvement of professional practice.
The focus of instructional leadership is on the principal as the ―center of
expertise, power and authority in the school‖ (Cuban, 1988, as cited in Hallinger,
2007, p. 2). However, this serves as a major weakness of the instructional leader-
ship perspective because it is expected that change is to come from the leader
alone. In other words, the instructional leadership approach points exclusively to
the single leader to impact teacher practice for improved student outcomes. Another
limitation is that it does not take into account whether principals have sufficient
time or feel ―competent‖ (Hallinger, 2007, p. 4) to perform the duties of instruc-
tional leadership. School leaders are heavily constrained by managerial duties that
limit their time and ability to conduct instructional supervision (Camburn, Rowan,
31
& Taylor, 2003; Hallinger, 2007). Moreover, Marks and Printy (2003) astutely
pointed out that coaching and on-site support were in ―short supply‖ (p. 372) for
those principals who lacked the skills to provide tasks under the leadership model.
Therefore, the instructional leadership approach failed to realize its full potential.
Within this framework, an important consideration is given to the context
and conditions of specific schools that influence leadership behaviors and practices.
Fundamentally, contextual factors such as school and community setting and leader
characteristics contribute to the demands made on leaders in school improvement
efforts. It is noted that, depending on the context, ―good practice would look differ-
ent‖ (WestEd, 2003, p. 2). Hence, urban school leaders must demonstrate the
ability to respond to unique situations and conditions (e.g., high-stakes accounta-
bility system, school choice, school sanctions under NCLB). For example, in many
urban schools there is the pervasive problem of teachers who hold low expectations
of students. Also, teachers‘ sense of collective responsibility for student learning is
minimal due to lack of attention to the role of classroom instruction in academic
failure (Coldren & Spillane, 2007; Diamond et al., 2004). In light of this context
and conditions of urban schools, leaders‘ work in strengthening instructional
practices may be difficult to achieve.
Transformational Leadership
Although key features of the instructional leadership approach are necessary
for successfully leading urban schools, this type of leadership is not sufficient to
bring about the desired change. Transformational leadership practices must also be
exercised in order to motivate school staff and to foster a ―collective vision‖ to
―achieve extraordinary performance‖ (Bass, 1985, as cited in Hallinger, 2007, p. 2).
32
This type of leadership is direly needed in conjunction with instructional leadership
practices to change and reshape the school culture in the urban context. This section
explores the framework of transformational leadership and how its use can enhance
student learning in urban school settings.
Transformational leadership was popularized in 1990s through the school
restructuring movement. It focuses on building the organization‘s capacity,
including its people and the school culture, through bottom-up participation in
stimulating change (Hallinger, 2003). The emphasis in this leadership model is on
creating a shared vision for and shared commitment to the school improvement
process. The goals of transformational leadership were defined by Leithwood
(1992) as ―developing and maintaining a collaborative school culture that fosters
staff development‖ (as cited in Webb, P. T., Neumann, & Jones, 2004, p. 257).
Based on this definition, teachers are seen as school leaders who play an integral
role in effecting instructional improvement and student learning. Burns (1978, as
cited in Webb et al., p. 257), who laid the groundwork for this leadership approach,
used the term to describe ―leaders who shape, alter, and elevate the motives and
goals for the institutional members.‖ In short, transformational leadership cultivates
a collaborative culture wherein each member of the school is empowered to initiate
change through the process of reshaping the school culture. However, in contrast to
the instructional leadership framework, missing from this leadership model is
explicit focus on curriculum and instruction (Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998).
According to the transformational leadership model, school conditions (i.e.,
context) matter considerably with regard to how leadership practices are exercised.
This is similar to the instructional leadership perspective. In the urban context,
challenges to instructional improvement include student background in terms of
33
language spoken at home, socioeconomic level, school size, teacher composition as
related to experience and competence, racial background, and so forth (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996; Marks & Printy, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2004). These contextual
variables present a source of ―constraints, resources, and opportunities‖ (Marks &
Printy, p. 5) for school leaders that they must learn to address. In that vein, Marks
and Printy asserted that effective leaders must be able to respond to the changing
needs of their context (p. 5). Essentially, transformational leaders must work to
reshape the existing cultural context in ways that strengthen opportunities for
quality teaching and learning to occur.
To date, Leithwood and his colleagues have completed extensive work on
transformational leadership. According to these authors, leadership definitions
entail these two core functions: ―setting directions‖ and ―exercising influence‖
(Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 20). Marks and Printy (2003) contributed to this body of
work, emphasizing that, in order to ―enlarge the leadership capacity of schools‖ in
its pursuit of improved student learning, school leaders must ―involve teachers in
sustained dialogue and decision making about educational matters‖ (p. 370). They
argued that principals, as leaders, must provide ―intellectual direction‖ and help to
empower and support teachers as ―equal partners‖ (p. 371) in the process of leading
schools. In essence, transformational leadership builds collective capacity of the
organization by capitalizing on the level of commitment and participation from
school faculty. However, a school leader plays an important role by promoting
―innovation‖ and ―shaping organizational culture‖ (p. 373). Moreover, the trans-
formational leader plays a vital role in helping followers or teachers to develop
their full potential. Ultimately, the transformational leader motivates followers by
highlighting school goals and raising consciousness about the importance of raising
34
student achievement. In short, this leader inspire followers to move beyond their
personal interests to serve the needs of others. Yet little information is provided on
the specific nature and process for building such capacity and shaping organiza-
tional change. Transformational leadership is, nonetheless, a critical and necessary
component for leading change.
Learning-Centered Leadership
Given the complex set of challenges and barriers faced in the urban school
context, the collective work and commitment of school teachers and leaders are
required to raise student achievement. As Lambert (2002) summarized, it is no
longer the lone leader who carries the burden alone; rather, shared participation by
other educators is needed for meeting the challenge of educating students today
(Marks & Printy, 2003). This section examines the learning-centered leadership
conceptual framework. This theory incorporates a fundamental set of instructional
and transformation perspectives and practices of effective leadership.
The conceptual framework for learning-centered leadership captures a com-
prehensive set of leadership behaviors and functions, as well as capacity building
ideas for improving student outcomes. This framework is grounded in sound
research based on numerous studies of high-performing schools, districts, and
school leaders. The model encapsulates core elements of the instructional leader-
ship and transformational leadership approach. Murphy et al. (2006, p. 7) outlined
eight major dimensions of leadership for learning that provide the knowledge base
for the model: (a) vision for learning, (b) instructional program, (c) curricular
program, (d) assessment program, (e) communities of learning, (f) resource
acquisition and use, (g) organizational culture, and (h) advocacy.
35
First, learning-centered leaders create and maintain a shared vision for
educational excellence and equity. These leaders set ―ambitious goals‖ (Murphy et
al., 2006, p. 9) that drive not only curriculum and instruction but every aspect of
school management and operation. A learning-centered leader promotes the vision
and inspires others to invest themselves in the vision in order for students to
achieve their highest potential. Second, instructionally, these leaders are intricately
involved in creating the conditions to ensure rigorous instruction and improved
student learning. They conduct regular classroom visitations, give performance
feedback, and create opportunities for teachers to improve their professional
practice. Third, learning-centered leaders ensure curricular and program alignment,
and maintain ―a high degree of coordination‖ (p. 14) of school matters (e.g., depart-
ment, grade-level, service, and program concerns) to assure school effectiveness.
Fourth, learning-centered leaders use data to drive instruction and identify areas of
growth for teaching and learning. They communicate and provide meaningful
information about school data to ―unpack the meaning of results‖ (p. 16). Fifth,
these leaders are, by nature, lifelong learners who build on principles of adult
learning theory and best practices to create professional development opportunities.
They ―nurture collaborative processes‖ (p. 18) and seek to build a professional
learning organization and community. Sixth, learning-centered leaders are skillful
at securing funds and allocating resources to ―strengthen the quality of the instruc-
tional and curricular program‖ (p. 21) to improve student achievement. Seventh,
these leaders create necessary conditions and structures to improve how the school
as an organization operates. For instance, learning-centered leaders communicate
high expectations for their stakeholders in the community and create cohesion
among staff, thereby increasing a sense of collective responsibility for student
36
learning. In addition, they highlight and celebrate student success. Eighth, learning-
centered leaders are, in essence, ―social advocates‖ (p. 28) who respond to and
address public policies to ensure that students benefit and remain at the forefront of
policy issues. In short, they behave ethically, acting with integrity and fairness to
advocate for their school community.
While the learning-centered leadership model identifies a wide-ranging set
of behaviors, tasks, and functions for successful school leadership, there are some
limitations to the model. One of the gaps identified in the literature is how leaders
actually manage to carry out the dimensions noted above. For instance, what
specific steps are taken to achieve ―building bridges with . . . youth and family
service agencies and . . . the media to promote the image of the school‖ (Murphy et
al., 2006, p. 28). What particular avenues are taken to enhance effective communi-
cation and to create a shared sense of community? Absent from the literature are
specific guidelines and protocols for attaining effective leadership behaviors and
tasks as identified in the dimensions. Murphy et al. offered insights into limitations
of the framework. In particular, the authors stated that some of the constructs that
appear to have ―logical linkages‖ (p. 8) to student learning lack empirical support.
Thus, the specific nature of how the leadership practices are attained remains
unclear.
It is important to recognize that the learning-centered leadership model
takes into consideration fundamental factors that leaders themselves bring to the
realm of school leadership that impact school effectiveness. Specifically, these
contributing elements are leaders‘ personal characteristics, set of belief and value
system, former work experiences, and professional knowledge gained over the
years (Murphy et al., 2006). These conditions interact with contextual factors (e.g.,
37
school setting, staff and student population) in urban school settings. They conse-
quently shape principals‘ leadership practices, behaviors and tasks. Murphy et al.
did not specify desired leader characteristics and conditions associated with
successful leaders in urban school settings.
The conceptual framework of learning-centered leadership highlights the
power of ―social advocacy‖ (p. 27) and ethics in leading schools to ensure student
achievement. In essence, leadership for social justice lays the foundational work for
the other leadership practices and behaviors mentioned. Murphy et al. (2006)
addressed the importance of leaders‘ belief systems and the need to hold high
expectations for students regardless of their background characteristics (e.g.,
language proficiency and socioeconomic level). These leaders are unsatisfied with
the ―status quo‖ and actively seek to ―confront stagnation‖ (p. 24).
Leadership for Social Justice
Leading urban schools requires a far-reaching set of skills and a funda-
mental belief system to overcome the complexities that shape the school setting.
Urban school leaders must be prepared beyond the basics of good leadership to
serve the needs of students whose education has long been neglected and to be
unrelenting in efforts to significantly improve school performance.
The challenge of urban education is firmly planted in long-lasting social
inequalities built around race, ethnicity, class, language, and gender (Karpinski &
Lugg, 2006; Levin, Gaskell, & Pollock, 2007; Normore & Blanco, 2006;
Theoharis, 2007). Numerous social issues and inequities stemming from high
poverty and minority status of families bear significant influence on the welfare of
children in urban cities. This is especially prevalent in the education field with the
38
dismal state of low academic achievement in urban schools. Specifically, the
problems are reflected in the disproportionate dropout rate, high suspension and
expulsion rates, low academic grades, low test scores, unequal college entrance and
completion rates, and overrepresentation in special education programs of students
in urban schools (Normore & Blanco). Essentially, low performance by minority
students in urban school systems has persisted as a result of systematic inequities
caused by inadequate funding, ability tracking, low expectations of students (i.e.,
deficit thinking/model) held by school staff, and unequal distribution of power and
resources (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005; Levin et al.).
In light of this context, urban school leaders must be social justice
advocates who actively seek to lead schools that are inclusive, socially just, and
equitable (Theoharis, 2007). Through leadership for social justice, the persistent
lack of achievement by students who are educationally marginalized due to race,
class, language, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other social conditions
can be addressed. According to Theoharis, urban school leaders must intentionally
transform the ―culture, curriculum, pedagogical practices, atmosphere, and school-
wide priorities to benefit‖ (p. 221) the students who have suffered from inequalities
of the urban context.
Capper, Theoharis, and Sebastian (2006) argued that leaders for social
justice must have ―critical consciousness‖ (p. 212), knowledge, and practical skills
to carry out socially just ideas. Critical consciousness refers to the leader‘s belief
and value system, otherwise defined as leaders‘ dispositions, according to the
professional standards of ISLLC. Specifically, Capper et al. noted that social justice
consciousness is a ―deep understanding of power relations and social construction
including White privilege, heterosexism, poverty, misogyny, and ethnocentrism‖
39
(p. 213). This is especially vital for school leaders to possess so that they recognize
the disparaging performance gaps and work consciously toward changing the
patterns of student achievement. Given the context of ―political, economic and
social structures that privilege some and disadvantage others‖ (Normore & Blanco,
2006, p. 11), the actions of social justice leaders are derived from their awareness
of this imbalance and their belief in providing access to just and equitable educa-
tion for disadvantaged students.
It is important to note that leaders for social justice place value on serving
the needs and interests of all students. Toward that end, social justice leaders take
deliberate steps to foster students‘ academic excellence by building on their cultural
capital such as race, ethnicity, language, culture, family, interests, and personal
experiences (Leithwood & Riehl, 2005; WestEd, 2003). For instance, school
leaders do so by de-tracking, providing every student access to advance courses,
facilitating parental and staff involvement in decision making, and allocating funds
appropriately to support student learning (Murphy et al., 2006). Ultimately, school
leaders achieve desired outcomes through rethinking, reshaping, and restructuring
curriculum, program, and school culture to ensure that all students reach their
maximum potential.
A central theme that emerges from the literature on social justice leadership
is the leader‘s sense of moral purpose and moral responsibility to raise student
achievement, especially for marginalized students (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy,
2005; Duncan-Andrade, 2005; Normore & Blanco, 2006; Theoharis, 2007).
Specifically, Theoharis stated that raising student achievement is the ―core of the
needed improvements‖ (p. 232). As asserted by Bogotch (2000), leaders for social
40
justice enact leadership through ―moral use of power‖ (p. 2), guided by a belief
system that demands better educational outcomes for all children.
Theoharis (2007) emphasized that social justice leadership extends beyond
what is deemed good leadership. For example, not only do these leaders promote
various programs for diverse learners; they strengthen the core technology of
teaching and learning to ensure that students have access to rigorous curriculum
and teaching. In addition, not only do these leaders examine school data; they do so
through ―lens of equity‖ (p. 252). Furthermore, school leaders for social justice
implement ―evidence-based practices‖ (Capper et al., 2006, p. 213) for creating an
equitable school. In sum, ensuring excellence for students who have historically
been marginalized requires leaders to provide effective instructional leadership
focused on equity. It can be argued that exhibiting strong learning-centered
approach and instructional leadership practices is a central aspect of enacting social
justice leadership.
Effective Support Systems: Coaching and Mentoring
Concerns for social justice issues are increasingly prevalent for urban
school leaders, especially in an environment where race, class, language, and
gender have socialized students into lower tracks of life. Urban school leaders must
be fully prepared and supported to confront issues that are inherent in the school
context. This section examines components of effective leadership programs and
support systems.
According to Cuban (2001), the job of leading urban schools is insurmount-
able when school leaders are ―unequipped‖ or ―unwilling‖ to deal with persistent
issues of race, ethnicity, language and class (p. 5). Darling-Hammond et al. (2007)
41
asserted that, due to increasing demands on school principals, there is a ―growing
shortage‖ of those who are willing and qualified to lead schools today, especially in
―culturally diverse, low-income communities and schools‖ (p. 4). Therefore to lead
successfully in the urban school setting, principals must have at hand a repertoire of
strategies and skills and a strong support system to address matters related to the
management and instruction of urban schooling. In fact, school leaders must
demonstrate competence in their ability to shift roles as educational visionary, data
analyst, finance manager, curriculum leader, legal expert, political voice, and
change agent in support of student achievement (Murphy et al., 2006). The question
remains, what structures are in place to support and sustain leaders‘ capacity to
influence teacher practice and the school‘s organizational processes to ultimately
improve student achievement?
There are limited empirical data regarding effective school leadership
development and support structures to sustain successful principal practices.
However, Davis et al. (2005) provided some insights into specific program features
that have been identified as essential for developing successful school leaders.
Effective principal preparation and development programs are characterized by the
following: (a) They are research-based, (b) they have curricular coherence, (c) they
provide opportunities to experience work in ―authentic contexts‖ (p. 2), (d) they use
cohort models and mentors, and (e) they enable collaborative activities between the
program and local area districts. Darling-Hammond et al. (2007) argued that, while
there is ―consensus‖ (p. 13) regarding these program features, the efficacy of these
features depends on the conditions and the context that impact its implementation
and effectiveness.
42
A theme that has emerged in successful program design for school leaders
is focused on professional activities that build on leaders‘ past work experiences
and ongoing training activities (Davis et al., 2005). Essentially, a support system
such as coaching and mentoring is needed to strengthen the leaders‘ capacities and
skills to sustain their effectiveness in leading urban schools. According to Davis et
al., there is a need for creating ―real and simulated leadership experiences‖ for
principal candidates who ―lack the experiential base‖ (p. 9). Similarly, Darling-
Hammond et al. (2007) pointed out that mentor support enhances leaders‘ capacity
to promote the school improvement process and student learning outcomes. Two of
the models examined here are coaching and mentoring.
Coaching is a professional development strategy for sustaining leadership
capacity in support of improved teaching and learning. Most important, it is a
support structure that is ―context specific‖ (Neufeld & Roper, 2003, p. iii) and
customized to meet the individual needs of the school setting and the principal,
including the principal‘s emotional needs. Although lacking in empirical evidence
for raising student achievement, coaching is considered a promising practice for
increasing ―instructional capacity of schools and teachers, a known prerequisite for
increasing learning‖ (p. v). According to the literature, the principal‘s ability and
capacity to solve problems is vital to navigating the demands of school leadership
(Davis et al., 2005; Rich & Jackson, 2005). Further, Neufeld and Roper asserted
that professional development for school leaders must parallel classroom teaching
that promote ―problem solving, critical analysis or higher-order thinking‖ (p. 2).
Mentoring programs for school leaders are becoming prominent in educa-
tion administration training (Davis et al., 2005). The mentoring process involves
building a meaningful professional relationship to support beginning school leaders
43
in their work and commitment to student achievement. Mentors are persons who
are considered insiders, which enables them to share their expertise of school
policies and functions (Strong, Barrett, & Bloom, n.d.). The primary purpose of a
mentor is to provide school leaders the guidance in use of strategies to ―resolve
dilemmas, to boost self-confidence, and to construct a broad repertoire of leader-
ship skills‖ (Davis et al., p. 10).
In short, mentoring enhances leaders‘ problem-solving abilities and pro-
motes flexibility in leaders (Spiro, Mattis, & Mitgang, 2007). This is especially
critical in managing the ever-growing demands of the urban school context.
Through activities such as modeling, coaching, questioning, probing, providing
feedback, and promoting self-reflection, mentors help to build school leaders‘
competence and level of performance (Davis et al., 2005; Spiro et al.). It can then
be inferred that, through support structures such as coaching and mentoring,
significant learning and changes for school leaders can take place.
ELPMP is a mentoring program offered through the EdisonLearning
Institute. It is designed to train persons who are on the ―inside‖ (e.g., employed
within the same district) to provide one-on-one, individualized support to novice
school principals (Strong et al., n.d.). The term protégé is used to describe the
novice school principal who is a recipient of EdisonLearning mentoring. The
program is grounded in research that reflects the national ISLLC standards for
school leaders. Effective leadership skills and knowledge are expected to be
attained through mentoring; thus, principals work to develop competency in the
five leadership roles identified by EdisonLearning: (a) Instructional Leader,
(b) Organizational Leader, (c) Culture Builder, (d) Site Manager, and (e) Edison
Schools Executive (Edison Schools, 2007). ELPMP is a professional development
44
strategy for building and sustaining leadership capacity with the goal of supporting
novice school leaders with the knowledge and tools that are necessary for success-
ful educational leadership. The objective is to ensure that, through successful
leadership, a world-class education is provided to all students in which ―superior
learning outcomes for all children‖ (Edison Schools) are achieved.
The ELPMP implements a mentoring model that combines instructional and
facilitative process skills, whereby consultative, collaborative, and transformational
approaches are utilized (Bloom, Castagna, Moir, & Warren, 2005). For example,
mentors are direct in sharing information with protégés when required (instruc-
tional and consultative), collaborative in their approach to solving problems and
guiding principals to achieve their short- and long-terms goals. Ultimately, Edison-
Learning mentors work to build internal capability of their protégés (Bloom et al.)
by facilitating change in their way of being (transformational). This is achieved by
addressing protégés‘ strengths and areas of need with respect to knowledge, skills,
behaviors, and values, using a professional growth plan. Toward that end, Edison-
Learning mentors engage in 12 activities as needed: (a) brokering relationships,
(b) building and maintaining relationships, (c) coaching, (d) communicating,
(e) encouraging, (f) facilitating, (g) goal setting, (h) guiding, (i) managing conflict,
(j) problem solving, (k)) providing and receiving feedback, and (l) reflecting
(Edison Schools, Inc., 2007). In sum, through various strategies of mentoring, the
principal is provided the support structure to transform the urban school and bring
forth improved outcomes in student learning.
45
Conclusion
―Marginalized students do not receive the education they deserve unless
purposeful steps are taken to change schools on their behalf with both equity and
justice consciously in mind‖ (Theoharis, 2007, p. 250).
Significant challenges stand in the way of overcoming and restructuring
today‘s underperforming schools. The demands of urban schooling are especially
overwhelming in communities that have historically been underserved and where
academic performance of poor and minority students has long been compromised.
Unless school leaders are adequately prepared and thoroughly supported in their
endeavors to effect change, they hold little chance of bringing forth lasting
improvements in student achievement. Advocating for powerful teaching and
learning requires school leaders to relentlessly pursue and enact leadership
practices through the lens of leadership for social justice. This type of leadership is
undeniably challenging work in the face of inequitable practices and conditions that
plague urban schools today. It places further demands on already overburdened
school leaders (Karpinski & Lugg, 2006). However, leadership practices grounded
in social justice hold great promise in ensuring that all students have an opportunity
to obtain an excellent education.
A one-size-fits-all model for school leadership, or ―generic leadership‖
(Davis et al., 2005, p. 14), will no longer lead to increased student achievement in
urban school contexts. The use of an integrated model, incorporating practices of
instructional, transformational, learning-centered leadership firmly rooted in social
justice leadership, is precisely the new type of leadership required of urban school
leaders to meet the challenges of urban schooling. Equally important will be the
support structure (i.e., EdisonLearning mentoring) that enables successful
46
implementation of effective leadership practices for school leaders, ―a powerful
vehicle‖ for improving instructional practice and student achievement (Neufeld &
Roper, 2003, p. 26). Today‘s students stand to benefit from such practices of
educational leadership, and they deserve no less.
Figure 1 depicts a graphic organizer, a conceptual framework, for this
study. It captures major concepts and arguments for improving student achievement
as presented in this dissertation.
47
48
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research design, sample and population, instru-
mentation, data collection plan, proposed data analysis, ethical considerations, and
limitations of the study. The purpose of the study was to determine how a princi-
pal‘s participation in a leadership support program affected the leadership practices
of an urban school administrator. Specifically, this study examined the professional
practice of a principal in the urban school context as a result of her working with an
EdisonLearning mentor. The following three research questions were addressed:
1. How does working with an EdisonLearning mentor affect the leadership
practices of an urban school principal?
2. What organizational structures support the implementation of a mentor
model?
3. In what ways do the leadership practices of the principal affect the pro-
fessional practice of teachers?
Design
A mixed-methods approach was implemented to analyze leadership
practices and behaviors of a single principal who participated in the ELPMP. The
quantitative portion of this research involved the use of the online VAL-ED survey
and the qualitative aspect involved an in-depth case study analysis of the principal.
The ELPMP is a support program designed for novice school administrators and is
derived from EdisonLearning‘s five fundamental standards for leadership roles:
Instructional Leader, Organizational Leader, Culture Builder, Site Manager and
Edison Schools Executive (Edison Schools, 2007). The principal, referred to as a
49
protégé, worked with a certified EdisonLearning mentor who had completed a
rigorous training program. The purpose of this mixed-methods approach was to
strengthen the consistency of the findings by using more than one method, thereby
increasing the internal validity of the study (Patton, 2002).
The quantitative measure of leadership behaviors involved the use of an
online survey, the VAL-ED. The VAL-ED is a measurement tool that assesses the
effectiveness of a principal‘s key leadership behaviors that influence teacher
performance and student learning. It is a 360˚instrument known as a ―multirater
feedback‖ or ―full-circle feedback assessment‖ (Webb, L. D., & Norton, 2009, p.
215). It was administered to the principal, a purposeful sample of teachers, and the
Edison Mentor. The VAL-ED provided a comprehensive view of the leader‘s
performance on the core components and key processes of leadership practice. The
key processes areas assessed were (a) planning, (b) implementing, (c) supporting,
(d) advocating, (e) communicating, and (f) monitoring. The core components of
principal leadership that influence student achievement are (a) high standards for
student learning, (b) rigorous curriculum, (c) quality instruction, (d) culture of
learning and professional behavior, (e) connections to external communities, and
(f) performance accountability (Porter, Goldring, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens,
2006). This tool was utilized for pre and post assessment, which allowed the
researcher to generate new knowledge and measure change in behavior as a result
of the leader‘s participation in the ELPMP. In particular, administration of the
VAL-ED involved the assessment of leader practice prior to the treatment of
EdisonLearning mentoring and assessment after mentoring to determine whether
the intervention influenced leader practice and behavior.
50
The qualitative portion of the study involved a case analysis of a single
EdisonLearning school principal in Las Vegas, Nevada. This entailed interviews
with the principal, EdisonLearning mentor, and a purposeful sample of teachers at
the school site. The interviews provided participants an opportunity to share their
perspectives (Merriam, 1998) and insights regarding the principal‘s effectiveness as
a school leader. The purpose of using a qualitative measure was to capture thick,
rich information that could not be captured through a quantitative study (Patton,
2002). See appendix A for a copy of the support letter from the ELPMP.
Intervention
Context of EdisonLearning Schools
EdisonLearning is an education management organization that forms
partnerships with public schools across the nation. It was founded in 1992 and
opened its first school in 1995. Focused on ambitious standards for student
performance and research-based strategies for effective schools, EdisonLearning
developed four cornerstones of a successful school that provide the foundation for
all EdisonLearning programs: (a) top talent,(b) culture of engagement and aspira-
tion, (c) demanding content and customized instruction, and (d) achievement-
driven management. EdisonLearning has formed partnerships with 120 schools and
serves over 350,000 students in 24 states (Edison Schools, 2007). In alignment with
the four cornerstones, EdisonLearning developed a mentoring program aimed to
assist new principals to drive improvements in teaching and learning.
51
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program (ELPMP)
EdisonLearning mentoring is a support structure that provides the tools to
build and sustain leadership capacity over time. Specifically, it is a promising prac-
tice that provides school leaders ongoing opportunities to assess current practices,
set goals, and work toward achieving school success. Mentoring provides the
critical piece in facilitating principals‘ reflective process, which enables them to
grow as leaders in the areas of technical expertise, socialization to the job and the
school system, and role clarification to effectively guide the school improvement
process. In short, ELPMP helps to build the capacity of a novice principal, which in
turn builds teacher capacity, which, over time, influences student achievement
(Edison Schools, 2007).
ELPMP Intervention
The ELPMP mentoring program began in fall 2008 with the protégé who
was paired with an EdisonLearning mentor. Mentors are trained to provide indivi-
dualized guidance and support to the principal as teacher, advisor, coach, and
feedback provider for the 2008-2009 academic year (Edison Schools, 2007). As
part of their 3-day intensive preparation, EdisonLearning mentors are familiarized
with the 12 modules that provide the basis for the ELPMP. According to the
Executive Director of the EdisonLearning Institute, the modules were developed by
a consultant. They are research based and include successful mentoring strategies
for novice EdisonLearning school principals (personal communication, November
19, 2008).
According to the Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007),
the goals of the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program are as follows:
52
1. Provide a foundation of leadership skills for aspiring and novice
principals that have been proven to lead to improved student achievement;
2. Focus on three main areas of need of novice school leaders: technical
expertise (knowledge of how to carry out the role of principalship), role
clarification (understand who they are as leaders and their influence), and socializa-
tion (adapting to the school setting and community; Daresh, 2002, as cited in
Edison Schools, 2007); and
3. Prepare aspiring and new school leaders to drive improvements in teach-
ing and learning.
The intent of ELPMP is to improve student achievement by supporting
novice leaders as they develop and refine effective leadership practice. ELPMP
describes the mentoring program to include the following components (Edison
Schools, 2007):
1. One-to-one guidance and support via weekly phone and/or email com-
munication between the mentor and protégé throughout the 2008-2009 academic
year;
2. Implementation of the Weekly Collaborative Planning Tool (a written
document), which includes goal setting, implementation of those goals, possible
options, next steps, reflection, and questions from the mentor;
3. Determination of Short-Term and Long-Term Action Plans that align to
the five EdisonLearning Principal Leadership Strands. They include the use of the
EdisonLearning Principal Leadership Standard Rubric, which is based on the
ISSLC, and evidence of successful achievement of the goals;
53
4. Completion and submission of all pre-post assessments, reflection logs,
goal sheets, action plans, short-term goal sheets, and collaborative planning logs
(Edison Schools, 2007);
5. Mentor visitation of protégé‘s school five times during the school year;
6. Protégé visitation of mentor school once during the school year; and
7. Consistent communication with the EdisonLearning Education Services
Program Sponsor.
According to EdisonLearning, each principal strives to achieve excellence
in the following five leadership roles (Edison Schools, 2007):
Instructional Leader
Promotes instructional excellence to ensure high academic achievement and
strong development
Implements and monitors Edison schools' curriculum and instruction and
assessment programs as the primary drivers of the academic achievement
and character development
Organizational Leader
Creates and promotes an inspired school vision directly linked to high
academic achievement and strong character development
Creates and maintains systems and processes that support the school vision
and goals
Practices and promotes interpersonal awareness and sensitivity to
strengthen school vision and goals
Culture Builder
Creates a learning environment that fosters a culture of high academic
achievement and strong character development
Instills among staff a sense of mission and professionalism linked to high
standards of academic achievement and character development
Creates a culture a celebration and accountability linked to high student
academic achievement and character development
54
Creates a culture of inclusion among all stakeholders to foster a shared
commitment to the school vision and goals
Site Manager
Establishes school structures and processes that ensures stability and drive
high academic achievement and strong character development
Allocates, manages, and finds resources that support school programs that
drive academic achievement and strong character development
Edison Schools Executive
Executes Edison school designs and advances a corporate vision of
providing a world class education to all students
Serves as a positive, proactive representative of Edison Schools and
community (pp. 90-101)
EdisonLearning Leadership Roles and Standard Rubric
The program goals are closely aligned with the standards and the frame-
work for leadership roles set forth by ELPMP to improve student achievement. The
EdisonLearning leadership rubric defines the standards for principal performance,
which allows principals to progress on a continuum: Initial, Developing, Proficient,
and Exemplary. The EdisonLearning standards for school leaders are based on the
standards from ISLLC for effective school leadership. They ultimately drive at
improving the core technology of teaching and learning, which is the basis of
learning-centered leadership. The performance standards are focused on leading for
social justice, with an emphasis on providing students with equity and access. For
example, a Proficient EdisonLearning principal in the of Culture Builder ―inspires
and holds accountable staff and students to high levels of achievement‖ and ―rallies
students and staff in the pursuit [of] continuous improvement and high achieve-
ment‖; in addition, he/she ―celebrates incremental achievement and end results‖
(Edison Schools, 2007, p. 10).
55
Participants and Setting
Sample
The study implemented purposeful sampling of a single urban principal,
Elizabeth Boyer, at Richmond Elementary School in Brad County School District
(BCSD).
1
According to Patton (2002), selecting information-rich cases strategically
and purposefully allows the researcher to select ―cases from which one can learn a
great deal about matters of important and therefore worthy of in-depth study‖
(p. 242). BCSD was an urban school district in Las Vegas, Nevada. The reason for
purposeful sampling was to gather in-depth inquiry and understanding (Patton) of a
novice school administrator and her leadership practices. Ms. Boyer was a first-
year principal; this was also her first year at an EdisonLearning school. Prior to this
position, she was a dean for 2 years and an assistant principal for 3 years at a
secondary school in BCSD. Prior to her administrative experience, she had been a
classroom teacher for 9 years. In total, she had been with the district for 15 years.
The focus of this study was to gain insights regarding change in leadership
practices as a result of the principal‘s participation in EdisonLearning mentoring, a
capacity-building support structure. The principal was selected on the basis of these
specific criteria:
1. The principal is a first-year elementary school administrator working in
an urban school setting which includes the following: (a) The principal‘s school has
a high percentage (about 80%) of the students participating in free or reduced-price
1
For purposes of confidentiality, pseudonyms are used throughout this paper
for the names of the school, school district, and participants; documents from the
school and district are listed in the reference list under the fictitious names.
56
lunch program, (b) the principal‘s school has a high proportion (89%) of minority
students and a high proportion (65%) of EL students, and (c) there is an achieve-
ment gap between EL students, Hispanic students, and students from low SES and
their White counterpart students, as compared to the school district
2. The principal is assigned to work with an EdisonLearning-trained mentor
for the first time during the 2008-2009 academic year
To assist the novice principal in her role as school leader, a mentoring pro-
gram was implemented. The two program goals were (a) building and sustaining
effective leadership practices, and (b) ensuring that a ―world-class‖ education is
provided to all students (Edison Schools, 2007). Ultimately, EdisonLearning is con-
cerned with improving principal leadership in order to influence teacher practice
and raise student achievement.
Setting
Richmond Elementary School is a preK-5 school with an enrollment of
about 725 students in Brad County, the most populous county in Nevada. BCSD is
the fifth-largest school district in the United States, serving about 309,000 students
with about 36,300 district employees. The district is located in the southern region
of Nevada, surrounding the Las Vegas area. In total, there are 341 BCSD schools,
including 206 elementary schools, 59 middle schools, 44 high schools, 24 alterna-
tive schools, and 8 special needs school (Brad County Data, 2007). Richmond
School is one of six BCSD schools that participates in a partnership with Edison-
Learning, the nation‘s largest private manager of public schools. The student popu-
lation of BCSD is considered ―minority-majority‖ in that 40% of the students are
57
Hispanic, 14% are African American, 9% are Asian/Pacific Islander, about 38% are
White. Figure 2 is a graph of student demographics in BCSD.
Figure 2. Brad County School District enrollment and demographics (total enroll-
ment 308,554 students for the 2007-2008 school year).
However, BCSD teachers do not reflect the diverse student population of the
district. In fact, almost 80% of the teachers are White, while about 7% are
Hispanic, 7% are African American, and 4% are Asian/Pacific Islanders. Table 1
and Figure 3 summarize teacher demographics of BCSD over a 3-year period.
The data revealed that Richmond School enrollment was mainly Hispanic
students; the school was identified as a Title I-funded school. According to the
School Accountability Summary Report (SASR) based on 2007-2008 data, about
81% of students were Hispanic or Latino (double the district‘s proportion), 5%
Asian/Pacific Islander, 10% White, 4% African American, and less than 1%
58
Table 1
Demographics of Teachers in the Brad County School District for 3-Year Period
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
Ethnic group n % n % n %
American Indian 191 1.1 175 1.0 173 1.0
Asian/Pacific Islander 417 2.5 588 3.4 653 3.6
Hispanic 1,029 6.3 1,112 6.4 1,169 6.5
Black/African American 1,105 6.8 1,135 6.6 1,167 6.5
White 13,054 80.3 13,779 82.4 14,040 77.9
Total 16,250 17,313 18,020
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
Black/African-American
White
Figure 3. Demographics of teachers in the Brad County School District for 3-year
period.
59
American Indian or Alaskan Native (all well below the district‘s numbers) (see
Figure 4, retrieved from Nevada Reports of Annual Accountability Web site). The
transiency rate for Richmond in 2007-2008 was 38%, which was slightly higher
than the district‘s transiency rate of 35%. It is estimated that 85% of the Richmond
students participated in the free and reduced-price lunch program, while 43% of
BCSD students participated; 65% of the Richmond students were identified as EL,
compared to 20% in the school district (Nevada Department of Education, 2008).
Overall, Richmond School had a higher proportion of EL students and students
receiving free/reduced-price lunches than the school district overall.
Figure 4. Richmond school enrollment and demographics (total enrollment was
725 students for the 2007-2008 school year).
Richmond School has participated in a partnership with EdisonLearning
Schools since 2001 and was under the leadership of a seasoned principal. The
60
school mission (Brad County School District, 2006) states, ―It is the mission in the
Richmond Community to help students achieve on or above grade-level standards
through collaborative efforts among staff, parents and students‖ (p. 1). Toward that
goal, Richmond School staff works diligently to ensure student success for all
students. According to the school data for 2007-2008 (School Accountability
Report, 2007-2008), there was a 9.3% increase in English Language Arts (ELA)
proficiency. In addition, the school had a 90% teacher retention rate and 96%
Teacher Average Daily Attendance rate.
One of the highlights at Richmond School was an implementation of a daily
collaborative professional development focused on improving student achievement.
Richmond School achieved the Edison Five Star School Award for Achievement
and Finance. A majority of the Richmond teachers had taught at the school site for
an average of 10 years. In all, there were 31 fully credentialed classroom teachers
and one teacher who was not fully credentialed. The Nevada Department of Educa-
tion SASR revealed that Richmond School made growth in AYP, with the school
designated as High Achieving for 2007-2008.
However, according to the 2008-2009 School Improvement Plan (SIP), a
review of the student data showed that four subgroups (i.e., Hispanic, Special
Education, Limited English Proficient, and Free and Reduced-Price Lunch) did not
make significant achievement in ELA. The special education subgroup did not
make AYP in the area of ELA, according to the 2008-2009 School Improvement
Plan.
The school had been designated as Adequate in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007
school years. According to a 3-year analysis of reading and mathematics data from
the SASR, the combined percentage of Richmond students performing in the Meets
61
Standards (MS) to Exceeds Standards (ES) range of achievement lagged behind
that of students in the district and state by about 5% to 12%. However, Richmond
students demonstrated growth (68% total for MS and ES) in mathematics for the
2007-2008 school year and outperformed peers in the district (59% total for MS
and ES) and state (60% total for MS and ES).
Instrumentation and Procedures: Survey, Interviews,
Observations, and Questionnaire
Survey
The online VAL-ED was the quantitative tool for measuring principal
practice prior to and after the mentoring intervention treatment. The purpose of
conducting pre- and post-intervention assessments was to determine change in
leadership practice as a result of the protégés‘ participation in the ELPMP. Based
on the research and framework of learning-centered leadership, the VAL-ED is
aligned to the national standards for school leaders according to ISLLC (Porter et
al., 2006). Specifically, the instrument incorporates a ―multi-rater, evidence-based
approach to measure the effectiveness of school leadership behaviors known to
influence teacher performance and student learning‖ (p. 1). The six core compon-
ents measured by the survey were based on research and reflected the characteris-
tics of schools that support student learning and teacher effectiveness: (a) high
standards for student performance, (b) rigorous curriculum, (c) quality instruction,
(d) culture for learning and professional behavior, (e) connections to external
communities, and (f) systemic performance accountability. ―The VAL-ED is
conceptualized as a multi-component assessment system for measuring critical
leadership behaviors of individual educators especially in urban settings for the
62
purposes of diagnostic analysis, performance feedback, progress monitoring, and
personnel decisions‖ (p. 1).
The protégés‘ behaviors were evaluated by the principal themselves and the
teachers at the school site. The VAL-ED evaluated the protégés‘ Core Components
of School Performance and Key Processes of Leadership. The Core Components
related ―to characteristics of schools that supported the learning of students and
enhanced the ability of teachers‖ (Porter et al., 2006, p.1). The Key Processes
defined the leadership behaviors that led to the demonstration of each core
component of school performance.
The VAL-ED identified six Core Components: High Standards for Student
Learning, Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, Culture of Learning and
Professional Behavior, Connections to External Communities, and Performance
Accountability. High Standards for Student Learning required the incorporation of
individual, team, and school goals to determine the rigor of social and academic
learning. Rigorous Curriculum encompassed the academic content that was
provided to students in all academic areas. Quality Instruction related to the
pedagogy of instructional practices that assisted in the improvement of student
learning. Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior focused on the integration
of professional practice and the provision of a positive school environment.
Connections to External Communities focused on the relationships among the
school, families and additional community resources to benefit students and their
learning. Performance Accountability ensured that the performance of students‘
academic and social learning was linked to the individual and collective
responsibility garnered by both faculty and students (Porter et al., 2006).
63
The Key Processes ―are leadership behaviors, most notably aspects of
transformational leadership traditionally associated with processes of leadership
that raise organizational members‘ levels of commitment and shape organizational
culture‖ (Porter et al., p. 2). Planning demonstrated a need for a collaborative
direction and policies, practices, and procedures to foster high expectations for
student learning. The engagement of individuals, their ideas, and resources were the
activities that encompassed Implementing. Supporting created conditions needed
for the attainment of financial, technological, political, and human resources to
enhance student learning. Advocating was defined by the advancement of students‘
needs both within and beyond the scope of the school‘s walls. Communicating
developed, utilized, and maintained exchanges between the school and the external
communities. Monitoring related to the strategic collection and analysis of data that
informed decisions for continuous school improvement. Figure 5 is a sample from
the VAL-ED questionnaire highlighting the core component High Standards for
Student Learning at the intersection of principal planning.
Leadership behaviors are defined at the intersection of the two dimensions.
According to the conceptual framework, this survey question assessed the extent to
which the school leadership plans for high standards for student learning (the inter-
section between planning and high standards for student learning) or plans for
rigorous academic and social learning goals (the intersection between planning and
high standards for student learning).
For reliability purposes, researchers Porter et al. (2008) used the VAL-ED
in a nine-school pilot study. Cronbach‘s alpha was used to determine the reliabili-
ties of the core components and key processes. The study revealed a high internal
64
Figure 5. Sample from the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
(VAL-ED) questionnaire highlighting the core component High Standards for
Student Learning at the intersection of principal planning.
consistency of reliability for both core components and key processes, with an
overall reliability score of .98 on the 72-item form. Reliability scores were slightly
higher on core components than on key processes.
Interview
Due to the nature of the qualitative inquiry process in a case study, inter-
views were conducted to gather personal insights from the participants. These inter-
views captured the participants‘ beliefs, thoughts, and experiences, which could not
be easily observed (Patton, 2002) by the VAL-ED survey, which was a closed-
ended survey. In the study of the impact of EdisonLearning mentoring on the
professional practice of an urban school principal, the following groups were
interviewed: (a) EdisonLearning school protégé, (b) a purposeful sample of 5
teachers, and (c) EdisonLearning Executive Director/Mentor.
65
The 5 teachers were purposefully selected. Interviews were approximately
30 minutes in length. To accommodate the school faculty, interviews were con-
ducted at the school site. See appendix B for a copy of the interview protocols. In
addition, two EdisonLearning mentors were given a questionnaire to collect
information related to the mentoring experience and regarding support structures
for mentoring. See appendix C for a copy of the questionnaire. The EdisonLearning
Executive Director was interview for 30 minutes by telephone to gather informa-
tion on the ELPMP and the support structures that were in place for the mentor and
protégé. See appendix D for the interview protocol.
The participants were involved in standardized open-ended interviews in
which they were encouraged to respond to ―carefully and fully‖ developed ques-
tions (Patton, 2002, p. 345). It was important to maintain consistency in the content
of the questions from interview to interview. Questions were developed in collabor-
ation with colleagues in the dissertation thematic group, with input from the com-
mittee chair. Follow-up questions or probes were utilized to ―deepen the response
to a question, increase the richness and depth of responses, and give cues to the
interviewees about the level of response that is desired‖ (p. 372).
The interview protocols addressed the impact of EdisonLearning mentoring
on leadership practice and assessed the ways in which leadership practice influ-
enced teacher practice. Questions were developed for each group of participants.
For instance, the principal addressed her personal knowledge, beliefs, and ideas
about her own leadership practices. See appendix E for a copy of the pre-interview
and post-intervention interview protocols. Teachers were asked to share their
experiences regarding the perceived influence of EdisonLearning mentoring on
principal leadership, which in turn, influenced their professional practice. The
66
EdisonLearning mentor provided information regarding the principal‘s knowledge,
practices, and behaviors.
Due to the nature of the study, ―distinguishing types of questions‖ (Patton,
2002, p. 348) were asked to be clear about the focus of the questions. For example,
experience and behavior questions elicited observable ―behaviors, experiences,
actions, and activities‖ (p. 348) of the school leader and the teachers. These ques-
tions were instrumental in determining the effects of EdisonLearning mentoring on
principal leadership. Opinion and values questions were utilized to assess the
protégé‘s ―goals, intentions, desires, and expectations‖ (p. 350). This type of ques-
tioning was critical to understanding the principal‘s beliefs and values that guided
her professional practice and influence on teacher practice. Knowledge questions
were used to elicit factual knowledge and skills of the school leader. For the school
principal, background/demographics questions were asked to understand the
principal‘s characteristics and past work experiences (Patton). Through the lens of
learning-centered leadership, this was especially significant for understanding the
influence of the intervention on the principal‘s leadership practice.
Upon approval by the participants, interview sessions were audiotaped
and transcribed. Reflective notes were taken immediately after each interview to
capture major thoughts and to detect emerging patterns (Patton, 2002). The data
gathered from the VAL-ED were evaluated and cross-checked with responses from
the interviews. In effect, the triangulation of data yielded information that ―test for
consistency‖ in the results (p. 248).
67
Questionnaire
A 5-item questionnaire was distributed via email to two EdisonLearning
mentors in spring 2009. One of the mentors worked with Ms. Boyer and the other
worked with a protégé in another state (see appendix C for the questionnaire).
Observations
Observations were a pivotal aspect of the qualitative component of this
study because they provided an opportunity to view the principal‘s practices as they
took place in a real-life, naturalistic setting (Patton, 2002). According to Patton,
observations provide a better awareness of the entire ―context‖ (p. 262).
A nonparticipant observer approach was utilized. Information was gathered
on the principal‘s school setting, particularly on her leadership practice and how it
affected teacher practice. A formal observation of the principal was conducted in
spring 2009. The observation focused on the principal‘s roles and responsibilities,
including her interactions with teachers, office staff, students, and parents at the
school. The observation lasted approximately 2 hours. Field notes were taken
during the observation and a reflective journal was maintained to ensure accuracy.
Patton‘s (2002) guidelines for observations were followed.
Document Analysis
According to Patton (2002), documents can provide meaningful details,
―not only because of what can be learned directly from them but also as stimulus
for paths of inquiry that can be pursued only through direct observation and
interviewing‖ (p. 294). School documents were evaluated for the principal‘s
demonstration of the five EdisonLearning leadership roles: Instructional Leader,
Organizational Leader, Culture Builder, Site Manager, and Edison Schools
68
Executive (Edison Schools, 2007). Evidence was gathered on the principal‘s
performance level in each of those roles. The performance standard rubric was
categorized into four levels: Initial, Developing, Proficient and Exemplary (Edison
Schools, 2007). The following documents were analyzed: (a) SIP, (b) School
Accountability Summary Report, (c) Principal‘s Weekly Bulletin, (d) and Nevada
Annual Reports of Accountability.
Instrumentation and Procedures: Documentation Analysis
Quantitative
For the quantitative section of the study, the findings from the VAL-ED
were collected through a 30-minute online survey system. An outside agency
handled the administration of the VAL-ED survey online; the agency‘s database
system provided comprehensive score reports based on data collected from all
respondents. This process reduced or eliminated the likelihood of potential for
human error. Results were generated immediately, since the survey was conducted
on a computer system. The data collected from the VAL-ED were gathered, using
an online version, from the participants at two times during the study: once in fall
2008, prior to the principal‘s participation in the Edison mentoring intervention
(pre-assessment), and again after the principal had had time to implement strategies
learned from EdisonLearning mentoring intervention (post-assessment) in February
2009. The results of the pretest were compared to the result s of the posttest.
The purpose for the administration of the VAL-ED before the principal
received EdisonLearning mentoring and after the mentoring intervention was to
measure change in the principal‘s practices. The principal and the teachers at the
school site completed the VAL-ED. The scores generated from the completed
69
VAL-ED were the composite scores of the intersection of the two dimensions that
defined leadership practice: what leaders fulfilled in order to increase students‘
academic achievement (i.e., core components) and how principals established
conditions that supported those core component (i.e., key processes; Porter et al.,
2006). Figure 6 is a sample item that includes the subscales described above.
Figure 6. Sample of overall effectiveness score on the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education (VAL-ED).
Qualitative
According to Patton, ―Qualitative analysis transforms data into findings‖
(2002, p. 432). As previously noted, with the consent of the participants, all inter-
view sessions were audio recorded and later transcribed. Notes were taken during
and after the interviews with the principal, purposeful sample of teachers, and
EdisonLearning mentor. Information was carefully coded so that common themes
70
could be identified and categorized according to EdisonLearning Leadership Roles
and Rubric Standards. Creswell (2003) suggested the following steps, which were
maintained in this study to ensure integrity of the coding process: (a) arrange the
data, (b) read through the data, (c) put the data into specific groups, (d) create
suitable descriptors or common themes, (e) express common themes in narrative
form, and (f) explain and interpret the data.
Triangulation
Both quantitative and qualitative data were cross-examined using methodo-
logical triangulation (Patton, 2002). This process of triangulation enhanced the
findings of the study. Essentially, methodological triangulation increased the
internal validity of the study and its findings. Table 2 summarizes the process of
triangulation used in the study. The study timeline is presented in Table 3.
Ethical Considerations
The qualitative inquiry process required that the researcher maintain respect
for the opinions and viewpoints offered by study participants. Therefore, it was
crucial that the qualitative data did not deviate from their intended meaning, and
during data analysis the accuracy of the response was maintained. Every participant
was informed of rights through the informed consent process and pseudonyms were
used to protect the anonymity of the participants and the school, including the
school district. Thus, the confidentiality of information and basic privacy rights of
participants were maintained throughout the study with regard to forms and other
information provided to the researcher. This research study adhered strictly to the
moral and ethical guidelines established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
and the University of Southern California.
71
Table 2
Process of Triangulation of Data Used in the Study
Item from the data collection instrument
Research Pre-intervention Post intervention
question VAL-ED Exec Dir Principal Principal Mentor Teachers
Note. VAL-ED = Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education, Exec Dir =
EdisonLearning Executive Director, ISLLC = Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium, ELPMP = EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program.
1. How and why
does working
with an ELPMP
mentor affect the
leadership
practices of an
urban school
principal?
1-72 4 4-8 All All General 1;
ISLLC 1,
1a, 1b, 1c,
1d
2. What
organizational
structures support
and do not
support the
implementation
of the mentoring
model?
1, 4, 6, 9,
10, 12
3
3. In what ways
do the leadership
practices of the
principal affect
the professional
practice of
teachers?
2, 6-9,
13-17,
20, 25,
29, 30,
36, 42,
67, 71
1, 3, 4, 6 2-8 2, 2a, 2b,
2c, 6, 6a,
6b,
2, 2a, 2b,
2c, 6, 6a,
6b,
General 2;
ISLLC 2,
2a, 2b, 2c
72
Table 3
Timeline of the Study
Date and participants Instrument Time
October 2008
Principal Pre-VAL-ED 30 minutes
Teachers Pre-VAL-ED 30 minutes
Principal Pre- Interview 30 minutes
EdisonLearning Executive Director Interview 30 minutes
January 2009
Principal Post-VAL-ED 30 minutes
Teachers Post-VAL-ED 30 minutes
Principal Observation 120 minutes
EdisonLearning Mentor Interview 30 minutes
Teachers (Purposive sample) Interview 30 minutes
Note. VAL-ED = Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education.
73
CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS
The purpose of this chapter is to (a) present and analyze the data collected
for this study, and to (b) report on the findings for each research question. The data
were collected over a 4-month period during the 2008-2009 school year. Data were
collected via the following: (a) interviews with the Richmond School principal,
four teachers, and the EdisonLearning Executive Director; (b) questionnaire com-
pleted by two EdisonLearning mentors, (c) the online VAL-ED survey; (d) field
observation of the school principal (conducting Morning Ceremony, lunch super-
vision, professional development walkthroughs, and a lunch meeting with the
assistant principal addressing a personnel matter); and (e) analysis of school docu-
ments: SIP 2008, Nevada Report Card, EdisonLearning Whole School Design
Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007), Principal‘s Weekly Bulletin, and the school‘s
Mission Statement.
This mixed-methods study investigated the impact of the ELPMP on the
leadership practice of a novice school principal at Richmond Elementary School in
Brad County School District in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Pseudonyms were used to
protect the privacy of the school, school district, and participants.)
Three research questions guided this study:
1. How does working with a mentor from ELPMP affect the leadership
practices of an urban school principal?
2. What organizational structures support the implementation of the
mentoring model?
74
3. In what ways do the leadership practices of the principal affect the
professional practice of teachers?
The triangulation matrix (Table 4) highlights the three research questions
and the various instruments that were used to collect data for each question.
This chapter reports the data for each instrument in relationship to each
research question. This is followed by an analysis of the data across the data sets as
patterns and themes emerged from the data.
Findings to Address Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, How does working with a mentor from the
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program affect the leadership practices of an
urban school principal?
Data Collection Instruments
The primary data for this question were obtained from four sources: (a) the
pre- and post-intervention administrations of the online VAL-ED survey; (b) a pre-
and post-intervention interview with the Richmond School principal, Ms. Boyer;
(c) individual 35-minute interviews with four teachers in spring 2009, after Ms.
Boyer had been engaged in a mentor/protégé relationship for 6 months; (d) field
observations of the school principal as she conducted the daily Morning Ceremony,
lunch supervision, a professional development walkthrough, and a lunch meeting
with the assistant principal addressing a personnel matter, as well as notes taken
throughout the day regarding Ms. Boyer‘s interaction with students, teachers,
parents, and support staff; and (e) from pertinent school documents: SIP, Nevada‘s
School Report Card, Principal‘s Weekly Bulletin, and the Whole School Design
Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007).
75
76
77
The online VAL-ED survey was administered once in fall 2008 and once in
spring 2009 as a pre/post-intervention assessment. The surveys were administered
to two respondent groups: (a) the principal and (b) certificated teachers. Although
the VAL-ED survey was intended as a 360˚ measurement tool, which would have
required the participation of Ms. Boyer‘s supervisor, as well as the teachers and the
principal, this study did not include the supervisor in this assessment due to the
nonevaluative nature of the study. The strength of this assessment tool was its
requirement for respondents to evaluate the principal‘s leadership behaviors based
on sources of evidence such as ―reports from others, personal observations, school
documents, or school projects or activities‖ (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009, p. 2).
The resulting data yielded information on the principal‘s effective leadership
behaviors, which, according to the learning-centered leadership framework
developed by Murphy et al. (2007), are ―specific actions‖ that are correlated with
high student achievement (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 1).
Scores on the VAL-ED survey reflected the principal‘s performance level
and percentile rank in Core Components and Key Processes for effective school
leadership. Specifically, the VAL-ED scores resulted from the intersection of the
six Core Components—high standards for student learning, rigorous curriculum,
quality instruction, culture of learning and professional behavior, connections to
external communities, and performance accountability—and the six Key Processes:
planning, implementing, supporting, advocating, communicating, and monitoring
(Murphy et al., 2006).
In reviewing key principles of the learning-centered framework, it was
evident that core components of effective school leadership closely aligned to the
standards presented in the leadership framework of EdisonLearning. As shown in
78
Figure 7, the Core Components and Key Processes of the Murphy et al. (2006)
framework strongly align to the central elements of the EdisonLearning leadership
framework. It is important to note that, according to Murphy et al., the six Key
Processes are essential to achieving each of the six Core Components of leadership
effectiveness.
Report of the Data
Pre-Intervention VAL-ED Survey
The VAL-ED survey was administered online to the principal and teachers
as a pre-intervention assessment to gather baseline data on the principal‘s leader-
ship practices, which are known to influence student achievement (Murphy et al.,
2006). The VAL-ED provided an average score across all respondents, as well as
separately by each respondent group. The total score and Core Component and Key
Process effectiveness ratings were interpreted against a national representative
sample that included principals, supervisors, and teachers, which provided the
percentile rank. The results were also interpreted against a set of performance
standards: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished. Figure 8 illustrates
the descriptions of each performance level.
Survey respondents were asked, ―How effective the principal is at ensuring
the school carries out specific actions that affect core components of learning-
centered leadership?‖ The effectiveness ratings, based on evidence, were on a 5-
point effectiveness scale (1 = Ineffective, 2 = Minimally Effective, 3 = Satisfactorily
Effective, 4 = Highly Effective, and 5 = Outstandingly Effective; VAL-ED Principal
Report, 2008, p. 3) for each of 72 leadership behaviors.
79
80
Figure 8. Descriptions of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
(VAL-ED) performance levels.
The principal and 22 of the 45 teachers completed the survey in fall 2008.
The 49% response rate was considered to be low. Therefore, according to the
recommendation in the Principal Report, the scores were ―interpreted with caution‖
(VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 2). The results of the pre-intervention VAL-
ED survey revealed that Ms. Boyer had an overall mean score of 3.67. The standard
error of measurement for this score was .05. The national percentile for this scale
rating compared to other assessed principals was 57.9. Thus, Ms. Boyer‘s perform-
ance level was determined to be Proficient. The VAL-ED described principals who
achieved a score of Proficient to be considered a leader who ―exhibits learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence
teachers positively and that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement
and social learning for all students‖ (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 3).
In the area of Core Components the mean item rating results for Ms. Boyer
ranged from 3.63 for Performance Accountability to 3.69 for Quality Instruction.
Similarly, the Ms. Boyer‘s Key Processes mean item ratings ranged from 3.64 for
Planning to 3.70 for Advocating. Figure 9 presents the information for Ms. Boyer‘s
81
Figure 9. Principal Boyer‘s scores on the pre-intervention Vanderbilt Assessment
of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED).
pre-intervention assessment in a format comparable to the sample shown in Figure
6. Data were taken directly from the VAL-ED Principal Report generated in fall
2008 (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 3). The primary sources of evidence
used from the two respondent groups were mainly from personal observations and
report from others.
In this pre-intervention assessment Ms. Boyer scored Proficient in all six
Core Components, which represent fundamental components of leadership focus
that are considered to be significant for school success (Murphy et al., 2006). She
scored Proficient in all six Key Processes, which are identified as critical leadership
processes to move forward in achieving the Core Components to ensure student
achievement (Murphy et al.). For example, the principal scored an average of 3.69
(Proficient) in the category of Quality Instruction. Under Quality Instruction, the
survey sought to address how effective the leader was in Planning (learning
82
opportunities for teachers to improve their classroom instruction) and in Communi-
cating (feedback to teachers about their instruction; VAL-ED Principal Report,
2008, p. 3). For Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior, Ms. Boyer scored a
mean of 3.68 (Proficient) in Supporting (encouraging a collaborative professional
learning community) and Monitoring the school culture (p. 3). Ms. Boyer was
especially high in the key process area of Advocating, with a score of 3.70
(Proficient), which entails the principal advocating for the success of every student
and ensuring that teachers provide high-quality instruction for all students,
including special needs students.
The mean effectiveness ratings were fairly consistent for the principal and
the teachers in Core Components except in the area of Performance Accountability,
with a discrepancy of 0.75 points. Specifically, the teachers had a mean effective-
ness score of 3.25 in Performance Accountability, while the principal had 4.00
mean effectiveness score in that area. The principal had consistently higher ratings
of mean effectiveness than the teachers in each of the six Core Components. In fact,
Ms. Boyer‘s mean effectiveness score in each of the core component was 4.00,
while teachers‘ scores ranged from 3.25 to 3.38. The principal had a mean effect-
iveness score of 4.00 in each Key Process, while the teachers‘ scores ranged from
3.29 in Planning to 3.39 in Advocating.
The fact that Ms. Boyer demonstrated proficiency in every area of the Core
Component and Key Processes indicated that she successfully exercised learning-
centered leadership behaviors for successful school leadership. Figure 10 shows an
integrated summary of the principal‘s strengths based on the mean item scores for
the intersection of the Core Components and Key Processes of the two respondent
groups: the principal and the teachers. Each cell is marked with a ―P‖ representing
83
Figure 10. The intersection of Core Components and Key Processes on the pre-
intervention assessment of the principal.
an area of behavior that was rated Proficient. All of these behaviors are relevant
targets for improvement.
Although the results must be interpreted with caution due to the low teacher
participation rate, the information gathered from the principal and teacher inter-
views and the field observations of the principal support the findings regarding the
principal‘s overall level of performance at the Proficient level. This is addressed
further in chapter 5.
Post-Intervention VAL-ED Survey
The post-intervention online VAL-ED survey was administered to the
principal and participating teachers in spring 2009, after Ms. Boyer had worked
with an EdisonLearning mentor for about 6 months. The purpose of the post-
84
intervention survey was to assess change in practice as a result of working with a
mentor. The principal and 12 of 45 teachers (10 fewer than those who had com-
pleted the pre-assessment VAL-ED survey in the fall) completed the post VAL-ED
survey. Because the response rate was a low 27%, the resulting scores were ―inter-
preted with caution‖ (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 2).
The post-intervention VAL-ED survey revealed that Ms. Boyer had an
overall mean score of 4.16, with a standard error of measurement of .05 and a
national percentile rank of 92.6. The performance level for this score was
Distinguished. The VAL-ED describes a principal who achieves a score of
Distinguished as a leader who ―exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors at
levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers positively and that result
in strong value-added to student achievement and social learning for all students‖
(VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 3). The principal‘s Core Components mean
item ratings ranged from 4.11 for Quality Instruction to 4.25 for Culture of
Learning and Professional Behavior. Similarly, the principal‘s Key Processes mean
item ratings ranged from 3.97 for Planning to 4.30 for Advocating.
Figure 11 presents the information for Ms. Boyer‘s post-intervention
assessment in a format comparable to the sample shown in Figure 6 and the pre-
intervention assessment shown in Figure 9.
Overall, Ms. Boyer demonstrated a positive change in performance level by
improving in all six Core Components and five of the Key Processes of leader
effectiveness (she remained Proficient in her level of performance in the area of
Advocating). The resulting change in the performance level in leader effectiveness
occurred after having worked with an EdisonLearning mentor for about 6 months.
Particularly, in comparing the results from the pre-intervention assessment to the
85
Figure 11. Principal Boyer‘s scores on the post-intervention Vanderbilt Assessment
of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED).
post-intervention assessment, Ms. Boyer demonstrated the greatest growth in the
area of Culture of Learning (from 3.68 to 4.25), with an increase of +0.57. In
fact, when assessed on her effectiveness in the area of Culture of Learning and
Professional Behavior at ensuring a support of collaborative teams to advance
instruction, Ms. Boyer was rated as Distinguished.
In the area of Key Processes, the principal demonstrated the greatest change
in Communicating (from 3.67 to 4.30), with an increase of +0.37. In particular, she
demonstrated effective communication skills by listening to the needs of students‘
parents and utilizing an effective system of exchange among the staff. Figure 12
summarizes the principal‘s strengths based on the integration of the mean scores of
the principal and teachers in the areas of six Core Components and five Key
Processes. The post-intervention VAL-ED survey results show that Ms. Boyer
continued to demonstrate effective learning-centered leadership behaviors.
86
Figure 12. The intersection of Core Components and Key Processes on the pre-
intervention assessment of the principal.
The evidence sources used by the principal were (a) Personal Observations
at 98.61%, (b) Reports From Others at 98.61%, (c) Other Sources at 93.06%,
(d) School Projects or Activities at 86.11%, and (e) School Documents at 77.78%.
These percentages were based on the number of items for which a source of evi-
dence was checked by the respondent. The main sources of evidence used by
teachers were (a) Personal Observations at 55.79%, (b) Report From Others at
30.90%, (c) School Documents at 17.59%, (d) School Projects or Activities at
16.90%, and (e) Other Sources at 7.18% (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 2). In
terms of the principal‘s mean effectiveness ratings and those of the teachers across
Core Components, scores were 4.58 and 3.73, respectively, in Rigorous Curricu-
lum. However, in the area of Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior the
87
principal‘s mean effectiveness score and teachers‘ score were fairly close at 4.42
and 4.08, respectively. In the area of Key Processes, mean effectiveness scores
ranged from 4.75 (principal‘s rating) to 3.84 (teachers‘ rating) in Communicating.
The mean effectiveness scores in the Key Process of Advocating were similar at
4.17 (principal‘s rating) and 3.78 (teachers‘ rating).
Table 5 presents a comparison between Ms. Boyer‘s overall mean scores,
performance level, and percentile rank on the pre-intervention VAL-ED survey and
the post-intervention VAL-ED survey. The mean score was the average score from
the respondent groups (i.e., principal and teachers) across the intersection between
Core Components and Key Processes. The percentile rank was the principal‘s rank
compared to a ―national representative sample‖ (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009,
p. 3) of school leaders.
Table 5
Comparison of Principal’s Scores on the Pre-Intervention and Post-Intervention
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
Assessment Mean score Performance level Percentile rank
Pre-intervention 3.67 Proficient 57.9
Post-intervention 4.16 Distinguished 92.6
Change +0.49 1 level +34.7
Principal Observation Data
Ms. Boyer was observed for 1 full work day (6 hours) in spring 2009. She
was observed actively engaged in the following activities: Morning Ceremony,
88
lunch supervision, meeting with an assistant principal regarding a personnel matter,
and attending a professional development session with third-grade teachers in the
afternoon.
The day began with Richmond School‘s usual Morning Ceremony on the
field. This activity was led by a student reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and the
principal followed with school-wide news and announcements. Immediately there-
after, students sang the school song and recited the school‘s Code of Conduct.
According to the principal, the school‘s Code of Conduct was a daily reminder for
students regarding expected behaviors at Richmond School.
Throughout the course of the day the principal was observed interacting
with students, staff, and parents. She exuded warmth in her interactions with
students, readily hugging young children, calling students by their first names, and
even complimenting a child‘s haircut. She interacted with teachers and parents in a
positive manner by approaching them with a smile and inquiring about their day. It
was noticeable that the teachers readily greeted the principal with a wave and a
―hello‖ as she walked by on campus. She was warmly received by the third-grade
team during a professional development session. Specifically, the teachers greeted
her with a cheerful ―hello‖ as she walked into the room and they immediately
began to share with her amusing stories about their students. During lunch super-
vision Ms. Boyer circulated through the cafeteria and walked to various lunch
tables to say ―hello‖ to the students. She greeted parent volunteers and cafeteria
staff in an upbeat manner, addressing them by name. As lunchtime came to an end,
she stood outside the main doorway to ensure that students were safely exiting the
cafeteria. She cheerfully waved good bye to students as they headed back to class.
89
During the afternoon workshop the reading specialist presented a demon-
stration lesson to teachers with hands-on strategies for reading comprehension. Ms.
Boyer briefly interacted with the teachers in a friendly manner at the beginning of
the session by actively listening to teachers‘ stories, making eye contact, and
smiling with the teachers. She then sat attentively through the demonstration
lesson. In addition, Ms. Boyer was observed in her office discussing a personnel
matter with the assistant principal while they had lunch together. Later in the day
she was observed tracking individual students‘ progress (i.e., benchmark scores) in
her data binder, which was neatly organized by grade level and classroom. She
explained that she had assembled the data binder with her data specialist to keep
track of students‘ progress, especially the lowest-performing students in each class.
She explained that this was not only a way to monitor student progress but also to
monitor what teachers were doing to provide the necessary interventions for
struggling learners.
Documents Reviewed
The items reviewed were the SIP, the School Mission, the Principal‘s
Weekly Bulletin, the School Accountability Summary Report, the school‘s Code of
Conduct, and the EdisonLearning Whole School Design (2007). Included in the SIP
were the District Vision, the School Mission, and the school‘s goals, priority
concerns, and action plans for student improvement. The School Accountability
Summary Report provided information about student demographics, students‘
academic progress, and AYP status for the school. In addition, the Weekly Bulletin
for staff provided the principal‘s schedule, including her off-campus meeting dates.
Specifically, the documents provided information regarding expectations for
90
student learning, how these expectations and school-wide information were
communicated, and students‘ overall academic performance. These school
documents provided a vivid description of Richmond School and its culture.
The Richmond SIP 2008-2009 included the following (SIP, 2008-2009,
p. 2):
District Vision Statement: Brad County School District students will have
the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and ethics necessary to succeed academic-
ally and will practice responsible citizenship.
District Mission Statement: To create an environment where students,
parents, educators, and the community foster achievement.
School Vision or Mission Statement: It is the mission in the [Richmond]
Edison Community to help students achieve on or above grade-level
standards through collaborative efforts among staff, parents, and students.
In the section on Priority Concerns four areas were documented (SIP, 2008-
2009, p. 4):
1. A review of CRT data showed that, although our IEP subgroup did not
make adequate yearly progress in the area of ELA, they did, however, show
an increase of 16.2%. This leaves our school 19.9% away from our target.
2. Analysis of CRT ELA data revealed that our students scored lowest in
the Cognitive Content Cluster of informational text and the Cognitive
Ability Level of demonstrating a critical stance.
3. A review of CRT data showed that four of our subgroups did not make
significant achievement (Hispanic, IEP, LEP, FRL) in ELA.
4. Significant improvement needs to be made in the Cognitive Content
Cluster of measurement and geometry and Cognitive Ability Level of
problem solving.
The school‘s Code of Conduct states: I will respect myself, respect all
adults, respect fellow students, respect our building (Edison Schools, 2007, p. 2).
The Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007) provided
critical information regarding EdisonLearning schools‘ emphasis on professional
learning of teachers and school leaders. The handbook outlined clear roles and
91
responsibilities for EdisonLearning school principals, which provided lens through
which to examine the leader‘s practice. Included in the handbook was the Leader-
ship Framework for EdisonLearning principals. It clearly outlined the standards for
five leadership roles: Instructional Leader, Organizational Leader, Culture Builder,
Site Manager, and Edison Executive.
Figure 13, based on a thorough examination of the leadership framework,
illustrates a close connection between the Learning-Centered Leadership frame-
work and the EdisonLearning Leadership framework. The combined frameworks
for effective school leadership, learning-centered leadership framework, and
EdisonLearning Leadership framework were utilized as lenses through which the
data for this research question were analyzed. The criteria listed in the figure show
evidence of the degree of alignment.
Principal Pre-Intervention
Interview Data
In fall 2008 a 40-minute telephone interview was conducted with the
principal, Ms. Boyer, to gather baseline school data and information about her
expectations for the mentor/protégé relationship. She was first asked to describe
Richmond School‘s mission and vision.
The mission of Richmond is to help students achieve on or above grade-
level standards through collaborative efforts among staff, parents, and
students. It‘s also the vision of Richmond staff to provide a safe inviting
structure and secure environment that enables students to enjoy learning and
feel successful.
I have to say is that the teachers here and the rest of the staff here; it‘s not
about the mission statement, it is about the mission. It is about continuing to
provide first class education for all the students here and for teachers to
learn from one another, not an isolated type of thing. It is definitely a
collaborative effort on all parts.
92
93
She elaborated that the mission drives the work at the school site:
It is also the vision of the staff to stay abreast of new and innovative ideas,
strategies that fit into our structure here, and to make sure that students
aren‘t getting information that‘s 5 or 6 years old. This staff is all about
innovation and all about changing to make sure that each individual child is
getting what they need.
When asked about her role and responsibility as the school leader, Ms.
Boyer stated,
One thing that I‘ve been very cognizant of in my approach to the supervisor
role is [to be] a coach first. After observing a teacher‘s class, I make time
for that teacher to come and sit down and talk with me about the
observation.
It‘s just giving professionals an opportunity to talk about their craft. And
myself, as the instructional leader, I‘m here to give pointers. I‘m here to
say, ―Yeah, I thought that was great. That goes right along what we should
be doing for our struggling readers or doing in science or whatever the case
maybe,‖ and giving suggestion and saying, ―Have you thought about this?
Why don‘t you try this?‖ That‘s the only way teachers are going to grow.
When asked what expectations she had for the mentoring experience, Ms.
Boyer stated,
I‘m lucky enough to have a mentor who‘s right here in town with me, and
in the district . . . . what I‘ve learned from her in these 2 months has just
been phenomenal.
She has helped guide me through some issues that frankly, I didn‘t realize
that I would have to face—issues with my assistant principal, issues with
my office staff.
She‘s been an Edison principal . . . . she has a lot of knowledge of the
Edison design . . . . I‘m trying to learn a whole new design concept. And
she‘s just been marvelous with that and helping me to understand.
When asked what goals were in place for the mentoring experience
(whether personal or professional goals working with the mentor), Ms. Boyer
stated,
Mine are just to learn the intricate details and parts of Edison and how it
works and how being a partnership school works and coincides with still
94
being a part of [the district]. The whole budget part of it is very different.
One of my goals is to really become proficient in that.
Also, to learn more about the Edison design, because I didn‘t know what the
Edison design was. For example, I‘ve never had any experience in the SFA
program. It‘s just been kind of on-the-job training for me. Those are my two
main goals for this year, and to really master this whole cognitive coaching
with my staff.
When asked to share some initial thoughts on the mentoring experience to
date, Ms. Boyer stated,
I would say that I didn‘t really have any expectations to begin with. I just
thought she was going to be kind of a sounding board or someone I could
call if I needed resources or if I needed a question answered or what have
you, but she‘s been so much more than that. I have colleagues in the district
who, if I‘m not quite sure about a report or an answer to a question, I have
people whom I can call. She‘s just been so much more than that to me.
Principal Post-Intervention
Interview Data
The post-intervention interview with the principal, Ms. Boyer, took place
in person during a field observation in spring 2009 after she had worked with a
mentor for about 6 months. The interview lasted about 57 minutes. During the
interview the principal discussed the benefits of the mentoring experience in depth.
The post-EdisonLearning mentor intervention interview with Ms. Boyer captured
valuable information regarding her personal leadership beliefs, behaviors, and
practices, as well as the impact of the mentoring experience on her leadership
practice.
When asked, ―What do you know and believe promotes the success of all
students?‖ Ms. Boyer responded,
First and foremost, a belief that they can succeed. I tell the teachers here all
the time, ―If you don‘t believe that the kids can‘t do it, they won‘t. So even
if they believe but you don‘t believe it, more than likely they won‘t do it.‖ I
think that the belief in the children, no matter where they come from, no
matter if their parents can‘t speak English, no matter if they didn‘t eat last
95
night, no matter if the parents don‘t read with them at home . . . . And then
creating an environment where kids want to be.
We talk about the three R‘s a lot, rigor, relevance and relationships. I tell
them, out of those three R‘s, relationships to me is the first, because if you
don‘t have a relationship with the students, the rigor won‘t come and neither
will the relevance.
When probed about whether mentoring helped her to attain that belief
system or how mentoring has helped her to arrive at that thinking, she stated,
I won‘t say mentoring has given me that belief; it has helped to hone it. My
mentor is a seasoned veteran, not only with [the district] but with Edison,
and she gives me a lot of insight on all different aspects of leadership.
When asked how the school‘s vision is incorporated into the daily school
operation of the school, in terms of success for all students, Ms. Boyer explained,
We do announcements for the kids, announcements for the teachers during
Morning Ceremony, because my belief is that there should be no instruc-
tional interruption. Once instruction starts, it shouldn‘t be ―excuse the
interruption‖ on the intercom, I absolutely hate that. If the teacher‘s job is to
be in there instructing and teaching, then my job is to make sure that they‘re
not interrupted, and that‘s a big thing.
After morning ceremonies are over, all the kids go to their home rooms to
their morning meetings with their homeroom teacher, and then we switch
for SFA, which is a 90-minute block of uninterrupted reading time. My
whole belief is that instruction time is instruction time, and our mission and
goal here is to create life-long learners.
When asked to identify ways in which high expectations for students are
communicated, Ms. Boyer answered,
The students know our core values. Also, right before we conclude Morning
Ceremony, we say our Code of Conduct every day. That code of conduct is
the conduct that students are to live by: I will respect myself, respect all
adults, respect fellow students, respect our building. The high expectations
for that are very much communicated on a daily basis to the students.
Academic wise, the students are pushing toward a goal. We take bench-
marks every month and the students set a goal for themselves. They know
that our schoolwide goal is to be exemplary. We were high achieving last
year, and the goal this year is to be exemplary, and the students and teachers
know that. But each individual student has their goal.
96
So it‘s the kids that are verbalizing what their goal is. The idea of high
expectations for academics is within each classroom and each student; they
know that the schoolwide goal is to be exemplary and they know what we
need to do in order to achieve it.
With regard to what is meant by ―schoolwide goal to be exemplary‖ and
whether that meant reaching a certain proficiency level, Ms. Boyer answered,
Yes, for AYP, we were high achieving. We moved more students off of the
nonproficiency side to proficiency in math and—well, in math we blew it
out of the water, and we were able to achieve reading AYP in every sub-
category without the confidence interval, except for one subgroup and that
was our LEP students. So the goal is to reach AYP without the confidence
interval, and move more students over to proficiency.
When asked how she has promoted a school culture that facilitates growth
for faculty, Ms. Boyer answered,
It‘s more so in the Edison design. I can‘t take full credit for it, it‘s more so
in the Edison design. We have a lead teacher for every grade level . . . . We
meet once a week, Monday after school, and everything we talk about is
about the school goals, what needs to be done. Any professional develop-
ment comes through lead teams.
When asked what new conditions had been set forth at the school, in terms
of weekly newsletters to the staff and how lead team meetings are run, and whether
mentoring played a role in Ms. Boyer reshaping those meetings, she reported,
Yes, I would have to say it has. Because just hearing my mentor talk about
the communication that she puts forth for her staff—and it wasn‘t in a
newsletter—she says that she makes sure that they‘re aware of everything.
And she says, ―Because then that way they [teachers] can make some
professional decisions on their own with the information.‖
When asked what teaching strategies teachers had incorporated into their
daily lessons as a result of Ms. Boyer‘s leadership this year, she stated,
The RTI [Response to Intervention] model. Being an Edison School, a lot of
the stuff that the district is doing sometimes doesn‘t trickle down. Having
been at a school that was not Edison, I have the expertise on that side . . . .
We‘ve been talking a lot about Marzano‘s Nine High-Yield Strategies, so
you‘ll see that, too.
97
Along the lines of introducing new instructional strategies, Ms. Boyer
reported that she had helped to implement a professional book study for the first
time at Richmond School.
We were given some professional development monies by our region. It
was $10,000 but it had to be used for professional development. ―I have a
lot of experts right here on staff, why not take the expertise that they have
and we can share.‖ . . . I must admit, I chose the books, but all the books
have something to do with an aspect from our school improvement plan.
In fact, the decision for the book club was made after Ms. Boyer spoke to her
mentor regarding the use of Title I funding.
I had done book studies in the secondary arena as an administrator, so I had
that in my head, but I never really thought about doing it here. It was
through a conversation that I had with my mentor, because we‘re a Title I
school, and she‘s also at a Title I school, and her region also gave this
professional development money.
In addressing teacher needs and professional development at Richmond
School, Ms. Boyer explained aligning the needs of the staff to their SIP.
Tomorrow is our schoolwide school district staff development and we‘re
doing Kagan higher-order thinking skills, and that‘s totally from our SIP
and totally from what teachers said that they still needed professional
development on. Every day, teachers get professional development.
When asked in what ways she fostered collaboration with diverse families
and the outside community to promote student success, Ms. Boyer identified direct
input and involvement from surrounding businesses and partnerships that she has
created with them during the school year. When probed concerning the role that
mentoring had played in this aspect, she stated,
My mentor is great about ideas. She‘s full of them because she‘s a seasoned
vet; she‘s been there and done that. . . . She gives me a lot of insight on how
to tap into those resources that are outside of the school. She also gives me
great ideas on how to approach my staff with ideas that may not be the
popular idea.
98
Moreover, Ms. Boyer further discussed integral ways that mentoring had
assisted her in reflecting on encounters that she had faced as a first-year principal:
She [mentor] was instrumental on me starting a journal. She said, ―You
should probably start just writing down everything that you‘ve encountered
as a first-year principal, so you can reflect on it later.‖
I can go back through my journal and say, ―How did I take care of that
situation?‖ And then I think back and go, ―That‘s what I did,‖ or ―That
didn‘t go to well. I did it this way, so I‘ll make sure next time I won‘t go
that way.‖ She was very instrumental in my starting my journal. I talk to her
every Tuesday. I call her after school every Tuesday, and the first topic of
our conversation is, ―How‘s the journaling going?‖
Ms. Boyer shared her experiences and the benefits of working with a
mentor when asked to elaborate on the mentoring process. Specifically, she
discussed the guidance and assistance that she received in handling personnel
matters.
I had a little rocky start with my AP [Assistant Principal] and I talked to her
[mentor] about it. She said, ―This is what I did,‖ with her AP. And she gave
me other suggestions, ―You should do this. Maybe you should try this.‖ So
she gave me a variety of things.
She has really helped me to deal with those issues in a very hands-on type
of manner. I sat with her. She‘s actually gone over and helped me script
what I would say to my AP or what I would say to my office manager.
Another circumstance involved dealing with a teacher and the role that Ms.
Boyer‘s mentor had played in helping her to work through a legal process that
involved knowledge of the teacher contract and district guidelines.
I‘m going through a situation with one of my first-grade teachers at this
time—a situation that needs to be corrected: he really shouldn‘t be in a
classroom. But with contract and all that, it‘s very difficult. But as the
instructional leader, I have to step up and say, ―No more.‖ . . . there‘s going
to be a change where I‘m dispersing his class into the other first-grade
classrooms, and he‘s going to be doing some observations and some writing
down and taking notes.
Actually, my mentor kind of helped me work out what I could do and still
be within the contract. So she helped me on that point—with the disperse-
ments.
99
Ms. Boyer added that working with a mentor who shared a wealth of
knowledge with her proved fundamental in her learning experience. She was able
learn from her mentor‘s past trials and tribulations.
It‘s been a tremendous help for me. She‘s [mentor] a seasoned veteran, so
she‘s been there, done that. She‘s helped cut a lot of red tape for me, a lot of
trial and error. ―You might want to try this and this is what happened when
I did it.‖ It‘s been great. It‘s been one of those things that I didn‘t have to
learn on my own.
It worked out because of her experience and her going through it and then
giving me that guidance of saying, ―Don‘t do it like that. I tried it that way
and this was the outcome, so you don‘t want to go that way.‖
When asked how mentoring had provided her the skills to promote equal
access and opportunities for all students, Ms. Boyer replied,
Again, my mentor, just her knowledge and her ideas. Our weekly talks do a
great deal for me. Sometimes they‘re 15 minutes, sometimes they‘re 2
hours; it just depends on what has gone on the week prior since our con-
versation. The whole mentoring thing has really helped to broaden my
horizon on how to do some of these things that I know are very important to
do, but how do you go about doing that?
Ms. Boyer emphasized the influential role that her mentored had played in
her leadership position thus far:
So far it‘s [mentoring] been good. At the beginning, I was a little appre-
hensive about it because, being new and having someone who was not—
she‘s my colleague and then my mentor—I felt this was going to be kind of
a sticky situation. But it really hasn‘t. It‘s been very helpful, very beneficial,
very enlightening. I‘ve learned about her as a person and as a leader. She‘s
helped me through some things.
Ms. Boyer elaborated that the mentor had given her encouragement to
believe in herself and in her actions to continue the work.
She [mentor] will say, ―That‘s what I would do,‖ and she says, ―You know
you have it.‖ That really helps to affirm that I really do know what I‘m
doing and I‘m not just flying by the seat of my pants. I really try to think
things out and try to be proactive and not reactive to things.
100
Ms. Boyer expressed how mentoring had helped to alleviate pressures
related to the job:
I‘m glad, in retrospect, that I was afforded the opportunity to have a mentor
because, even though I‘ve been in administration, going into the principal-
ship was another leap. . . . But the buck stops here and I have to make those
decisions; sometimes they‘re not fun decisions, but I have to make them. So
having a mentor to run things through and just get her ideas has just been a
tremendous help for me. It‘s taken a lot of stress off my back, I appreciate
it.
Teacher Interview Data
Four Richmond School teachers were interviewed once in spring 2009 after
Ms. Boyer had worked with her mentor for about 6 months. Each interview lasted
35 minutes. These four teachers represented varied teaching experience as a class-
room teacher. (Pseudonyms have been used to protect the privacy of teacher parti-
cipants.) Ms. Sanders had been teaching for about 20 years, of which 15 had been
at Richmond School (as fourth-grade teacher and Title I Coordinator). Ms. Jacobs
was in her first year of teaching the second grade. Ms. Lee was in her third year of
teaching fifth grade. Ms. Pryor had been teaching kindergarten for over 40 years.
When asked, ―Do you know if your principal is participating in a principal
mentoring program?‖ Ms. Sanders, Ms. Pryor, and Ms. Lee stated that they were
aware of the principal‘s participation in EdisonLearning mentoring program.
However, Ms. Jacobs was not aware that the principal was being mentored. When
the three teachers were asked to share what they knew about the EdisonLearning
mentoring program, Ms. Sanders, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Pryor stated that they did not
know much about the mentoring program.
I really don‘t have a lot of information, other than I believe they [Edison-
Learning principals] have a meeting once a month and [principal] has
access to people in New York, so that she can ask questions. They give and
take and they get a lot of ideas and funding, and ideas and resources and
101
stuff like that. Ideally, what‘s supposed to happen with Edison is that, if
something is happening at one school that‘s supposed to be shared with
another one, teachers and administrators can go to schools and observe.
(Ms. Sanders)
When asked whether they had noticed a change or difference in Ms.
Boyer‘s leadership from the beginning of the school year until spring 2009, Ms.
Sanders, Ms. Pryor, and Ms. Jacobs shared that they observed some change in Ms.
Boyer‘s leadership practice.
This is her first year as a principal and I think she—my perception is that
she‘s using this time to observe and next year work out a lot more changes.
She makes little changes. I‘ve been impressed that she‘ll say—there will be
things that we don‘t want to do and she‘ll say, ―Try it. We‘ll try it, if it
doesn‘t work, we won‘t do it again. Try it, encompass it, embrace it with an
open mind, and then we‘ll come back and reevaluate,‖ . . . I‘m really
impressed with her. She‘s been doing that pretty much all year.
As I said, she‘s doing everything that we‘re already doing, and she hasn‘t
made any big changes in that areas. But it‘s also like our staff teaching her
what we‘ve done in the past because we were a high-achieving school last
year and we‘ve been named a distinct school with Title I.
I see that she‘s stepped more into being a little more authoritative. I don‘t
think she was—she wasn‘t at the beginning. I think she was kind of sitting
back and watching the way of the land and getting the feel for the staff and
knowing her staff and the dynamics of the group. (Ms. Sanders)
Ms. Lee stated that it was ―too early to say‖ regarding change in the princi-
pal‘s leadership practice since the beginning of the school year.
When asked, ―What has your principal done to promote the success of all
students?‖ the teachers made the following responses.
She‘s doing everything that we‘re already doing, and she hasn‘t made any
big changes in that areas. But it‘s also like our staff teaching her what we‘ve
done in the past because we were a high-achieving school last year and
we‘ve been named a distinct school with Title I. I think she‘s running under
the ―why fix it if it‘s not broken?‖ kind of deal. (Ms. Sanders)
She makes sure that we are going to our professional developments and
she‘s really focused on making sure that we‘re going and getting the most
out of it. She started a book study for staff to do, so we participated in read-
ing chapters from a professional development book and coming together
and collaborating. (Ms. Lee)
102
I think she‘s really stepping out, like public speaker about the importance of
taking care of the students, especially the Edison students‘ low income.
She‘s advertising more our program outside . . . this is our third year that we
made our AYP and that means a lot, and she knows that she has a big
responsibility on her shoulders. (Ms. Pryor)
I think by communicating the professional developments—whenever we
have professional developments on campus, she comes in sometimes and
gives her input on whatever skill we‘re talking about or, if there‘s some
areas that we could improve upon, as far as benchmarks, making sure that
all students are participating, and aligning whatever you‘re teaching with—
like I said, the weekly focus skills or making sure the kids understand the
monthly core values. (Ms. Jacobs)
The four teachers provided valuable information regarding Ms. Boyer‘s
leadership role in promoting professional development for faculty. Every teacher
discussed the professional book study that was being implemented for the first time
this year.
She‘s [Ms. Boyer] having us do like different staff development days and
doing things that haven‘t normally been done, which has been uncomfort-
able for some people. For example, we did a schoolwide book study and we
did our first phase of that last Friday and then we‘ll do it again next Friday.
(Ms. Sanders)
The book study that our principal has introduced—at first everyone was,
―Ugh,‖ but now that we‘re actually going through it and each person is
discussing their chapters. I‘m finding things that I can still use in the class-
room as far as—like the Bloom‘s taxonomy, just different ways to teach
things. (Ms. Jacobs)
The teachers described how the principal communicated the school‘s vision.
Definitely through the SIP Plan. We all received a—we had a time where
we met as a grade level and talked about the SIP. So the SIP Plan, we had it
there and we had to read it out and see if there‘s anything we can change or
modify. And if not, what would we do? So, she made it aware that she‘s
very—the SIP Plan is very important to her and we want to meet those
goals, and it goes to the book study and goes directly back to the SIP Plan.
(Ms. Lee)
We have our mission statement and everything, and she reiterates that. At
the beginning at every staff meeting, she‘ll come back and she‘ll talk
about—she‘s a very inspirational speaker. She has a lot of emotion and
conviction and sincerity in her voice. She gives us little pep talks at the
beginning of every staff meeting, and we have staff meetings once a month.
(Ms. Sanders)
103
How she approach to you; how she mention things to the children. Since
she‘s been our principal, our mornings are more like alive. . . . I think for
her we are very important, because we are doing this SIP Plan now, and all
of us are working in the SIP Plan. And she really reads and she has meet-
ings with the leads, and the leads talk to us. (Ms. Pryor)
Analysis of the Data
In order to answer the question, How does working with an EdisonLearning
mentor affect the leadership practices of an urban school principal? it was import-
ant first to understand the foundations of effective leadership practice. The concep-
tual framework of learning-centered leadership (Murphy et al., 2006) and the
EdisonLearning leadership framework of five leadership roles (instructional leader,
organizational leader, culture builder, site manager, and Edison Schools Executive;
Edison Schools, 2007) provided the lenses through which the data collected for
research question 1 were analyzed. The two frameworks closely aligned and corre-
sponded to each of their core concepts, such as key behaviors and practices of
successful school leaders. For example, each framework highlighted successful
principals as those who focused on (a) high expectations for student learning,
(b) clear vision for student achievement, (c) instructional time, (d) professional
development opportunities, (e) parent engagement, and (f) safe and orderly learning
environment (Edison Schools; Murphy et al., 2006).
In order to analyze the data, a support structure such as mentoring was
utilized. As researchers Davis et al. (2005) and Daresh (2004) emphasized, a
support structure such as mentoring is critical for the success of new leaders. The
ELPMP is one type of program that aims to support novice school principals. This
particular program is research based and outlines clear program goals and object-
ives (Edison Schools, 2007). The components of the program, such as one-to-one
support, goal setting, and implementation of Weekly Collaborative Planning Tool,
104
promotes the development of learning-centered leadership practices by the novice
school principal aligned directly to the five leadership roles expected of Edison-
Learning principals. According to EdisonLearning Schools, mentors act as guides
to facilitate the protégé‘s learning. They provide ongoing feedback and coaching to
build the new leader‘ knowledge and skills (Edison Schools, 2007).
In analyzing how working with a mentor affected the leadership practices of
one urban school principal, it was concluded that the mentor provided (a) guidance
and direction, (b) assistance with problem-solving strategies, and (c) support in
developing technical knowledge and skills. With these support measures in place,
the leadership practices of Ms. Boyer, the novice school principal, demonstrated
key characteristics of learning-centered behaviors and the five leadership roles of
EdisonLearning principals.
Guidance and Direction
By working closely with a mentor, Ms. Boyer was guided in her enactment
of effective leadership practices as a learning-centered leader. For example, after a
weekly discussion with her mentor, Ms. Boyer exerted strong instructional leader-
ship by implementing a book study for teachers and offering professional develop-
ment opportunities to address higher-order thinking. The resulting consensus from
the teachers was that they found the book study engaging and helpful in classroom
practice. In fact, Ms. Sanders noted that she had benefited greatly from the dis-
cussions with colleagues during the book study. She explained that she immedi-
ately utilized instructional strategies that she had learned from her reading: ―I am
going to incorporate the author‘s purpose that we read about in the story on our day
one in introducing. That was really a good outcome.‖
105
The principal, as the learning-centered leader, consistently expressed high
expectations for students at staff meetings and the Morning Ceremony. This was
articulated in the interviews with the principal and the four teachers. Specifically,
when the teachers were asked, ―In your opinion, does your principal hold high
expectations for students and teachers?‖ Ms. Sanders firmly stated, ―Yes, she sets
goals and she‘s very pointed.‖ Ms. Lee also answered, ―Yes.‖ Ms. Jacobs
responded, ―I think so . . . she makes sure we are on target.‖ Ms. Pryor responded,
―Yes, you can see . . . it‘s in her attitude.‖ This conclusion was supported by the
VAL-ED survey results, in that Ms. Boyer had achieved a pre-intervention
Proficient rating and a post-intervention Distinguished rating in the area of High
Standards for Student Learning. She demonstrated an overall growth in her per-
formance level. As she stated during the interview, she was committed to being an
instructional leader by providing teachers with immediate feedback after classroom
observations.
When I go in to observe a lesson or a period of time, I give immediate
feedback to the teacher. . . . One thing that I‘ve been very cognizant of in
my approach to the supervisor role is that I think a coach first. So after
observing the teacher‘s class, I make time for that teacher to come and sit
down and talk with me about the observation.
This aligned with being an instructional leader according to the framework
of learning-centered leadership and the leadership framework of EdisonLearning.
Ms. Boyer understood that teachers were ―keystones of quality education‖ (Murphy
et al., 2006, p. 11) and demonstrated this understanding by cultivating in-house
experts. She accomplished this by fostering a professional learning community
through ongoing encouragement and support of teacher learning.
Any time a teacher comes to me and says, ―I‘m thinking about taking this
class, would that be okay?‖ I support it. I‘m a total believer in broadening
106
your horizons and learning, so very much supportive of professional
development for all my teachers, and also trying to get it here.
The principal was the driving force behind the implementation of the
professional book study at Richmond School. This was communicated in the
interview when she shared how she had made the decision to spend the Title I
funding.
I‘m going to give you another example of some of my ideas I‘ve brought
from the secondary realm down to elementary and it was out of the norm.
. . . I said, ―Let‘s take some of this [Title I] money and do a book study.‖
. . . I chose the books, but all the books have something to do with an aspect
from our school improvement plan.
In short, by introducing and encouraging new professional development
opportunities for teachers, such as the book study, Ms. Boyer exemplified instruc-
tional and transformational aspects of effective learning-centered leadership prac-
tices. These were strong indications of a learning-centered leader who demon-
strated a deep commitment to improving the core technology of teaching and
learning (Murphy et al., 2006).
As Ms. Lee shared, the principal ensured that the SIP remained an integral
part of the school‘s everyday language. The principal maintained a clear focus on
student learning and carefully monitored student data, which aligned to key core
components of the learning-centered leadership framework. For example, the
principal explained during the interview that, after examining students‘ low test
scores in the area of critical thinking, she brought in professional development
using Kagan‘s higher-order thinking and questioning.
I talked to my third-grade team and said, ―Let‘s look at the SIP, let‘s look at
the school improvements. What area in there do we still need professional
development on?‖
As she stated earlier, the professional development needs were aligned to
the SIP:
107
Tomorrow is our schoolwide school district staff development and we‘re
doing Kagan higher-order thinking skills, and that‘s totally from our SIP
and totally from what teachers said that they still needed professional
development on.
These behaviors exemplified successful practices of an Instructional Leader
and Organizational Leader according to the leadership framework of the Whole
School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007). The EdisonLearning Whole
School Design provided critical information regarding EdisonLearning schools‘
emphasis on professional learning of teachers and school leaders.
Working with a mentor, Ms. Boyer extended her focus outside the school
setting by engaging with the external community to benefit the lives of her students
and their families. She discussed during the interview that her mentor was ―great
about ideas‖ and that the mentor provided ―a lot of insight on how to tap into those
resources that are outside of the school.‖ As a result, Ms. Boyer built partnerships
with local businesses to acquire incentives for Richmond School students. Specific-
ally, the mentor shared the idea of approaching nearby businesses to help meet
school needs. This particular idea directly influenced the principal‘s leadership
practice.
We have so many businesses right around our area here and we can
definitely cash in, so to speak, on what they have to offer. Some just say,
―We don‘t have anyone to come over and talk, but we‘ll give you a $25 gift
certificate.‖ So we do little raffles with the parents and that‘s fine, too. Each
month they‘ll give us a gift card to give out to our parents.
Working with a mentor enabled Ms. Boyer to exercise successful behaviors
and practices of learning-centered leadership to meet the needs of her school com-
munity. The mentor provided Ms. Boyer with guidance and direction by sharing
new ways of approaching work as a change agent with the external community.
This conclusion was supported by Ms. Sanders and Ms. Pryor, who discussed that
Ms. Boyer had demonstrated a positive leadership practice thus far. Specifically,
108
during the interview Ms. Sanders stated that she was impressed with Ms. Boyer‘s
approach in encouraging teachers to ―try‖ new things. She shared, ―I‘ve been
impressed that she‘ll say, ‗Try it, embrace it with an open mind,‘ and then we‘ll
come back and reevaluate.‖ Ms. Pryor noted that Ms. Boyer was ―more involved‖
in her leadership role since the beginning of the school year.
As the principal worked with a mentor, she demonstrated skills as
Instructional Leader, Organizational Leader and Culture Builder. For example, she
ensured academic excellence by protecting students‘ instructional time and con-
sistently promoted instructional growth of teachers. During the interview, Ms.
Boyer stated, ―Simply because the philosophy here is a noninterrupting instruc-
tional time . . . you won‘t hear people on the intercom all throughout the day.‖ This
was supported by the results of the online VAL-ED surveys. Specifically, Ms.
Boyer achieved a pre-intervention rating of Proficient and a post-intervention rating
of Distinguished in the areas of Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior
(core component) by advocating (key process) for a school environment that
focused on student learning. She demonstrated an overall growth in her perform-
ance level. Furthermore, based on the field observation of Ms. Boyer‘s interactions
with various stakeholders, it was clear that she had established a great rapport and
relationships with the members of the school community. For example, she was
upbeat and positive when greeting and interacting with teachers, students, and
parents. Similarly, teachers and students warmly greeted and addressed the princi-
pal as she walked around the campus. She knew many of the students by first name,
and acknowledged individual students as she walked around the lunch area. It was
evident that Ms. Boyer displayed skills as a Culture Builder by creating meaningful
109
relationships with members of the school community. She stated during the inter-
view that she worked closely and collaboratively with the lead team members.
Any issues—I mean from the whole spectrum—from curriculum issues,
school issues, children issues, parent issues, procedural issues, all of that is
discussed and brought to lead team and we meet every Monday evening at
4:00 for about an hour. Each lead teacher can bring issues from their grade
level to discuss, [even that the] grade level wants to go on a field trip during
SFA, which is a very sacred time.
Ms. Boyer shared during the interview that ―relationship to me is the first‖
in ensuring a successful learning environment for students.
The contents of the Principal‘s Weekly Bulletin demonstrated Ms. Boyer‘s
openness and her positive approach to building relationships with the staff. For
instance, she remained transparent about her schedule and maintained open com-
munication with the staff. She accomplished this by noting in the Bulletin the days
she was off campus for meetings in a section called ―Principal‘s Schedule.‖ She
started a section called ―Staff Spotlight‖ that highlighted individual teachers for
their personal and professional accomplishments, writing comments such as ―Wow,
Mrs. Heath!!! Thanks for all you do for our little ones and beyond!‖
Mentoring was vital in encouraging Ms. Boyer to reflect on her own leader-
ship practice and experience through journal writing. She stated during the inter-
view that her mentor was ―instrumental‖ in her starting a journal to write down
―everything‖ she ―encountered as a first-year principal‖ so that she could ―reflect
on it later.‖ According to Ms. Boyer, the mentoring experience provided necessary
support in affirming her work.
I just thought she [mentor] was going to be kind of a sounding board or
someone I could call if I needed resources or if I needed a question
answered or what have you, but she‘s been so much more than that.
110
Overall, it was concluded from the principal interview that the mentor
provided encouragement, emotional support, and reassurance that Ms. Boyer
needed to survive the first year as a principal and to guide her through stressful
situations that new principals face.
Having a mentor to run things through and just get her ideas, it‘s just been a
tremendous help for me. It‘s taken a lot of stress off my back, I appreciate
it.
The principal expressed that the mentor had given her support to believe in herself
and in her actions to continue the work.
She [mentor] will say, ―That‘s what I would do.‖ And she says, ―You know
you have it.‖ That really helps affirm that I really do know what I‘m doing
and I‘m not just flying by the seat of my pants. I really try to think things
out and try to be proactive and not reactive to things.
Ultimately, the guidance and direction received from the mentor influenced
Ms. Boyer‘s leadership practice in addressing managerial and instructional aspects
of the job. As a result, she was able to focus on her role as instructional leader and
organizational leader and culture builder in accordance with the expectations laid
out in the EdisonLearning leadership framework. The most critical piece in the
success of the mentoring experience for Ms. Boyer was that she and her mentor
were colleagues as EdisonLearning school principals in the same district.
I feel like having a mentor who is the same type of position I‘m in—she‘s a
partnership school with Edison and [the district]—we share commonalities,
you know. So she‘s able to help guide me through that. Whereas, if I had a
mentor that was not an Edison School, it would be difficult for that person
to understand what I‘m talking about and what I‘m going through and
different things. As Edison principals, we see each other every month
anyway, but it‘s all about Edison business. But we try to get together every
other month for our face-to-face mentor meeting.
111
Assistance With Problem-Solving
Strategies
It appeared that managing conflicts was a major aspect of the principalship
that involved the protégé honing her problem-solving skills. The mentor provided
the reassurance that Ms. Boyer needed to guide her through challenging personnel
matters. Specifically, in addressing assistance with problem-solving strategies, the
mentor guided Ms. Boyer in the process of handling issues with the assistant princi-
pal. As she shared during the interview, the mentor assisted Ms. Boyer ―in a very
hands-on type of manner‖ and went as far as helping the principal write a ―script‖
to address her assistant principal. Moreover, during the interview, Ms. Boyer
shared that the mentor assisted her in a case with a teacher about whom she had
major concerns. In fact, the mentor helped Ms. Boyer through the process of
documentation to ensure that all necessary steps were taken to address matters
related to the teacher‘s contract.
My mentor just said, ―This is what you need to do, because it sounds like
it‘s going to go to a disciplinary thing, so this is what you need to do.‖
She‘s helped me tremendously on that, and making sure that I—the type of
documentation that I do, it‘s not sounding like its disciplinary; it‘s sounding
like it‘s on the helping side of it.
Support in Developing Technical
Knowledge and Skills
As a new EdisonLearning school principal, it was important for Ms. Boyer
to learn various aspects of the EdisonLearning Schools design. She set concrete
goals for herself in which she sought the help of her mentor. With regard to the role
that the mentor took in supporting her leadership position, Ms. Boyer explained
that the mentor was valuable in helping her understand some technical knowledge
and skills of managing an EdisonLearning school.
112
She‘s been an Edison principal for 6 years, I believe, so she has a lot of
tricks in her bag and she has a lot of knowledge of the Edison design, which
I don‘t have. So she helps me with that.
The mentor assisted Ms. Boyer not only in developing technical knowledge and
skills of the EdisonLearning school design but also in the supervisory role in
addressing the personnel matters noted above.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
Research question 1 focused on the impact of working with an Edison-
Learning mentor on one urban principal leader‘s practice. The findings indicated
three major themes: guidance and support, assistance with problem solving, and
developing technical knowledge and skills that emerged from the mentor/protégé
relationship and had an impact on leadership practice. In effect, the mentor helped
the principal to navigate the challenges of leading an urban school by providing
appropriate and necessary assistance. This ultimately had a positive influence on
the protégé‘s leadership practice. It was evident that the mentor guided the princi-
pal through some tedious aspects of managing a school, especially in handling
personnel matters. More important, the mentor affirmed the protégé‘s work and
helped her to reflect by listening and serving as a sounding board. This encourage-
ment provided the protégé with the emotional support needed to survive the first
year as a principal.
The EdisonLearning Schools design provided the foundation for the mentor
model that proved to be valuable for the principal. Inherent in the EdisonLearning
Schools design were opportunities for mentors and protégés to come together and
collaborate. This motivated and influenced the principal‘s work in furthering the
school‘s mission.
113
I‘m trying to learn a whole new design concept. She‘s just been marvelous
with that and helping me to understand, and to intertwine them together, so
it doesn‘t seem like I‘m doing double duty. Because sometimes the district
wants items and sometimes Edison wants items from us. So she has really
shown me how to make it work for me, which I don‘t think I would have
gotten that without having a mentor. I would have been one of those ones
doing double duty. (Ms. Boyer)
The fact that Ms. Boyer‘s mentor was part of the same school district
enhanced the mentoring experience for the protégé. While being in a leadership
position can be a lonely place, having a mentor and peer with whom to collaborate
and on whom to depend helped the protégé to grow as a leader and as a person. The
ideas and the support structure provided by the mentor proved vital in the Ms.
Boyer‘s desire to continue in her work and to stay the course in improving student
achievement.
Findings to Address Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, What organizational structures support the
implementation of the mentor/protégé model?
Data Collection Instruments
The primary data collected to address this research question were provided
by the previously described pre- and post-intervention interviews conducted with
the principal. A 30-minute interview with the Executive Director of EdisonLearn-
ing was also conducted. A questionnaire was sent to two EdisonLearning mentors
to collect data regarding organizational structures that supported the implementa-
tion of the mentoring model. Information pertaining to the mentor training and
tools was obtained from the Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools,
2007).
114
Report of the Data
Interview: EdisonLearning
Executive Director
A 30-minute telephone interview with the Executive Director of
EdisonLearning was conducted in fall 2008 to gather information about the
mentoring program, ELPMP. Notes were taken and recorded in a journal.
In order to assist new (i.e., first-year) principals in meeting the expectations
outlined in the leadership framework, EdisonLearning provides a mentoring pro-
gram (the ELPMP) aligned with the Whole School Design model described in
chapter 3. In response to the question, ―How do you prepare Edison Mentors to
support school principals?‖ the Executive Director stated that the ELPMP prepares
mentors to assist protégés; ―It is based on research and literature on mentoring and
successful strategies for new principals.‖
One of the prominent characteristics of ELPMP was its mandate for weekly
communication and opportunities for reflection between Ms. McKay (the mentor)
and Ms. Boyer, the protégé and new principal (Edison Schools, 2007). Weekly
goals were determined collaboratively whereby action plans and strategies for
implementation were developed. The Executive Director discussed her answer to
the following question, ―How does EdisonLearning provide/ensure time for weekly
meetings between the protégé and mentor?‖
Time for weekly meetings is dependent on Mentor Principals and Protégé
Principals to maintain and schedule each week. We rely on the program
participants upholding the requirements of the MOU [Memorandum of
Understanding], weekly meetings being one of them.
The mentor elaborated on the in-depth nature of the meetings:
One of the conditions of participation in this program is an understanding
and commitment to time for ongoing meetings. This was evident when
mentors and protégés meet once per month by phone, usually that last about
115
an hour. The meetings are determined by the mentor and protégé. They may
meet more as needed and can also have meetings via email. The protégés
and mentors meet face to face five times a year and the mentor visits the
protégé and the protégé‘s school as well. They are also required to turn in
logs.
Questionnaire: EdisonLearning
Mentors
Two current EdisonLearning Mentors, Ms. McKay and Ms. Beaudet,
provided information about the ELPMP in response to a questionnaire administered
via email for the purposes of this study in fall 2008. Both mentors responded to the
same four questions.
When asked, ―How did the mentor training prepare you for your role as a
mentor?‖ Ms. McKay, who worked with Ms. Boyer, described her preparation:
The mentor training prepared me for my role as a mentor by giving me
specific knowledge of the mentoring process, the roles of a mentor, and the
needs my protégé would most likely have during the process. Topics that I
found most helpful were Stages of Mentoring, Four Roles of a Mentor,
Needs of Novice Principals, and Socialization Phases of Novice Principals.
In addition, the training included developing an entry plan and identifying
short- and long-term goals for the growth of the protégé.
Similarly, Ms. Beaudet (who worked with another protégé) explained the
importance of the training program in preparing for her role as a mentor.
The program helped me to understand the various stages that a first-year
principal goes through. It helped me to understand how to appropriately
interact with my protégé and how to coach through the use of questioning
rather than by offering advice. It also helped me to understand when it is
appropriate to give advice and when it is not.
As previously discussed, the purpose of ELPMP training is to provide the
mentors with the knowledge and tools to guide protégés to achieve their goals. The
mentors were asked, ―Do you feel that the training provided you with the knowl-
edge and tools to support your protégé and if so, in what ways?‖
Ms. McKay stated,
116
The training prepared me to be a better mentor to my protégé by giving me
the background knowledge of the mentoring process and what to expect.
The organizational structure also provides a framework for the process so it
can be geared toward the goals of the protégé.
However, Ms. Beaudet stated that the program did not fully address all level of
support required in assisting new principals who were already encountering
pressure.
[The training] helped me to understand how to work with my protégé but I
still struggled sometimes with feeling like I was causing more of an undue
stress on the principal on top of everything else she had to do. That is one
area that I continually struggle: appropriately supporting her without being
a burden.
When asked, ―What organizational structures (such as time, documents,
etc.) support the implementation of the mentor model?‖ Ms. McKay stated that
―setting a weekly contact time, scheduling contacts and meetings for the following
month‖ supported the mentoring model.
According to the ELPMP, the mentor takes on the role of teacher, advisor,
coach, and feedback provider to support the novice school leader in the areas of
technical expertise, role clarification, and socialization (Edison Schools, 2007). As
was evident in the responses to the first interview question, the mentor carried out
these various functions and roles to support the protégé. The mentor acted as the
listener, collaborator, and consultant. Subsequently, the relationship that developed
between the mentor and protégé was reported to be fundamental to the mentoring
process. In fact, when asked to ―describe the relationship between you and your
protégé,‖ Ms. Beaudet stated, ―The relationship is at the heart of the work that the
mentor and protégé do together and is critical to the success of the mentoring.‖
According to Ms. McKay,
The relationship provides the foundation for meeting the goals of the
protégé. When the protégé can ask for assistance, advice, or feedback from
117
a mentor in an environment of trust, the mentor-protégé relationship can
flourish.
The relationship between my protégé and myself is best described as a
supportive relationship based on trust. My protégé has been very open and
willing to participate in the model and seems to regard it as an additional
resource available to support her in her first year as an Edison principal. As
a mentor, I also learn from my protégé.
Ms. Beaudet shared her experience with the protégé:
I think once the trust level is established and built, then the goals of the
principal can begin to be addressed. Trust is critical for being able to really
open up and admit where you are at and what you need to work on.
Principal Interview: Post-
Intervention Data
Ms. Boyer, the new Richmond School principal, was asked, ―What type
of structures support the implementation of Edison mentoring, such as time or
relationship?‖
It affords itself very well, because along with being a partnership school, we
have our [district] staff development days and then we also have [school]
half days where the kids leave for the half day and we‘re able to do some-
thing as a staff. I‘m also able to have that time to meet with my mentor or
talk to her.
But, with it being a long day for her, as well as myself, we just kind of
make that time, saying, ―Every Tuesday at 4:00, I‘m going to call you.‖ I sit
here in my office for . . . 15 minutes to 2 hours; we‘ll talk about anything
that‘s pressing with me, any questions that I may have that she can help me
with.
When asked, ―How is time structured for mentoring to take place?‖ Ms.
Boyer responded,
We just decided that Tuesday was a good day for both of us. Actually, my
school gets out later then hers; she gets out at 3:30 and we don‘t get out
until 3:45, so that gives me time to clear the campus, get back into the office
and give her a call when she‘s been out for 30 minutes. She devotes that
time to wait for my call and then I call her. We just kind of structured it
ourselves.
118
When asked, ―What does mentoring look like for you? Do you use collabor-
ative planning tools?‖ Ms. Boyer answered,
Yes. We have a tool that we discuss and we go through those. You know
what issues are you having, what ideas you had, the ideas that your mentor
gave you and then what we‘ll talk about the next time that we talk. So she
gives me ideas to try and I try those ideas. And the next time we talk, that‘s
the first topic of discussion, ―Okay, I tried doing that and this is how it
worked. It either resolved itself or it didn‘t.‖ And then, she‘ll give me other
ideas or other suggestions. . . . I keep them in my mentoring notebook and
then we have logs. So we log the times that we‘ve met and talked, and we
turn those logs in on a monthly basis.
When asked whether the tool was effective, Ms. Boyer replied,
Yes, it helps keep me focused. Sometimes, when I don‘t have an issue to
discuss with her, there‘s always other things that—she‘s given me articles
to read and then we discuss those articles and the implementation and what
I think it means to me and how it pertains to what I‘m going through at the
time.
I‘ve even talked to her about books that I‘m reading, like the Crucial
Conversations book and the Crucial Confrontation book that I‘m reading.
She was very intrigued with that—and The One-Minute Manager, I talked
with her about that. When it‘s not an issue that she can help me with, it‘s
really very much colleague to colleague and just talking about different
things.
When asked whether the weekly meetings have helped Ms. Boyer to
achieve her goals, she said,
Yes. It helps keep me focused and I feel like having a mentor who is the
same type of position I‘m in: She‘s a partnership school with Edison and
[the district], we share a lot of commonalities. She‘s able to help guide me
through that. Whereas, if I had a mentor that was not an Edison School, it
would be difficult for that person to understand what I‘m talking about and
what I‘m going through . . . .
When asked the importance of the relationship between the principal and
the mentor, Ms. Boyer stated,
It‘s a mutual respect. It‘s a mutual trust, because I have confided in her
things that I felt, I don‘t know if I should tell her this, but I wanted to let the
whole mentor thing work. When she said it was strictly confidential, I
believe her, I trust her, and I don‘t think that anything I talk to about is
going to go elsewhere. I trust her in that aspect just because she‘s well
119
respected. There hasn‘t been any hesitation on my part. I just kind of let it
go and just went with it, and it‘s been great.
She elaborated on how trust impacted her relationship with the mentor:
I trust her. I trust her judgment, even though, like I said before, we have
totally different leadership styles. She‘s very bright and smart. She knows
what she‘s talking about and I value any ideas or suggestions that she gives
me.
When asked, ―What are your thoughts on the mentoring program itself, in
general?‖
So far it‘s been good. At the beginning I was a little apprehensive about it
because being new and having someone who was not—she‘s my colleague
and then my mentor. I felt this was going to be kind of a sticky situation.
But it really hasn‘t. It‘s been very helpful, very beneficial, very enlighten-
ing. I‘ve learned about her as a person and as a leader. She‘s helped me
through some things.
I think with it being a 2-year mentoring program, not only will it be mentor/
protégé, we‘ll more than likely be life-long friends. I trust her. I trust her
judgment, even though . . . we have totally different leadership styles. She‘s
very bright and smart. She knows what she‘s talking about and I value any
ideas or suggestions that she gives me.
Document Analysis: Whole School
Design Handbook
The Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007) was utilized to
collect data on the mentoring program and the EdisonLearning Schools Design.
Investigating the structures that support the training, it was found that the purpose
of the training was to equip mentors with the knowledge base and tools needed to
support new school leaders.
As mentioned in chapter 3, planning tools are among the components of the
ELPMP (Edison Schools, 2007). The collaborative planning tool was one such
document that the mentor and protégé utilized. The collaborative planning tool
includes the following features: (a) opening (celebrations of what is working),
(b) goal (for mentoring sessions, current challenge and issues to focus on),
120
(c) reality (of the challenge, situation), (d) options (possible actions that could be
taken), (e) will (what specific actions will the protégé take before the next mentor-
ing encounter, (f) reflections, and (g) critical questions for mentor (just to think
about; Edison Schools, 2008).
The principal reported that this document was implemented on an ongoing
basis and provided the protégé with a visual road map for planning weekly goals.
The tool was used by the mentor as a resource to support the protégé in achieving
short-term goals and in providing necessary guidance. It held the mentor and
protégé accountable to the mentoring process through their weekly discussions of
the content included in the tool. Specifically, the principal stated that the planning
tool was effective in helping her to maintain focus on pressing needs and to resolve
problems.
We have a tool that we discuss and we go through those. You know what
issues are you having, what ideas you had, the ideas that your mentor gave
you and then what we‘ll talk about the next time that we talk. So she gives
me ideas to try and I try those ideas. And the next time we talk, that‘s the
first topic of discussion: ―Okay, I tried doing that and this is how it worked.
It either resolved itself or it didn‘t.‖ And then she‘ll give me other ideas or
other suggestions.
Analysis of the Data
Research question 2 asked, What organizational structures support the
implementation of the mentoring model? To address this question required an
understanding of the components of effective support structures. The conceptual
framework developed by Davis and colleagues (Davis et al., 2005) was utilized to
analyze the data. Davis et al. suggested that successful support structures were
based on research, maintained curricular coherence, and were presented through
programs such as internships, cohorts, or mentorships. They asserted that people
121
who had participated in a support program were more effective than leaders those
without such support, as measured ISLLC-based assessments and overall perform-
ance evaluations. The literature review demonstrated that mentoring is one type of
support structure that has been shown to be successful with new school leaders
(Daresh, 2004). Therefore, Daresh‘s mentoring model provided the lens through
which data were analyzed to address this research.
Research has revealed the significance of developing programs that are
research based and focused on enhancing the skills and knowledge of principals
(Davis et al., 2005). The Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007)
reported that EdisonLearning based the ELPMP on current research in mentoring
(Daresh, 2004; Spiro et al., 2007). An interview with the Executive Director con-
firmed this finding as she stated that the mentoring program was research based on
successful strategies for new school leaders. Document review revealed that the
foundations for the mentoring program were to support protégés in cultivating
personal knowledge and to provide them with tools to build their capacity (Edison
Schools, 2007). According to the framework, a program that has clear content
objectives and aligns its goals and activities with theory has been the most success-
ful support structure (Davis et al., 2005).
Researchers have underscored the importance of structured time between
the mentor and the protégé in an effective mentoring model (Spiro et al., 2007).
According to the Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007), the
ELPMP‘s structured time is mandated and both the mentor and protégé are
accountable for logging their hours. Interviews with both the Executive Director
and the principal supported the accountability for completing and submitting
122
monthly communication logs. As Ms. Boyer stated during the interview, ―We log
the times that we‘ve met and talked, and we turn those logs in on a monthly basis.‖
Research has indicated that programs that have an inherent system whereby
the mentor and protégé work together to achieve determined goals are successful
support structures (Davis et al., 2005). According to Daresh (2005), the develop-
ment of action plans has been shown to be successful in monitoring short-term and
long-term. Based on the literature in the Whole School Design Handbook (Edison
Schools, 2007), EdisonLearning created various tools such as the Collaborative
Plan Tool and Action Plan sheets that the mentor and protégé complete mutually
and submit monthly to the Executive Director. This information was supported by
the Executive Director, who informed the researcher that the tools should be
submitted monthly. The interview with the principal confirmed her commitment to
implementing the tools as she reported that they are used during the mentoring
session with the mentor and submitted on a monthly basis.
According to Daresh (2005), the role of a mentor requires a significant
amount of expertise in human relations. Each person is different and protégés have
various individual learning styles that the mentor must appreciate. Furthermore,
when there are challenges in communication, the mentor relationship becomes
ineffective. According to the Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools,
2007), EdisonLearning recognizes the importance of establishing a collaborative
relationship and focuses much of its training on how to create a safe environment
for that relationship. The positive rapport that developed in the mentor/protégé
relationship was confirmed by the mentors and protégé during the interviews. Ms.
Boyer said that she believed that she and her mentor ―more than likely [will] be
life-long friends.‖ Ms. McKay similarly described the relationship with her protégé
123
as a ―supportive relationship based on trust.‖ They agreed that having a positive
relationship was instrumental to the success of the ELPMP.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
Research question 2 focused on the organizational structures that support
the mentoring model. The findings indicated that four structures were important for
the mentoring process: training, time, tools, and relationship.
According to the Whole School Design Handbook (Edison Schools, 2007),
the mentoring program was designed to provide novice principals with individual-
ized guidance and support to foster improved student achievement. The data
revealed that the ELPMP training had prepared the interviewed mentors to enhance
the new principal‘s knowledge base and skill sets. Through the training received,
the mentors were provided the foundations to support new leaders in becoming
change agents who recognize instruction and student learning as their foremost
priority. As Ms. McKay responded to the questionnaire, the training was ―geared
toward the goals of the protégé‖ to ensure school success.
Embedded within the training program were structured time and docu-
mentation tools for mentors and protégés. Inherent in the EdisonLearning Schools
design were opportunities for mentors and protégés to collaborate. The findings
indicated that scheduled weekly phone calls were crucial to the protégé‘s leadership
development. With respect to documentation, it was found that the Collaborative
Planning Tool and logs of weekly communication were valuable as they were
utilized on a regular basis. Specifically, when asked whether she found the
Collaborative Planning Tool to be effective, Ms. Boyer stated, ―Yes, it helps keep
me stay focused.‖ Since these documents were submitted to the Executive Director
124
on a monthly basis, accountability of the mentor and protégé was upheld as part of
the program.
The relationship between the mentor and protégé was mutually beneficial to
them as professionals. The mentor provided a safe, risk-free environment where the
protégé was given the opportunity to strategize and address challenging situations.
In turn, mentor was shared expertise and knowledge, which renewed the mentor‘s
sense of commitment to student learning. As the mentor took on various roles, a
fundamental relationship developed between mentor and protégé.
Findings to Address Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, In what ways do the leadership practices of the
EdisonLearning principal/protégé affect the professional practice of teachers?
Data Collection Instruments
As with research question 1, the primary data for this research question
were collected through the pre-EdisonLearning mentor/protégé intervention and
post-intervention interviews conducted with the Richmond School principal, Ms.
Boyer, in fall 2008 and spring 2009. In addition, data were obtained through
individual interviews with four teachers in spring 2009, after the intervention. Data
were also collected through the pre-intervention and post-intervention online VAL-
ED surveys completed by the principal and all certificated teachers in spring 2008
and fall 2009.
125
Report of the Data
Field Observations
During the field observation, which was conducted in spring 2009 after the
intervention (6 months of protégé/principal mentoring), the Morning Ceremony
was observed. At that time Ms. Boyer excitedly announced a celebration party at
the end of the day for students who had made their benchmark goals. She made
congratulatory remarks to students and teachers before her and to parents who
stood just outside the school gate, looking on.
The researcher accompanied the principal on a visit to the reading special-
ist‘s classroom. According to the reading specialist, the room was used as her office
space and for the data specialist. This room was set up as a resource room; about
six bookshelves were filled with professional books, student books, and instruc-
tional materials, with rectangular tables arranged in groups. The reading specialist
explained that the room was used by teachers who ―get together by grade level on a
monthly basis to review student data.‖ The principal added that the room was also
used for ―student tutoring.‖ Overall, the classrooms that were visited were clean
and orderly; student desks and tables were arranged neatly in groups and every
classroom was free of litter.
The campus grounds were well maintained. On many of the building walls
were paintings of thermometers that displayed grade-level benchmark goals for
mathematics and language arts and current grade-level data of achievement. As Ms.
Boyer mentioned during the interview, Richmond School was indeed ―focused on
student data.‖ In the Main Office and in classrooms that were visited, the School‘s
Code of Conduct was posted on the wall: I will respect myself, respect all adults,
respect fellow students, respect our building. The principal emphasized that the
126
code communicated ―high expectations‖ and described the expected behaviors of
students on a daily basis.
The Online VAL-ED Survey Data
The principal and 12 certificated teachers completed the online VAL-ED
assessment in fall 2008 (pre-intervention) and in spring 2009 (post-intervention).
The VAL-ED survey measured the principal‘s learning-centered leadership
behaviors that affected overall school performance (Murphy et al., 2006). The post-
intervention report revealed that, even over this short period of time, there was an
increase in the overall performance level of Ms. Boyer‘s leader effectiveness from
Proficient to Distinguished. There was evidence that the mentoring intervention
had a positive influence on Ms. Boyer‘s practice. There was indication of growth
for Ms. Boyer in all six Core Components and five Key Processes. In turn, this may
have had a positive influence on teacher practice at the school. However, these
results must be interpreted with caution; the low teacher participation rate (27%)
calls into question the validity of the results.
The highest areas of growth for Ms. Boyer in Core Components were High
Standards for Student Learning (3.69 to 4.24) and Culture of Learning Professional
Behavior (3.68 to 4.25). Specifically, the principal was found to be effective in
creating high expectations and standards for student learning (Key Process of
Implementing). Also according to the report, Ms. Boyer ensured that rigorous goals
for student learning were communicated to faculty (Key Process of Communicat-
ing). Ms. Boyer scored Proficient or Distinguished in the area of planning policies
and procedures to promote student safety and discipline.
127
Pre-Intervention Principal
Interview
The first question posed to the principal in this interview was, ―What
strategies are in place for creating this shared work and how are you, as the school
leader, creating the structure or process for the mission to take place?‖ Ms. Boyer
stated that it was the mission that drives the shared work of the teachers in
providing ―first-class education for all students.‖
It‘s a very open type of structure. . . . teachers tell me what they need. If we
know that our students, for example, need vocabulary development, that‘s
something that we‘re focusing on this year. So the teachers need some train-
ing on that. After they get the training on the vocabulary, I then talk and
discuss with them, ―Okay, now that you‘ve had the training, what other
resources do you need in order to make this happen?‖
If we know this is what‘s best for kids and this is what they need, then we
need to make sure that we‘re delivering that, not only that we‘re delivering
it, but we‘re delivering it correctly and appropriately according to each
grade level. And that happens because I have curriculum coordinators who
are like the mentors on staff. They will go around to classes and watch
lessons and then give the teacher feedback. It‘s peer to peer and it‘s a non-
threatening environment. It‘s not evaluative at all.
It‘s just giving professionals an opportunity to talk about their craft. And
myself, as the instructional leader, I‘m here to give pointers. I‘m here to
say, ―Yeah, I thought that was great. That goes right along what we should
be doing for our struggling readers or doing in science or whatever the case
maybe,‖ and giving suggestion and saying, ―Have you thought about this?
Why don‘t you try this?‖ That‘s the only way teachers are going to grow.
When asked in what ways the teachers collaborated with one another, Ms.
Boyer explained,
Thanks to the Edison design, teachers have two prep periods a day; one of
those prep periods is their personal prep period to prepare for lessons in the
class, the other one is a professional development. Every single day,
Monday through Friday, there is a professional development going on here
at Richmond. And they‘re done in grade levels.
So their one prep a day is a grade-level prep, which is their professional
development time. And we‘re on about a 6-day rotation with that. For
example, like Monday would be a writing professional development, so my
writing coordinator spends a professional development time with each grade
128
level talking about writing, talking about components of the writing, talking
about the writing rubric.
The teachers are able to bring samples of their students‘ writing and
colleagues are looking at the writing, ―Would you score this a 3 or would
you score this a 2?‖ It‘s a conversation that‘s going on between colleagues
about writing. We have an SFA professional development where the
reading coordinator goes in and talks to them about implementing the Tier 2
strategies into science and social studies. Every single day, the teachers are
getting 45 minutes of professional development on a different topic.
When asked to clarify whether academic goals for students were determined
by close examination and analysis of student data, Ms. Boyer shared,
We are very data driven. But at the same time, I don‘t want it to come off
that we‘re only focused on numbers, because the teachers are very well
aware of the whole child. And that‘s one of the things that I‘m very proud
of that, when I joined the staff, that just really has inspired me. They‘re not
just about the school making AYP and kids making benchmarks; they are
about educating the whole child.
When asked whether she was part of that data team, Ms. Boyer replied,
Yes. I go in during the data meetings. . . . I have conversations with the
teachers about their plan for the month for those four kids. . . . My role is to
make sure that they have the necessary resources and material that they
need in order to make it happen . . . . my role as the instructional leader is to
make sure that the teachers have all the tools.
When asked how she planned to influence teacher practice this school year,
Ms. Boyer stated,
First of all, as the instructional leader here on campus, I also have to make
sure that I‘m up on the current issues and the current strategies and the
current ideas in education. So my job is to make sure that I am getting that
professional development.
Another way that I think I influence teacher practice is that, when I go into
observe a lesson or a period of time, I give immediate feedback to the
teacher. One thing that I‘ve been very cognizant of in my approach to the
supervisor role is that I think a coach first. After observing the teacher‘s
class, I make time for that teacher to come and sit down and talk with me
about the observation. And it‘s not me telling the teacher what I saw; it‘s
the teacher telling me what‘s going on in the class.
129
Post-Intervention Principal
Interview
As in the pre-intervention interview, when asked how the school vision was
incorporated into the daily operations in terms of success for all students, Ms.
Boyer described the daily Morning Ceremony, where all announcements were
made, ―simply because the philosophy here is a non-interrupting instructional time
. . . you won‘t hear people on the intercom all throughout the day.‖
My belief is that there should be no instructional interruption. . . . If the
teacher‘s job is to be in there instructing and teaching, then my job is to
make sure that they‘re not interrupted. That‘s a big thing.
Ms. Boyer regularly communicated and reinforced the Code of Conduct
with students.
Right before we conclude Morning Ceremony, we say our Code of
Conduct, every day. That code of conduct is the conduct that students are to
live by. And if a student is caught doing something that violates that code of
conduct, my first question to them is, ―What is the code of conduct?‖
When asked how she promoted a school culture that facilitates teacher
growth, Ms. Boyer cited the professional development structure and learning
opportunities to the EdisonLearning School design.
I‘ve talked to my third-grade team and said, ―Let‘s look at the SIP, let‘s
look at the school improvements. What area in there do we still need
professional development on?‖ Then as the lead teacher, I bring it back to
lead teams and say, ―My team needs professional development on this.‖
And then we get ideas from every grade level, and that‘s how professional
development here is done.
When probed about how she supported learning opportunities such as
professional development, learning activities, and collaboration by teachers, Ms.
Boyer stated,
I have to attribute it to the Edison design, because one of those professional
developments that they give each week, one of them is a house meeting. So
the teachers actually have a grade-level meeting . . . on Tuesday . . . because
we had lead team meetings on Monday nights. So then, the very next day,
130
the lead teachers can go back to their teams to discuss the stuff that we
talked about at lead.
I very much support collaboration among grade levels. The teachers are
very good at it—if they have a situation or a problem, they first talk to their
colleagues in their grade level, and then they may even go to one of the
curriculum coordinators (I have a reading curriculum coordinator, a writing
and a math [coordinator]. So if there‘s a curriculum question, they have
avenues that they can go to assist them . . . . that whole sense of being a
family and working together and working together for a common good.
Any time a teacher comes to me and says, ―I‘m thinking about taking this
class, would that be okay?‖ I support it. I‘m a total believer in broadening
your horizons and learning, so very much supportive of professional
development for all my teachers . . . . Every single day, Monday through
Friday, there is professional development going on here.
During this interview Ms. Boyer explained the implementation of a
professional book study at the school also mentioned in the data on research
question 1. She stated, ―Now, this is a new step for Richmond, the teachers have
never done a book study before.‖ According to Ms. Boyer, the new idea was not
well received by several teachers. ―With any good school, you have strong
teachers, and it was met with resistance.‖
[I said], ―We, as educators, get on our students about reading, but then
you‘re telling me you‘re complaining about reading a professional book
that‘s going to help you with your profession? . . . What if one of your
students told you they didn‘t want to read, what would you say to them?‖
I even had a teacher who said, ―I read but I don‘t read professional books.‖
I said, ―Really? How do you perfect your craft if you‘re not reading and
finding out what‘s new?‖
She then reported that, after having implemented the book study, one of the
teachers shared her experience:
She [teacher] says, ―It wasn‘t the reading of the book, because the book was
kind of dry, but it was the discussion that I had with my colleagues.‖ And I
said, ―That‘s what it‘s all about, coming together with a common purpose
and learning something from it, getting something out of it that you can take
away as a professional, maybe back into your classroom or maybe into your
own personal life, who knows? But, you got something out of it.‖
131
Ms. Boyer explained that she carefully selected professional books that
aligned to the SIP.
Out of the five books (I chose the books), . . . all the books have something
to do with an aspect from our school improvement plan. Well, it was met
with resistance. I have a lot of experts right here on staff, why not take the
expertise that they have and we can share?
When asked how staff concerns were brought to her attention, she stated,
It‘s through the lead there. It‘s not chaotic or anything. It [information] just
really flows and works, because then I don‘t get 60 emails from teachers
asking me questions. They know if they have a question, they need to
address it with their lead. If I send out an email to the staff and someone
doesn‘t understand it, they‘re not emailing me back saying, ―What do you
mean about this?‖
When asked whether she believed that she has an impact on teachers‘
instructional practice in the classroom, she stated,
Absolutely . . . I‘ve tried to really have teachers be reflective. It‘s never a
blame game. We‘re in this together. Teachers are the key and the ones that
have the most impact on student learning. The only thing that I can do is
support them and give them what they need.
If I‘m giving teachers what they need, providing the assistance, monitoring
and making sure that the teachers are giving the students what they need,
which is the instruction, then the data should show that our students are
learning, and it does. I really believe that I‘m having a tremendous impact
on the classroom and student achievement.
They go to their lead and say, ―In her weekly bulletin, she put this, what
was that about? I‘m not sure.‖ And usually, I would say 95% of the time,
the lead should be able to answer that, because before I put out my weekly
bulletin, I talk to [leads] . . . . We meet on Monday and I tell the lead team
the stuff that‘s coming up, so they already know what‘s going to be in my
weekly bulletin.
When asked what role mentoring had played in her impact on teacher
practice this year, Ms. Boyer explained,
Well, honestly, very little. Because I kind of came with that. If any at all,
it‘s just the ideas that my mentor has given me on how to keep it all
together, how to monitor, because it can get very tedious. When I say I‘m
the instructional leader, then that means I need to be in classrooms; that
means that I need to be meeting with teachers; that means I need to be
132
having conversations with the students saying, ―What are you learning
today? How do you know that you‘ve learned that?‖
She continued that the managerial aspects of the job at times are ―put on the
backburner.‖ Specifically, she stated her priority:
I‘m going to be out [of the office] and in the classrooms, having conversa-
tions with students and teachers, finding out what‘s going on, finding out if
everything‘s okay, what can I do and watching and making sure that things
are corrected that need to be corrected.
Teacher Interview Data
Four teachers were interviewed in spring 2009, after Ms. Boyer had
received mentoring. The teachers ranged in classroom experience and grade level
of instruction. They were asked, ―Thinking in terms of high standards for student
learning, what has your principal done to promote the success of all students?
She makes sure that we are going to our professional developments and
she‘s really focused on making sure that we‘re going and getting the most
out of it. She started a book study for staff to do, so we participated in
reading chapters from a professional development book and coming
together and collaborating. We have a SIP Plan, school improvement plan,
so we had to connect what we read from the professional development
books from research into [inaudible]. So really, it‘s more so professional
development with us the staff. And she‘s also really emphasizing bench-
marks. (Ms. Lee, 3rd-year fifth-grade teacher)
All four teachers pointed out the implementation of the professional book
study and reported that it had been a positive experience. Specifically, Ms. Sanders,
a 15-year veteran teacher (Title I Coordinator and fourth-grade teacher), explained,
The book study has been good for me because the book that we‘re reading
is actually a reading comprehension book. . . . It‘s a higher level book, so
it‘s not an easy read.
Each group—there‘s six groups doing six different books—[is] going to be
responsible for actually presenting to the group something that they‘ve
learned that was pertinent that applies to our SIP Plan and how it could be
used in our school for improvement.
133
She discussed how Ms. Boyer skillfully addressed teacher resistance to the book
study,
So even though they [teachers] were saying that they didn‘t have time to
read the book, she [Ms. Boyer] removed the excuse and provided the time
in the context of their work days. So the excuse was no longer there.
Ms. Jacobs, a first-year second-grade teacher, shared,
I think by communicating the professional developments—whenever we
have professional developments on campus, she comes in sometimes and
gives her input on whatever skill we‘re talking about or if there‘s some
areas that we could improve upon, as far as benchmarks, making sure that
all students are participating, and aligning whatever you‘re teaching with
. . . the weekly focus skills or making sure the kids understand the monthly
core values.
Ms. Jacobs explained that Ms. Boyer was extremely encouraging of professional
growth for teachers.
Yeah, she even sends out emails—if there‘s free resources, if there‘s
trainings, so whatever is out there and she feels like a teacher can benefit
from it, because I feel like a teacher is always learning. You know, it‘s a
craft that you can always perfect, so she‘s very good about that.
All four teachers agreed that Ms. Boyer was not only supportive of
professional development for teachers but also held high expectations for all
students and teachers. Ms. Sanders explained,
She sets goals and she‘s very pointed. Whenever we made up our school
improvement plan, she was very pointed on who‘s to do what and how to go
about making sure that the goals were met. For example, our special ed
component is—was—one of our weakest areas, so she‘s met with the
special ed teachers and has been very firm about what is expected and
making sure that their time is being used wisely. They‘re not necessarily
thrilled about that, but she is being very pointed about what needs to be
done. She goes to house meetings.
When asked, ―How does your principal provide feedback with regard to
meeting school goals, in terms of student achievement plan, school vision?‖ Ms.
Lee, third-year teacher, shared,
134
She does give us during staff development times—has spoken to us and
been very frank and honest with us about where we are. She has been very
encouraging and praiseworthy of us. She explained to us what it would be
to get to not only AYP but also high achieving again. She‘s really pushing
us to get exemplary, as well, for AYP. That‘s during staff development.
Ms. Jacobs, first-year teacher, noted that the principal provides feedback
―through the house meetings‖ and ―weekly newsletter.‖ Along these lines, when
asked whether change in instructional practice was noted as a result of the
principal‘s practice (i.e., providing feedback), Ms. Jacobs stated,
I just make sure that I‘m on target when I‘m teaching; making sure that my
lesson plans reflect whatever she‘s discussed in a meeting. For example,
higher-order thinking questions, we have a folder that has all the Bloom‘s
Taxonomy, you know, knowledge, all the way up to applications, analysis,
and making sure those are all being used.
Ms. Sanders shared,
That‘s [feedback] ongoing. We‘re all provided a copy of the school
improvement plan. In fact, with the book study, one of the criteria is that the
books that you‘re reading, you‘re supposed to be looking at it from the
point of view of our set plan and saying, ―How can we address some of
these that are stated in the SIP Plan from what you‘ve learned in this book?‖
So everything is always directed back to the school improvement goals.
Ms. Pryor, a kindergarten teacher with over 30 years classroom experience,
shared that it was through the SIP Plan as well:
She really reads and she has meetings with the leads, and the leads talk to
us. And if we have special or private information, we can feel free to go
over to her.
The four teachers were asked, ―How has all of this influenced your teaching
practice in the classroom? Ms. Lee responded,
I feel that being a part of the professional development every week, talking
to my staff and my principal, really emphasizing the importance of meeting,
is a meaningful experience. I feel that professional development time is
crucial, if not the most important piece of our day. That meeting is where
we talk with each other and collaborate and work out our problems and sort
out what we can do for this student or these students. She has really given
us positive encouragement to get those professional developments and we
really make them meaningful.
135
When pressed regarding whether Ms. Lee was implementing new strategies
in her class, she readily replied,
Oh yeah, definitely, all the time. Because of those professional develop-
ments—because of that emphasis there, I can take what we talked about
yesterday and use it today or I can use it next week. It‘s absolutely
important.
In my last school we didn‘t have that, and you couldn‘t definitely tell that
there‘s no implementation of new strategies, there‘s no connection, there‘s
no focus on being together as one; it‘s just my class, then that class and this
class. Here, it‘s the whole fifth-grade team, it feels like a real team.
When asked, ―What organizational structures has your principal established
or reinforced this year that promote a safe and efficient learning environment?‖ Ms.
Lee responded,
The one thing that I can think of is that she did try to implement a change in
the structure for the cafeteria. When they go in for lunch, instead of students
filtering through and getting in a bottleneck situation, they‘re very much
more organized. She has that more in a structural way.
Ms. Sanders stated,
She‘s switched how we dismiss. We were dismissing from the back parking
lot and from the front, like each grade level was dismissing from a different
gate. But instead, everyone‘s dismissing from the front gate, so everything
is there. So that‘s a little safer.
With regard to providing an efficient learning environment, teachers
concurred that the morning block was considered ―sacred‖ (i.e., no interruptions
allowed) for reading and mathematics instruction.
The morning block is pretty sacred; it‘s for reading and math, and then it‘s
understood that you do the other subjects in the afternoon, so that‘s always
been understood.
She shared that the principal requested that teachers put away their cell phones:
She‘s been very firm about cell phones and phone use . . . we have a couple
of teachers that were guilty about that. Cell phones should be locked and in
your cupboard; it should not be in your pocket, out on your desk, should not
be anyway—you don‘t need that cell phone. (Ms. Saunders)
136
Teachers were asked, ―How are families encouraged to be partners in their
child‘s education at Richmond School?‖ Ms. Sanders described,
We have a ton of family involvement activities between literacy night, math
night, family game night. We have parent/teacher conferences four times a
year that are mandatory. On the report card . . . the final page of it is a goal
setting, in which it tells you what you would like the child to do. And it says
what the teacher‘s going to do, what the kids are going to do, and what the
parents are going to do, and everybody signs it. Our counselor is actually in
the process of setting up meetings to teach the child to ask questions that are
more meaningful to the parent.
The one in February is going to be all about eye care and how to keep your
eyes healthy and what role the eyes play in academics and learning. So we
have Eyeglass World coming over to represent a doctor and an optometrist
to talk to our parents about the eye care and how it ties directly into
academic achievement and talking about CRTs.
Ms. Jacobs and Ms. Pryor also shared that there were numerous schoolwide
activities and opportunities for parents to be involved.
We have parent meetings where different scenarios are discussed. Different
agencies or companies come in with services to assist the parents who may
be having a difficult time in whatever area. (Ms. Jacobs)
We have more activities for the parents, like we have a ―second cup of
coffee‖ every month and we have more regular activities for the parents to
come and be in the school. (Ms. Pryor)
Ms. Pryor noted good home-school communication with the parents in terms of
school newsletters and notices that were sent home on a regular basis.
Yes, the newsletters, any notices. We have a lot of good communication and
it‘s translated all the time . . . two languages all the time. . . . We needed to
translate for all parents because I think they were not translated, and now
it‘s like a must.
Ms. Lee noted,
Parents come in and we offer them food and beverage and really give them
a chance to talk and to be active and participate.
When asked about the school culture in terms of teacher morale and
expectations for students, Ms. Sanders replied,
137
I think it‘s high. We have monthly data meetings. In those data meetings,
you‘re looking at benchmark assessments; you‘re looking at CRT scores;
you‘re looking at the kids that aren‘t achieving. And the conversation is,
―What are you going to do to bring these up?‖
And a plan is made in those data meetings. It‘s not, ―Oh, maybe I‘ll do
this.‖ It‘s, ―Show us how you‘re doing that, share what your successes are,
what your challenges were‖ and get suggestions from your peers.
The one thing that‘s really unique about Richmond versus all the other
schools I‘ve taught at is the collaboration and the sense of school owner-
ship. . . . And it‘s always been like that the entire 15 years I‘ve been here.
It‘s just the people that‘s attracted here for some reason, and it‘s wonderful.
Ms. Lee shared,
In terms of teacher morale, I personally feel that my grade level is a family.
I don‘t know what titles we have, but I feel very connected to them, and I
feel that that really goes along with all the teachers that I talk to.
The school culture is phenomenal here and my students are awesome
because of all the teachers before me. I don‘t think I could have ever done it
without the foundation of the wonderful teachers before me. I know that
these teachers are wonderful because they put their time and energy and
their heart into it. So that culture is incredible.
When Ms. Lee was asked whether the faculty believed that all students can
learn, she answered,
Absolutely, that‘s not even a question. All of our students can. That makes
such a big difference, because, even if a teacher thinks that a child will
never . . . you show it in a way. And there‘s no data that I can show you.
But I do know that I don‘t believe that this child can succeed, I‘m not going
to exude confidence with him. So I have to believe it. I can believe it
because I‘ve seen these students achieve and raise their scores, all of them;
it‘s not just a few or the high, it‘s the low level, the mediums, the high; it‘s
everyone across the board. So I know that they can do it.
Analysis of the Data
To address the research question: In what ways do the leadership practices
of the principal affect the professional practice of teachers, it was important to
understand the indirect impact that school leadership has on student achievement
(Heck & Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood et al., 2004; Murphy et al., 2006).
138
Specifically, it is the principal‘s influence on teacher practice that ultimately
impacts student achievement, as teachers have a direct role in improving student
learning (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Marzano et al., 2005). The analytical frame-
work used for this research question was Heck and Hallinger‘s effects model. In
particular, this model demonstrated that school leaders have an indirect impact
on student learning through their influence on school factors such as classroom
instruction, school culture, and organizational structures (Hallinger & Heck, 1998).
The literature revealed that effective school leaders must create the necessary
conditions and structures for teachers to be successful (Darling-Hammond, 2006;
Hallinger & Heck, 2005; Leithwood et al., 2004; Murphy et al, 2006).
Another lens through which this research question was analyzed was
Darling-Hammond‘s (2006) effective teaching model. In the model effective
teachers are provided time to collaborate and increase their capacity as pro-
fessionals. As a result, effective teachers set high standards for their students and
themselves and hold each other accountable to improve student learning. The
conceptual framework of the Murphy et al. (2006) learning-centered leadership and
the EdisonLearning leadership framework of five leadership roles (instructional
leader, organizational leader, culture builder, site manager, and Edison Schools
executive (Edison Schools, 2007) provided the foundation for key leadership
behaviors and practices. The two frameworks are closely aligned and the major
principles of each framework correspond to key behaviors and practices of
effective school leaders.
139
Enhanced Internal Capacity as
Professionals
The principal and teacher interviews uncovered rich data regarding the
impact that leader practice had on professional practice of teachers. In general,
when asked about how the principal had supported instructional practice, the
teachers reported that Ms. Boyer implemented a professional book study and that
she strongly supported their learning opportunities. All four teachers reported that
Ms. Boyer was very encouraging of professional development and that the focus on
professional development helped them to implement new teaching strategies. For
example, Ms. Sanders explained that she utilized questioning techniques about the
author‘s purpose and critical thinking skills after having participated in the book
study. Te four teachers reported that Ms. Boyer held high expectations of students
and teachers, which was consistently communicated to them during staff meetings
and in Weekly Bulletin. Specifically, the school‘s Mission Statement is the head-
line of the Weekly Bulletin.
This information was supported by the results from the VAL-ED surveys
in the areas of High Standards for Learning, Quality Instruction, and Culture of
Learning and Professional Behavior, in which Ms. Boyer received high perform-
ance ratings of Proficient in the pre-intervention assessment and Distinguished in
the post-intervention assessment. For example, from the area of Quality Instruction,
the VAL-ED survey asked how effective the principal was in ―ensuring the school
supports teachers‘ opportunities to improve their instructional practices‖ and how
effective the principal was in ―ensuring the school supports collaboration among
faculty to improve instruction that maximizes student learning‖ (VAL-ED Survey,
2007, p. 9). Respondents generally scored the principal High on the effectiveness
rating scale, which ranged from ineffective to outstanding, for Ms. Boyer to attain
140
the Proficient and Distinguished levels in the pre-intervention and post-intervention
assessments, respectively, of the VAL-ED survey.
As a learning-centered leader, Ms. Boyer established the needed organiza-
tional structures to support the success of Richmond School teachers. She accom-
plished this by creating time during the school day for teachers to collaborate as
professionals. She introduced and implemented a professional book study for the
first time at the school. She effectively addressed teacher resistance to the pro-
fessional book study by creating the necessary conditions, such as time and
structure, for teachers to work in partnership to improve student learning. She
enhanced the work of the professional learning community by encouraging teachers
to attend professional development sessions and engage in meaningful discussions
centered on learning strategies for students, achievement data, and bringing the
conversation back to their SIP Plan. According to Ms. Lee, the principal frequently
communicated to staff via email ―professional development opportunities.‖ Not
only did Ms. Boyer regularly encourage teachers to ―look at the SIP‖ and ―look at
the areas of school improvement‖; she carefully selected the books for the pro-
fessional book study that had ―something to do with an aspect from [our] school
improvement plan.‖ This was confirmed by Ms. Sanders:
In fact, with the book study, one of the criteria is that the books that you‘re
reading, you‘re supposed to be looking at it from the point of view of our
set plan and saying, ―How can we address some of these that are stated in
the SIP Plan from what you‘ve learned in this book?‖ So everything is
always directed back to the school improvement goals.
As Ms. Lee explained, ―The SIP Plan is very important to her [Ms. Boyer] and we
want to meet those goals, and it goes to the book study and goes directly back to
the SIP Plan.‖
141
This was supported by the VAL-ED results in the area of Culture of
Learning and Professional Behavior, in which the survey asked respondents how
effective the principal was at ―ensuring the school supports collaborative teams to
improve instruction.‖ Ms. Boyer received a performance level of Proficient in the
pre-intervention assessment and Distinguished in the post-intervention assessment
by the VAL-ED survey as a result of respondents who scored her High and
Outstanding on the effectiveness rating scale.
During the interview, Ms. Boyer strongly emphasized her role as an instruc-
tional leader. She demonstrated commitment to being an instructional leader by
supporting teachers in every way possible. For example, she explained that she
provided teachers with immediate performance feedback in order to engage them in
a reflective conversation about their practice.
Ms. Boyer protected valuable teaching and learning time from interruptions
during the day. She accomplished this by effectively using Morning Ceremony to
communicate schoolwide news and events. This was a key characteristic of learn-
ing-centered leaders who ―protect teachers from distractions from the school
office‖ (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 13). She created an organizational structure to
allow teachers time to engage fully in their work and to devote time to student
learning, especially in reading and mathematics. In addition, according to Ms.
Boyer, as the school‘s instructional leader, she emphasized her commitment to
providing necessary resources and materials for teachers. She shared that she asks
her teachers, ―Okay, now that you‘ve had the training, what other resources do you
need in order to make this happen?‖
The teacher and principal interviews revealed a strong sense of teamwork
and collaboration among the staff. For example, Ms. Jacobs enthusiastically shared
142
that she had a ―fabulous second grade team.‖ Similarly, Ms. Lee discussed that the
―whole fifth-grade team feels like a real team.‖ Ms. Boyer explained that the
teachers ―really do take care of each other.‖ She elaborated that, at Richmond
School, there is a ―sense of being a family and working together and working
together for the common good.‖ During the classroom visit, the reading specialist
shared that she consistently collaborated with the data specialist and the various
grade-level teams. However, this group effort seemed to have been established
prior to Ms. Boyer‘s new leadership. In fact, Ms. Sanders stated that, during her 15-
year tenure at the school, a sense of ―school ownership‖ had always been in place.
Richmond School had been an EdisonLearning for the past 8 years. This may have
been a contributing factor that influenced the school culture, which may have had a
positive impact on teacher practice. Ms. Sanders also shared that many things were
already working at Richmond School, as it had been identified as ―high achieving‖
in the previous year. According to Ms. Sanders, the principal may be operating
from the thinking, ―Why fix it if it‘s not broken?‖ Overall, the four teachers and the
principal expressed positive reactions and feelings about their staff and students at
Richmond School. Ms. Sanders and Ms. Lee agreed that teacher morale was
―high.‖ Ms. Boyer shared the sentiment.
I would say it‘s [teacher morale] pretty high. Do I have some teachers that
are not happy 100% of the time? Of course. But my goal coming in here
was to make sure that I didn‘t soil or spoil anything, because they already
had a sense of family here, they already had a sense of achievement and
professionalism. The only thing I needed to do was add to it, that‘s it. I
didn‘t need to take anything away; I just needed to add to it.
Based on the field observations, staff members were upbeat and seemed
genuinely excited to be with students. The school had a welcoming environment,
with friendly exchanges among staff and students. Ms. Boyer displayed enthusiasm
143
in her interaction with students, teachers, and parents during her walks around the
campus as she cheerfully called out students‘ name to greet them and waved hello
to teachers and parents. During the interview, Ms. Jacobs proudly shared that the
second-grade team was ―fabulous.‖ Similarly, Ms. Lee shared that they had a
―strong teacher staff base‖ where ―all the teachers are committed and passionate
and we are fully driven for the students.‖
When I came to Richmond, I already felt it; it was just this energetic vibe of
teachers, passionate and professional; they‘re really in it for the kids. So
that was the environment that I came in. And when [the principal] came in
this year, it seemed to be smooth because we already had that foundation in
place.
During her interview Ms. Lee expressed that she believed that the faculty
held high expectations for all Richmond students and in their ability to learn. Ms.
Boyer summed up the culture of Richmond School best:
In any school, even though I love Richmond, Richmond is really about the
students and the culture here is great. Our theme song is We Are Family by
Sister Sledge; that is our theme here amongst our staff because we truly are
a family. We try to be there for one another.
As mentioned, it may have been the culture that had already been estab-
lished but there is some evidence that it was also in part due to the tone that Ms.
Boyer set as the new principal. She articulated the belief that her team, her teachers
―are truly leaders and know what to do and know how to go about getting the job
done.‖ When Ms. Sanders was asked about the principal‘s leadership practice with
respect to her communication regarding the school vision, she stated,
At the beginning at every staff meeting, she‘ll talk . . . she‘s a very inspira-
tional speaker. She has a lot of emotion and conviction and sincerity in her
voice. She gives us little pep talks at the beginning of every staff meeting.
. . . I know that it inspires me. It makes a difference. And she‘s so sincere
about it, too, which is really good.
144
It seemed that a prominent way Ms. Boyer created a positive learning and
work environment was through an ―open type of structure‖ for teachers to share
their thoughts with the principal. In particular, Ms. Boyer maintained open
communication with faculty through ongoing dialogue and collaboration with the
school leadership team. The lead team, consisting of key school players such as the
representative from each grade level as well as the reading specialist, data special-
ist, Title I Coordinator, assistant principal, and counselor, met each Monday at 4
p.m. Ms. Jacobs commented that ―information flows‖ and the contents of the
Principal‘s Weekly Bulletin supported Ms. Boyer‘s transparency and open com-
munication with her faculty, especially regarding her schedule. Moreover, all four
teachers responded with a resounding ―Yes‖ when asked if Ms. Boyer was easily
accessible and highly visible on campus. The results of the VAL-ED survey
support these claims in the key process of Communicating. She received a high
performance rating of Proficient in the pre-intervention assessment and a rating of
Distinguished in the post-intervention assessment. In sum, these structures seemed
to have had a positive influence on teacher practice.
A review of the literature found that instructional and learning-centered
leaders promote professional development and help teachers to improve the core
technology of teaching and learning (Hallinger, 2003; Murphy et al., 2006). Such
leaders support the collective development of teachers and maximize their potential
by creating a professional learning community (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood, Jantzi,
Silins, & Dart, 1993; Marks & Printy, 2003). Based on the interviews with Ms.
Boyer and the four teachers, there is considerable evidence that the principal
exhibited key characteristics of learning-centered leader behaviors. Specifically, the
ways in which Ms. Boyer‘s practice impacted teacher practice was creating and
145
supporting professional development opportunities for teachers. Similarly, the
teachers reported that the focus on professional development by the principal had
helped them to grow as professionals.
Ms. Boyer influenced teacher practice through the implementation of a
professional book study. As the school‘s instructional leader, Ms. Boyer introduced
the faculty to the idea of fostering rich discussions around professional books. She
remained committed to building a strong professional capacity of teachers. Ms.
Egan, a fifth-grade teacher, explained that Ms. Boyer‘s leadership practice of
focusing on professional development was a vehicle for promoting student success.
There is some evidence that the principal enhanced the workings of the professional
learning community at Richmond School. The school had been an EdisonLearning
school for the past 8 years, with a well-established structure for professional
development. Inherent in the EdisonLearning Schools design are professional
development opportunities and preparation periods provided to teachers on a daily
basis. In fact, according to the interviews with the teachers and Ms. Boyer, the
principal ensured that teachers met day to day and accomplished their goals for
professional learning. Ms. Boyer shared that, during the first week of every month,
teachers devoted professional development time to examine student data. She
joined teachers in conducting data analysis of benchmark scores to inform
instructional practice.
It can be concluded that, by promoting the importance of teacher learning
and structuring time for teachers to work together as colleagues, Ms. Boyer had a
positive influence on the classroom practices of her faculty in a way that enabled
Richmond teachers to enhance their internal capacity as professionals. For instance,
Ms. Sanders discussed that the ―book study has been good for me‖ because it
146
delved into the author‘s purpose. Specifically, she stated that the book on reading
comprehension was ―a higher level book . . . it [was] not an easy read.‖ However,
the reading ultimately helped Ms. Sanders to improve her questioning techniques
for students in ―making author‘s purpose more meaningful and purposeful.‖ Ms.
Lee stated that, as a result of Ms. Boyer‘s leadership practice (i.e., support of
professional development opportunities), she had ―improved‖ as a professional.
Ms. Boyer, as the instructional leader and leader focused on learning,
promoted professional growth of her teachers by examining the needs of the faculty
and aligning them to the SIP. For example, she stated during field observation that
she had determined these needs by ―conducting needs assessments‖ and examining
specific items that were written in the SIP Plan, such as areas of concern and action
plans for student improvement. Written in the plan was that Richmond students
scored lowest in the Cognitive Content Cluster of informational text and the
Cognitive Ability Level of demonstrating a critical stance. To address this need,
Ms. Boyer brought in Kagan‘s professional development session on higher-order
thinking. She appeared to be aware of the importance of helping teachers to grow
through a meaningful learning experience and ensuring that the SIP plan remained
a central piece in guiding that change, especially in addressing the needs of the four
subgroups (Hispanic, Special Education, English Learner, and Free and Reduced-
Price Lunch) who did not make significant achievements in English Language Arts.
Darling-Hammond (2006) suggested that effective teachers have the
capacity to implement standards that address the needs of a diverse learning
population. Through teacher discussions during the professional book study, these
teachers shared their learning experiences as well as their best practices among
themselves. Specifically, Ms. Lee stated during the interview that it is during these
147
meetings that the teachers ―talk with each other and collaborate and work out our
problems and sort out what we can do for this student or these students.‖ Although
Richmond School students were mainly Hispanic (80%), they brought with them
varying degrees of learning needs and levels of proficiency. Research also indicated
that effective teaching, especially in the urban schools, should be supplied by
highly qualified teachers who demonstrate proficiency in the standards for teaching
practices (Darling-Hammond, 2006). All but one Richmond School teachers were
fully credentialed and were thus considered to be highly qualified under the NCLB
guidelines.
Focused on Improving Instruction
Embedded in the framework of learning-centered leadership and the
EdisonLearning leadership framework is a common focus on improving instruc-
tional practice to increase student achievement (Edison Schools, 2007; Hallinger,
2003; Leithwood et al., 1993; Murphy et al., 2006). Performance feedback and
support such as resources from the school leader are essential components for
facilitating improvement in teacher practice (Marzano et al., 2003). Another way in
which leader practice affected the professional practice at Richmond School was
that the teachers were able to focus on improving instruction as a result of Ms.
Boyer‘s protection of instructional time, engagement with teachers as a coach,
provision of necessary resources, and maintenance of a safe and orderly school
environment. All four teachers explained that the principal had changed dismissal
and lunch procedures in order to ensure student safety. The principal and all four
teachers discussed during their interviews that the morning block was ―sacred‖ for
language arts and mathematics instruction. These practices enabled teachers to
148
focus on strengthening their teaching practice and maximizing students‘ learning
time.
An important way in which Ms. Boyer had shaped the school‘s organiza-
tional structure to facilitate a continuous learning environment was to promote a
safe and orderly learning environment. As the new school leader, Ms. Boyer made
major procedural changes regarding lunch and dismissal time to ensure student
safety, according to three of the teachers. She also provided a school-wide feedback
system regarding discipline referrals. This new process was included in the weekly
bulletin. Ms. Sanders reported, ―I know that she puts on her weekly reports how
many referrals have come to the office—how many office referrals, how many
suspensions—she lets the staff know.‖ By implementing some of these structural
changes outside the classroom setting, Ms. Boyer demonstrated and communicated
her commitment to ensuring a safe and efficient learning environment.
Implemented a Shared Vision
As noted in the literature review regarding learning-centered leadership and
the EdisonLearning leadership framework, effective school leaders involve stake-
holders in collectively creating a shared vision (EdisonLearning Whole School
Design, 2007; Murphy et al., 2006). This entails establishing a school culture that
focuses on high expectations and high academic achievement by all students.
During the investigation of leader impact on teacher practice, data were collected
that demonstrated that the principal advanced a shared vision by using data to drive
instruction, being actively involved with key school leaders, engaging parents in
student learning, and relentlessly pursuing high-quality education for all students.
For example, she strongly cultivated a data-driven culture. She accomplished this
149
by creating a common language regarding school goals and holding stakeholders
accountable to these goals.
Actually, our goal is to be an exemplary school and they all know that and
they all talk about what it takes to be an exemplary school, what we have to
do. So it‘s common language amongst all the teachers—it‘s common
language if you walk into a data professional development, that‘s what the
teachers are talking about: ―What do I need to do for these four children in
my class to make sure that they make benchmark next month?‖ So they
actually map it out. They have a plan, so it‘s not just talking about it. They
actually write it down. Those plans come to me. (Ms. Boyer)
She noted that students were aware of their benchmark scores and where
they needed to move toward. Not only did teachers discuss data; students were
engaged in the data discussion as they set individual goals for themselves. This
was accomplished by a one-on-one discussion with the teacher; together, they
determined realistic student targets.
It‘s the kids that are verbalizing what their goal is. The idea of high expecta-
tions for academics is within each classroom and each student, they know
that the schoolwide goal is to be exemplary and they know what we need to
do in order to achieve it. (Ms. Boyer)
The principal regularly monitored these benchmark plans by following up
with teachers regarding specific students who had failed to meet their benchmark
goals. As Ms. Lee shared, the principal was continually ―emphasizing bench-
marks.‖ Ms. Sanders explained that, at Richmond School, ―each teacher has a data
notebook to track students‘ progress,‖ which underscored their data-driven culture.
This was supported by observation of the principal‘s Data Binder, which was
mentioned in the results related to research question 1.
Ms. Sanders indicated that the principal was determined to examine and
utilize data to drive high-quality education for students who were underachieving.
She [Ms. Boyer] sets goals and she‘s very pointed. Whenever we made up
our school improvement plan, she was very pointed on who‘s to do what
and how to go about making sure that the goals were met. For example, our
150
special education component was one of our weakest areas, so she‘s met
with the special education teachers and has been very firm about what is
expected and making sure that their time is being used wisely. They‘re not
necessarily thrilled about that, but she is being very pointed about what
needs to be done.
As the instructional leader, Ms. Boyer spent time meeting with teachers to
review student data. She addressed her role in supporting her teachers and student
learning.
When I told you about the data and being able to sit down with teachers and
it‘s never, ―You didn‘t do this right,‖ the data speaks for itself. As a
principal, I don‘t have to say anything; I let the data do the talking. And
then, we can really dig down deep and say, ―Okay, what is it that‘s going
wrong? What can I do as the instructional leader here to assist you with
that?‖
Another means by which Ms. Boyer ensured that teachers implemented a
shared vision was her work and leadership practice that w as established with key
leaders at the school. Again, Ms. Boyer set an organizational structure in place for
each grade-level chair and other specialists to meet with the principal on a weekly
basis. This was where schoolwide matters were brought to the team‘s attention. Ms.
Boyer set this leadership group in place to enable information to flow and for ideas
to be discussed. She explained,
We have our lead team, which consists of all of our lead teachers. Each
grade level has a teacher that represents their grade level. Our specialists
have a representative and so does our special education department. We also
have on that lead team all my curriculum coordinators: my math coordin-
ator, my writing coordinator and reading coordinator. So they all sit on that
team.
Any issues—I mean from the whole spectrum—from curriculum issues,
school issues, children issues, parent issues, procedural issues, all of that is
discussed and brought to lead team. We meet every Monday evening at 4:00
for about an hour. Each lead teacher can bring issues from their grade level
to discuss at lead, be it that grade level wants to go on a field trip during
SFA, which is a very sacred time.
This shared leadership, which Ms. Boyer fostered, proved to be an effective
system for teachers. All four teachers expressed that they knew who to turn to when
151
problems arose and understood that their concerns would be addressed at these
leadership team meetings. Also for the principal, the system proved efficient as she
addressed pressing issues with key school leaders rather than with the whole
faculty. It was evident that successful organizational structures (i.e., time for pro-
fessional book club reading, leading team meetings) were created and upheld by the
principal, which contributed to fostering a positive school climate. This had an
impact on teachers who implemented a shared vision.
Another aspect of leadership practice that contributed to the impact on
teacher practice was student advocacy and parent engagement opportunities pro-
moted by the new school principal, which was revealed in the principal and teacher
interviews. The high scores on the VAL-ED survey results supported this claim, as
the principal received a performance rating of Proficient and Distinguished (pre-
and post-intervention, respectively) in the area of Connections to External Com-
munities. These actions contributed to the implementation of a shared vision at
Richmond School. Ms. Boyer explained her role in working with a counselor to
involve the outside community to benefit the school community:
Our student success advocate, our counselor, has been—she‘s new too, so
her and I started together, which was actually great, because we sat down
and talked about how we would build a relationship with our community
and get some partnerships going for the parents and the students and the
staff.
Ms. Melendez, the kindergarten teacher, mentioned during the interview
that Ms. Boyer was taking an active role in the external community, advocating for
Richmond students and promoting their learning. This was evident in Ms. Boyer‘s
work as she explained,
In March, we‘re going to talk about AYP and CRTs and what they can do
as parents to get ready. We‘re going to have a data night with the parents
where we invite all the parents in, along with our community partners,
152
which we‘ve actually developed quite a few community partners just in
those short 4 months of school. It was just about going out there and asking,
and that‘s what my counselor did. The community is more than willing to
come over and assist. So we‘ve been fortunate to have these people right
here in our neighborhood come in and help us.
Parents participated and vocalized their needs through needs assessments
presented at parent meetings. These concerns were addressed by the principal and
determined what resources would be offered to parents. Ms. Boyer explained,
We have a monthly ―second cup of coffee‖ with our parents; each month
it‘s a different topic that we discuss with them. At the end of the meeting
we give them a survey—two or three questions—and the last question is
always, ―What other information would you like for the school to provide to
you?‖ We take those surveys from the parents and that‘s how we shape our
next ―second cup of coffee.‖
The principal ensured that parents were valued and were considered equal
partners in student learning. Since Ms. Boyer began her principalship at Richmond,
every notice and letter that goes home from school has been translated to Spanish.
As Ms. Pryor stated during the interview, parent letters were ―translated all the
time.‖ According to Ms. Pryor, this practice was ―good communication.‖ Given
that over 80% of the families were Spanish speaking, the principal had made it a
priority to have letters sent home in their native language. She ensured that parents
felt included in the school community. For instance, during Morning Ceremony it
was observed that Ms. Boyer not only addressed the students and teachers on the
field but also reached out to parents with announcements and positive messages. At
the school site visitation it was clear that Ms. Boyer exuded warmth to all members
of Richmond School community. As Ms. Melendez said,
She‘s [Ms. Boyer] a young lady and she‘s full of energy. She loves to be in
this school. And since we met her with the other principal, she was very
proud to become our principal. That is something important, you know,
when you really take your work in your heart.
153
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
In investigating the ways in which principal practice impacted teacher
practice, it was determined that the teachers enhanced their internal capacity as
professionals, focused on improving instruction, and implemented a shared vision
as a result of the leader‘s practice. These three distinct findings are not mutually
exclusive. Characteristics of effective leadership impact teacher practice in various
ways and each is interdependent of the other. For example, by increasing teachers‘
internal capacity and supporting their professional development, teachers were
afforded the opportunity to hone their instructional skills and better meet the needs
of their students. As teachers collectively improved their knowledge and ability to
collaborate as professionals, they fostered a school culture focused on student
learning. In addition, the principal had a successful process and strategy in place for
communicating and creating a shared vision (i.e., lead team). She made sure to
involve key stakeholders (i.e., grade-level chairs) in lead team meetings to discuss
schoolwide matters. She also ensured a safe and orderly learning environment by
making changes in lunch and dismissal procedures. Ultimately, teachers could
focus on student learning.
Through teacher and principal interviews it was found that specific
conditions were created by Ms. Boyer that enabled teachers to improve their
classroom practice. Essentially, this research revealed that the impact on teacher
practice was shaped by the school principal, who (a) created a collaborative learn-
ing culture, (b) introduced and provided professional development opportunities
and new teaching strategies, (c) monitored classroom instruction, (d) focused on
data-driven approach to improving student achievement, (e) supported lead team
meetings, (f) communicated the school vision, and (g) created an open environment
154
for parents to become active partners in student learning. These practices align with
learning-centered behaviors and practices proposed by Murphy et al. (2006) and the
leadership framework of Edison Schools (2007).
Conclusion
Interviews with the principal and teachers, along with field observations of
the school leader and the VAL-ED survey results, revealed that Ms. Boyer strongly
demonstrated successful learning-centered leadership behaviors. Specifically, she
held high expectations for student learning and believed in supporting the staff to
facilitate teacher growth as professionals. She was committed to strengthening the
instructional capabilities of teachers to improve student learning. In doing so, she
exhibited her role as a strong EdisonLearning school leader.
The principal impacted teacher practice through various aspects of her
leadership practice. Teachers learned and implemented new strategies by participat-
ing in staff development opportunities, such as the professional book study, and
thereby collaborated as a professional learning community. These new learning
experiences enabled them to grow as professionals and helped them to improve
their practice to influence student learning. For example, the book study essentially
pushed the comfort level of the teachers, and the principal stayed firm in her
decision to implement it even in the face of teacher resistance.
Every learning opportunity was aligned to the SIP, which remained the
driving force behind every decision regarding teaching and learning and provided
the necessary coherence in the school program. The EdisonLearning Schools
design provided the structure (i.e., professional development time) for teachers to
collaborate and develop as a professional learning community. However, the degree
155
to which teachers developed their internal capacity cannot be determined, and the
degree to which they implemented new strategies remains unclear. Further research
is needed to assess these areas.
After in-depth interviews and a review of the pre- and post-intervention
online VAL-ED survey results, there is some evidence that Ms. Boyer demon-
strated a positive change in the Proficient performance level to the Distinguished
level in her learning-centered leadership behaviors. The data from the online survey
indicated that Ms. Boyer was effective in ensuring that school-wide actions were
carried out. The VAL-ED survey was designed to provide a summary of principal
effectiveness, which demonstrated the behaviors of learning-centered leadership.
Through interviews with teachers and the school principal, as well as observation
of Ms. Boyer in action at the school site, there was evidence that the performance
level was consistent with the findings. The data suggested a positive relationship
and improvement in the Core Components and Key Processes of Murphy et al.
(2006). However, the degree to which Ms. Boyer impacted teacher practice remains
unclear. More research is needed to fully assess these areas.
156
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
Statement of the Problem
School leaders today encounter critical educational and equity challenges to
eliminate the achievement gap of low-income minority students who have long
been underserved. The challenges of school leadership are overwhelming due to
factors such as the high poverty, low teacher retention, and limited resources that
are often prevalent in an urban school context (Darling-Hammond, 2003). There is
a long history of neglect and failure to produce successful student performance in
urban school settings (Anyon, 1997). Furthermore, current educational leaders are
ill equipped to serve the diverse needs of today‘s fast-changing student demo-
graphics and to effectively turn around underperforming schools (Davis et al.,
2005). With the NCLB accountability system driving key schoolwide decisions
(e.g., funding, sanctions, assessments), the stakes are higher than ever before for
school principals to ensure student success.
However, when provided with the necessary support structure such as
working with a mentor, new school leaders have a real chance to make a difference
in the school improvement process and thereby increase student achievement. In
other words, with proper guidance and knowledge received from a mentor, novice
principals can successfully exercise effective school leadership to impact instruc-
tional practice, which in turn influences student learning. New school leaders gain
the needed skills and information to demonstrate behaviors and practices from an
integrated model of leadership (i.e., instructional leadership, transformational
157
leadership, learning-centered leadership, and leadership for social justice) to meet
the needs of today‘s students.
The purpose of this study was to examine principal mentoring as a structure
to support the success of a novice principal working in an EdisonLearning school.
The following three research areas were closely investigated: (a) the impact of
mentoring on leadership practice, (b) organizational structures that support the
implementation of mentoring, and (c) the ways in which the leader‘s practice
impacts the professional practice of teachers. Specifically, the ELPMP, which was
designed to meet the needs of budding principals at EdisonLearning schools, was
explored.
Methodology
The research study involved a case analysis of a single principal in an urban
school setting. Data were collected utilizing the following methods: (a) interviews
with the principal, four teachers, and the Executive Director of EdisonLearning;
(b) questionnaire completed by two EdisonLearning mentors; (c) document analy-
sis; (d) field observations; and (e) examination of the results of pre-intervention and
post-intervention administrations of the online VAL-ED surveys by the principal
and school teachers. The data indicated that the EdisonLearning mentoring program
successfully addressed leadership concerns on multiple fronts by providing support
for the novice school principal. The findings provided valuable information
regarding the importance of a support structure for new school leaders and for the
development of future leadership support programs.
Specifically, the mentor influenced the leadership practices of Ms. Boyer,
the novice principal, by providing (a) guidance and support, (b) assistance with
158
problem solving, and (c) knowledge in handling instructional and management
matters. Working with a mentor helped Ms. Boyer to obtain important knowledge
and enhanced her leadership skills as an instructional leader, organizational leader,
culture builder, site manager, and Edison Schools executive. She demonstrated
these roles by promoting a culture of high standards for student learning and
strengthening the professional learning community. The organizational structures
that supported implementation of the mentoring model were training, time, tools,
and relationship, which contributed to the success of the program and its impact on
the development of the novice leader. The conditions set forth by the principal,
such as time, safe learning environment, and engagement with various stake-
holders, had a positive influence on the professional practice of teachers in the
school improvement process. However, the degree of change in teacher practice,
and therefore its impact on student achievement, remains unknown. The following
is a discussion of the findings related to each research question.
Discussion of Findings
Research Question 1: Impact of Mentoring
on Leadership Practice
Research question 1 asked, How does working with a mentor from the
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program affect the leadership practices of an
urban school principal? In addressing this research question, some major factors
warrant a discussion prior to discussing the role that the EdisonLearning mentor
played in enhancing the new principal‘s school leadership. Specifically, there is
some evidence that the school context contributed significantly to the exercise of
159
the novice school principal‘s leadership behaviors and practices. Following is a
discussion of these major factors.
Richmond School had been in existence for the past 8 years as an Edison-
Learning school under the leadership of a seasoned principal. These two variables
played a prominent role in Richmond‘s current school system with respect to
organizational structures (i.e., lead teams, Principal‘s Weekly Bulletin) that were
in place. The existing school environment promoted practices that were related
to professional development, instruction, and school leadership (i.e., daily pro-
fessional development opportunities, lead team meetings, Morning Ceremony,
morning block for reading). Specifically, the EdisonLearning School design had
long provided the format for the school staff‘s ongoing professional development
opportunities and curricular programs for students. Hence as a new principal, the
new principal inherited a highly organized school, along with a professional
learning community of dedicated teachers.
Nevertheless, she encountered challenges that were inherent to new school
leadership, particularly moving into the leadership role at the school. She was
ultimately supported by her mentor, which enabled her to establish herself as the
new principal and continue efficiently in the existing path of school leadership.
Specifically, the guidance that she received from the mentor helped her to move
effectively into the position and address concerns related to promoting instruction
and managing human resources.
It is first worth noting that there were variables in place that may have
played a role in Ms. Boyer‘s transition to the new school. First, there was a strong
teacher base due to stability within the school faculty. In fact, there was a high rate
of teacher retention (i.e., most teachers have been at the school for an average of 10
160
years) and staff attendance (96%). These variables may have influenced teacher and
student morale, which were both regarded as high, according to the interviewed
teachers and principal. Therefore, the positive school culture, which was already in
place, influenced the enactment of the new principal‘s leadership practices.
In addition to the school factors and support received from the mentor, per-
sonal characteristics of the new leader may have strongly contributed to exercising
successful school leadership behaviors. Specifically, Ms. Boyer had been with the
district for about 15 years prior to joining Richmond EdisonLearning School. She
was therefore familiar with the district staff and the particular EdisonLearning
mentor with whom she had been assigned to work, since the mentor was a longtime
administrator in the district. Ms. Boyer also possessed substantial administrative
experience as a dean (2 years) and an assistant principal (3 years) prior to the first
year of principalship. Furthermore, she had spent 9 years as a classroom teacher,
with passion for student learning and commitment to professional growth.
According to Ms. Boyer, these past work experiences and a strong belief
system for student success contributed to her current leadership practices in terms
of the idea and implementation of the book study at Richmond School. In short, she
brought with her highly desirable leadership characteristics as one who possessed
instructional knowledge, experience, and commitment, as well as one who had
exercised administrative duties. Ultimately, factors of the school context, the
principal‘s background experience, and values, along with the ongoing support
from the EdisonLearning mentor, contributed to the success of Ms. Boyer‘s school
leadership practices. The effectiveness of her school leadership was revealed by the
qualitative data gathered from teacher and principal interviews and quantitative
data collected. She experienced improved survey results (i.e., increase in the
161
performance level from Proficient to Distinguished) from the pre-intervention to
the post-intervention administration of the online VAL-ED assessment survey.
The conceptual framework for learning-centered leadership described in
chapter 2 addressed the importance of context and leader characteristics (Murphy et
al., 2006) in the exercise of educational leadership. Hallinger et al. (1996) asserted
that the principal‘s personal characteristics may ―correlate with each other as well
as principal‘s actions‖ (p. 533). Research has shown that these variables shape
principals‘ instructional leadership and play a significant role in school effective-
ness, which was evident in this study. Therefore, given such a finding, mentoring
must be flexible and adapt to the needs of the school context and its leader. This
was demonstrated by the work and exchanges between the protégé and her mentor.
While the mentoring program had been in effect for only a short period of
time (6 months) during the course of this study, Ms. Boyer demonstrated successful
behaviors and practices from an integrated model of leadership as a result of
working with the mentor. Specifically, she demonstrated behaviors and practices of
a learning-centered leader who successfully executed her role as instructional
leader, organizational leader, culture builder, site manager, and EdisonSchools
executive, according to the five leadership roles of EdisonLearning.
In fact, Ms. Boyer not only vocalized the importance of instructional leader-
ship, she demonstrated being a strong instructional leader by making regular class-
room visitations and providing teachers with immediate feedback. She imple-
mented a professional book study on a schoolwide level in which she carefully
chose six books that addressed needs of the school faculty. She provided the
necessary resources and materials for her teachers as they requested student books
and classroom supplies.
162
Ms. Boyer was a transformational leader in that she inspired the staff
through her daily interactions with students, staff, and parents. For example, during
Morning Ceremony each day she recognized individual students, classrooms, and
teachers for accomplishments and goals reached. These included targets such as
meeting 100% attendance and benchmark goals. In addition, she delivered pep talks
to teachers at the start of staff meetings, which teachers found to be inspirational.
Teachers reported that the principal expressed sincerity and conviction for the work
in which they engaged as collective members of the team.
Ms. Boyer was keen on demonstrating learning-centered leadership by
focusing on improving teaching and learning of all stakeholders at the school site.
For example, parents were provided with learning opportunities such as Family
Literacy Night, Math Night, Game Night, and Second Cup of Coffee. She strongly
encouraged teachers to focus on professional development and aligned their learn-
ing opportunities to their SIP. She made herself accessible and available for
teachers by being visible and transparent. This was demonstrated through her
Weekly Bulletin, regular email messages to staff, and ongoing communication with
the leadership team to ensure a mutual flow of information to and from the staff.
Ms. Boyer displayed strong leadership for social justice. Since she became
principal at the school, every home-school communication letter was translated into
Spanish, given the school‘s high percentage of Spanish-speaking families. It was
evident that Ms. Boyer was an effective and open communicator. She made daily
morning announcements to students, teachers, and parents. She published a weekly
bulletin for staff members to inform them of her schedule and availability.
The ways in which the mentor supported Ms. Boyer in the exercise of these
successful leadership practices was through consultative, collaborative, and
163
facilitative strategies. According to Bloom et al. (2005), mentors provide direction
and expert knowledge on how to resolve school dilemmas. In practice, the mentor
guides and counsels the protégé in a direct manner through a consultative approach.
This was evidenced by the mentor‘s work with Ms. Boyer in resolving a personnel
matter whereby the mentor helped the principal through a legal documentation
process. The facilitative approach was also implemented with the protégé during
the mentoring process. This entailed the mentor providing Ms. Boyer with coaching
and feedback (Bloom et al.). Specifically, the mentor helped Ms. Boyer to start a
journal to capture her thoughts and experiences to assist her to reflect on her own
practice and work, which is an integral part of school leadership.
The mentor led Ms. Boyer through facilitative coaching to prepare her for
difficult conversations with the assistant principal and office manager who initially
may have resisted the leadership changes at the start of the school year. Ms. Boyer
was supported and guided by the mentor, who readily shared stories of success and
failure from past work experience. According to the principal, this helped to ―cut a
lot of red tape . . . a lot of trial and error.‖ By implementing the consultative pro-
cess, the mentor provided Ms. Boyer the necessary skills and knowledge (Bloom et
al., 2005) to handle the managerial aspects of the job. Moreover, it was a conversa-
tion with the mentor that sparked the idea for the professional book study. This was
accomplished through collaboration between mentor and protégé.
These findings from the study are consistent with the literature on the
effectiveness and importance of coaching and mentoring (Bloom et al., 2005; Spiro
et al., 2007; Strong et al., n.d.) ―to promote a more equitable and effective learning
environment‖ (Spiro et al., p. 9). However, it is difficult to assess measurable
164
change in leadership practice as a direct result of principal mentoring because other
variables interacted with the overall mentoring process.
Research Question 2: Organizational Structures That
Support the Implementation of Mentoring
The second research question asked, What organizational structures
support the implementation of the mentoring model? Davis et al. (2005) asserted
that little is known about the support structure needed to build and sustain new
school leaders‘ capacities to influence student learning. Specifically, the question
remains as to how best to assist new leaders and find out what intricacies are
involved in helping novice principals develop knowledge and practices to impact
school improvement.
This research study uncovered important findings that contribute to the
body of knowledge regarding support structures needed for successful mentoring
programs. In investigating the ELPMP the following four structures emerged as
crucial for the success of the mentoring process: training, time, tools, and relation-
ship. The findings did not indicate any structures that did not support the mentoring
model.
Spiro et al. (2007) highlighted the importance of high-quality mentor train-
ing to address the needs of new school leaders. According to the Spiro et al., the
training must encompass cultivating mentor skills such as active listening, encour-
aging reflection, goal setting, and managing conflicts. The ELPMP incorporated
sound research in designing the model for the support program. People participated
in a 3-day mandated training session where they gained knowledge of various
techniques of the consultative and facilitative approach to mentoring. They were
also introduced to various activities and presentations about the mentoring process
165
to understand their role as mentors and to meet the needs of the novice school
principal (Edison Schools, 2007). Through the questionnaire administered in this
study it was discovered that the two participating EdisonLearning mentors rated the
training as effective in preparing them to work with a novice school principal. This
was supported by the findings gathered from principal interviews.
The ELPMP required the mentor and protégé to meet or communicate on a
consistent basis (i.e., phone or face to face) in order to support the development of
the new school leader (Edison Schools, 2007). Both the mentor and protégé were
mandated to log and report their hours to the Executive Director. Ms. Boyer struc-
tured a regular time (i.e., every Tuesday at 4 p.m.) with her mentor, to which they
remained committed; this supported successful implementation of the mentor
model. This study indicated that, as a result of the ongoing communication with her
mentor, Ms. Boyer immediately addressed pressing concerns at the school site. She
also was provided the time and opportunity to engage in professional discussions
with her mentor regarding the craft of leading.
Daresh (2005), a prominent researcher in the field of mentoring, under-
scored the value of goal setting for novice new leaders. He emphasized the need to
create an action plan to provide the protégé with a visual indicator to gauge how
objectives were being achieved along the way. Remaining consistent with the
literature, the ELPMP developed collaborative planning tools whereby the protégé
and mentor collaborated on creating short-term and long-term goals. These goals
were based on the needs of the school and were aligned to the achievement of five
EdisonLearning leadership roles (Edison Schools, 2007). This tool proved to be
effective with both the mentor and the protégé, according to the two respondents.
Specifically, Ms. Boyer discussed that the tool helped her to remain focused on
166
achieving her goals and provided the accountability piece in holding the mentor
and protégé responsible for their actions.
Bloom et al. (2005) asserted that, in order for mentors to work effectively in
supporting the protégé, a relationship that is grounded in trust must be established
between mentor and protégé. The findings from this research revealed the
importance of building a relationship based on mutual trust and respect. As one
EdisonLearning mentor shared, ―The relationship is at the heart of the work that the
mentor and protégé do together and is critical to the success of the mentoring.‖
Bloom et al. described this trust, ―as an assessment of sincerity, reliability, and
competence‖ (p. 27). Furthermore, Ms. Boyer reported that the relationship that had
been built between her and the mentor would lead to a life-long friendship.
Research Question 3: Ways in Which the Leader’s
Practice Impacts Teacher Practice
Research question 3 asked, In what ways do the leadership practices of the
principal affect the professional practice of teachers? The literature reviewed in
chapter 2 reported that the impact of leadership is indirect in that it is mediated by
school factors and instructional activities (Leithwood et al., 2004). Specifically,
researchers have found that principals have a critical role in the success of students
through their influence on other people or operations of the schools (Leithwood
et al.; Marzano et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). As Hallinger et al. (1996)
concluded, principals ―promote student achievement through their influence on
features of the school-wide learning climate‖ (p. 543), which was evident in the
exercise of Ms. Boyer‘s leadership practices.
The findings from this research study showed that Ms. Boyer influenced
teacher practice through her enactment of strong instructional and learning-centered
167
leadership. As reported in chapter 4, one of the ways in which Ms. Boyer‘s practice
impacted teacher practice was through creating and supporting professional
development opportunities for teachers. All four teachers reported that the princi-
pal‘s focus on staff development helped them to improve their practice as pro-
fessionals. In addition, as a learning-centered leader, Ms. Boyer protected students‘
instructional time by ensuring minimal interruptions during the school day. Accord-
ing to the conceptual framework of learning-centered leadership, ―Academic
learning time is the cauldron in which student achievement materializes‖ (Murphy
et al., 2006, p. 13). Ms. Boyer sought to safeguard academic learning time. She
created a safe and orderly learning environment by changing lunch and dismissal
procedures. The teachers reported that, as a result of these leadership behaviors and
practices, they enhanced their internal capacity as professionals, focused on
improving instruction, and implemented a shared vision.
For example, Ms. Boyer implemented a professional book study by
structuring time during the day for teachers to read the book and have discussions
related to their students. By creating the necessary conditions and processes for
teachers to participate in a professional development activity, Ms. Boyer enabled
teachers to work collectively outside the classroom setting. In doing so she pro-
moted the collective work and responsibility of teachers, thereby fostering school
ownership. These were factors that were found to be significant to sustaining a
professional learning community (Lee & Smith, 2001). Richmond School teachers
implemented new ideas and strategies obtained from the book study, which they
reported during the interviews. In short, it was revealed that Ms. Boyer‘s leadership
practice had a positive impact on the organization‘s climate as she helped to
reshape and enhance the school‘s professional learning culture. Prominent
168
researchers in the field Lee and Smith emphasized that, where there are collective
responsibility and cooperation among teachers, there are higher achievement gains
for students. Ultimately there may be a noticeable increase in Richmond students‘
standardized test scores. However, the impact on student learning at the present
time remains unknown.
As McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) found, promoting the work of pro-
fessional learning communities was an effective means to raising student achieve-
ment by cultivating the skills and knowledge of in-house experts. This has the
potential to increase the school‘s instructional capacity. Ms. Boyer promoted the
school‘s leadership capacity through her work with lead team members. With
ongoing guidance and support received from the mentor, Ms. Boyer influenced the
way in which teachers conducted their work, especially in fostering a shared vision
and shared leadership. This was especially prevalent in how Ms. Boyer ran her
weekly lead team meetings. She included key school leaders in her decision-
making team (i.e., grade-level chairs and specialists). She made sure to bring up
schoolwide matters to the team before distributing information to the whole staff,
such as the idea for the book study. However, Ms. Boyer balanced this shared work
of leading with being authoritative when needed.
In particular, Ms. Boyer was clear in identifying responsible parties and
strategies for implementation of schoolwide actions. The principal ensured a
supportive leadership for developing and sustaining an effective professional
learning community. In short, Ms. Boyer‘s leadership practices demonstrated the
indirect path through which the school principal plays a role in advancing school
effectiveness. As was reported in the literature review, school leadership is a
169
―central ingredient‖ (Murphy et al., 2006, p. 1) for raising student achievement by
creating the necessary conditions and influencing key school processes.
Limitations of the Study
A considerable amount of effort was taken to ensure the validity of the data
gathered via principal and teacher interviews, field observation of the principal,
document analysis, and analysis of results from the online VAL-ED surveys.
However, there remained limitations to the study. One major limitation was the
generalizability of this study. Because this study was a single case study of a parti-
cular EdisonLearning principal in an urban school setting, the findings may not be
generalizable to every school leader in an urban school context. In addition, there
were threats to internal validity as a result of a low teacher participation rate in the
pre-intervention (24 of 45 teachers) and post-intervention (12 of 45 teachers)
administrations of the online VAL-ED survey.
The sampling of four teachers who were interviewed for the study may
be in question. These teachers were selected by a teacher-leader based on the
researcher‘s request for a purposeful sampling of new to experienced teachers. This
particular teacher-leader was selected by the school principal at the beginning of
the school year (2008-2009) when she began her principalship. It is unknown
precisely how the four teachers were selected over other faculty members with
similar teaching background experiences. Finally, as with any case study research,
there was the possibility of researcher bias.
Implications for Future Research
There is a great demand for high-quality principals who are capable of
leading today‘s urban schools. In understanding the significance of the principal‘s
170
role in shaping effective educational programs, a support structure such as mentor-
ing is vital to successful leadership. Mentoring provides new principals with the
necessary capacity to develop, enhance, and ultimately enact effective leadership
practices (Daresh, 2005). This case study indicated positive outcomes for this
novice EdisonLearning school principal in an urban school setting as a result of
working with an EdisonLearning mentor. However, there remain further implica-
tions for future research in the area of support structure for new school leaders. The
following research topics are suggested to enhance current literature on effective
mentoring practices and leadership practice:
1. Evaluate mentor training programs for rigor and research-based strategies
and the effectiveness of the implementation of tools, such as the collaborative
planning tools, weekly phone logs, and action plans to determine protégé needs and
evaluate progress made toward meeting goals.
2. Evaluate criteria for selecting effective mentors and the determining
factors for matching protégé with mentor. In addition, what are the steps when the
mentor/protégé relationship is found to be a poor match?
3. Evaluate the effects of expanding the EdisonLearning model, which
incorporates structured daily professional development and weekly teacher
collaboration to other non-EdisonLearning schools.
4. Develop and implement measurement tools to quantify and evaluate
effective leadership practice.
Implications for Policy and Practice
This case study has several implications for policy and practice for educa-
tional leadership in urban school settings. The school context played a major role in
171
the enactment of Ms. Boyer‘s leadership practices. Therefore, an important con-
sideration must be made in support programs such as mentoring that address the
school context. Essentially, the needs and challenges of the school vary according
to the setting (i.e., socioeconomic status, achievement levels, teacher retention).
Given these differences, mentoring programs must be designed to address critical
issues related to the school context.
Leader characteristics contributed to the success of Ms. Boyer‘s leadership
practices, in addition to the context in which that leadership was exercised. Leaders
bring with them varying degrees of leadership knowledge, experience, and skills. A
support program for school leaders must address adequate level of support in terms
of the type of knowledge and skills needed to lead in high-poverty urban school
settings. Moreover, it becomes increasingly important at the district level to make
appropriate placement decisions and select suitable candidates for schools in urban
settings.
A support structure such as mentoring has the potential to influence and
reshape leadership practices for improved student achievement. Therefore, funding
at the state and federal level for support programs is critical if lasting changes are to
take place (e.g., turn around underperforming schools). Professional development
must be ongoing for school leaders, despite the level of administrative experience
that leaders bring. A strategic plan that addresses the various needs of individual
leaders—one that is designed to support school leaders and improve the quality of
education in public schools in urban school settings—is vital. New school leaders
need feedback on their leadership practice, as it is important for goal setting and for
leaders to work toward realistic goals. Hence, a measurement tool for school
leadership must be implemented—a 360˚ evaluation tool (teachers, supervisor, the
172
leader, and parents) that is geared toward informing and guiding leadership
practice.
Conclusion
As school leaders are poised to make a difference in student learning, a
support program for new principals must be in place to guide their work to ensure
school success. This is especially critical in an urban school context, given the
complex set of issues that confront the schools and their leaders (e.g., achievement
gap, high poverty, low teacher retention, lack of resources). Research has shown
that school leadership is a vital component for student success (Marzano et al.,
2003). Mentoring is an important vehicle for preparing new school leaders to drive
school improvement in the areas of teaching and learning (Spiro et al., 2007),
which are needed to bring forth lasting, sustainable change in student performance.
A successful support structure such as mentoring is a forum and opportunity
for individual leaders to examine their own practices and build their capacity to
move forward in the areas of instruction, parent engagement, and networking with
the external community to promote student learning. This was demonstrated in this
case study. In fact, mentors have a critical opportunity to help shape and develop
the tremendous work of new school leaders. They affirm what new leaders bring
with them (i.e., strong value and belief system in providing excellent education for
all students) and help them to strengthen their knowledge and skills. Ultimately,
mentors support novice principals in their growth to become responsive to the
specific needs of the school community.
In spite of overwhelming challenges in urban school settings, some schools
are succeeding. This is due to effective school leadership, which makes that critical
173
difference in student performance. All students are entitled to excellent education
and educational opportunities. Leadership for social justice is at the heart of the
mission. School leaders must use knowledge and newly acquired leadership skills
to promote policy change that help all students to achieve their highest potential.
A belief in equity and excellence for all students must remain at the forefront of
school leaders‘ work. Novice school principals who are supported in their work by
a mentor have the potential to make significant strides in the school improvement
process.
174
REFERENCES
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational
reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bloom, G., Castagna, C., Moir, E., & Warren, B. (2005). Blended coaching: Skills
and strategies to support principal development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Bogotch, I. E. (2000). Educational leadership and social justice: Theory into prac-
tice. Earlier version of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Uni-
versity Council for Educational Administration, Albuquerque, NM.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice,
and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brad County School District (pseudonym). (2006). School accountability summary
report, 2005-2006. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www
.nevadareportcard.com/
Brad County School District (pseudonym). (2007). District improvement and
AMAO plan for implementation in 2008-2009. Retrieved November 21,
2008, from http://ccsd.net/schools/accountabilityReports.php
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Seashore-Louis, K. (1999). Professional community in
Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational conse-
quences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 751-762.
Cambron-McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. M. (2005). Educating school leaders for
social justice. Educational Policy, 19(1), 201-222.
Camburn, E. M., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools:
The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform
models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347-373.
Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for pre-
paring leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44,
209-222.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new
demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left
Behind Act. Retrieved September 12, 2007, from http://www.urban.org/
publications/311234.html
Chrismer, S. S., Hodge, S. T., & Saintil, D. (Eds.). (2006). Assessing NCLB:
Perspectives and prescriptions. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 457-462.
175
Coldren, A. F., & Spillane, J. P. (2007). Making connections to teaching practice:
The role of boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational
Policy, 21, 369-396.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership─Dif-
ferent in kind and degree. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational
Leadership.
Daresh, J. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable
problems? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 495-517.
Daresh, J. (2005). Leaders helping leaders: A practical guide to administrative
mentoring (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified
teachers in California‘s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106,
1936-1966.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for
powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35, 13-24.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America‘s com-
mitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36,
318-334.
Darling Hammond, L., LaPointe M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C.
(2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from ex-
emplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School
Leadership Study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
Diamond, J., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. (2004). Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 35(1), 75-98.
Duncan-Andrade, J. (2005). An examination of the sociopolitical history of
Chicanos and its relationship to school performance. Urban Education, 40,
576-605.
Edison Schools, Inc. (2007). Whole school design handbook. New York: Author.
The Education Trust. (2004a). African American achievement in America. Re-
trieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.edtrust.org
176
The Education Trust. (2004b). Latino achievement in America. Retrieved March
27, 2008, from http://www.edtrust.org
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
Fuhrman, G. (2003). Moral leadership and the ethic of community. Values and
Ethics in Educational Administration, 2(1), 1-7.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. New York: Wiley.
Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learn-
ers? Retrieved September 14, 2007, from pewhispanic.org/reports/
report.php?ReportID=76 – 12k
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A
longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents‘ aspirations and expecta-
tions, and their children'‘ school performance. American Educational Re-
search Journal, 38, 547-582.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Edu-
cation, 33, 329-351.
Hallinger, P. (2007). Research on the practice of instructional and transforma-
tional leadership: Retrospect and prospect. Paper presented at the con-
ference The Leadership Challenge: Improving Learning in Schools. Re-
trieved April 15, 2008, from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/
RC2007_Hallinger-RetrospectAndProspect.pdf
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal
leadership, and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96, 498-
518.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal‘s role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Exploring the principal‘s contribution to
school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 9, 157-191.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and man-
agement: Where does the field stand today? Educational Management Ad-
ministration and Leadership, 33, 229-244.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). (2008). Educational
leadership policy standards. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://
www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/elps_isllc2008.pdf
177
Karpinski, C., & Lugg, C. (2006). Social justice and educational administration:
Mutually exclusive? Journal of Educational Administration, 44, 277-292.
Kouzes, J., & Posser, B. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership,
59(8), 37-40.
Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on
gains in achievement for early secondary students. American Journal of
Education, 104, 103-147.
Lee, V., & Smith, J. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence:
What works. New York: Teachers College Press.
Leithwood, K. (n.d.). Educational leadership: A review of the research. (Prepared
for The Laboratory for Student Success at Temple University Center for
Research in Human Development and Education) Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Silins, H., & Dart, B. (1993). Using the appraisal of
school leaders as an instrument for school restructuring. Peabody Journal of
Education, 68(2), 85-109.
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leader-
ship. In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for
research on educational leadership (pp. 22-47). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning (Learning From Leadership Project
Executive Summary). New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Levin, B., Gaskell, J., & Pollock, K. (2007). What shapes inner-city education
policy? Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 61,
1-22.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and social performance:
An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-397.
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.
178
McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of
high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in educa-
tion: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Leadership for
learning: A researched-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. New
York: Wallace Foundation.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional
capacity promises and practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute
Program on Education and the Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
Normore, A. H., & Blanco, R. I. (2006). Leadership for social justice and morality:
Collaborative partnerships, school-linked services and the plight of the
poor. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(1), 1-
25. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/
volume10/normore_blanco.htm
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Porter, A. C., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2006). A
framework for the assessment of learning-centered leadership. New York:
The Wallace Foundation.
Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Goldring, E., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & May, H.
(2008). Building a psychometrically sound assessment of school leader-
ship: The VAL-ED as a case study. A paper presented at the Annual Meet-
ing of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Rich, R. A., & Jackson, S. H. (2005). Peer coaching: Principals learning from
principals—Pairing novice and experienced principals provides both with
opportunities to promote reflective thinking in their decision making.
Principal, 84(5), 30-33.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The
challenge of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability.
Educational Policy, 22, 181-203.
Seashore-Louis, K. (1994). Professionalism and community: Perspective on
reforming urban schools. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
and Improvement.
179
Seashore-Louis, K., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers‘ professional
community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 33, 757-798.
Spiro, J., Mattis, M., & Mitgang, L. D. (2007). Getting principal mentoring right:
Lessons from the field. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Stecher, B. M., Hamilton, L. S., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave
no child behind. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Strong, M., Barrett, A., & Bloom, G. (n.d.). Supporting the new principal:
Managerial and instructional leadership in a principal induction program.
Santa Cruz: University of California Santa Cruz New Teacher Center.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice, educational leaders, and resistance: Toward a
theory of justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 221-
258.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Growing pains: The challenge of over-
crowded schools is here to stay. A back to school special report on the baby
boom echo. Washington, DC: Author.
Vanderhaar, J. E., Muñoz, M. A., & Rodosky, R. J. (2007). Leadership as accounta-
bility for learning: The effects of school poverty, teacher experience, previ-
ous achievement, and principal preparation programs on student achieve-
ment. Journal of Personal Evaluation in Education, 19(1-2), 17-33.
Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. (2009). Human resources administration: Personnel
issues and needs in education (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Webb, P. T., Neumann, M., & Jones, L. C. (2004). Politics, school improvement,
and social justice: A triadic model of teacher leadership. Educational
Forum, 68, 254-262.
WestEd. (2003). Moving leadership standards into everyday work: Descriptions of
practice. San Francisco: Author.
Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., Rubin, C., & Seidel, S. (2004).
Teaching as inquiry: Asking hard questions to improve practice and student
achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Weiner, L. (2000). Research in the 90s: Implications for urban teacher preparation.
Review of Educational Research, 70, 369-406.
180
APPENDIX A
Support Letter From the EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program
181
APPENDIX B
Teacher Post-Intervention Interview Protocols
Spring 2009
Tell me a little bit about yourself (how long have you been in education/years in the
classroom/Edison School)
General Questions:
Do you know if your principal is participating in a principal mentoring
program?
o What do you know about Edison School‘s principal mentoring? (If
answer is NO to 1
st
question, skip this question)
How do you think principal mentoring has influenced your principal‘s
practice? (If answer is NO to 1
st
question 1, skip this question)
Have you noticed any change in your instructional practice as a result of
your principal receiving mentoring?
(If answer is NO to 1
st
question 1, ask the following question: Have you
noticed any change in your instructional practice from September until
now?)
Describe your principal‘s current leadership practice compared to her
practice at the beginning of the school year? (Are there any differences?)
ISLLC #1 & VAL-ED – High Standards for Student Learning
1. What has the principal done to promote the success of all students? How
has it influenced your teaching practice?
How has the principal communicated the school‘s vision?
In your opinion, does your principal hold high expectations for
students and teachers? What are some of the high expectations that
your principal has communicated to you and faculty?
How does your principal ensure continuous school improvement?
How does your principal provide feedback with regard to meeting
school goals/student achievement plan/school vision?
182
ISLLC #2 & VAL-ED Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, Culture of
Learning & Professional Behavior
2. How has your principal encouraged growth for students? How has your
principal encouraged professional growth for faculty? How has that influenced
your practice?
How have you been supported in providing high quality, rigorous
instruction?
What new teaching strategies have you learned this year and
incorporated into daily lessons?
What kinds of learning opportunities have you been provided with?
ISLLC #3 – VAL-ED Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior
3. What organizational structures (e.g., safety plan, time for teacher
collaboration, positive behavior support plan, decision-making teams,
professional development, etc.) have your principal established/reinforced this
year that promote a safe and efficient learning environment? How have they
impacted your practice?
How are concerns with safety and learning brought to your school
leader‘s attention?
Do you feel you are included in high stakes (e.g., decision-making and
in what ways?
ISLLC #4 & VAL-ED Connections to the External Community
4. In what ways are families and the community incorporated into the
decision-making process to ensure student success at this school? How has
collaboration with the external communities impacted your classroom practice?
How are families encouraged to be partners in their child‘s education?
ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Culture
5. Describe your school culture in terms of teacher morale, expectations for
student achievement and parent involvement. What role has your principal
played in establishing respect for diversity? How has the culture of the school
influenced your teaching practice?
How does your school leader resolve conflicts surrounding diversity?
How is diversity celebrated at your school?
Is there anything else you want to share about school principal in terms of her
leadership practice?
183
APPENDIX C
Mentor Questionnaire
University of Southern California Study on
EdisonLearning Principal Mentor Program
Questions for EdisonLearning Mentor
Helena J. Yoon, Graduate Researcher
Spring 2009
1. How did the mentor training prepare you for your role as a mentor?
2. Do you feel that the training provided you with the knowledge and tools to
support your protégé? In what ways?
3. What organizational structures (such as time, documents, etc.) support the
implementation of the mentor model?
4. Please describe the relationship between you and your protégé.
5. How does that relationship impact meeting the goals of the protégés?
184
APPENDIX D
USC-Edison Leadership Study
Questions for Trainers of Edison Mentors
Fall 2008
1. How do you prepare Edison Mentors to support school principals
a. How often do they meet? By phone? In-person? Email?
2. How are the goals determined for each principal? What are the desired
outcomes for each principal?
a. How do they determine area(s) of focus for each principal?
i. Mission? Vision?
ii. Alignment with Edison Schools?
3. How are the goals measured?
a. Measured by the rubric?
4. How is the rubric utilized in measuring those outcomes?
a. How is the Edison leadership rubric used to facilitate the
development of principal outcomes/expected outcomes?
5. What types of evidence will the principals provide which demonstrates their
growth?
a. Documents? Artifacts? Professional development?
185
APPENDIX E
Principal Interview Protocols
Principal Pre-Intervention Protocol
Fall 2008
1. How many years have you been in administration?
2. How long have you been in the district and at this site?
3. Please describe the schools‘ mission and vision?
4. How do you plan to influence teacher practice?
5. In what ways do teachers collaborate with each other? What is your role in that
process?
6. What are the school‘s goals for student learning this year?
7. How were the goals determined?
8. Who determined these goals?
9. How do you plan to measure the goals?
10. Are there objectives/initiatives for meeting those goals?
11. What are your expectations for the mentoring experience?
12. How do you meet the learning needs of your diverse student population? Low
SES students? EL students who are not performing up to their potential or not
at all?
186
Principal Post-Intervention Protocol
Spring 2009
Tell me a little more about your background in education.
How many years in the classroom? Where? What type of school setting?
(high performing? Low SES? High number of EL students, etc.?)
How long have you been in the district? Any other districts? Any other
positions in or outside of education?
What degree and credentials do you hold? (teaching/admin/specialist/etc.)
What made you choose a career in education?
ISLLC #1 & VAL-ED – High Standards for Student Learning
2. What do you know and believe promote the success of all students? How
has mentoring help facilitate these beliefs? Why do you think mentoring
shaped those beliefs? What do you now do as a result of mentoring to
promote the success of all students?
How is the schools‘ vision incorporated in your daily school
operation? Can you provide some concrete examples?
In what ways do you communicate high expectations for your
students?
How have you ensured continuous school improvement?
Has mentoring helped you improve in these areas?
ISLLC #2 & VAL-ED Rigorous Curriculum, Quality Instruction, Culture of
Learning & Professional Behavior
3. How have you promoted a school culture that facilitates growth for students
and faculty? How has mentoring helped you develop the school‘s
curriculum and instruction?
How have you supported high quality, rigorous instruction?
What teaching strategies have you seen your staff incorporate into
daily lessons as a result of your leadership this year?
How are learning opportunities (e.g., PD, any learning activities,
collaboration, etc.) for teachers supported by you as the school
leader?
ISLLC #3 & VAL-ED Organizational Learning Culture
187
4. What are the organizational structures (e.g., instructional experts, coaches,
safety plan, decision-making body, team meetings, time, data, collaboration,
etc.) that promote a safe and efficient learning environment? How has
mentoring provided you the tools to foster a safe and learning environment?
How are staff concerns in this area brought to your attention? What role
have you played in creating these conditions?
How have you created a collaborative school culture that fosters the
belief that all children can learn? Has this been a goal for you this year?
What role has mentoring played in helping you achieve this?
ISLLC #4/6 & VAL-ED Connections to the External Community
5. In what ways have you fostered collaboration with diverse families and the
outside community to promote student success? Has mentoring given you
the tools to communicate with outside organizations (parents, community
members, businesses, etc.)? If so, what were the tools?
How are families encouraged to be partners in their child‘s education?
Do you receive feedback from the community? How has feedback from
the community been incorporated into your practice? What types of
feedback do you receive and how has the feedback been incorporated…
ISLLC #5 & VAL-ED Culture
6. How do you promote a school culture that respects diversity? How has
mentoring provided you the skills to promote equal access and opportunities
for all students?
How are high expectations for professionalism communicated to the
staff?
How do get a feel or a sense of your school culture (e.g., teacher morale,
student expectations, teacher-student interaction, parent involvement)
and monitor its overall tone?
How has the students‘ voice been used to shape the school‘s culture?
188
ISLLC #3 & VAL-ED Performance Accountability
7. What organizational structures (e.g., intervention programs, enrichment
activities, benchmark assessments, tutoring, etc.) have you incorporated that
ensure student success? How has mentoring enabled you to make decisions
and/or implement these programs?
How is data used by you and your teachers?
What programs are in place to support students that are not meeting
identified state standards?
8. What organizational structures (e.g., time, budget, relationship, etc.) support
the implementation of the mentoring model? What structures are in place
for mentoring to occur?
How is time structured for mentoring to take place?
How have the weekly meetings helped you achieve your goals?
How have the collaborative planning tools been used to help you with
your action plans?
What are your thoughts on the mentoring program and the relationship
that has been developed between you and your mentor?
9. Do you believe you have an impact on teachers‘ instructional practice?
Please describe how you have impacted teacher practice. What role has
mentoring played in your impact on teacher practice this year?
10. Is there anything else you would like to share about the mentoring process
and your leadership practice?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study examined the impact of participation in EdisonLearning’s Mentor/Protégé program on an urban school principal’s leadership practice. This mixed-methods case study investigated the following three questions:
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
Building capacity for leadership in urban schools
PDF
The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator
PDF
The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools
PDF
Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement
PDF
A case for change: building leadership capacity in urban high schools
PDF
A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century
PDF
An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices
PDF
Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school
PDF
Building leadership capacity to support principal succession
PDF
Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals
PDF
Principal leadership -- skill demands in a global context
PDF
Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap
PDF
Sustainability of a narrowed achievement gap: A case study
PDF
Preparing leaders for the urban school context: a case study analysis for effective leadership
PDF
Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school
PDF
Student engagement in a high performing urban high school: a case study
PDF
Sustaining quality leadership at prep academy charter schools: promising practices for leadership development in public schools
PDF
Effective factors of high performing urban high schools: a case study
PDF
A case study to determine what perceived factors, including student engagement, contribute to academic achievement in a high performing urban high school
Asset Metadata
Creator
Yoon, Helena J.
(author)
Core Title
Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2009-08
Publication Date
07/15/2009
Defense Date
04/14/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,principal mentoring,school leadership,urban school context
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Reed, Margaret (
committee chair
), Gothold, Stuart E. (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (
committee member
)
Creator Email
helenayo@usc.edu,hyoonie@hotmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2364
Unique identifier
UC1165722
Identifier
etd-Yoon-2901 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-569798 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2364 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Yoon-2901.pdf
Dmrecord
569798
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Yoon, Helena J.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
principal mentoring
school leadership
urban school context