University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

(USC Thesis Other)

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
AN ALTERNATIVE CAPSTONE PROJECT:
GAP ANALYSIS OF DISTRICTWIDE REFORM IMPLEMENTATION OF
FOCUS ON RESULTS

by

Rosemary Santos Aguilar

__________________________________________________________

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Rosemary Santos Aguilar

ii
DEDICATION
To my husband, Francisco, thank you for loving, supporting, and caring for
me through this process. To my children, Omarr and Maya Sainz, thank you for
being my encouragement and my motivation to complete this journey. To my niece,
Jeannine Villasenor Edwards, thank you for being my lifeline to this work as my
personal tutor and advisor. Finally, to my mentor, Dr. Maria Gutierrez Ott, thank
you for inspiring, supporting, and championing my journey. You challenged me and
helped me realize my potential.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee members, Dr. David
Marsh, Dr. Robert Rueda, and Dr. Rob Arias, for providing their support, guidance,
and establishing the vision for this alternative capstone project. I would also like to
acknowledge and thank my inquiry team members, Debra L. Hill and Regina D.
Zurbano, who shared their knowledge and experience with me. I never would have
accomplished this without them. I also want to thank my professors, colleagues, and
fellow members of my thematic dissertation cohort for their support and
encouragement.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………………………………………………………………….. …ii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………… …iii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. …v
Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………………….. …1
Chapter Two: Chapter Two – Part A: Literature Review……………………. …13
Chapter Two – Part B: Methodology…………………………. …31
Chapter Two – Part C: Analysis of Root Causes of the
Performance Gaps…………………………………………….. …61

Chapter Three: Chapter Three – Part A: Literature Review Related to
Solutions……………………………………………………… …94
Chapter Three – Part B: Summary of Proposed Solutions….. …123

References……………………………………………………………………….. …142
Appendices
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms…………………………………………… …161
Appendix B: Inquiry Project Timeline Overview…………………………. …167
Appendix C: Interviewed Role Groups……………………………………. …168
Appendix D: Scanning Interview Guide………………………………………169
Appendix E: Stages of Concern (SoC) Interview Prompt Guide………….. …171
Table. Typical Expressions of Concern about an Innovation
(Adapted From Hall and Loucks, 1979)
Appendix F: Triangulation of Data…………………………………..……. …172
Appendix G: Executive Summary…………………………………………. …173
Appendix H: Proposed Solutions Powerpoint……………………………... …184
Appendix I: Focus on Results (FoR) Implementation Plan Documents….. …204
Appendix J: Focus on Results 2010-2011 Coaching Trios with………….. …215
Administrators

v
ABSTRACT
An inquiry team of three doctoral candidates critically examined the
implementation process of the Focus on Results (FoR) reform initiative in GUSD.
The Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC) and
the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) collaborated in this alternative
capstone inquiry project.
The Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model was used to determine: 1) the
degree of FoR implementation districtwide; 2) the identification of performance gaps
in the implementation; and 3) the identification of the root causes of the performance
gaps.
The data used in this process was obtained through interviews, observations,
and document analysis. The data was analyzed, quantified, and classified through
the gap analysis to identify the performance gaps in the implementation of FoR.
This inquiry analysis identified that the district had a multi-year
comprehensive implementation plan designed to build the capacity at all levels of the
organization to sustain the reform effort. We found that the plan had established a
good foundation from which the district could deepen the implementation process.
The issues uncovered by the gap analysis process included a misalignment of
the organizational goal structure, gaps in the knowledge/skill capacity of individuals
across different district role groups, and the need to deepen the implementation and
delineate a sustainability plan. In an effort to sustain the reform initiative, research-

vi
based solutions addressing these three specific areas were proposed to GUSD to
strengthen the foundation of their implementation.

1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
The 2010 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results
revealed that the United States was no longer a global leader in education scoring
average in reading and science and even lower in mathematics. Asian students,
particularly those from China who participated in the exam for the first time in 2009,
are now at the top of the list. These results show that our nation’s ability to sustain
its position in the global economy has been compromised. This is a major concern to
our financial, educational, and political leaders.
Historically, there has been a fundamental belief that by educating the
masses, we can be solvent, secured in the global environment, and be able to
maintain our position as an international power. In 1983, the National Commission
on Excellence in Education supported this belief by stating, “People are steadfast in
their belief that education is the major foundation for the future strength of this
country.” Consequently, this fundamental belief has been the basis for educational
reform efforts for the past five decades. During this time, national leaders have
attempted to sustain the nation’s position as a global leader by focusing on educating
all students and eliminating the achievement gap.
The quest for an educated citizenry began in 1959 when President
Eisenhower proposed the creation of national goals that would ensure future
American generations to be more competitive against other nations (ASCD, 2010).
In 1964, President Johnson declared a “War Against Poverty” by investing millions

2
of dollars to ensure all Americans had access to a quality education. Johnson’s
administration created the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1964, designed to
address inequality in education.
The National Commission on Excellence Reform warned in 1983 that unless
American schools educated all students, we would lose our position as a world
leader. It claimed that our nation’s uncontested dominance in commerce, industry,
science, and technological innovation was beginning to be lost to competitors
throughout the world. It documented a list of evidence calling on national leaders to
act towards reform and excellence in education. In response to their findings, the
commission made five major recommendations (A Nation at Risk, 1983):
1. Strengthen content for graduation, including a) 4 years of English; (b) 3
years of mathematics; (c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social studies;
and (e) one-half year of computer science for high school students. The
commission also recommended that students work toward proficiency in
a foreign language starting in the elementary grades;
2. Rigorous and measurable standards and expectations: schools, colleges,
and universities should adopt rigorous standards and raise admission
standards;
3. Devote significant more time to learning the basics: the commission
recommended "school districts and State legislatures should strongly
consider 7-hour school days, as well as a 200- to 220-day school year";

3
4. Improve teacher preparation and compensation: teacher salaries should
be "professionally competitive, market-sensitive, and performance-
based," and that teachers demonstrate "competence in an academic
discipline"; and
5. Leadership and Fiscal Support: the commission called on the public to
hold elected officials accountable for providing the leadership necessary
to accomplish these goals. They noted that the federal government had a
critical role in helping meet the needs of all students.
In 1989, President G. H. Bush began the movement for the development of
national standards. By the time President Clinton had been elected in 1994,
academic standards in English, mathematics, science, geography, foreign language
and government had been established. President Clinton supported the
implementation of the “voluntary” standards by earmarking over $700 million for its
Goal 2000 initiative, which required adoption of the standards.
In 2001, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed by President G.
W. Bush. NCLB delineated specific educational goals, the adoption of academic
standards, accountability requirements, and sanctions for not meeting the educational
goals. The new accountability requirements under NCLB revealed significant
disparities within the educational system. It exposed that forty years of reform and
financial investment in education had not effectively educated all students.
Recently, President Obama’s administration unveiled the blueprint designed
to guide education in the United States for the next decade. The kindergarten

4
students of today will be educated under the new ESEA (Elementary and Secondary
Education Act) design that is based on five key priorities (US Department of
Education, 2010):
1. Every student in the United States will graduate from high school ready
for college and career, regardless of their income, race, ethnicity,
language background or disability status (p. 3);
2. There will be a focus on ensuring that the best teachers teach students and
schools are led by effective instructional leaders (p. 4);
3. All students will be included in an accountability system that builds on
college- and career-ready standards, rewards progress and success, and
requires interventions in the lowest-performing schools (p. 5).
4. Race To The Top (RTTT) incentives for system reform at the state level
will continue and expand to districts that are willing to take on bold,
comprehensive school reform (p. 6).
5. Promotion and support for innovation and continuous improvement
through the Investing in Innovation Fund (p. 6).
It is important to note that the priorities in the latest version of the ESEA blueprint
are not novel. These same concepts have been the basis for A Nation at Risk (1983),
GOALS 2000, and NCLB (2001). The main difference is the funding behind
opportunities for “ ‘innovative” comprehensive reform (p. 36). Therefore, it will be
important for district leaders to understand the new implications that this latest
reauthorization of ESEA will bring to education.

5
Importance of the Problem
For the past few years, districts and schools have been anticipating the
reauthorization of NCLB, hoping that the accountability requirements may be
mitigated and that districts and schools would be relieved from facing the 2014
deadline of having all students be proficient and above on standardized performance
assessments. President Obama’s Blueprint (US Department of Education, 2010)
makes it very clear that the accountability required under NCLB will not be going
away. The new Blueprint for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2010)
has confirmed that district and school accountability will continue and the new
college and career-ready standards will define the results that districts and schools
will be expected to achieve in order to make “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP). In
addition, the Obama administration has made it clear that the reauthorization of
ESEA will make Title I funding contingent on the adoption of the new core
standards.
Presently, districts and schools are required to make Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) under NCLB. If they fail to make AYP for two consecutive years,
they are placed in Program Improvement (PI). Being in Program Improvement has
serious consequences for districts and schools. When a district or school is in PI, it
must a) notify parents that the district or school is in PI; b) inform the parent that
they can choose to go to a district or school that is not in PI; and c) set aside Title I
funds for professional development, transportation and supplemental services for at-
risk students (CDE, 2009, p. 1).

6
In May 2010, the California Department of Education released a list of the
persistently lowest-achieving schools in the state. Under the new ESEA Act, the US
Department of Education will provide new school improvement funds that are call
Turnaround Grants to district (p.12). The purpose of the funding is for districts to
implement selected interventions to the identified persistently low-performing school
in order to improve academic achievement for those students. The Turnaround
Grants require districts and schools to implement one of the following rigorous
interventions (US Department of Education, 2010, p. 12):
1. Transformation model: Replace the principal, strengthen staffing,
implement a research-based instructional program, provide extended
learning time, and implement new governance and flexibility.
2. Turnaround model: Replace the principal and rehire no more than 50
percent of the school staff, implement a research-based instructional
program, provide extended learning time, and implement new governance
structure.
3. Restart model: Convert or close and reopen the school under the
management of an effective charter operator, charter management
organization, or education management organization.
4. School closure model: Close the school and enroll students who attended
it in other, higher-performing schools in the district.
In the introduction of the new ESEA Blueprint, President Obama has made it
very clear, that our nation must once again be a leader in education. He states,

7
“Today, more than ever, a world-class education is a prerequisite for success.
America was once the best-educated nation in the world. A generation ago, we led
all nations in college completion, but today, 10 countries have passed us. It is not
that their students are smarter than ours. It is that these countries are being smarter
about how to educate their students. And the countries that out-educate us today will
out-compete us tomorrow.” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010, p. 1).
Analysis of the Problem
Glendale Unified School District is comprised of 31 schools and over 2,620
employees, serving 27,000 students in grades Kindergarten through 12th grade.
School district facilities include 20 elementary schools (grades K-5), four middle
schools (6-8), three comprehensive senior highs (9-12), a magnet high school, one
continuation high school, a developmental center for multi-handicapped students,
and numerous child care centers serving preschool or school-age children. GUSD
serves a culturally diverse student population with a “vision towards the future and
commitment to excellence” (GUSD Mission Statement, 2009).
GUSD claims many “indicators of success” for student achievement. These
include nine district schools that have earned the U.S. Office of Education’s highest
designation for a public school, the National Blue Ribbon; Twenty-three of the
district’s campuses have received California’s highest award for excellence, the State
Distinguished School; and eleven of the eighteen Glendale Title I schools have been
named a Title I Achieving School.

8
Based on the state and federal accountability measures, GUSD has also
achieved impressive results. The district’s Academic Performance Index (API) has
increased every year since 2005 a total of 36 points. Eighty-one percent of the
schools have an API above 800, which is at or above the statewide performance
target. In 2009, only one school had been designated as PI Year 1. The rest have
successfully met the increasing AYP targets.
Even though the district has experienced success over the years, they struggle
with the under-achievement of some key student subgroups. English Language
Learners comprise more than half of the student population, 44% of these students
are not proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and 36% are not proficient in
Mathematics. Nearly half of the Hispanic subgroup (48%) is not proficient in either
ELA or Math (Data Quest, 2009). Therefore, district leadership selected to take a
disciplined and reflective approach in order to comply with state and federal
accountability guidelines for student learning. They realized that improving the
quality of learning for all students in the district required substantial changes to the
ways GUSD’s schools addressed teaching and learning. They also felt that each
individual school needed to identify the issues preventing student achievement and
the strategies that would address them.
In 2005, schools were invited to participate in the Focus on Results (FoR)
reform initiative. FoR is a comprehensive school reform model rooted in seven
principles (Pulombo & Leight, 2007, p.12):

9
1. Identify school-wide instructional focus based on assessment of student
needs.
2. Develop an Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) that will become a
guiding coalition for the school.
3. Select three to five high-quality, research-based strategies that every
teacher should use consistently.
4. Provide targeted professional development on the strategies selected in
number four and ensure that all teachers use those three to five practices.
5. Realign everything in the school in support of the instructional focus.
6. Implement an internal accountability system using assessment measures
that benchmark progress in the focus area.
7. The Principal becomes an instructional leader by supporting focus
through classroom visits, coaching, modeling, and allocating resources
and support.
From this invitation, twenty-two schools formed the first cohort of schools to
lead the reform initiative for their respective school sites. Site level Instructional
Leadership Teams (ILT) were empowered by the district office and the site
administration to guide the school in the adoption of the FoR framework. This
required the ILT to guide the school community in implementing an instructional
focus that would address the academic issues preventing schools from acquiring the
required state and federal achievement results.

10
Some schools in GUSD which demonstrated a higher level of FoR
implementation have also experienced increased student achievement. In order for
the entire district to sustain and continue to increase student achievement and address
the subgroup achievement gaps, it was imperative that all schools have a high degree
of implementation of the Focus on Results framework. Based on this need, district
leadership has requested this consultation to determine what is preventing some
schools from deeper implementation.
The Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model was used to analyze the
implementation of FoR at all school levels. The gap analysis process is a systemic
problem-solving approach to help improve performance by determining gaps,
investigating root causes, and proposing solutions in order to achieve organizational
goals (Clark & Estes, 2009). This project will:
1. Determine if the overall goals of GUSD are aligned with the Focus on
Results framework;
2. Identify, quantify, and classify the gaps in knowledge and skill,
motivation and organizational culture that may be preventing schools
from implementing FoR framework; and
3. Determine which research-based best practices will address the
implementation gaps and improve the implementation of FoR.
Project Significance
This project required organizations and individuals to invest in a new vision
to create an alternative to the traditional Doctor of Education Dissertation Program.

11
The collaboration between the University of Southern California and the Glendale
Unified School District was key in making this possible. This project resulted in
significant benefits for all parties involved and a positive impact on K-12 education.
The University of Southern California has a premier Doctor of Education
(Ed. D.) program with many elements that support students in successfully
completing their coursework and earning their Ed. D. This new alternative thematic
capstone project offered students the opportunity to participate in a consultative
model that was based on helping the district. It provided actual in-field experience
for doctoral students that resulted in using learnings to provide tailored solutions to
specific challenges districts and schools are facing. This project provided one more
option for students and enhanced the University’s position as a national leader to
prepare educational leaders to address current issues in education.
This project varied from a traditional research study in that it resembled a
consultative model. Thus, the project provided the collaborating district the
opportunity to have an objective team of doctoral candidates investigate and analyze
issues specific to their organization. In this project, GUSD received pertinent
information regarding performance gaps in the implementation of their district-wide
reform, Focus on Results.
Finally, this alternative capstone project allowed doctoral students the
opportunity to participate in a dynamic analysis of a real issue and to identify
research-based solutions to address it. Through this experience, doctoral students

12
learned processes and protocols that can be used to facilitate their daily work within
the education system.

13
CHAPTER TWO
Chapter Two-Part A: Literature Review
The goal of this project was to evaluate the implementation of the Glendale
Unified School District’s (GUSD) sponsored reform effort and provide findings and
recommendations so the district could improve student achievement. This literature
review provided context to the assumptions, methodology and recommendations of
the project. It begins with the fundamental reason why many school districts are
engaging reform efforts—the government’s emphasis on standards-based education
and accountability in public schools. Next, research is reviewed relate to why
districts are identified as the best vehicle to implement reform, followed by an
overview of effective leadership, and educational reform strategies’ emphasis on
accountability, teaching and instruction. Lastly, since the primary work in this
project was the evaluation of the districts implementation of the Focus on Results
(FoR) framework (Leight & Polumbo, 2007) there is a review of the literature on
effective implementation practices.
Standards-based Education and Accountability
In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983)
declared that the nation’s “unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry,
science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout
the world”. It proposed that the purpose of education was to ensure “all students
regardless of race or class or economic status” have a fair chance to develop to be
educated citizens in order to ensure the nation’s ability to position itself as an

14
international political and economic leader. This report became the impetus for many
reform efforts driven by the national government and implemented by districts and
schools. In 1989, President George Bush adopted the national education goals for the
year 2000, which brought about the inception of standards-based education reform.
These academic standards were based on the belief that all students were capable of
learning if provided with a quality education, they specifically outlined the
fundamental knowledge and skills students needed to learn and understand (Weiss,
2007). For the next decade, State Educational Agencies (SEA) across the nation
began to develop and implement standards-based education, which brought focus to
defining expectations for learning.
Even though most states had adopted academic standards by 2000,
accountability towards attaining those standards was not addressed until 2001 when
Congress passed the NCLB Act. The cornerstone of NCLB is an emphasis on
standards-based instruction and accountability (Stecher, Hamilton, Gonzales, 2003).
Proponents of NCLB argue that previous reforms failed because they focused on
providing resources or curriculum models but not on the achievement of student
learning outcomes. The premise behind the test-based accountability required by
NCLB is that student achievement can be improved by setting achievement goals;
testing all students; and attaching high stakes to the outcomes (Stecher, Hamilton,
and Gonzales, 2003).
In March 2010, President Obama announced his proposal for the
reauthorization of NCLB. The reauthorization of NCLB will require states to adopt

15
dramatically higher academic standards by 2014. These new standards will require
that all students be college or career ready by 2020. Consequently, districts and
schools will need to embed these standards in rigorous academic programs that can
ensure that all students are prepared to meet the new accountability standard set by
NCLB.
District as a Unit of Reform
The US Department of Education charges the State Educational Agency
(SEA) and the district with the responsibility to implement and meet the
accountability requirements of NCLB. In addition, the anticipated reauthorization
will require the SEA and the district to intervene in the lowest-performing schools
(US Department of Education, 2010). Consequently, districts will need to become
viable units of reform in order to develop and implement policies, structures, and
processes that can create school environments and cultures that successfully improve
teaching and learning for all students (Corbett & Wilson, 1992; MacIver & Farley,
2003).
There are several reasons why the district office is in the best position to lead
reform efforts for the school sites. First, the district manages human and fiscal
resources that can be used to provide a purposeful, systemic approach to teaching
and learning in which the integration of standards, curriculum, assessment, and
professional development can be implemented (Weiss, 2005). Second, the district
plays an important role as the mediator between the school and the state and federal
agencies. Districts are responsible for the interpretation of policy and are required to

16
provide direction and support to schools in integrating such policy (Elmore, 1993;
Marsh, 2002; Hightower, 2002; and Lasky, 2002). Third, research has found that
district intervention is crucial in the improvement process (Crandall, 1984; Eubanks
& Levine, 1983; and Fullan 1985). For example, MacIver and Farley (2003) found
that even though individual schools improved student achievement the central office
logistical support was crucial in the sustainability of that success. They found
district leadership to be important in advising and supporting schools in the
implementation of new instructional practices; the recruitment of principals and
teachers; the analysis of data for instruction; and in supporting the sustainment of
such practices. Finally, Spillane (1996, 1998) found that the district’s role in
responding to state reform reaffirmed their influence on the kinds of instructional
practices favored and supported across a district and therefore improved their ability
to bring coherence to those practices. Thus, learning can begin to emerge on a large
scale when the district asserts their role in providing capacity building,
accountability, and innovation support to schools.
Our project focused on a comprehensive district analysis as opposed to an
individual school evaluation because of the district’s importance in the success of
long-term reform success. The district’s role in the success of long-term reform is
contingent on the quality of the leadership in the district. Thus, it was important to
define and qualify effective district-wide leadership.

17
Leadership
There are many facets of leadership, which make effective leadership
challenging to attain, and at times elusive. This section overviews how various
scholars define leadership and provide guidelines on how to develop effective
leadership skills.
According to Northouse (2007), leadership is “a process whereby an
individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 3). He
identified four elements that conceptualize the central essence of leadership.
Leadership is a process [that] involves influence…occurs in a group context.. [and]
requires goal attainment (p. 3).
Hoerr (2005), states that strong leaders are artists because they understand
that there is no specific recipe or formula to leadership. Strong leaders understand
that leadership is about relationships that change people in a positive way and that
people are at the heart of any organization. “Leadership happens at many levels and
comes from different individuals” (p. 9). Thus, leaders must be inclusive,
transparent, fair to themselves and others, and be able to make a difference.
Bolman and Deal (1997) suggest, “rarely will people provide their best
efforts and fullest cooperation because they have been told to do so. People need to
perceive the individual in authority as someone who is credible, competent, and
pursuing a sensible direction” (p, 184).

18
These definitions of leadership are helpful to begin to understand the
complexity of effective leadership. Fullan (2005) provides ten guidelines for system
leaders who are committed to sustaining positive change in schools.
1. Leaders must make systems thinking and sustainability the organization’s
agenda, which requires continuous reflective action (p.81).
2. Leaders demonstrate a relentless pursuit of moral purpose, which is the
link between system thinking and sustainability. A shared moral purpose
produces commitment throughout the system and the committed effort of
people at all levels of the system creates sustainability (p. 85).
3. Leaders get the basics right and understand that education it is about 1)
raising achievement in those schools were performance is unacceptable;
2) closing the gap and continue to do so until achievement is at 90%
range; 3) ensuring that literacy and numeracy are equally pursued in high
school; 4) using powerful strategies for deep learning (p. 89).
4. Leaders communicate the “big picture” while being transparent, coherent,
and inspiring about the long-term and short-term of reform (p. 90).
5. Leaders provide opportunities for locals to influence the “big picture” by
allowing them to interact with the content and underlying principles of
the big picture (p. 91).
6. Leaders use “intelligent accountability” which requires the use of
summative assessments as external accountability for the public and

19
government and formative assessment to improve teaching and learning
(p. 92).
7. Leaders develop opportunities for collaboration and lateral capacity
building (p.(3).
8. Leaders leave a legacy of other leaders who take the organization farther
(p. 94).
9. Leaders design every policy, whatever the purpose, to build future
capacity (p. 96).
10. Leaders grow the financial investment in education by fostering goodwill
that produces extra effort, energy, and inventiveness (p. 97).
Leadership is complex yet essential to educational reform. Gerald Torozzi
(NCASSP Executive Director) states, “Excellence in school leadership should be
recognized as the most important component of school reform. Without leadership,
the chances for systemic improvement in teaching and learning are nil” (p. 81,
Sennet, 2004)
District Reform Components: Accountability, teaching and learning, professional
development and the role of the district in reform
In general, successful district reform incorporates specific ways to address
accountability, teaching and learning, and the role of the district in reform. This
section overviews the various components included in successful district reform
efforts because it will help to understand the reform context of GUSD’s selected
strategy, Focus on Results. Although the project analyzed the implementation of the

20
strategy, it is important to understand if the reform strategy incorporated the key
elements necessary to facilitate improved student achievement.
Accountability
In district reform efforts, accountability systems are necessary because they
facilitate the evaluation of student performance. The first step in a successful
accountability system is identifying a school-wide instructional focus, which
facilitates the establishment of accountability measures. When an instructional focus
is articulated, improvement needs are clarified, which then sets up the context for
how teaching and learning benchmarks will be established. Research indicates that
schools that are high performing or rapidly improving have found a way to focus
their instruction on one specific instructional area of the curriculum (EdSource,
2006; Marzano & Nulty, 2003; Chase, 2000; Roy & Hord, 2003). Pollock and Ford
(2007) suggest that when teachers (a) are clear of what each student is to learn; (b)
plan purposeful instructional delivery; (c) use of a range of assessment methods to
verify and target learning; and (d) provide specific and methodical feedback to the
learner based on the targets, they can improve learning for every student (p.5).
Once an instructional focus is selected, it must be linked with creating and
implementing an internal accountability system using assessment measures that
benchmark progress in the focus area. In order to improve student achievement an
accountability system needs to be established (Elmore 2002; Abelmann, Elmore,
Even, Kenyon &Marshall, 1999). According to Weiss (2007), “a new body of
research is showing quite persuasively that when teachers use student performance

21
data, on a regular basis, to inform and guide their instruction, their students’ results
improve” (p.4). Fuhrman (2001) and Fullan (2005) concur that schools with a strong
internal accountability system are more successful in implementing state-mandated
accountability systems.
Leight and Polumbo (2007) suggest that the accountability system begins
with establishing what they refer to as SMARTe goals. SMARTe goals “are
specific, measureable, attainable and challenging, relevant, time-bound, and touch
every student” (p. 91). These goals facilitate the on-going monitoring of teaching
and learning. They also provide the content and context for the work of the
Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Many 2006;
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R., 1998; Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R., 2002; &
Marzano, 2003). Marzano (2003) states, “goals themselves do lead not only to
success but also to the effectiveness and cohesion of a team” (p. 36) and therefore
help facilitate improved student achievement.
Teaching & Learning
Once accountability measures are established, a teaching and learning
strategy must be developed. Central to any teaching and learning strategy, focused
on improving achievement of all students, is the development of an Instructional
Leadership Team (ILT). DuFour, DuFour, Eaker and Many (2006) have promoted
the premise that “professional learning communities” (PLC) are critical to student
academic success. The initial step in their framework is to create a “coalition” that
can guide the school community in assessing the current reality of the school (p.16).

22
They point out that it is important to organize staff in collaborative teams in which
they can work together to get the work done. According to Pfeffer and Sutton (2000)
productivity, performance, and innovation result when individuals work together not
in isolation. Fullan (2005) concurs, indicating that leaders establish opportunities for
stakeholders to learn and interact with the work in order to facilitate deep learning
and personal internalization. DuFour et al. (2006) suggests the purpose of a learning
community is a focus and commitment to student learning, “when a district functions
as a PLC, educators in the organization embrace high levels of learning for all
students as both the reason the organization exists and the fundamental responsibility
of those who work within it” (p. 3). According to Lambert (2003), leadership teams
are a way of developing leadership capacity. “When we learn as a community toward
a shared purpose, we are creating an environment in which we feel congruence and
worth. Inherent in this view is the belief that all humans are capable of leadership”
(p. 4). Thus, the purpose of leadership teams is to broaden the base of leadership in
the school and develop a community that is focused on student learning.
Professional Development
Once a professional learning community is established, it is important to
identify the tools the teachers will actually use to improve student achievement. To
improve achievement of all students there needs to be a selection of three to five high
quality research-based strategies that every teacher should use consistently. Leigh
and Polumbo (2007) site a study by the National Research Council (1999) which
states that when learning environments promote learner centered, knowledge

23
centered, assessment centered, and community centered learning environments,
learning accelerates within and outside the school. Researchers have identified
various instructional strategies that lead to student learning and achievement.
Instructional strategies that support academic rigor, critical thinking and help to
enhance learning are critical in closing the achievement gap (Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollock, 2001; Resnick, 1999; Wiggins, Tighe, 1998; Blansford, Brown, & Cocking,
1999). Therefore, it is important for schools to have a professional development plan
that will help them develop effective instructional strategies that can deliver the
academic results necessary for their student population.
A comprehensive professional development strategy for teachers is necessary
to ensure the selected instructional strategies are implemented with fidelity (Reeves,
2010; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Darling Hammond & Richards 2009; Lambert,
2003; Schmoker, 2006; Marzano 2003). Leigh and Polumbo (2007) suggest that the
professional development plan must be site-based; coordinated around the small set
of identified best practices; and include frequent opportunity for practice and
coaching. It is important to understand that a comprehensive professional
development plan requires significant time and resources (Reeves, 2010). Darling-
Hammond and Richards (2009) concur indicating teachers who had 80 or more hours
of professional development were significantly more likely to use the type of
instruction than teachers who experience fewer hours. They found that professional
development programs that offer teachers between 30 to 100 hours of training over
6-12 months had the highest affect on student learning (p. 49).

24
District Support
Insufficient resources are often the main reason why reform efforts are not
successful so it is necessary for school districts to facilitate the realignment of
resources in support of the school’s accountability measures and teaching and
learning strategies. It is important to ensure that fiscal decisions are made around
what students need and not what makes adults comfortable (Leight & Polumbo,
2007). Research indicates that high performing schools allocate time for teachers to
plan; shift resources to support instruction; provide significant professional
development; and integrate technology to support the instructional focus (Cotton,
1995; Picucci, Brownson, Kahlett, & Sobeel, 2002; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2004;
Cawelti, 2004; Odden & Archibald, 2001).
District leadership must provide the support and resources to ensure that all
staff and the organizational systems are working in support of teaching and learning
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Datnow, 2005; DuFour et al. 2006; Clark & Estes, 2002;
MacIver & Farley, 2004; Marzano, Water, & McNulty, 2005; Northouse, 2007;
Togneri & Anderson, 2003). According to Leight and Polumbo, “Districts that are
the most successful in supporting schools, provide them with accurate information
about resources available to them, and give them wide latitude in reallocating those
resources with a structured framework for improvement in teaching and learning” (p.
71).
The Focus on Results framework is based on seven areas of focus.
According to Polumbo and Leight (2007), the “framework is “comprehensive” in

25
that it incorporates all of the elements that research and experience suggest are
critical to school improvement” (p. 12).
It is evident based on the research sited above, that FoR framework is an
adequate reform strategy for districts and schools to consider because it incorporates
critical components necessary for successful student reform. According to Leigh and
Polumbo (2007), districts and schools that have implemented the FoR framework
with fidelity have improved student achievement. They state that the FoR
framework is comprehensive because it incorporates all of the elements that research
suggests are critical to school improvement, “while other improvement effort and
comprehensive school reform models include several components of the Seven
Areas of Focus, our research has found that the most successful efforts are organized
around one single Instructional Focus” (p. 13).
Having a research-based framework for teaching and learning, the fiscal and
human resources to support it and strong leadership to guide it are not enough to
ensure positive student academic results that will close the achievement gap. District
leaders must understand the importance of ensuring fidelity to the implementation of
any reform initiative; how to sustain it; and what barriers may impact the
implementation and sustainability of a district-wide reform.
Implementation
A study of Comprehensive School Reform programs determined that school
improvement strategies are dependent on the effectiveness of the strategy and on the
design of the implementation approach (Rowan, Correnti, Miller, & Camburn, 2009).

26
Fixen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, and Wallace (2005) agree, indicating that
information dissemination and/or training, which are the most widely used methods
for attempting the implementation of a program or process, are not effective
implementation methods. They concluded that implementation effort must be multi-
level and long term in order to achieve positive outcomes for the consumer.
Consequently, it is important for district leaders to understand the importance
of effective strategies for implementing district-wide reform. Implementation
requires the incorporation of a set of new specific processes and/or practices
designed to integrate an activity or program in the culture until it becomes “treatment
as usual” (p. 17) which is the goal when implementing a new innovation (Fixen et
al., 2005).
Sustainability
According to Fullan (2005), sustainability is at the heart of any initiative.
Educational leaders should not focus on particular initiatives but on the system’s
ability to sustain them. “Sustainability requires resources, but in the long run it
produces more than it consumes” (p.97). Hargreaves and Fink (2006) agree,
indicating, “Sustainability addresses how a particular initiative can be developed
without compromising the development of others in the surrounding environment
now and in the future” (p.30).
Knowles (2002) in The Leadership Dance describes the autopoiesis aspects
of a system that relate to sustainability. Autopoiesis is the organizational patterns of
living systems (See Maturana and Venera, 1992). Leaders must understand that

27
organizations are living systems that have a structure, an identity, an awareness of
changes in the environment, and the ability to decide what changes it must make to
maintain its identity. In addition, he identifies two more aspects that pertain to the
people in the organization. He states, “the people in the organization …have the
ability to self-reflect and learn from the experience…the ability to be open to new
possibilities and act on them as they co-create their future” (p. 140).
Hargreaves and Fink (2006) have identified seven principles for sustaining
any reform. Sustaining reform requires: (1) deep learning about the work and the
individuals in the organization; (2) building relationships by caring for and being
among others; (3) preserving and advancing the most valuable aspects of the work
over time from one leader to another; (4) creating a culture of distributed leadership
that builds the capacity of others to lead; (5) creating an environment that is fair and
diverse not self-centered and self-seeking; (6) promoting the growth of material and
human resources; and (7) honoring and learning from the best of the past to create
an even better future. These principles provide the ingredients to make change
desirable and doable in any organization (p. 18).
Sustainability also requires building the capacity of instructional leaders at all
levels of the organization. According to Fullan (2005), the development of systems
thinkers at all levels of the organization is imperative to sustaining reform. These
systems thinkers interact with larger parts of the system to bring about deeper reform
and help produce other leaders working on the same issue. Building instructional
leadership capacity to become systems thinkers involves developing the collective

28
ability of leaders to bring about positive change by demonstrating the necessary
disposition, skills, knowledge, motivation, and resources (Fullan, 2005).
Investment in a comprehensive district-wide reform requires a significant
amount of time, money, and resources. Focusing on the reform’s sustainably is
important and will facilitate the district’s ability to address any system barriers that
may threaten the implementation and sustainment of the reform and maintain a
culture of continuous improvement.
System Barriers
There are certain system barriers that impact implementation and the
sustainability of district level reform for teaching and learning. These system-
imposed barriers, if not addressed and resolved, can prevent any reform from taking
place. They can prevent successful implementation of new strategies and may create
chaos, frustration, disillusion in the ranks (Fullan, 2005). The first system-imposed
barrier is what Fullan calls the centralize/decentralized whipsaw. This is where
constituents (principals, teachers, parents, students, and other staff) do not know
where to go or who to turn to. Centralization errs on the side of control and
decentralization on the side of chaos. Therefore, district leaders must clearly define
and establish process and procedures that support the implementation and
sustainability of any new initiative (Fixen et al. 2005, Fullan 2005, 2003).
Role overload and role ambiguity is the second system-imposed barrier. The
role of the principal has changed dramatically in the past two decades. Principals are
no longer expected to be just managers of the school, they are “expected to be all

29
things to all people” (Fullan, 2003 p. 23). The increased number of demands on
instructional leaders causes isolation, insecurity, and inadequacy. Limited
investment in leadership development and the neglect of leadership succession can
become significant system barriers (Evans 1996: Fullan, 2005, 2003, 2008;
Hargreaves and Fink 2006; Lambert 2003). A study by Williams (2001) in Ontario
found that fewer candidates were applying for the principalship. Contributing
factors to this were the inadequacy of time to plan for mandate changes; number of
curriculum changes; lack of time for working with students; limited in-school staff
support; amount of time the job required; and limited resources to meet school needs.
All groups of principals ranked the same factors as unattractive conditions (Fullan,
2003).
Finally, Fullan (2003) contends that the limited definition of the principal’s
role contributes to the failure of the moral imperative of schooling. Principals are
required to lead a complex learning organization (school). Therefore, they must
have the resources and support necessary to develop the capacity of teachers and
staff at the site to engage in problem solving and improvement. Nearly 60% of a
school's impact on student achievement is attributable to principal and teacher
effectiveness. These are the most important in-school factors driving school success,
with principals accounting for 25% and teachers 33% of a school’s total impact on
achievement (New Leaders for New Schools, 2009).
In order for organizations to implement and sustain evidence-based programs
and practices to address the teaching, learning and accountability demands required

30
by NCLB, they must establish a comprehensive strategy that deals with improving
the infrastructure to support a new initiative, develop employees’ capacity in several
ways, and integrate an accountability system in a way that empowers stakeholders to
make better decisions to improve student achievement. There are many factors that
need to be in place to achieve successful student results beyond the selection of a
reform initiative. Understanding these key components and preparing to incorporate
them along with the initiative will assist school districts as the unit of reform.
The processes of our group inquiry project are presented in Chapter 2, Part B,
the methodology. This includes the situational context, the inquiry project questions,
the gap analysis process model, the structure of the dissertation, data collection and
limitations, and project progression.

31
Chapter Two-Part B: Methodology
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
Introduction
This alternative capstone project can be likened to a real-life application of
action research in its design and implementation. According to Patton (2002),
“action research aims at solving specific problems within a program, organization, or
community” (p. 221). As consultants, the focus of our alternative capstone project
was to become “part of the change process by engaging the people in the program or
organization in studying their own problems in order to solve those problems”
(Whyte, 1989, as cited in Patton, 2002, p. 221). The results derived from our
capstone project, like those of action research, cannot necessarily be generalized to
all organizations for it is “quite specific to the problem, people, and organization for
which the research is undertaken” (Patton, 2002, p. 221). The timeframe in which
the research is conducted can also impede how much the results can be generalized
to organizations other than the one participating in the research (Patton, 2002).
We were not just observers but participants-as-consultants that applied the
Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis as a systematic problem-solving model. This
analysis model is the instrument by which we chose to identify and examine the root
causes underlying the degree of Focus on Results (FoR) reform implementation.
According to Clark and Estes (2002), “it is essential that change result from
systematic analysis of the causes of performance gaps and be accompanied by
necessary knowledge and skill changes and accompanying motivational

32
adjustments” (p. 4). The gap analysis model devised by Clark and Estes (2002) was
the framework of analysis employed by our inquiry team to better understand what
components of the FoR reform initiative were successful in the five years of its
implementation in GUSD. The gap analysis model is a data analysis method
specifically designed to systematically examine gaps in an organization’s
performance.
Clark and Estes (2002) state that making informed decisions, using the most
current research evidence, dramatically increases the chances that a chosen
performance improvement strategy will be effective. GUSD chose to implement the
FoR comprehensive school reform model to increase student achievement and close
the achievement gap.
The Focus on Results (FoR) Framework for school-level improvements is
rooted in the following seven principles:
1. Identify a schoolwide instructional focus based on student needs
assessment;
2. Develop an Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) that will become a
guiding coalition for the school;
3. Select three to five high-quality, research-based strategies that every
teacher should use consistently;
4. Provide targeted professional development on the strategies selected in
number four and ensure that all teachers use those three to five practices;
5. Realign everything in the school in support of the instructional focus;

33
6. Implement an internal accountability system using assessment measures
that benchmark progress in the focus area; and
7. The Principal becomes an instructional leader by supporting the focus
through classroom visits, coaching, modeling, and allocating resources
and support.
The gap analysis model is based on the achievement of organizational goals.
Clark and Estes (2002) contend that goals must be concrete, challenging, and current
(C
3
). These goals must be designed to be clear, easily understood and measureable.
They must be difficult yet practical. Challenging but achievable short-term goals are
highly motivating to employees.
Inquiry Project Questions
Clark and Estes (2002) propose that in order to achieve organizational goals,
it is necessary to assess the causes that prevent the achievement of the desired
outcomes. For GUSD, the desired outcome is the successful implementation of
Focus on Results (FoR) as a means to increase student achievement. The questions
that guided our inquiry process were:
1. How was the FoR reform initiative implemented throughout GUSD?
2. What was the degree of implementation of FoR at the different levels of
instruction offered in GUSD?
3. What performance gaps exist at this point in the FoR implementation
process that need to be addressed?
4. What are the root causes of these performance gaps?

34
5. What research-based recommendations can be offered to address the
performance gaps and help GUSD enhance and sustain its
implementation of FoR?
For this capstone project, data was collected at all levels of the organization to
determine the beliefs and perceptions of the FoR implementation in GUSD.
Employees’ beliefs and perceptions about their work are vital to the identification of
1) any performance gaps in the implementation of FoR and 2) the main root causes
of those gaps.
Analytical Framework: The Gap Analysis Process
According to Clark and Estes (2002), making informed decisions using the
most current research evidence dramatically increases the chance that a chosen
performance improvement strategy will be effective. Local Educational Agencies
(LEAs), also known as school districts, are working hard to identify and implement
the “silver bullet” that will result in academic achievement for all students. A
significant number of popular performance-improvement strategies are implemented
yet rarely evaluated to determine its effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2002). The goal
of this project is to evaluate the LEA’s primary reform strategies and determine if
they are producing solid, cost-beneficial performance results in student achievement.
Clark and Estes (2002) propose that, in order to achieve the global
organizational goals, it is necessary to assess the causes that prevent the achievement
of the desired outcomes. Since the beliefs and perceptions of the people doing the
work are essential to redirecting performance to the goal, the project will identify

35
individual and organizational gaps in knowledge and/or skill, motivation, as well as
any organizational barriers that may be creating the organization’s performance
gap(s) (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The first step in the gap analysis process is to identify the key organizational
goals. According to Bandura (1997), effective performance improvement must start
with clearly understood work/performance goals. A work/performance goal is a
description of task or objectives that individuals and teams must accomplished by a
specific time or criterion. The LEA must make the connection between the
organizational goals and the specific individual or team goals. Effective
work/performance goals must directly support the evolving organizational goals;
they cascade from or follow the organizational goal. Members should have a clear
understanding of what their performance goal is, the rationale for the goal, and
whether or not they are achieving it. The organizational goals must be flexible to
reflect changing business conditions and be specific enough to meet the need for
day-to-day guidance (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Step Two of the gap analysis model requires the identification of the
individual work/performance goals. Members of the organization must know and
understand their specific performance goal(s). According to Clark and Estes (2002),
research on setting goals strongly suggest how vital it is to select the type of
work/performance goal and also how the goal is communicated. They recommend
work goals should have three qualities or what Clark and Estes (2002) refer to as the
C³ Goals. The goals should be concrete or clear, easily understood, and

36
measureable; challenging or difficult but doable; and current or short-term (daily or
weekly) (p. 26).
Step Three requires the identification of the performance gaps between the
organizational goals and the performance of individuals and teams. Clark and Estes
(2002) describe the following steps for setting and analyzing benchmark goals:
1. Identify the organizational goals and indicators for achieving those goals.
2. Benchmark and identify industry leaders’ achievement in the specific
area.
3. Quantify the organization’s current achievement for each goal.
4. Compute the gap by subtracting the organizations achievement for each
goal from the industry leaders’ achievement.
5. Determine the economic benefit of closing the gap.
6. Identify individual and team goals that will close each gap.
In Step Four, we analyze the individual and team gaps to determine the root
causes. There are three major causes of performance gaps: people’s knowledge and
skill; their motivation to achieve the goal; and organizational barriers (Clark & Estes,
2002, p. 43). In order to determine gaps in knowledge and skill it is necessary to
determine whether people know how, when, why, what, where, and whom they need
to achieve their performance goal(s). Identifying motivational causes of gaps will be
more complex because it requires determining if the individual or team choose to
work towards the goal; will persist at it until it is achieved; and the amount of mental
effort they are willing to invest to accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2002).

37
Organizational barriers result from inadequate facilities and faulty processes and
procedures that delay or prevent the work. Often, organizational problems can be
attributed to the misalignment between work processes and the organizational
structure.
In order to analyze and determine the root causes in each area, the gap
analysis process recommends surveying opinions and beliefs about the gaps. This is
best done through active listening, interviews, focus groups, and surveys (Clark &
Estes, 2002, p. 45). It is important to learn the beliefs and perceptions of the people
doing the work. It is imperative to listen carefully, naturally, and actively in order to
determine if people are saying the performance gaps are due to knowledge and/or
skill, motivation, organizational barriers, or a combination of the three.
Step five entails three distinct parts. Step 5A offers solutions and
recommendations to close the performance gaps in knowledge and skill. Knowledge
and skill enhancement are required when people do not know how to accomplish the
work/performance goal and when new learning is required to accomplish future
goals. This is accomplished by providing information, job aides, training, and/or
education. Step 5B addresses the motivation issues that contribute to the gap.
According to Clark and Estes (2002), three facets of motivation performance exist
(p. 81):
1. Active choice: intention to pursue goal is replaced by action.
2. Persistence: once started, we continue in the face of distractions.
3. Mental effort: people work smarter and develop novel solutions.

38
An individual’s motivation to work is determine by his/her belief that the
environment provides them with the goals and resources that can result in a
reasonable amount of effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2002). Motivation at work is
based on results from the individual’s experiences and beliefs about themselves, their
co-workers, and their prospects for being effective. Step 5C offers possible solutions
to inefficient and ineffective work processes and material resources that are causing
performance gaps. Once the organizational policies, processes, or resources levels
that are causing the gap are identified and solutions are proposed, they must be
filtered through the organizational culture to determine the potential for success.
Clark and Estes (2002) recommend that a organizational cultural profile be
developed to determine if the solutions are compatible with the culture of the
organization.
“Evaluation is an absolutely essential ingredient when you are attempting to
close performance gaps or improve performance” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 125).
Clark and Estes (2002) claim that evaluation is the only way to determine the
connections between performance gaps, improvement programs, and cost-
effectiveness.
Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis of this alternative capstone project is the Glendale
Unified School District (GUSD). GUSD serves the cities of Glendale, Crescenta
Valley, and Montrose-Verdugo City. Glendale is a community of about 200,000
residents located at about a 15 minutes drive north of downtown Los Angeles. It is

39
the third largest city in Los Angeles County, as of 2009. GUSD serves over 27,000
students in kindergarten through grade 12 through 31 schools and employs over
2,600 people (GUSD, 2010).
We investigated the effects of the degree of implementation of a reform
initiative, Focus on Results (FoR), at three school sites in GUSD, a specific,
geography-focused organization, over the last five years of its implementation,
which is a specific timeframe. This is an example of a Structure Focused, Time
Based case study that is Geography Focused (Patton, 2002, p. 231). It is important to
note that these categories cannot necessarily be mutually exclusive—this is the
nature of action research, specific to one particular organization that cannot
necessarily be generalized to all organizations in a common field (Patton, 2002).
The district as the unit of analysis is challenging since the district’s decision
to implement FoR effectively dedicated resources (through its supplemental grant) to
allow for full implementation of the reform effort with fidelity—but the
implementation took place at the site level among the different schools. “[W]ithin-
district variation may result in differential enactment across schools” (Mangin, 2009,
p. 765). The quality of the district-level reform implementation is not the subject of
this inquiry project. Rather, the focus is instead placed on how district-level context
affects the district’s decision to implement the reform effort.
Sampling Strategies
This alternative capstone inquiry project employed purposeful sampling
strategies that allowed for “selecting information-rich cases from which a great deal

40
about matters of importance and therefore worthy of in-depth study” to be selected
“strategically and purposefully” (Patton, 2002, p. 243). We did not rely on random
probability sampling since the action research we conducted applied to a specific
organization and was not generalized to reflect other LEAs. Random probability
sampling allows for a representative sample of the greater population to be used for
the inquiry; however, the small sampling size can become especially problematic
when the purpose of the inquiry is to generalize the results from “a sample of the
population to the population of which it is a part” (Patton, 2002, p. 244).
The inquiry team focused on three sampling strategies: snowball/chain
sampling, typical case sampling, and emergent sampling. These can all be integrated
into a combination or mixed purposeful sampling strategy which help facilitate
triangulation, is flexible in its nature, and has the ability to meet multiple interests
and needs of the research project (Patton, 2002, p. 244). Snowball/chain sampling
allows for the identification of cases of interest from “sampling people who know
what cases are information-rich, that is, good examples for study, good interview
participants” (Patton, 2002, p. 243). Typical case sampling allows site-based
personnel to “illustrate or highlight what is typical, normal, average” (p. 243)–in
other words, how the reform initiative took shape at the school sites during the
implementation process. Emergent sampling allows the inquiry team to be flexible
and follow “new leads during fieldwork,” giving the inquiry team the chance to “take
advantage of the unexpected” (p. 244).

41
The semi-structured interview guides were developed collaboratively as a
whole thematic dissertation group over the course of two separate working sessions
in mid-February and early March 2010. The questions in our interview protocol are
specific to the GUSD districtwide reform process in question, FoR. The interview
protocol was designed with three specific purposes in mind: 1) to gather initial data
on the implementation of FoR as a reform initiative for the district; 2) to gain a
historical perspective on FoR; and 3) to collect data on the perceived goals and
implementation gaps for the districtwide reform.
The interview guide (see Appendix B) is the interview guide used for the
initial “scanning interview” process that Clark and Estes (2002) describe as the
initial step required in their gap analysis process. The purpose of the scanning
interview was to collect rich data from key stakeholders in an organized, uniform
fashion to facilitate comparison of information on a number of key issues that can be
resolved through the use of the gap analysis model. The scanning interview is used
to help identify what gaps are identified by stakeholders, how they quantify these
gaps, and to what they attribute these gaps.
The design of the scanning interview first involved the development of a
document introducing the inquiry team and its members, what the team’s intent was
with respect to this inquiry project, the expected length of time the team intended to
spend collecting data on site, and a general overview of the process by which the
team intended to conduct this collection, including the presentation of the interview
questions. Open guiding questions about reform in general as it applies to the school

42
district in terms of FoR, the reform initiative, were asked in order to allow for the
respondents to go into more detail about their perceptions of the degree of success of
FoR and where they feel the issues with FoR implementation are today.
Data Collection
Patton (2002) describes the nature of data collection in action research as
being “more informal, the people in the situation are often directly involved in
gathering the information and then studying themselves, and the results are used
internally to attack specific problems within a program, organization, or community”
(p. 221).
Data for this project was collected at the district office and three GUSD
school sites through one-on-one interviews, observations, and document analysis.
The interviews were face-to-face, one-on-one semi-structured, and open-ended.
These interviews work best in a conversational context – having a discussion rather
than having an “interview” makes the process more informal. The conversational
interview “provides opportunities for flexibility, spontaneity, and responsiveness to
individual differences and situational changes” (Patton, 2002, p. 343).
The interview protocols we employed provided the opportunity for staff to be
insightful, to be candid, and to be forthright about their thoughts on the reform
initiative. Though we had a number of topics that we wanted to address, they were
not necessarily presented in a certain order. In a semi-structured interview, the
interviewers must only ensure that all the topics of concern are addressed during the
course of the interview (Patton, 2002). We did not conduct any structured

43
interviews. Structured interviews would work best when interviewing groups that
may not necessarily have the full background of the topic being investigated (Patton,
2002).
We conducted two rounds of interviews utilizing the Scanning Interview (see
Appendix D). The first round of interviews was used to obtain a sense of the issues
surrounding the implementation of FoR at different levels of the organization. We
interviewed district leadership cabinet members, district support staff, site
administrators, and members and non-members of the site ILTs. Data from these
interviews help 1) establish the context of the reform initiative and its
implementation at the school sites and 2) provide staff the opportunity to give their
perspectives on what they believe are the issues with the implementation of FoR.
These interviews were 30-45 minutes in length, recorded digitally, transcribed, and
coded to disaggregate data for further analysis.
The Stages of Concern protocol, based on the Concerns-Based Adoption
Model (CBAM, Hall & Loucks, 1979), was used to conduct the second round of
interviews at the three individual school sites. Hall, George, and Rutherford (1977)
define concern as "the composite representation of the feelings, preoccupation,
thought, and consideration given to a particular issue or task" (as cited in Hall &
Hord, 2001, p. 61). The CBAM (Hall & Loucks, 1979) describes the seven levels of
concern that teachers experience as they adopt a new practice (NCREL, 2010): At
Stage 0, Awareness, teachers have little concern or involvement with the innovation.
At the Informational stage (Stage 1), teachers may express some general interest in

44
the innovation and would like to know more about it. Stage 2 teachers, at the
Personal stage, want to learn about the personal ramifications of the innovation. In
other words, they want to know exactly how the innovation will affect them. Stage 3
teachers are at the Management stage, where they engage in learning the processes
and tasks required of the innovation. They focus on information and resources. At
stage 4, the Consequence stage, teachers focus on how the innovation will impact
students and their learning. Collaboration (Stage 5) has teachers working in
collaboration with others to implement the innovation. Teachers at the highest stage
of concern, Refocusing (Stage 6) find the benefits of the innovation and work to
develop modified strategies that are even more effective than the innovation being
implemented.
We utilized this protocol in the second round of interviews to quickly gauge
more stakeholders with respect to the implementation of FoR at their school site.
Staff members at large were interviewed for ten to twenty minutes. They were
encouraged to: 1) speak of their overall experience with FoR as a reform initiative;
2) share their perceptions of the strengths and challenges of the reform initiative; and
3) provide suggestions and recommendations of how to improve the implementation
process.
We utilized probes during both interview processes to: 1) further deepen the
perspectives of our interview participants; 2) clarify participant responses when the
comments did not seem clear; and 3) redirect participants when the question(s) asked

45
were not addressed in their commentary. The interview protocols served as the
inquiry team’s checklists to ensure we covered all topics of interest.
All three consultants on the inquiry team were present to facilitate the
interviews with the district-level role group members and the FoR consultant.
Interviews of school site personnel were distributed among the three consultants on
our inquiry team – one for each school level we reviewed: elementary, middle, and
high school. Each consultant was responsible for interviewing the principal and the
administrative team, members of the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), teachers
not affiliated with the ILT, and other support personnel (both certificated and
classified).
We prepared for the interviews by reading the websites of both the district
and the school sites under our review; reviewing public documents on standardized
testing data (DataQuest, California Department of Education (CDE)) and the School
Accountability Report Cards over the period of reform implementation (2004-
present); and reading the Focus on Results framework, The Power of Focus
(Palumbo & Leight, 2007).
An interview agenda and the interview protocol were provided to all
participants prior to the interview day in order to facilitate the meeting, giving the
participant ample time to prepare his/her thoughts about the topics the inquiry team
wanted to discuss. The agenda was also provided to inform participants of the
purpose for the interview. In addition, we provided a written group introduction in

46
an effort to explain the purpose of our project and the purpose of the interview at
hand.
We provided the interview participant with an opening statement that set the
tone of mutual respect, collegiality, and gratefulness. We asked, prior to each
meeting, for permission to digitally record the interview. It provided a real-time,
authentic audio record of the meeting that may be lost if taking notes was the only
method of transcribing the interview. These digital recordings were later transcribed
for analysis and became the basis of the coding that took place to disaggregate the
data and determine patterns of note for further investigation.
Data gathered from the interviews were amassed and then disaggregated
through content analysis that involves “identifying, coding, categorizing, classifying,
and labeling the primary patterns in the data” (Patton, 2002, p. 463).
We developed a coding system to process the data gathered from the two
rounds of interviews. Coding is “a manageable classification scheme” (p. 463) that
allows for the analysis of the content of interviews and observations to determine
what is significant (Patton, 2002). This disaggregation strategy was based on the
“closed” and “open” coding techniques as described by Strauss and Corbin (1998).
The “closed” coding technique integrated the Clark and Estes (2002) dimensions of
the gap analysis into the disaggregation of data: knowledge/skill, motivation, and
organizational culture are considered “closed” codes. The “open” coding technique
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998) further deepened our data analysis for it allowed for the
development of new codes to be created in order to categorize, classify, and identify

47
commonalities in the data. Examples of “open” codes include misperception of
knowledge/skill, resources, goal structure, and commitment to reform. These codes
worked to allow patterns in the data to be more easily identified. A combination of
the themes from the literature review on school districts and educational reform, the
gap analysis process model, and reflection on the interviews, served as the basis for
the inquiry team to identify the major issues in the reform implementation strategies
employed by the three GUSD sites we examined.
Limitations to Data Collection
Although we conducted two full rounds of interviews with groups that have a
critical role throughout the district (See Appendix A), we decided to end data
collection after disaggregating the interview data through coding and comparing the
information we obtained through our analysis.
We had an extremely short period of time in which to gather the data needed
for our inquiry analysis. We were given access to a very limited number of school
sites and worked in earnest to access the different school sites on multiple occasions
to speak with different personnel. However, we were only able to investigate the
implementation processes of three school sites, one at each level of instruction:
primary, middle, and secondary. This is a very small sample of the thirty-one
schools in GUSD. We know that the results of our inquiry project are representative
of a great majority of schools throughout the district—they were recommended to
our team by various members of district leadership—but also know they cannot
necessarily be generalized as being the case at every site in GUSD.

48
We were unable to elicit the participation of all critical GUSD role groups in
our inquiry process. We made several unsuccessful attempts to speak with the
leadership of the Glendale Teachers Association (GTA). We struggled to speak with
a greater number of certificated personnel at the high school level. We also did not
interview parents nor students; reform implementation primarily involves the Local
Educational Agency (LEA) and the individual school sites. Students and parents,
though they are fundamentally critical stakeholders in the school community, had a
minimal role in the formulation, development, and implementation of the reform
effort as they are really the recipients of the reform process. We have included,
though, questions that probe how students and parents are kept abreast of the reform
implementation at school sites.
As an inquiry team, we were able to identify common themes among the
issues that arose in the implementation of FoR throughout GUSD. These common
themes were substantial and were linked to one or more of the three main dimensions
that are the root causes of performance gaps in the Clark and Estes (2002) gap
analysis process model: motivation, knowledge/skill, and organizational culture.
These themes were cited extensively in social sciences and education literature. We
felt that the information we obtained was sufficient to systematically analyze through
the gap analysis model and provide a solid foundation for the recommendations we
suggest to the district to enhance the reform implementation process throughout
GUSD.

49
Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration.
The intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a
traditional dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of
providing consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not
considered as research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research
designed to produce generalizable knowledge. The following sections from a
University Institutional Review Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the
present project:
Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
generalizable knowledge
1
” (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
Report
2
“...the term 'research' designates an activity designed to test a
hypothesis [and] permit conclusions to be drawn... Research is usually
described in a formal protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of
procedures to reach that objective.

“Research” generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work
(e.g., routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for
internal management purposes such as program evaluation, quality assurance,
quality improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or
contracted-for services. It generally does not include journalism or political
polls. However, some of these activities may include or constitute research in
circumstances where there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable
knowledge. (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2)

1
"Generalizable knowledge" is information where the intended use of the research findings can be
applied to populations or situations beyond that studied.

2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and
autonomy) for human subjects research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

50

Further clarification is provided in the following section:
Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the
data derived from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the
efficiency of an institutional practice. (Office for the Protection of Research
Subjects, p. 4)

Alternative Capstone Inquiry – Team Structure
This alternative capstone project differs from the traditional dissertation
process in both the inquiry process and presentation of findings. A traditional
thematic dissertation process has students working collaboratively to prepare the
literature review and methodology for their subsequent individual studies. In our
case, a team of three individuals collaborated throughout the entire inquiry process.
The team assembled to tackle the inquiry topic of districtwide FoR reform
implementation was best qualified to address this work. Two of the three members
are district administrators with long-standing careers in education: one is an
assistant superintendent of schools with extensive experience in the classroom, site
administration, and district level directorship of curriculum and instruction; the other
is director of pupil services and student welfare with a long-standing private practice
as a therapist. The third member is a classroom teacher with leadership experience
in accreditation as well as school reform and the restructuring process at her school
site. As a team, we developed our data inquiry tools, interacted with the district,
collected data, identified the performance gaps and their root causes, developed

51
research-based solutions, and defended our dissertations together with a common
presentation.
The following sections of the dissertation, as a result, are common across the
three inquiry team members: Chapter 2: Part 2B, the Methodology; and Part 2C, the
Inquiry Findings; Chapter 3: Part 3A, the Literature Review of Solutions; and Part
3B, the Expanded Solutions Summary. Our collaboration is noted in the heading of
these sections. Each individual completed Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, Part 2A, the
Literature Review, on her own.
Inquiry Project
Project Overview
A chronology of the inquiry process is presented in Appendix B. The project
progression subsequently provides a more detailed account of the process for each
semester over the last 15 months.
Project Progression
Fall 2009.
As an introduction to the school district, the District Superintendent and his
cabinet of Assistant Superintendents and the Public Relations officer provided a
general overview in a presentation to the entire thematic dissertation team. This
meeting took place early in early October 2009. A general overview of the state of
the district, the demographics, the current state of their district, and their noted
achievements were presented. The API score profiles (over a 6-8 year span) were
shared for schools that demonstrated dramatic gains in relatively short periods of

52
time. API scores in this district range from 702 to 936. GUSD had only one school
in Program Improvement (PI). That particular school was unable to meet its
proficiency targets in English Language Arts (ELA) for Hispanic/Latino and
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students and in Mathematics for Hispanic/Latino
and Special Education students (CDE, 2010). Although GUSD is a high-performing
district with considerable achievements, the district acknowledged in this
presentation that it needed to better support the needs of struggling students and
ensure greater success for all its subgroups across the district.
Focus on Results (FoR), their districtwide reform initiative, was presented by
the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services as a professional development
framework implemented to improve student achievement. Now starting its sixth
year of implementation, FoR was developed to act as a concerted, cohesive
movement to dramatically improve student achievement—through an intense focus
on instructional practices—of the district’s statistically significant subgroups
(Hispanic/Latino, English Learners, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, Special
Education) that were not showing dramatic gains at the same rates like their
counterparts throughout the district.
Further discussion between the district Superintendent with our dissertation
advisors narrowed the inquiry topics to the three considered most urgent in the
district: districtwide Focus on Results implementation, closing the achievement gap
for Hispanic/Latino English Language learners, and increasing the number of eligible
students to attend four-year colleges and universities. The selection of topics and

53
assignment of dissertation inquiry groups were facilitated by the advisors and
announced in mid-December 2009. We were assigned districtwide reform
implementation as our inquiry topic.
The rest of the Fall 2009 semester was spent getting to know the district in
terms of its prioritized needs and preparing for the inquiry proposals for university
defense on February 25, 2010.
Spring 2010.
A group meeting held in January 2010 was used to develop a common
interview guide in preparation for the data collection to occur at the district/school
sites this coming spring.
The next contact with the district was made on February 18, 2010. The team
met with the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services. The purpose was to:
1) establish norms for a working relationship between the inquiry team and the
district representatives; 2) determine what the organizational goals are for the
district, meaning what they perceive their expected outcomes to be as a result of the
FoR implementation; 3) understand the district benchmarks/measures for results; 4)
determine the district’s expectations of the inquiry team; 5) identify nine key
stakeholders in the district (site and district level) that could provide better insight
into the implementation of FoR in the district; and 6) how to make initial contact
with these key stakeholders.

54
Inquiry Proposal & Qualifying Exam
The oral defense for the qualifying exam proposal took place on Thursday,
February 25, 2010. The defense committee was composed of both dissertation
advisors and the representative from the other school district being examined by the
thematic dissertation group. The oral defense consisted of a 10-minute PowerPoint
presentation by the entire group as one unit followed by 30-40 minutes of discussion
between the proposal team and the reviewing committee. Suggestions were made to
the proposal team in preparation for the research that followed as a result of the
proposal being accepted by the committee.
Development of Inquiry Tools
The next thematic dissertation group meetings immediately following the
qualification exam were used to prepare for the data collection phase of the project.
This included the development of the Scanning Interview guide & interview norms,
the Stages of Concern (SoC) interview guide, and the Innovation Configuration.
Summer 2010.
Identification and explanation of the roots that cause these performance gaps
occurred during the summer. We prepared the comprehensive analysis of the root
causes of performance gaps using the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis process
model to frame our work. We developed recommendations as solutions to help
mitigate and close the performance gaps uncovered by our inquiry. These solutions
were the primary focus of the products we produced this summer. This included the
Executive Summary (see Appendix F) presented in early Fall 2010 to GUSD

55
leadership cabinet members. This fifteen-page document provided an overview of
the entire inquiry process as well as the initial findings from the inquiry analysis.
Fall 2010.
We visited with representatives of district leadership three times in the fall of
2010. After meeting with our dissertation advisor, it was decided that the entire
district leadership team would meet with the USC inquiry teams to discuss the
executive summaries of our inquiry projects. The district leadership team was
provided with executive summaries of the identified performance gaps and their root
causes for each of the three inquiry topics examined by the GUSD inquiry teams.
Representatives from all three USC inquiry groups met with the newly-appointed
Superintendent of Schools and his Leadership Cabinet on September 13, 2010.
It was beneficial to have this meeting with the district because it provided the
GUSD leadership cabinet the opportunity to be refreshed with the entire inquiry
project. It also provided the inquiry team members the opportunity to listen to the
Superintendent’s Leadership Cabinet regarding their primary concerns with each
team’s findings. This afforded each inquiry team the opportunity to clarify
viewpoints and terminology—much of which was explained in the full executive
summaries completed by the inquiry teams.
Feedback from that September 2010 meeting with the GUSD Leadership
Cabinet helped the inquiry groups to develop their recommendations for presentation
on November 1, 2010. The district Leadership Cabinet asked if the inquiry teams
could present their findings in a manner that sounded less like a research study. An

56
inquiry to use the project documents for an unintended purpose was also discussed.
The political ramifications of our work and its interpretation by different role groups
throughout GUSD were of major concern by the Superintendent and much of his
cabinet.
The inquiry team reflected on the September 13
th
requests and constructed
the presentation for November 1
st
with greater clarity. We prepared for the
presentation with the understanding that it would be unlikely that our audience
would read the extended solutions chapter with the accompanying literature review.
It was determined that all three inquiry teams would report their findings and
recommendations in a combined PowerPoint presentation (See Appendix H). We
wanted to provide the district Leadership Cabinet a cohesive and comprehensive
view of the findings from each inquiry team. Each team submitted their
contributions for the PowerPoint presentation with this context in mind.
We adhered to some commonalities and fundamentals that is characteristic of
all the work we developed together for this PowerPoint. We removed references to
the dissertation process to give more credibility to our work as consultants helping in
a real-world action research inquiry. We framed our partnership with the district as a
result of their invitation to consider the fidelity of their implementation process. We
emphasized that our intent was to be a viable resource of helpful information, while
also learning for our doctoral studies. As a result of careful preparation and
reviewing our intentions, the tone of the team presentation was less like a formal
report of research findings and more like a professional dialogue among role groups,

57
to exchange ideas, and "plant the seeds" for change. The PowerPoint presentation
clearly revealed how deeply each inquiry team understood the status of the district in
each inquiry investigation.
Two weeks prior to the November 1
st
presentation, the district reform
implementation inquiry team met with the Assistant Superintendent of Educational
Services and the Deputy Superintendent of Schools. We presented our slides to
solicit feedback regarding the clarity of our content and our delivery method. We
also used this opportunity to gauge the receptivity of our messages. We believe this
additional meeting contributed to the positive outcomes of our November 1
st
inquiry
group presentation. This process of presenting the underlying root causes for the
performance gaps as well as the proposed solutions represents step 5C of the gap
analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The third interaction with the district was on November 1, 2010 – the final
inquiry group PowerPoint presentation. We were on the agenda of a special
Leadership Cabinet meeting. The Superintendent and his Leadership Cabinet were
in full attendance. To facilitate the presentation, one member from each inquiry
team was selected to present for their group. In his one-minute opening remark, the
Superintendent thanked our inquiry team for the work we did and framed the context
for our presence in the district as a partnership with GUSD. Our district liaison
provided a 5-minute introduction to the inquiry process and the gap analysis
framework (Clark & Estes, 2002) used to conduct our inquiry analysis. Each team
gave a 15-minute presentation. This was followed by 10-15 minutes of dialogue

58
between the district administrators and the inquiry team about questions/concerns
and next steps.
The PowerPoint was constructed with numerous visual representations to best
convey the inquiry findings and group recommendations. The Leadership Cabinet
members validated the clarity of our outcomes and informed the inquiry teams they
would carefully consider many of the ideas that were presented on November 1,
2010.
Issues: Confidentiality & Perceived Intent of Inquiry
It is important to note a request from members of the district Leadership
Cabinet that would have compromised the integrity of our agreements with interview
participants as well as future opportunities for the school staff to participate with
USC dissertation teams. At the conclusion of the inquiry team presentation,
members of the leadership cabinet requested for the three inquiry teams to present
the findings to the relevant schools where we conducted our data collection last
spring. They also requested the names of the school sites where we conducted our
inquiry projects.
A concern was raised by someone on our inquiry team that the work we
shared during the presentation could be used by district administrators for more than
just “helping the district” better examine itself to understand issues that are affecting
them in their district at the current time. It had the potential to be used as a point of
political leverage against other district role groups. Many times during the inquiry
presentation we found the administrators expressing the need for our findings to be

59
presented to other groups in the district, to explain that was what they, as the district
leadership, “have been saying all along they need to do.” Our purpose was not to
reinforce district philosophies and mandates. We were there to help the district
leadership better understand the dynamics of each of the three issues they brought to
our attention as their areas of concern.
Upon further debriefing, members of all three inquiry teams wholeheartedly
agreed that we must collectively protect the integrity of the inquiry process and our
commitment to school staffs.
Additional Presentation: District Focus on Results (FoR) Writing Team
The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services invited our inquiry
team to present our PowerPoint presentation to their district FoR writing team, the
group responsible for writing the curriculum that drives Focus on Results
implementation at sites throughout the district. We presented our work on Tuesday,
December 14, 2010 to this team as well as the Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services, the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, and the external
consultant from Focus on Results.
Many of the members of the writing team—composed of teachers, assistant
principals, principals, teacher specialists, and district-level coordinators—stated that
our messages resonated with what they found in their own work. They seemed to
accept the ideas presented in the PowerPoint presentation well and did not question
the suggestions we offered them. They wanted more details, however, regarding the
methodology of our inquiry process, especially data collection—the sites we visited,

60
the members we interviewed, the job positions of those we interviewed, the length of
time these schools had executed their implementation plans, and the level of
involvement those interviewed had with the ILT process at their sites. They also
sought our advice on how we could direct them as a writing team to help engage
more people to participate in the reform process.
Spring 2011.
The nine members of the project defended their inquiry work before the
dissertation committee on January 22, 2011. The defense design included a five-
minute introduction; a 10-minute private consultation by the committee; a 25-minute
common oral presentation of the grounding ideas, purpose, methodology, findings
and how the district was helped by the inquiry team; a 45-60 minute question-and-
answer discussion session led by each committee member; and three individual 10-
15 minute feedback sessions to each member of the inquiry team. Finally, a
reflection on the alternative capstone process, the use of the gap analysis process
model (Clark & Estes, 2002) as a framework for investigating the problems
experienced at the school district and its individual sites, and suggestions for next
steps time was presented.
We now turn to Chapter 2, Section 2C and present 1) the inquiry findings and
2) our subsequent analysis of the roots that cause the performance gaps we presented
in our findings. We utilize the three dimensions of the gap analysis process model
(Clark & Estes, 2002) as the structure of the presentation of our findings:
motivation, organizational culture, and knowledge/skill.

61
Chapter Two-Part C: Analysis of Root Causes of The Performance Gaps
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
Introduction
We present the findings to our inquiry and the subsequent analysis of the root
causes that result in the performance gaps we identified. These findings are the
evidence about the roots of the problem as explained by the gap analysis process
model (Clark & Estes, 2002). The three dimensions of the gap analysis—motivation,
organizational culture, and knowledge/skill—provide the structure to this section.
Background
Educators in school districts across the state of California—and the United
States in general—continue to struggle with the great educational dilemma as it
encounters challenges faced in this modern age of information and technology.
Educators are also at the mercy of political agendas that are in a constant state of
flux. The latest political agenda, Race To The Top (RTTT), under President
Obama’s administration, imposes even greater expectations as states compete for the
coveted educational funding needed to achieve its academic goals for every student.
While much debate takes place over the competitive process to receive these fiscal
resources, most agree that students are entitled to an equitable and rigorous education
no matter their ethnic, social, or economic background. The Glendale Unified
School District (GUSD) initiated a reform process that seemingly anticipated this
rigorous shift in expectations when it adopted the Focus on Results (FoR) reform
initiative five years ago.

62
Focus on Results (FoR) is a research-based model that is comprehensive,
data-driven, and focused on instruction. This model encompasses the key elements
that are commonly described in various change models, such as developing a sense
of urgency, creating a guiding team with a powerful vision, increasing leadership
capacity, removing obstacles, resolving conflicts with effective communication, and
persisting through the difficult challenges (Fullan, 2001; Hargreaves & Fullan,
2009; Harvey, 1995; Kotter, 1996). The implementation of this framework is
embedded in local context and culture. It is only effective when accompanied by a
shift from a traditional central office to a central services organization. With
increased capacity among all staff, this model is designed to improve student
achievement and ultimately close the achievement gap.
Specifically, the FoR key strategies for professional development are: to
build expertise, change practice, monitor student performance, and to communicate
relentlessly (Palumbo & Leight, 2007). FoR has three distinct phases: 1) identifying
a schoolwide instructional focus based on an assessment of students' needs; 2)
implementing a schoolwide instructional focus that meets students' needs; and 3)
living a unity of purpose through a clear instructional focus that drives all decisions
(Palumbo & Leight, 2007).
The Gap Analysis
The gap analysis process model is a systematic, problem-solving approach
specifically designed to examine the gaps in an organization’s performance to help
improve and achieve their desired goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). The gap analysis

63
focuses on identifying, analyzing, and solving a specific problem in a specific
context. This is the nature of action research, where larger organizations and
institutions undertake this type of investigation, guided by professional researchers,
with the aim of improving the overall strategies, practices, and knowledge of the
organization (as community) within which they practice (Center for Collaborative
Research, 2010). Clark and Estes (2002) outline the six major steps that comprise
the gap analysis process model (p. 22):
1. Identify clear organizational goals that define the vision for the
organization;
2. Identify individual performance goals that are concrete, challenging, and
current (C
3
);
3. Determine performance gaps by quantifying gaps between desire goals;
4. Determine root causes by analyzing the gaps in knowledge/skill,
motivation, and/or organizational barriers;
5. Identify research-based solutions and implement to affect the root causes;
and
6. Evaluate results of implementation and fine-tune goals.
Overall, GUSD successfully implemented the components of the FoR reform
initiative at the district level and established a good foundation for continued work
toward embedded sustainability. This chapter identifies a limited view of the
district’s accomplishments in the implementation process as well as some
suggestions that will strengthen the commitment to long-term cultural change.

64
GUSD’s efforts are commendable as we consider the five most common
barriers that typically impede a district’s success in implementing strategic
initiatives. These include: executing the strategy consistently across schools with
different characteristics, creating a coherent organizational design in support of the
strategy, developing and managing human capital, allocating resources in alignment
with the strategy, and using performance data to guide decisions (Childress, Elmore,
& Grossman, 2006).
Using the gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) to determine the
performance gaps and, consequently, the root causes that led to these gaps, we found
many of the issues we uncovered are rooted in issues of motivation. Though we
present our rationale for identifying issues rooted in both knowledge & skill and
organizational barriers, the majority of the issues that we feel have adversely affected
the potential success of FoR reform implementation are rooted in motivation. We
devote much of our discussion to this component.
Analysis of Gaps in Motivation
The Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis process model was employed to
assess the motivational factors in the implementation of the Focus on Results reform
initiative in Glendale Unified School District (GUSD). According to this model the
analysis of motivation involves three processes or indexes (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002;
Clark & Estes, 2002, 2006; Song & Keller, 2001), which include active choice
(starting the task), mental effort (the degree to which one applies focus and energy),
and persistence (continuing in spite of distractions and competing goals). When

65
cultivating motivation, the individual’s belief in the goal and process is essential to
initiate movement toward implementation. An individual may have the knowledge
and skills to achieve a goal, but unless he or she is motivated to initiate the process
toward achieving the goal, the endeavor will be futile. Since motivation is the
response or product of interactions between people and their work environment
(Clark & Estes, 2002), nurturing safe, supportive and respectful relationships is an
essential global goal. Identifying motivational causes of gaps is complex because it
must be assessed if the individual or team chooses to work towards the goal, will
persist at it until it is achieved, and the amount of mental effort they are willing to
invest to accomplish the goal (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is an important construct in motivation and is defined as a
person's belief about their ability to organize and execute courses of actions
necessary to achieve a goal (Bandura, 1997). Beliefs about self-efficacy have a
significant impact on one's goals and accomplishments by influencing personal
choice, motivation, patterns of behavior, and emotional reactions. For example,
people tend to avoid threatening situations that they believe exceed their coping
skills.
Perceived self-efficacy also affects how successfully goals are accomplished
by influencing the level of effort and persistence a person will demonstrate in the
face of obstacles. That is, the stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the more active
one's efforts. Higher self-efficacy is also associated with more persistence, a trait that

66
allows us to gain corrective experiences that reinforce our sense of self-efficacy.
Therefore, an individual’s belief in the value of the task, his or her personal and
group efficacy to accomplish the goal, and the probability of success or effectiveness
are factors that influence one’s active choice to engage, to persist and apply mental
effort toward that end. When these three constructs are closely aligned, an individual
or group is “motivated” to work toward achieving the goals (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Active Choice
Active choice is essential to motivation as this is the behavioral evidence that
one has replaced his or her intention to pursue a goal with action. However, a
moderator of active choice may be influenced by whether one’s participation is
voluntary or involuntary. If the individual or group was excluded from the goal-
setting and decision-making processes, they may demonstrate resistant behaviors,
such as procrastination, avoidance and argumentativeness. One elementary school
teacher stated: “The same teachers that resist FoR were against NCLB
accountability. These teachers always rebel against ‘The Machine’.” If, however,
individuals actively work towards the goals even if they did not select them, they are
considered to have chosen that goal (Clark & Estes, 2002). Even though the district
selected the FoR reform initiative, school sites had the choice of how the
implementation would develop at their individual sites. These chosen activities
include the setting of their instructional focuses, the development of their ILTs, and
the use of student performance data to influence their decision making processes.
The motivation of staff in implementing the Focus on Results (FoR) reform

67
initiative varied throughout the five-year process. Initially, the goals and
expectations were unclear and defined differently by the different district role
groups. While principals were initially given the choice to participate, they did not
understand the degree to which their commitment would necessitate substantial
changes to the entire school program. Some principals expressed their belief that
FoR was a “leadership capacity building model for principals” that would give them
a “vehicle to drive the school forward”. Subsequently, the unexpected impact on
teacher behavior created internal conflict among school site administrators and staff.
As the process unfolded and expectations were increasingly defined, principals and
district administrators gradually realized the intent of the work was clearly focused
on classroom instruction and change of practice in order to increase student
achievement. Consequently, the site-level teachers believed they did not have a
choice or a substantial voice in the decision-making process, as they felt they were
not engaged in collaborative conversations prior to making the commitment. Some
teachers felt the reform was imposed on them: “We were already using data and
doing the strategies recommended by FoR;” “We didn’t appreciate being told to
implement this initiative, especially when we found out how much this was going to
cost the district!”
The structure and process of staff work was required to change in order to
implement the seven components of Focus on Results. While most teachers
appeared committed to the process, it is more often based on external locus of
control rather than intrinsic motivation. This was more evident among tenured

68
teachers who believed it was “just another program,” “We have no choice,” “They
don't understand our kids (limitations),” or “This is just another way of doing what
we are already doing (overconfidence); how long will this last?” Initially, some
teachers expressed great resistance demonstrated by procrastination, avoidance,
arguments and unwillingness to participate, as they perceived the “choice” to be a
“top-down directive.”
In the third year of implementation, when the district administration modified
the teacher evaluation format to incorporate student achievement outcomes, an even
greater adversarial reaction among staff created and “us” versus “them” climate.
Teacher commitment has varied from year to year even though they agree that test
scores have increased across the district, though some believe they would have
improved anyway. The interview process repeatedly revealed residual effects of
“having no choice” and resenting the “dog-and-pony shows” (performance versus
mastery) associated with the classroom instructional walkthroughs by district and
site staff.
Persistence
Persistence is the ability to maintain action regardless of personal feelings; a
person presses on even when he/she feels like quitting. It is a form of self-discipline
that is required when a person has many competing goals that demand time and
attention. Persistence is an element of motivation that allows a person to keep taking
action, to overcome distractions, and to focus on the process of working to achieve
the goal-oriented results. Thus, when assessing for performance gaps, a lack of

69
persistence due to too many goals, lack of ownership, lack of focused attention, and
lack of interest or task value (among many other reasons) may be contributing
factors in insufficient motivation (Clark & Estes, 2002). A number of the
interviewed teachers with many years of service in the district, for example,
expressed the historical pattern of changing initiatives often and therefore they
assumed this initiative, too, would soon pass – “we just have to wait it out.”
Several motivation theories focus on the reasons individuals or groups persist
and remain engaged toward achieving goals. Intrinsic motivation theories espouse
when individuals are intrinsically motivated, they engage in an activity or task
because they are interested in, value, and enjoy the task (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed self-determination theory in which they integrated
two perspectives on human motivation: 1) Humans are motivated to maintain
optimal level of stimulation and 2) Humans have basic needs for competence and
personal causation or self-determination. They argue that intrinsic motivation is
maintained only when participants feel competent and self-determined. Evidence
that intrinsic motivation is reduced by exerting external control and by giving
negative competence feedback supports this hypothesis (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci,
Kroestner, & Ryan, 1999).
Prior to the implementation of FoR, school staffs were accustomed to making
the decisions about their own projects, programs, curricula, and efforts. These
school sites worked independently of each other; teachers exercised a great deal of
autonomy in their decision-making. The first fundamental component in the FoR

70
implementation was for each school staff to define their instructional focus as a
collective. Many of the staffs reported this process to be overwhelming and/or
frustrating. Initially, teachers seemed to resent losing “control” of deciding what
curriculum or strategies they would use in their classrooms. For example, one
teacher stated, “The district has imposed another program. They chose FoR and got
the results they wanted.” This was also voiced by other teachers as “it cannot be one
size fits all” and “we know our community and our students and how to teach them
best.” However, as ILTs began to redefine their primary instructional focus (such as
literacy, writing, or comprehension), a new energy emerged as teachers felt relieved
to be less fragmented. Many teachers felt that “everyone shares the same targeted
focus on instruction; we have increased collaboration”. Staff was also expected to
work collaboratively and use student data to focus their discussions.
By the fourth year of implementation, these common goals, purposes, and
practices began unifying many teachers’ efforts. Some teachers who were
interviewed believed the rebellion they expressed toward the district administration
in Year Three of the implementation process resulted in fewer top-down directives
from “the district” to more site-based decisions. A sixth-grade teacher expressed that
FoR was “the best thing that ever happened–it provided direction and focused us on
our response to student needs.” Seemingly, this change created more ownership as
the value of the site Instructional Leadership Teams (ILT) increased and evidence of
increased intrinsic motivation emerged. An ILT member at the high school level
stated, “The ILT is the decision-making body that takes into account what teachers

71
need to understand about strengthening our instructional practices.”
The inquiry team observed varying degrees of persistence between the
elementary and secondary schools; between the schools with an API score above 800
and those below 800; and between ILT members and non-ILT members. The nature
of how staff works at the elementary level is more collaborative than at the
secondary level where teachers are more isolated by their content area. Additionally,
the district is comprised of mostly elementary schools—this created a larger focus on
strategies relevant to their communities. Consequently, it seemed that some
elementary teams more easily defined their schoolwide focus, hosted more frequent
meetings, worked collaboratively and communicated across grade levels more
consistently as the elementary ILTs were comprised of grade-level representatives.
However, the secondary schools consisted of larger teaching staff and experienced
greater challenges in bringing staff out of isolation into schoolwide collaboration.
This need was addressed by dividing the district into elementary and secondary
cohorts, at the suggestion of the FoR consultant, in order to give the secondary
groups more individualized expertise and support.
A difference in persistence also existed between staff that were part of the
district-level ILT and the site-based ILT. One teacher stated: “it would be helpful if
we rotated the teachers on the district and site level teams because teachers need to
understand the purpose and be more involved in the process of FoR.” A
probationary teacher shared how his membership in the ILT helped him understand
the process: “I joined this school two years ago and didn’t have a clue as to what

72
FoR was all about. My second year, I joined the ILT and the district team. I finally
understood why we are doing what we are doing with FoR.”
Some teachers expressed feelings of exclusion because the district-level
teams did not rotate staff. Others expressed appreciation for the support of the ILTs.
In some cases, it was noted that teachers who participated on the ILTs focused on
mastery orientation while those who chose not to participate seemed more aligned
with performance orientation by quickly preparing and scripting their students for the
“classroom walkthrough shows.” Some teachers shared that the walkthroughs felt
like a “dog-and-pony show because we coach the kids to perform for the visits.”
Another factor that seemed to influence persistence was the schools’
Academic Performance Index (API) scores. Many staff believed they were “good
enough” as they had achieved scores above the desired score of 800 even though all
students were not proficient. Initially, all staff equated a high API with closing the
achievement gap and did not see the value in a process that “cost so much” and
“required so much time.”
Mental Effort
The third dimension of motivated performance is mental effort, which is
closely related to persistence. People are natural cognitive misers—we are forever
trying to conserve cognitive energy (Aronson, 2008; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). In other
words, all other things being equal, individuals are motivated to use relatively
effortless and simple mental shortcuts that provide rapid but often inaccurate
solutions rather than engaging in complex mental processing that provides delayed

73
but often more accurate solutions. If a goal or process is routine and individuals can
draw on past experiences to reach the goal, it may not require much mental effort;
however, novel or unanticipated challenges require a great deal of mental effort to
succeed (Aronson, 2008).
Additionally, mental effort is largely determined by a person’s confidence.
People who lack confidence or have misjudged their abilities and are overconfident
do not invest much mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2002). People who are challenged
by the task or process but are neither underconfident or overconfident seem to invest
the most mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Evidence to support claims of both overconfidence and underconfidence in
the implementation of the FoR Initiative was found in our inquiry. The district
leadership seemed convinced that all improvement in student achievement was
directly the result of implementing FoR. Clark and Estes (2002) describe an
overconfident person as a person who “thinks that he knows what he is doing and
that the task is a no-brainer, so he does not have to work hard to accomplish the
goal” (p. 81). Some teachers of high-performing schools saw little value in the
process; they believed they had achieved success as evidenced by their test scores
and academic performance index. Teachers espoused, “We already do this good
work,” or “This is just another label,” or ‘It's business as usual.” People who are
overconfident may make mistakes and take no responsibility for them. While some
members at both the elementary and secondary level embraced the purpose and
process of FoR reform, many tenured teachers felt it was more meaningful and

74
helpful to the probationary teachers in the education field.
Underconfidence also influences mental effort, persistence, and choice
concerns. If people do not believe their efforts will result in growth and success,
they may not engage or persist as a form of self-preservation. The interviews of
teachers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels expressed feelings of
professional and personal threat relative to their students’ scores.
In the early phases of the implementation process, teachers perceived the
district's intent to be a “gotcha” strategy. Though they were reassured otherwise,
teachers believed they were being “judged, evaluated, and negatively criticized”
during the instructional walkthroughs. These feelings translated into perceptions of
“dishonesty, hypocrisy, and unfairness” (p. 87) described by Clark and Estes (2002)
as inhibitors of motivation toward goals and trusting relationships. Trust is a major
factor in work motivation: it is difficult to gain and easy to lose. These perceptions,
not reality, influenced the personal motivation of many staff members we
interviewed.
The collaborative process exposed their class achievement data to fellow staff
members as well as the administration. This fear and anxiety escalated when the
protocols for teacher evaluation were changed to include data on student outcomes.
This heightened the perception of an “us-them” culture.
Clark and Estes (2002) speak of “I” and “We” cultures. In an “I” culture
people work hard individually and independently when they personally accept the
value of the work goal. “I” cultures value initiative and autonomy. Some thrive in

75
this type of environment. However, in the “we” culture, the work is accomplished
collectively and cooperatively as a team. For some, this type of environment is a
catalyst for increased motivation and mental effort. The successful implementation
of the FoR initiative required staff to shift from an “I” approach to a “we” approach.
These conflicting cultural styles undermined the fluid progress at various schools,
especially the secondary level. While teachers acknowledged academic growth
during the five-year implementation process, tones of self-protection consistently
emerged as they referred to the leadership as “The District People” who got what
“they” wanted.
Other factors that sabotaged motivation included unclear goals and feedback
during the classroom instructional walkthroughs. Numerous teachers reported they
were informed well in advance of the upcoming visit as well as the FoR components
they would be observing; however, staff reported not receiving sufficient or helpful
feedback from the team. Teachers expressed a need for explicit information about
their “performance” and specific suggestions for improvement as well as accolades.
Clark and Estes (2002) indicated that “vague and constantly changing performance
goals and feedback” (p. 87) compromise confidence and motivation to maintain
effort.
The attribution theory (Weiner, 1980, 1992) integrates both cognitive theory
and self-efficacy theory in the sense that it emphasizes that an individual’s or group’s
current self-perceptions will strongly influence the ways in which they will interpret
the success or failure of their current efforts and hence their future tendency to

76
perform these same behaviors. An important assumption of attribution theory is that
people will interpret their environment in such a way as to maintain a positive self-
image. That is, they will attribute their successes or failures to factors that will
enable them to feel as good as possible about themselves. In general, this means that
when individuals succeed at a task or goal, they are likely to want to attribute this
success to their own efforts or abilities; but when they fail, they will want to attribute
their failure to factors over which they have no control, such as lack of family
support or bad luck. The basic principle of attribution theory as it applies to
motivation is that a person’s own perceptions or attributions for success or failure
determine the amount of effort the person will continue to expend.
Throughout the five-year process of the district’s implementation of the FoR
reform initiative, motivation vacillated among all stakeholders. The first three years
demonstrated the greatest challenges in establishing the foundation for systemic
change. Since excellent human performance motivation is a complex phenomenon
that grows from passion, belief, expectation, and expertise, only time will reveal
whether the investment of human and fiscal resources will result in sustained change
of practice that ultimately may close the achievement gap.
Analysis of Organizational Barriers
Organizational Culture
Organizational Culture is the “most important ‘work process’ in all
organizations because it dictates how we work together to get the job done” (Clark &
Estes, p. 107). Work culture is our understanding of who we are, what we value, and

77
how we work. According to Clark and Estes (2002), improving an employee’s
performance is the highest leverage activity available to an organization (p. 9). The
lack of well-organized and useful organizational work processes and material
resources can contribute to organizational gaps. Unproductive work process and
inadequate resources can prevent the achievement of performance goals even when
individuals have high motivation, knowledge, and skill. For example, a fifth grade
teacher expressed that “the district did not provide additional resources for our
demographics for us to be successful in FoR.”
The FoR initiative had a substantial impact on the GUSD organizational
culture for it changed who they were, what they valued, and how they worked as a
collective. In order to do this, district leadership was strategic in how they
articulated the goal, changed work processes, and provided the required tangible
resources to implement FoR.
Establishing the Organizational Goals
Organizational leadership is crucial to goal attainment. Their ability to help
employees see the organizational goal as valuable and desirable is critical to the
initial implementation of FoR. According to Clark and Estes (2002), leaders must be
perceived as a legitimate, trusted authority with a convincing rationale for the goal.
They must inspire a vision that is aligned to the desired goals.
Interviews and district documents indicate that GUSD leadership clearly
articulated the organizational goals. The first goal was to increase the API and to
meet AYP targets, which the Board of Education supported. It was communicated

78
throughout the entire GUSD community. The intermediate-level goal was to
implement the FoR strategy. This would have been the process to attain the first
goal. Principals were informed of the goals and were encouraged to join the first
cohort and initiate the implementation of the FoR at their sites.
The organization goals—to increase the API and to meet AYP targets—were
very clear to the entire GUSD staff. Interviews with staff at all levels of the
organization and documents indicted that there was a significant focus on increasing
the API. The goal to implement FoR was also clear; however, the FoR model
required a fundamental shift in how people were expected to work in order to
achieve the organizational goals.
Work Process and Procedures
District leadership and FoR consultants coordinated and provided initial
professional development for the Instructional Leadership Teams. The training was
extensive and comprehensive. Teachers and principals commented on the amount of
time they were away from their schools and classrooms. In addition, the FoR
Consultants developed a 5-year capacity building plan design to develop the capacity
of the GUSD leadership to sustain the FoR approach (See Appendix I). The strategy
was designed to decrease the involvement of the FoR consultants over time while
increasing the capacity of district staff to lead the work.
This capacity building strategy was initiated during the second year of FoR
implementation. This required GUSD staff to assist with the facilitation of the
training for the second cohort. By the third year, GUSD staff developed content,

79
provided training, and coordinated the Instructional Walk Teams (IWT). At the end
of the fourth year, three cohorts encompassing all the schools in the district were
trained and charged with leading the FoR effort with minimal assistance from the
consultants (See Appendix I).
The following procedures occurred in support of GUSD’s implementation of
FoR:
1. School ILTs were encouraged to participate and were motivated by the
availability of grant funds to pay for training and substitutes.
2. District level training was provided for ILTs with content and tools to
present the training back at the site.
3. The ILTs met regularly to discuss and address the schoolwide
instructional focus. Professional learning communities were encouraged
at the sites to improve teaching and learning.
4. Targeted professional development plans were created at each site that
built on enhancing staff expertise in selected best instructional practices.
5. Professional development for each school was designed to support the
schoolwide focus by building teacher expertise, ensuring change in
practice, and promoting high expectations for all students.
6. The realignment of resources (people, time, talent, energy, and money) in
order to support instructional focus was evident at all levels.
7. Internal accountability systems were evident through schoolwide
SMART-e goals. These SMART-e goals included state assessments as

80
well as local internal measures of student performance (e.g. benchmarks).
The data is part of the internal accountability system that is used as a lens
for decision-making, both schoolwide and in the classroom. Results are
easily available, publicly posted, and widely communicated.
8. The principal and instructional support staff members are expected to be
instructional leaders.
9. District leadership has realigned their work to support schools around the
FoR implementation by providing leadership, coaching, support,
supervision, and creative problem solving to ensure school demonstrate
dramatic growth in student achievement.
10. The District is building its internal capacity to lead the work by
increasing, designing, and delivering specific professional development
related to the FoR framework.
Resources
Having appropriate resources is vital to the success of any endeavor. At a
time when districts face historic fiscal challenges, GUSD was able to acquire a grant
and finance the FoR district reform. Reallocation of resources is one of the principles
of FoR and crucial to the support and sustainment of any reform. The grant funds
provided the opportunity for employees to see results and experience the benefits of
the FoR reform before having to reallocate district and site resources.
Training and capacity building for the implementation of the FoR initiative
was substantial and comprehensive on three levels. First, it was provided to a cohort

81
of instructional leaders (teachers and principals) that chose to participate in the initial
training. Second, it was intense, requiring ILTs to attend monthly meetings that
encompassed over 60 hours of training the first year. Third, the ILTs were required
to present the information to their school staffs and facilitate the identification of the
schoolwide instructional focus.
The district’s leadership communication has been clear and explicit with
regard to the organizational goal as well as the strategy to achieve it by
implementing FoR. They created a capacity-building plan to ensure the internal
capacity of the organization to continue the reform work. It has reallocated both
human and fiscal capital to prioritize and sustain the reform. Based on the data, the
processes and procedures principals and teachers use to determine the school’s
instructional focus has changed. In addition, there are new districtwide processes
and procedures for the identification, development, and delivery of professional
development.
Analysis of Gaps in Knowledge and Skill
To better understand performance gaps due to discrepancies in knowledge
and/or skills, we will frame our examination through the following three areas that
Clark and Estes (2002) suggest are indicators of issues in the knowledge/skill
capacity of an organization: communication, procedure, and experience (p. 50).
Communication
Lack of knowledge and/or skill in three specific areas led to communication
issues in the GUSD implementation of FoR. These three specific areas are the

82
understanding of the intention of FoR as a reform initiative, the level of transparency
of reform processes, and the overall knowledge of the changes to the district’s goal
structure.
Intention of Reform Initiative.
GUSD understood FoR to be a leadership capacity-building model but did
not fully understand until well into the implementation process (Year 3) the degree
of change that would be necessitated at the site level. District administration echoed
this sentiment. The FoR consultants designed the reform implementation to affect
every role group to make them cognizant of the direct impact their work processes
have on student achievement and success. The district effectively transformed their
role into a central services organization in order to remove barriers and provide
critical resources to support the four types of knowledge and skill enhancement
described by Clark and Estes (2002, pp. 58-59):
• Information about the reform effort and its guiding principles that district
personnel (administrators and teachers) needed to know in order to
succeed on their own;
• Job aids that provided information for district employees to refer to while
on the job to perform the tasks necessary to reach the desired goals;
• Training in the form of monthly districtwide ILT workshops where
personnel acquired “how-to” knowledge and skills (first from the FoR
consultants, later from the internally-staffed writing and presenting
teams) as well as the opportunity to come back to gain corrective

83
feedback on the practice they implemented at the school sites to help
them achieve their work goals; and
• Education necessary for personnel to acquire “conceptual, theoretical, and
strategic” knowledge and skills that may help them handle novel and
unexpected future challenges.
Communication was also inhibited as a culture of mistrust had intensified over the
course of the FoR implementation. This mistrust is rooted in the perceived “true
intentions” of FoR and is still prevalent in the district. Interviews revealed a
pervasive “Us” versus “Them” and an “I” versus “We” mentality at all levels of the
district. This tone was evident as well between “the District” and school staff, the
Glendale Teachers Association (GTA) and district administration, between tenured
teachers and probationary teachers, and between principals/site administration and
teachers. Some teachers at every level of instruction in the district expressed the
sentiment of the FoR process being a “conspiracy on the part of the district to
evaluate and weed teachers out;” other teachers shared that they “feel a degree of
threat and loss of autonomy, and it has created huge divisions among the staff and
with the principal.”
Knowledge about FoR as a reform initiative and its intentions has not been
disseminated to new personnel in a systematic fashion. The higher degree of
professional isolation at the middle and high school levels compared to the
elementary level is due to deeply rooted norms, beliefs, and traditional practices.
The highly collaborative nature that is the hallmark of FoR is hindered as a result at

84
the middle and high school levels. The decreased effectiveness of the reform
implementation mirrors this hindrance at the middle and high school levels.
Transparency.
The district-level instructional leadership team (ILT) was created to develop
professional collaboration teams to design the work that would improve teaching and
learning (Focus Area 2, FoR Framework). The district ILT was comprised of
members from across the district, representing all instructional levels (K-12). The
ILT met once a month for a total of 10 times per academic year. These monthly
meetings allowed the ILT to gradually develop all six dimensions of cognition
(remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create) as described by Anderson
and Krathwohl (2006). These meetings were initially highly structured and
facilitated by the FoR consultants in the first two years of implementation. This
provided the opportunity for the ILT to safely explore and master the higher levels of
cognition as they worked as a collective to better understand the FoR principles, to
understand how to look for change, and to understand how the ILT should center its
reform work on the core principle of having a laser-like focus on classroom
instruction.
Most importantly, the highly collaborative structure of the districtwide ILT
helped to develop a common language that is now used throughout the district to
discuss student achievement. This sentiment was echoed by virtually all staff
members interviewed in the inquiry. This common language was further developed
through the Instructional Walkthrough (IWT) process. Many staff members

85
interviewed in the inquiry process considered the Instructional Walkthrough process
to be a strong tool by which to examine instruction more critically. The
collaborative processes undertaken to write the curriculum to present strategies to
staff across the district, the actual presentation formats, and the guides that facilitate
the walkthroughs, further develop the common language that improves the quality of
the professional conversations that staff members have about student achievement.
Having a common language helps to increase the transparency and credibility of the
processes that propel a reform process forward (Muller, 2004).
Not all teachers, however, engaged in the FoR reform initiative nor were they
versed in the FoR framework, its principles, and how it is directly linked to their
instruction. Some teachers even admitted in their interviews that they elected not to
participate in the reform process. Teachers uninvolved in the ILT were less likely to
understand the link between their work in the classroom and the FoR process. These
non-participating teachers more often expressed dissenting viewpoints when the
district first mandated the implementation of FoR (in 2005).
Across the organization, the feedback loop is not consistent regarding the
implementation of instructional practices. Teachers who did not value the
Instructional Walkthrough (IWT) process dismiss it as a “dog-and-pony show” for
the “people in suits” and indicated it was impossible to perform at that level on a
daily basis. This is reflective of inconsistent monitoring by principals to ensure the
implementation of the explicit instructional strategies. Moreover, teachers lack
specific feedback from principals on how to modify their instruction based on the

86
knowledge and skills they received in trainings. Lack of explicit feedback hinders
the trial-and-revise cycles that Clark and Estes (2002) advocate when helping
employees take an innovation or strategy learned in training and transform it into a
commonplace practice.
Feedback given during the districtwide IWTs was anonymous and
generalized. Observers that participated in the walkthroughs were encouraged to
write feedback on Post-It notes that are then consolidated and presented at district
ILT meetings. The collective feedback was given to the school sites that were
visited and disseminated through the principals and site ILTs. Some teachers
interviewed in the inquiry process expressed interest in more specific positive
feedback as well as constructive input on what needs improvement. A department
chair at the high school expressed it this way: “How can I as a teacher improve if I
do not know exactly what I did right and what I need to change? Give feedback.
Don’t assume that I don’t want to change. Maybe I just don’t know what… or how
to change it.”
Goal Structure.
GUSD leadership clearly articulated that the organizational goals were to 1)
improve the academic achievement of all students and 2) close the achievement gaps
between different student subpopulations in order to raise API scores and meet AYP
targets. This was articulated by the vast majority of staff members interviewed at
each of the three school sites we visited along with administrators at the district
office.

87
The global organizational goal is supported through intermediate-level work
goals that require extended periods of time to achieve (but are more specific in their
tasks). The intermediate-level goals in GUSD are the seven areas of focus that
comprise the FoR philosophy.
Defining the work/performance goals were left in the hands of each
individual school site principal and his/her Instructional Leadership Team (ILT).
However, staff interviewed at the three school sites visited in the inquiry did not
seem to understand the direct relationship between the internal, site-specific
SMART-e goal attainment and the implementation of the seven areas of focus that
comprise the FoR model. This lack of understanding seemed to reflect the degree of
involvement with the site ILT. Many of the teachers interviewed in the inquiry
process explained that their involvement on the Instructional Leadership Teams
(ILTs) gave them a deeper understanding of the FoR philosophy, its areas of focus,
and the implementation plan for the site level. This same level of understanding
was not seen among the teachers not directly affiliated with the ILT (neither at the
district level nor the site level). These non-ILT affiliated teachers were unable to
articulate the alignment of their work goals to the intermediate-level goals (the seven
areas of focus that comprise the FoR philosophy).
This misalignment of the goal structure at the intermediate and work goal
levels made it difficult for teachers to understand what they were responsible for
achieving at each level of the goal structure. “Alignment between the organization
and its employees begins with compatible goal structures. Without this initial step,

88
all other attempts to improve performance are like traveling in the dark to an
unknown destination through dangerous territory” (Clark & Estes, 2002, pp. 22-23).
“The ultimate objective for performance improvement is that it must support
the larger goals of the organization” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 23). Principals must
clarify the goal structure to help their teachers understand how the work they
facilitate both in and out of the classroom directly supports the implementation of the
FoR areas of focus and, subsequently, help to improve student achievement
throughout the district. Principals must take care to define the “big picture” for their
staffs, to establish how the various components they engage in on a regular basis
through their professional practices – analyzing student performance data, adopting
the schoolwide instructional focus, use and understanding of specific research-based
instructional strategies to enhance student learning – directly relate to and impact
FoR implementation.
Clark and Estes (2002) assert that goal setting “is often the missing link in
performance improvement” and must be made clear and specific for employees in
the organization so that they work toward achieving the organizational goals rather
than their own. Clark and Estes (2002) describe the need for these
work/performance goals to be concrete, challenging, and current so that they can
help employees 1) achieve them within specific deadlines and criteria (p. 22) and 2)
assess if they are succeeding or failing at achieving them (p. 26).
To assume that the success of the reform implementation would hinge solely
on every single teacher in every school site throughout GUSD being directly

89
involved with the goal setting and planning necessary to implement FoR would be
misguided. Clark and Estes (2002) assert that employees do not need to be a part of
the goal setting process in order to be committed to achieving the goals set for them
(p. 23). It is the level of clarity of the work goal, being able to know if and when the
goal(s) are being achieved, and the rationale behind the work goal that employees
should be expected to know in an organization (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 23).
Across the organization, the feedback loop is not consistent with regard to
implementation of instructional strategies – a major area of focus in the FoR
philosophy. It is assumed that the teachers will fully implement an instructional
strategy without need for additional support.
Procedure
GUSD made considerable strides to implement the components of the FoR
reform initiative at the district level and established a solid foundation for continued
work toward embedded sustainability. The development of an incremental reform
process, in partnership with FoR, has resulted in the total inclusion of all 31 school
sites after three years of implementation. A substantial, comprehensive five-year
capacity building plan to ensure training of all staff members was created (See
Appendix I). Most importantly, the reform process saw the conversion of the district
office into a central services organization that provides leadership, support, and
guidance by: 1) modeling processes of establishing district goals; 2) examining
student performance data to determine achievement gaps; and 3) holding principals
accountable for increasing student academic achievement.

90
It is the districtwide expectation that every GUSD staff member be fully
versed in the goal structure and the reform initiative being implemented to support
the organizational goal of improving academic achievement for all students enrolled
in the district. Though this is the expectation from the district level, the induction of
new personnel (probationary teachers, principals, and district administrators) on the
tenets and processes of FoR is not institutionalized. New staff is left to acquire the
knowledge and skills needed to understand and implement FoR philosophy on their
own. No orientation or training is offered at either the district office that would
bring these new staff members to the same level of understanding as the rest of the
staff with regard to this reform initiative. A probationary teacher at the secondary
level stated, “I don’t know what FoR is really about – I just know that I want to
survive my first years in the classroom. No one has explained to me what to do and
what I’m responsible for.” A probationary teacher at the elementary level shared: “I
joined the staff in January; someone has yet to explain anything to me about the FoR
process.”
It is assumed that staff members will intuitively understand because they are
staff members of a district with this comprehensive reform initiative being
implemented.
Experience
A reform implementation should be so strong, well-defined, and
comprehensive in its scope that even if changes in leadership at individual sites
occur, district administrators declared that a new principal should be able to walk

91
into the building and know exactly what the reform effort is about and what is being
done. Coupled with the coaching trio, the district administrators were confident that
the GUSD principals were provided all the knowledge required to lead the reform
effort at the school site they were charged with leading.
A GUSD administrator initially described the process by which principals
were given the opportunity to volunteer their sites to participate in the
implementation of FoR but later clarified that the reform implementation was really
a mandate: “This is what we will be doing in GUSD. There wasn’t much flexibility
of choosing to implement FoR. Schools that were struggling were encouraged to
participate in the initial cohort.”
Early on into the implementation process, the principals requested more
support from the FoR consultants. The FoR consultant and district administrators, in
response, developed the formation of the coaching trios (See Appendix J) after the
end of the second year of implementation. The coaching trio was the smaller
collaborative unit in which the principals gained additional peer support as they
faced the day-to-day challenges of implementation on site. It was designed to allow
site administrators the opportunity to have a safe environment to explore and
dialogue, to seek critiques, and to sound off ideas with each other. The coaching
trios also encourage self-reflection—an essential component for any person building
his/her metacognitive knowledge. It is the awareness of a person’s self-knowledge
and thought process that is vital to a strong educational leader charged with
implementing a reform effort to decide, through reflection, which processes are more

92
beneficial to moving the reform in a forward direction while at the same time
empowering the site staff to participate and offer their genuine support.
Understanding the FoR framework is part of the conceptual knowledge that
all principals must possess to lead the work. The question that remains is exactly
how principals will move their staffs from the primary levels on the knowledge
dimension (factual and conceptual knowledge) about the fundamentals of FoR as a
reform initiative and develop the more advanced dimensions of procedural and
metacognitive knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2006) as the reform initiative is
internalized.
The district administrators and the FoR consultant we interviewed agreed that
the coaching trios lack structure. The district has not elaborated on what skills they
want their principals to develop when meeting in the coaching trios. This support
element has been redesigned for the 2010-11 school year. Coaching trios now
consist of three principals from the same instructional level who partner to support
each other’s implementation efforts of FoR. A district administrator oversees each
trio.

The focus of the dissertation now shifts from the analysis of the root causes
of the performance gaps to the proposed solutions to be offered to GUSD, the focus
of the third chapter. Chapter 3, Part 3A will provide the context of the role of the
district in school reform and provide a review of literature that will link the findings
presented in Chapter 2, Part 2C to the specific areas that directly impact the

93
performance gaps and their root causes, previously addressed in the inquiry analysis.
From this review of literature, Part 3B (in Chapter 3) will present, in the extended
solutions summary, the three major recommendations that the inquiry team has
selected as having the greatest potential to best mitigate the performance gaps of the
FoR implementation and therefore enhance the next stage of implementation for
GUSD.

94
CHAPTER THREE
Chapter Three – Part A: Literature Review Related to Solutions
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
Introduction
The passage of No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) ushered in a new
wave of learning standards and performance accountability for students of the
American public system of education. Numerous states across the nation rose to this
daunting challenge of ensuring 100% proficiency in content by 2014; however, the
Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), better known as school districts, bore the heavy
burden of responsibility in having to adapt to yet another set of expectations on what
student learning is and how these expectations should be used to hold schools
accountable for its academic performance in helping the nation’s children learn. The
reforms instituted by schools “could promote high-quality curricular frameworks,
assessments tied to those standards, and professional development of teachers whose
performance would be directed toward meeting a defined set of objectives” (O’Day
& Smith, 1993, cited in Schneider & Keesler, 2007, pp. 205-206). This focus on
standards was supposed to change the system to “allocate resources in a way… that
would ensure all students would receive a high-quality education and improve their
opportunities for learning” (Darling-Hammond, 2004, cited in Schneider & Keesler,
2007, p. 206).
The role of the district office is now more crucial than ever as these reform
initiatives are developed and implemented by school districts. Chrispeels et al.

95
(2008) contend that “high levels of student achievement are possible when schools
and the district act as coordinated units of change” (p. 730). The district office needs
to take a more central role in initiating substantial change—and helping to maintain
that change for the better. Childress, Elmore, and Grossman (2006) assert that
“district offices must carry out what [they] call the ‘strategic function’—that is, they
need to develop a districtwide strategy for improving teaching and learning and to
create an organization that is coherent with the [reform] strategy” (p. 59).
District as a Unit of Reform
Districts have a profound effect on how schools function and are often the
deciding factor if a school will be successful in a reform effort (Crandall, 1984;
Eubanks & Levine, 1983; Fullan, 1985). Elmore (2003) states that the school district
generally establishes the educational structures, procedures, expectations, and
accountability for all stakeholders involved in the process of teaching and learning.
Thus, school districts are often viewed as the best vehicle to implement school
reform (Elmore, 1993; Hightower, 2002; Lasky, 2002; Marsh, 2002).
Research also indicates that although some district and school reform efforts
have yielded pockets of excellence in student achievement, districtwide systemic
reform can be difficult (Corbett & Wilson, 1992). Replicating success requires
extraordinary leadership and effort; most teachers and principals do not exhibit the
skills necessary to create effective schools. According to Weiss (2007), “organizing
an entire school system around producing high student achievement requires a
thoughtful, systemic approach to teaching and learning in which standards,

96
curriculum, assessment (both formative and summative), professional practices, and
professional development are carefully designed and mutually reinforcing” (p. 3).
Therefore, the district has the resources, and the responsibility, to develop the
capacity of principals, teachers, and staff as well as organizational systems to support
teaching and learning (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003).
According to Anderson (2003), successful districts employ a large repertoire
of strategies to mobilize and support districtwide success in student learning.
However, the effectiveness of these strategies is dependent on the strength of district
leadership. Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) found that the total
(direct and indirect) effects of leadership on student learning account for abou one-
quarter of total school effects. Thus, central office administrators are crucial in the
school improvement process (Crandall, 1984; Eubanks & Levine, 1983; Fullan 1985;
Leithwood et. al, 2004).
According to Leithwood et al. (2004), three basic sets of practices are at the
core of successful leadership: setting directions, developing people, and redesigning
the organization. Clark and Estes (2002) concur with these practices in their gap
analysis process model. They state that establishing organizational goals is critical to
any organization for it must have a sense of where they are going. Second, ensuring
that employees posses the appropriate knowledge and skill is critical to
accomplishing the performance goals. Third, organizational structures and cultures
that facilitate the work of organizational members are vital to successful outcomes.
Thus, even though these practices in isolation will not improve performance in an

97
organization, without them no reform strategy will be successful. Consequently,
superintendents leading comprehensive school reform must understand and integrate
these basic practices in their leadership.
To this end, the superintendent as the organizational leader plays a pivotal
role in leading comprehensive school reform (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Petersen 2002).
According to Petersen (2002), the superintendent has influential power over factors
that directly affect teaching and learning. Specifically, the superintendent is able to:
1) direct districtwide adoption of curriculum, standards, and monitor benchmarks; 2)
lead the establishment of goals; 3) development district policy and organizational
structures in support of teaching and learning; and 4) establish expectations and
evaluation processes that ensure staff is accountable for supporting district
educational goals.
District-level reform requires leadership from a superintendent that is built to
last. In Good to Great, Collins (2001) identified the hierarchy of five levels of
leadership that defines leaders at all levels. A Level One leader is a highly capable
individual that makes productive contributions through talent, knowledge, skill, and
good work habits. A Level Two leader is a team member that contributes to the
achievement of the group and works effectively with others. The Level Three leader
is a competent manager that can organize people and resources to the effective
pursuit of predetermined goals. A Level Four leader is an effective leader that can
catalyze commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and compelling vision. The

98
Level Five leader builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal
humility and professional will.
There are two sides to a Level Five leader: professional will and personal
humility. As a professional, a Level Five leader creates superb results and takes the
organization from good to great; demonstrates unwavering resolve to do whatever it
takes to get the job done; sets the standard for building an enduring great company;
and takes personal responsibility for poor results. This leader also demonstrates
great personal humility by demonstrating compelling modesty by shunning public
adulation; acts with quiet determination and relies principally on standards; sets up
successors for greater success; and attributes success to others in the organization.
Collins (2001) suggests that great companies begin with who should be on the bus
and in the right seat. Similarly, superintendents need to develop the capacity of their
districts to lead the reform by building a central office staffed with the right
individuals that can support and sustain the reform effort.
Alignment of Organizational Goal Structure
According to Fiol and Lyles (1985), the alignment of goals in an organization
relies on the assumption that an organization has “the potential to learn, unlearn, or
relearn based on its past behaviors” (p. 804). Organizational performance affects the
organization’s ability to learn and to adapt in a changing environment (Fiol & Lyles,
1985, p. 804). Childress, Elmore, and Grossman (2006) suggest “district leaders
must come to view their organizations as integrated systems whose interdependent
parts are directly linked to the work of teachers and students in classrooms. Putting a

99
districtwide strategy into practice requires building a coherent organization that
enables people at all levels to implement their piece of the strategy” (pp. 59-60).
As the framework for guiding the rationale for our first recommendation, we
consider the five most common barriers that typically impede a district’s success in
implementing strategic initiatives (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006):
1. Executing the strategy consistently across schools with different
characteristics;
2. Creating a coherent organizational design in support of the strategy;
3. Developing and managing human capital;
4. Allocating resources in alignment with the strategy; and
5. Using performance data to guide decisions.
Executing a Consistent Strategy Across the Organization.
“Clarity and alignment among the five aspects of organizational life—
purpose, objectives, strategy, structure, and culture—are key to the proper direction
of an organization” (Merron, 1994, p. 52, as cited in Semler, 1997, p. 25). In order
to achieve this alignment, the higher leadership of an organization must re-establish
organizational, intermediate and performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Organizations need to be goal-driven (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 21). The
organizational or global goal must be far-reaching, ambitious, and have a timespan
that may stretch beyond many years. Clark and Estes (2002) contend that
performance/work goals must support the greater, global-level organizational goals
(p. 23). However, these two goal levels are often disconnected. When an

100
organization implements reform initiatives or strategies to obtain the desired global
organizational goals, the reform initiatives can be considered intermediate-level
goals. Intermediate-level goals help make the link between the daily performance
goals (of which each member of the organization has direct control) to the long-term
goals of the organization. Most organizations struggle with making this link for its
staffs.
“To achieve these [organizational] goals, a district office must develop a
coherent, clearly communicated strategy to help people decide what to do and what
not to do” (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006, p. 60). Without clear goals to
work toward, Clark and Estes (2002) assert that individual employees may lose sight
of working to support the organization and instead work to achieve their own
personal goals that may not necessarily be in alignment with the global
organizational-level goals (p. 23). They do not necessarily have to participate in
developing the work goals but the work goals assigned to them must be clear,
challenging, and concise (C
3
) (Clark & Estes, 2002). Therefore, organizational
leadership must determine and define individual performance goals for role groups
(district, principals, and teachers) at different levels of the organization (Clark &
Estes, 2002).
Gaps between the performance of employees and work/performance goals are
“natural and desirable consequence[s] of managing performance using cascading
goal systems” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 47). However, if the goals are not set for
everyone to understand, it will not be clear for people to know what they are working

101
toward (Clark & Estes, 2002). “The greater the congruence of perceptions between
central office and school leadership teams regarding these leadership tasks, the more
effective the leadership teams will be in achieving organizational goals” (Chrispeels
et al., 2008, p. 734).
Marsh et al. (2005) contend that districts successful in achieving significant
progress toward reaching “intermediate instructional improvement goals”–the reform
initiatives–were largely contingent on the implemented strategies being “aligned and
mutually supportive” of the varying perspectives held by different role groups
involved (p. 3). Having an aligned goal structure—and having multiple role groups
agree to the alignment of the goal structure – has the power to minimize frustrations
regarding the reform initiative that Marsh et al. (2005) believe can result in a lack of
buy-in to the implementation process.
“A comprehensive focus on a small number of initiatives is also crucial for a
district to achieve the intermediate-level goals for instructional reform” (Marsh et al.,
2005, p. 2). With fewer components of the reform initiative on which to have to
focus, the district leadership can send a clear and consistent message to the entire
organization. This enhances the district stance on its priorities and supports the
subsequent reallocation of funds in order to support this prioritized reform initiative.
This level of commitment sends a powerful message to all role groups that may
otherwise be wary of the length of time it will take to enact the reform initiative
through the district. Goals at the local/site level (performance/work goals) can then

102
be developed with an even tighter focus to support the intermediate (reform) level
goals (Marsh et al., 2005).
District leadership must reaffirm the establishment of the district- and site-
level Instructional Leadership Teams as the primary decision-making or
“intermediary” groups (Marsh et al., 2004) responsible for making decisions about
FoR implementation and the implementation of the FoR strategy at all sites as the
district’s intermediate goal. “…seeing a greater importance of what school
leadership teams (SLTs) can be … having a more rapid impact on change, if you
understand how to really facilitate and work with the SLT” (p. 740). Aligning and
developing a comprehensive set of strategies can reinforce overarching instructional
improvement goals (Marsh et al., 2004). By adopting the FoR reform initiative and
setting its comprehensive, incremental system of change into play, the ILTs were
well-poised to respond to the new district goals in ways that should have “enhanced
system coherence, shared purpose, and student learning” (Chrispeels et al., 2008, p.
745).
Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role Groups
According to Clark and Estes (2002), a key factor or cause to consider when
staff is not achieving work/performance goals is to assess whether they have
acquired sufficient knowledge and skills. The organizational gaps in achieving goals
are caused by human performance (Clark & Estes, 2002), thus the imperative is to
invest in human skill and knowledge development (Elmore, 2002). Leaders must
create a common culture of expectations regarding skills and knowledge, and hold

103
individuals accountable for their contributions to the collective result (Elmore, 2002;
DuFour, Eaker & DuFour, 2005). Unger, Macq, Bredo, and Boelaert (2000) stated
that systems reform depends upon "training of field staff, on-the-spot expert
coaching, and the promotion of a new organizational structure" (as cited in Fixen et.
al, 2005, p. 44).
Training Systems.
Continuous training to increase the knowledge and skills of staff is an
essential component of implementation. Training opportunities should continuously
inform and review with participants the organization’s global goal, the intermediate
goals (initiative, framework, strategy, curriculum), and work/performance goals
(focused on instruction) that are implemented at the site level. Elmore (2000)
observed, “Learning about improvement occurs in the growth and development of
common understanding about why things happen in the way they do” (p. 13).
The design of effective professional development to guide the
implementation of an innovation includes five elements: 1) theory, 2)
demonstration, 3) practice, 4) feedback, and 5) coaching (Joyce & Showers, 2002;
Kealey, Peterson, Gaul, & Dinh, 2000). The rationale, protocols, and theory for the
initiative or program must be communicated during knowledge acquisition to
provide understanding, meaning and motivation. The content of training will vary
depending upon the evidence-based practice or initiative.

104
Formal Induction System for all New Personnel.
In order to sustain knowledge and skills for the practices of reform, it is
important that the organization systematically induct new staff to the culture,
expectations, and policies of that organization. Human Resources typically provides
some level of new employee orientation that informs staff of structures, safety,
policies and resources; however, formal induction should also entail the
organization’s vision and mission, and ensure knowledge transfer of the
organization’s mental model or instructional framework, values, and expectations
(Robinson, 2003). According to Robinson (2003), induction processes should play a
key role in knowledge management initiatives.
Support Personnel.
Support personnel such as instructional coaches, department chairs, ILT
leaders, and district office personnel are critical in the implementation of an
innovation. Their commitment is to help novice or struggling staff to develop the
knowledge and skills needed to understand how to embed the instructional changes
in the classroom, as well as, identify the criteria that serve as indicators for others to
observe the evidence-based practices (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Wren & Vallejo,
2009; Spouse, 2001). The implementation of systems reform depends upon “training
support staff, on-the-spot experts, coaching, and promotion of a new organizational
structure” (Spouse, 2001). Formal knowledge needs to be supplemented with skills
and strategies so practitioners can see the relevance of what they have learned to the
situations at hand.

105
Support staffs add another layer of training and coaching for principals and
teachers as they learn how to implement the components of an initiative or new
instructional strategies. This resource counters the “train and hope” approach
(Stokes & Baer, 1977) where staffs learn new knowledge and skills in a workshop
and struggle to transfer the acquired knowledge into the classroom.
The primary role of a school leadership team is to provide support and peer
coaching to ensure their colleagues have the resources, knowledge, and skills (Marsh
et al., 2005) needed to achieve the site-level work/performance goals. Like athletes,
teachers will put newly learned skills to use if they are coached (Joyce & Showers,
2002). Effective coaching fosters a blame-free culture where initial attempts are
viewed as valuable learning. Technical coaching, team coaching, and challenge
coaching models are used when there is a concern for learning and the
implementation of an innovation in curriculum and instruction (Joyce & Showers,
2002; Resnick & Glennan, 2002). All coaching models use feedback as a vehicle of
improving or changing practice as it provides information for the teacher on the
effectiveness of their implementation of the new strategy or curriculum (Joyce &
Showers, 2002; Spillane, 2006).
School Principals and Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs).
The site level provides another induction opportunity that is less formal but
more detailed and explicit. The ILT must clearly know and inform staff of the
components of the FoR initiative and help staff understand how these objectives
serve as a bridge to connect their classroom practice to the intermediate goal of

106
implementing FoR and the organization’s goal of high academic achievement for all
students. When staff understands the goals and rationale behind their practice, they
are more likely to engage in the process (Clark & Estes, 2002).
The ILT collaborates and shares the leadership responsibilities so that there is
greater capacity to maintain the instructional focus (Spillane, 2006). The quality of
teaching, learning, and relationships in learning communities depends on the quality
of leadership by principals and teachers who shape conversations by persistently
“offering their values, intentions, and beliefs to others and by expressing themselves
in declarative sentences” (Sparks, 2005, p. 157).
The principal and the ILT deepen the focus on instruction by implementing a
well-designed learning community, which is a powerful and meaningful way to
seamlessly blend teaching and professional learning to produce more complex,
intelligent behavior in all teachers (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2003; DuFour, Eaker, &
DuFour, 2005; Schmoker, 2004; 2005; Sparks, 2005). A professional learning
community involves a systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze
data and improve their classroom practice and instruction (DuFour, Eaker, &
DuFour, 2005). As teams continually redirect staff to consider multiple sources of
data, effective solutions to challenges for student learning, teacher learning and
organizational change are more likely to emerge through professional collaboration
(Elmore, 2000; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Fullan, 2003; Schmoker, 2004,
2005; Sparks, 2005), which is the key to developing and sustaining goal consensus,
shared beliefs, and commitment to reform. The unifying principle of a professional

107
learning community asserts that educators have not fulfilled their fundamental
purpose until all students have learned at high (proficient) levels (DuFour, Eaker, &
DuFour, 2005; Fullan, 2005; Reeves, 2005; Schmoker, 2005).
Instructional Walkthroughs
The Instructional Walkthrough (IWT) process has been portrayed as an
effective and efficient system to collect data regarding instructional practices and
provide feedback (Cervone & Martinez-Miller, 2007; Downey, et al., 2004). Fink
and Resnick (2001) define the instructional or classroom walkthrough as “an
organized observation that requires the principal or supervisor to frequently visit the
classrooms to look for specific instructional practices” (p. 598). The walkthrough
process was developed through the Institute of Learning at the University of
Pittsburgh to support the systemic focus on instructional improvement. A set of nine
Principles of Learning (Resnick, 2008) serves as an organizing framework for both
thinking about and observing learning and instruction. These nine constructs are the
heart of the walkthrough process and are designed to help educators analyze the
quality of instruction and opportunities for learning that they offer to students:
1. Organizing for Effort: A sustained and directed effort can yield high
achievement for all students by re-organizing the organization to evoke
and support this effort;
2. Clear Expectations: Expectations for student learning must be defined
explicitly so that all role groups know and understand the benchmarks
that indicate each stage of learning;

108
3. Fair and Credible Evaluations: assessments, connected to and embedded
in the curriculum, that are used should be fair to students and found
credible by the public. Students are evaluated by measuring progress
toward explicit learning standards;
4. Recognition of Accomplishment: Clear, regular recognition of authentic
accomplishment should be celebrated by all role groups. Work that meets
standards or intermediate progress benchmarks as well as standards-based
assessments should be recognized;
5. Academic Rigor in a Thinking Curriculum: In every subject, at every
grade level, instruction and learning in every subject in every grade level
must include commitment to a knowledge core, high thinking demand,
and active use of knowledge;
6. Accountable Talk
®
: talking with others about ideas and work is
fundamental to learning. Accountable Talk
®
uses evidence-based
questioning appropriate to the discipline and follows established norms of
good reasoning to sustain learning;
7. Socializing Intelligence: educators can teach intelligence—a set of
problem solving and reasoning capabilities along with the habits of mind
that lead one to use those capabilities regularly—to all students;
8. Self-Management of Learning: students need to develop and regularly
use an array of self-monitoring and self-management strategies. These

109
metacognitive strategies help students be more self-aware of their role in
learning; and
9. Learning as Apprenticeship: learning environments should be organized
so that complex thinking is modeled and analyzed; mentoring and
coaching should be provided for students as they undertake extended
projects and develop presentations of finished work, both in and beyond
the classroom (Resnick, 2008).
The walkthrough is not designed for evaluation but rather for the purpose of
professional development (Fink & Resnick, 2001). It can be varied to serve different
levels of educational needs. While all walkthroughs are organized to improve
learning and instruction, differing relationships among the individuals participating
in the Walkthrough, and their specific purpose for participating, determine the need
for different walkthough modes (Resnick, 2001). Observational Walkthroughs are
conducted by the school principal and external observer(s) that come from outside of
the district. Collegial Walkthroughs are conducted by people that serve as
colleagues to the principal or by others who have a shared commitment to the
improvement of instruction and learning in the school. Supervisory Walkthroughs
may involve a principal and his or her immediate supervisor. In all three
walkthrough modes, the observers closely examine the learning and instruction
process as it relates to the content in which students are engaged. The focus of
discussion for each walkthrough mode is on progress in student learning. This is tied
to the discussion that happens as a result of the walkthrough process: what support is

110
being offered to teachers so that learning and instruction of essential content show
continuous improvement.
Fink and Resnick (1999) incorporate the walkthrough as a focal event in the
professional development of principals as instructional leaders. The typical principal
day is often encumbered with numerous management duties, impeding their active
participation in developing their knowledge of curriculum and developing their skills
as an instructional leader. Fink and Resnick (1999) designed a professional
development system for principals, calling on the school to be “a learning
organization that, under its principal leadership, is continuously improving its
capacity to teach children” (p. 5). In turn, the principal is “expected to be an
instructional leader in the strongest possible sense of the term” (p. 6). Thus, the
principal must understand the district’s adopted instructional programs well enough
to actively guide teachers in its implementation. He/she must be able to assess the
quality of teaching in order to select and maintain a strong teaching staff.
Walkthroughs develop a learning community among students, staffs, all
levels of administration, parents and community. Love (2009) emphasizes the value
of opportunities for collaborative inquiry by school staff – especially among teachers
– as a structure to keep the focus on the strengths and need for improvement in
instructional practices. Skretta (2007) adds that the time allotted for collaborative
reflection (learning community) after walkthroughs is essential. Successful
participation in productive professional collaboration also increases the capacity of
the group to be a professional learning community – a safe place to ask hard

111
questions about the links between results, content, and instructional practices
(Cervone and Martinez-Miller, 2007).
Principals as Instructional Leaders
The quality of school leadership directly correlates with school and pupil
outcomes (Cotton, 2003; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, Hopkins, 2006;
Leithwood & Riehl, 2005; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). Quality of
school leadership has a primary influence on student achievement (Leithwood,
Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Principals must balance pressure and
support (Elmore, 2000) to ensure the implementation of the innovation so that the
goal of increased student learning can be realized. Effective leaders not only know
what to do, but how, when, and why to do it. They understand the impact on student
achievement, school staff, and community. They know how to adjust their practices
to respect various sociocultural influences (Waters, Marzano, & McNultry, 2003).
The goal of ongoing training for principals is to increase their capacity as
instructional leaders. Principal training needs to be rigorously challenged and cause
them to question their long-held assumptions and inspire them to embrace new
thinking about leadership, teaching, or learning (Evans & Mohr, 1999). Many
studies on school effectiveness report that instructional leadership is one of the
several defining characteristics of successful schools (Waters, Marzano, &
McNultry, 2003).
A meta-analysis published by the McREL (Mid-Continent for Research and
Learning) Center compiled a list of twenty-one essential skills that comprise their

112
“Balanced Leadership” framework for effective principal leadership. The top five
principal leadership responsibilities include (Waters, Marzano, & McNultry, 2003):
1. Situational awareness - the extent the principal is aware of the details and
undercurrents in the running of the school and to what degree this data is
used to address current and potential problems and barriers;
2. Intellectual stimulation - ensures that teachers and staff are aware of the
most current theories and practices and embeds discussions of these
concepts deeply into the school’s culture;
3. Culture - fosters the development of shared beliefs and the sense of
community and cooperation;
4. Input - involves teachers in the design and implementation of important
decisions and policies;
5. Change agent - willingness to and actively challenges the status quo.
Collins (2001) refers to this type of effectiveness as a Level Five leader who
demonstrates tenacious professional will and personal humility.
Principal learning is personal yet takes place most effectively while working
in groups (Evans & Mohr, 1999). Coaching for principals is essential to ensure they
develop effective and research-based leadership strategies to improve instruction
(Joyce & Showers, 2002). Coaching reinforces the value of building on one
another’s thinking and of being willing to let go of former assumptions in order to
construct new knowledge together (Evans & Mohr, 1999). A culture that emphasis
continuous learning and mutual accountability encourages “lateral accountability”

113
among principals as they collectively develop their professional learning community
(Elmore, 2000; Resnick & Glennan, 2002; Schlechty, 2002). Principals who engage
in coaching sessions often deepen their commitment and are determination to do
whatever it takes to succeed (Joyce & Showers, 2002).
Sustainability
Educational organizations facing the threat of sanctions and the need to
improve academic achievement for at-risk students are desperately searching for the
“silver bullet” that will address these concerns. Significant amounts of money and
effort are invested in research-based strategies that have proven to be effective in
improving student achievement, only to fail when other organizations attempt to
replicate them. Why is it that these evidence-based best practices fail to deliver as
promised? It is not because they are not effective but rather because of an
inadequate implementation design. Therefore, in order to improve or change
practices that result in positive outcomes for students, educational leaders need to
know and understand what factors, processes, and practices are critical to the
implementation of any new strategy or reform.
We define implementation as the efforts taken to incorporate a program or
practice in an organization and at the practitioner level. We will present research-
based frameworks and processes that can be used to ensure effective implementation
of programs and practices in districtwide reforms. GUSD’s districtwide initiative,
Focus on Results, affects both organizational structures and individual practice.
Therefore, we hope that GUSD finds the following suggested considerations useful

114
in deepening the implementation and thus yielding the benefits that this evidence-
based reform strategy can provide.
Implementation and sustainability
The identification and development of an implementation framework that can
ensure the implementation of a new strategy or program in an organization is critical
(Fixen et al., 2005; Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Lambert, 2003;
Mourshed, Chiijioke, & Barber, 2010). According to research, successful
implementation is vital to obtaining the desired results from a program or practice
and the ability to sustain the reform over time (Fixen et al. 2005; Fullan, 2005;
Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Lambert, 2003; Mourshed, Chiijioke, & Barber, 2010).
However, Fixen et al. (2005) found the science related to implementing evidence-
based practices and programs was limited. In 2003, the President’s New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health declared the need to identify processes and contextual
factors that can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of program implementation.
Fixen et al. (2005) have developed a framework for implementation that includes
promising processes and practices to address this need. These practices are research-
based and have proven to be successful in other fields.
First, it is important to understand the complexity of implementing a new
program or strategy. According to Fixen et al., (2005), “there is broad agreement
that implementation is a…complex endeavor, more complex than the policies,
programs, procedures, techniques, or technologies that are the subject of the
implementation efforts” (p. 2). Therefore, successful implementation requires not

115
only careful attention to the structures, procedures and processes but also explicit
attention as to whom, how, and where the new “initiative” will affect the
organization. Consequently, thoughtful and effective execution of implementation
strategies at multiple levels of the organization is critical for it requires
transformation of the system, change in human behavior, and the restructuring of
organizational context, which can be particularly difficult to any organization.
Two critical factors must be in place in order to achieve positive outcomes
from the implementation of a new reform strategy. The reform must be evidence-
based and has proven to be successful in the environment in which it is being
implemented. The “effective” reform must also be implemented with fidelity.
According to Fixen et al. (2005), ineffective programs can be implemented well and
not yield positive results. Thus, a desirable outcome can only be achieved when
effective programs are implemented well.
Second, it is important to know and understand the essential outcomes for the
implementation of any program. Fixen et al. (2005) define organizational
implementation as “ a specific set of activities designed to put into practice an
activity or program of known dimensions…the implementation processes are
purposeful and are described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can
detect the presence and strength of the ‘specific set of activities’ related to the
implementation” (p. 5). Therefore, the essential implementation outcomes are (Fixen
et al., 2005, p. 12):

116
1. Changes in adult professional behavior (in the form of knowledge and
skills of practitioners and other key staff members within an organization
or system);
2. Changes in organizational structures and cultures, both formal & informal
(values, philosophies, ethics, policies, procedures, decision making), to
routinely bring about and support changes to adult professional behavior;
and
3. Positive changes in relationships to consumers, stakeholders, and systems
partners.
These three outcomes have the potential to have a substantial impact on the core of
any organization for they require shifts in personal behavior as well as organizational
values and beliefs.
Third, Fixen et al.’s (2005) framework identifies three degrees of
implementation: paper, process, and performance. Paper implementation is based
on developing new policies and practices to be implemented in the organization.
Process implementation refers to new procedures or processes to conduct business.
Performance implementation deals with how procedures and processes in a way that
result in positive outcomes for the consumer. All three of these implementation
levels are important to GUSD because all three must be present to achieve effective
implementation of FoR.
The process of taking a reform strategy and ensuring that it is embedded in
the day-to-day work of an organization to the point of achieving the desired results

117
can be daunting and challenging for organizational leaders. Fixen et al. (2005) have
identified six stages that comprise the implementation process (p. 15). The first
stage, exploration and adoption, deals with finding the right strategy for the
organizational problem being addressed. Program installation, the second stage,
establishes all the required resources and structures necessary to initiate the program.
The most complex stage is stage three, initial implementation. It requires change in
every aspect of the organization, including skill level, organizational capacity, and
organizational culture. If the initial implementation is successful, then full
implementation (stage four) can occur once the new learning becomes integrated into
practitioner and organizational practices, procedures, and policies. Stage five,
innovation, involves making modifications to the practice. Many times, practitioners
try to modify the practice during the initial implementation stage, thus affecting
implementation fidelity. This can result in failing to achieve the expected outcomes.
Therefore, this should only be done after the practice has been implemented with
fidelity and is operational. The sixth and final stage is sustainability, the continual
capacity building of the organization to ensure the leadership, funding streams, and
program requirement changes.
Fixen et al.’s (2005) conceptual framework for implementation is based on
five essential components (p. 13):
1. Source (an evidence-based best practice or framework, e.g. FoR);
2. Destination (the individual practitioner and the organization that adopts
the practice, e.g. teachers and schools);

118
3. Communication link (the individuals who work at implementing the
identified practice with fidelity; e.g. consultants, district leaders,
principals, and ILTs);
4. Feedback mechanism (a regular flow of reliable information about
performance of students, teachers, principals, teams, and organizations
acted upon by relevant practitioners (teachers, principals, and district
administrators)); and
5. Sphere of Influence (social, economic, political, historical factors that
impinge directly or indirectly on people, organizations, or systems).
In addition, Fixen et al. (2005) identified “implementation drivers” that are
necessary to accomplish high-fidelity practitioner behavior. These “drivers” are staff
selection, preservice & inservice, ongoing consultation and coaching, staff &
program evaluation, facilitative administrative support, and systems intervention (p.
28).
Fixen et al. (2005) found the implementation of a reform effort to be
successful when practitioners were carefully selected and received coordinated
training, coaching, and frequent performance assessments. This includes the
infrastructure necessary for timely training, skillful supervision and coaching, and
regular process and outcome evaluations. Assessment of practitioner performance
and program evaluation can be useful in determining the overall success of the
implementation in order to assure successful integration of the desired practices.

119
Facilitative administrative support provides leadership the means to obtain
the desired outcomes. This includes the utilization of a variety of data that can
inform decisions and determine if interventions are necessary. Interventions for the
implementation process deals with external forces—fiscal, political, human, and
organizational—that impact successful implementation and, consequently, reform
sustainability. According to Fullan (2005), sustainability is at the heart of any
initiative because the reform strategy is only as good as a district’s ability to obtain
successful outcomes. Fullan (2005) suggests that educational leaders should not
focus on a particular initiative but on the system’s ability to sustain it. Hargreaves
and Fink (2006) concur: “Sustainability addresses how a particular initiative can be
developed without compromising the development of others in the surrounding
environment now and in the future” (p. 30). Finally, Mourshed, Chijioke, and
Barber (2010) found that for the improvement journey of a system to be sustained
over time, the improvement strategy had to be integrated into the very fabric of the
system’s pedagogy.
Mourshed, Chiijioke, and Barber (2010) outline three ways that improving
systems keep improving. These systems established collaborative practices, they
mediated between the school and the district, and they built leadership capacity for
the future.
Collaborative practices describe how teachers and school leaders work
together to build their own capacity to address the learning needs of all their
students. According to Hargreaves and Fink (2006), sustaining reform requires deep

120
learning about the work and the individuals in the organization. This includes
preserving and advancing the most valuable aspects of the work over time from one
leader to another and creating a culture of distributed leadership that builds the
capacity of others to lead. It also requires the creation of a fair and diverse
environment that not only promotes the growth of material and human resources but
honors and learns from the best of the past to create an even better future.
Sustainability also requires building the capacity of instructional leaders at all
levels of the organization to become system thinkers that go beyond content
knowledge, teaching strategies and even leadership. According to Fullan (2005), the
development of system thinkers at all levels of the organization is imperative to
sustaining reform. These system thinkers interact with larger parts of the system to
bring about deeper reform and help produce other leaders working on the same issue.
Building instructional leadership capacity to become system thinkers involves
developing the collective ability of leaders to bring about positive change by
demonstrating the necessary disposition, skills, knowledge, motivation, and
resources (Fullan, 2005).
Lambert (2003) defines leadership as the organizations ability to lead itself
and sustain that effort when key individuals leave, therefore having a profound effect
on the effectiveness and maintenance of an educational reform effort. The ultimate
purpose of leadership in an organization is to broaden the skillful participation of
teachers, parents, and students in the work of leadership. When “the principal, a vast
majority of the teachers, and large numbers of parents and students are all involved

121
in the work of leadership, then the school will most likely have a high-leadership
capacity that achieves high student performance” (Lambert, 2003, p. 4) and is able to
overcome difficult challenges and transitions.
Conclusion
This literature review examined three areas that school districts should
consider when designing and executing the implementation of a reform initiative or
strategy through its organization: alignment of the organizational goal structure, the
knowledge & skill capacity of the role groups throughout the district most impacted
by the reform initiative, and the efforts made by the district to work toward
sustainability of the reform initiative. These three components are crucial to
enhancing the foundation of the reform implementation plan that has already been in
place for a significant period of time (five years). Enhancing these aspects of the
reform implementation will strengthen the foundation of the reform initiative and
elevate the district to deeper levels of implementation, giving the potential to be even
more transformative in its impact on academic success for all students.

From this broad base of research, we now turn to the recommendations we
would like GUSD to consider in working to enhance its current implementation
efforts to support greater student academic success throughout the district. Chapter
3, Part-B will present the strengths of the current FoR implementation and then
present, in more detail, the three major proposed solutions and their rationales for
consideration. These three areas are what we consider to have the greatest potential

122
to impact the implementation of FoR as GUSD moves onto the next phase of its
reform effort.

123
Chapter Three –Part B: Summary of Proposed Solutions
Authors: Rosemary Santos Aguilar, Debra L. Hill, & Regina D. Zurbano
Introduction
The gap analysis process model has provided the inquiry team with a
systematic method of examining the degree of implementation of the Focus on
Results (FoR) reform initiative throughout Glendale Unified School District
(GUSD). Combining our inquiry analysis with a comprehensive review of relevant
research, the performance gaps currently experienced in the GUSD reform
implementation process can now be addressed by specific, research-based strategies
that we present for consideration in this section. First, we present an overview of the
strengths of the current implementation of FoR as initiated by GUSD. This is
followed by a presentation of the three major recommendations, along with their
rationales, that we suggest for GUSD in order to enhance its reform implementation
efforts.
Strengths of FoR Implementation
The organizational goals for GUSD are to 1) ensure the academic success of
all students by increasing the Academic Performance Index (API) and meet federal
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks; and 2) to close gaps in achievement
that persist for some subpopulations of students enrolled in GUSD. To accomplish
these goals, the GUSD leadership adopted the Focus on Results (FoR) framework in
2005. The purpose of this inquiry project was to examine how well the district had
laid the foundation required for the implementation of FoR. The Clark and Estes

124
(2002) gap analysis process model was the analytical framework used to identify and
classify the performance gaps in the FoR implementation.
Our inquiry project revealed that the district had created a comprehensive
implementation plan design to build districtwide capacity in an effort to implement
and sustain the reform. The analysis discovered that the district had:
• clearly articulated the organizational goals: to increase the API and AYP
and close the achievement gap;
• designed/implemented a comprehensive five-year capacity building plan;
• secured a supplemental grant to wholly finance the implementation
process;
• developed a common language to discuss student achievement;
• created the Instructional Walkthrough process to monitor the districtwide
implementation of the instructional focus and chosen instructional
strategies;
• developed Instructional Leadership Teams at each school site which
increased the level of collaboration throughout the district;
• converted the district office into a central services organization; and
• worked to increase the internal capacity of GUSD staff to design and lead
professional development.
The gradual process that GUSD undertook to establish FoR as the change initiative
was very strong. Each of these components, on their own, were very labor-intensive
and required significant commitments of time, personnel, and financial resources.

125
Not only has GUSD been able to establish these components but did so in a
sequential fashion that has allowed the effort to support itself and strengthen it. This
strong foundation is necessary to support academic success of all students.
However, our inquiry analysis revealed three specific performance gaps that,
if addressed, have the potential to deepen and sustain the implementation of FoR in
GUSD.
Summary of Performance Gaps
According to Clark and Estes (2002), the three “Big Causes” (p. 43) of
performance gaps are: people’s knowledge and skill, their motivation to achieve the
goal, and barriers that persist in the organization. Our inquiry uncovered that in the
area of knowledge and skill, performance gaps resulted from both the lack of an
institutionalized training and induction process for new staff as well as the lack of
specific feedback to teachers during the site instructional walkthroughs.
With respect to motivation, the first performance gap is based on the
misperception as to the choice of selecting FoR as the reform initiative to implement
through the district. District leadership felt that site staff had a choice to identify the
instructional focus and the instructional strategies; in other words, the way that the
reform would be implemented at the site was left to the site staff. Site-level staff felt
they were directed to implement the FoR framework, therefore all work involved
with implementing FoR was a district mandate. Both positions are true; however,
the misinterpretation from both role groups created a motivational barrier in some
instances to the degree of reform implementation. District leadership failed to

126
communicate two important points. The first was that the implementation of FoR
was not a choice, that eventually the entire district was going to implement the
reform. Second, the individual sites had a choice as to determine the instructional
focus and the instructional strategies to be implemented schoolwide. The second
performance gap in motivation was based on some teachers feeling that they were
already doing the processes being asked of them in the reform implementation and
that there was no need to spend the funding required for implementation of the work.
These teachers chose not to participate in the reform process and therefore did not
invest the mental effort to “get the job done” as necessitated by the reform
implementation.
In the area of organizational barriers, the analysis uncovered that the
intermediate-level goal was not clearly defined for all role groups. Determining goal
alignment is a critical step in the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2002). The
global-level organizational goals and the site-level work performance goals were
clear, but the intermediate goal—to implement FoR as the reform initiative—was not
made explicit to all role groups in the district. The second gap revealed a lack of
commitment to the sustainability of the reform. Several significant administrative
changes were scheduled to take place at the site and district level after the sixth year
of implementation; staff felt that there may be a change of focus once those
administrative changes were made. Some teachers also expressed the concern that
another new change idea would come around, supplanting FoR, so why invest so
much time and energy if the change effort would once again change so soon? The

127
third organizational barrier was the lack of a districtwide evaluation done for the FoR
implementation to determine whether the reform needed additional support and
direction to ensure its successful and continued implementation.
Recommendations to the District
We offer three recommendations for GUSD to consider: 1) ensure the
alignment of organizational goal structure; 2) work to build the knowledge/skill
capacity of role groups; and 3) develop a plan for reform sustainability.
Recommendation 1: Ensure Alignment of Organizational Goal Structure
We found that the vast majority of individuals working throughout GUSD
could clearly identify the global organizational goals and could explain the site-
specific SMART-e goals. However, the work being done by teachers in their
classrooms could not be linked to the implementation of FoR, the intermediate-level
goal. It is not uncommon that individuals within an organization fail to make the
connection between high-level goals and the specific team/individual goals.
The gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) provides a structure
that identifies disparities between the site-level work/performance goals and the
global-level organization goals. This information assists the organizational
leadership in constructing an intervention plan to improve outcomes. GUSD must
align the goal structure by re-establishing global/organizational, intermediate, and
work/performance goals throughout the district (Clark & Estes, 2002). This will
help in setting direction, one of the three key leadership practices necessary for

128
moving a reform forward to reach the district’s desired goals (Leithwood et al., 2004;
Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).
If goals are not set for everyone to understand, it will not be clear for people
to know what they are working toward (Clark & Estes, 2002). Clark and Estes
(2002) assert that employees do not need to be a part of the goal setting process in
order to be committed to achieving the goals set for them (p. 23). It is the level of
clarity of the work goal, being able to know if and when the goal(s) are being
achieved, and the rationale behind the work goal that employees should expect to
know in an organization (Clark & Estes, 2002, p. 23). This way, the chance of
individuals working toward their own personal goals is minimized.
We believe the link between what is being done in the classroom and how
this work is linked to FoR can be better articulated for all role groups throughout
GUSD. Individual performance goals that are concrete, challenging, and current
(C
3
) must be determined and defined (Clark & Estes, 2002) for role groups at
different levels of the organization (district, principals, and teachers). The individual
performance goals should ultimately support the establishment of the schoolwide
instructional focus and the implementation of relevant instructional practices in all
classrooms, both intermediate-level goals that are two of the areas of focus
advocated in FoR.
Aligning and developing a comprehensive set of strategies can reinforce
overarching instructional improvement goals (Marsh et al., 2004). We are aware that
the district has committed to working toward this for the 2010-11 school year.

129
Though it is the primary role of the site principals to be able to communicate and
translate the vision for their staffs, training the ILTs to be able to help site staffs
understand the goal structure should be a district priority. By adopting the FoR
reform initiative and setting its comprehensive, incremental system of change into
play, the ILTs were well-poised to respond to the new district goals in ways that
should have “enhanced system coherence, shared purpose, and student learning”
(Chrispeels et al., 2008, p. 745). Chrispeels et al. (2008) go on to explain how this
coherence impacts goal attainment: “[t]he greater the congruence of perceptions
between central office and school leadership teams regarding these leadership tasks,
the more effective the leadership teams will be in achieving organizational goals” (p.
734).
Although we acknowledge the strong level of reform implementation thus far
in GUSD, we must keep in mind that prioritization of FoR must also be
“complemented by sending a clear and consistent message about district priorities
and by channeling limited district and school resources to a finite number of areas”
(Marsh et al., 2004, p. 2). GUSD needs to modify and update their graphic “mental
model” that clearly depicts the FoR framework and the cascading goals. It is vital
that all stakeholders at every level understand the organization goal structure and
actively link their role at a school or in the district to achieving the goals at every
level. The district instructional leadership team (ILT) needs to provide specific
training to increase their understanding of the goal structure, as well as, offer
effective strategies to communicate understanding with site staff.

130
Recommendation 2: Build Knowledge/Skill Capacity of GUSD Role Groups
Knowledge systems are one of the most important factors in achieving the
global/organizational goals. It is crucial that each role group is provided ongoing
information, training, and coaching to ensure the implementation of the reform
initiative is done with fidelity. Training and coaching support are significant
activities to increase the knowledge/skill capacity of all staff. Joyce and Showers
(2002) concluded that the objectives of both training and coaching mirror each other
and that professional development plans and leadership need to embed coaching into
the training component to ensure knowledge transfer occurs when participants return
to their school site. Clark and Estes (2002) identify lack of sufficient
knowledge/skill as a cause for performance gaps. Knowledge and skills provide the
“what, when, where, who, how, and why” information. A gap analysis is helpful is
assessing this need as people are often unaware of their own lack of knowledge or
skill or are reluctant to disclose their need for training and support (p. 44).
As the project inquiry team interviewed the members of various role groups,
a consistent theme emerged indicating a significant gap in critical information among
teachers, principals and district leadership. Teachers have varied levels of
involvement with FoR. Some choose not to participate. They do not realize how to
link their work to the FoR principles and their level of implementation. Some
teachers claim the FoR principles are already a part of their teaching repertoire—but
they cannot articulate how they link together. Principals are instructional leaders
who must “enhance guidance and standardization, [can produce] faithful

131
implementation of program-specific teaching regimes, without leading to negative
results, such as decreased teacher motivation” (Rowan & Miller, 2007, pp. 287-288).
Furthermore, a lack of awareness or clarity exists on how exactly the reform
initiative is directly linked to their classroom practice. The knowledge/skill gap was
also demonstrated by the lack of a specific induction plan for new personnel at either
the district or site level. It was learned that grade-level teachers on the elementary
school ILTs did not provide a specific orientation of the FoR framework that links
the work performance goals to the organization goal. It was assumed that new staff
would “catch on” eventually or that they would “figure it out” by being part of the
staff.
The gap analysis also disclosed the inconsistent practice among principals for
providing meaningful feedback related to the ILT-selected instructional strategies in
the classroom. Teachers expressed the need for validation of their best practices as
well as guidance and support that could help them improve. Staff expressed a
greater desire for more explicit feedback that would help them achieve their
performance goals. Performance goals need to be monitored with regular
observation and feedback so staff may improve their efforts of success (Clark &
Estes, 2002). Feedback is one of the most important elements in learning,
improving, and refining an innovation.
While districtwide Instructional Walk Throughs (IWT) were regularly
scheduled, the desired feedback was inconsistent, vague, and created uncomfortable
reactions among teachers as they wondered about their performance. This attitude

132
may have contributed to the inconsistent implementation of the reform initiative
among classrooms and schools. Without a clear understanding of the goal
alignment, explicit feedback to validate or improve best practices, the IWTs did not
achieve their full capacity or the intended outcomes consistently.
The inquiry team proposes five steps to enhance teacher and principal
efficacy and ensure that all role groups have sufficient knowledge and skill to
accomplish the work and FoR intermediate goals:
Develop a Formal Induction System
While GUSD has provided ongoing information and some training in the FoR
components incrementally over the past five years, designing a formal induction
process for new staff would ensure transfer of knowledge and increase fidelity of the
implementation process. Induction opportunities must be offered regularly so that
new staff is trained very shortly after they join the organization. When new
employees join the GUSD staff, in addition to the typical orientation agendas
(policy, protocols, safety), the district personnel should present the instructional
mental model – the graphic that displays the three levels of goals and defines the
strategies and tactics within each one. It is imperative for the sustainability of the
FoR reform that everyone, everywhere in GUSD knows the district’s values for
professional learning, collaboration, and instructional focus. New staff needs to
know and understand the ILT structure and be directed to meet with them at the site.

133
Support Personnel
Support personnel such as instructional coaches, department chairs, ILT
leaders, and district office personnel are critical in the implementation of an
innovation. Their commitment is to help novice or struggling staff develop the
knowledge and skills needed to understand how to embed the instructional changes
in the classroom as well as identify the criteria that serve as indicators for others to
observe the evidence-based practices (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Spouse, 2001; Wren
& Vallejo, 2009). Perceived value and effectiveness of interactions were greater
when coaches tailored their work to school and/or teacher needs and advised teachers
about instruction (Marsh et al., 2004, p. 2).
An effective coaching model is critical to support novice or struggling
teachers and principals in the implementation process. Both technical and team
coaching models would be beneficial to support the implementation of an innovation
in curriculum and instruction (Joyce & Showers, 2002). The principals and ILTs
could be trained in coaching protocols that include supervision and monitoring of the
instructional focus, teaching and modeling while engaged in practice activities,
offering meaningful assessment and feedback, and providing emotional support
(Spouse, 2001). This would increase the capacity of site leadership to provide
ongoing coaching so staff would understand more deeply how the seven principles of
FoR are implemented at their particular site and reinforce the focus on the site-level
SMART-e goals for student achievement.

134
Many districts decide to hire professionals (instructional coaches) to lead
instruction in literacy, math and science to provide ongoing, job-embedded
professional development to the classroom teachers (Sturtevant, 2003). Under
pressure for high achievement, many schools recognize the need for site-based,
content-specific expertise to guide improvements in curriculum and instruction
(Wren & Vallejo, 2009). Sufficient evidence exists that support fact that the
knowledge and talent of the classroom teacher is one of the most important variables
influencing academic success for students (Elmore, 2002; Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004).
Principals and ILTs
The analysis of data from staff interviews revealed the varying levels of
knowledge and commitment among staff members. While district and site ILT
members demonstrated greater knowledge, skill, and active engagement in the FoR
principles, non-participants seemed to have less understanding of the intermediate
goal and its connection to the work/performance goals and the global/organizational
goal. School ILTs could better mitigate this distancing by establishing a specific
plan to induct new staff and refresh site staff in their understanding of the rationale
and instructional focus. This type of informal induction provides site-specific details
about that would serve as another layer of training and peer coaching to enhance
implementation fidelity. As the ILT collaborates and shares the leadership
responsibilities by recruiting all team members to increase participation, there is
greater schoolwide capacity to maintain the instructional focus (Spillane, 2006).

135
School leadership teams need to be part of a broader communication bridge
with the central office, rather than indirectly through the principal: “The creation of
a more formal linkage and communicative relationship may allow for more explicit
discussions of team and district theories of action, thus increasing an important
opportunity for collective dialogue and greater co-construction of the reforms
(Datnow et al., 2006; Hubbard et al., 2006, as cited in Chrispeels et al., 2008, p.
744).
Instructional Walkthroughs
Instructional Walkthroughs (IWTs) are a viable process that ensures increase
accountability and fidelity of the instructional focus (Graf & Werlinich, 2002). While
the IWT is intended to gather school wide data regarding school climate and efficacy
in instructional practices, many GUSD teachers requested that they receive more
explicit feedback that informed them about their classroom practice. In the tone of a
professional learning community, the IWT should be non-judgmental, non-
evaluative and inquiry-based using multiple forms of data. The feedback should
validate best practices, as well as provide considerations for ways to improve
implementation fidelity and classroom instruction. This requires cultivating
professionally safe, supportive, honest, and trusting relationships.
Principals as Instructional Leaders
Principals are the gatekeepers of change, whether intentionally or due to lack
of knowledge and/or skill. They are also the barometers of academic achievement;
therefore, it behooves the organization to invest a great deal of resources to help each

136
principal achieve full capacity as an instructional leader as school leadership is
strongly correlated with student achievement (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris,
Hopkins, 2006). The role of the principal has changed and many may not have
sufficient knowledge and skill in the twenty-one key McREL responsibilities
required of effective principals (Waters, Marzano & McNultry, 2003). District
leadership may provide principals with additional knowledge in prioritizing school
tasks so that they find substantial time to be in classrooms to coach, mentor, support,
and provide resources to build trusting relationships and increase teacher capacity.
A more structured peer coaching system for principals should be developed
by district leadership to increase principal capacity to lead change and implement the
reform initiative. A consideration would be to create principal trios that meet
regularly, conduct IWTs at each other’s sites, and disclose their needs for additional
information to strengthen their efforts in being an effective school leader. This type
of informing coaching relationships allow each individual to hear new ideas, reflect
on different possibilities, and confront their personal assumptions and stereotypes.
This would also increase cooperation among schools by acknowledging and learning
from each other’s strengths and strengthening perceived or real weaknesses. When a
collective mentality is nurtured, the culture transitions and emerges into a higher-
level professional learning community.

137
Recommendation 3: Stay The Course! Work to Sustain the Reform
Clark and Estes (2002) proposed that when organizations make informed
decisions using the most current research evidence, it increases the chances that the
chosen performance improvement program will succeed.
Turnover in leadership at all levels of the district (superintendent and
leadership cabinet, principals, staff ILT leaders) and the end of the supplemental
grant that provided districtwide training and collaboration threaten the sustainability
of FoR and may support the notion that it is “just another reform” that will disappear
as soon as the next novel idea is popularized. District leadership needs to reaffirm its
commitment to the FoR initiative.
The second threat facing the reform is the major turnover in leadership at the
district and site levels. Staying the course and deepening the implementation is a
practical, cost-effective choice for GUSD. Implementation of a multi-level
comprehensive reform like FoR in a large organization like GUSD takes time.
According to research, successful implementation is at the heart of getting the
desired results from a program or practice and the ability to sustain the reform over
time (Fixen et al. 2005; Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Lambert, 2003;
Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010).
It is important to understand the complexity of implementing a new program
or strategy. According to Fixen et al., (2005), “there is broad agreement that
implementation is a…complex endeavor, more complex than the policies, programs,

138
procedures, techniques, or technologies that are the subject of the implementation
efforts” (p. 2).
Therefore, successful implementation requires not only careful attention to
structures, procedures, and processes but also explicit attention as to whom, how,
and where the new “initiative” will affect the organization. Consequently, thoughtful
and effective execution of implementation strategies at multiple levels of the
organization is critical for it requires transformation of the system, change in human
behavior, and the restructuring of organizational context, which can be particularly
difficult to any organization.
Though these obstacles to reform would stop any other district from
proceeding forward, we feel that GUSD has established such a strong foundation for
its reform implementation that it should stay the course and proceed forward, being
mindful of the rough road ahead that it will face: demands from Race To The Top
(RTTT) legislation, severe budget constraints, a tepid relationship with the unions of
its classified and certificated staff, and the ever-increasing proficiency requirements
under NCLB. A strong, multi-faceted sustainability plan will help GUSD mitigate
these obstacles and help all students achieve academic success.
As GUSD evaluates their progress over the last five years and measures for
implementation fidelity, they will be able to construct explicit next steps to deepen
the reform effort and achieve their greatest goal, academic success for each and
every student. The inquiry team proposes the following eight steps for GUSD to
consider in developing a plan for reform sustainability:

139
• Ensure leadership at all levels of the district can define the “big picture”
for staff;
• Re-establish staff’s belief in the goal structure to increase task value;
• Reaffirm its commitment to the FoR reform initiative under the
leadership of the new Superintendent;
• Use the developed rubrics to measure the degree of implementation for
each GUSD site – ILT, school staff, and district administrators;
• Establish mentoring system between schools for reform support.
School teams who are efficacious in the reform effort would partner with another site
that shares a common instructional focus to share strategies and ideas. All role
groups must be able to harness social capital – “the formal and informal ties with
others and the degree of trust, shared norms, and expertise that characterizes those
ties” (Honig & Coburn, 2008, p. 598) as they interact with one another through the
district.
• Acknowledge group efficacy by explicitly celebrating the growth in
student achievement outcomes across all schools;
• Mitigate perceptions of threats/“ill-intent” (evaluation vs. coaching); and
• Symbolically create a “new beginning” by creating a digital message on
portable medium (DVD) where the “new” district Superintendent
presents his views on FoR and the reform implementation:
o Acknowledges the hard work, talents, commitment, and other
virtues that have occurred over the past five years;

140
o Validates the leadership of the ILTs and team members;
o Outlines the district human and fiscal resources that will support
the implementation of the FoR reform;
o Reaffirms “the team’s” commitment to continuing the
collaborative approach for implementation, including ILTs, site-
based professional development, the use of data to inform and
modify instruction, to reinforce the instructional focus; and
o Reinforces the importance of positive, caring relationships based
on open communication, trust, support and willingness to
problem-solve differences together.
Human Capital
There is one thing that is common to every individual, relationship, team,
family, organization, nation, economy, and civilization throughout the world-
--one thing which, if removed, will destroy the most powerful government,
the most successful business, the most thriving economy, the most influential
leadership, the greatest friendship, the strongest character, the deepest love.
On the other hand, if developed and leveraged, that one thing has the
potential to create unparalleled success and prosperity in every dimension of
life. Yet it is the least understood, most neglected, and most underestimated
possibility of our time. That one thing is trust (Covey, 2006, p. 1).

Though it is crucial to close the gaps in the aforementioned three areas, the
foundation of the reform plan must always be maintained. The impact of human
capital must not be disregarded in this implementation process. The reform will
continue to persist when all GUSD role groups feel a sense of collective ownership
about the reform initiative and process, when the process is transparent, and fosters
collegiality among members. The working relationships that support the foundation

141
of the reform effort (and go toward ensuring the individual components of the reform
process will persist) must be based on trust and mutual respect. District leadership
must be mindful of the impact of human capital upon the overall success of the
reform effort – and the ability of the effort to be sustained for years to come.

142
REFERENCES
Anderson, S. E. (2003). The school district role in educational change: A review of
the literature. Ontario, Canada: International Center for Educational
Change, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational
objectives. New York, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Aud, S., Fox, M., & Kewal-Ramani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of
racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Autor, D. H., Levy, F. & Murnane, R. J. (2003, November). The skill content of
recent technological change: an empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 118(4), 1279-1333.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Barth, R. (2004). Learning by Heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barth, R. (1991). Restructuring schools: some questions for teachers and principals.
Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2), 123-128.

Barth, R. (2005). Turning book burners into lifelong learners. In DuFour, R.,
Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.). On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities (pp. 115-134). Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boulding, K. E. (1989). The three faces of power. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2003, March). Trust in schools: A core resource for
school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-45.

143
Cal Facts 2006. (2006, August 6). California's economy and budget in perspective.
Retrieved January 31, 2010, from California Legislative Analyst's Office
Web site: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2006/cal_facts /2006_calfacts_econ.htm

California Department of Education. (2009). 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress report
information guide. Retrieved February 10, 2010 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ ta/ac/ay/documents/infoguide09.pdf

California Department Of Education. (2009). Data and statistics. Retrieved
February 8, 2010, from California Department of Education Web site:
http://cde.ca.gov/ds

Cervone, L. & Martinez-Miller, P. (2007, Summer). Classroom walkthroughs as a
catalyst for school improvement. Leadership Compass, 4(4). Retrieved from
http://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Leadership_Compass/2007/
LC2007v4n4a2.pdf

Childress, S., Elmore, R. F., & Grossman, A. (2006, November). How to manage
urban school districts. Harvard Business Review, 1-14.

Chrispeels, J. H., Burke, P. H., Johnson, P., & Daly, A. J. (2008). Aligning mental
models of district and school leadership teams for reform coherence.
Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 730-750. doi:
10.1177/0013124508319582

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Business.

Covey, S. (2006). The speed of trust. New York: Free Press.

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide for selecting
the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. (1992). The central office role in instructional
improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3(1), 45-68.

Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. L. (2001, September). The district role
in instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78-84.

144
Cotton, K. (1995), “Effective Schooling Practices: A Research Synthesis 1995
Update,” NW Regional Educational Laboratory,
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/esp/es/ 95toc.html

Crandall, D. P., & Eiseman, J. W. (1983). Coordinating assistance in school
improvement efforts: issues to consider. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.

Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for transformation. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 93, 63-71.

Cuban, L. (1989, June). The ‘at-risk’ label and the problem of urban school reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 70(10), 780-784, 799-801. Retrieved July 15, 2010 from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404031

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: a competent teacher for every
child. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-200.

Darling-Hammond, L., (1999, December). Teacher quality and student achievement:
a review of state policy evidence. Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy. Retrieved on December 14, 2008 from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/ LDH_1999.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform.
Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.

Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-
153.

Datnow, A., Park , V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2006). Achieving with Data: How High-
Performing School Systems Use Data to Improve Instruction for Elementary
Students.” Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School
of Education, University of Southern California. Available at:
http://www.newschools.org/viewpoints/AchievingWithData.pdf

David, J. L., (2008). What research says about classroom walkthroughs.
Educational Leadership. 65(4), 81-82.

Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. A. (2000). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.

145
Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of
experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Psychology Bulletin, 125, 627-68.

Downey, C. J., Steffy, B. E., English, F. W., Frase, L. E., & Poston, W. K. (2004).
The three-minute classroom walkthrough: Changing school supervisory
practice one teacher at a time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a “professional learning community”? Schools as
Learning Communities, 61(8), 6-11.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn.
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). Closing the knowing-doing gap. In
DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The
power of professional learning communities (pp. 225-252). Bloomington,
IN: National Educational Service.

Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R., (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review Psychology, 53, 109-132.

Edsource, Inc. (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Retrieved October 11, 2006, from
http://www.edsource.org/pdf/perfmeasguide05.pdf

146
Education Data Partnership. (1999, September). Understanding the API. Retrieved
February 6, 2010, from Education Data Partnership Web site: http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Articles/21Article.asp?title=Understanding%20the%20APIEd
ucation Week (2009), Quality Counts 2009 Per Pupil Funding. Retrieved
January 11, 2009, from http://www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/35098CAB-729F-
4436-B2D5-
AC8A1AD8CFEE/0/CAPerPupilFunding47thRankingChartQC20091909.pdf

Education Week (2009), Quality Counts 2009 Per Pupil Funding. Retrieved January
11, 2009, from http://www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/35098CAB-729F-4436-
B2D5-AC8A1AD8CFEE/0/CAPerPupilFunding 47thRankingChart
QC20091909.pdf

EdSource. (2004). No child left behind in California? The impact of the federal
NCLB act so far. Palo Alto, CA, EdSource.

EdSource (2005a). Holding school districts accountable. Retrieved February 25,
2008, from http://www.edsource.org

EdSource. (2005b). Understanding school district budgets. Mountain View, CA:
EdSource.

EdSource (2005c). School accountability under NCLB: ambitious goals and
competing systems. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

EdSource. (2006). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do
better? Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement.
In S. Fuhrman, (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the
System (pp. 96-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert
Shanker Institute: Washington, DC. Retrieved on December 15, 2008 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf

Elmore, R. F. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and
performance-based accountability [Electronic Version]. CPRE: NGA
Center for Best Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.nga.org/cda/files/
0803KNOWING.PDF

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

147
Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff Development
and Instructional Improvement in Community School District #2, New York:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education and National Commission on
Teacher & America’s Future, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Eubanks, E. E., & Levine, D. U. (1983). A first look at effective schools projects in
New York City and Milwaukee. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(10), 697-702.

Evans, R., & Mohr, B. (1999). Turnaround principal: high-stakes leadership.
Principal, 84(1), 13-23.

Fiol, C. M. & Lyles, M. A. (1985, October). Organizational learning. The Academy
of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.

Ferren, A. S. & Kinch, A. (2003, Summer). The dollars and sense behind general
education reform. Association of American College &Universities
peerReview, 8-11.

Fink, E. & Resnick. L. (1999). Developing principals as instructional leaders.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, High Performance Learning
Communities Project, Learning Research and Development Center, Retrieved
December 18, 2010 from: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/hplc/

Fink, E. & Resnick, L. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(2), 598-607.

Firestone, W., Meyrowitz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment
and instructional change: the effects of testing in Maine and Maryland.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fixen, D., Naoom, S., Blasé, K., Friedman, R., Wallace, F., (2005). Implementation
Research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South
Florida.

French, J. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.).
Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World is Flat: A brief history of twenty-first century.
New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

148
Fullan, M. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level. The Elementary
School Journal, 85(3), 391-421.

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

Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks:
Corwin Press.

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

Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). Lessons from districtwide reform.
Educational Leadership, 61(6), 42-46.

Fullan, M. G. & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what
doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752. Retrieved July 22, 2010 from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404761

Fuhrman, S. & Elmore, R. (1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state
education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(1), 82-96.

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

Gardner, D. P. (1983, April). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform (ED 266 006). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved April 18, 2010, from The National Commission on Excellence in
Education website: http://datacenter.spps.org

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Gerhardt, M. W. & Luzadis, R. A. (2009). The importance of perceived task
difficulty in goal orientation – assigned goal alignment. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies 16(2): 167-174. doi:
10.1177/1548051809337875

Gillispie, J. & Chrispeels, J. H. (2008). Us and them: conflict, collaboration, and the
discursive negotiation of multishareholder roles in school district reform.
Small Group Research, 39(4), 397-437. doi: 10.1177/1046496408319877

149
Ginsberg, M. B., & Murphy, D. (2002). How walkthroughs open doors.
Educational Leadership, 34-36.

Guskey, T. R. (2003, June). What makes professional development effective? Phi
Delta Kappan, 749.

Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about
the innovation: a manual for use of the SoC questionnaire. Austin, TX: The
University of TX at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education.

Hall, G. & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. Albany,
NY: SUNY Press.

Hall, G. & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Harvey, T. R. (1995). Checklist for change: A pragmatic approach to creating and
controlling change. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.

Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (Eds.). (2009). Change wars. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

Hersh, R. H. (2009, April 22). Our 21st-century 'risk': Teaching for content and
skills. Education Week. Retrieved January 11, 2010 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/22/29hersh_ep.h28.html

Hightower, A. M. (2002). Theory of instruction drives district’s decision making and
infrastructure. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy.

Hoerr, T. R. (2005). The Art of School Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Honig, M. I. & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school
district central offices: toward a policy and research agenda. Educational
Policy, 22(4), 578-608. doi: 10.1177/0895904807307067

150
Hopkins, G. (2008, April 12). Walkthroughs are on the move. Education World.
Retrieved December 14, 2010 from: http://www.education-
world.com/a_admin/ admin/admin405.shtml

Jacobson, S. L., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., & Giles, C. (2005). Successful leadership
in challenging US schools: enabling principles, enabling schools. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43(6), 607-618. doi:
10.1108/09578230510625700

Johnson, D. P. (2005). Sustaining Change in Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnston, H. (2003). Leadership by walking around: walkthroughs and instructional
improvement. The Principals’ Partnership. Retrieved from
http://www.principalspartnership.com/feature203.html

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). How should we spend our time in professional
development? (3rd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision of
Curriculum and Development.

Kealey, K. A., Peterson, A. V., Jr., Gaul, M. A., & Dinh, K. T. (2000). Teacher
training as a behavior change process: Principles and results from a
longitudinal study. Health Education & Behavior, 27(1), 64–81.

Kewal-Ramani, A., Gilbertson, L., Fox, M., and Provasnik, S. (2007). Status and
trends in the education of racial and ethnic minorities (NCES 2007-039).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Keirsey, D. & Bate, M. (1998) Please understand me: Character and temperament
types. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books.

King, D. (2002, May). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership,
59(8), 34-39.

Kirkpatrick, D. E. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koelher Publishers, Inc.

Knowles, R. N. (2002). The Leadership Dance: Pathways to Extraordinary
Organizational Effectiveness. Niagara Falls, NY: The Center for Self-
Organizing Leadership.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

151
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lasky, S. (2002). The district as lens. In A. Datnow & S. Stringfield (Eds.), CREDE
synthesis project on systemic integration for effective reform. Unpublished
manuscript.

Leithwood, K. (2006). Understanding successful principal leadership: progress on a
broken front. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 619-629. doi:
10.1108/09578230510625719

Leithwood, K. (2010, June). Turning around underperforming school systems:
guidelines for district leaders. A paper commissioned by the College of
Alberta School Superintendents. Retrieved July 22, 2010 from:
http://o.b5z.net/i/u/
10063916/h/Moving%20and%20Improving/District_turnaround_main_text_J
une_8.pdf

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven
strong claims about successful school leadership. Nottingham, England:
National College of School Leadership. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from
http://www.npbs.ca/2007- elements/pdfs/seven-strong%20claims.pdf

Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of
research: How leadership influences student learning. Learning from
Leadership Project. The Wallace Foundation

Levitt, B. & March, J. G. (1988, August). Organizational learning. Annual Review
of Sociology, 14, 319-338. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org

Lewis, A. C. (1998, May). The importance of evidence. Phi Delta Kappan, 644.

Lieberman, A. (1996). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning. In McLaughlin, M. & Oberman, I.
(Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 185-201), New
York: Teachers College Press.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in
teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 509-536.

Loesch, P. C. (2010, May/June). Four core strategies for implementing change.
Leadership, 28-31.

152
Louis, K. S. (2005). Reconnecting knowledge utilization and school improvement:
two steps forward, one step back. In Hopkins, D. (Ed.), The practice and
theory of school improvement (pp. 40-61). Netherlands: Springer.

Love, N. (Ed.). (2009). Using data to improve learning: A collaborative inquiry
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Mac Iver, M. A. & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back: The role of the
Central office in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Mangin, M. M. (2009). Literacy coach role implementation: how district context
influences reform efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 759-
792. doi: 10.1177/0013161X09347731

Marsh, J. (2000). Connecting districts to the policy dialogue: A review of literature
on the relationship of districts with states, schools, and communities. Seattle,
WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of
Washington.

Marsh, J. A. (2002). Broadening boundaries to build system capacity: The Highland
School District. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy.

Marsh, J. A., Kerr, K. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., Suttorp, M., Zimmer, R., &
Barney, H. (2004). Advancing systemwide instructional reform: lessons
from three urban districts partnered with the Institute for Learning. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, Research Brief RB-9142-EDU. Retrieved
from: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9142/

Marsh, J., Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. S., Plecki, M. L., & Portin, B. S. (2006).
Leading, learning, and leadership support. Seattle: University of
Washington.

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Development.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollack, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

153
Massell, D. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research &
Improvement. (2000). The district role in building capacity: four strategies.
CPRE policy briefs. (CPRE RB-32). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education, Graduate School of Education, University of
Pennsylvania.

Massell, D. & Goertz, M. (2002). District strategies for building instructional
capacity. In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh, & McLaughlin, M. (Eds).
(2002). School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 43-60). New York:
Teachers College Press.

Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge. Boston, MA:
Shambhala.

McDermott, K. A. (2000, Spring). Barriers to large-scale success of models for
urban school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 83-
89. Retrieved July 15, 2010 from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164309

McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good,
what’s not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2002). Reforming districts. In A. Hightower, M. S.
Knapp, Marsh, J., & McLaughlin, M. (Eds). (2002). School districts and
instructional renewal (pp. 173-192). New York: Teachers College Press.

Mourshed, M. Chijioke, C. & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved
school systems keep getting better. McKinsey & Company.

Muhammad, A. (2009). Transforming school culture: How to overcome staff
division. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Muller, R. D. (2004, November). The role of the district in driving school reform: A
review for the Denver Commission on secondary school reform. Retrieved 5
June 2010 from: http://www.dpsk12.org/pdf/district_role.pdf

154
Nerad, M. (2005). From graduate student to world citizen in a global economy.
International Higher Education, 40, 8-9. Retrieved from Boston College
Web. Site: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(2009). Retrieved from:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/Number40/
p8_Nerad.html

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sage Publications, Inc.

O’Connell, J. (2009). Highlights Impact of Budget Cuts to Education, California
Department of Education Retrieved February 10, 2010 from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel86.asp

Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your
project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of
Southern California.

Olson, B. & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers
view their work inside current education policy contexts. American
Education Research Journal, 46(1), 9-44. doi: 10.3102/0002831208320573

Olson, D. R. (2003). Psychological theory and educational reform: How school
remakes mind and society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ouchi, W. G. (2003). Making schools work: A revolutionary plan to get your
children the education they need. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543-578.

Palumbo, J., & Leight, J., (2007). The power of focus: More lessons learned in
districts and school improvement. United States of America.

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

155
Pennsylvania Department Of Education (2008). Teacher Induction Report,
November 2008. (TeacherInductionRerport 9-29.pdf) Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=
web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fschools.nlsd.org%2F
nlsd_admin%2FStrategicPlan%2FReports%2FTeacherInductionReport%252
09-
29.pdf&rct=j&q=teacher%20induction%20report%20929.pdf&ei=y2kITcqp
MougsQO0w5H8Dg&usg=AFQjCNFlKlBlFZ1ipCICxjG4S4iy74_ezQ&sig2
=IUBMFp92I7LqVVO3NyWsEg&cad=rja

Perkins, D. (2004). Knowledge alive. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 14-18.

Peterson, P. E. (2010). Saving schools: From Horace Mann to virtual learning.
Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart communities
turn knowledge into action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. (2
nd
Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Pollock, J. E. (2009). Improving Student Learning One Principal at a Time.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Programme of International Student Achievement. (2006). Top of the class: High
Performers in Science in PISA 2006. Paris, France. Retrieved on December
7, 2009, from: http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/1742645389.pdf

Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Reeves, D. B. (2000). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and
beyond. In Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations
(Chapter 19). Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Reeves, D. B. (2005). Putting it all together: standards, assessment, and
accountability in successful learning communities. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R.,
& DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional
learning communities (pp. 45-64). Bloomington, IN: National Educational
Service.

156
Resnick, L. (2008). The principles of learning. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute of
Learning, University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved December 18, 2010 from:
http://ifl.lrdc.pitt.edu/ifl/index.php/resources/principles_of_learning/

Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in
educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307-358.
doi: 10.1177/0013161X08318962

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Rowan, B. & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting
instructional change: implementation dynamics in schools working with
comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research
Journal, 44(2), 252-297.

Rudalevige, A. (2005, October). Adequacy, accountability, and the impact of “No
Child Left Behind”. Working Paper PEPG/05-27, Progarm on Education
Policy and Governance, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University. Retrieved February 11, 2010 from:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/ PDF/events/Adequacy/PEPG-05-
27rudalevige.pdf

Rusch, E.A. (2005). Institutional barriers to organizational learning in school
systems: the power of silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1),
83-120.

Saphier, J. (2005). Masters of Motivation. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R.
(Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities
(pp. 85-114). Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service

Sarason, S. (1999). Teaching as a performing art. New York: Teacher College
Press.

Schlechty, P. C., (1997). Inventing better schools: An action plan for educational
reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Schlechty, P. C., (2002). Working the work: An action plan for teachers, principals,
and superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Schmoker, M. J. (2001). The results fieldbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

157
Schmoker, M. J. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive
instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424-432.

Schmoker, M. (2005). No turning back: The ironclad case for professional learning
communities. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common
ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 135-154).
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Schneider, B. L. & Keesler, V. A. (2007). School reform 2007: transforming
education into a scientific enterprise. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 197-
217. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131731

Seaton, M., Emmett, R. E., Welsh, K., & Petrossian, A. (2008). Teaming up for
teaching and learning. Leadership, 37(3), 26-29.

Semler, S. W. (1997). Systematic agreement: a theory of organizational alignment.
Human Resource Development Quarterly 8(1): 23-40. doi:
10.1002/hrdq.3920080105

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

Senge, P. (1990, Fall). The leader’s new work: building learning organizations.
Sloan Management Review, 32, 10-13.

Simmons, W. (2007). From smart districts to smart education systems: A broader
agenda for educational development. In R. Rothman (Ed.), City schools:
How districts and communities can create smart education systems (Chapter
12). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

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

Snyder, J. (2002). New Haven Unified School District: A teaching quality system for
excellence and equity. In A. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. Marsh, & M.
McLaughlin, M. (Eds). School districts and instructional renewal. (pp. 94-
110). New York: Teachers College Press.

Sofo, R. (2008, Summer). Voices Inside Schools. Beyond NCLB and AYP: one
superintendent’s experience of school district reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 78(2), 391-409.

158
Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive
computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation.
Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(2), 5-22.

Sparks, D. (2005). Leading for transformation in teaching, learning, and
relationships. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common
ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 155-176).
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Sparks, D. (2001, April). The real barrier to improved professional development.
Results Newsletter, 2.

Spellings, M. (2007, April). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the
No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved July 7, 2010, from
http://www.ed.gov/print/ policy/elsec/guid/secletter/ 070423.html

Spillane, J. P. (1996). Districts matter: Local educational authorities and state
instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10, 63-87.

Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school
district: Organizational and professional considerations. American
Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spouse, J. (2001) Bridging theory and practice in supervisory relationships: a
sociocultural perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(4), 512-522.

Stecher, B., Hamilton, L. & Gonzales, G., (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.

Stecher, B. & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/publications

Stiggins, R. (2005). Assessment for learning: Building a culture of confident
learners. In DuFour, R., Eaken, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.), On common
ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 65-84).
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

159
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Sturtevant, E. G. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improving teaching and
learning in secondary schools. Alliance for Excellent Education:
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/LiteracyCoach.pdf

Tichy, N. (2002). The cycles of leadership: How great leaders teach their
companies to win. New York: Harper Business.

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

Toll, C. A. (2005). The Literacy Coach’s Survival Guide: Essential Questions and
Practical Answers.

U.S. Department of Education (2010). Improving basic programs operated by local
educational agencies (Title I, Part A). Retrieved February 15, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html

U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Resources Division. (1993, April).
Systemwide education reform: federal leadership could facilitate district-
level efforts (Publication No. GAO/HRD-93-97). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., and Rahman, T. (2009).
Achievement gaps: how Black and White students in public schools perform
in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, (NCES 2009-455). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.

Wagner, T. (2001, January). Leadership for learning: an action theory of social
change. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 378-383. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439912

160
Walters, J., Marzano, R., McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What thirty
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and
Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/LeadershipOrganizationandDevelopment/
5031RR_BalanceLeadership.pdf.

Weiner, B. (1992). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Weiss, J. (2005). Conditions for student success: the cycle of continuous
instructional improvement. Working Paper 4. School Finance Redesign
Project. University of Washington retrieved on November 29, 2010 at
http://newschools.org/files/ConditionsForStudentSuccess_0.pdf

Williams, T., Kirst, M., & Haertel, E. (2005) Similar students, different results: Why
do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary
schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Retrieved November 14, 2005, from http//www.edsource.org/pdf.

Wolk, R. A. (2009, April 22). Why We're Still at Risk. Education Week. Retrieved
from www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/22/29wolk_ep.h28.html.

Wong, H. (2002, March). Induction: the best form of professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 52–55.

Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teachers and classroom context
effects on student achievement: implications for teacher evaluations. Journal
of Personal Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective.
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Educational
Psychology, 25, 82-91.

161
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Academic Performance Index (API): A number summarizing the performance of a
group of students, a school, or a district on California’s standardized tests. A
school’s number (or API score) is used to rank it among schools of the same
type and among the 100 schools of the same type that are most similar in
terms of students served, teacher qualifications, and other factors.

Accountability: The notion that people or an organization should be held responsible
for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or sanctioned for
their success or lack of success in doing so.

Achievement Gap: A consistent difference in scores on student achievement tests
between certain groups of children and children in other groups. The data
documents a strong association between poverty and students’ lack of
academic success as measured by achievement tests. And while poverty is
not unique to any ethnicity, it does exist in disproportionate rates among
African Americans and Latinos. The reasons for the achievement gap are
multifaceted. They do to some degree stem from factors the children bring
with them to school; however, other factors contribute to the gap stem from
students’ school experiences.

Achievement Test: A test to measure a student’s knowledge and skills.

Action Research: Systematic investigation by teachers of some aspect of their work
in order to improve their effectiveness. Involves identifying a question or
problem and then collecting and analyzing relevant data. (Differs from
conventional research because in this case the participants are studying an
aspect of their own work and they intend to use the results themselves.) For
example, a teacher might decide to give students different assignments
according to their assessed learning styles. If the teacher maintained records
comparing student work before and after the change, he would be doing
action research. If several educators worked together on such a project, it
would be considered collaborative action research.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Adequate Yearly Progress is a set of annual
academic performance benchmarks that states, school districts, schools, and
subpopulations of students are supposed to achieve if the state receives
funding under Title I, Part A of the federal No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB).

162
Alignment: The degree to which assessments, curriculum, instruction, textbooks and
other instructional materials, teacher preparation and professional
development, and systems of accountability all reflect and reinforce the
educational program’s objective and standards.

Assessment: Another name for a test. An assessment can also be a system for testing
and evaluating students, groups of students, schools or districts.

At-risk Students: Students who have a higher-than-average probability of dropping
out or failing school. Broad categories usually include inner-city, low-
income, and homeless children; those not fluent in English; and special needs
students with emotional or behavioral difficulties. Substance abuse, juvenile
crime, unemployment, poverty, and lack of adult support are thought to
increase a youth's risk factor.

Benchmark: A detailed description of a specific level of student achievement
expected of students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels.

California Standards Test: Tests that are a part of the Standards Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program and are based on the state’s academic content
standards.

Cohort: A particular group of people with something in common. For instance, a
cohort might be a group of students who had been taught an interdisciplinary
curriculum by a team of junior high school teachers. Researchers might want
to track their progress into high school to identify differences in success of
students in the cohort compared with students who had attended conventional
classes in the same school.

Comprehensive School Reform: An approach to school improvement that involves
adopting a design for organizing an entire school rather than using numerous
unrelated instructional programs. New American Schools, an organization
that promotes comprehensive school reform, sponsors several different
designs, each featuring challenging academic standards, strong professional
development programs, meaningful parental and community involvement,
and a supportive school environment.

Continuous Progress: A system of education in which individuals or small groups of
students go through a sequence of lessons at their own pace, rather than at the
pace of the entire classroom group. Continuous progress has also been called
individualized education or individualized instruction and is one version of
mastery learning. In continuous-progress programs, able and motivated
students are not held back, and students take on new lessons only if they

163
show they have the prerequisite skills. A criticism, however, is that
unmotivated students often progress more slowly than they would in regular
classes.

Core Academic Standards: The basic academic standards that are assessed in the
statewide testing system for K-12 public schools.

Corrective Action (Sanctions): A plan to improve low-performing schools. Under the
federal No Child Left Behind Act, when a school or school district does not
make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the state will place it under a
corrective action plan.

Criterion-Referenced Test: A test that measures specific performance or content
standards along a continuum from total lack of skill to excellence. These
tests also have cut scores that determine whether a test-taker has passed or
failed the test or has basic, proficient or advanced skills.

Curriculum: The course of study offered by a school or district.

Disaggregated Data: The presentation of data broken into segments or smaller
groups.

Data Driven Decision Making: The process of making decisions about curriculum
and instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and data and
standardized test data. Data driven decision-making uses data on function,
quality, and quantity of inputs and how students learn suggest educational
solutions.

Disaggregated Data: Test scores or other data divided so that various categories can
be compared. For example, schools may break down the data for the entire
student population (aggregated into a single set of numbers) to determine
how minority students are doing compared with the majority, or how scores
of girls compare with those for boys.

Educational leadership: Leadership in formal educational settings. It draws upon
interdisciplinary literature, generally, but ideally distinguishes itself through
its focus on pedagogy, epistemology and human development. In
contemporary practice it borrows from political science and business. Debate
within the field relates to this tension.

Educational organization: Organization within the scope of education. It is a
common misconception that this means it is organizing educational system;

164
rather, it deals with the theory of organization as it applies to education of the
human mind.

Formative Assessment: Any form of assessment used by an educator to evaluate
students’ knowledge and understanding of particular content and then used to
adjust instructional practices accordingly toward improving student
achievement in that area.

High-stakes Testing: A test that results in some kind of consequence for those who
score low, some kind of reward for those who score high or both.

Intervention Program: Program(s) that provide extra support and resources to help
improve student or school performance.

Instructional Leadership: Actions or behaviors exhibited by an individual or group
in the field of education that are characterized by knowledge and skill in the
area of curriculum and instructional methodology, the provision of resources
so that the school’s mission can be met, skilled communication in one-on-
one, small-group and large-group settings, and the establishment of a clear
and articulated vision for the educational institution.

Lateral Accountability: Mutual accountability to a peer group (e.g. principals in a
coaching trio).

Low-performing schools: Schools, almost always located in urban or low-income
rural areas, in which an unacceptably low proportion of students meet
established standards, as indicated by test scores. Also called failing schools.
Some observers believe it is unfair to call such schools failing because, they
say, the real failure is society's for allowing the social conditions that hamper
student learning. Others point out that some schools, called effective schools,
succeed in teaching low-income children, so others could do it too. Because
policies increasingly focus on such schools, and because test scores usually
vary from year to year rather than going steadily up or down, state and
national officials have devoted considerable attention to procedures for
deciding which schools should be declared “low- performing”.

Multiple Measures: An approach that relies on more than one indicator to measure a
student’s academic strengths and weaknesses.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965, ESEA
programs provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools.

165
Mentoring: A developmental relationship between a more experienced mentor and a
less experienced partner referred to as a mentee or protégé. Usually - but not
necessarily - the mentor/protégé pair will be of the same sex.

Norm-Referenced Assessment: An assessment in which an individual or group’s
performance is compared to a larger group.

Percentile Ranks: One method to compare a student, class, school or district to a
national norm by ranking them according to how they scored on a given test
compared to others who took the same test with the 99th percentile rank
being the highest.

Performance Assessment: Also referred to as alternative or authentic assessment.
Requires students to generate a response to a question rather than choose it
from a set of possible answers provided for them.

Performance Standards: Standards that describe how well or at what level students
should be expected to master the content standards.

Professional Development: Programs that allow teachers or administrators to acquire
the knowledge and skills they need to perform their jobs successfully.

Proficiency: Mastery or ability to do something at grade-level.

Program Improvement: An intervention under the No Child Left Behind Act for
schools and districts that receive federal Title I funds when for two years in a
row they do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of
having all students proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics.

Reform Strategies: Strategies used by superintendents/system leaders to improve
student performance. USLI has identified ten key change levers that are
worthy of study: curriculum, assessment, professional development, human
resource system and human capital management, finance and budget,
communications, governance/board relations, labor relations/contract
negotiations, family and community engagement, and strategic plan.

Sampling: In education research, the administration of a test to and analyzing the
test results of a set of students who, as a group, represent the characteristics
of the entire student population. Based on their analysis of the data of the
representative sample, 22 researchers, educators, and policymakers can infer
important trends in the academic progress of an individual or group of
students.

166
School Board: A locally elected group, usually between three and seven members,
who set fiscal, personnel, instructional, and student-related policies. The
governing board also provides direction for the district, hires and fires the
district superintendent, and approves the budget and contracts with employee
unions.

School District: A local education agency directed by an elected local board of
education that exists primarily to operate public schools.

Scientifically Based Research: Research that involves the application of rigorous,
systemic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge
relevant to educational activities.

Self-efficacy: The belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions
required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy, which is the
power to produce an effect (in essence, competence), self-efficacy is the
belief (however accurate) that one has the power to produce that effect.

Significant Subgroup: A group of students based on ethnicity, poverty, English
Learner status, and special education designation. Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged: Students whose parents do not have a high school diploma or
who participate in the free/reduced price meal program because of low family
income.

Standardized Test: A test that is the same format for all takers. Relies heavily or
exclusively on multiple-choice questions.

Standards: Degrees or levels of achievement based on grade level curriculum.

Superintendent: Chief administrator of a school district selected and evaluated by the
district’s board of education and responsible/accountable for all school
district’s operations and management.

Title I: A federal program that provides funds for educationally disadvantaged
students based on the number of low-income students in a school.

Valid: An adjective that describes the efficacy of a test.

Value-added Systems of Accountability: Models that attempt to measure the value
added by an individual teacher or school to students’ performance over time.

167
APPENDIX B
INQUIRY PROJECT TIMELINE OVERVIEW
Semester Project Activities
Fall 2009
Inquiry Team Formation
Defining Context of Need
Understanding District Priorities
Narrowing Inquiry Focus: Districtwide FoR Implementation
Spring 2010
Qualifying Examination Proposal & Defense
Interviews of key District personnel
Data Collection
Exploring the Roots of the Problem
Chapter I completed
Summer 2010
Data Analysis
Identification of Performance Gaps & Root Causes
Development of Findings
Chapter II completed
Fall 2010
Interactions with the District:
Presentation of Findings & Solutions as Recommendations
to:
- Superintendent & District Leadership Team
- Additional Select District Role Groups, on request
Chapter III completed
Spring 2011
Dissertation defense
Group, Individual Reflections
Completion of Alternative Capstone Project
Graduation

168
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEWED ROLE GROUPS
District Level Personnel
Stakeholder Assigned Code Organization
Assistant Superintendent,
Educational Services
AS GUSD
Public Relations Officer PRO GUSD
Director,
Professional Development
PD GUSD
Lead Consultant LC Focus on Results

School Site Personnel
Stakeholder
Assigned
Code
Elementary
School
Middle
School
High
School
Principal P 1 1 1
Assistant Principal AP 0 1 1
Associate Principal AP 0 0 4
Teacher on Special
Assignment (TOSA)
TS 1 0 1
ILT Teachers T 10 15 8
Non-ILT Teachers T 1 5 2
Counselors C 0 1 0
Classified Staff CS 3 1 0

169
APPENDIX D
SCANNING INTERVIEW GUIDE
Client’s Name Date
Role in District Interviewer

Thanks for taking time to talk with me/us today. We’d like to focus on the
implementation of the Focus on Results (FoR) Reform Initiative in GUSD. Your
comments will help us better understand what is happening. We want to assure you
that we will not quote nor attribute your comments to anyone outside the USC
dissertation team.

1) Please give me an overview of the implementation of FoR as a reform
initiative here in GUSD.
 What is the current situation? Where do things stand?
 What do you think is being done about it?
 Is this situation a “problem”? In what sense?

2) I would like to gain some historical perspective on this situation.
 What was it like here in the years prior to implementing FoR?
 After the implementation, what has changed?
 How has the district tried to address this districtwide reform initiative
in specific ways? Could you please describe?
 Was there any degree of success with these efforts?
 Do they continue to this day? What happened to these efforts you
described?

3) Regarding FoR, are there any formal or informal goals for what you or the
district are trying to accomplish?
 What is/are the goal/s of this effort?
 What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
 How will you/the district know if this effort is successful?
 Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? What
specifically do you know?
 How large is the gap between where you are not and where you aspire
to be?

170

4) Let’s go a little further into this gap between where you are now and where
you aspire to be. I/we want your perspective.
 What do you think is keeping the district from achieving perfect
success with regard to FoR implementation?
 How else do you attribute this difference?
5) What suggestions do you have for our team to better understand the FoR
implementation in GUSD?

171
APPENDIX E
STAGES OF CONCERN (SoC) INTERVIEW PROMPT GUIDE
1) “What do you think about Focus on Results as the reform initiative
implemented in GUSD?”

2) “What are the positives and the concerns or challenges with the FoR
initiative?”

Table. Typical Expressions of Concern about an Innovation (Adapted from Hall and
Loucks, 1979)

Stage of Concern Expression of Concern
6 Refocusing
I have some ideas about something that would
work even better.
5 Collaboration
How can I relate what I am doing to what others
are doing?
4 Consequence
How is my use affecting learners? How can I
refine it to have more impact?
3 Management
I seem to be spending all my time getting
materials ready.
2 Personal How will using it affect me?
1 Informational I would like to know more about it.
0 Awareness I am not concerned about it.

172
APPENDIX F
TRIANGULATION OF DATA
Dissertation Title
An Alternative Capstone Project: Gap Analysis of Districtwide Reform
Implementation of Focus on Results in Glendale Unified School District (GUSD)

Chairs
Dr. David Marsh and Dr. Robert Rueda

Methods
Research Questions Interview Observation
Document
Analysis
1) How was the FoR reform initiative
implemented throughout GUSD?
X X X
2) What was the degree of
implementation of FoR at the different
levels of instruction offered in GUSD?
X X
3) What performance gaps exist at this
point in the FoR implementation
process that need to be addressed?
X X X
4) What are the root causes of these
performance gaps?
X X
5) What research-based
recommendations can be offered to
address the performance gaps and help
GUSD enhance and sustain its
implementation of FoR?
X X X

173
APPENDIX G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Educators in school districts across the state of California—and the United
States in general—continue to struggle with the great educational dilemma as it
encounters challenges faced in this modern age of information and technology.
Educators are also at the mercy of political agendas that are in a constant state of
flux. The latest political agenda, Race To The Top (RTTT), under President
Obama’s administration, imposes even greater expectations as states compete for the
coveted educational funding needed to achieve its academic goals for every student.
While much debate takes place over the competitive process to receive these fiscal
resources, most agree that students are entitled to an equitable and rigorous education
no matter their ethnic, social, or economic background. The Glendale Unified
School District (GUSD) initiated a reform process that seemingly anticipated this
rigorous shift in expectations when it adopted the Focus on Results (FoR) Reform
Initiative five years ago.

Purpose
A three-person team, working in a consultant capacity, led this particular
dissertation inquiry project. GUSD leadership requested our team to examine the
Focus on Results (FoR) implementation process throughout the district. The goals of
the inquiry project were to 1) determine the nature of the performance gaps in the
implementation of FoR in the district and 2) provide GUSD with a set of research-
based recommendations to address the root causes behind the performance gaps we
identified in the inquiry process.

174
Project Timeline
The timeline below outlines the requirements for our doctoral candidacy and
the progression of our work in GUSD.

Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Summer 2010
1. Research team formation
2. Topic: review of district
reform implementation
3. Context of need
4. Understanding the
district data
1. Qualifying
examination and
proposal
2. In-depth data
collection:
- Scanning interviews of
key district/site personnel
- SoC Interviews with
site personnel
1. Chapter 1
completion: Context of
Project
2. Chapter 2
Completion: Literature
review of roots,
methodology, findings,
executive summary
Fall 2010 Spring 2011
1. Chapter 3 completion: Literature Review, Solutions,
and Recommendations
2. Presentation of findings & recommendations to
designated group
3. Chapters 4 & 5 Completion: Leadership Portfolio
and Process Reflection
1. Chapter 6
Completion: Next Steps
2. Dissertation Defense
3. Graduation

The Gap Analysis
The gap analysis process model is a systematic problem-solving approach
specifically designed to examine the gaps in an organization’s performance to help
improve and achieve their desired goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). The gap analysis
focuses on identifying, analyzing, and solving a specific problem in a specific
context. This is the nature of action research, where larger organizations and
institutions undertake this type of investigation, guided by professional researchers,
with the aim of improving the overall strategies, practices, and knowledge of the
organization (as community) within which they practice (Center for Collaborative
Research, 2010). Clark & Estes (2002) outline the six major steps that comprise the
gap analysis process model (p. 22):

175

1. Identify clear organizational goals that define the vision for the
organization;

2. Identify individual performance goals that are concrete, challenging, and
current (C
3
);

3. Determine performance gaps by quantifying gaps between desire goals;

4. Determine root causes by analyzing the gaps in knowledge/skill,
motivation, and/or organizational barriers;

5. Identify research-based solutions and implement to affect the root causes;
and

6. Evaluate results of implementation and fine-tune goals.

Methodology
We utilized the Clark & Estes (2002) gap analysis framework (Appendix A)
to guide our inquiry to understand the district’s progress toward its achievement
goals. Our inquiry also helped us uncover some possible reasons for
underperformance that may be rooted in issues of motivation, knowledge and skills,
and institutional barriers. It is our hope that our understanding and knowledge of
staff perceptions may assist the district in their next steps toward continued growth
toward sustainability of the FoR reform initiative.

The primary data collection methods were the review of documents (from
Focus on Results and GUSD) and the informal interview. The interviews were face-
to-face, one-on-one semi-structured, and open-ended in nature, proving staff the
opportunity to be reflective, insightful, and candid about their thoughts and feelings
regarding the strengths of the FoR components and their concerns about the process
of implementation. We were careful to honor the integrity of the semi-structured
interview process by ensuring that the participants were encouraged to voice all of
the topics of concern during the course of the interview (Patton, 2002).

Our team conducted two rounds of interviews. Our initial scanning
interviews included three district level personnel, the consultant from FoR, the
principals of three school sites and their Instructional Leadership Teams and lasted
approximately one hour each. The three schools that responded to our request for
interviews represented the elementary, middle, and secondary levels of education.
The scanning interview guide (Appendix B) included was five open-ended questions

176
that helped us understand staff perspectives. The purpose of the scanning interview
was to collect rich data from key stakeholders in an organized, uniform fashion to
help facilitate problem solving in the implementation process. In a sense, this step in
the process is a form of progress monitoring, which is a vital action step in
performance improvement.

The team utilized the Stages of Concern (SoC) Concerns-Based Adoption
Model, CBAM (Hall & Loucks, 1979) format for the second phase of interviews that
included 20 people at the elementary level; 18 people at the middle school level; and
16 people at the high school level. The SoC interviews ranged from 15-30 minutes
and included teachers, administrators, and support personnel. This phase of the
interview process involved ten-to-twenty minute interviews with teachers that
focused on three items: 1) to share their overall experience with FoR as a reform
initiative, 2) to share their perceptions of the strengths and challenges of the reform
initiative, and 3) what suggestions and recommendations might improve the
implementation process.

The Focus on Results Reform Initiative
Focus on Results is a research-based model that is comprehensive, data-
driven and focused on instruction. This model encompasses the key elements that
are commonly described in highly credible change models, such as developing a
sense of urgency, creating a guiding team with a powerful vision, increasing
leadership capacity, removing obstacles, resolving conflicts with effective
communication, and persisting through the difficult challenges. The implementation
of this framework is embedded in local context and culture, and it is only effective
when accompanied by a shift from a traditional central office to a central services
organization. With increased capacity among all staff, this framework is designed to
improve student achievement and ultimately close the achievement gap.

Specifically, the FoR key strategies for professional development are to build
expertise, change practice, monitor student performance and to communicate
relentlessly (Palumbo and Leight, 2007). FoR has three distinct phases: 1)
identifying a schoolwide instructional focus based on an assessment of students'
needs; 2) creating and implementing a schoolwide instructional focus that meets
students' needs; and 3) living a unity of purpose through a clear instructional focus
that drives all decisions.

177
Findings
Strengths in the District Reform Implementation Effort
Overall, GUSD successfully implemented the components of the Focus on
Results reform at the district level and established a good foundation for continued
work toward embedded sustainability. This report identifies a limited view of the
organization’s accomplishments in the implementation process, as well as some
suggestions that will strengthen the commitment to long-term cultural change.

GUSD’s efforts are commendable as we consider the five most common
barriers that typically impede a district’s success in implementing strategic
initiatives. These include: executing the strategy consistently across schools with
difference characteristics, creating a coherent organizational design in support of the
strategy, developing and managing human capital, allocating resources in alignment
with the strategy, and using performance data to guide decisions (Childress, Elmore,
& Grossman, 2006).

 GUSD leadership clearly articulated that the organizational goal was to
improve student academic achievement to raise API scores and meet AYP
targets.

 GUSD, in partnership with FoR, developed and implemented an incremental
reform process that resulted in:

o Total inclusion of all GUSD school sites after three years;

o A 5-year capacity building plan to ensure training was substantial and
comprehensive;

o The conversion of the district office into a central services
organization that provides leadership, support, and guidance by:
 modeling processes of establishing district goals;
 examining data to determine achievement gaps; and
 holding principals accountable for increasing student
achievement

• GUSD realigned resources (people, time, money, talent, and energy) to
support the changes necessitated by FoR.

• An increase in the internal capacity of GUSD staff is noted by the shift of
responsibility from FoR consultants to instructional leaders for 1)

178
development of content to be taught to staff; 2) facilitation of trainings; and
3) Instructional Walkthrough processes.

• The Instructional Walkthrough process is considered a strong tool by many
respondents for helping teachers see what happens in the classroom by giving
a focus from which to examine the schoolwide instructional focus and
relevant instructional practices.

• Respondents at all levels of GUSD (from district to school site) agree that
FoR provided a common language that all stakeholders now use districtwide
to discuss student achievement.

• Districtwide collaboration efforts increased through the development of the
districtwide Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) and the school site ILTs.
Teachers involved with the ILT process were cognizant of the FoR process
and could articulate the seven areas of focus.

• Modifications to the implementation of FoR were made to address the issues
as they arose: 1) cohort structure changed from the year of FoR
implementation to instructional level of the school sites (primary vs.
secondary) and 2) the formation of the principal trios to provide principals
with peer-to-peer support.

• The implementation of FoR did not affect the general funding of GUSD for
the first five years – a grant was secured that paid for resources, facilitator
training, release time for teachers, and facilities to host meetings.

Areas of Growth: Emergent Themes
In order to close performance gaps and achieve the organizational goals,
underlying causes for performance gaps must be identified. The gap analysis
process (Clark & Estes, 2002) provides a framework for diagnosing the human
causes and identifying appropriate effective performance solutions.
Underperformance is typically the result of insufficient knowledge, inadequate skills,
and lack of motivation or organizational barriers. We found four emergent themes in
our process of inquiry: perceptions of the need for FoR, the misalignment of goals,
the knowledge/skill capacity of role groups in the district, and the sustainability of
the reform effort.

Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Perceptions
• A lack of active choice is apparent in the significant number of
respondents that indicated the Focus on Results reform initiative to be a

179
“top down” district mandate, that “it was never an effort from the ‘bottom
up’”. District leadership, however, felt that because each school ILT and
school staff custom-designed the reform strategies to match their site-
specific data and needs, FoR implementation was therefore more of a
“bottom up” initiative.

• A tone of mistrust about FoR is apparent throughout the district.
Interviews revealed a pervasive “Us” versus “Them” and an “I” versus
“We” mentality at all levels. This tone was evident among all role
groups.

• The pervasiveness of the reform effort tended to differ based on the
instructional level of the school site (elementary schools identified by
district administrators and the FoR consultant are seemingly doing well
compared to secondary schools).

• The higher degree of professional isolation at the middle school and high
school levels compared to the elementary level is due to deeply rooted
norms, beliefs and traditional practices. The highly collaborative nature
that is the hallmark of FoR is hindered at the middle and high school
levels.

• As educational policy moves toward explicit accountability where
educators’ performance reviews reflect some aspect of student outcomes,
the natural reaction to this level of accountability is fear and resistance, as
self-preservation becomes a primary motivation – the initiative for
believing and behaving a certain way.

• Though GUSD initially “invited” the participation of principals and
teachers, staff not involved in the district-level or site-level Instructional
Leadership Teams (ILTs) expressed dissenting viewpoints. This pattern
proved more prominent at the secondary level and among veteran
educators as opposed to newer educators in the field.

• GUSD understood FoR to be a leadership capacity-building model but
did not fully understand until well into the implementation process (third
year) the degree of change that would be necessitated at the site level.

• Comments such as “we were doing this already” and “this is nothing
new”, made by a significant number of tenured teachers working in the
district before the FoR initiative was introduced, tended to convey an
overconfidence in these teachers.

180
• The tenured teachers interviewed believed the work, time, and money
spent on this reform was unnecessary—although they believed it to be
very beneficial for the newer, younger teaching staff. This
overconfidence often compromises motivation as people invest little
mental effort when they misjudge their own abilities (Clark & Estes,
2002). However, the same viewpoint may be an indicator of limited task
value or interest.

• Principals and staff often attributed this teacher perspective of
overconfidence to resistance to change, lack of ownership for all students’
success, and fear of professional judgment and criticism.

Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Misalignment of Goals
• Defining the work/performance goals were left to each individual site
principal and his/her Instructional Leadership Team. However, staff did
not seem to understand the direct relationship between internal, site-
specific SMART-e goal attainment and the implementation of the seven
areas of focus that comprise the FoR model.

• Although the majority of teachers felt they were doing the work necessary
to meet the organizational goal of helping the school improve its API
score, they could not articulate the alignment to the intermediate level
goals – which were the seven areas of focus that comprise FoR.

• Teachers not directly involved with the districtwide or sitewide ILT could
not explain the seven areas of focus that comprise Focus on Results nor
could they identify the work that led to achievement of performance goals
for the reform effort. They knew of the walkthroughs and know that the
“schoolwide instructional focus” was set, they knew of looking at data for
student achievement but did not know how these all related to FoR.

Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Knowledge/Skill Capacity of Role
Groups

Teachers.
• Not all teachers are engaged in the FoR reform initiative nor are they
versed in the FoR framework, its principles, and how it is directly linked
to the work they are doing in the classroom. Some teachers have even
elected to not participate.

181
• Probationary teachers, new to the district, are not provided an orientation
or training that will catch them up to the rest of the staff with regard to
FoR. It is assumed that they will “get it” because they are a part of the
site staff.

• Across the organization, the feedback loop is not consistent with regard to
implementation of instructional strategies.

o Lack of consistent monitoring by principals to ensure changes to
instructional practices.

o Lack of specific feedback to teachers from principals on how to
modify their instruction based on the knowledge and skills they
received in training.

o Only anonymous, generalized feedback is provided to teachers in the
walkthrough process.

o Teachers desire more specific feedback – especially if their
classrooms are visited. They want feedback about what is working
and what needs improvement.

Principals.
• Principals were expected to already have the knowledge and skills
necessary to lead the reform work. Those that did not demonstrate that
capacity were either reassigned or removed from their school sites where
improvement in the API score was not demonstrated.

• The need to increase principal leadership capacity was identified by the
FoR consultant and the district administrators (after the end of Year 2),
leading to the formation of the coaching trios. The structure and dynamics
of the coaching trios is unclear. The district must be more explicit about
what skills they want their principals to develop when in the coaching
trios.

• The dynamics of the coaching trios, originally meant to be a peer group
of three principals, shifted when a district administrator was made one of
the three members. Principals did not feel comfortable to share their
issues with one another for fear of evaluation. This speaks to the culture
of mistrust that persists in this district.

182
District Level.
• Induction of new personnel (probationary teachers, principals and district
administrators) on the tenets and processes of FoR is not institutionalized.
Consequently, new staff is left to acquire the knowledge and skill on their
own.

• Differences in individual capacity level among the principals is evidenced
by the varied levels of implementation of the FoR process at the school
sites. From the onset of the reform implementation, it was assumed that
1) all the principals had the capacity to create and lead a comprehensive,
school-based improvement process and that 2) the principals had the
same level of enthusiasm in adopting FoR as the reform initiative to
improve student achievement.

• District administrators assumed an increase in the API was equivalent to
the level of success of FoR implementation.

Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Sustainability
• The belief that Focus on Results is “just another reform” that will
disappear as soon as the next novel idea is popularized (expressed by a
number of tenured teachers that were interviewed) undermines
commitment to the reform.

• Staff expressed a general consensus that the new practices were
improving teaching and learning, but waned on full commitment as many
believed ‘the reform’ would dissipate due to district and site leadership
changes and the loss of grant funds needed to support collaboration time.

• Changes in leadership throughout the district (new Superintendent,
Assistant Supt., Director of Professional Development, principal
replacements, and teacher layoffs) threaten the vision for sustaining the
reform effort.

• The grant that funded the reform has ended and the fiscal challenges
facing the district will require careful consideration when reallocating
resources to continue funding the collaboration time required by FoR.

• Continued tension between district leadership and GTA leadership fosters
a culture of mistrust and fear of professional judgment and criticism.

183
Conclusion
GUSD can celebrate its tremendous progress in its collective effort to change
the organizational culture by implementing the FoR framework. While there are
many challenges and areas of growth that need explicit attention, this will always be
true in a dynamic and complex organization. Use of the Clark & Estes (2002) gap
analysis process should not be one-time; the process of measuring and addressing the
various performance gaps in the organization is continuous and must be visited on a
regular basis in order to monitor the progress of FoR as a reform initiative. It is a
daunting task to address root causes of human behavior that inhibit an organization
from achieving its moral purpose. Educators must once again internalize their moral
imperative to ensure that all students receive a high quality and proficient education
for the sake of our nation’s future.

184
APPENDIX H
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS POWERPOINT

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204
APPENDIX I
FOCUS ON RESULTS (FoR) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DOCUMENTS

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215
APPENDIX J
FOCUS ON RESULTS 2010-2011 COACHING TRIOS WITH
ADMINISTRATORS

Abstract (if available)

Abstract An inquiry team of three doctoral candidates critically examined the implementation process of the Focus on Results (FoR) reform initiative in GUSD. The Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC) and the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) collaborated in this alternative capstone inquiry project.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...

PDF

Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district

PDF

A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

PDF

Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation

PDF

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

PDF

Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model

PDF

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

PDF

Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

PDF

Outsourcing for school outcomes: a multi-case study examination of outsourced and in-house literacy coaching models

PDF

Sustaining success toward closing the achievement gap: a case study of one urban high school

PDF

The role of judicial decisions on access and equity: a case study of Daniel v. State of California (1999) and the AP Challenge Grant, Senate Bill 1689 (2000)

Asset Metadata

Creator Aguilar, Rosemary Santos (author)

Core Title An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/13/2011

Defense Date 01/22/2011

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

Tag district,education,Focus on Results,gap analysis,implemenation,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,reform

Place Name California (states), school districts: Glendale Unified School District (geographic subject), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Arias, Robert J. (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email raguilar@rowland.k12.ca.us,rosemars@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3740

Unique identifier UC1162702

Identifier etd-Aguilar-4366 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-449011 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3740 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Aguilar-4366.pdf

Dmrecord 449011

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Aguilar, Rosemary Santos

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