University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: the first 90 days

(USC Thesis Other)

The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: the first 90 days

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE SUCCESSFUL LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES OF
NEW PRINCIPALS IN TURNAROUND MIDDLE
SCHOOL SETTINGS: THE FIRST 90 DAYS
by
Grant Litfin
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2007

Copyright 2007 Grant Litfin

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank my wife, Heather Litfin, for standing beside me, driving me for-
ward, and setting a solid academic example for me in her accomplishments in the
classroom. I also thank her for her understanding when I needed to work instead of
being social on many a weekend night over the past 3 years. This was a trying time
for both of us, but she kept my eye on the prize throughout the entire process, and it
will all be worth it in the long run!
Thanks to my mother, Gayle Litfin, who is a tremendous source of inspira-
tion in my career with her dedication to the students with whom she works and the
care that she shows for students whom others have cast aside. She has been a
constant source of encouragement and a great role model for how to live life. I
appreciate how she always has the right things to say, how she constantly puts
others before herself, and how she is always there to catch me when I fall, even
though we live several states apart.
Thanks to my father, Gerald Litfin, my motivator, mentor, coach, pace
setter, and reality checker. He is the little voice in the back of my head that never
lets me accept anything but my best effort. Having him there to provide an example
and to constantly “raise the bar” for me in life, sports, academics, and in my career
has already led to great things, and I am sure he will help me to reach for even
more.
Thanks to my brother, Garrett Litfin, for just being himself. He is funny,
lighthearted, intelligent, loyal, brave, and above all else, a great friend who is
always there when you need one. It is a rare thing to have a little brother to whom

iii
one can look up and think of as one’s hero, but that is definitely what I experience
every day.
I thank my extended family, co-workers, and friends. An undertaking this
large would not be possible without such a caring group of people around me to
always show concern and offer an encouraging word. This is truly “our doctorate,”
because no one gets through 22 straight years of schooling without needing a solid
group to lean on, people to vent to when on overload, and strong role models of
hard work and perseverance to show how to navigate through bumps in the road.
Thanks to my teachers at the Delano Schools, especially Ms. Rethlake, my
sophomore journalism teacher, who truly taught me to write; and to Dad and Mr.
Bingea for inspiring me to become a teacher and to change student’s lives an hour
at a time.
Thanks to my professors, coaches, teammates, and friends from Saint
John’s University, especially Dr. Moore and Dr. Spring, for laying a solid founda-
tion for a successful work and academic career. Thanks also to my professors at the
University of LaVerne Graduate School and the University of California, Los An-
geles Graduate School, and to the faculty and professors of the University of
Southern California Rossier School of Education.
Thanks to the Association of Torrance School Administrators and the many
past and present leaders of our district (including Dr. Kathy Stowe) who encour-
aged me to join the Ed.D. program at USC. It has been a valuable experience, and
their support and guidance through the program were extremely helpful.
Thanks to my cohort members, who did some outstanding work, met at
times when we were all too busy to meet, and held each other accountable for doing
their piece in this large puzzle.

iv
Finally, I thank my committee members, Dr. Price, Dr. Hentschke, and Dr.
Stowe, for their support, assistance, and invaluable feedback.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................x
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................xi
Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK............1
Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................8
Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................10
Importance of the Study ...............................................................................10
Limitations of the Study ...............................................................................11
Delimitations ................................................................................................12
Assumptions .................................................................................................12
Methodology.................................................................................................13
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................14
Organization of the Study.............................................................................15
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................17
Principal Accountability: Turning Around Underperforming Schools ........18
Defining Leadership .....................................................................................23
Leadership Theory........................................................................................24
The History of Leadership Research ............................................................28
Leadership’s Tie to the Principalship ...........................................................33
Principal as an Organizational Leader....................................................33
Principal as Instructional Leader ............................................................35
Principal as a Visionary Leader..............................................................37
Principal as an Agent of Change: “Action Theory” ...............................37
Principal as a Motivator..........................................................................40
Connections Between Leadership Research and Principal
Leadership ........................................................................................41
The Rise of Accountability: Principal Training and Support.......................45
AB 75......................................................................................................46
Extra Support for Principals (ESP) Program..........................................47
Santa Cruz New Teacher Center ............................................................47
National Institute for School Leadership................................................48
UCLA Principal Leadership Institute.....................................................48
Leadership in Low-Performing Schools:......................................................49
The Importance of Induction and Transition................................................52
Levels of Achievement in Schools ...............................................................56
Strategies for Principals in Turnaround Situations.......................................58
The Evolving Role of Principal..............................................................62
Roadblocks to Recruitment and Achievement .......................................63

vi
Turnarounds in Other Sectors.................................................................64
John Kotter .......................................................................................65
Jim Collins........................................................................................68
Is a New Leader Really Necessary? Lessons from Big Business.................72
The Make-up of a Successful Turnaround Leader .......................................74
Securing Early Wins...............................................................................75
The First 90 Days ...................................................................................82
The Four Frames Model ...............................................................................84
Creating Change in Schools .........................................................................84
Robert Marzano ......................................................................................84
Changing the Culture in a Turnaround Setting.......................................87
Summary` .....................................................................................................90
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................93
Study Questions............................................................................................93
Research Design ...........................................................................................94
Conceptual Frameworks ...............................................................................97
Sample and Population .................................................................................99
Overview of Districts and Schools in the Study.........................................102
Participants .................................................................................................104
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Procedures .....................................107
Interview Questions and Procedural Trials ..........................................108
Principal’s Characteristics and Behaviors Chart ..................................111
STARS Chart........................................................................................112
Principal’s Time Chart..........................................................................113
Data Analysis..............................................................................................114
Conclusion..................................................................................................114
Chapter 4: FINDINGS........................................................................................115
Introduction to Case Study D .....................................................................116
Introduction to Case Studies A-J (The Cross-Case Analysis)....................119
Findings for Research Question 1 ..............................................................123
Findings in Case Study D Related to Research Question 1..................123
Findings in Cross-Case Analysis Related to Research Question 1 ......124
Summary of Findings and Comparison to Literature for
Research Question 1 .......................................................................126
Findings for Research Question 2 ..............................................................126
Findings in Case Study D Related to Research Question 2..................127
Prior Experience .............................................................................127
Establish Communication With All Stakeholders..........................128
Focus on Relationships...................................................................128
“Be Real”........................................................................................130
Findings in Cross-Case Analysis Related to Research Question 2 ......130
Summary of Findings and Comparison to Literature for
Research Question 2 .......................................................................136
Accurately Assessing the Environment Before Taking Action......136
Securing Early Wins.......................................................................140
Building Relationships and a Collaborative Culture ......................142
Establishing and Monitoring a Vision............................................146
Leading From the Middle...............................................................147

vii
Findings for Research Question 3 ..............................................................148
Findings in Case Study D Related to Research Question 3..................148
District Support...............................................................................150
University Programs.......................................................................151
Findings in Cross-Case Analysis Related to Research Question 3 ......152
District Support...............................................................................152
University Programs.......................................................................155
How University Programs Help or Fail New Principals ...............157
Summary of Findings and Comparison to Literature for
Research Question 3 .......................................................................157
Summary of the Main Findings..................................................................161
Chapter 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
STUDY...................................................................................................163
Summary of the Findings ...........................................................................164
Research Question 1 .............................................................................165
Research Question 2 .............................................................................165
Research Question 3 .............................................................................167
Training Program Needs.............................................................................168
Addressing the Principal Shortage .............................................................170
Where Do We Go From Here? ...................................................................171
REFERENCES .....................................................................................................174
APPENDIX ..........................................................................................................181

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The 21 Responsibilities of the School Leader .....................................42
Table 2: Comparison of Wagner’s Themes and Marzano’s
Responsibilities....................................................................................44
Table 3: Characteristics of the 10 Turnaround Middle Schools Led
by the Participating Principals...........................................................103
Table 4: Relationship of Instruments to Research Questions..........................109
Table 5: Responses by Principals’ Immediate Supervisors Regarding
Reasons for the Principals’ Success ..................................................121
Table 6: Principals’ Categorization of Their Schools Upon Assuming
Office .................................................................................................122
Table 7: Principals’ Reasons for Categorization of Their Schools Upon
Assuming Office................................................................................123
Table 8: Strategies Used by the Successful Principals in the Transition
Period.................................................................................................131
Table 9: Principals’ Strategies Reported by Their Immediate Supervisors.....133
Table 10: Personal and Schoolwide Actions Taken by Principals to Gain
Credibility With Stakeholders ...........................................................143
Table 11: Principals’ Report of District Support Provided in Their
First 90 Days......................................................................................153
Table 12: Principals’ Immediate Supervisors’ Report of District
Support Provided to the Principals in Their First 90 Days................154
Table 13: Principals’ Assessment of Principal Preparation Programs
Offered by Universities .....................................................................156
Table 14: Principals’ Immediate Supervisors’ Assessment of Principal
Preparation Programs Offered by Universities..................................156
Table 15: Ways University Programs Helped to Prepare Principals
for Success, According to Principals.................................................158
Table 16: Ways University Programs Helped to Prepare Principals for
Success, According to Principals’ Immediate Supervisors ...............158

ix
Table 17: Reasons Given by Principals for Failure of University
Programs to Prepare Principals for Success ......................................159
Table 18: Reasons Given by Principals’ Immediate Supervisors for
Failure of University Programs to Prepare Principals for Success....159
Table 19: Principals’ Reports of Whether Their Formal Training Had
Focused on the Transition Period (First 90 Days) of a
Principalship ......................................................................................160

x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: School leaders......................................................................................22
Figure 2: Highlights of the four frames model by Lee and Deal ........................85

xi
ABSTRACT
The role of principal in today’s increasingly volatile educational climate is a
task that few people are willing to assume. Since implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act, the growing accountability movement at local, state, and federal
levels has a dramatic impact on how schools are run, decisions are made, and
success is measured. These changes have forced an evolution in the role of the
principal and require that the principal have an almost immediate positive impact
on the school in order to be considered successful by the school’s stakeholder
groups. This increased pressure on new principals (especially in schools needing
improvement) has forced many who aspire to the profession to turn away from it,
despite a growing need for qualified and competent administrators.
In an attempt to determine the importance of the first 90 days of a princi-
pal’s tenure to overall success as an administrator, the methods that successful
principals value during this period, and how well university programs prepare new
principals for success, 10 doctoral students conducted case studies in 10 southern
California turnaround middle schools. The researchers used a mixed methods ap-
proach, using quantitative and qualitative data from principals, their staff, and their
immediate supervisors. Findings were triangulated with educational and business
leadership literature.
Results of cross-case analysis showed that the first 90 days of a principal’s
tenure are vital to success in the position. The first 90 days was a vital time to focus
on establishing relationships with stakeholders, to build coalitions, and to secure
early victories in the eyes of stakeholders. The study established that university
preparation programs are not doing enough to prepare principals for success.

xii
Principals need university programs (or at least district-level programs) that
provide practical, hands-on knowledge and ongoing mentoring opportunities.
With the increasing demands on principals, current high-stakes school envi-
ronments, and the growing need for competent persons to take on the role of prin-
cipal, it is crucial to provide opportunities for success and longevity so that these
principals may improve schools and mentor tomorrow’s educational leaders.

13
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING
FRAMEWORK
Defining the role of a principal in today’s constantly changing and evolving
public schools is a daunting task. Not only are today’s principals held accountable
for being the instructional leaders of their teachers and students; they are also
expected to take on myriad other tasks and roles that were in past years handled by
a group of administrators or were not performed at all (Pounder & Crow, 2005).
These radical changes in a principal’s job description, and in education as an entity,
were set in motion with the landmark presentation of a report called A Nation at
Risk in 1983 (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Since the
publication of this report, the government has demanded a more standardized and
consistent way to educate students. This nationwide “need” for standardization, the
fight for states to retain the right to educate their constituents in a manner that they
feel appropriate, and a number of other historical, governmental, cultural, and eco-
nomic factors have led to more and more changes in the way schools are structured,
managed, and led. To say that a principal needs to be an excellent multitasker,
organizer, and manager would be making a large understatement in today’s high-
stakes educational environment.
Historically, the principalship has been dramatically impacted by several
events and pieces of legislation aside from A Nation at Risk, although this Ronald
Regan-era investigation was a major event in the change process for education
across the United States. Thomas L. Friedman, author of The World Is Flat (2005),
discussed the increasing pressure felt by the federal government to dramatically
change the focus and effectiveness of public schools in order to meet the demands

14
of what he called “Globalization 3.0,” or the third stage of globalization that is
happening throughout the world. Friedman’s alarming angle at the need to change
both what is taught and the way things are taught in this country in order to main-
tain a position as an economic powerhouse closely examined the impact of the
Information Age on the world. He addressed the fact that modern-day inventions
such as the Internet and the constantly increasing technology in other parts of the
world will make it difficult if not impossible for Americans to compete in future
job markets.
Fletcher (2006) described this book as opening the eyes of many Americans
to the fact that the country has shown weakness and is in significant danger of
being bypassed creatively and intellectually by countries that are now able to make
the jump from the Agrarian Age to the Information Age overnight due to techno-
logy. Friedman called for an immediate improvement in the American education
system from top to bottom, especially focusing on the fields of mathematics,
science, technology, and engineering, or risk falling from being “a driving force in
the world of innovation, and risk losing a key element of our national character”
(p. 1). Although this book was written long after A Nation at Risk was made public,
it provides justification for other events taking place in years after 1983 as well as
background into the educational decision making of Presidents following Ronald
Regan.
An example of this awareness-based decision making in the post-1983 era
was the passing of the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB; No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001, 2002) legislation. Feeding off the momentum and increased attention
aimed at the educational flaws of the United States, President George W. Bush
pushed for the passage and initiation of federal and state-level education reform in

15
the shape of NCLB in 2001. This legislation built on the mandates of A Nation at
Risk, demanding increased accountability from federal, state, and local levels,
better alignment of standardized testing with curriculum, a greater focus on the
management of educational funding, and a virtual open door policy for parents and
community members to access data relating to school management and success.
These changes have led to a greater focus on the decision making made at school
sites, have given permission for the community to access records, and have put a
substantial amount of pressure on both principals and superintendents (Pounder &
Crow, 2005).
The demands of NCLB are intensifying in today’s schools, impacting the
way that principals make decisions, guiding spending, and defining what rights
every student should have in the educational environment. While few principals
would dispute the fact that every child should have equal educational opportunity
as others throughout the country, many in the educational community feel that
these mandates have created an illusion of reality and what is possible for some
students, and have created a “no-win” situation for many administrators. Several
studies have discussed the role of changes faced by principals, including increasing
collaboration with decision making, eroding authority, becoming a change agent,
and an all-round increase in responsibility (Cushman, 1992). Some of these
demands and nearly impossible-to-meet expectations are leading to a worldwide
shortage and high demand for school leaders. These increased demands and other
potential causes for principal shortages, along with the great number of experienced
principals beginning to retire from the Baby Boom generation, high turnover rates
of principals in nearly every shape and size of district, strategies for mandatory
rotation of both competent and incompetent principals by district superintendents,

16
an influx of second- and third-career teachers, and unhealthy political conditions
for principals are all leading to a limited applicant pool (Bell, 2001).
Recognizing a need for educational reform and effective leadership in
public school settings and large amounts of red tape and mandates when dealing
with public schools, many companies, businesses, and private citizens have entered
into a competitive arena with public schools (Fletcher, 2006). Seeing a weakness
in the bureaucratic and highly structured way that public schools are run and an
opportunity to produce a more productive workforce capable of fulfilling the needs
of their businesses, these entities have applied for federal and state grants or
generated funding on their own to open a large number of charter schools and
private institutions. This has, in turn, put pressure on the public school setting to
maintain student populations necessary to generate the Average Daily Attendance
(ADA) numbers needed to produce funding that keeps their schools in operation to
serve the general public. The challenge put forth by these entities has not gone
unnoticed and has led to additional demands being placed on the entire hierarchy of
school leadership.
Increased accountability has been one of the most significant changes in
modern education. Educational leaders have seen pressure from many angles:
federal government, state government, city government, the local business and
professional community, teachers, parents, and students. This pressure has not only
caused change in the role of principal but forced the educational community to re-
evaluate its practices, share its information with the public, and show evidence of
growth. The amount of change necessary in many schools is tremendous, and
leaders have had to rise to the occasion, identify problems, implement fixes, and
solve numerous problems along the road to success.

17
In making these changes, educational leaders have had to diagnose the
problems with their schools. Although never intended for school-related use, one
way in which principals are currently diagnosing and attacking the problems within
their schools is through the use of a business theory developed by Michael
Watkins. This theory is described in his books entitled The First 90 Days (Watkins,
2003a, 2003b). Watkins described how a leader can enter a business when it is in
any of four states: start-up, realignment, turnaround, or sustaining success.
Although the book was not written in a school-related context, nor is the theory
described in the book designed to hold up beyond the start-up period, it may be that
each of these situations would require a different approach and leadership style to
consider both the business and the leader a success.
The first state that Watkins described is that of a start-up business. For the
purpose of this paper the word school is substituted where Watkins used the word
business, as the model applies well to both worlds. Start-up schools occur when a
new school is constructed and a leader must design the workings of the school from
the ground up. In a realignment school, leadership has the task of making the
stakeholders of a school realize that there is a problem and then providing the
vision, goals, and means to make change. In a sustaining success situation a school
is performing well but needs to be taken to the next level by the leader. A turn-
around school, the main focus of this dissertation, is much like that of a realign-
ment school in the sense that there is a set of problems associated with the school;
however, in this case, the stakeholders of the school are aware of the problems and
know that there needs to be improvement.
According to Watkins, turnaround schools are among the most difficult
schools to lead because the principal not only has to handle the everyday tasks of

18
the job but also has the task of reforming a “broken” school and culture. This
administrator must revamp the school, encourage its stakeholders to improve,
provide a clear set of expectations, and provide incentives as well as avenues for
success for both students and teachers. Walking into this situation as a new princi-
pal would be a true test of ability; with increased accountability measures, success
or failure to improve the school would be published for all to see. Turnaround
schools present what could be the most difficult situation for a new principal, as
well as one that holds the most potential for improvement.
In response to the sweeping changes and increased accountability measures
in education, the role of the principal has had to adapt and evolve. Principals must
focus on raising test scores, making sure that there are gains in scores for not only
the entire student body but for all significant subgroups within the general popula-
tion. The principal must be in control of the entire educational microcosm on a
daily basis, from assuring the educational environment for all students to assuring
that every student is progressing, from the most gifted high achiever to the student
working in basic skills classes under special education. It is perceived that the
principal must do all of this while acting as leader in the realms of Human
Resources, Politics, Structure, and Symbolism, each of the four ways in which
Bolman and Deal (2003) classified organizational leadership in their Four Frames
Model.
The dramatic role changes that principals have faced in the past 30 years
have been documented by respected authors and researchers. Ronald Heck (1996)
of the University of Hawaii at Manoa said that the role of principal has “evolved
from that of manager, to street level bureaucrat, change agent, instructional leader
and, most recently, a transformational leader” (p. 23). Those roles were confirmed

19
by Kathryn Whitaker (2003), Alberto Rodriguez (2002), and Richard Elmore
(2000). Whitaker added,
New definitions of the principal’s role have been delineated by various
commissions and professional associations. These groups range from the
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (1989), to the
National Commission for the Principalship (1993), to the Institute for
Educational Leadership (2000). (p. 37)
Whitaker discussed principal role changes to explore the connection between these
dramatic changes in the principalship and the difficulties that districts encounter
with recruitment and retention. In the past decade alone, the transforming roles and
increased responsibilities of the principal have led to a critical shortage of qualified
and experienced educational leaders.
The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) confirmed
this statement by performing a study to put the potential shortage of school
administrators into perspective for the general public and point out some potential
reasons for concern with the fact that relatively few qualified people are choosing
to move forward from teaching positions into leadership roles. This 2001 study
found that 90% of the districts in California reported shortages of high school
principal candidates, and 73% of school districts reported shortages of applicants
for the elementary school principal position. If these statistics are not alarming
when they stand alone, it is even more distressing to public school districts to
realize that there are enough qualified applicants but the potential applicants are not
choosing to take on the role of principal. The California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing estimated their database of qualified administrators to be more than
34,000 potential job applicants. Shortages of applicants for the mere 23,000
administrative positions throughout the state should not be happening (Bell, 2001).

20
A study conducted in Utah found that about half of surveyed districts
documented principal shortages at all levels, others reported that between
75 percent and 90 percent of public school superintendents indicated a
moderate to severe shortage of principal candidates, with 90 percent
predicting a future shortage. Urban districts such as New York and Los
Angeles have a more difficult time hiring principals as temporary principals
are assigned to many schools. (Whitaker, 2003, p. 17)
Knowing that several districts throughout the country are struggling to find
and retain quality leaders, it is crucial that a study look into the roles that principals
have historically played in school success and the ways in which they are supported
in this ever-changing endeavor. There is a definite need to discover how some
principals manage to cope with the stresses and workload associated with their jobs
while others flounder in the position, unable to endure even a single year, or do not
even consider taking a leadership position in a public school.
In response to the constant state of change associated with the job of
principal and the fact that the added accountability measures have sparked an
increased need to be ready to perform at 100% on Day 1 of tenure, districts
throughout the country have developed training, transition, and induction programs
to attempt to meet the diverse needs of their principal candidates. Where these
programs are not an option or where transition programs are seen as weak, many
principals and aspiring administrators have come up with creative ways to acquire
the necessary background, network, framework, and skills to succeed. These
training and transition programs may be key to the success of beginning principals
and essential in securing early wins as educational leaders.
Statement of the Problem
The growing levels of accountability with which principals deal on a daily
basis have created an increased need for induction and development programs that
prepare people who desire to take on the principalship for the demands of the job.

21
Principals in today’s volatile educational environment need the tools to stand up to
the challenges of their chosen profession, including implementation of a standards-
driven curriculum; working with budgets that often require creativity to accomplish
desired goals; establishing human relations between community, parent, student,
teacher, and local business groups; and general management of a school site
(Elmore, 2000). A goal for any induction or transition program may be to address
these needs and the rising numbers of vacancies in the principalship, while reduc-
ing the number of poor-quality, unqualified, and ill-prepared candidates.
Bell (2001) predicted that the shortage of prepared principals willing to take
on leadership roles throughout the United States and especially southern California
is well on its way to becoming a crisis. Without prepared leaders who are willing to
guide school sites through the virtual mine field of modern education, the United
States faces the largest implosion of an educational system in the history of the
country (Friedman, 2005). The shrinking numbers of qualified applicants willing to
take on the burden of becoming a principal and the inability of districts to “grow
their own” principals and leaders fast enough to replace retirees are contributing to
the instability of the entire educational system.
The literature base regarding business discusses leadership and many
conceptual frameworks that have proven successful in their own realms but have
yet to be directly applied to educational leadership in a turnaround school setting.
Although there is literature discussing the beginning of a principalship, there is
currently no “cookbook” or established foundation in which to root induction or
transition programs for incoming school leaders in turnaround school settings.
There are also very few pieces of literature that directly address the first 90 days (or
transition period) of middle school principals, and even fewer that look specifically

22
at this time period for middle school principals in turnaround situations. Three
research questions were developed to aid in the structure and guidance of the study:
1. Do middle school principals in a turnaround school situation find the
transition period (first 90 days) to be important?
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to establish the importance of the transition
period for a beginning principal, to isolate key elements of the transition period, to
look specifically at formal and informal transition programs, and to identify speci-
fic strategies, skills, and frameworks that these principals have used to be con-
sidered successful by their immediate supervisors. This multifaceted research study
applied proven business models, strategies, and frameworks to the educational field
in the hope of identifying key similarities and differences in the two settings. This
research process and study will add to the literature base regarding the transition
period for educational leaders, induction and transition programs for administrators,
turnaround school improvement, and the beginning of a successful principalship.
Importance of the Study
Several books provide prescription plans for the principalship, articles that
aim to get the beginning principal off to a good start, and many stories of initial
failure or of what to avoid when taking on the task of running a school. However,

23
there are very few pieces of literature that thoroughly examine the transition period
or the first 90 days of a principal’s tenure. There are even fewer pieces of literature
that discuss the beginning of a principal’s career, specifically in a turnaround
setting. With the enormous number of schools that qualify under Watkins’s (2003a)
definition of a turnaround school, such information is particularly important to a
principal taking on that scenario.
The present study examined the current literature base, elements of common
practice for beginning principals, and published frameworks on leadership in both
business and education, and identified what beginning principals can do to improve
their chances of success during their transition at a turnaround school.
Limitations of the Study
This dissertation study was limited by several factors.
1. The study was performed solely at the middle school level.
2. The study was performed only in southern California.
3. Turnaround schools were the only schools examined in the study.
4. The studied schools were of various size, demographics, and
socioeconomic status.
5. Ten researchers were used to collect data, which may have led to some
bias in collaboration.
6. Research was done over several visits, over a period of 2 months.
7. Time for follow-up interviews with principals and teachers at the site
level was limited due to dissertation deadlines.

24
8. Superintendents and other supervisors used in the study may have used
different systems and requirements to identify what they deemed a “successful”
turnaround principal in their district.
Delimitations
The present study was delimited by several factors.,
1. The study looked only at turnaround schools. This was done because of
the limited amount of knowledge and literature regarding these schools, because
Watkins (2003a) deemed that “success” can be seen in these settings, and because
the other settings identified by Watkins are either not deemed as challenging for
educational leaders (sustaining success) or are rarely encountered by beginning
educational leaders (start-ups).
2. Information gathered in the study is not as easily generalized due to the
sampling methodologies (purposeful) used by the dissertation group.
3. Only middle schools were studied.
Assumptions
While performing the study described in this dissertation, the following
assumptions were made:
1. Researchers assumed that all participants involved with the study, includ-
ing teachers, superintendents/supervisors, and principals, were honest in their
answers to survey and interview questions.
2. Researchers assumed that superintendents or supervisors selected the
principal candidates whom they felt best fit the parameters for the study. This
meant that the superintendents/supervisors selected beginning principals for the

25
study who they felt were truly successful and were at what Watkins (2003a)
defined as turnaround schools.
Methodology
Researchers used a mixed-methods approach (Patton, 2002) that included
mainly qualitative but some quantitative data collection. Researchers then used a
process of concurrent triangulation to examine the data collected. Creswell (2003)
stated that this triangulation method of data investigation “provides a comprehens-
ive analysis of the research problem” (p. 16). Creswell meant that, by using both
qualitative means and quantitative data, a researcher could derive more accurate
and all-encompassing information than by using a solitary method.
The research team (dissertation group) conducted 10 case studies, all of
similar methodology, at 10 transition middle schools throughout southern
California. The team consisted of 10 doctoral students enrolled in the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California; all were completing
their culminating activity for the degree of Ed.D. Each researcher used the same
research and data collection strategies as well as group-developed instruments to
investigate the school site.
These strategies and instruments were not only developed and repeatedly
amended by the group as a collective but were also put through several field tests
and trials before being used at school sites. The instruments were developed with
the purpose of providing a snapshot of the strategies and overall philosophies of the
principals and were designed to extract answers to address the research questions.
The instruments were used during interviews with a supervisor or superintendent,
the principal who had been identified by the supervisor or superintendent as a

26
successful new administrator, and several teachers who worked with the identified
principal. Along with interviewing each of these constituents, the researchers
conducted faculty surveys at each school site. These surveys (developed by the
research group) gathered an additional layer of data without the possibility of bias
linked to any lack of anonymity possible with face-to-face interviews. This process
of gathering data from many people and a variety of hierarchical levels allowed for
triangulation of the results.
Once the data were collected, the research team compiled findings and
compared each of the turnaround principals in the study. The team used the data
gathered to draw conclusions about each principal and write a case summary based
on the data and interactions at the site. Each team member then produced a clearly
written description of what occurred at each site, a detailed look at the principal
being studied; this resulted in cross-case analysis of all constituents. This cross-
case analysis used both the descriptions that were just mentioned and simple statis-
tics gathered by survey and interview instruments to provide a list of commonalties
among the principals, a list of common occurrences, traps reported by principals,
key pieces of advice that principals would give to new principals at turnaround
sites, and a virtual cookbook to beginning a principalship at a turnaround middle
school.
Definition of Terms
Transition period: The first 90 days in a particular position (in this case, as
a turnaround middle school principal).

27
Turnaround school: A school that has slipped to the status of “underper-
former.” All stakeholders involved with the school are aware that the school should
improve.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the study problem. This chapter
delivers a statement of the problem, spells out the importance of the research,
identifies the purpose of the study, identifies the questions to be answered,
describes the methodologies used in the study, and provides insight into what role
the study will play in improving the practice of future educational leaders.
Chapter 2 presents a review of the current literature base on the topic of
study. The literature review looks into the history of the principalship, the changing
role of public school administrators, accountability and other factors that have
influenced changes in the job description of educational leaders, and general
principles of leadership. The chapter provides insight into the work of educational
leaders, the skills, philosophies, strategies, and traits common to their success,
current support and training programs, the current culture of schools, and the
importance of a transition period to a developing administrator.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology used in the study. The chapter
describes the research design, the study population, the sampling procedure, and
the instruments and their development. The chapter provides information on the
validity, reliability, and generalizability of the study’s findings. As each of these
topics is addressed, a rationale and assessment of the strengths and drawbacks of
each section of the study are provided. Chapter 3 describes the process used to

28
collect data and the collaborative process used by the dissertation group to compile
data across the 10 cases involved in the study.
Chapter 4 presents findings from the study, the qualitative and quantitative
data gathered in the study, and the results of the cross-case analysis.
Chapter 5 provides a critical look at the findings and compares the findings
to the literature reviewed in chapter 2. The most important element of this chapter,
and the piece that may help to drive educational change regarding turnaround
schools, is the “how-to-guide” developed by the research team. This “cookbook”
for success gives the key pieces of information found during the study and provides
a clear picture of how a beginning principal successfully begins tenure in a
turnaround school.

29
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Although very little research has been conducted directly on the topic of the
transition period (first 90 days) for a principal in a middle school turnaround
setting, there are many sources that surround the topic or touch on the parts of the
topic discussed in this dissertation. Exploring these related areas may hold the keys
to unlocking the study involved with this topic. It may also provide the groundwork
and research foundation to carry out the study associated with this dissertation. In
order to gather this foundation, an examination of both education and business
related works is reviewed and compared throughout the review of literature. A
discussion of several related frameworks is included to show their applicability to
the topic and to provide explanation regarding how they related to this research.
The chapter provides a review of the literature base on the topic, back-
ground information, and conceptual frameworks addressing the topics of educa-
tional leadership or turnaround situations. This review begins by discussing the
history of the principalship and the changing roles and settings that educational
leaders have faced over the past few decades in public schools, what has led to
these changes, and what is now expected of principals in their daily routines. The
chapter continues by discussing various types of research and the focus that this
research has had in the realm of educational leadership. Next, the chapter explains
links between leadership and being a successful principal that have already been
hypothesized. It continues by discussing a brief history of the principalship, how
the principalship differs in low-performing and high-performing schools, the
importance of the transition period for principals and business leaders, and how

30
business leadership compares to school leadership in philosophy and methodology.
The chapter concludes with an analysis of what frameworks, strategies, philoso-
phies, and methodologies should lead to success as a turnaround school leader.
The review will also focus on the three research questions:
1. Do middle school principals in a turnaround school situation find the
transition period (first 90 days) to be important?
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Principal Accountability: Turning Around
Underperforming Schools
In any area of the United States there will always be students and schools
that are succeeding and some that are underperforming. With the onset of NCLB in
2002, the line has become much clearer between the two groups of schools. Thanks
to state and nationwide standardized testing, new accountability systems, require-
ments for disclosing scores to the general public, and evaluative systems such as
the Academic Performance Index (API) and Similar Schools Index, those schools
that continue to underperform can no longer hide or sit idle. The overwhelming
number of schools that are considered underperforming is a wake-up call to most
educational leaders about the necessity for positive reform and strong leadership at
these schools.
In a business setting, the leadership of an underperforming company would
simply be let go, along with anyone else associated with failure that was deemed

31
“unable to be fixed.” Replacing that underperforming leader may provide the jump
start, programs, and ideas to turn things around and may solve the problem. The
NCLB Act brought with it another definition of turnaround schools that parallels
the thought behind that of big business by saying that turnaround can best be
described as the district-managed replacement of a school leader and staff relevant
to a school’s failure. After conducting a great amount of research and reading a
large amount of literature surrounding the topic of turnarounds in education, it can
also be deciphered that the most popular way to attempt the turnaround of low-
performing schools is through the replacement of leaders and staff. Although
administrators often try to fix educational and school problems by simply changing
principals, the practice of changing leadership as a “magic bullet” has not proven to
be successful or easily done (Duke, 2004b).
The general literature base calls any dramatic increase in the performance of
a school or business due to the change of leadership or staff a turnaround (Duke,
2004b). Turnarounds will commonly have a time period associated with them,
making it necessary for the new leadership of a school or business to drastically
improve the organization within a certain time frame for the increase in perform-
ance to be deemed a successful turnaround. Fairchild, quoted in Kowal and Hassel
(2005) combined the two definitions previously stated and indicated that “success-
ful turnarounds in schools are due to the replacement of leadership and a dramatic
increase in student achievement over a short period of time” (p. 7). This definition
is important; however, a turnaround school does not necessarily have to be a school
with low performance. There are many reasons why a school might be considered a
turnaround, ranging from staff issues to undesired community perception to the

32
school’s API scores being lower than stakeholders desire (even if the school may
be considered by many to be high achieving).
For the purpose of this study, the term turnaround school refers to more
than the simple replacement of a principal at a school with a new one; in fact, it
builds on the definition provided by Fairchild. The term turnaround school also
involves the awareness of all stakeholders of the school and their beliefs about both
the current state of the school and the growth potential of the school. According to
Michael Watkins (2003a), a turnaround situation occurs when a school is underper-
forming or has distinct problems of which the stakeholders are aware and which
they are trying to correct with the help of new leadership. This situation allows for
the newly appointed principal to place a greater emphasis on fixes for the underper-
forming site and to present a better vision for the school—both positive things—
instead of having to spend energy on convincing the stakeholders of the need to
change before potential fixes can be implemented.
Many changes that have occurred over the past few years in education have
centered on helping classroom teachers to build their classroom knowledge and
skill sets, as reported by Policy Forum on Educational Leadership in 1999 (Mullen,
2004)). With the focus mainly on the classroom teacher, teacher accountability,
classroom instruction, standards, and standardized testing, the emphasis on building
quality leaders for these teachers has slipped, leaving out an important piece of the
educational puzzle. Overlooking the leadership of schools, allowing training pro-
grams for these leaders to become stagnant and outdated, and allowing schools to
slide into performance ruts are undoubtedly setting the public school system of this
country to fail (Duke, 2004a, 2004b). This is especially true in urban areas, where
the occurrence of turnaround schools is the greatest, where teachers and educational

33
leaders alike must face myriad challenges to simply maintain the status quo, much
less improve the schools.
Reform efforts in urban and suburban areas alike are happening, but these
efforts often repeat the mistakes of prior reform in ignoring school principals,
district-level administrators, superintendents, and school board members in the
reform process (Stone, 1998). The literature base discusses the importance of
teachers playing a large role in the improvement process, as they are the main form
of contact with the students, but that is where the majority of focus lies from legis-
lators, community members, and local businesses (Benton, 2002). The problem
with focusing attention purely on teachers is that the school-wide improvement
necessary to turnaround a school for the long term is not taking place, instead
applying “band aids” to a much larger problem. Although focusing on the teachers
may show an immediate improvement in test scores, this improvement is likely to
be artificial without systemic change. In order to create systemic change, the school
will need help from crucial participants in the improvement process. These crucial
players in educational reform must be included in any plan for improvement and,
according to the Policy Forum on Educational Leadership (1999, as cited in
Mullen, 2004), they must play a leadership role in the change. Figure 1 illustrates
the roles that principals, superintendents, and school board members play in the
operation and reform of schools. The Policy Forum was clear when asserting that to
ignore any of these vital roles when designing school reform would be a mistake,
one that occurs commonly in the educational world.
Each of the positions listed in Figure 1 is involved in a state of flux, with
constantly changing requirements and legislation handed down from state and
federal levels. If these changes were not enough to drive away most prospective

34

The principal has con-
siderable influence over
the environment in the
school building, where
the most meaningful
actions in education take
place. A good principal
can create a climate that
fosters excellent teaching
and learning, while an
ineffective one can
quickly thwart the
progress of the most
dedicated reformers.
The superintendent is the
highly visible figure on
the front lines of educa-
tion who articulates the
vision for and oversees
the activities of a large
organization. Today’s
superintendents not only
must be skilled in their
interactions with the
school board, principals,
and teachers, but must be
able to communicate
well with policymakers,
the parents, the media,
and the public.
School board members set
the policies that make or
break the achievements of
other leaders and teachers.
They have considerable
power over the things that
matter in a local school
system, but often they are
the leaders who have the
least formal training for
their roles.

Figure 1. School leaders. Source: “Policy Brief: Effective Leaders for Today’s
Schools—Synthesis of a Policy Forum on Educational Leadership,” 1999, retrieved
June 13, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EffectiveLeaders/policy-forum.html

school leaders, there are also local pressure for performance on standardized tests,
the constant reform of curriculum and instruction, the presence of an increasingly
diverse culture in terms of both ethnicity and language, the decentralization of
management, the loss of funding from state and federal sources, and, most detri-
mental, the loss of public confidence in the school system as a whole. Leaders who
take on the task of running schools in today’s volatile world must satisfy the
normal tasks and processes of an already difficult job before even thinking about
reform; yet some kind of reform may need to take place in order for the school
system to improve (Stone, 1998).
Leaders of schools today face a set of problems that previous leaders did not
have to deal with. The lack of adequate training for today’s leaders, especially
those looking at taking on a turnaround setting, is causing a systemic road block.
Leaders in today’s turnaround schools will face even greater pressures than those

35
taking on what could be called the typical principalship; though even the “typical”
principalship carries with it a significant slate of responsibilities and duties
(Wright, 1996). That is why the study of leadership specifically in turnaround
middle school settings was chosen as the focus for this study. First, a general
understanding of leadership as its own entity must be developed.
Defining Leadership
Leadership as a concept is difficult to define, although it can be seen in
many places and in different people. People often run short of words in describing
what makes a leader stand out, but few people fail to recall someone who they
think is a leader. What makes these individuals different? More important, what
makes them lead when others follow or cannot gain power enough to lead? These
questions have spawned several books and famous works on leadership, in which
some describe solitary people as leaders and others describe groups; some describe
people who lead from the front of a large group (Abrashoff, 2002) but others
describe people who somehow manage to lead from the middle of the followers
(Maxwell, 2005), most carrying equal influence and respect.
What is leadership?
Four things would stand out in this respect. First, to lead involves influenc-
ing others. Second, where there are leaders there are followers. Third,
leaders seem to come to the forefront when there is a crisis or special prob-
lem. In other words, they often become visible when an innovative response
is needed. Fourth, leaders are people who have a clear idea of what they
want to achieve and why. (Doyle & Smith, 2001, ¶ 5)
For the purpose of this dissertation, leaders are “individuals who possess
the ability to think and act creatively in non-routine situations—and who aim to
influence the actions, beliefs and feelings of others” in a positive manner (Doyle &
Smith, 2001, ¶ 5). Therefore, leadership is embedded in a person’s action and

36
overall desire to make a positive change in his or her environment, in this case a
principal in his or her school.
Leadership Theory
In order to fully understand how leadership in today’s schools can affect an
entire organization either positively or negatively, it is important to have a solid
understanding of the research base involving leadership, the history of this
extremely broad field, what is now known about leadership, and what is required
for a person to be successful in a position of leadership, such as public school
principal. According to Bensimon (1989), there are six major types of research
traditions involving leadership theory:
trait theories, which attempt to identify specific personal characteristics that
appear to contribute to a persons ability to assume and successfully function
in positions of leadership;
power and influence theories, which consider leadership in terms of the
source and amount of power available to leaders and the manner in which
leaders exercise that power over followers through either unilateral or
reciprocal interactions;
behavioral theories, which study leadership by examining patterns of
activity, managerial roles, and behavior categories of leaders—that is, by
considering what it is that leaders actually do;
contingency theories, which emphasize the importance of situational
factors, such as the nature of the task performed by a group or the nature of
the external environment to understand effective leadership;
cultural and symbolic theories, which study the influence of leaders in
maintaining or reinterpreting the systems of shared beliefs and values that
give meaning to organizational life; and
cognitive theories, which suggest leadership is a social attribution that
permits people to make sense of an equivocal, fluid, and complex world.
(p. 1)
Although many of these classifications of leadership have been heavily
explored and somewhat discounted as the defining way to view leadership,

37
Bensimon (1989) hinted at the quality that lies within these categorizations of
leadership theory. Trait theory is an example of a genre that has been heavily
explored, studied, and of late, discounted. According to the literature base regard-
ing leadership, numerous studies have tried to isolate the key traits of a successful
leader, and the inconclusive results have led researchers to conclude that there is no
set formula of traits that automatically make a person a great leader. Research and
the literature base has, in fact, gone much to the other extreme in pointing out that
many unlikely candidates have shown exceptional leadership in times of crisis or
extreme circumstances, just as many candidates thought to be perfect for leadership
have proven to be poor leaders under similar circumstances. This has dashed hopes
for a “recipe” for a successful leader under all circumstances (Southwest Educa-
tional Development Laboratory, 1992).
Bensimon pointed out a unique and effective way of viewing the subject
by identifying the Four Frames model for organizing leadership established by
Bolman and Deal in 1984. In this model it is implied that leadership can be viewed
through four different lenses or frames. Involved with the model is the understand-
ing that many leadership roles can be viewed from a variety of perspectives or
vantage points; these too would be referred to as the frames. Bolman and Deal
(2001) explained the model by describing how the structural frame focuses directly
on formal roles and relationships present in organizations (schools for the present
purposes), how the human resources frame centers on the needs of people, how the
political frame delves into the conflict and the struggles of people, and how the
symbolic frame examines organizations as cultures in and of themselves with a set
of shared values. This framework established by Bolman and Deal over 20 years
ago still fits educational leadership well. This philosophy and framework serves as

38
an anchor for this literature review and is applied to the study reported in this
dissertation.
In returning to Bensimon’s six major categories of research traditions,
major beliefs in research theory have shifted from trait theory and purely rational
logic to a study of cultural and symbolic perspective, much like two of the four
frames of Bolman and Deal (2001). Symbolic leadership, as Bensimon explained,
“is the major focus of today’s research” (p. 4). This fact is obvious in the number of
articles and other works written on topics concerning the interpretation of symbols,
the construction of institutional reality, and how principals manage meaning in
their schools. These topics all revolve around how leadership can be both cultural
and symbolic, which may have a great deal of meaning if principals work within
the four frames model, or simply refer to it to see which areas they focus on the
most in developing their academic organization.
In the past 80 years there have been four main categorizations of leadership
theory (Doyle & Smith, 2001). These main types of theory parallel and overlap the
six Bensimon (1989) theories but are often described as trait theory, behavioral
theory, contingency theory, and transformational theory. Although very similar to
Bensimon’s six theories, these four carry a far more substantial history and breadth
of research base but have been criticized for lacking the depth and personal associa-
tion that are added in combining human characteristics to the theories such as those
on Bensimon’s list. More than just names, however, the four categories carry with
them a history that makes them worthy of discussion.
Trait theory research has been all but abandoned as an option for establish-
ing a formula for creating the perfect leader. With hopes fading for a sure-fire list
of traits that outline a successful leader under all circumstances, researchers have

39
explored other paths for defining leadership (Doyle & Smith, 2001). The abandon-
ment of trait research meant an end to the overall examination of characteristics and
the start of exploring behaviors shown by leaders both successful and unsuccessful
in their practice. In performing this research common patterns began to develop and
the activity of grouping behaviors and patterns of behaviors became a frequent
practice. These grouped behaviors were labeled as styles and were packaged and
sold for use in training of management for various companies throughout the world.
Examples of this behavioral grouping can be seen in Blake and Mouton’s
managerial grid (1985). The evidence produced from this research was easy for the
general public to associate with, and it fit most working environments well, both
qualities that contributed to its popularity in business settings.
Almost immediately following release of Blake and Mouton’s Managerial
Grid, other researchers and entrepreneurs developed a variety of spin-offs, all with
a similar foundation and purpose. Every one of the spin-offs intended to use the
behaviors and “styles” of work already exhibited by employees at various com-
panies to maximize results and leadership. In the development of these philoso-
phies and pitches, four main “styles” emerged (Wright, 1996, pp. 36-37):
Concern for Task: Leaders care specifically about achieving goals and
meeting deadlines. They strive to organize their followers and employees in
ways to first and foremost boost productivity, and will later look toward
meeting the needs of people. This style is often referred to as a production
based style of leadership.
Concern for People: Leaders see their followers as people, trying to meet
their follower’s needs, interests, and problems, while contributing to their
development. Leaders in this style see their followers as more than just
pawns in a game, which is why it is referred to as a humanitarian style of
leadership.
Directive Leadership: Leaders in this style make all the decisions, clearly
establish a plan, and expect all followers to stick to the established plans
and orders. This is commonly thought of as a militaristic style of leadership.

40
Participative Leadership: Leaders in this style are said to lead from amongst
the flock or include their followers in decision-making. This is the leader-
ship style most closely associated with Site Based Management in schools.
The four styles outlined in the list printed above still have their place in
respected literature; and a person can likely name several leaders or corporations
that run quite successfully using the philosophies involved with these descriptions.
The final leadership style in the list is the participative leadership style,
where the teachers play a large role in decision making at the site. The site-based
management movement that took place throughout the United States in the 1980s
and 1990s included this philosophy for leadership because it promoted increased
buy-in by the teaching staff. The sacrifice of some power by the principals in the
name of a team-oriented and collective approach has proven to be worthwhile in
cases where the staff serves the best interests of the students and school. This style
also has been proven to work in cases where the principals and teachers work
together to create a vision and goals and the principal knows when to step in and
make a decision or redirect the organization if it gets off track (Wright, 1996).
The History of Leadership Research
Since the first research regarding leadership began in the early 1900s,
researchers have been looking at this phenomenon from a variety of perspectives.
During the first 50 years they focused entirely on the relationship between leaders
and followers and the differences that separated these two groups (Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory, 1992). This research, which focused mainly
on the characteristics or traits of leaders, ended abruptly when it became clear that
no single trait or set of traits could be isolated that explained why a leader was able
to be successful in any given situation.

41
Research on leadership during the late 1970s and 1980s went back to
examine the individual traits and characteristics of leaders, hoping to isolate those
that cause a leader to be successful. After falling short of finding a direct link
between these characteristics and success under all circumstances and after
reinvigorating the topic two times over 4 decades, the researchers closed the book
on trait research. They concluded that leaders and leadership are crucial to the
success of organizations but are also extremely complex, and consistent links
between characteristics of leaders and success under all circumstances could not be
found (GeoLeadership Group Inc., 2006).
Researchers then turned to looking at the way in which leaders’ skills and
behaviors changed when they were put in a series of situations. This entirely new
angle at leadership led researchers to establish the concept of “situational leader-
ship.” This research hoped to uncover links between given situations that required
leadership and the skill sets that certain people possessed. Hoy and Miskel hoped to
find “distinctive characteristics of certain settings to which the leader’s successes
could be attributed” (1987, as cited in Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, 1992, p. 1).
Leading up to Hoy and Miskel’s research, Hencley also examined situa-
tional leadership. Hencley’s studies differed from Hoy and Miskel’s studies in the
sense that he looked specifically at leadership theory with regard to situations,
concluding that “the situational approach maintains that leadership is determined
not so much by the characters of the individuals as by the requirements of the social
situation” (1973, as cited in Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 1992,
p. 273). His research uncovered that people could be viewed as leaders or followers
depending on an array of contingencies. Hencley and other researchers tried to

42
isolate the specific characteristics of situations (not the characteristics of the people
taking part in the situation) that caused a leader to react in a certain fashion. Later,
while performing similar research, Hoy and Miskel identified a way of classifying
these situational characteristics and placed them in four categories: “structural
properties of an organization, organizational climate, role characteristics, and
subordinate characteristics” (as cited in Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, 1992, p. 273).
Unfulfilled in their quest, situational leadership researchers looked to point
out the differences between leaders who were viewed as effective and those who
were viewed as ineffective. According to the Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory (1992), this set of studies aimed at finding out which leadership
behaviors, if put into practice by a leader in a given situation, would have the best
chance of leading to success. These behaviors were divided into two categories:
those involving initiating structures and those involving consideration (for people
and their specific needs). Initiating structure behaviors were those that centered on
organizational tasks, involving actions such as planning, organizing, and clearly
defining tasks and the work for other people to perform. Behaviors involving
consideration, the second category of situational/behavioral leadership research,
involved the people who showed concern for people or the human resources of
their organization before the organization itself. This “humanistic” category
examined the behaviors of leaders as they addressed the individual needs of the
people working for them, their employees’ emotional needs, the social environment
established by the leader, the recognition that the employees received, and the self-
esteem building that took place inside the organization which was intended to boost
overall employee performance.

43
This research was the first with a hint of conclusive evidence, as it gave
support to those with a research hypothesis stating that effective leaders were those
who could simultaneously address the needs of their organization and the needs of
those working inside it. This angle on leadership, although new and large in scope,
also contained very little evidence of what leadership behaviors would be most
effective in various situations (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory,
1992). After decades of exploring traits, behaviors, and situations without results,
researchers began to explore the connections between these categories as a unique
form of leadership research. The focus on the bonds between these areas generally
paralleled the research on situational leadership. Digging deeper, however,
researchers conclusively stated that situational leadership included the assumption
that certain types of situations required certain types of leadership and that not
every style of leadership could work in every situation, regardless of a leader’s
characteristics or behaviors (Clark, 1997). Further, Hoy and Miskel hypothesized
that yet another approach, called the “contingency approach,” would “specify the
conditions or situational variables that moderate the relationship between leader
traits or behaviors and performance criteria” (Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, 1992, p. 274).
Contingency theory, although not defined as such at the time, was being
worked with as far back as 1967, when Fiedler discussed the relationships between
leadership styles and the impact that the leader’s style had on behaviors and
actions. Fiedler had already discovered that a group’s ability to succeed was deter-
mined by a leader’s ability to use a leadership style to adapt to a specific situation.
House (1971) was following similar research with his Path-Goal Theory, which
looked at the complex interaction of the behaviors that leaders showed, situational

44
characteristics, and the assessments made about a leader’s success. House presented
four behavioral categorizations that leaders commonly employed: “directive,
achievement-oriented, supportive, and participative” (p. 326). He also established
the two variables crucial to situational research that he linked to a leader’s ability to
have influence over people and lead effectively: follower characteristics and the
environmental demands or “rules” of an organization.
These contingency models and House’s categorizations moved the process
of understanding leadership forward but did not tell the whole story about this
phenomenon or completely delineate what tied traits, behaviors, and situations
together. These models and researchers also failed to identify which traits, actions,
or behaviors were most effective, as situational variables continued to complicate
matters. What can be gathered from the body of research surrounding leadership is
that leaders should be flexible and be expert at reading the environment. This
situational awareness will allow a competent leader to assess which skills and
approaches to utilize in leading the organization in the most effective way possible
(Allen, Bordas, Robinson Hickman, Matusek, & Whitmire, 1998). Unfortunately,
there is still no formula for outlining what skill sets, traits, or characteristics are
ideal for leadership in various environments.
As recently as 2001, a research framework by Hersey and Blanchard has
been used in research and has reinvigorated the focus on situational awareness but
has also provided a look at how leaders are choosing the appropriate reaction to
situations based on reading their followers and following their cues. The model
states that, “when leaders are flexible and aware of critical situational factors, such
as the ability and willingness of members to change, they will adopt an appropriate
leadership style” (Walters, 2001, p. 1). According to Mick Yates (2006), creator of

45
the 4E’s framework for leadership, it remains the understanding of leadership
researchers today that the most effective leaders in every situation will be those
who can best diagnose the problems of the organization and respond quickly and
accurately to meet these needs.
Leadership’s Tie to the Principalship
Principal as an Organizational Leader
There is a unique level of leadership capacity necessary to be a successful
principal in today’s public schools. Fulfilling the needs of this job requires a princi-
pal who can maintain a deep understanding of instruction, build a culture that
breeds positivism, create a desire for life-long learning from the entire learning
community, and maintain a strong presence among the professional community
(Fink & Resnick, 2001). While playing these crucial roles in the success of schools,
principals must also provide guidance and mentoring for teachers in the art of
teaching and learning and provide avenues for students to become stronger in their
interpersonal interactions and social capabilities (both leading to the development
of stronger future citizens and a better community). Principals must enter the
school already knowing how to make these crucial pieces fall into place, but also
must be constantly searching for conferences and development opportunities that
will enhance their skills and not allow their style to become stagnant. Attending
training and workshops intended for administrators may also provide the tools for
principals to increase their intellectual capacity regarding school leadership and
may also teach them to maintain better attitudes toward their schools and districts
when the inevitable challenges of their jobs are presented (Hansen, 2004).

46
Before passing on the knowledge that the principal possesses to his or her
staff and students, the principal must first put together a toolbox of strategies for
leadership (Fink & Resnick, 2001). An increase in effectiveness can often be seen
when principals utilize tools such as focus literacy groups, principal’s study groups,
or principal’s support groups to cope with the demands and stresses of daily work.
Increasing effectiveness in this line of work may also require the principal to
construct a leadership team who share beliefs and values similar to those of the
principal (Collins, 2001). This team often shares the workload of the principal and
may help by providing peer accountability and slight positive peer pressure to drive
teacher improvement, and aid in developing meaningful staff development oppor-
tunities. All tasks just described are vital to the principal in creating a learning
community where all students are constantly moving forward and the teachers are
growing and learning beside their students as positive role models of lifelong
learning.
Kets de Vries (1995) once compared organizations (schools in this case) to
automobiles, in that they cannot move forward on their own unless they are going
downhill. Determining factors of a schools success include the attitudes of the staff
and the proper placement of persons within the school. An organization may have a
well-divided staff in terms of their overall skills and competency. In these situa-
tions there are usually several staff members who never need the support of an
administrator to be successful and to grow as educators. These people can function
on very little leadership and can feel stifled or restricted by heavy-handed guidance
(Kets de Vries). Other teachers at the same site may be so unsuccessful in carrying
out their responsibilities that no amount of leadership or intervention can help
them. The majority of school employees are somewhere between these two

47
extremes, and most function on an acceptable level so long as their leader provides
a basic road map and redirection when necessary, or so long as the surviving group
of teachers provides tutelage. Although only some teachers need a guiding hand to
reach a level that is considered acceptable, it is common and suggested practice for
administrators to provide a vision and goals for all teachers. Principals are also
charged with holding teachers accountable for working toward those goals as a
collective unit, regardless of competency.
Another key component vital to the success of a principal trying to move a
school forward is a thorough understanding of leadership dynamics. If the person in
charge of a group or organization does not understand his or her role or take
advantage of his or her assets, he or she will never guide the organization to full
potential, despite any economic or technical advantage afforded to the group.
According to Kets de Vries (1995), any advantage that an organization may
maintain can be offset by poor leadership.
Principal as Instructional Leader
Fink and Resnick (2001) stated that principals must be instructional leaders
in their schools, and that this leadership must be exemplified in both what they say
and practice in order to create substantial schoolwide improvement. There needs to
be school wide buy-in concerning each school’s role as a learning organization
dedicated to constant improvement in its ability to educate children. Teachers
involved with this school must be able to meet the demands of the organization by
taking direction and learning from their principals and peer leaders or coaches.
Principals, in turn, must also take direction and learn from their superintendents or

48
other superiors, creating a cycle of learning that is ongoing and interdependent on
each person involved with the cycle.
It can be derived from this literature review that underachieving and low-
performing schools fail to improve without competent leadership. This statement
carries with it implications for public school principals in the sense that they are
and will continue to be the ones held accountable for a school’s failure or will be
the ones praised for a school’s improvement or redirection (Memon, 2000).
Continuing to develop competent school leaders is crucial to the success of public
schools. It is also important for school leaders to seek growth and other pro-
fessional development opportunities to learn how to manage today’s schools, to
understand the role of a principal in a constantly evolving educational environment,
and to understand their role in redirecting underachieving schools (Duke, 2004b).
Reading in the area of school leadership and management clearly spells out
that principals must be the instructional leaders of their sites, providing role
modeling for their teachers and students. It is also established that principals should
develop a professional atmosphere in which they are both the professional leader
and the leader of pedagogy, regardless of subject matter or grade level. According
to Memon (2000), principals should promote an atmosphere in which all stake-
holders take ownership of the school and the actual process of school improvement.
When failing to meet specific goals is taken personally, failure is less likely to
happen. This is even more evident when a principal’s vision and goals are clearly
communicated to the stakeholders of a school and possible paths to success are
established.

49
Principal as a Visionary Leader
Creating a realistic yet demanding vision is usually one of the main tasks
assigned to the superintendent of a district, but Memon (2000) stressed the import-
ance of a principal taking on this role and adapting the superintendent’s vision to fit
his or her specific site. Having a site-level vision allows all stakeholders a clear
picture of where the organization is headed. A site-level vision also allows teachers
and the principal as a collective unit to set goals and align staff development with
the approach that the school is taking toward improvement. Having this set of goals
as a school allows for scaffolding of smaller, more attainable goals that can be used
as benchmarks during a school year. With benchmarks in place, realistic, demand-
ing, and attainable goals established by the stakeholders of the school and princi-
pals who are able to keep organizations on track and focused on attaining each
established goal, improvement in underachieving schools is much more likely.
Principal as an Agent of Change: “Action Theory”
Wagner (2001) discussed the creation of change caused by the influence of
principals and other educational leaders. This trend in leadership literature outlines
the ways in which successful principals create meaningful change in their schools
and thereby improves the chances for all students to learn. Wagner classified this
change process as “action theory” because the foundation for the change is
grounded in theory but the actual change occurs due to the actions of the leader and
stakeholders of the school. Action theory defines the ways that successful leaders
establish the foundation and climate inside of their organizations for change. This
positive, motivating, and forward-moving climate must be developed, and buy-in
from stakeholders must take place before any action occurs toward achieving the
organization’s goals. At the point at which a climate ripe for change is created,

50
action plans are drawn up and initial tasks are delegated to move the organization
toward achieving its first goals.
According to Wagner (2001), any theory involving change in an
organization must take a series of questions into account: (a) What is the desired
change the organization is trying to make? (b) What is the desired outcome of this
change? and (c) What will motivate the stakeholders involved with the organization
to perform the set of new, potentially difficult, and frustrating tasks that are set
before them to accomplish positive change? These questions, obvious to most
practicing principals, are very important to consider in communicating a plan for
change with stakeholders of a school. The third question, regarding the motivation
of stakeholders, stands out as a vital element of the change process. This element is
especially crucial in an environment such as education, where stakeholders see
change as a cyclical process and often have difficulty buying in. The difficulty in
buy-in is often seen in veteran teachers who develop an “I’ve seen this come and go
several times before” attitude about many force-fed programs and improvement
initiatives. Having many changes mandated by entities outside of a school site or
principal’s control has also tarnished many teachers’ attitudes on change; by simple
human nature, many have developed an automatic reaction that makes them
predisposed to resist change of any kind.
On the opposite end of this spectrum, however, are leaders and stakeholders
of schools who typically invite change that even in failure can usually benefit their
schools in some way and help the organization to move forward. Those who share
this positive outlook on change and greet almost any change with open arms
typically view teachers who show resistance as stubborn, indifferent, or simply
lazy. Principals creating an organization likely to see change should anticipate the

51
reluctance of some, suspend the disbelief of those likely to show resistance when
possible, get a strong and influential group of supporters behind the initiation of
change, and move forward with change if it is in the best interest of the school and
students. According to Wagner (2001), “Most teachers are neither stubborn nor
indifferent, but they do resist change for reasons that leaders must understand.
Three of the most common factors contributing to teachers’ resistance are risk
aversion, “craft” expertise, and autonomy and isolation” (p. 378).
Career teachers typically spend the majority of their working lives in their
own microcosms of the larger school, dealing specifically with students. As a
result, they often are unable to “play well with others” when it comes to working
with adults (Wagner, 2001). The way that schools are commonly structured
throughout the United States is typically referred to as an “egg crate” style, which
adds to autonomy for teachers and drives them farther from a common goal of
public schools: collaboration. Typically having only passing periods, the brief time
before and after school, and lunch break to interact with other adults, many
educators never develop teamwork skills or the ability to work in a collaborative
environment with other adults.
It was the impression of Wagner (2001) that no successful educational
leader can allow entirely autonomous teachers to work at the site, as these teachers
tend to be a drain on the entire school, tend to slow change, and often add to the
number of students falling behind in the classroom. Another reason that was
offered that may explain why some teachers desire to remain autonomous in the
current high-stakes educational environment is that many school leaders tend to
blame teachers when for a failure in the school. By remaining “separate” from the
group who buys in to a collective model that may experience failure, the teacher

52
can avoid being associated with a failed situation. On a similar note, when schools
experience collective success, teachers not included in the grand scheme or collect-
ive efforts often feel victimized and isolated. Thus, it was implied by Wagner that a
leader’s role is to encourage the engagement of any teacher remaining autonomous
at a school site instead of simply getting rid of the problem person.
Principal as a Motivator
When principals are faced with teachers or other constituents who are acting
to resist the change process, they often employ archaic theories regarding human
motivation to move the process forward. For example, principals often resort to
using their power to instill fear in the teacher in order to reap some kind of change
in the behavior or actions (Wagner, 2001). Wagner expanded on this concept by
citing examples of how principals often instill this fear through forms of intimida-
tion or resort to threatening teachers by listing repercussions of state takeovers of
underperforming schools. Wagner described the appeal to teachers’ greed that
principals often make by offering bribes such as special purchases for their class-
rooms, preferential treatment, or even salary bonuses for improved test scores.
Unfortunately, most principals do not understand that these bribes and threats
rarely result in positive action, especially over the long term.
With the previously mentioned avenue for gains in school achievement
violating ethical standards of some principals and often resulting in a dead end,
principals have had to look to other methods of raising student scores. The unfor-
tunate part of not having a simple fix for motivating teachers and students is that
new principals (often the ones assigned to underachieving schools) are less likely to
possess the experience, professional network, and training necessary to use other

53
options. This may result in the organization becoming stagnant, or in some cases
even moving backward. Thus, it is crucial for new principals in turnaround schools
to receive support from the district office and other principals throughout the
district and to take part in training programs designed to help principals to deal
with these difficult situations.
Connections Between Leadership Research
and Principal Leadership
As outlined above, five themes within the topic of principal leadership seem
to emerge from the literature, especially within the works of Wagner. Wagner’s
work is highlighted and discussed not only due to his insights on the principalship
but also because his work has many similarities to an anchor author for this
dissertation and its research study, Robert Marzano.
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (1999) proposed a theory of 21 leadership
“responsibilities” that show a significant relationship (when put into practice by
school leaders) with student achievement in today’s schools. Table 1 was created
by the current research cohort based on the work by Marzano et al.
Each of these 21 responsibilities shows some demonstrated relationship
with student achievement but the following responsibilities show the strongest
correlation: (a) Situational awareness: Leaders know and understand the specific
situation the school is in and how to effectively use this information to produce
positive change; (b) Flexibility: Leaders can adapt to specific situations their
organization may encounter and deal with dissent well; (c) Discipline: Leaders can
effectively deal with situations that arise among teachers, parents, or students
involved with the school without distracting from the learning process; leaders also
protect their teachers from unnecessary external distractions that could negatively

54
Table 1

The 21 Responsibilities of the School Leader

Characteristic/ Literature
behavior School principal should source

Culture Foster shared beliefs and a sense of
community and cooperation

Order Establish a set of standard operating
procedures and routines
Lashway (2002)
Discipline Protect teachers from issues and influences
that would detract from their teaching time
or focus
Elmore (2000)
Resources Provide teachers with the material and
professional development necessary for the
successful execution of their jobs
Fullan (2001)
Elmore (2000)
Involvement in
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment
Be directly involved in the design and
implementation of the curriculum,
instruction, and assessment

Focus Establish clear goals and keep those goals in
the forefront of the school’s attention
Fullan (1993)
Leithwood (2005)
Knowledge of
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
Fullan (1993)
Elmore (2000)
Visibility Have quality contact and interactions with
teachers and students
Blasé & Blasé
(1999)
Contingent rewards Recognize and reward individual
accomplishments

Communication Establish strong lines of communication
with teachers and among students
Elmore (2000)
Fullan (2001)
Outreach Be an advocate and spokesperson for the
school to all stakeholders
Cotton (2003)
Input Involve teachers in the design and
implementation of important decisions and
policies
Leithwood (2005)
Bonstingl (2001a,
2001b)
Affirmation Recognize and celebrate school
accomplishments and acknowledge failures
Collins (2001)
Lashway (2002)
Relationships Demonstrate an awareness of the personal
aspects of teachers and staff
Elmore (2000)
Fullan (2001)
Change agent Be willing to and actively challenge the
status quo
Fullan (2001)
Optimizer Inspire and lead new and challenging
innovations

Ideals and beliefs Communicate and operate from strong
ideals and beliefs about schooling
Bennis (2003)

55
Table 1 (continued)

Characteristic/ Literature
behavior School principal should source

Monitors and
evaluates
Monitor the effectiveness of school
practices and their impact on student
learning
Elmore (2000)
Flexibility Adapt your leadership style to the needs of
the current situation and be comfortable
with dissent
Bennis (2003)
Collins (2001)
Fullan (2001)
Lashway (2002)
Situational awareness Be aware of the details and undercurrents in
the running of the school and use the
information to address current and political
problems
Lashway (2002)
Intellectual stimulation Ensure that faculty and staff are aware of
the most current theories and practices and
makes the discussion of these a regular
aspect of the school’s culture
Lashway (2002)
Fullan (2001)

affect forward progress for the organization; (d) Outreach: Leaders effectively
advocate for, promote, and represent the school publicly as its spokesperson; and
(e) Monitoring/Evaluation: Leaders effectively create and institute a system where
feedback on the effectiveness of teachers as well as programs involved with the
organization is constantly being gathered and communicated for the sake of growth
and improvement.
Wagner’s (2001) five themes of Organizational Leadership, Instructional
Leadership, Visionary Leadership, Action Leadership, and Motivational Leadership
are seen throughout his work but also appear in a very similar fashion as part of
Marzano’s 21 responsibilities of school leaders. Wagner’s five themes and
Marzano’s 21 Responsibilities align as shown in Table 2.

56
Table 2

Comparison of Wagner’s Themes and Marzano’s Responsibilities

Wagner’s themes
a
Marzano’s responsibilities
b

Organizational Leadership Order, Culture, Communication, Outreach,
Input, Relationships, Optimizer, Ideals and
Beliefs, Monitors and Evaluates, Flexibility,
Situational Awareness, Intellectual Stimulation
Instructional Leadership Involvement in Curriculum, Instruction and
Assessment, Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction and Assessment, Communication,
Monitors and Evaluates, Situational Awareness,
Intellectual Stimulation
Visionary Leadership Focus, Order, Communication, Optimizer, Ideals
and Beliefs, Situational Awareness
Action Leadership Change Agent, Discipline, Resources, Visibility,
Communication, Monitors and Evaluates,
Flexibility, Situational Awareness
Motivational Leadership Contingent Rewards, Affirmation,
Communication, Outreach, Input, Relationships,
Ideals and Beliefs, Monitors and Evaluates,
Situational Awareness, Intellectual Stimulation

a
“Leadership for Learning: An Action Theory of School Change,” by T. Wagner,
2001, Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 378-383.
b
School Leadership That Works: From
Research to Results, by R. Marzano, T. Waters, & B. McNulty, 1999, Fairfax, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2 and the related discussion, several bodies of
research tie together within the findings of the aforementioned authors. The
parallels between almost every study mentioned thus far and their findings especi-
ally show within Marzano’s work (as each other researcher seems to be able to

57
apply his or her concepts somewhere within his). This is a significant reason that
the research cohort focused much of its research on his frameworks.
Simply knowing the history and background of leadership philosophies,
research, and strategy when serving as a principal may not be enough. Adding to
these findings the changing climate of today’s educational environments, the
scenarios that leaders face become far more complex and pose a challenge for even
the most gifted and well-read principals.
The Rise of Accountability: Principal
Training and Support
Shortly after the initiation of NCLB legislation and as the accountability
movement grew, principals, superintendents, teachers, universities, and community
members began to take a more critical look at the standards for administrators and
the preparation programs that were available for new principals. After a brief
examination period, administrative preparation programs across the country were
labeled as being “seriously deficient” in preparing principals for the demands of the
job (Hoyle, English, & Steffy, 1998, p. 24). Shortly after these findings were
released, the country responded with the addition of new standards for the princi-
palship, the creation of academies in several states for the training of new adminis-
trators, a focus on improving training and initial licensure programs at colleges, and
the development of plans for educating principals already in leadership positions.
Although this initial effort was subject to relatively poor organization and no
specific or immediate demands were placed on states to produce such programs, the
federal government, many states, universities, and private companies have given
their best efforts at providing either innovative products to aid new principals or the
necessary training for today’s principals. These programs include AB 75 (State of

58
California), the Santa Cruz New Teacher Center (NTC), the National Institute for
School Leadership (NISL), Extra Support for Principals (ESP) programs, and
UCLA’s Principal Leadership Institute (PLI). These programs are described in this
section.
AB 75
AB 75 is a program designed to aid new principals in adaptation to the
constantly changing environment of California’s public schools (Hansen, 2004). In
creating AB 75, state and educational leaders intended to design a program that
could help all principals and assistant principals by providing in-depth training on
leadership, instruction, and assessment practices. These leaders also hoped to
provide new administrators with the tools to manage accountability measures at
their schools, and strategies to build a strong standards-based, data-driven school
with a strong focus on increasing student achievement. AB 75 was designed to
allow principals and vice principals to share a professional dialogue with others
facing similar situations, to provide instruction and guidance when necessary, and
to help a new administrator build a network of reliable resources in which to share
ideas for school improvement.
AB 75 has a solid focus on the dissemination of assessment data and the
process by which these data can be used effectively to improve student achieve-
ment. Test data provide district office officials a snapshot of schools, teacher
effectiveness, and individual accomplishments of students. They also allow at all
levels to examine the achievement of significant subgroups inside their school’s
population and to see how these groups are performing on standardized tests.

59
AB 75 centers on building a positive environment for teachers, adminis-
trators, and students; promotes an environment with high learner expectations;
respects the diversity of people in today’s schools; and teaches administrators how
to develop meaningful and positive relationships among all the stakeholders
involved with schools. Building these meaningful relationships is the cornerstone
of the program. The program offers avenues for administrators to develop channels
of communication and collaboration with all constituents of their schools. Accord-
ing to Hansen (2004), once the foundation of this program and high expectations
are laid at a school site, newly developed communication and positive collaboration
among staff members and the opportunity for student achievement should follow
closely. As explained by Hansen, building the collaborative culture within the
guidelines of AB 75 should provide a path to schoolwide success.
Extra Support for Principals (ESP) Program
The ESP program began in 1994 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when a
contingent of principals recognized a need to support new principals in their
district. The result of the meetings of the principals was a county-wide program in
which a coordinator looked at the background of each incoming principal, asked
the new principal to supply lists of experienced principals with whom they would
like to work as a mentor, and then matched the principal and mentor. At least one
study on the effectiveness of this program has found that principals benefited
significantly from the program (Weingartner, 2001).
Santa Cruz New Teacher Center
The Santa Cruz NTC is a nation-wide resource for teachers and adminis-
trators at every stage in their careers. This resource was developed based on many

60
studies conducted during the early 1990s that documented teachers and adminis-
trators either not being successful during their first year of employment or leaving
the profession immediately after their first year for one reason or another. The hope
behind this program was that, if induction plans and programs were put into place
as a support system for these individuals, a greater percentage would be retained
(Moir & Skidmore, 2006).
National Institute for School Leadership
A program very similar to the NTC program is the NISL, which is funded
mainly by the Carnegie Corporation and aims at producing principals who are
outstanding instructional leaders in high-performing schools. This program does
not focus on mentor relationships as do many of the others; instead, it focuses on
workshops, study groups, seminars, and instruction for these leaders on improving
the instructional practices of their teachers.
UCLA Principal Leadership Institute
The University of California, Los Angeles, PLI is the program that most
future and current southern California school leaders (who seek induction or
training assistance) take advantage of, mainly due to location. This program differs
from the others in that it can also be the principal’s primary source of classroom
training (the principal can be credentialed and receive a Master’s degree through
the program as well as take intensive coursework).
The institute operates summer courses and symposiums for practicing
principals needing to improve skills to improve their schools. The program was
designed to serve underperforming schools and the administrators who work in
them and to prepare principals for the complex and evolving issues facing them

61
on a daily basis. It aims at four major topics: (a) curricular improvement, (b)
instruction and assessment, (c) management and governance, and (d) political,
legal, and cultural context of schooling in America
Leadership in Low-Performing Schools:
The literature base suggests strongly that specific leadership practices are
unique to low-performing and underachieving schools (Hancock, & Betts, 2002).
According to Hancock and Betts, the most basic of these needs are the assurance of
a clear and useable written curriculum at the school that clearly defines the content
that learners need to have mastered before completing each course, a plan for
assessment, and a schoolwide understanding and philosophy regarding acceptable
instructional strategies. The authors suggested that underperforming schools need
what the literature base suggests that all schools need: a vision, standards for
acceptable student and teacher performance, and a leader who will hold both
students and teachers accountable for achieving the proposed vision.
While this practice sounds obvious to most administrators in practice today,
a study conducted in 1996 reported that 80% of schools had no documented base-
line, textbook-driven, or written curriculum and no specific guidelines for teachers
new to their schools. Since NCLB and the nationwide increase in school accounta-
bility, a person would be hard pressed to find a school that does not have a plan for
what students are doing in the classroom. Possessing a written curriculum is especi-
ally important in low-performing schools, as this is the road map that educators use
to build student learning and schoolwide improvement efforts (Hancock & Betts,
2002).

62
Underperforming and low-performing schools carry with them their own set
of needs beyond that of curriculum. Complicating the plight of these are issues of
ethnic disparities, language barriers, inexperienced or underqualified teaching
staffs, poor leaders, higher rates of violence, reduced parental involvement, and the
low socioeconomic status of the students. Therefore, what may work well in
traditional settings or in schools displaying average performance may not work at
all at such sites.
Daniel Duke (2004a), a major researcher in the field of turnaround leader-
ship, identified reasons for schools becoming underperformers:
1. Lack of resources. Schools may suffer from lack of financial backing,
low socioeconomic status of students, inadequate facilities, poor classroom
materials, lack of technology, or uncredentialed teachers.
2. Poor leadership. Schools may suffer due to improper direction or poorly
prepared administrators. District-level administrators may also have something to
do with a school’s failure if they do not support the school’s endeavors or inade-
quately appropriate resources for the schools in a district.
3. Ineffective instruction. Schools may suffer due to teachers not teaching to
standards, not growing as educators along with their students, or not having been
taught adequately how to teach via a teacher preparation program (uncredentialed
teachers). This problem can tie easily to both having poor leadership at a school site
or district and to the lack of resources to attract quality educators to underperform-
ing or difficult schools.
4. Unfair tests. Schools may suffer due to lack of preparation for standard-
ized tests or fall victim to what some feel are racially biased tests. This problem can
be linked to ineffective instruction, as preparation for standardized tests should be

63
clearly established and curriculum should be mapped by the standards. Poor
leadership is also to blame for this problem because a leader should have the fore-
sight to see that students will not be prepared to be tested on material that they were
not taught.
5. Dysfunctional families. Schools may suffer due to having students come
from homes with far too many distractions for the student to be successful, homes
where priority for parents cannot be placed on helping a student with school work,
or students who have no home at all and therefore place survival before homework.
This topic has strong ties to the categories of unfair testing and lack of resources.
6. Low expectations. Schools may suffer due to principals and teachers not
holding students to an adequate level of performance or not believing that their
students can achieve due to some circumstance that has swayed their opinion. This
category is strongly tied to poor leadership in the sense that a leader is charged with
the learning of all students and failing any of them is a failure of the entire system.
Principals should hold every stakeholder of a school accountable for the learning of
all students, provide the resources for the students to achieve, and convince all
students and teachers that it is worthwhile and possible to improve.
Other issues often tied to underperforming schools are the unsuccessful
leadership styles and philosophies of the school’s principal and the general
ineffectiveness of the school’s principal (Jones, 2003). The philosophy that
currently dominates most schools and districts throughout California is to have
leaders who think of themselves as instructional leaders. This leadership style
focuses first and foremost on student learning and is dependent on strong hierarchi-
cal leadership structures and top-down leadership. In these situations the teachers
teach the information that is handed down to them from the principal or

64
superintendent. These “instructional leaders” are expected to know the information
that students need to learn, the best way of presenting the information to the
students, and what the students are expected to know on completion of the course.
Principals and superintendents in this “instructional leader” scenario are
also in charge of making sure that teachers are held accountable for delivering the
information passed down to them in the appropriate way. Therefore, the principal
closely and constantly monitors the teachers’ and students’ work. The principal
also constantly adjusts teaching methods and what information teachers are teach-
ing as necessary. The problem here, according to Mary Poplin (1992), is that “great
administrators are not always great classroom leaders and vice versa” (p. 10).
Another potential problem with this strategy is that it is centered on increasing
student performance, often at the expense of teacher growth and development.
According to a significant portion of the literature regarding the subject, student
learning should be the goal and mission for today’s public schools, but this philoso-
phy often goes awry when the total focus is placed on student growth. This limited
scope may cause short-term improvement school wide, but over the course of many
years it has been shown to limit the success of the organization, due mainly to the
limited growth shown by teachers (Poplin).
The Importance of Induction and Transition
A major focus of this dissertation and the current study is on the transition
period of a middle school principal’s tenure, specifically the first 90 days that a
principal spends in control of a turnaround school. Michael Watkins (2003a), an
expert in transitional leadership, business and management guru, and author of The
First 90 Days: Mastering Successful Management Transitions, suggested specific

65
benchmarks that leaders (principals) should use to establish where their organiza-
tions (schools) should be at the end of 90 days. According to Watkins, in 90 days a
successful leader will have (a) performed a thorough inspection of the business (or
school); (b) discussed problem areas of the organization and reached alignment
with all major stakeholders in the organization; (c) clearly explained the vision that
he or she holds for the organization; (d) clarified all expectations and goals for each
stakeholder group; (e) diagnosed the communication styles of all stakeholders in
with the organization and established ways to communicate properly; (f) assessed
the team and identified the “keepers”; (g) established where and how to achieve
early wins within the organization; (h) begun to build rapport with certain import-
ant stakeholders; and (i) begun to build relationships between and allegiances with
the stakeholder groups to make the organization function more successfully.
These essential actions that, according to Watkins (2003b), must be taken
within the first 90 days can be said to parallel what a principal should do to estab-
lish success at a turnaround school. Watkins provided a framework (the STARS
model, discussed later in this chapter) to help the leader (principal) to expedite the
process of diagnosing what the organization would need to right itself and establish
an effective plan for improvement. Watkins discussed the “breakeven point” in a
leader’s transition and established how important it is for a leader to quickly
achieve this status within an organization.
Another form of leadership often used in business situations where turn-
arounds are needed or where an organization has been underachieving is called
transactional leadership. This style of leadership, which can be practiced by
several levels of leadership within a corporation or by whoever is in control of the
organization toward everyone ranking lower in the hierarchy, is referred to as

66
bartering. The term transactional leadership implies a focus on the exchange of
services and ideas between stakeholders and the organization’s leadership. This
style is important for the current study due to its effectiveness within turnaround
situations (Liontos, 1992). Despite its positive role in some cases, this style is often
attacked by critics due to its potential for association with unethical behavior and
bribery, discussed by Wagner (2001). Transactional styles, when used effectively
and ethically, bear a strong resemblance to transformational styles of leadership,
the very types of leadership that have been proven to be successful in improving
the performance of some businesses and schools (Liontos).
Liontos (1992) described several transformational strategies that have been
shown to be successful when applied by principals to underachieving or turnaround
school settings:
1. Principals should visit each classroom every day, assisting or modeling
when needed to improve a teacher’s practice; teachers should be encouraged to visit
each other’s classrooms over prep periods or on provided development time.
2. Principals should invite all stakeholders in a school (teachers, students,
parents, and community members) to be a part of schoolwide goal setting, the
establishment of the school’s vision and mission statement, and in developing a
culture of collaboration at the beginning of the first year.
3. Principals should help teachers to work smarter, not harder, as
Leithwood suggested. They can have smarter-working teachers by directing all
individual problems that arise toward the best interest of the whole school.
4. Principals should share power when possible and empower other
stakeholders in the school by utilizing various teams or a site-based management
perspective.

67
5. Principals should encourage and promote the participation of every
stakeholder in the school’s improvement process. Responsibilities should be
assigned to every teacher, and the staff should be included in this assignment.
6. Principals should list as many positive additions to the school or
important contributions as possible and provide public credit for these efforts when
possible. This may also be done in a more personal manner through the use of
personal notes, letters, or memos from the principal to a teacher.
7. Principals should frequently ask the staff’s opinion on topics concerning
the school and constantly assess the attitudes, desires, and immediate needs of the
staff.
8. Principals should allow a cushion of time, funding, and resources for
teachers to attempt new fixes to problems.
9. Principals should challenge teachers with intriguing and challenging
questions or scenarios and provide venues for teachers to brainstorm or share their
responses.
10. Principals should provide workshops by outside consultants or design
workshops with the help of staff or district-level officials that are fitting to the
school’s vision.
11. Principals should hire team players and collaborators as additions to
their school. Principals should let new teachers know that they are expected to
provide their immediate input and participation on committees or projects and
allow and encourage the transfer of any teacher not contributing to the collective or
collaborating to a school that may be more fitting of the teachers’ approach to
education.

68
12. Principals should have high expectations for all stakeholders of a
school. They should model dedication and hold themselves to a high level of
performance. They should show that they are able to contribute effort beyond the
desk when necessary.
13. Principals should use processes unique to education to support teachers,
such as writing grants, earmarking funding for teacher ventures, and allotment of
time for teacher planning and collaboration during the workday instead of after or
before school.
14. Principals should protect their teachers from criticism from both inside
and external entities. No great change is ever without flaw, and no great achieve-
ment was ever accomplished without some element of failure.
15. Principals should send the message that teachers are responsible for all
students and all stakeholders in the school, not just their classes
When looking to increase the performance of an underachieving school
while maintaining a collaborative approach to directing a school, transformational
leadership appears to have some important and useful suggestions. According to
Leithwood, “While most schools rely on both top-down and facilitative forms of
power, finding the right balance is the problem. For schools that are restructuring,
moving closer to the facilitative end of the power continuum will usually solve the
problem” (as cited in Liontos, 1992, p. 3).
Levels of Achievement in Schools
It is important to consider the genre of leadership strategy designed for
improving underperforming schools: turnaround leadership. Turnaround leadership
is considered to be a relatively new genre in comparison to the two just described.

69
The literature on turnaround leadership’s base is almost nonexistent. Turnaround
leadership in the realm of schools would be nonexistent if not for Daniel Duke,
who in 2004 published a series of articles in Principal Magazine titled “The
Turnaround Principal: High Stakes Leadership.”
In this series of articles Duke highlighted the strategies that turnaround
principals must employ to get the most out of their schools. He hinted at the
amount of talent that a principal must possess to improve a turnaround school as
opposed to schools in other situations. (See appendix Watkins’s STARS model,
which outlines the four levels of achievement that schools may experience.)
Utilizing the talents of these turnaround principals is just one of the strategies to
raise achievement; also included is solicitation of outside consultants, an act
commonly used by principals of all schools.
The highly political act of holding a principal or school staff accountable
for underachievement can cause stakeholders to become uncomfortable and
ultraconservative in their decision making. When a decision to initiate a certain
program or change is made, it is common to have infighting among the stakeholder
groups, all supporting the use of different strategies to improve achievement.
Principals of these schools hoping for improvement should see this infighting as a
positive sign, where stakeholders at least desire to improve.
Staffs at many underachieving and low-performing schools conclude that
they have made every effort to improve achievement. For this reason, stakeholders
may look to blame others for continuing failure and may resist further change or
new improvement efforts (Duke, 2004b).
Some staff members may blame parents and students for their plight. Others
target administrators and elected officials. It is unlikely that a school can be
turned around unless staff members are helped to confront their feelings in

70
an honest and open manner. Turnaround principals may have to add a
healthy dose of counseling skills to their repertoire in order to build an
effective staff. (p.14)
Duke emphasized a turnaround principal’s ability to read a school and to
quickly and accurately diagnose the problems that are holding the school back from
reaching its potential. Duke stated that one of the best actions by turnaround princi-
pals is to almost immediately present a list of positive factors about the school and
how those factors became successful at the school. A principal would do this to
create an element of positivism and to provide an opportunity to suspend teachers’
disbelief long enough to get them to implement the initial changes for schoolwide
improvement.
Strategies for Principals in Turnaround Situations
Turnaround principals must see that their job is more than raising scores
and includes changing an environment. This means that focus of improvement
should be twofold: academic improvement and building the social environment of
the school so that students feel comfortable, confident, and valued enough to
succeed. Aligning with the principles that Duke has established means that princi-
pals would have to build a learning environment before worrying about anything
else, where the interpersonal relationships between teachers and students and
among students are just as valued as the grades on report cards or tests.
Another believer in this philosophy of building the learning environment
first is Michael Fullan. Fullan (2002) discussed the concept of moral code [which
closely parallels the moral purpose discussed by Duke (2004b) and Liontos
(1992)]. Fullan (along with Duke and Liontos) contended that leaders in every area
should have a moral purpose/code and that this moral purpose/code is a sort of
social responsibility to others and their environment. According to Fullan, a

71
principal with a moral code would become dedicated not only to the improvement
of the school and students but to the development of schools as an entity, desiring
to improve the environments of each other’s schools as well. “The only goal worth
talking about is transforming the current school system so that large-scale, sustain-
able, continuous reform becomes built in” (Fullan, 2003, p. 29).
Abraham Maslow, a world renowned psychologist best known for his
development of the hierarchy of needs, stated the opinion that people should be
valued and cared for before they will be willing to take the risks for improvement
in performance. Turnaround principals in today’s schools must build trust, relation-
ships, and foundational environment before encouraging students to take risks and
improve academically. Commonly, principals feel pressured to force feed students
and teachers with academics or short-term fixes, which gives students the
impression that they are valued if only they achieve success first and will not
change the culture of the school or lead to long-term improvement for the site.
The way in which teachers and their principals view themselves, their
students, and the school explains a great deal about the leadership taking place
inside these schools and the attitudes that are the driving force behind the school’s
failure or accomplishment. Principals who can make a difference in turnaround
situations often have to evaluate themselves on their attitudes, beliefs about the
school and its potential, and beliefs about effectiveness of the programs and
teachers working to improve the school. Principals must encourage their staff to
evaluate themselves constantly in terms of their beliefs and to redirect themselves
when necessary to keep the school progressing.
After examining their own beliefs, teachers and principals should establish
exactly what skills they possess that make them effective at working with and

72
getting results from underperforming students. Principals who are successful in
turnaround situations make a habit of monitoring student progress and establishing
lists of struggling students in need of intervention. They establish student study
teams, meet with the teachers of these students, and take on each case as a personal
mission for improvement. Through this highly individualized process, principals
and teachers can together diagnose their students’ problems and map out a plan to
help each one succeed. When a teacher is not prepared to help a child to succeed in
class or does not possess the skills or experience necessary to benefit the struggling
student, the principal brings in help, connects the teacher with a mentor who is
adept in the area of the teacher’s deficiency, or offers to train the teacher so that the
students may all find success.
Small group settings have been used by turnaround principals to provide
opportunities for teachers to work with students who are struggling or to allow
students to learn from peers. This strategy has been put in place to increase the
amount of time that teachers can spend with students who have fallen behind.
Principals in turnaround schools can take this strategy and make sure that it can be
employed and even expanded if their master schedules allow teachers to coordinate
classes and divide ability levels on occasion, work together over conference periods
on intervention strategies, get support from special education resources or learning
centers on campus, bring in reading or mathematics coaches, and take advantage of
other regular education teachers who are willing to donate or work through their
preparation periods to help struggling students in other people’s classrooms.
Another way to identify a low-performing school is to look at suspension
rates and the number of days that students miss each year due to suspension, often
signs of disruptive behavior. If students are not able to be in school due to

73
discipline or are habitually off task or causing trouble, they and the rest of their
class suffer academically and are likely to score lower on standardized tests (Duke,
2004b). Duke identified other behavioral issues that often are linked to poor
academic performance in schools, such as noisy hallways and classrooms, students
who ignore rules, teachers who fail to enforce rules, and teachers who find it
difficult to hold the attention of students.
Turnaround principals cannot simply go into the school and focus entirely
on academic improvement; instead, the priority of establishing order and a proper
learning environment must be put in place. When students have figured out the
social skills necessary to stay in class and teachers have established how to teach
students properly while maintaining order, the problem of poor academic achieve-
ment may go away. Principals and teachers in schools like this must be careful to
approach discipline problems in an appropriate manner, as many have the tendency
to hand out stricter and harsher penalties to “whip schools into shape.” This may
add to the problem, cause more rebellion, and go against the philosophy of lessen-
ing suspension days to increase academic time. Instead, teachers and administrators
must work together to establish a behavior plan that does not pull students out of
the classroom for punishments unless it is absolutely necessary. According to Duke
(2004b), “Effective turnaround principals focus on consistently enforcing existing
rules and instructing students on how they are expected to behave” (p. 13).
While researchers have often fixated on how difficult turnaround environ-
ments can be to lead and tend to get caught up on the many problems associated
with these schools, several researchers are getting to the root of the change process
and have many more ideas for principals to attempt in turning around schools.
Principals have been found to be successful at these sites when they create smaller

74
learning communities, build collaboration among staff members and students, and
allow the other stakeholders at their sites to become part of decision making. These
ideas may work if they are applied in the right context, and may provide opportuni-
ties for success in both “turnaround” and in the other situations described by
Watkins (2003a).
The Evolving Role of Principal
From findings reported in recent literature, it can be derived that the role of
a middle school turnaround principal has not changed as much as it has com-
pounded (Deal & Petersen, 2003; Glass, 2001; Kranz, 2004; Marzano et al., 1999;
Maxwell, 2005). Essentially, the role of principal in today’s public schools is still
a manager of sorts, but the responsibility now includes the roles of instructional
leader, culture shaper, relationship mender, counselor, psychologist, public rela-
tions director, community liaison, and teacher trainer, all the while helping the
school to improve or completely turn around its pattern of failure.
Maxwell (2005) explained his answer to this growing role of leaders
through the concept of leading from the middle of an organization in The 360-
Degree Leader: Developing Your Influence From Anywhere in the Organization.
Maxwell explained that it may be beneficial to leaders in today’s complex
organizations to abandon the traditional top-down hierarchical leadership style in
favor of leading in all directions and from “within the flock.” According to
Maxwell, this leadership style allows a leader to have greater influence on
stakeholders at every level because of the added respect, communication, and
culture of equality that is yielded by the philosophy. Maxwell defined specific
principles and actions that 360-degree leaders and middle managers employ within

75
their organizations that focus on the value of the employee and engaging stake-
holders in the processes of reform and improvement.
Maxwell (2005) clearly established that one does not have to be in a
leadership position in the organization (school) to create positive change and to be
a leader. This concept, although not originally intended to be applied to schools,
seems to fit very well and may help principals to lead schools. The complex
business environments discussed by Maxwell parallel in many ways those of public
schools, with committees often making crucial decisions, bureaucracy-laced struc-
tures, and several levels of stakeholder groups wanting to have input on decision
making (as well as getting blamed for things that they may or may not have control
of or involvement with). A principal’s ability to take advantage of the knowledge
base around him or her, to empower others, to step back from the spotlight when
other stakeholders may be headed in the right direction with an initiative, and to
play a role as a team member instead of as a figurehead may all contribute to a
school’s success.
Roadblocks to Recruitment and Achievement
The nationwide accountability measures described at the beginning of this
dissertation (from NCLB to the basic procedures and policies established by
schools and districts that ensure that all students are offered equal opportunities to
succeed) are frameworks by which today’s schools are supposed to operate and are
held accountable. Although these frameworks exist, and researchers such as Duke,
Maxwell, Liontos, Fullan, and Maslow have provided a glimpse at what should be
valued for today’s school leaders, many of today’s schools are failing to create
adequate learning environments. Challenges for any leader, including financial

76
concerns, pressure from multiple sources, time conflicts, and public scrutiny, make
it difficult to find and recruit principals who are willing to take on the responsibility
of changing the cultures and turning around failing schools. Although Maxwell
(2005) provided a snapshot of one way of turning around failing organizations from
a business perspective, which can be applied to schools, it may also be important to
look deeper at what other business leaders have done to re-establish a successful
climate and get their organizations pointed in the right direction in the hope that
educational leaders may use these strategies to gain some ground in failing schools.
Turnarounds in Other Sectors
Although trait research has been strongly discounted as an way to predict
who will be successful as a leader and for use in training models for preparing
future leaders, Peters and Austin (1985) took the study of trait research in the area
of educational leadership to its apex by finding key characteristics and actions that
successful educational leaders displayed and comparing them to those of successful
business leaders. In order to accomplish this comparison, the researchers selected
three schools based on academic excellence and compared their leaders and the
strategies of their leaders to common business practices and opinions. Their find-
ings suggested that several things were crucial for success in both arenas: “estab-
lishing a clear vision and purpose,” maintaining “clear authority,” and taking a
“vivid ideological stance” (p. 393). Involved in the philosophies of all three princi-
pals was “a universal concern for civility,” a demand for “order,” and a focus on
“structure” (p. 393). These findings parallel the 21 responsibilities chart Marzano et
al. (1999) and serve as further credibility for a comparison between business and
educational leaders and practices in this chapter. Peters and Austin stated that good

77
principals are “showmen, visionaries, master users of symbols, and super sales-
men” (p. 393). Even though trait research may not be the most credible, the litera-
ture seems to support the findings by Peters and Austin in this instance.
John Kotter
Turnaround middle schools are not commonly found in the headlines in
local newspapers or discussed by average people at the water coolers, at least not
for positive reasons. However, countless businesses, organizations, and high-profile
corporations have been in the headlines and have been the topic of many conversa-
tions due to their impressive turnarounds. Often, negative slides in once-successful
organizations happen due to corruption, poor leadership, or outdated and over-
priced product, but many are able to climb back to greatness and surpass expecta-
tions due to new leadership. Could the actions, strategies, and philosophies of these
leaders from outside the realm of middle school hold the key to success in turn-
around schools? Kotter (1998) contended that this is a definite possibility.
John Kotter is a Harvard Business School professor and a well-established
expert on leadership and change processes. Over the 3 decades during which he has
studied leadership he has concluded that he discovered why organizations change
and what allows a new leader to be successful in creating change within a business
(or school). He designed two popular frameworks of effective leadership, one
outlining the effective characteristics of leaders and one that established the eight
action-oriented steps that successful leaders take when creating change within their
organizations. Kotter’s (1998) characteristics of effective leaders are as follows:
1. Effective leaders are deeply interested and are passionate about their area
of business.

78
2. Effective leaders are constantly seeking ways to grow and learn so that
they can further help their employees and organization grow.
3. Effective leaders take risks.
4. Effective leaders are driven by goals and/or ideals where the collective
achievement of the group is larger than what any single person could accomplish
on his own. Closing the distance between where they currently are and where their
goals lie is what motivates them to achieve.
Kotter’s (1998) eight-step conceptual framework for leaders as change
agents included the following: (a) establishing a sense of urgency within the
organization, (b) forming a powerful guiding coalition, (c) creating a vision, (d)
communicating the vision, (e) empowering others to act on the vision, (f) planning
for and creating short-term wins, (g) consolidating improvements and producing
still more change, and (h) institutionalizing new approaches.
It is assumed that successful principals in turnaround situations would adopt
these philosophies and strategies and use them in their daily regimen. Upon
surface-level examination of schools throughout southern California, it is clear that
many of the characteristics outlined in the first list can be seen in both successful
and unsuccessful situations. Thus, what separates a successful leader from one who
is struggling along with the school? According to Kotter, it is the possession of all
of the characteristics or at least a majority of the characteristics or strategies listed
above that separates the truly successful from the mediocre and unsuccessful. After
looking at these key turnaround characteristics from a school leadership perspective
and from Kotter’s angle, it is important to examine leadership strategies and
approaches from other arenas to see whether there is a crossover in concepts and
methodology in successful situations.

79
One example of a turnaround leader is William Bratton, a well-known
leader and change agent of the public sector, who took over the once-broken and
unorganized police force and transformed the crime-ridden city of New York into
the safest large city in the nation (Kowal & Hassel, 2005).
The consistent methods he uses for his repeated successful turnarounds
have been well documented, including these: clarifying the vision of
success in personal terms for managers (and continuing to communicate the
vision in multiple ways; concentrating existing money to attack limited,
rapidly solvable problems with big pay-offs rather than trying multiple
changes all at once or scaling back the vision; choosing the targeted prob-
lems by analyzing hard data about results; using informal relationships to
get a small number of key influencers on board for change, including one or
more respected “insiders”; revealing hard performance and progress data
about all key participants in meetings so no one can blame others and all
must solve problems together; setting clear, attainable goals and continuing
to clarify expectations for individual performance; identifying and silencing
naysayers with indisputable facts about previous low performance and
speedy improvement in the targeted areas. (Kim & Mauborgne, 2003, p. 61)
Taking what Bratton has done to school settings could signal potential in
turnaround situations, especially considering the number of researchers who have
referenced the crucial tasks that he stresses, such as the communication of a vision,
working collectively to solve problems, or channeling resources to create early and
substantial victories for the organization. Kowal and Hassel (2005) stated that the
simple act of calling something a turnaround effort can dramatically refocus a
school or organization, improve the order within a group, create stability, and
increase parent and community involvement. The problem with improving turn-
around school settings, however, is that it is increasingly difficult to select which
strategies to implement in which situations. Selecting the correct formula,
approach, or combination of approaches can be the difference between immediate
improvement, slow growth, or complete failure.

80
Jim Collins
Jim Collins (2001) has established a substantial reputation in turnaround
research. Part of the reason he is so highly thought of stems from research that he
conducted before writing his book Good to Great. The 5-year study prior to writing
this book dissected the strategies that 28 leaders used to guide their average
companies to success. Although not all of the companies and leaders accomplished
this feat, Collins concluded that great leaders take advantage of specific qualities
that average leaders may not possess and may not be able to learn. These people,
the great leaders, are referred to by Collins as level 5 leaders, who consistently
(a) demonstrate a mix of humility and professional desire to achieve and place
company achievement ahead of their own personal success; (b) set up those who
take over for them for immediate success; (c) display modesty and self-efficacy and
give credit to others for success; (d) maintain a drive for improvement and sus-
tained success within the organization; and (e) are diligent and provide an example
of hard work for employees;
Collins (2001) highlighted philosophies that many successful leaders held
and then made analogies for them that allow the average person to visualize what a
leader would be doing in each situation. In one such example Collins explained that
successful leaders tend to organize their improvement methods using a first who
and then what approach. He used the analogy of a bus driver (being the leader in
the example) and that bus driver needing first to get the right people on the bus
before deciding which route to take toward success. This analogy would be very
fitting of a principal needing to get the right teachers with the right skill sets, proper
approaches, and right attitudes at the school (and those who do not have what they
need out of the school) before implementing the often difficult programs and time-

81
consuming tasks to turn around a school. The opposite approach that many leaders
often fall into that may work for some but does not work in many situations is
referred to as the “genius with a thousand helpers” approach (p. 47), which seems
to be self-explanatory.
Collins discussed a three-tiered framework including his principles of
successful leadership: disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined
action. Disciplined people are the level 5 leaders described above. Disciplined
thought refers to how a company must do a process of self-analysis and confront
their current situation head-on and with realism. In order to take an organization
from good to great, leaders and the collective of stakeholders involved with an
organization should establish what they are doing wrong, and more important, what
they are doing right. This is where disciplined action comes into play. Once a
leader and stakeholders know what they do well, they should stay with it and let the
consistency of the organization lead it to success. Collins called this his hedgehog
concept because hedgehogs are simple creatures that do nothing fancy but stick to
simple things that they know and do them well (p. 119).
Once an organization builds momentum using the hedgehog concept and
the three-tiered framework, stakeholders can experience success and work within
the established systems of the organization to continue building the success. Just as
these relatively common-sense frameworks and philosophies have been shown to
be effective in business, they should cross directly over to educational settings and
work effectively, since the two worlds share many issues and scenarios.
Much of the literature supports that a school’s leader makes a significant
difference in student achievement in just about every school setting. For this
reason, establishing what characteristics, strategies, philosophies, and approaches

82
make high-performing school leaders stand out from their less successful peers is a
crucial piece of this study.
After looking to the business sector for examples of true turnaround leaders,
a pattern is established with regard to leaders being matched with situations in
which they are considered expert. It is in these situations where the most success is
found. Superintendents in charge of schools needing improvement need not only to
understand what makes certain principals strong leaders but must also realize that a
strong principal in a high-performing school may not have the skill sets to achieve
in an underperforming situation and vice versa.
A closer examination of the literature regarding changes in leadership and
their association with student learning improvement shows that switching princi-
pals in a turnaround school explains almost a quarter of any gain that is made
(Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). With such percentages of impact, it is even
more important that a superintendent closely match the skills of his principals to the
situations that they inherit. Researchers and CEOs have long looked at quantitative
statistics such as these in the business world to identify which behaviors achieve
greater financial results and which employees create larger windfalls for the
company in which positions (Collins, 2001). Comparing turnaround leaders and
their strategies in the business world to other turnaround business leaders sheds
some light on the differences between approaches and leadership philosophies.
The skills and demeanor necessary for turning around a dysfunctional
environment are characteristics that very few individuals possess; it is this critical
combination that makes a leader successful in a transition role or in a transforma-
tional role (Fairchild, 2005; Williams, 2005). With the impact that a principal or
business leader has been found to have in a business or school, it is increasingly

83
important that the right appointments be made in turnaround environments.
Researching what leadership styles are necessary and what the weaknesses the
turnaround situation possesses before hiring a leader, then matching those needs to
the strengths of a leader should result in increased productivity (Fairchild).
Two relatively recent reports display the status of current research on school
leadership. Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) dissected
reviewed research on school leadership and compared it to information on
distributed leadership (Elmore, 2000) and change theory (Fullan, 2001). The report
that resulted from this analysis included a hypothetical model for school leadership
containing pointers that principals should include when attempting an improvement
effort. Included in these pointers (which are aimed at four crucial elements of
leadership in organizations: people, strategy, growth, and communication) are tips
on how to give directives, how to develop employees, and how to redesign the
school for greater results. The report gave a significant amount of information but
concluded, “There is much yet to be learned about who provides educational
leadership” (Leithwood et al., p. 17).
Leithwood et al. used two significant reports in the world of educational
leadership along with a solid foundation of research containing both change theory
and distributed leadership to develop a model. Waters et al. (2003) used over 30
years of research (anchoring on Marzano’s work) to build on these findings and to
conduct a meta-analysis. Waters’s research team established 11 (from the original
21) common leader “responsibilities,” characteristics, and actions that principals
used most often in effective schools. The team created a hypothetical model based
on these findings to support the position that leadership has a positive impact on
student achievement. This model looked at the practices that effective schools

84
utilized instead of the “responsibilities” used in the earlier model. “While both of
these models have proved helpful, neither one was able to point to the exact
differences between high-performing leaders and the rest, nor the characteristics
districts should seek in candidates for school leadership positions (p. 20).
Studies in the arena of business have compared the successful practices of
CEOs and other leaders with those of average ability. These studies commonly find
that leaders (even those with average leadership ability) who display certain
behavioral patterns consistently perform better in certain leadership roles (Collins,
2001). Research has also posited that unique actions are important for continuous
improvement throughout an organization (Waters et al., 2003). Is there a formula
for a person who meets all of these demands of an ever-changing educational world
and the demands of a turnaround situation?
After looking at the majority of the research and studies in the area of
educational leadership, there is little evidence that suggests that there are “super
leaders.” In fact, it appears that research on why leaders are successful in certain
situations is more enlightening in looking at the proper pairing of a person’s skill
sets with particular situations in which that person would be likely to succeed rather
than finding the person who can succeed under all circumstances. But there are
some circumstances in which an extremely versatile leader is necessary, and there
are some other circumstances in which the solution for many problems may not be
found in an ultra-powerful leader, but simply in a new leader (Joyce, 2004).
Is a New Leader Really Necessary?
Lessons from Big Business
According to Hoffman (1989), 70% of successful turnarounds in the
business sector involve changing or replacing top management executives. This

85
statement is backed by Kotter (1990), who explained that many turnaround efforts
in business are dismantled when leadership is not replaced because of the natural
reaction of some leaders to stay with traditions that worked in the past instead of
trying something new and potentially revitalizing the company. Venturing into the
unknown is a difficult task for some management-level leaders because new and
unknown is not usually what takes a person to the top of a large corporation.
Another reason that change efforts often fail without the replacement of leadership
is that existing leadership recognizes a need for change. They start the change effort
and can adapt the organization to a new plan but often fail to fully adapt themselves
to innovation and may resort to behaviors not conducive to their newly created
culture (Kotter).
In both educational and business environments, the introduction of new
leadership with a plan of turning around an organization can improve the school or
business both symbolically and substantively (Kowal & Hassel, 2005). Although
public schools are not allowed to profit financially, their improvements are shown
in the raising of test scores and overall academic achievement by students. Chang-
ing leaders in school settings may send the message to community stakeholder
groups that the school district recognizes the need for change and wants to show
dedication to the cause.
There might also be a necessity to change leaders at school sites to revital-
ize parents and other stakeholder groups who may have been alienated by previous
leadership. Bringing in a new leader can allow the establishment of new goals and
the creation of higher expectations, and can create the internal accountability for
real change to occur (Boyne, 2004; Walshe, Havey, Hyde, & Pandit, 2004).

86
Although putting a new principal at the helm of a failing school is a tactic
often utilized by district-level officials in the name of improvement, it is important
to mention that putting a new principal into a turnaround situation is not a magic
solution for a school. It is important to note that there are some circumstances in
which the replacement of leadership for the sake of improvement may create
unnecessary instability on an organization and may cause the school to go downhill
even further (Duke, 2004b). In successful turnaround situations, whether or not
new leadership was put into the setting, leaders have been able to design, communi-
cate, lead, and maintain both symbolic and real action-oriented change. Simply
replacing one leader with another, even in the name of improvement, may cause
more problems than solutions.
The Make-up of a Successful Turnaround Leader
Successful turnaround leaders can be defined in two distinct ways (Kowal
& Hassel, 2005): (a) by their actions, and (b) by their unique competencies and
skill sets that drive their performance. Several researchers have shown how leaders
in both educational and business settings create change when the leaders (a) make
few changes in the organization but make changes with fast, large payoffs (Collins,
2001; Watkins, 2003a); (b) implement strategies that have been proven to work,
despite the need to occasionally bend previously established policy (Watkins,
2003a); (c) communicate a positive vision to stakeholders with expected results to
any change (Eaker, Dufour, & Burnette, 2002; Kowal & Hassel, 2005; Watkins,
2003a); (d) analyze self-collected performance data often (Collins; Leithwood et
al., 2004); (e) formulate action plans based on performance data (Leithwood et al.;
Watkins, 2003a); (f) work not only in front of but alongside stakeholders to make

87
change (Bolman & Deal, 2001; Eaker et al.; Maxwell, 2005) (g) get the support of
key players within the organization (Watkins, 2003a); (h) measure and publicize
progress often to all stakeholders (Collins; Eaker et al.; Watkins, 2003a); (i) require
regular staff meetings where concerns and decisions are discussed and where all
stakeholders voice group-oriented concerns when necessary (Eaker et al.; Watkins,
2003a); (j) provide more resources where success is occurring and stop unsuccess-
ful practices inside the organization (Eaker et al.; Fullan, 2001; Watkins, 2003a);
(k) require all staff to grow and change with the organization (Eaker et al.;
Maxwell; Watkins, 2003a); (l) secure early successes to silence naysayers (Collins;
Kowal & Hassel; Maxwell; Watkins, 2003a); (m) relentlessly pursue success
(Fullan; Maxwell; Watkins, 2003a); and (n) give praise to deserving stakeholders
for effort and success (Collins; Watkins, 2003a).
Securing Early Wins
The one element that stands out from the above list as a vital part of creat-
ing positive change within a turnaround organization is the concept of securing
early wins. Leaders scoring early wins are cited in the literature. This element is
even more vital in a turnaround environment, where the staff may already be soured
by repeated failure, exhausted from previous attempts at revitalization programs
that did not succeed, and tired of empty promises given from previous leaders.
Showing these stakeholders that a leader has a plan and can get almost immediate
improvement may make the difference in suspending their disbelief long enough to
get significant impact and growth in an organization.
Research shows that focusing on a broad range of tasks (where an organiza-
tion’s focus is involved in too many things to notice growth) or focusing on too

88
large of initial tasks (where growth takes too long to keep stakeholders excited and
motivated) leads to less successful results (if success is experienced at all ; Waters
et al., 2003). This concept of early wins was discussed in detail by Kowal and
Hassel (2005), Collins (2001), and Maxwell (2005), with Kowal and Hassel dis-
cussing how important early successes drown out naysayers and build staff-wide
buy-in. Watkins (2003a) highlighted the topic in his book The First 90 Days,
stating that every leader should focus on securing these essential victories as a way
to ensure credibility and buy-in by a staff so that larger and more complicated
undertakings may be attempted, failure can be met without retreat, and long-term
success can be achieved through a series of smaller successes.
More important than early victories with stakeholders of a school, there are
right and wrong ways to go about getting these wins, which can be just as
important as the win itself over the course of a principal’s tenure. While looking for
these early wins, it is important not to take undue risks, as principals and other
leaders are strongly cautioned against taking an early loss as well. Early losses are
even more detrimental than not claiming an early victory because many leaders
never recover from early failures or negative first impressions (Watkins, 2003a).
According to Watkins, the following three traps commonly befall new leaders:
1. Failure to focus. A common trap many new leaders fall into when transi-
tion is taking on too much at one time. Instead of being overambitious, turnaround
leaders should aim at making sure that they getting one or two significant and
visible victories within 90 days of starting.
2. Failure to adjust for the culture. New leaders who enter a situation from
the outside instead of rising through the ranks of an organization are most vulner-
able to this trap. Since these leaders may have seen or led victories in other arenas

89
and cultures, they assume that they know how to create positive change and that
they know what is recognized as a win or a defeat in the new organization. It is
important to overall effectiveness and impact as a leader to first analyze what a win
inside the new culture looks like and plan initial change strategies that will work
with the current culture of the organization.
3. Letting means undermine ends. New leaders and veteran leaders alike
should stress the process involved with achieving wins in an organization. Especi-
ally in new leadership situations, where employees and other stakeholders are
forming an impression of leadership, it is crucial to not be viewed as a manipulator,
as underhanded, or as an outsider to the culture. These situations can cause division
between employee groups or cause widespread revolts against change and leader-
ship. According to Watkins, an early win that is accomplished in a way that is
viewed as respected and honorable by the stakeholders and that can act as an
example for employees is a double win for the organization.
According to Watkins (2003a), leaders in turnaround scenarios work at
improving an existing organization or school. In this context the principal is
responsible for managing or overseeing every interaction and decision making
process that affects the organization. Principals in turnaround situations are vulner-
able to a specific point because they rely not only on district officials but also on
the previous stakeholders to provide understanding and analysis of the situation that
is inherited. This analysis and dissemination of information should be accurate
enough to provide a basis for planning the improvement of the organization. Most
leaders with the luxury of time will also do their own research to accompany this
informal collection of information from the stakeholders.

90
Turnaround situations also call on district officials to provide principals
with an accurate picture of the finances of the organization, which may have been
in disarray prior to the turnaround principal’s arrival.
Overall, the biggest task that leaders in turnaround situations face upon
taking over a school, according to Watkins (2003a), is the inheritance of programs
that are failing or may not work but that are supported by staff members. Convinc-
ing these likely passionate stakeholders to abandon what they may feel is best for
the organization will take skill, data collection, and the redirection of the staff
members’ talents, which many principals are not able to do.
Turnaround situations and the creation of turnaround change both require
completely different skill sets from schools in other stages of the STARS model
(Watkins, 2003a). For example, principals in schools that are considered by
Watkins to be “sustaining success” often do not have the human resources, stake-
holder motivation, student discipline, or teacher complacency issues that accom-
pany the repeated failure that may have been experienced at a turnaround site.
Another example from the STARS model that shows the unique situation that
turnaround principals face is in regard to principals working in realignment
schools. Realignment schools are schools much like turnarounds in the sense that
the school’s leadership is being replaced midstream. They differ mainly because the
stakeholders in these situations often do not realize the problems at the site, or even
that the site is in need of change. This means that the principal must first focus on
informing and convincing the staff of the need for change before change can be
designed. Expectations for improvement in these sites (in terms of API increases)
are typically lower than those set for turnaround principals, and in both of these
settings stakeholders may not recognize that they need change, much less demand

91
it, as they might of a turnaround principal. In view of the complexities of turn-
around schools and the extremely tight deadlines and expectations for growth set in
place by NCLB legislation, the pressure from stakeholder groups associated with
the school, running a turnaround school looks like a relatively undesirable job.
Before a true turnaround by Watkins’s definition is attempted, the school
must be failing and the existing practices by all stakeholders must be failing to
correct schoolwide problems. Innovative programs and strategies should be imple-
mented in these schools by a dynamic and charismatic leader.
Success must come relatively quickly, and the first success should be
targeted to an improvement area designated before the improvement effort began.
This single victory should be publicly celebrated and a demonstration of its impact
on the grand scheme should be seen by stakeholders, where credit can be given to
those involved with the project. Then, on the tailwind of this victory, new efforts
should be initiated and more relatively small victories claimed and celebrated
before the school’s stakeholders lose patience with a change process with which
they may be all too familiar after years of attempted improvement. The final
element that may be difficult for turnaround principals but that is imperative to
turnaround efforts is ridding an organization of activities or programs that drain its
money, energy, or time if these programs do not show measurable contribution to
end goals (Collins, 2001; Ghosn & Ries, 2005).
A common problem for principals in a turnaround school is to determine
what to do first. It has been shown that a great deal of meaningful change in turn-
around settings is initiated during the transition period (Watkins, 2003a), which
establishes the importance of these decisions and, along with the sheer number of
possible avenues a principal could take, often makes a principal second guess

92
decision making. According to Kowal and Hassel (2005), turnaround leaders must
decide where their priorities lie within the organization that they are trying to
improve. These leaders must then determine what results matter most to them and
decide which initial actions would most likely produce results in critical areas,
construct a plan, and move forward with its implementation. “Through a speedy
process of trial and error in which unsuccessful tactics are dropped and new strate-
gies tried, successful turnaround leaders figure out what actions will get rapid, large
results and then they increase those activities” (Kowal & Hassel, p. 24). A turn-
around leader is in charge of directing change, but far more complex change than
leaders in charge of well-performing schools. Turnaround leadership is also far
different from start-up and realignment situations, requiring turnaround school
principals to acquire a unique set of “turnaround tools” to use in the transition
period.
Taking what Spencer and Spencer (1993), Kowal and Hassel (2005),
Maxwell (2005), and Watkins (2005) found on the characteristics of successful
leaders and applying this information to schools, it is suggested that turnaround
leaders may need to put into action the following steps to achieve success:
1. Set high goals and expectations for all stakeholders, take initiative and
encourage others to do the same, confidently make decisions even when making
unpopular ones, remain consistent and persistent, encourage others even when there
is failure or in times when goals are not immediately achieved, celebrate accom-
plishments, and raise the bar when goals are met.
2. Solve organizational problems. Gather useful data and use them to justify
decisions and to solve problems, follow up on decisions with targeted action, assist
teachers and become hands-on when solving problems, clearly communicate the

93
vision of the organization and assure stakeholders of their path to success, research
with other stakeholders the failures and successes of other schools in similar situa-
tions, closely monitor progress, and constantly evaluate the entire organization on
progress toward goal accomplishment.
3. Show confidence. Provide a face and model for the organization that says
that goals are within reach, explain to stakeholders how challenges to success are
not reasons for failure but learning opportunities, and regroup and collectively
solve problems when roadblocks are encountered so that multiple solutions may be
offered.
4. Influence others. Use relationships that have been built within the
organization to create change and build momentum and support in numbers of
participants, motivate teachers and stakeholders when necessary, personally work
with individuals who need an extra push or need to be redirected or reinvigorated
so that they do not detract from goal accomplishment, and end negative relation-
ships with stakeholders that are harmful to the organization.
5. Practice team-oriented leadership. Build a team atmosphere in which the
leader is simply another member, keep the team informed, explain decisions, treat
everyone fairly, promote the team concept, motivate outsiders to be part of the
collective, issue tasks to all stakeholders that benefit the group, and assure adequate
resources for successful implementation of programs and for all to participate in
growth opportunities.
Superintendents who employ successful turnaround leaders may also want
to look to the actions of these leaders as examples of competency, setting the stage
for their successors in future years and establishing the type of leader necessary to
work in these difficult circumstances. It is also important for beginning principals

94
and superintendents alike to understand the specific leadership needs in turnaround
settings and to make sure that a principal with the correct sets of skills and apti-
tudes is matched with the correct site. In the future, more research is necessary to
understand what competencies and skill sets make a person a high-performing
turnaround leader specifically during the transition period (first 90 days).
The First 90 Days
Watkins (2003a, 2003b) claimed that the first 90 days are the most critical
time that leaders face during their tenure and, it may be the time they have the most
influence. Watkins warned that new leaders have no concrete way of understanding
the challenges facing them in their new positions nor the answers to the challenges
facing them during this time period. The most crucial things that new leaders lack
during the transition period are deep-rooted relationships necessary to create
change and achieve goals within their new organization.
According to Watkins (2003b), all transitions require some form of personal
and professional strategy. Regardless of what situation a leader inherits, leaders
will face several challenges leaders within the first 90 days, one of which that is
particularly demanding is learning the nuances and intricacies of the organization’s
culture and politics. Watkins cautioned that, even if a leader has been specifically
hired to change an organization’s culture and political structure, new leaders should
study the existing cultures carefully before taking action.
Watkins (2003a) stated that turnaround leaders should be especially careful
to invest time in studying these elements of their new endeavor as the challenge of
convincing people who think that they are doing the best job they can possibly do
to do better or rethink their efforts is a delicate undertaking. These beginning

95
leaders have to gain the confidence of stakeholders so that they can be trusted when
it comes time to make crucial choices about the direction the school should be
heading. This grows increasingly difficult when a leader comes into a staff who
may have seen several other leaders come to the school, make them work hard in
instituting new programs, fail, and leave. In any of these cases, one mistake early in
the tenure of a turnaround principal (especially in the area of politics or misreading
the culture of a school) could alienate essential supporters in the change process.
Based on the findings reported in the literature, mainly Watkins (2003a),
during the transition period (the first 90 days), principals in turnaround situations
and other leaders should establish the goal of building personal credibility as well
as building momentum within their organizations. Generating early wins will aid a
leader in building systemwide support and momentum to succeed in or at the very
least attempt change efforts within the school or business. When leaders set out to
create momentum, it is crucial that they understand that their early wins serve a
dual purpose for them: to help them build credibility and to lay the foundation for
future goal attainment. The process used by leaders to secure these early wins
should remain consistent with the goals, culture, and priorities of the organization,
as well as introduce new behavioral patterns that will be expected during the
organization’s future. Leaders aligning with Watkins’s philosophies should con-
sider their transition process to be twofold: (a) phase one, which includes credi-
bility building and lasts about 30 days; and (b) phase two, which involves a leader
making decisions about where the organization needs to focus its energy to produce
significant results and achieve noticeable improvement within the next 60 days.

96
The Four Frames Model
Bolman and Deal (2003) provided a model called the Four Frames, which
can be used by leaders to analyze and categorize their actions. This tool provides
leaders a tool for taking critical looks at themselves and their leadership techniques.
Figure 2 presents the four frames from the perspective of Lee and Deal.
The four frames model is a foundational framework for the study of school
leadership. This framework, developed by Lee and Deal and discussed in the book
Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2001), can be used in analyzing
where a principal or other leader spends time in the operation of an organization. It
can also be used to analyze approaches that leaders take to solving problems within
their organizations. This framework played a key role in the present study.
Creating Change in Schools
Robert Marzano
Table 1 summarized the 21 “responsibilities” posited by Marzano et al.
(1999). Marzano et al. contributed to the present study by grouping change efforts
(such as improving performance in a middle school or improving the culture of a
middle school) into two categories or types of change: (a) first-order change, which
is something that a principal would organize in an incremental fashion by outlining
the actions of the organization in a step-by-step pattern for stakeholders; and (b)
second-order change, which is typically indicated by a sudden reversal of direction
within an organization or a sudden change in a well-established pattern of events.
Both first- and second-order change processes can be effective if utilized by
a principal in the correct fashion. However, each of the processes requires a
principal to engage different behaviors or responsibilities to make the process

97

Structural Frame
The focus of the structural frame is on an organization’s goals. Main components and ways
of thinking associated with the frame include:
• Organizations exist to accomplish goals
• An organization’s structure is designed around it’s unique characteristics and circumstances
• Specialization often leads to ideal performance
• Coordination and control are crucial to success
• Problems encountered by the organization are resolved through internal restructuring.
Human Resource Frame
The focus of the human resource frame is on four basic assumptions about organizations:
• Organizations exist to meet human needs
• Organizations and the people working within them and benefiting from them need each
other
• When there is a bad fit between people and the organization, one or both will suffer
• When there is a good fit between people and the organization both will benefit.
Political Frame
The focus of the political frame is on a wide variety of issues:
• An organization dealing with differences between groups and individuals working within it
• The allocation of scarce resources amongst stakeholders in an organization
• Internal as well as external conflict
• The balance and use of power within an organization
• Any bargaining or negotiation that takes place affecting an organization
• Coalition building or group formation within organizations.
Symbolic Frame
The focus of the symbolic frame is on cultures and symbols within or that influence an
organization. From this perspective:
• The meaning of events may be more important than the actual event to an organization
• The relationship between the reality of an event and the way stakeholders perceived it are
loosely associated
• Uncertainty and ambiguity are often a part of the organization and play their own role within
the organization
• When levels of ambiguity and uncertainty increase within an organization, rationality
becomes ineffective and inefficient
• Organizations are filled with myths, metaphors, rituals, and stories that in and of themselves
provide direction, clarity, and often resolve confusion for individuals and groups
understanding of the culture within an organization.

Figure 2. Highlights of the four frames model by Bolman and Deal. Source:
Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.), by L. Bolman
& T. Deal, T., 2003, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

98
successful. Each process can be more or less productive depending on the principal
exhibiting the proper accompanying behaviors or “responsibilities.” Marzano found
three behaviors/responsibilities to be the most effective for creating first-order
change: (a) monitoring/evaluating (see Table 1), (b) culture (leaders are charged
with building a positive culture that is capable of positively influencing teachers),
and (c) ideals/beliefs (leaders pass on their sound ideals and beliefs to stakeholders
to build a climate conducive to change). Marzano found the following three
behaviors/responsibilities most effective for creating second-order change: (a)
knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; (b) optimizer (leaders focus
on building a positive culture and utilize optimism as a critical character element
and tool for change); and (c) intellectual stimulation (leaders stimulate and
challenge staff to drive the organization forward).
Marzano et al. (1999) emphasized a leader’s ability to successfully choose
the right goals and actions and the ability to pick the right times to implement those
actions within an organization. This skill and decision making may have as much to
do with a leader’s or school’s success as the actual implementation of the corrective
strategy. Above and beyond these decisions are the ones that leaders must make
regarding the use of site-specific or comprehensive school reform processes, as
both models have been shown to be successful if the changes implemented at the
school are specific to the needs and context of a specific school site.
Ciampa and Watkins (1999), on a slightly different note, looked at the
change process within an existing organization. Their findings show that it typic-
ally takes between 12 and 32 months to cause systemic change within an organiza-
tion. The authors focused on the changes that take place within an organization’s
culture. Throughout their research is evidence to support Watkins’s position about

99
achieving early wins and positively impacting the organization’s culture within the
first 6 months. This early win strategy was supported by research that showed the
importance of gathering information about an organization early in a leader’s
tenure and the crucial role of respect that a leader earns throughout the transition
period, which later allows the leader to make larger, wide-ranging decisions.
Cook, Semmel, and Gerber (1999) took a step back from the turnaround
stage to report on the many reasons that organizations become dysfunctional and
need to be turned around in the first place. The two main reasons leading to
organizational dysfunction are (a) the stakeholders or members of an organization
fail to share a unified vision, and (b) managers and leaders within an organization
attempt to manage people rather than focus on managing failing programs or
systems. The authors posited that it is not possible to manage people and produce
consistent results or improvement. They also held that systems within an organiza-
tion can be managed and measured to the point where the system becomes inde-
pendent of the individuals within the organization. While this extremist opinion
isolates this research and researcher to a certain extent, the findings regarding why
an organization becomes dysfunctional in the first place may help leaders to avoid
needing a turnaround, or may prevent a leader already in a turnaround situation
from repeating mistakes that caused the downfall of the organization.
Changing the Culture in a Turnaround Setting
Many researchers involved with the study of successful leadership practices
have stated that the main purpose of a leader in an organization is to provide a
vision and to shape the culture of the organization to achieve this vision (Marzano
et al., 1999; Schein, 1992; Stolp & Smith, 1995). Marzano et al. (1999) stated that a

100
school cannot have a true culture until that culture has had a chance to grow and
evolve over time. They explained that this may not be a quick development pro-
cess. Stolp and Smith defined culture as being a series of “historically transmitted
patterns” that give an organization its own identity (p. 159). Shein described the
culture of groups as patterns of shared assumptions that have been collectively
adopted and supported.
The requirement for the historical and learned elements of these descrip-
tions of culture supported the argument that new organizations, without a
history nor the opportunity to learn as an organization, cannot have a
culture. An organization’s culture required time to evolve. (Marzano et al.,
p. 34)
Although the quote directly addresses new organizations and the focus of
this literature review is on turnarounds, Watkins (20031) stated that start-ups are
much like turnarounds, and the development of culture in these settings may play a
large role in creating long-term success in both scenarios.
According to Stolp and Smith (1995), both business leaders and educational
leaders should be concerned with developing or developed cultures within their
organizations. Once these cultures are developed, every school has its own culture.
Within each of these unique cultures Edgar Schein (1992) has found three levels (or
ways to dissect the cultures) by looking at their “tangible artifacts, values, and their
beliefs and underlying assumptions” (p. 13). Schein stated that a leader could build
an effective organization if he or she were able to merge the different subcultures of
an organization or never let there be a division of the cultures within an organiza-
tion in the first place. This merging is done through a process of creating and
maintaining common goals, common language, and common problem-solving
tactics among all members of an organization. Schein also said that organizational

101
learning, development, and planned change could be understood by understanding
a culture’s tendency to resist change.
Johnson and Johnson (1995) described a relationship between school
performance and the relative culture of the school. Marzano et al. (1999) also
described this phenomenon by stating that a school’s culture was related closely to
its perceived good or perceived poor academic status. Shaping this perception and
the way in which stakeholders view their school could shape the culture, something
crucial to remember for turnaround leaders. Johnson and Johnson stated that a
school culture is constructed from four dimensions: the goal structure of a site, the
roles and power relationships of a school, student-centered education and feedback
systems, and the symbols that define a school’s identity and purpose.
Eacker et al. (2002) explained in their book Getting Started: Re-Culturing
Schools to Become Professional Learning Communities the benefits of shaping
school culture to work to the organization’s benefit. The book looked extensively at
cultural shifts that, if implemented correctly by school leaders, would guide the
school from the more traditional operations that may not be working to functioning
as constantly growing, adapting, and evolving learning communities where con-
stituent groups help each other to become better, thereby improving the whole
organization. The three main things that help professional learning communities
(PLCs) occur in schools, according to Eaker et al., are (a) strong foundations that
consist of a collaboratively developed and universally adopted visions, missions,
sets of values, and sets of goals; (b) collaborative teams working independently and
interdependently to achieve organizational goals; and (c) a focus on results and an
organization-wide consistent commitment to continuous improvement.

102
Summary
According to Watkins (2003a, 2003b), the actions taken, results generated,
and relationships formed by a manager in the first 90 days in a new role are critical
to success, career advancement, and the effectiveness of the organization. Yet,
despite the frequency and important of managerial transitions, organizations invest
minimal organizational effort to assure success. The success of transitions can be
improved and accelerated through the creation and implementation of systemic
learning plans tailored to each new manager’s specific experiences and situation, as
well as the particular business situation at hand (e.g., startup, turnaround). Learning
plans should include diagnosing the business issues, understanding the organiza-
tion’s culture and politics, initiating a dialogue with the new boss, assessing the
team, building relationships with key stakeholders, and creating momentum
through early wins.
Many studies (especially those designed by Watkins) show the overall
importance and frequency of transition periods among today’s leaders. Even more
have shown how short-lived a leader’s job can be if a situation is misread or the
leader acts without caution during the important first 90 days (Ciampa & Watkins,
1999). These first 90 days in just about every industry have proven to hold a great
deal of answers to the question of why a manager or leader was able to be success-
ful throughout tenure, or it can explain why a leader failed to improve the organiza-
tion. The transition period for any leader, but especially for educational leaders
such as principals, is a crucial time for personal growth as well as an opportunity to
redirect a failing school or organization (Watkins, 2003a). A McKinsey study
implied that a leader’s best developmental opportunities lie in transitions into new
roles, while this time period also holds the greatest vulnerability for leaders. Much

103
of this vulnerability is attributed to the tackling of unfamiliar situations, the high
expectations of stakeholders, the introduction of new employees (for them, a new
boss), and the eagerness to leap into improvement efforts before properly assessing
the situation (Kowal & Hassel, 2005).
Watkins (2003a) noted, “The President of the United States gets 100 days to
prove himself; you get 90 . . . go” (p. 1). This point clearly states the extreme time
pressure placed on turnaround leaders, especially during their transition period. In
past years, leaders just entering a position would get a 6-month grace period to get
up to speed. Based on the time pressure in today’s businesses and the fact that
principals in today’s schools are held accountable based on the test scores of their
students the following May, the pressure, time demands, and stakes have increased
significantly. The comfortable yet still short 6-month transition period of the past
has now been condensed into a 90-day “cram session.” According to a survey given
to 210 CEOs and Presidents, researchers established that in the same 6 months
leaders used to use as a settling in time, today’s leaders must have already reached
their break-even point, where they have contributed as much value to their new
organization as they have consumed (Watkins). Therefore, new leaders in every
realm, including turnaround principalships, must immediately produce results in
difficult circumstances while under great pressure.
Over and above the pressure placed on a new turnaround principal is the
fact that very few school districts have training or support systems to help these
principals to deal with the demands of their jobs. There is often little or no training
or support given to these individuals, regardless of their previous experience,
before they take on what some call a nearly impossible task. In fact, most school
districts approach turnaround schools and their leadership with a nearly Darwinian

104
“sink or swim” attitude, leaving it up to the principal to fight for survival (from a
career standpoint) along with fighting to help the school. They justify this practice
with the philosophy that good leaders will find a way to stay afloat, never knowing
the potential increases that could have been achieved if a principal could have
focused solely on the improvement of his or her site.
This philosophy also jeopardizes the academic careers of many students
while one failing attempt after another and one principal after another cycle through
turnaround environments. A school district that does not provide support to these
individuals during their transition period will never realize the number of leaders
who may have succeeded if they had been provided the proper training and tools. If
a district fails to support a turnaround principal during the transition period, they
cannot simply wait to fail. It was suggested by Watkins (2003a) that these leaders
strategically assist themselves by establishing their own frameworks for successful
transitions and their own goals so that they may serve their own interests and create
opportunities to succeed even through neglect.
One reason many turnaround leaders fail is due to their attitudes when
entering their new jobs. It is not overwhelming optimism or negativity that is the
deciding factor; rather, it is the assumption that they know the business of educa-
tion (Watkins, 2003a). In a turnaround environment it is crucial not to generalize or
assume that a solution that has been tried elsewhere, even in another turnaround
situation, will work in each setting. Watkins stressed that a leader must know his or
her environment, and learn this environment quickly to assure early success.

105
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the study’s design, procedures, sampling methods,
implementation, data collection, and data analysis. This study was performed with
the goals of isolating the challenges that new principals face and isolating the key
leadership skills, strategies, and philosophies needed for success during the transi-
tion period of a new principal in a turnaround middle school setting. The transition
period for a new principal is defined as the first 90 days in the new position. It is
relevant to the study to point out the specific time period because of the unique
situations that may occur during only this part of a principal’s tenure.
By carrying out this study, the dissertation group hoped to ascertain the
information and to meet the following objectives: (a) identify what stakeholders in
turnaround schools believe is necessary to improving turnaround school perform-
ance; (b) identify aspects of the first 90 days of a principalship that cause negative
and positive impact on turnaround schools; (c) establish what theoretical and
philosophical bases exist among superintendents, teachers, and principals about
turning around underperforming middle schools; (d) gather data on 10 similar case
studies to make recommendations for improving leadership training with regard to
low-performing schools; (e) analyze the results of the 10 case studies to establish a
pattern for success in leading turnaround middle schools in southern California.
Study Questions
The current study was designed to answer three research questions:
1. Do middle school principals in a turnaround school situation find the
transition period (first 90 days) to be important?

106
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
The cohort of researchers formulated the research questions based on the
conceptual framework described in this chapter. The conceptual framework
included six specific areas involving the leadership of turnaround schools but was
focused on the three research questions. The goal of finding answers to the research
questions was the basis for decision making with regard to instruments, and data
collection processes.
Research Design
The study used a mixed-methods approach to gather data. According to
Creswell (2003), mixed methods are used primarily because this method employs
both qualitative and quantitative means of data collection. Having this twofold
approach allows the researcher to gather both a broad range of surface level data to
dig deeper using the qualitative data to understand any complexities that may arise.
Using an established and structured approach to data collection allowed the
research by all 10 members of the dissertation group to be compared via a cross-
case analysis.
In meetings of the research group the topic was narrowed and the type of
study to be performed was chosen. The questions and instruments to be used in the
study were developed and tested by the entire group through a series of test
administrations and revisions. The study and the instruments used (surveys and

107
interview guides) changed several times before the group decided on the final
format. The aim of the cohort was to have each member gather in-depth data and
understanding at a particular site, each focusing on only one principal’s strategies,
then to reconvene and compare case studies. Each group member selected a school
district that had middle schools in it likely to be classified as turnaround schools.
This strategy parallels what Creswell advocated, as it provided the best avenue for
gathering data in support of understanding the research problem and answering the
research questions.
Each researcher approached the superintendent (or direct supervisor of
principals) of an identified district and arranged an appointment for an interview
and discussion about the topic. At this appointment the superintendent was asked to
identify a principal from the district whom the superintendent considered a success-
ful turnaround administrator. The principal had to be at the start of the second year
at the school site being studied but might have had other experience in administra-
tion prior to being assigned to a turnaround situation. Each superintendent was
asked to qualify the selection of the site and principal as turnaround through a
process of comparing the schools in their district with the STARS chart developed
by the research team. This chart was based on a chart and STARS model provided
by Watkins (2003a). This interview was taped and transcribed for later data
analysis, and follow-up interviews for clarification were performed before the
dissertation group reconvened for data analysis and cross-case analysis.
As explained in chapter 2, there is limited literature addressing the topic of
leadership in turnaround schools and what it takes to make these people successful
during their first 90 days. The interviews held with superintendents were designed
to produce data regarding the key leadership characteristics, actions, philosophies,

108
and strategies used by the principals in the study and support the validity of the
study through having more than one source identify the school and principal as
being in a turnaround situation. The interviews with the superintendents also
brought out what specific frameworks and practices were noticed by upper-level
administration or supervisors as playing a key role in the principal’s ability to turn
around the school site. During each level of interview (superintendent, principal,
and teacher) a special emphasis was placed on identifying strategies, philosophies,
and skills used during the transition period.
After meeting with the associated superintendent, each researcher in the
dissertation group used the recommendation from the superintendent to select a
principal and school site for the study. The researchers approached these principals
to ask for their cooperation in the study and to establish a time to conduct inter-
views and administer the instruments. These instruments were a chart (similar to
the STARS chart) used in the interview with the superintendent, a time chart in
which the principal identified the areas in which he or she spent the bulk of time
during the transition period (based on Bolman and Deal’s four frames model), and
a chart in which the principal identified characteristics and behaviors displayed
during the transition period (modeled after Marzano’s 21 responsibilities of a
school leader). The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed for data analysis
and cross-case analysis.
After completing the interview and other data collection with the principal,
each researcher asked to attend an October staff meeting to conduct two staff-wide
surveys: (a) the chart regarding characteristics of the principal, and the chart
regarding the four frames model. When all surveys and charts were completed,
researchers asked to speak with and interview four department chairs in the school.

109
A purposeful sampling method was used to select these four teachers, as the
principal was asked to identify four teachers who would have an understanding of
how the principal had spent his or her time during the transition period. Teachers
were interviewed because of their potential for knowledge concerning the state of
the school and activities of the principal during the transition period. These inter-
views were aimed at bringing out a greater depth of information than the surveys
could provide and assured the researchers that they were likely to gain the per-
spective of employees who were knowledgeable about the principal’s impact and
activities at the site during the transition period.
Conceptual Frameworks
After consulting literature on the topics of transition schools, leadership
principles, leadership in business versus education, and beginning a principalship,
conceptual frameworks began to emerge. After meeting to discuss the information
available regarding some of these topics and the limited literature directly address-
ing the topic of turnaround principalships, the research group isolated six topics/
conceptual frameworks to be addressed (a) the history of the principalship, (b) the
importance of the induction or transition period for new principals, (c) school
culture and environment, (d) principal accountability and responsibilities, (e)
general leadership principles, and (f) effective training and support programs
(including mentoring).
The review of literature produced issues related to these topics but not
directly in line with them. What could be consolidated was tied to a subheading and
what did not directly apply to the framework was set aside where it could be
accessed if needed at a later date to make connections between the topics. Some

110
topics stood out from the rest: (a) the concept of leading from the middle (Maxwell,
2005), (b) the challenges that a new principal faces in a transition middle school
(Duke, 2004b), and (c) the transition period of a new principalship and the support
received by a new administrator or business leader during this time (Watkins,
2003a).
According to the literature, the leadership abilities, skills, know-how, and
drive necessary to take on a turnaround principalship are extensive; but taking on
this role maybe extremely rewarding for a principal who is able to see both long-
term growth and almost immediate results from the work. Although this study
looks specifically at the transition period (first 90 days) and specifically at turn-
around schools, it is vital to see the applicability of the findings for these schools as
they are the ones reprimanded most heavily by NCLB legislation if they are not
improved. Inside this very brief time period and in this specific setting there is little
room for miscalculation or second chances, but many authors, including McEwan
(2003), Watkins (2003a), Duke (2004b), and Maxwell (2005), stated that the
transition period provides sufficient time to make positive change.
It was stated by Maxwell (2005) that the best place for a person to practice
leading is during the first 90 days, as well as the best time to get the feeling for
what the staff is willing to back and what they will resist. According to this litera-
ture, choosing battles wisely, building alliances where necessary, and taking
advantage of the suspended disbelief of staff were key to a leader’s success. With
the limited amount of research available, providing new principals much more
direction than was just described and what was laid out for them in the literature
review was very difficult through reading alone. The study described in this chapter

111
was designed to provide the tools and information necessary for a principal to
succeed at a turnaround school without the benefit of a trial run.
Sample and Population
The research cohort assigned a case study to each of the 10 members of the
group. Taking this action allowed for 10 separate middle schools (all fitting the
study criteria) and the 10 administrators assigned to them to be observed in the
most efficient and in-depth and least intrusive way possible. A purposeful sampling
method was used to choose the principals and school sites for study. Although this
dissertation focuses on the principals leading these turnaround schools, the study
involved gathering the perspectives and opinions of the principals’ supervisors as
well as teachers who worked at the school sites for the principals during their first
90 days. Therefore, the superintendents and teachers associated with the turnaround
school were interviewed or surveyed to represent the professional population
involved with each school and principal.
Several conditions for the study were established by the cohort to reduce
researcher bias and assure that each case study collected could be compared in a
cross-case analysis.
1. The turnaround school needed to be a public school located in southern
California. This requirement was put in place to assure that the researcher assigned
to the school could spend a considerable amount of time at the site, so that findings
could be more easily generalized between schools involved with the study, and so
that travel to the school site was possible while researchers maintained professional
duties as administrators in other southern California public schools.

112
2. The turnaround school could not be a charter or magnet school, even
though these entities are considered public schools by definition. This criterion was
established to ensure that the findings could be compared across the 10 cases.
Magnet and charter schools often have unique causes of failure or outlying circum-
stances that make leadership a challenge, and including these schools in the study
would have limited the overall validity of the study.
3. The turnaround school needed to be classified as a middle school serving
grades 5 through 8, 6 through 8, or 7 and 8. This environment was selected because
middle schools share many characteristics found in high schools and elementary
schools. Choosing these settings for the study allowed generalization to the other
two settings.
4. The principal in charge of each turnaround middle school needed to be
just starting the second year as principal during the 2006-2007 school year. This
criterion was established because, as time passes, it could become more difficult for
principals, superintendents, and teachers to recall exactly what practices, theories,
strategies, or skills were displayed during the principal’s first 90 days in charge of
the school. It was noted that a common problem in many schools in need of being
turned around is a high teacher turnover rate. This posed a threat to the study, as
teachers were relied on to provide insight and perspectives into the actions of the
principal during the transition period. If the study were delayed more than a year, a
significant portion of the teacher population who witnessed the principal’s transi-
tion period might no longer be at the site to complete surveys or be interviewed.
5. The principal needed to be new to the turnaround school during the 2005-
2006 school year but might have had previous experience as a principal at different
sites, either in the district or outside the district.

113
6. The superintendent of each school district involved with the study needed
to agree with the classification of each school being studied as a “turnaround
school.” It was recognized that the constitution of turnaround schools may be
different in various school districts, just as the definition of high performing or
underperforming may vary from school district to school district. The STARS chart
designed by Watkins (2003a) was presented to each superintendent as a baseline
and measure of consistency among all superintendents interviewed for the study.
7. Each principal had to be deemed “successful” by the supervisor or super-
intendent during the first year as a turnaround administrator. This point of consist-
ency was a limiting factor for variables. It is important to note that what constitutes
success from one district or superintendent to another, much like that of defining a
“turnaround situation,” may vary.
8. Researchers performing the case study could not be an employee of the
district being studied. This precaution was taken to limit researcher bias, to assure
that data were limited that those produced via the interview guide, and to assure
greater continuity and alignment among case study findings.
After selecting the topic for study, the group outlined the study design for
data collection and comparison. The research group identified a set of districts
thought likely to contain what Watkins (2003a) defined as a turnaround school, that
is, a site in need of a “quick and decisive impact from its leadership” and a need for
“complete re-energizing” from all stakeholders involved with the school. After
compiling the list of districts, each cohort member chose a district and approached
the superintendent for interviews regarding the oversight of turnaround principals
and schools. Superintendents identified the turnaround schools in their district and

114
the successful principals who led those schools. The researcher selected a principal
and approach that person for interview.
Since the names of the principals, superintendents, and teachers involved
with the study are known to the researcher and are automatically selected for the
study as a result of association with the hierarchy of public school districts, the
sampling procedure is defined by Creswell (2003) as single staged. The automatic
association and alignment that occurred inside public school districts, the responsi-
bilities held by principals, superintendents, and teachers, and the common job
descriptions across the state for these positions all provided for collection of
parallel data. These commonalties and the use of common instruments for data
collection allowed for triangulation of the data. This triangulation, according to
Creswell, provides for more valid and generalizable findings, as well as a solid
foundation for recommendations made as a result of cross-case analysis.
Overview of Districts and Schools in the Study
The Rossier School of Education of the University of Southern California
has established a strong commitment to improving urban education throughout the
United States and southern California. This focus has been clearly highlighted
through the coursework required for candidates in pursuit of the degree of Doctor
of Education. The research group aimed at contributing to the literature base and
general knowledge base regarding urban schools by performing this study on
turnaround schools, as an extremely high percentage of all turnaround schools are
found in urban environments.
Table 3 describes the characteristics of the 10 turnaround middle schools in the
study. The school selected for the case study associated with this dissertation is

115

116
listed first, and the others were used for the cross-case analysis performed after data
collection.
Participants
Each cohort members selected a superintendent from a list compiled by the
cohort, based on the general knowledge of the practicing southern California
administrators who comprised the research group regarding their perception of the
likelihood of the district containing what a superintendent would consider a turn-
around middle school. Each researcher selected a name or district and set up an
appointment to meet with that superintendent. The group decided, in the case of
time conflicts for the superintendent, an assistant superintendent or another district-
level administrator who supervises and oversees principals would be interviewed..
The interview with each superintendent or other supervising administrator was
guided by (a) the Superintendent Interview Guide developed by the cohort to
collected information about the district, the management style of the superin-
tendent, and potential schools in need of study (appendix); (b) the STARS chart,
amended by the cohort from Watkins (2003a; appendix); and (c) the Principal
Characteristics and Behaviors Chart, amended cohort from Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005; appendix).
Although the first set of interviews involved speaking to the superintend-
ents, the superintendents (or supervisors) were not the main focus of the interview.
The interview was conducted to extract the essential skill sets, philosophies,
theories, and actions that a principal must take during the transition period to lead a
turnaround school to improvement. The focus of the study was on the next group of
participants, the principals in charge of these turnaround middle schools.

117
Following the interview and data collection meeting or meetings with the
superintendent or direct supervisor of principals, each cohort member took the
names of middle school turnaround principals provided during these interviews and
selected one. This chosen principal and school site was the source for the remainder
of data collection and case study. The data from the 10 sites were compared in a
cross-case analysis and then compared to findings from the literature on turnaround
schools.
Each researcher conducted a minimum of one interview with his or her
turnaround principal. Some researchers visited their sites several times to get a
feeling for the principal’s leadership style and the overall feel of the campus and
school environment. Each interview with a principal was conducted in a similar
fashion to assure consistency and ability for cross-case analysis. Involved with each
principal interview were the following components: (a) the Principal Interview
Guide developed by the cohort to answer the research questions and provide back-
ground into the specific case and principal (appendix); (b) the STARS chart,
amended by the cohort from Watkins (2003a; appendix); the Principal’s Time
Chart, amended by the cohort from Bolman and Deal (2001; appendix).
In order to triangulate data (Patton, 2002) and ensure that multiple perspect-
ives (Creswell, 2003) were shared, researchers also gathered data from teachers
who worked for the principal during the transition period at each turnaround middle
school. During the principal interviews, each researcher asked his or her principal
to attend a staff meeting held at the beginning of the principal’s second year. At
this staff meeting teachers gained an understanding of the research study taking
place at the site, asked questions of the researcher, and completed a survey form
created by the cohort. The staff meeting setting was chosen to ensure an adequate

118
level of staff participation and to provide an informal, relaxed environment where
the teachers could complete the survey.
Immediately following this staff survey but during staff development time,
four teachers, all present during the principal’s first 90 days, were asked to partici-
pate in one-on-one interviews with the associated researcher. These interviews
were designed to elicit responses of greater depth and breadth than could be
expected from survey data. The researchers hoped that the combination of staff
surveys and in-depth teacher interviews would result in a snapshot of the princi-
pal’s transition period and the effectiveness of the principal on the turnaround
school. Patton (2002) indicated the importance of not only surveying groups of
research participants but also providing them avenues for open-ended responses.
This process allows participants to include outlying data that they feel is important
to the study and may lead the researcher to more accurate conclusions about the
participant. Patton warned of the dangers of categorized answers and limited
responses when conducting survey research, as such answers may lead to inaccur-
ate data collection. Providing set responses for participants (as surveys often do)
may lead to assumptions by researchers and guesswork by participants regarding
which category best conveys their opinion. Having the follow-up interviews with
randomly selected participants from the same population of teachers ensured
accuracy and articulation of survey findings. With this philosophy in mind,
researchers included the following set of instruments in the site-level data
collection with teacher participants: (a) the Teacher Survey Instrument, constructed
by the cohort and designed to answer the research questions (appendix); (b) the
Principal’s Characteristics and Behaviors Chart, amended by the cohort from
Marzano (2005; appendix); (c) the Principal’s Time Chart, amended by the cohort

119
from Bolman and Deal (2001; appendix); and (d) the Teacher Interview Guide ,
developed by the cohort to answer the research questions and provide background
into the specific case and principal (appendix).
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Procedures
For collection of data, cohort members collectively set deadlines for
research, refined instruments, and established the process of gathering, transcribing,
and analyzing data collected from participant superintendents, teachers, and
principals. The cohort agreed to conduct all research in September, October, and
November 2006. All group members met the following deadlines and satisfied all
requirements for data collection as follows:
1. Interview/meeting with the superintendent (or supervisor of principals)
by September 18, 2006: audio recorded and transcribed interviews, completed
STARS Chart.
2. Interview/meeting with turnaround principal by September 30, 2006:
audio recorded and transcribed interviews, completed STARS Chart, completed
Principal Characteristics and Behaviors Chart, completed Principal’s Time Chart,
established faculty meeting appointment (to conduct teacher surveys and
interviews).
3. Survey/interview teachers at faculty meeting by October 31: audio
recorded and transcribed teacher interviews, completed surveys from all teachers in
attendance at the faculty meeting who had worked for the turnaround principal
during the transition period, completed Principal’s Characteristics and Behaviors
Chart’s from interviewed teachers, completed Principal’s Time Charts from
interviewed teachers.

120
The cohort chose a mixed-methods approach to data collection so findings
could be triangulated and facts could be double checked from a variety of partici-
pants and via a variety of instruments to achieve a high degree of validity and
generalizability. The study used qualitative methodology via interviews and
researcher observation and quantitative methodology via survey and chart data. All
instruments were collectively developed or amended by the cohort from the works
of established researchers, such as Bolman and Deal (2003), Watkins (2003a), and
Marzano et al. (2005), under the supervision of the dissertation chair. All instru-
ments were reported to have established reliability and validity. The appendix
contains all instruments used for data collection. Table 4 illustrates the relationship
of each instrument to the research questions.
Interview Questions and Procedural Trials
Three research questions guided the study:
1. Do new middle school principals in turnaround situations find the
transition period to be important?
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) are
useful to new principals during the transition period in turnaround schools?
3. Do university programs prepare new principals for success during the
transition period in turnaround schools?
The questions were formulated to address the purpose of the study: the
isolation of key characteristics, philosophies, strategies, and theories to make
successful transition into a leadership role at a turnaround middle school. Interview
questions were designed to address these questions by interviewing and surveying
superintendents, principals, and teachers.

121
Table 4

Relationship of Instruments to Research Questions

Instrument

Question 1: Do
new middle school
principals in turn-
around situations
find the transition
period to be
important?
Question 2: What
strategies and
conceptual frame-
works (leadership
theories) are useful
to new principals
during the transi-
tion period in a
turnaround
school?

Question 3: Do
university pro-
grams prepare new
principals for
success during the
transition period in
a turnaround
school?

Literature review X X X
Interviews
(principal,
superintendent,
teachers)

X

X

X

Characteristics and
Behaviors Chart
X
STARS Chart X X
Time Chart X X

This process of constructing interview involved the cohort collaborating on
an initial set of questions for each participant group, then conducting a pilot study
or a set of trials for each instrument. The initial questions were developed based on
the literature regarding turnaround schools and leadership theory in both business
and education. The cohort members took the initial questions to volunteer princi-
pals, superintendents, or teachers (depending on the target group for the instrument)
who would not be used in the actual study. It was decided that this group of

122
volunteers could be known to the researchers without jeopardizing the reliability or
validity of the trials. The group compared answers, revised questions, and tested the
study again. This revision and trial process was repeated at least three times for
each instrument, greatly increasing the validity of the findings, according to
Creswell (2003). This revision process took place in March to May 2006.
Creswell (2003) noted that conducting pilot studies or instrument trials with
a system of peer briefing would increase the overall accuracy of a study. He stated
that the simple act of sharing findings with other researchers added to construct
validity. Based on this position, the revision process continued until all researchers
in the cohort were satisfied that responses to all interview guide questions, survey
questions, and accompanying charts would address the three research questions and
contribute to the generalizability of findings.
The cohort left the revision process in agreement about the importance of
the processes in adapting instruments to fit research questions despite its redund-
ancy. The group also felt an overwhelming positive feeling about the process of
repeatedly field testing the developed instruments on several volunteer participants.
Once a final interview guide was agreed upon by the cohort, the sets of
open-ended research questions were taken to the superintendent, then to the
principals selected by the superintendents, then to the four randomly selected
teachers who had witnessed the principal’s transition period. All questions were
asked in a one-on-one face-to-face setting, recorded, and transcribed for data
analysis by the cohort. (See appendix for the interview guides used in the study.)
The following are examples of open-ended research questions used in the
principal interview guide:
1. What was your pathway to the principalship?

123
2. What was your perception of the school when you first received the job?
3. What are three strategies that helped you be successful in your first 90
days of the principalship?
4. At what point in your first 90 days did you feel you established
credibility?
5. Did your university program prepare you for your job as principal?
6. What types of support did your district provide for your first 90 days?
7. What advice would you give to new principals?
Principal’s Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
The Principal’s Characteristics and Behaviors Chart (appendix) was
amended by the cohort from an existing document regarding Marzano’s 21
Responsibilities of a School Leader (Marzano et al., 2005). This chart was used in
the principal interviews as well as in the interviews and surveys with the turn-
around school teachers. The instrument is a chart of 21 common behaviors or
characteristics that a principal may employ while working at a school site during
the first 90 days and a description of what each may look like to a teacher or lay
person. Teachers were asked to identify no more and no less than seven behaviors
or characteristics that their principal had used during the transition period. They
then answers two questions using the same chart:
1. What behaviors did you see the principal engage in during the transition
period?
2. What behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal?

124
Principals were asked to complete a similar chart identifying the seven
behaviors or characteristics that they felt they had employed most during their first
90 days at the turnaround school. The results from both the teacher’s surveys and
the principal’s interview were tabulated, frequency counts were conducted, and the
data were compared to identify discrepancies between what the principals felt they
were doing and what was perceived by the teaching staff. This data tabulation was
vital in the cross-case analysis of the 10 case studies.
STARS Chart
One of the chief literature sources for this study was Watkins (2003a), who
pointed out four phases or states of being that businesses and schools share. The
four types of schools (for the purpose of this dissertation) that Watkins described in
his STARS model were as follows.
1. Start-up: Schools that have just been built, have no prior history or
expectation. The principal is charged with establishing the culture, vision, goals,
staff, and expectations unique to a new school.
2. Turnaround: Schools that are underachieving by an established standard
and all stakeholders are aware of this underachievement. The school is in need of a
leader to provide a vision, goals, and the support necessary to improve the school.
3. Realignment: Schools that are underachieving by an established standard
and stakeholders are oblivious to the problem or problems occurring at the site. The
school is in need of not only solving the immediate problems, but leadership will
first have to convince stakeholders of the need for improvement, then will also
have to overcome a great deal of resistance to change before solving the problems
that are holding the school back.

125
4. Sustaining Success: Schools that are performing well but need to be taken
to the next level by competent leadership.
The research cohort amended Watkins’s STARS model into a more useful
quantitative instrument. The tool was designed to assure the research cohort that
they were studying a school that they considered a turnaround school and that the
participants also classified as a turnaround school.
Principal’s Time Chart
One of the foundational concepts on which the doctoral. program at the
University of Southern California rests is that of Bolman and Deal’s four frames of
leadership. Bolman and Deal established this way of categorizing leadership in
their book Reframing Organizations (2003). In this framework leadership categor-
ized as Human Resources, Structural, Symbolic, or Political. This framework was
the foundation for the Principal’s Time Chart developed by the research cohort.
The chart clearly illustrated the areas where each turnaround principal felt that he
or she was spending the bulk of the time during the transition period and compared
these finding to what was perceived by the teachers who had worked for the
principal during this time period.
The cohort decided to ask the principals to rank the four frames, with the
frame containing the number 4 being the frame in which the principal felt that he or
she had the most time during the transition period. The principals were also asked
to indicate what percentage of time they had dedicated to each frame during the
first 90 days. This information was used for the cross-case analysis as well as in
building the case study. The teachers (during the staff meeting survey time) com-
pleted a similar chart outlining where they had observed the principal’s time being

126
spent during the transition period; however, they did not complete the portion of
the chart asking for a percentage of time in each category because the teachers
could not reliably know how a principal’s time is spent when they are busy teach-
ing classes.
Data Analysis
All cohort members met on November 13, 2006, to distribute transcriptions
from all interviews, discuss findings, complete tabulation of data, and conduct a
cross-case analysis of the 10 case studies.
Conclusion
The described methodology was used to collect data regarding the success-
ful leadership philosophies, strategies, and conceptual frameworks involved with
the transition period for leaders in today’s turnaround middle schools. The research
group conducted the study used a mixed-methods approach to data collection,
involving both qualitative interviews and quantitative survey data. In using these
varied methods and by using a variety of stakeholders as participants, the cohort
triangulated data in the effort to conduct a valid and reliable research study.

127
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH RESULTS AND STUDY FINDINGS
In recent years there has been a great deal of emphasis on improving
schools. With this emphasis have come increased accountability measures and
pressure placed on principals and other educational leaders as they attempt to turn
around failing schools, as well as to raise the bar for schools that are already
viewed as performing in an acceptable fashion according to the demands of NCLB.
However, clear pathways, strategies, or frameworks have not been established for
all principals (especially principals in charge of turnaround situations) to use to aid
in the improvement of schools. Also deficient are well-established and grounded
training programs, induction programs, or university programs that have proven to
be the “magic bullet” for principals in helping their schools to improve. The
transition period (the first 90 days that a leader is in the role within an organization)
has been an area of research in business leadership for many years, but a compari-
son between the effective practices of successful business leaders in turnaround
situations and the practices of successful principals in turnaround situations has not
been examined prior to this study.
This chapter provides a discussion of findings from the study as they relate
to the three research questions. First, case study D (the case study that this
researcher conducted as outlined in chapter 3) is presented, followed by a synopsis
of the remaining nine case studies and the cross-case analysis of these studies as
conducted by the cohort. Each of the three research questions is addressed, first in
terms of findings for case study D, second in terms of the cross-case analysis of the
10 studies, and third in comparison to findings reported in the literature. The

128
chapter ends with a summary of the main findings of the study related to the
research questions.
Introduction to Case Study D
In order to protect anonymity, each school and principal was assigned a
letters from A to J. The case study directed by this researcher was designated case
study D, and the participants (principal, principal’s immediate supervisor, district
organization, and turnaround setting are referred to as Principal D, Assistant
Superintendent D, School District D, and School D, respectively.
School D is an urban middle school with grades 5 through 8, located south-
east of Los Angeles. According to the school’s School Accountability Report Card
(SARC), the school is one of six middle schools that feed four high schools in a
district housing nearly 30,000 students in grades K-12. The campus of school D,
which is surrounded by fences no less than 10 feet high and consists of one fairly
nice-looking (by California Standards) and good-sized two-level building, a yard
roughly the size of a football field, and several wings of semiportable classrooms,
all painted to match the main building, houses just over two thousand students.
Although 95% percent of the students identify themselves as Hispanic, only
one quarter speak a primary language other than English. Three quarters of the
students are classified as poor or receiving Title I services. The school has a 2005-
2006 API score of 648 (NCLB considers an API score of 800 to be satisfactory),
showing that the school will need to gain over 152 points to be considered to be
providing an appropriate level of education for its students. This score, along with
the fact that the school has been identified by the state as a Performance

129
Improvement (PI) school, suggests that the school is potentially a turnaround
environment.
School D has a staff of 72 teachers and is led by Principal D, two assistant
principals, and a project director. Ninety-one percent of the teachers have a creden-
tial in the subject matter in which they teach, and the school offers a 30:1 teacher-
to-student ratio. Although the teachers were warm and welcoming with regard to a
researcher’s presence on campus, they were not always open to interviews and
were skeptical of the surveys distributed to them. Many refused to take surveys,
and some who completed the surveys commented, that even though they had been
offered the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval document and a personal
letter from the researcher stating the intentions of the research, they considered the
process a way for administration to spy on them. A strong sense of unity among
teachers and the strong presence of the teacher’s union on the campus were evident,
suggested by the way teachers appeared to answer questions similarly when inter-
viewed or surveyed, the direct comments from those interviewed, the way in which
the interviewed teachers defended each other’s actions and opinions, and consistent
distrust for administration noted in verbal and written responses.
The identification of School D as a turnaround site (Watkins, 2003a) was
solidified by the apparent distrust for administration shown by the teachers; this
instability seemed to say that some fence mending and relationship building, along
with obvious need for academic improvement, were necessary when Principal D
took office. The Assistant Superintendent also identified the school as a turnaround
school via the immediate supervisor interview instrument, stating, “It is definitely
in the turnaround category. While it has made gains and we’ve pointed to it as a
school headed in the right direction, it’s not making progress as rapidly as we’d

130
like.” Principal D also identified the site as a turnaround during her interview.
Although nearly 30% of the teachers surveyed immediately identified the school as
a turnaround, the others did not always view the school this way, according to their
surveys and interviews, but they contradicted their own classifications through
many written and verbal clues telling why they and the other teachers felt that the
site needed improvement. These comments could indicate that many of their
answers (involving the answers of sustaining success and realignment) were given
to save face rather than to accurately assess the status of their site.
Principal D identified some of the issues within the school and stated that
she had begun to take steps to solve some of the problems immediately upon her
placement at the site. One example of her ability to recognize a problem and design
a potential intervention was her decision to call substitute teachers over the course
of a week, which allowed her to have individual meetings and discussions with
every member of the teaching staff. She did this after recognizing distrust among
her staff, along with hard feelings and a strong attachment to the former principal.
She recognized that she needed to build relationships as her first order of business,
and she centered her improvement strategy and philosophy on building individual
relationships with stakeholders.
Principal D was immediately identified as a successful candidate by her
Assistant Superintendent. Principal D has been in education for over 31 years,
spending 22 of them as a teacher; she stated that this experienced helped a great
deal as an administrator.
I think having so much time in the classroom is extremely significant to the
way I operate now, because I’ve spent a lot of time perfecting my teaching
skills and have gone through a lot of educational phases and eras of
educational research during my time in the classroom, I think that made me
a better administrator.

131
Principal D eased her way into administration by becoming a leadership
team (WASC) member at the high school in which she taught. She was transferred
to another high school and became what was considered a coordinator for accredit-
ation and special projects. From there she was promoted to Assistant Principal for
student services and discipline for a period of 4 years and was currently serving in
her second year in charge of School D.
During the immediate supervisor interview Assistant Superintendent D said
the following about Principal D:
To be successful, you have to have the content of principalship leadership,
but you also have to have the ability to engage people in your belief—in
seeing your vision and feeling the passion you have in order to connect
them to the content. And Principal D has that ability. She cares about the
kids. She cares about the school. She worries that what she’s doing is the
right thing. And she’s very open in discussing all of that with the people
that she works with. So, she doesn’t pretend to know it all, but when she’s
made a decision, done her research, talked to the people she thinks should
have input into it, then she’s also very willing to say this is what we’re
going to do and this is why we’re going to do it, and move forward. So I
think she has all the features necessary: content, process, and relationships.
That’ll help her in sometimes making even the wrong decision and
recovering appropriately to get back on track.
Introduction to Case Studies A-J
(The Cross-Case Analysis)
Ten turnaround middle schools and their principals were studied by the
research cohort, using survey and interview instruments (see chapter 3 and the
appendix). (One additional school was studied but later eliminated from the study
due to not meeting research criteria.) In each of the 10 schools, the subject principal
and the principal’s immediate supervisor were interviewed, teaching staff was
surveyed, and four department chairs or teacher leaders were interviewed. This
provided data from 208 surveyed teachers surveyed.

132
Several trends in the data for the 10 schools were noted. Although the clear
majority of teachers were credentialed (over 90% in most schools), API scores
were on average 125 points below the acceptable score of 800 established by
NCLB. This underachievement despite having qualified teachers could be
attributed to language and/or socioeconomic barriers, as measured by the high
percentages of Hispanic students, the percentages of English Language Learner
(ELL) students, and the percentages of Title I students (see Table 3).
Other commonalties among the cases emerged in cross-case. The principals
had similar pathways to the principalship. Ninety of the 10 principals had taught at
various levels, and all had prior leadership experience; 8 had been Assistant
Principals, and 6 had been encouraged by their administrators to become principals.
Length of experience before the principalship ranged from 7 to 25 years, with an
average of 15 years.
In order to determine what abilities, skills, or unique strategies these
principals used that less successful principals did not, making them suitable to lead
in a turnaround environment, the principals’ immediate supervisors were asked,
“What makes you define the principal as successful?” Answers included the
principals being seen as visionary leaders, strong communicators, caring about their
job, caring what people thought of them, and caring about the school. Table 5
summarizes responses to this question.
All of the principals identified their schools as turnaround schools but the
reasons for such categorization varied significantly across cases. Seven of the 10
principals cited the school’s achievement or lack of achievement to classify but
only 1 used achievement as a sole reason. Others who used achievement data to
classify their school as a turnaround also included morale issues and negative

133
Table 5

Responses by Principals’ Immediate Supervisors Regarding Reasons for the
Principals’ Success

Reason for success Case study

Principal can create and carry out a vision B, C, D, E, F, G, J
Principal created a learning community and built
collaboration
B, C, D, E, F, G, J
Principal established credibility C, I
Principal had strong teaching skills A, C
Principal cares for school and cares about how they are
viewed by stakeholders
B, D, G
Principal is up to date on research D, G
Principal uses data to drive change E, J
Principal is a strong disciplinarian E, H, J
Principal follows direction well E, H
Principal has a strong focus on instruction E, F, G, H, J
Principal has a strong awareness of surroundings and the need
for change
G
Principal conducted a needs assessment J
Principal holds teachers accountable well B, J
Principal had a successful assistant principal experience A, D
Principal is a strong communicator A, D

inertia. Only 1 principal claimed that the staff was partially responsible for the
school being a turnaround, spreading “blame” to previous administration and the
overall morale of the school.

134
The charts below indicate the responses given by principals to both the
question of how they would categorize their school according to the STARS Model
(Watkins, 2003a) and their reasoning for this categorization. In the second chart,
five categories are listed as reasons a principal may have categorized their school as
a Turnaround: Achievement, Staff, Morale, Administration, and Inertia. If a princi-
pal provided answers indicating their school’s API score, test data, or scholastic
achievement were poor, they were given an X in the Achievement category. If they
have an X in the Staff category there may have been a feeling in the school that the
teachers were not doing their jobs well. An X in the Morale category would indi-
cate that the staff’s negativity could be leading to a poor climate and bad culture at
the school. If Administration received an X, poor leadership or poor accountability
is being blamed for the schools failures. Finally, an X in Inertia would indicate that
there is negative momentum at the school that may be difficult to correct and re-
direct. These responses are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6

Principals’ Categorization of Their Schools Upon Assuming Office

Category A B C D E F G H I J

Start-up
Turnaround X X X X X X X X X X
Realignment
Sustaining
success

135
Table 7

Principals’ Reasons for Categorization of Their Schools Upon Assuming Office

Reason A B C D E F G H I J

Achievement X X X X X X X
Staff X
Morale X X X X
Administration X X
Inertia X X X X X

In most cases the principals were not left alone to identify the problems in
their turnaround schools. Many reported that they had either searched for or
received information about the school from several sources, including tenured
faculty, current and former teachers and parents, district office officials, community
members, secretarial and administrative staff, previous principals, and data in the
school’s files or SARC data.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, Did middle school principals in turnaround
situations find the transition period (first 90 days) to be important?
Findings in Case Study D Related
to Research Question 1
Principal D stated that the first 90 days of her principalship were “extremely
significant.” “In the first 90 days I recognized whether I was going to make it or
not.” She likened her new role as principal of a turnaround school to that of being

136
in a relationship, and she drew several parallels between being a principal and
building relationships.
If I had not established relationships, built a team of leaders, let the staff see
who I am and what I’m about, I don’t think we would have pulled together
like a staff. I think in any relationship, you’ve got to have a good start.
Assistant Superintendent D claimed that the first 90 days are significant for
every principal. She stated that Principal D’s first 90 days were significant and set
her up for success because she is a good listener and a fast learner. Principal D was
described only in a positive light during the interview, and Assistant Superintend-
ent D described Principal D as a leader who naturally did some elements of her job
very well, and noted that, if she made an occasional “rookie” mistake, the parts she
did well carried her. “Principal D continues to learn and get better, and the staff
appreciates that in her, for this reason she could have survived the first 90 days
even at a medium level.”
The teachers in school D were surveyed regarding the importance of the
transition period for their principal, and 57% rated the first 90 days as significant,
21% reported that the principal had done extensive analysis during that time but
took little action other than meeting with them, and 22% said that they found
instances of importance in the principal’s first 90 days but did not think that it was
enough to consider it a make-or-break time for her or that did not know a
principal’s role well enough to comment.
Findings in Cross-Case Analysis
Related to Research Question 1
The interview responses generated by the principals and immediate
supervisors in the 10 cases confirmed the responses given in case study D. Eight of
the 10 principals stated that the transition period was very significant in their

137
success, and 2 categorized the transition period as significant. Nine of the 10
immediate supervisors rated the first 90 days as very significant; 1 failed to respond
to the question.
Principals commented that their transition periods were significant because
they focused on changing the way in which principals were viewed as people who
worked behind desks or people who were accessible and had open door policies
(case study C), they focused on building and establishing relationships (case studies
D, E, G, I), they focused on increasing credibility and visibility (case studies F and
G), or they focused on building a vision and setting goals (case studies E, H, J).
Supervisors commented that the principals tended to focus on the tasks or missions
that were laid out for them when they took the job but also said that, in many cases
where a mission was given to a principal, no direct path for accomplishing that
mission was spelled out. An example of this was in case study B: “Principal B
needed to get to know what was going on and make decisions as needed, there was
nothing specific to do other than move the school to an 800 API.” Supervisor C
stated that the transition period for the principal was significant because it was the
time for the principal to make change and that she could do so because “she is a
good listener, is approachable, and people go to her. She instills confidence and has
won over many of the teacher leaders in the school.”
Teachers from all 10 case studies were also asked whether the first 90 days
was significant for their principal. Of the 207 responding teachers, over 77% stated
that the transition period was important for their principal, 12% stated that the
principals’ actions during this time period were insignificant, and the remaining
teachers either did not answer the question or stated that they could not accurately

138
analyze the importance of the time period from their position. Following are
examples of teacher responses as to why this time period was important.
[At the start of her time in charge] “the principal displayed a willingness to
learn, and stated that she wanted to learn our school’s community before
she made changes, which was one really good step. She also displayed a
very engaging sense of humor.
The principal made us feel like we were important and always interacted
with the staff, and it made us really do our job well right from the start.
She had a lot of good ideas starting right away, 41 developmental assets
was one . . . and she got department chairs to talk about curriculum and
special education—that had never happened before. She also got a lot done
by working with the PTA and building community involvement.
Summary of Findings and Comparison to
Literature for Research Question 1
There was a high level of consistency among the 10 case studies that points
to the transition period being a crucial or at least a substantial part of a principal’s
success at a turnaround school, based on teacher interview data, supervisor inter-
view data, and teacher interview and survey data. This conclusion is supported by
the literature on business leadership (Watkins, 2003a, 2003b), which says that the
first 90 days is a make-or-break time period for new leaders and that leaders must
quickly establish their credibility by gaining early wins (Kotter, 1998; Watkins).
Educational leadership literature also emphasizes a principal’s ability to quickly
read the school, diagnose problems, and almost immediately present a list of things
the school is doing well and can do to improve (Duke, 2004b).
Findings for Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, What strategies and conceptual frameworks
(leadership theories) were useful to new principals during the transition period
(first 90 days) in a turnaround school?

139
Findings in Case Study D Related
to Research Question 2
Having established that the first 90 days is in fact a significant time period
for a principal in a turnaround school, one can identify commonalities among cases,
themes across cases, and key strategies utilized during the first 90 days by these 10
principals. Although many principals and supervisors did not name exact frame-
works or provide the names of theories that they were using, the cohort found many
parallels among theories, frameworks, philosophies, strategies, and actions in the
interview and survey data and those found in the literature. Data analysis revealed
common threads of strategies used during this transition phase to earn the status of
a successful principal in a turnaround situation. These threads were prior experi-
ences and positions that set up the principal for success, the drive to establish better
communication with stakeholders, a focus on building relationships, and the ability
to represent oneself well and be real with staff.
Prior Experience
Principal D was similar to most other principals in this study in that she had
an extensive background in education before becoming a principal in a turnaround
environment. Principal D took advantage of her knowledge and her experience
(especially as an Assistant Principal at the high school level); she and her super-
visor stated that the experience gave her insight into what was expected for success
at the next level. Assistant Superintendent D reported that Principal D was
strategically placed at the school because her stint as a high school administrator
allowed her to speak as an expert to the students, parents, and staff of School D.
She also claimed that Principal D was in an excellent position after this experience
to describe the level at which the students should perform in high school to be

140
successful and what students would be expected to know once they entered high
school. Assistant Superintendent D stated,
Principal D’s mission was to focus the staff on the end product that they
were producing at the school. They were getting in a new batch of fifth
graders—what did they want them to know and be able to do when they left
successfully as eighth graders?
Establish Communication With All
Stakeholders
Another key strategy that was established by Assistant Superintendent D
and upheld by Principal D was that her role was to “help parents understand what
was going to happen in high school.” Principal D took on this role and, according
to Assistant Superintendent D, “engaged in a campaign to alert everyone to high
school expectations.” Closely related to this role was the fact that Principal D
focused on evaluating performance data from her new school and including this
information in presentations to parents and teachers. According to Assistant
Superintendent D,
She would work hard to gather evidence, bring in all stakeholders, get their
opinions, set a clear vision, and then worked hard to monitor the status the
vision—not getting pulled away from it from the day she walked in until the
end of the school year.
Focus on Relationships
Maintaining a focus on relationships was also a crucial step for Principal D
that was mentioned during interviews by Principal D, her supervisor, and almost
every one of her teachers through interviews and surveys. A couple of key strate-
gies and actions in this area taken by Principal D during her transition phase were
identified by almost every stakeholder as a crucial piece in survival at the site and
in success as a turnaround principal. Almost everyone in school D mentioned the

141
individual meetings that Principal D held with each member of her staff. Principal
D explained why she valued the opinion of every member of her staff and why her
approach involved these interviews:
You can’t come into a failing situation like you’re the savior or Mr. Fix-it,
you also can’t come in trying to explain that what they’ve been doing at the
site for a number of years is trash. That will not set the stage for success.
There are good things going on, even if it is the personal relationships
teachers make with kids. You need to respect the work that people have
been doing all along. If you don’t, nobody is going to do anything for you.
You need to respect all the time and effort that everyone has put into the
school, that’s why relationship building is important. You need to analyze
the school, find out what they value, what they feel needs to be changed,
and incorporate what you think needs to be changed.
Principal D considered the meetings were helpful in building trust among
staff members, showed that she was serious about improving the school, showed
that she valued the staff’s opinion and prior work, and allowed the staff to ask her
the questions
It let the staff see who I am and what I’m about, I don’t think we would
have pulled together like a staff if I had not put myself out there from the
very beginning. It’s scary when you’re the new person and the outsider, but
you have to put yourself out there. You have to drop your guard and open
yourself up, many don’t do it and they appear aloof and uninterested in the
staff and school.
Watkins (2003a) supported the strategy of focusing on relationships during
the first 90 in a leadership role. He stated in his book The First 90 Days that the
most crucial things a new leader must know are that he or she is completely lacking
concrete understanding of why the organization is not working, and although eager
to make change, the leader must first focus on building the relationships necessary
to create change and achieve goals within the organization.

142
“Be Real”
Another key action that Principal D took in her first days on the job that
impressed her staff was the speech that she gave at the first staff meeting after her
arrival. The impression was made not by the content of the speech but by the
delivery. Principal D appeared to be nervous and awkward, obviously anxious
about being in front of her staff for the first time. One teacher commented that
Principal D joked about her nervousness with the staff after she made a speaking
miscue and accidentally cursed instead of saying another word in the speech. The
teacher stated that the principal’s joking, lightheartedness, and ability to not take
herself too seriously helped the staff to recognize that she was real, that she did not
have all the answers, and that she was there for the right reasons. Principal D stated
during her interview,
Sometimes you also just need to go by your gut. You’ve got to open your-
self up so that the staff sees that you’re real even if you have to take a few
shots. But you need to go back out there, lead them, and let the teachers do
it.
Findings in Cross-Case Analysis
Related to Research Question 2
Principal D found it crucial to focus on building relationships, opening lines
of communication, and getting the culture of the school turned to a positive and
proactive one. The main strategies that she used were supported by the actions
taken and philosophies held by the other successful principals in the cross-case
analysis. Table 8 shows commonalities among the cases: being visible to stake-
holders, working to build relationships, being transformational leaders, working to
establish structure, working with and manipulating the politics of the school, and
maintaining flexibility in actions.

143
Table 8

Strategies Used by the Successful Principals in the Transition Period

Strategy A B C D E F G H I J

Visibility X X
Relationships X X X X X X
Transformational X X X
Structural X X X X
Flexibility X X

At several points throughout the data collection process, principals, super-
visors, and teachers from all 10 case studies pointed to these threads as well as to
strategies that seemed to make an impact during the first 90 days at their site (many
of which are backed up by findings from the literature). One example of this is the
focus on relationship building that occurred in case studies A, C, D, F, I, and J.
These principals found it crucial to their success to either set up individual inter-
views with each member of the staff to get to know them or to open up lines of
communication between the staff and leadership. They considered that these
actions and others allowed staff members to experience an open door policy. In
case study G the supervisor pointed out that Principal G
opened up lines of communication that had previously been closed. He
clearly established the fact that what they were currently doing was not
working, asked the staff what they felt needed to happen, did surveys, and
found out what they all collectively thought would turn the school around.
Similar examples found in principal and supervisor interview transcripts of
principals emphasizing relationship building, team building, and opening up lines

144
of communication were evident in case studies B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I. In these
cases some or all of the following key actions or strategies were employed: (a)
building relationships/coalitions; (b) constructing administration teams, leadership
teams, data analysis teams; (c) making master schedule changes to accommodate
communication and teaming departments to allow for collaboration; (d) communi-
cating action plans to all stakeholders (including parents, students, and community
members); (e) setting goals and creating visions with the staff instead of for the
staff; (f) putting procedures and structures in place that supported learning and
communication; and (g) building ownership among staff members by letting them
play an active role in decision making.
Immediate supervisors of the principals were asked, “What three important
actions helped the principal make the biggest positive gains?” The supervisors
identified several strategies their principals used that they felt were important in
their success at their turnaround sites. Although not every principal was mentioned
as using every one of the strategies listed in Table 9, many supervisors and princi-
pals commented on the importance of including a combination of these elements in
a principal’s first 90 days.
Knowing what principals used as strategies that led to their success paints a
picture for principals trying to follow in their footsteps and turn around their
schools. What is missing, however, is how these strategies were valued by teachers,
supervisors, and the principals who utilized them. Even more interesting may be
the question of what supervisors and teachers would have liked principals to have
done if they had the experience to do it again. Marzano et al. (1999) established a
theory involving 21 leadership “responsibilities” or characteristics that show a
relationship between their use and student achievement in schools. The cohort

145
Table 9

Principals’ Strategies Reported by Their Immediate Supervisors

Strategy Case study

Altered instructional program C, G
Held individual interviews with staff members D, I
Established a collaborative culture A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I
Changed or hired staff members C, D
Established and monitored a vision D, F, G, I
Raised expectations D, G
Used data to drive programs E, I
Modeled instructional leadership H, J
Was proactive H
Was “real” / honest D, J
Provided a safe and orderly environment J
Showed patience with staff A

considered the conceptual framework by Marzano et al. to be comprehensive
included questions regarding it in each interview and survey instrument. Each
participant was asked to identify the seven responsibilities that he or she saw the
principal perform most often during the first 90 days in charge of the school.
When principals were asked to identify the seven responsibilities that they
felt they had utilized most often during their transition period, they identified an
emphasis on the characteristics of communication, visibility, focus, resources,
culture and situational awareness above all others. Seven of the 10 principals

146
selected communication and visibility as important; 6 chose culture, resources, and
focus; and 5 chose situational awareness.
Supervisors identified focus, culture, visibility, knowledge of curriculum/
instruction, assessment, and order. Seven of the 10 supervisors chose focus and
culture, 6 chose visibility, and 5 chose knowledge of curriculum/instruction,
assessment, and order.
Teachers have a unique perspective on the view of the principal, their
understanding of the role, and their perspective on the way the principal has
impacted the school. When 40 department chairs were asked what seven responsi-
bilities they saw the principal undertaking, they identified visibility, focus, com-
munication, order, flexibility, input, and resources. Twenty-six six selected visi-
bility, 21 selected focus and communication, 17 selected order and flexibility, and
16 selected input and resources.
The teaching staff provided 208 sets of responses to this question, identify-
ing focus, visibility, culture, order, resources, flexibility, and communication. Of
these 208 teachers, 103 chose focus, 102 chose visibility, 99 chose culture, 92
chose order, 85 chose resources, 79 chose flexibility, and 78 chose communication.
A comparison of the selections of all four groups showed clear overlaps in
the areas of communication, visibility, and focus. Comparison of selections by
principals and supervisors showed overlaps in communication, visibility, focus, and
culture. Comparison of selections by principals and department chairs showed
overlaps in communication, visibility, focus, and resources areas. (It was presumed
that these overlaps were due to the direct contact that department chairs have with
principals and the inside knowledge into decision making and the role of the
principal that they may have as a result of this increased contact.) Comparison of

147
selections by principals and teachers indicated overlaps in the areas of focus,
visibility, culture, resources, and communication. That teachers had identified one
more responsibility in common with principal’s perceptions than any other group
was surprising. These overlaps provide evidence that principals not only empha-
sized these areas during their first 90 days but also that these areas were recognized
by stakeholders, perhaps indicating another reason for their success.
Regarding Marzano’s 21 responsibilities, supervisors and teachers were
asked to identify which of the behaviors were most important for a successful
principal. Since principals had focused on seven areas and indicated these answers
in the previous section, it was assumed that they had focused on what they felt was
important, so this question was asked only of supervisors and the two teacher
groups. Findings for this question follow.
According to cross-case analysis data, supervisors considered the behaviors
of culture, monitors/evaluates, order, the design of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment, and focus as most important in a successful principalship. Eight of the
10 supervisors selected culture as important, 6 selected both monitors/evaluates and
order, and 5 selected both focus and the design of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. Department chairs selected visibility, communication, culture, disci-
pline, and focus. Of the 40 teacher leaders, 28 chose visibility, 26 chose communi-
cation, 22 chose culture, and 21 chose discipline and focus. The general teachers
identified communication, visibility, discipline, resources, culture, focus, and
order. Of 208 teacher responses, 133 chose communication, 115 chose visibility,
103 chose both culture and resources, 96 chose focus, and 90 chose order.
Recalling that principals valued communication, visibility, focus, resources,
culture and situational awareness, when principals’ values were compared

148
supervisors’ values, the groups chose only the behaviors of focus and culture in
common. Principals and department chairs chose culture, focus, communication,
and visibility in common, and principals and teachers chose communication,
culture, visibility, focus, and resources in common These results point out strong
similarities between groups that transcend rank within the organization and lead to
the conclusion that a successful principal may make choices based on reflection of
their values as teachers.
Summary of Findings and Comparison to
Literature for Research Question 2
It is clear that success in a turnaround environment can be reached in a
number of ways and measured by various means. The data show that the specific
action or actions of a principal may differ according to the situation at hand. The
evidence shows that the strategies chosen by these successful principals often were
related to a core set of threads, themes, frameworks, or leadership theories, most
of which are backed by the literature. In this section these successful strategies/
themes/threads are identified, showing how the actions associated with them are
connected and how the literature supports the actions of the principals who used
them (either intentionally or unintentionally) to turn around their schools.
Accurately Assessing the Environ-
ment Before Taking Action
Having the ability as a principal to take action and to make the difficult
decision has proven to take principals only so far in improving underperforming
schools. One theme in the data from several case studies is the importance of
accurately assessing the environment before taking action (Bennis, 2003; Collins
2001; Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2001). This ability to assess a given situation guided

149
the principals in this study to make decisions regarding the safety and order of the
learning environment, the raising of expectations for stakeholders, the use of data
to drive decision making, the changing of curriculum or master schedules, patience
with staff, and the way in which decisions were presented to be perceived in the
correct fashion by staff and supervisors. Teachers involved with case study D
brought this theme out repeatedly in their survey and interview data. A common
response from these groups mirrored the following quote from a teacher interview
in Study D.
I think that is where you make or break as a principal . . . first impressions
. . . . I felt that I would have sat back a lot just like she did, she sat back and
assessed until she understood what was taking place before taking too much
action on anything. I think that that is key whenever you take on a new
situation . . . especially the first time you are a principal.
The safety and maintenance of the learning environment is so vital to the
students’ ability to learn that it is one of the main standards for the teaching pro-
fession in California (California Department of Education [CDE], 2006b). Estab-
lishing an ideal learning environment was mentioned as a key action taken by
Principals J, and other case studies discussed principals reestablishing discipline
and order at the sites (case studies E and J). Also mentioned were situations (such
as in case study D) in which teachers and immediate supervisor noted that the
principal made several important decisions at a key moment to protect the learning
environment and safety of students. Principal D won respect and praise from her
staff with her decision to keep students on lockdown and in their classrooms
discussing (in a positive way) the realities of immigration in the United States when
the students from neighboring high schools rattled fences and paraded by the
school during a walkout protest of immigration reform during the 2005-2006
school year.

150
Using data to drive programs or to make curricular decisions (although
closely related to or a part of assessing the situation) is another strategy that some
successful principals highlighted in their interviews (case studies E, I, and J).
Principal J used a strategy that is closely related to the use of data when he con-
ducted a needs assessment at his site. Both of these strategies were supported by
Leithwood et al. (2004) and Watkins (2003a, 2003b), as they discussed use of
performance data in the formulation of action plans. Also supported by the work of
Leithwood and Watkins were Principals C and G as they (according to their super-
visors) carefully assessed the deficiencies of their schools before deciding to amend
the instructional programs and master schedules of their respective sites.
Referring to the Marzano et al. (1999) data, only principals identified being
able to assess the situation as a valued behavior, and only supervisors identified
monitoring and evaluating as a crucial behavior. The close relationship between
these two responsibilities noted by Marzano et al. (2005), the findings of the
Marzano-type interview and survey data, and the reports from successful principals
in interview transcripts collectively provide evidence of the importance of data
analysis before taking action.
In assessing their individual scenarios, many of the principals came to the
realization through directives from supervisors, data analysis, or conversations and
observations that change should occur at their sites. The next questions that princi-
pals faced involved how they were going to create change and what resistance
would be shown to the change. These questions presented an often treacherous
political landscape for principals. Bolman and Deal (2001) held politics as a main
element or frame of their four frames model and represented within their model the
difficulties that leaders often face in trying to create change within an organization.

151
According to supervisor interview data, the main “political” acts that principals
involved with these case studies had to perform were building coalitions (case
studies C and F), balancing power at school sites (case studies A, C, D, E, F, G, H,
and I), and management of internal and external conflicts (case studies D, F, and
J). For example, “Principal F did a really good job of building positive relationships
right from the beginning with a small pool of teachers. They assisted her in moving
the teachers forward.” Principal D had the added responsibility of managing a
school that had a heavy union presence and, according to teacher interviews, “had
to be careful to stay positive, available, and honest with the teachers, and needed to
also provide reasoning for her actions in order to avoid a backlash from the staff.”
Another political act that the principals undertook was raising expectations
at their school sites. Principal D commented on her staff and student expectations,
I constantly try to build their self-esteem and work on it because they’re not
going to be effective teachers if they don’t feel that they are. I have high
expectations for the children, and we need high expectations for the staff to
match.
Liontos (1992) discussed in great detail the importance of establishing high
expectations for stakeholders in order to increase an organization’s and a leader’s
chances for success. Solidifying this thought were data from the research study.
During their respective interviews many immediate supervisors and principals
pointed to sites where a primary goal of the new principal was to raise the bar on
achievement (case F), increase rigor (case D), or simply demand more from their
staff, students, and parents (case G). Immediate Supervisor F stated that Principal F
has created a culture where she set the expectations for her staff and has
communicated those goals and expectations to the community, the parents,
the students, and the teachers. Because of these things she has built the
ground work and the base for being successful at that school.

152
Securing Early Wins
The study revealed several instances of principals recalling how they
wanted to make sure that they established relationships with their staff from the
beginning (case studies C, D, F, and H), their struggles to earn trust or loyalty from
their faculty (case studies D, J), or their desires to get things going in the right
direction early in their principalships (case studies A, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I).
These concepts directly parallel the strategy of securing early wins brought forth by
Watkins (2003a) and backed by Collins (2001), Maxwell (2005), and Kowal and
Hassel (2005). The overall importance of securing early wins was discussed in
chapter 2; it can be summarized by saying that a leader should carefully assess his
or her situation, chose a do-able task or tasks that will be visible and have immedi-
ate impact on the organization, and make sure that the tasks are completed within a
short amount of time so that stakeholders will immediate growth, thereby winning
the leader credibility and positive momentum.
Interview transcripts showed that many principals either intentionally or
unintentionally focused on gaining early wins; it was of interest to determine the
point at which the principals established credibility through these actions.
Responses were categorized by time period and by whether the respondent deter-
mined that credibility was established just on a personal level (due to the individual
teacher noticing increased visibility by the principal or due to events such as one-
on-one interviews), or whether credibility was established across the staff (due to
increased schoolwide discipline or presence at faculty meetings) by that point.
Time period categories were No Time Frame, Within the First 90 Days, Later than
90 Days, Never, or Failed to Answer the Question.

153
Findings in relation to time period in which principals established credi-
bility with teachers were as follows. Of 216 respondents, 141 identified a time
period for the establishment of credibility. Of these 141 respondents, 102 (72%)
reported that the principal established credibility within the first 90 days of tenure,
20 respondents (14%) reported that the principal established credibility beyond the
first 90 days, and 19 respondents reported that the principal never established
credibility with them. Seventy-five teachers who responded to the question reported
that the principal had established credibility but could not give a definite time when
it was established (these 75 responses were not factored into the previous statistics).
Also addressed by the survey of teachers was the issue of whether the
credibility that these principals established was made on a personal level with the
teachers or on a schoolwide level. Of the 197 respondents who reported that their
principal had established credibility with them at some point during their tenure,
145 (74%) reported that the principal’s credibility was established on a schoolwide
basis or by an action that addressed the needs of the entire school. The remaining
52 respondents (26%) stated that the principal had earned credibility through a
personal connection or through actions dealing with the staff members as indivi-
duals. This shows a nearly 3:1 ratio for teachers basing the credibility of their
principals on schoolwide issues or decisions versus personal or one-on-one
avenues.
From these findings it was concluded that principals in turnaround environ-
ments should focus on gaining credibility during the first 90 days, as that was
shown to be the time of most influence with teachers. It is most effective for princi-
pals to focus on making sound schoolwide decisions or to take actions that address
the needs of the entire site (while not neglecting the personal needs of individual

154
teachers) in order to establish credibility with the teaching staff. The teacher inter-
view and survey data identified specific actions that principals took to win either
personal or schoolwide credibility, as summarized in Table 10.
In addition to ways that principals built credibility, it is important to con-
sider ways (that principals mentioned) that could destroy a principal’s credibility
with staff. Mentioned during the interviews were principals who bullied staff, failed
to listen, had weak personal skills, were unaware of or uninterested in certain
departments/programs/projects, lacked leadership qualities/skills, did not communi-
cate well, and did not appear confident or competent.
Building Relationships and a
Collaborative Culture
Building relationships and establishing a collaborative culture (according to
the descriptions provided by Watkins, 2003a, 2003b) should be considered a part of
securing early wins. Included are strategies involving changing and hiring staff to
assist in creating change or improvement (as in case study B), being proactive (case
study H), and being “real” and honest with staff at all times (case studies D and H).
An example of the critical decision making that goes with trying to establish a
collaborative culture is shown in Principal B’s interview transcripts: “The biggest
thing on my plate after coming in during December was the evaluation of teachers
and the recommendations to rehire; I had to choose to non-reelect about five
teachers.”
Bolman and Deal’s (2001) four frames model centered on many of the
issues that were mentioned by supervisors and principals. Although only a couple
of leaders commented directly on this model during the interview, many described
or made reference to actions and areas of emphasis for the first 90 days of a

155
Table 10

Personal and Schoolwide Actions Taken by Principals to Gain Credibility With
Stakeholders

Personal actions Schoolwide actions

Stepped in on short notice and substitute
taught for a teacher having a personal issue.
Implemented a new and improved bell
schedule based on input from the staff.
Learned the names of staff members
quickly.
Shortened and eliminated some staff
meetings.
Showed that they cared for the safety of the
staff and students.
Provided incentive programs for teachers
and students.
Held one-on-one meetings with staff
members to get to know them and find out
their concerns.
Implemented an open-door policy.
Treated teachers like professionals. Established a clear vision and action plan
for the school.
Held teachers accountable and praised them
when each action was deserved.
Allowed the staff to take ownership of the
school and programs.
Did not “bad mouth” people. Established expectations and rules and then
held students and teachers accountable in
meeting them.
Supported professional growth of teachers. Made no unexplained or abrupt changes.
Praised individual effort and dedication
even in failure.
Maintained a positive attitude.
Trusted tasks and projects to teachers, and
trusted their judgment on big decisions.
Visited classrooms on a regular basis.
Was warm in conversation, made small talk,
and took a personal interest in teachers and
their lives.
Supported new teachers
Was forward and direct with teachers when
expectations were not met.
Followed through with promises.

156
Table 10 (continued)

Personal actions Schoolwide actions

Took time to discuss and listen to teacher
concerns.
Was prepared for staff development and
meetings and always appeared well spoken,
confident, and competent.
Cared about special education and
accommodated the needs of teachers and
students.
Used data instead of emotion to drive
programs and improvement efforts.
Was visible and available to teachers.
Built and maintained a team mentality.

principal’s tenure at a turnaround site that aligned directly with the model. The
human resources frame contains many of the actions taken by principals in this
study, including formation of teams, encouraging autonomy and participation in
decision making, and establishing lines of communication among various parties
involved with effective operation of the site. Political frame elements were also
mentioned, such as building relationships between people, building coalitions, and
setting agendas. The structural frame was referred to in several supervisor and
principal interviews regarding focus placed on setting goals, reworking and
reestablishing visions, setting new expectations, and reaffirming the staff by
establishing that previous actions had not obtained the desired results and would
have to change. The symbolic frame was cited as principals and supervisors
mentioned a focus on learning about the school and understanding the culture
before moving forward with decisions, finding ways to communicate the new

157
visions to stakeholders, and discovery of new ways to bond staff in the common
mission of school improvement.
Findings indicated that the principals considered the human resources frame
to be the most important during the transition period. These findings were revealed
as principals assigned a percentage to each frame according to the amount of time
spent during the first 90 days in performing duties involved with that frame. The
means of these percentages should that 38% of the principal’s time was spent in the
human resources frame, 29% in the structural frame, and about 17% in both
symbolic and political frames.
The teachers ranked the frames in order of importance for a principal,
showing that they felt that principals spent the most time in the structural frame,
followed by the human resources, political, and symbolic frames. Department
chairs saw the principals spending the most time in the structural frame, followed
by symbolic, human resources, and political frames. Supervisors were not asked
this question directly but were instead asked what three actions they felt were most
important in helping the principal to make the greatest positive gains in the first 90
days. The responses to this question were analyzed and placed into frames by the
cohort. Although all supervisors did not name three distinctive actions that their
principals took, the analysis identified 11 key actions taken by principals in both
the structural and human resources frames, 5 key actions in the symbolic frame,
and none in the political frame. Taking into account all perspectives regarding the
four frames model, it was concluded that the human resources and structural frames
were most utilized (or at least most time consuming) by the successful principals
during their transition periods.

158
Establishing and Monitoring a
Vision
Another key thread important to the success of principals had to do with
transformational leadership (Leithwood et al., 2004; Liontos, 1992), as well as each
principal’s ability to construct, communicate, and carry out a vision. The skills
involved with the formation of a vision and the creation of an environment and
culture that supports the vision may be key skills for successful principals. The
principals in the study may also subscribe to Leithwood’s definition of transforma-
tional leadership by helping to establish a positive culture at the site, fostering
teacher development, and helping teachers to solve problems. Case studies G, I,
and J showed signs of principals focusing in their principal and teacher interview
data on transformational leadership. According to an analysis of supervisor
interview data (concerning the question of what makes supervisors define their
particular principals as successful), 70% of the supervisors viewed visionary
abilities as indicators of success. Many principals mentioned visions of school
success and the importance of these visions that they had created. Principal J
commented,
I think the staff needed to see that I had a clear plan for what we were going
to do, they wanted change. It was an interesting situation because the
teachers were saying they wanted change, wanted things to get better, and
wanted to fix it, but they didn’t have anyone previously to say okay, here’s
what we’re going to do and let’s stick with it and see how it works.
Another key element embedded in the previous quote is the need for a
principal in some situations to be a change agent. Marzano et al. (1999) defined
being a change agent as actively challenging the status quo. Kotter (1998) pointed
to the importance of change agents in the improvement and turning around of
organizations and provided an eight-step framework for leaders as change agents,

159
explaining that creating, communicating, and empowering others to act on visions
are major parts of the process of change.
Leading From the Middle
Leaders or change agents do not always have to perform their leadership
from the front of groups or actively declare themselves as leaders of movements in
order to be successful, as Maxwell (2005) stated in his theory of 360-degree
leadership. There were many examples of principals in this study leading from the
middle. In case studies B and F the principals stepped in and taught for teachers
who either had personal issues keeping them from teaching or were suddenly ill.
This leading by example and ability to show teachers that (as administration) they
were not afraid to teach, leave their office, or “get their hands dirty” won credibility
with staff. Principal B described his situation:
One of my Algebra teachers got sick and I ended up teaching two periods to
her eighth graders, the word spread that the kids really liked the lessons and
enjoyed it. The word got out that I was a pretty good teacher.
This 360 degree leadership or leading from the middle was valued by Eaker
et al. (2002), a promoter of PLCs. PLCs encourage all stakeholders to contribute to
the betterment of the organization, sharing the philosophy that the group result is
greater than the sum of its parts. In PLCs it is not uncommon to see principals
working with staff on initiatives, to see teachers leading and training other teachers,
or to see teachers driving curriculum or making key decisions. Principals B, C, D,
E, F, G, and J were cited by their supervisors to have created some form of
collaborative environment or PLC in their schools. The principals mentioned that
the creation of this environment had contributed to a more manageable political
environment for them, allowed teachers to buy in to the change process, made

160
teachers feel that their voices were heard, allowed teachers to address deficiencies
that only they had been around long enough to know about, and made accounta-
bility easier as teachers were setting the standard for other teachers within their
schools.
Byproducts of “leading from the middle” (especially in the realms of
politics and structure (Bolman & Deal, 2001) helped the principals to be successful.
Principals C, D, F, and J each reported spending up to 35% of their time in the
political frame, managing volatile individuals, groups, and climates. Even more
pronounced were the scenarios of Principals E, G, and J, who reportedly spent up to
60% of their time in the structural frame, performing tasks such as establishing
goals and strategies or setting policies. Sites D and J most clearly demonstrated the
ties between these two frames, as it became clear to the principals in these situa-
tions that they needed to empower others or create cultures and structures where
they could lead from the middle just to survive.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare
new principals for success during the transition period (first ninety days) in
turnaround schools?
Findings in Case Study D Related
to Research Question 3
The cohort’s third research question centered on formal or informal
programs to prepare new principals for success in their first 90 days and in their
careers as principals in general. The goal was to identify programs or elements of
programs that these successful principals had found useful in their success and to

161
determine what elements should be added to principal preparation programs to
make people more prepared to take on a principalship. Chapter 2 reviewed pro-
grams ranging from AB75 to university and local programs designed to prepare
principals for the demands of their jobs (many of which were used or attended by
principals involved in this study). This section discusses these “induction” or
“preparation” programs and their perceived usefulness according to the principals
in the study, as well as support that districts have shown to principals and the
preparation provided by universities and colleges to these principals before taking
on their role as principal.
Principal D addressed the question of how university programs had pre-
pared her for her job as principal (question 7 on the principal interview instrument).
Not a whole lot. I went to Whittier College and there were a lot of good
things there that I did learn. I think it did help me somewhat to be an
Assistant Principal. I had a great mentor, and I think what I learned about
being a principal really came from watching him. There are a couple of
principals in our district that I can call for advice and are good mentors, but
that seems to be where I really have learned. I can say that from college I
learned the basics like Ed. Code and some tricks, but I’d have to say that a
lot of what I learned was from being an Assistant Principal and due to the
mentoring of other principals.
It can be concluded that Principal D got much more from local initiatives
and previous experience (in terms of principal preparation) than from her university
experiences. She responded in a consistently negative fashion to all follow-ups
regarding university preparation. Instead of supporting such programs, she stressed
that mentoring and a networking system in place for principals to call each other or
meet to answer questions was much more beneficial and led to her success.

162
District Support
Principal D responded to the question regarding the types of district support
that she received:
We had new principal meetings, and they were a little bit helpful. Most
helpful was the fact that everyone at the district office was pretty open to
phone calls. No one has ever said that they didn’t have time to help. The
most help that I had was through the informal mentoring that other princi-
pals and the people at the district office choose to do. When I received this
mentor however, it wasn’t an assignment, it just happened, people tried to
help when they could, and I sought out help when I needed it. The principal
who left this school also helped me out a quite a bit, and people from the
district office came out to the site a lot and you could let them know how
things were going.
Immediate Supervisor D commented on the support that District D was
providing for their new principals and to Principal D specifically:
Support from a district level is something that we’ve come to understand is
a lot more important than I think we realized previously. This is the case
because we have had so many people in the past two or three years come
into the district, including many new principals, brand new principals, and
many more than we have had to replace in years. So support was more
casual than we would have liked, but even at that, it turned out to be useful.
We met with new principals on a monthly basis. At first we had a formal
agenda. We Brought in Human Relations and they talked about the contract
and we brought in the business division and they talked about budgeting.
Then we realized what the principals really needed was time to vent and
talk to their colleagues and to say, “This happened to me,” “This is what I
did,” and “This is the dilemma I’m having as a result of that.” Just hearing
from their colleagues that they were facing similar challenges and had
found solutions helped.
So the support program we put in place evolved from a formal
“here’s what you need” set of sessions, into more of an informal sharing
amongst them, and support group. This seemed to work along with a little
bit of mentoring on my part; and then it also gave me an opportunity to hear
some of the challenges that were common across the group, where we
needed to provide support, helped to identify some individuals who were
obviously just not getting it, and situations where we as a district needed to
be more proactive.
It is evident from both of these perspectives within the same district that
formal training was abandoned (for this new group of principals) in support of a
more informal, applied, hands-on approach. It seems that these two individuals

163
found great value in mentor relationships and taking a collaborative approach over
the theoretical approach to preparing principals to be successful in their first 90
days. It seems from both interviews that mentor/learner relationships, being able to
vent and meet with colleagues experiencing the same thing, having a support
network or people to contact in the event of a question or problem, and being able
to have district support and guidance were the most valued elements.
University Programs
In response to questions regarding the preparation that Principal D received
in a university setting, she stated that the programs did not do a good job of prepar-
ing principals for what they were actually going to have to do once they got a job as
a principal. Principal D identified that universities offered a foundation upon which
she could fulfill an Assistant Principal position but not a principalship. She hinted
that the program alone did not provide enough information and hands-on learning
for her to be successful in a principal position. These statements lend value to the
“prior experience” section of this chapter in response to research question 2
because they refer to the opinion that one cannot be a successful principal (or will
at least have a more difficult time being a successful principal) in a turnaround
environment without the skills, mentoring, observation, and practice gained as an
Assistant Principal.
When Immediate Supervisor D was asked how well she felt university
programs prepared administrators for their principalships, she responded,
I think we make it so complicated to get your credential as an administrator
that people loose sight of the job and instead focus on jumping through all
of the hoops set up for them to get the job. Then they get the job that they
wanted and all of a sudden think ‘oh my gosh, what am I supposed to do?’
So I think that just like with teacher preparation in universities there’s a lot
of focus on theory, and with administration, theory about leadership. But, so

164
often folks who see themselves as wanting to be principals didn’t engage in
leadership activities as a teacher or even as a beginning administrator. They
don’t take risks, learn how to make good decisions, try out theories that they
learned in universities. Then we put them in a principal role and say, “Okay,
you’re on your own; you got your degree, sat in the classes, show me your
stuff.” I think it is awfully frightening to a new principal and leads to what I
call administrator freeze, where they’re afraid to make decisions because it
could be wrong, so they hide in their office and rely on the momentum of
the school to carry them.
So I’m not sure how university programs which deal mainly in the
theoretical can really prepare administrators for the day to day decisions
that they have to make. Instead, I think they should be molded around the
“in-basket interview process.” They should be almost entirely situational,
where you have all of the normal things principals encounter pulling at you,
and you need to decide where to start, what to do first, and why. Today’s
universities don’t let that happen enough, and people are unprepared.
Findings in Cross-Case Analysis
Related to Research Question 3
District Support
Table 11 displays findings from the cross-case analysis regarding the
principals’ answers to the question, What support did the district provide you in the
first 90 days?
As Table 11 shows, 6 of the 10 principals reported that their district had
provided little or no support during their first 90 days. None of the districts in the
study were said to have provided staff development assistance to new principals.
Only 1 district (according to principal responses) offered relationship
building assistance and 2 failed to provide mentors or role models for their
principals.
Immediate supervisors were asked the same question (regarding what kinds
of district support were provided for principals during the first 90 days). Results are
summarized in Table 12.

165
Table 11

Principals’ Report of District Support Provided in Their First 90 Days

Support A B C D E F G H I J

Little or none X X X X X X
Relationship
building
X
Staff
development

Mentor/role
model
X X X X X X X X
Overall support X X X X

Cross-case comparison of support provided to the principal by the district
showed that the scenario faced by Principal D was not the norm. Principal D was 1
of only 4 principals who claimed that their district was overall supportive during
the transition period. The other 6 principals claimed that there was either little or no
support provided by the district. These findings are largely in contrast to the
responses given by the supervisors (Table 12), who unanimously reported that they
provided support in various ways to each principal.
The most popular ways of providing support included hosting or allowing
informal mentoring for the principal (which was in some cases established by the
principals and in others set up by the district). This informal mentoring occurred in
8 of the 10 cases studied, which nearly matched the responses given by the
principals. Fifty percent of districts claimed that they provided formal monthly
meetings to principals, yet only 2 principals (D and E) mentioned any kind of

166
Table 12

Principals’ Immediate Supervisors’ Report of District Support Provided to the
Principals in Their First 90 Days

Support A B C D E F G H I J

Open door
policy
X X
Informal mentor X X X X X X X X
Improved
school
infrastructure
X
Formal monthly
meetings
X X X X X
Formal mentor X X X X X
AB 75 X X
Summer
academy
X

meetings. Principal D mentioned these meetings but did not consider them to be
effective at providing the tools that beginning principals need until they began the
hands-on training and more informal, information sharing elements of them.
Other principals involved with the study had the following comments about
the support offered by their districts:
In our first year as principals we were all given a mentor. The mentor was a
retired principal who was paid by the district to work with us. I found it to
be really helpful. We also had weekly meetings with our supervisors where
we discussed the things we were having issues with in an open way. We
were also partnered with another principal in a similar role within the dis-
trict that had been around for a while. My mentor happened to be a former
boss of mine, and that was very helpful. I also thought LACOE training
(AB75) was helpful. AB75 was helpful in getting an understanding of

167
adoptions that we had in middle school and how they were to be imple-
mented. (Principal E)
In my first year it was most helpful to talk to district office personnel and
then just be here everyday, observing the staff and gaining first hand experi-
ence. There were a lot of people willing to give me information, but I had to
weigh it always as it was from their perspective, so I had to consider the
source. (Principal F)
They were very supportive. The superintendent himself was supportive,
even in this huge of a district (28 schools) the superintendent came down
and talked with the staff. The assistant superintendent, the superintendent,
and the area administrator were all asking what they could do to support
me. They wanted to get the school headed back in the right direction. So if I
needed anything, especially early on, I picked up the phone, and if my
request was feasible, they were there to provide it. (Principal G)
University Programs
Table 13 shows how principals responded to the question, How did
university programs prepare you for your job as principal? Responses were
compared and categorized according to their implied confidence in university
programs. Supervisors were asked a similar question regarding how well university
programs prepare administrators for the principalship. Responses are summarized
in Table 14.
Tables 13 and 14 show that, from the perspectives of these principals and
their supervisors, university programs effectively served the needs of less than half
of the respondents. If only a little less than half of successful principals are satisfied
with their preparation, how must less successful principals feel about their
preparation? The information presented in Table 14 may be positively skewed
because some immediate supervisors are also professors in university preparation
programs. Overall, 15% of the respondents were extremely positive about the
preparation provided by universities, 15% were negative, and 20% had no
confidence in the university system of preparation.

168

Table 13

Principals’ Assessment of Principal Preparation Programs Offered by Universities

Assessment A B C D E F G H I J

Extremely
positive
X
Generally
positive
X X X
Generally
negative
X X X X
Not confident X

Table 14

Principals’ Immediate Supervisors’ Assessment of Principal Preparation Programs
Offered by Universities

Assessment A B C D E F G H I J

Extremely
positive
X X
Generally
positive
X X X
Generally
negative
X X X
Not confident X X

169
How University Programs Help or
Fail New Principals
The majority of principals and supervisors (whether positive or negative
about the overall effectiveness of university programs) provided examples of ways
in which university programs added to the skill sets and contributed to the success
of principals. Positive responses were in the following categories: leadership
training received by principals, strategies and guidelines provided for working
through personnel issues, introduction to California Education Code, help with
theory and curriculum planning, definitions of administrative roles and responsi-
bilities, and a brief background in school finance. Supervisors pointed to a similar
list of successes from the university programs in place today.
Each group identified ways in which the university programs were failing
new principals. Negative responses were in the following categories: lack of
induction models, failure to address school reform, and failure to provide practical
knowledge. Table 15 summarizes the responses by the principals and Table 16
summarizes the responses by their immediate supervisors. Reasons for their assess-
ment that the university programs did not help the principals to prepare for the
positions are summarized in Table 17 (principals) and Table 18 (immediate super-
visors).
Principals were asked whether their formal training had focused on the
transition period (first 90 days) of a principalship. Their responses are summarized
in Table 19.
Summary of Findings and Comparison to
Literature for Research Question 3
Table 19 shows that preparation programs were perceived by the principals
and their immediate supervisors not to value the transition period, favoring instead

170
Table 15

Ways University Programs Helped to Prepare Principals for Success, According to
Principals

Help A B C D E F G H I J

Leadership X X X X
Personnel X X
Education Code X X
Theory and
curriculum
X X X
Administrative
functions and
responsibilities
X X
School finance X

Table 16

Ways University Programs Helped to Prepare Principals for Success, According to
Principals’ Immediate Supervisors

Help A B C D E F G H I J

Leadership X X X X
Personnel X X X
Education Code X X X X
Theory and
curriculum
X X X X X X X
Administrative
functions and
responsibilities
X X X X X
School finance X X X X

171
Table 17

Reasons Given by Principals for Failure of University Programs to Prepare
Principals for Success

Reason A B C D E F G H I J

Fail to provide
practical knowl-
edge/experience
X X X X X X X
No “induction”
model
X X
Fail to address
school reform
adequately
X
Depends on the
program
X

Table 18

Reasons Given by Principals’ Immediate Supervisors for Failure of University
Programs to Prepare Principals for Success

Reason A B C D E F G H I J

Fail to provide
practical knowl-
edge/experience
X X X X X X X X
No “induction”
model
X X
Fail to address
school reform
adequately
X
Depends on the
program
X

172
Table 19

Principals’ Reports of Whether Their Formal Training Had Focused on the
Transition Period (First 90 Days) of a Principalship

Response A B C D E F G H I J

Yes x
No X X X X X X - - X

theory and leadership training. One reason for this may be that leadership, theory,
and curriculum are more easily taught, can be generalized to just about every
school situation (involved with the STARS model by Watkins [2003a]), and can be
clearly and easily established and disseminated to the programs in charge of pro-
ducing principals. It can be concluded also that the focus on these areas (leadership,
theory, and curriculum) is much less situational (variable) and relies less on the
differentiated skill sets of professors throughout the state. Therefore, it is more
difficult for the CDE to measure whether standards for the profession have been
taught effectively and to verify that principals have been trained consistently and
effectively. The alarming finding from this portion of the study was that only 1 of
the 10 successful principals indicated that their program had focused on getting
them ready for the initial demands of the job. Based on the data, the successful
principals were creative, honest, personable, and humble enough to succeed despite
this lack of focus on what has been identified as a crucial time period (Collins,
2001; Watkins, 2003a).
Other flaws of principal preparation programs identified by the principals
and supervisors that might help more principals to succeed during their first 90

173
days included the failure to provide practical and experiential practice for the
principals. Seventy-five percent of respondents, all deemed to be successful
claimed that this was a flaw in preparation programs. How must people who have
failed or are struggling through their first semester feel about their preparation?
Many principals and supervisors commented on how they would have liked to
know how to deal with their scenarios before having to perform the duties of their
job. Others would have liked a knowledge base and background presented to them
through these programs that was less theoretical and more based on true-to-practice
scenarios and problem solving. The example of the “in-box interview” framework
for principal training given by supervisor D reflected such feelings.
Almost all of the principals and supervisors indicated a strong link between
the success of a principal during the transition period and the incorporation of some
kind of mentoring (either formal or informal) by either the university program or
the principals’ district. If mentoring was not the answer for their success, they
identified some closely related ability to network with supervisors or principals
who could provide options or answers to their questions quickly and dependably.
Overall, the feeling of the respondents reflected that both university and district
support systems were failing to meet their needs, especially during the transition
period.
Summary of the Main Findings
The study answered the three research questions. In the simplest of terms,
principals in the turnaround environments reported that the transition period was
only important but vital to a principal’s success. Knowing that the first 90 days
were important, certain strategies and actions taken by principals were valued more

174
than others, and some were found to be commonly used across all cases. Some of
the more successful strategies and areas of focus during the transition period were
relationship and coalition building, creating a collaborative culture, gaining early
wins to build credibility, communicating with all stakeholders, and establishing a
clear vision and set of goals for stakeholders to work toward. The majority of the
principals and their supervisors stated that preparation programs for principals
(whether formal or informal) were not adequately preparing principals for success,
especially during the transition period in turnaround environments. The principals
and immediate supervisors in this study concluded that it would be most beneficial
to new principals if preparation programs eliminated some elements of their
theoretical approach and replaced them with more application-based approaches.

175
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER STUDY
Chapters 1 through 4 reviewed problems posed to educational leaders in
today’s high-stakes environments, especially in turnaround environments as
defined by Watkins (2003a). Chapter 2 presented a literature review about the
principalship, the demands of the job, and what skills or focus areas are crucial to
the success of leaders in these environments. Chapter 3 described the framework
for the study of 10 successful principals, their schools, their teachers, and their
immediate supervisors to identify key actions or strategies that they utilized that led
to their success. Chapter 4 presented the findings as related to the three research
questions. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings, presents suggestions for improve-
ments in training programs for principals, and makes recommendations for future
research in areas related to the topic of the study.
The purpose of this study was to examine the leadership strategies and skills
used during the first 90 days by successful principals in middle school turnaround
situations. The literature on both educational and business leadership was examined
to build a foundation of research involving turnaround situations, leadership strate-
gies, the history of the principalship, foundational strategies in organizational
change, and educational history. From this review conceptual frameworks and
theories from Watkins (2003a), Kotter (1998), Maxwell (2005), Bolman and Deal
(2001), and Marzano (2003) were applied to address three research questions:
1. Do principals in a turnaround middle school situation find the transition
period (first 90 days) to be important?

176
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
This researcher studied Principal and school D, and nine other researchers
in the cohort performed identical studies at their schools. Interview and survey
instruments were collectively designed by the cohort, instruments were field tested,
quantitative and qualitative data were compiled, and a cross-case analysis of the 10
case studies was performed.
The results of the cross-case analysis and a comparison of the study find-
ings to the literature provided answers to the research questions as well as peri-
pheral details that led to deeper understanding of each case study and each principal
involved with these turnaround schools.
Summary of the Findings
The findings showed that the transition period in turnaround middle school
environments was critical to the principal’s success. Principals who (a) focused in
the areas of building relationships, helping teachers and other stakeholders to work
together and build coalitions; (b) worked to gain early credibility with all stake-
holders and score early wins; and (c) maintained a clear vision were generally
successful during their transition periods. Both formal and informal training
programs were found to be not providing quality training for preparing beginning
principals, especially those going into turnaround situations.

177
Research Question 1
Research question 1 examined whether principals in turnaround middle
school situations found the transition period (the first 90 days) of their tenure to be
important. Data collected from School D and Principal D showed the transition
period to be important, and that position was reflected in nearly every case study
through responses by department chairs, teachers, immediate supervisors, and
principals. The finding reflected the works of Kotter (1998), Watkins (2003a), and
Maxwell (2005).
Kotter (1998) established that effective leaders create solid visions,
empower others, and focus on building relationships and coalitions. Maxwell
(2005) established the concept of “leading from the middle” and supported
empowering others, both of which were actions found consistently across cases in
this study. Watkins (2003a) established a foundational model called the STARS
model, establishing the importance of the first 90 days to a turnaround leader.
These three researchers agreed that gaining early victories during the first 90 days
is critical to a leader’s success. Also commonly accepted by both these researchers
and the cohort performing the study was the importance of a leader (during their
transition period) building momentum, establishing relationships with stakeholders,
creating a vision, and maintaining a positive climate in the organization.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 examined the strategies and conceptual frameworks
(leadership theories) that were useful to these principals during their transition
period (their first 90 days) in a turnaround setting. Although principals did not cite
a universal framework followed during their transition period, findings from the

178
study pointed to several theories and concepts that were viewed as crucial to each
principal’s success as reported by participants.
Immediate supervisors pointed to successful principals (during their transi-
tion periods) establishing clear visions for their schools, holding high expectations
for all school stakeholders, reorganizing their schools and on occasion restaffing
parts of their schools to create a better culture and climate; being realistic and
honest with stakeholders; creating a safe environment; and working to create a
collaborative culture at their schools.
Principals pointed to past experience and previous employment opportuni-
ties as the sources of most of their knowledge about how to begin their tenures in
turnaround settings. They also indicated (on a survey of Marzano’s 21 characteris-
tics and behaviors) the key characteristics or behaviors that they had employed
during their first 90 days that had helped them to be successful: being visible on
their campus and accessible to their stakeholders; having a solid understanding of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment; creating and communicating a vision for
their stakeholders to strive toward; and maintaining a focus toward improving their
campuses in whatever way was needed for “turned-around,” whether that be
academic, social, or climate based.
Teachers indicated that the schoolwide actions of turnaround principals
were more important to new principals than focusing on establishing individual
credibility with stakeholders. A nearly 3:1 ratio of support for schoolwide actions
versus individual actions was found in the cross-case analysis. Therefore, a
principal in the transition period (according to the teachers at their sites and their
department chairs) should focus on getting early wins that address the needs of the
entire staff if possible, rather than dedicating time to helping individuals. However,

179
it should be noted that individual credibility and the actions taken to gain this
credibility did not go unnoticed by teachers across cases (and in many cases speci-
fic positive actions toward individuals led to credibility and trust gains for the
principals).
Bolman and Deal (2003) presented their four frames model reflecting four
distinct areas that leaders tend to focus on: human resources, structural, symbolic,
political frames. The cohort adopted this framework and created a survey instru-
ment called a Bolman and Deal Four Frames Time Chart. This instrument revealed
information almost parallel to the Marzano data. Successful principals spent the
most time in the human resources frame and the structural frame during the transi-
tion period. This allowed them to build coalitions and relationships with staff and
helped to create an atmosphere where staff worked alongside the principal to gain
early wins, which could lead to later, larger wins.
Research Question 3
Research question 3 explored whether formal or informal programs pre-
pared principals in turnaround situations for success during their first 90 days. The
results of cross-case analysis revealed that university programs as a whole lacked
practical application and did very little to prepare principals for the beginning of
their careers. It could be inferred from principal interview data that preparation was
even weaker in university programs readying principals for taking on a turnaround
situation. Over half of the principals and immediate supervisors combined claimed
that university programs failed to contain on-the-job training. These groups pointed
to failures in preparing principals for exactly what they would experience in their
first days or even average days on the job.

180
Although the results of cross-case analysis were strongly negative concern-
ing university preparation programs and induction programs for new principals,
participants presented some bright points. Principals stated that university prepara-
tion was substantial in the areas of a foundation of theory and curriculum. Princi-
pals and supervisors stated that the networks and support systems established by
the universities were important in getting foundational questions answered. Princi-
pals and supervisors added that a strength of university preparation programs was
their ability to give future principals a foundation of California Education Code
(law), school finance, and curricular ideas.
Training Program Needs
Participants in the study recommended that university training programs
should be redesigned to reflect the needs of principals during the first 90 days. This
would likely increase the number of principals who were able to gain credibility
with their staff, build buy-in, and ultimately be successful at turning around their
underperforming schools. These university and district training programs should
have some mentorship and networking components and should provide training for
principals to become distributive and transformational leaders. If the programs are
training principals appropriately, the principals should emerge capable of diagnos-
ing problems within their schools; forming and working with a team constructed of
stakeholders; developing a vision, goals, and solutions to their site’s problems
(through working with their teams/PLCs/coalitions); communicating this vision to
all stakeholders; and delegating to each stakeholder an appropriate role to contri-
bute and work toward the vision. Principals are expected to perform all of these
tasks, yet training programs do not emphasize these skills enough, if at all. Findings

181
related to research question 3e indicated that, instead of focusing on theory and
segmented/predictable portions of the job, preparation programs should teach
principals to see the global angle on school, how to provide a structure that people
can work within, how to form and work within a PLC, how to network and find
solutions to complex problems, and how to manage, oversee, and delegate tasks to
constituents.
From the examples and case studies presented in this dissertation it is clear
that businesses and schools can be led in similar fashions, using similar techniques.
It is also clear that educational and business environments are very similar but the
processes to prepare their leaders for success are different. Leadership in business
appears to be sequential, and developing an understanding of relatively universal
processes can be done during preparation courses. In educational leadership or
principal training, however, the tasks needed by those in the programs seem to be
much more situational and less predictable. Therefore, the approach to preparing
these leaders must be flexible and based on the assessment of the situation, the
development of a strategy that fits the setting, and the development of networks to
support them and provide solutions to the problems that they may encounter during
the transition period.
Principal training centers such as the one at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, should have more principal-generated workshops to assess and address
the needs of today’s principals. These programs should include coaching and
mentoring by successful principals so that prospective leaders can see that it is
possible to improve schools. These programs should realize that, even though they
are teaching a set of strategies or theories to principals, these approaches may not
be effective for all principals. They should realize that there may be some common

182
themes that successful principals use in solving the problems of their schools and
should incorporate those themes.
Addressing the Principal Shortage
Not only could changing the way that principals are trained increase the
number of successful principals in today’s schools; it could also lead to retention of
principals who in the past would have failed and moved on to another field or back
to teaching. If these principals who have chosen to leave or have been forced to
leave leadership could have received applied training, as well as the networking
skills and mentoring necessary, they might not have left educational leadership.
The results of this study lead to the conclusions that, if these individuals had
received a different style of training and experienced early wins with their faculty,
many might still be leading schools today.
An even larger problem (than principals attempting the job and failing) may
be that many teachers will not even attempt being principal or taking on another
leadership role in education. Only about two thirds of teachers who hold a valid
credential for administration in California actually attempt the job (leaving 11,000
qualified applicants in the teaching ranks despite openings and need). A larger issue
in education may be addressing what would make the principalship more attractive
to these teachers (as well as make the job more accessible and desirable to
successful business leaders).
Making the principalship more attractive may mean addressing and amend-
ing the training programs for educational leaders (possibly to mirror some of the
needs discovered in this study), the financial and salary-related downfalls of the
job, the number of hours per week required to perform the job well, the political

183
and highly critical environment in which principals work, the support systems to
help a principal get started on the right foot, and the large number of hoops that the
state makes applicants jump through to earn and clear a credential. It is clear that
changes should be made to decrease the shortage of principals and increase the
quality and numbers in the applicant pool when vacancies exist.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Now that this study has identified strategies and actions that successful
principals have used in their schools in the critical time frame (the first 90 days), it
may be insightful to perform further research on identifying typical or ideal time-
lines within the first 90 days in which to perform these strategies or actions. This
research could be done with the same schools and principals or a completely new
sample of successful principals who have used similar strategies. This information
could be vital in establishing the most effective times for implementing these
strategies and could assist in the creation of a “cookbook” or plan for training
principals for success in today’s turnaround schools.
Related to findings of this study and the above described timeline study
would be to establish what works in other STARS (Watkins, 2003a) scenarios.
What skills, strategies, and actions overlap in the various environments? To date
we have established only what strategies have been shown to work in turnaround
settings. What about the strategies proven to be most successful in sustaining
success, realignment, and start-up scenarios? Also interesting in these scenarios
would be exploration of how principals established credibility. Once these strate-
gies are discovered, a study could examine the differences in the most effective

184
timelines among these four scenarios. It might then be possible to map an accurate
plan for success once a new principal has identified the scenario.
If the task of taking on the identification of successful strategies in all four
scenarios seems too big an undertaking, it might be interesting to isolate the
strategies that are more successful for male principals versus female principals in
turnaround scenarios. Closely related to this study could be the discovery of
whether gender matters in this scenario or whether gender dictates what strategies
are utilized at what point in time in a turnaround scenario. This facet was not
explored or analyzed across cases in the current study. Also not looked at but
closely related would be isolating whether the time required for a principal to
establish credibility with staff in a turnaround environment changes with gender or
whether timelines might vary by gender.
The topic of credibility may hold keys to the success of principals. Credi-
bility was found in this study to play a key role in turnaround schools, and the
establishment of credibility early on, as well as the actions taken to do so, parallel
the philosophy put forward by Watkins (2003a). It would be interesting to perform
a study about credibility and its establishment in the other three STARS settings
(sustaining success, realignment, start-up), looking for how successful principals
have established credibility with stakeholders.
Another closely related topic for study is what is required for a principal
with prior experience to succeed at a turnaround school, since this study looked at
new principals in turnaround environments. It may also be interesting to look at the
approaches that principals who have been successful at one school used upon
taking on a new site to establish credibility and become successful again. A study
could compare the actions and strategies of new principals in new schools to new

185
principals in established schools, examining what led to success in both
environments.
This study conducted that the preparation system and the actions taken as a
society to recruit and retain good principal applicants requires change to address the
principal shortage. It would be helpful to study succession plans and how districts
are working to put succession plans in place, focusing perhaps on how they are
“growing their own” administrators or how they plan to recruit them from other
areas that identify and groom talent. It would be interesting to see what makes
some places/districts good at creating environments where teachers become
principals and stay principals (or become principals and then become higher-level
administrators) compared to those where people get credentials but never take on
leadership positions. Establishing a program to inspiring talent to emerge and to
move up is needed. Such individuals may be the successful new principals of the
future.

186
REFERENCES
Abrashoff, M. (2002). It’s your ship: Management techniques from the best damn
ship in the navy. New York: Warner Books.
Allen, K. E., Bordas, J., Robinson Hickman, G., Matusek, L. R., & Whitmire, K. J.
(1998). Leadership in the twenty-first century: Rethinking leadership
working papers. Baltimore: Academy of Leadership Press.
Bell, E. (2001). Schools’ principal shortage: Fewer teachers want the job’s growing
challenges. SFGate.com. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www
.sfgate.com/cgi-in/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/23/MN170314.
DTL
Bennis, W. G. (2003). On becoming a leader: The leadership classic updated and
expanded. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Benton, J. (2002, September 7). School defies labels; Frazier Elementary’s poor
minority students excel in face of adversity. Dallas Morning News, p. 1A.
Bensimon, E. M. (1989). Making sense of administrative leadership: The “L” word
in higher education. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www
.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/sense.htm (ERIC Digest. ED317099)
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The Managerial Grid III: The key to leader-
ship excellence. Houston: Gulf.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1999). Handbook of instructional leadership: How really
good principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Corwin.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2001). Reframing organizations. New York: University
Press.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bonstingl, J. J. (2001a). Lead for a transformation in professional learning: De-
signing powerful professional development for teachers and principals.
Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council.
Bonstingl, J. J. (2001b). Schools of quality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Boyne, G. A. (2004). A “3Rs” strategy for public service turnaround: Retrench-
ment, repositioning, and reorganization. Public Money & Management,
24(2), 97-103.

187
California Department of Education (2006a). Fiscal, demographic, and perform-
ance data on California’s K-12 Schools. Retrieved November 12, 2006,
from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp
California Department of Education. (2006b). Standards for the teaching profes-
sion. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.ced.ca.gov/pd/ps/
Ciampa, D., & Watkins, M. (1999). Right from the start: Taking charge in a new
leadership role. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Clark, D. (1997). Concepts of leadership. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcon.html
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and oth-
ers don’t. New York: HarperCollins.
Cook, B. G., Semmel, M., I., & Gerber, M. M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and
special education teachers toward inclusion of students with mild disabili-
ties: Critical differences of opinion. Remedial and Special Education, 20(4),
199-207.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and Student achievement: What the research says.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cushman, K. (1992). The essential school principal: A changing role in a changing
school. Horace, 9(1). Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www
.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/102
Deal, T., & Petersen, K. (2003). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Doyle, M. E., & Smith, M. K. (2001). “Classical leadership,” the encyclopedia of
informal education. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www
.infed.org/leadership/traditional_leadership.htm
Duke, D. L. (2004a). Education empire: The evolution of an excellent suburban
school system. New York: State University of New York Press.
Duke, D. L. (2004b). The turnaround principal: High-stakes leadership. Principal,
84(1), 12-23.
Eaker, R., Dufour, R., & Burnette, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools
to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

188
Elmore, R. F. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and per-
formance-based accountability. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best
Practices.
Fairchild, T. (2005). School restructuring options under No Child Left Behind:
Turnarounds with new leaders and staff. Milwaukee, WI: The Center for
Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Retrieved December 15,
2006, from http://www.centerforcsri.org
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders.
Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 578-606.
Fletcher, G. H. (2006). Addressing globalization 3.0. T.H.E. Journal Online, Janu-
ary. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://thejournal.com/articles/
17784/
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century.
New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
GeoLeadership Group, Inc. (2006, November). Leadership lesson: Trait theory.
Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.geoleadership.com/
newsletter_nov_2006.html
Ghosn, C., & Ries, P. (2005). Shift: Inside Nissan’s historical revival. New York:
Doubleday.
Glass, T. (2001). Superintendent leaders look at the superintendency, school
boards and reform. Denver: Education Commission of the States.
Hancock, V., & Betts, F. (2002). Back to the future: Preparing learners for aca-
demic success in 2004. Learning and Leading With Technology, 29(7), 10-
14.
Hansen, C. (2004). AB 75 Principal Training Program. New York: New York
University.
Heck, R. (1996). Leadership and culture: Conceptual and methodological issues in
comparing models across cultural settings. Journal of Educational Admini-
stration, 34(5), 20-30.

189
Hencley, S.P. (1973). Situational behavioral approach to the study of educational
leadership. In L. C. Cunningham & W. J. Gephart (Eds.), Leadership: The
science and art today (pp. 139-164). Itaska, IL: Peacock.
Hoffman, C. (1989). Strategies for corporate turnarounds: What do we know about
them? Journal of General Management, 14(3), 46-66.
House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of effectiveness. Administration Science
Quarterly, 16, 321-338.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1987). Educational administration: Theory, re-
search, and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Hoyle, J., English, F., & Steffy, B. (1998). Skills for successful 21st century school
leaders. Lanham, MA: Scarecrow Press.
Jones, K. (2003). A learner-centered school accountability model: An alternative to
high stakes testing. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.fairtest
.org/k12/Jones_Account.html
Joyce, P. (2004). The role of leadership in the turnaround of a local authority.
Public Money & Management, 24, 235-242.
Kets de Vries, M. (1995). The leadership mystique. Leading and Managing, 1(3),
193-210.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. Harvard Business
Review, 81(4), 60-69.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 63(3), 103-
111.
Kotter, J. P. (1998). What leaders really do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kowal, J., & Hassel, E. (2005). School restructuring options under No Child Left
Behind: What works when? Turnarounds with new leaders and staff. Na-
perville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Kranz, C. (2004). Fewer educators want to be superintendents. The Cincinnati En-
quirer [online version]. Retrieved February 23, 2005, from http://
www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/03/loc_superintendents03.html
Lashway, L. (2002). The superintendent in an age of accountability. Eugene, OR:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document
Retrieval No. ED468515)

190
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership (Rev. ed.).Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Center for Research in Human Development and Education,
Laboratory for Student Success. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from http://
www.temple.edu/lss/pdf/Leithwood.pdf
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis, MN: Center for
Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
Liontos, L. B. (1992). Transformational leadership. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearing-
house on Educational Management.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Alexandria, VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED474629)
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (1999). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Fairfax, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results (2nd ed.). Fairfax, VA: Association for Supervi-
sion and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. (2005). The 360-degree leader: Developing your influence from any-
where in the organization. Nashville, TN: Nelson.
McEwan, E. K. (2003). Ten traits of highly effective principals: From good to great
performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Memon, M. (2000). Preparing school leaders for the 21st century in Pakistan.
Paper presented at the 13th International Congress for School Effectiveness
and Improvement: Global Networking for Quality Education, Hong Kong.
Moir, S., & Skidmore, E. (2006). Designing a pre-apprenticeship model for women
entering and succeeding in the construction trades. Lowell: University of
Massachusetts, Center for Women and Work.
Mullen, C. A. (2004). Climbing the Himalayas of school leadership: The socializa-
tion of early career administrators. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110,115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Re-
trieved February 15, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
esea02/index.html.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

191
Peters, T., & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence: The leadership differ-
ence. New York: Warner.
Policy brief: Effective leaders for today’s schools—Synthesis of a policy forum on
educational leadership. (1999). Retrieved June 13, 2007, from http://
www.ed.gov/pubs/EffectiveLeaders/policy-forum.html
Poplin, M. S. (1992). The leader’s new role: Looking to the growth of teachers.
Educational Leadership, 45(5), 10-11.
Pounder, D., & Crow, G. (2005). Sustaining the pipeline of school administrators.
Educational Leadership, 62(8), 56-60.
Rodriguez, A. (2002). Redefining our understanding of narrative. The Qualitative
Report, 7(1). Retrieved March 1, 2007, from www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-
1rodriguez.html
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (1992). History of leadership
research. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from www.sedl.org/change/
leadership/history.html#current5
Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior per-
formance. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Stolp, S., & Smith, S. (1995). Transforming school culture: Stories, symbols,
values, and the leader’s role. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educa-
tional Management.
Stone, C. N. (1998). Changing urban education. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas.
Wagner, T. (2001). Leadership for learning: An action theory of school change. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82, 378-383.
Walshe, K., Harvey, G., Hyde, P., & Pandit, N. (2004). Organizational failure and
turnaround: Lessons for public services from the for-profit sector. Public
Money & Management, 24, 201-208.
Walters, L. (2001). Leading for quality: The implications of situational leadership.
Quality Management Journal, 8(4), 48-63.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achieve-
ment. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Watkins, M. (2003a). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders
at all levels. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

192
Watkins, M. (2003b). The first 90 days: Mastering successful management transi-
tions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Weingartner, C. J. (2001). Albuquerque principals Have ESP. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Whitaker, K. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on principal recruitment
and selection. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 37-54.
Williams, T. (2005). How California ranks: A national perspective. EdSource
Report, 3-8.
Wright, P. (1996). Managerial leadership. London: Routledge.
Yates, M. (2006). Leader values: Getting better results, together. Retrieved Febru-
ary 15, 2007, from www.leadervalues.com/Content/detail.asp?
ContentDetailID=783

193
APPENDIX

TEACHER SURVEY / INTERVIEW INSTRUMENTS

Circle the category in which you would place the school when the principal attained the position?

Start – up
Stakeholders had the opportunity to establish a
brand new school.
Realignment
Most stakeholders were unaware that the
school was drifting into trouble and needed to
be changed.
Turnaround
Most stakeholders were aware the school
needed improvement or change.
Sustaining success
Stakeholders take responsibility for preserving
vitality and taking the school to the next level.

Why did you choose this category?

How significant were the first 90 days (or first semester) for this principal? Explain your answer.

What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive gains in the first 90
days (or first semester)?

At what point did the principal establish credibility with you?

194
Using the following chart:
A. Rank from 1-4 how the principal actually spent his/her time in the first 90 days (or
first semester).
B. Rank from 1-4 how the principal should have spent his/her time in the first 90 days
(or first semester).
(1 = Most time, 4 = Least time)

STRUCTURAL ACTIVITIES

• Clear focus on goals, strategy and
objectives
• Focus on hierarchy, authority, rules
and policies
• Specific employee division of labor
based on knowledge/skills
• Standardizing systems to ensure
predictability and uniformity
• Holding regular staff meetings
• Incorporating information technol-
ogy as a means of communication

HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIVITIES

• Integral part of employee selection
process
• Hiring/keeping the right people
• Promoting from within
• Investing in relevant professional
development
• Empowering through information and
support
• Encouraging autonomy and participa-
tion
• Sharing the wealth
• Genuinely understanding employee
needs

Actual: Should: Actual: Should:

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

• Agenda Setting – Working on plans to
achieve your goals for the school
• Mapping the Political Terrain – Identify-
ing agents of influence, identifying in-
formal lines of communication
• Networking & Building Coalitions –
Identifying important existing relation-
ships and creating new ones
• Bargaining & Negotiating – Settling
disputes and making agreements

SYMBOLIC ACTIVITIES

• Learning the history and values of the
school
• Understanding the group identity of the
staff
• Preserving school rituals and ceremonies or
creating new ones
• Incorporating humor or play into work
• Communicating the school vision
• Telling stories to promote the school vision
• Identifying and understanding important
school symbols
Actual: Should: Actual: Should:

195
7 Using the following chart:
A. Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in most frequently during the
first 90 days (or first semester)? (Choose 7 in column A)
B. In which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal in your school? (Choose 7 in column B)

Characteristic/
Behavior
The extent to which the principal… A B

Culture Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & cooperation
Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and routines
Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would detract from
their teaching time or focus

Resources Provides teachers with the material & professional development
necessary for the successful execution of their jobs

Curriculum,
Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of curriculum,
instruction

Focus Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the forefront of the
school’s attention

Knowledge of
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, & assess-
ment practices

Visibility Has quality contact & interactions & with teachers & students
Contingent
Rewards
Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments
Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with teachers & among
students

Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all stakeholders
Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of important
decisions and policies

Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates school accomplishments & acknowl-
edges failures

Relationship Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teachers &
staff

Change Agent Is willing to & actively challenges the status quo
Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations
Ideals / Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs about
schooling

Monitors /
Evaluates
Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their impact on
student learning

Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the current
situation & is comfortable with dissent

Situational
Awareness
Is aware of the details & undercurrents in the running of the
school & uses the information to address current & political prob-
lems

Intellectual
Stimulation
Ensures that faculty & staff are aware of the most current theories
& practices & makes the discussion of these a regular aspect of the
school’s culture

196

PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT
1. What was your pathway to the principalship?
• What is your major?
• How many years have you been in the field of education?
• How long did you teach?
• At what levels?
• What subjects?
• What leadership roles or positions have you held previously in schools?
• How many years have you been in your current district?

2. STRS Chart – In which category would you place your school when you attained your
principalship?
• What evidence did you have to support this categorization?
• Who provided you with information about your school?

3. Principal’s Four Frames Chart
• Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days of your principalship was spent
in the following areas.
• Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days should have been spent in each
area.

4. Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
• Which of these activities did you engage in most frequently during your first 90 days? (Choose
7)

5. How significant were the first 90 days to your principalship?

6. At what point in the first 90 days did you feel you established credibility?

• Describe a specific event or incident.

7. How did your University program prepare you for your job as principal?
• What was useful?
• What was not useful?
• Did any of your formal training focus on the transition period or strategies for success during
your first 90 days as principal?

8. What types of support did your district provide for your first 90 days?
• Was the assistance helpful?
• What kind of assistance would have been helpful?
• What was not helpful?
• Did you have a mentor?
• Did your school district provide staff development as a new principal?
• Were district office personnel available for support during the transitional period?
• Where did you get your most useful insights into the school culture within the first few weeks?

9. What leadership theories are vital for the first 90 days of a principalship?

197

STRS Chart
Start – up
Stakeholders had the opportunity to establish
a brand new school.
Realignment
Most stakeholders were unaware that the school
was drifting into trouble and needed to be
changed.

Turnaround
Most stakeholders were aware the school
needed improvement or change.
Sustaining success
Stakeholders take responsibility for preserving
vitality and taking the school to the next level.

198
Principal’s Four Frames Chart

A. Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days of your principalship was spent
in the following areas.
B. Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days should have been spent in each
area.

STRUCTURAL ACTIVITIES

• Clear focus on goals, strategy and
objectives
• Focus on hierarchy, authority, rules
and policies
• Specific employee division of labor
based on knowledge/skills
• Standardizing systems to ensure pre-
dictability and uniformity
• Holding regular staff meetings
• Incorporating information technology
as a means of communication

HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIVITIES

• Integral part of employee selection
process
• Hiring/keeping the right people
• Promoting from within
• Investing in relevant professional de-
velopment
• Empowering through information and
support
• Encouraging autonomy and participa-
tion
• Sharing the wealth
• Genuinely understanding employee
needs

Actual: Should: Actual: Should:

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

• Agenda Setting – Working on plans to
achieve your goals for the school
• Mapping the Political Terrain – Identify-
ing agents of influence, identifying in-
formal lines of communication
• Networking & Building Coalitions –
Identifying important existing relation-
ships and creating new ones
• Bargaining & Negotiating – Settling
disputes and making agreements

SYMBOLIC ACTIVITIES

• Learning the history and values of the
school
• Understanding the group identity of the
staff
• Preserving school rituals and ceremonies
or creating new ones
• Incorporating humor or play into work
• Communicating the school vision
• Telling stories to promote the school
vision
• Identifying and understanding important
school symbols
Actual: Should: Actual: Should:

199
Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
Which of these behaviors did you engage in most frequently during the first 90 days of your princi-
palship? (Choose 7 in column A.)
Characteristic/Behavior The extent to which the principal… A

Culture Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & coop-
eration

Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines

Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would
detract from their teaching time or focus

Resources Provides teachers with the material & professional de-
velopment necessary for the successful execution of their
jobs

Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of
curriculum, instruction

Focus Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the fore-
front of the school’s attention

Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction & Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction,
& assessment practices

Visibility Has quality contact & interactions & with teachers &
students

Contingent Rewards Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments
Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with teachers
& among students

Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders

Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of
important decisions and policies

Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates school accomplishments &
acknowledges failures

Relationship Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers & staff

Change Agent Is willing to & actively challenges the status quo
Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations
Ideals / Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs
about schooling

Monitors / Evaluates Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their
impact on student learning

Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the
current situation & is comfortable with dissent

Situational Awareness Is aware of the details & undercurrents in the running of
the school & uses the information to address current &
political problems

Intellectual Stimulation Ensures that faculty & staff are aware of the most cur-
rent theories & practices & makes the discussion of these
a regular aspect of the school’s culture

200
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT
1. What makes you define this principal as successful?

2. STRS Chart - In which category would you place the school when the principal attained the
position?

3. What evidence did you have to support this categorization?

4. What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive gains?

5. Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
A. Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in most frequently during
the first 90 days? (Choose 7)
B. Which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal in a turnaround school? (Choose 7)

6. How significant were the first 90 days for this principal?

7. What types of support did the district provide to the principal for the first 90 days?

8. How do you think university programs prepare administrators for the principalship?

201
STRS Chart
Start – up
Stakeholders had the opportunity to establish
a brand new school.
Realignment
Most stakeholders were unaware that the school
was drifting into trouble and needed to be
changed.

Turnaround
Most stakeholders were aware the school
needed improvement or change.
Sustaining success
Stakeholders take responsibility for preserving
vitality and taking the school to the next level.

202
Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
A. Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in most frequently during the first 90
days? (Choose 7)
B. In which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful principal in a
turnaround school? (Choose 7)

Characteristic/Behavior The extent to which the principal… A B

Culture Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & coop-
eration

Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines

Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would
detract from their teaching time or focus

Resources Provides teachers with the material & professional devel-
opment necessary for the successful execution of their
jobs

Curriculum, Instruction,
& Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of
curriculum, instruction

Focus Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the fore-
front of the school’s attention

Knowledge of Curricu-
lum, Instruction &
Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, &
assessment practices

Visibility Has quality contact & interactions & with teachers &
students

Contingent Rewards Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments
Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with teachers
& among students

Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all stake-
holders

Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of
important decisions and policies

Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates school accomplishments & ac-
knowledges failures

Relationship Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers & staff

Change Agent Is willing to & actively challenges the status quo
Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations
Ideals / Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs
about schooling

Monitors / Evaluates Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their
impact on student learning

Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the
current situation & is comfortable with dissent

203

Situational Awareness Is aware of the details & undercurrents in the run-
ning of the school & uses the information to ad-
dress current & political problems

Intellectual Stimulation Ensures that faculty & staff are aware of the most
current theories & practices & makes the discus-
sion of these a regular aspect of the school’s
culture

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The role of principal in today's increasingly volatile educational climate is a task that few people are willing to assume. Since implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, the growing accountability movement at local, state, and federal levels has a dramatic impact on how schools are run, decisions are made, and success is measured. These changes have forced an evolution in the role of the principal and require that the principal have an almost immediate positive impact on the school in order to be considered successful by the school's stakeholder groups. This increased pressure on new principals (especially in schools needing improvement) has forced many who aspire to the profession to turn away from it, despite a growing need for qualified and competent administrators.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: the first 90 days

PDF

The first 90 days of the new middle school principal in a turnaround school: in-depth case study of the transition period (first 90 days)

PDF

The first 90 days of the principalship: significance of the transition period

PDF

New principals in a turnaround middle school: analysis of the transition period (first 90 days)

PDF

The first 90 days of the new middle school principal

PDF

The first 90 days of the principalship in a turnaround school

PDF

Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement

PDF

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

PDF

Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

How improving schools allocate resources: a case study of successful schools in one southern California urban school district

PDF

Student engagement in high performing urban high schools: a case study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: successful practices at a middle school -- a case study

PDF

Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study

PDF

Principal leadership succession: developing the next generation of leaders

PDF

The transition period principals -- the first 90 days: a case study

PDF

The first 90 days: securing early success in the superintendency

PDF

The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

Resource allocation in successful schools: case studies of California elementary schools

PDF

The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

Asset Metadata

Creator Litfin, Grant (author)

Core Title The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: the first 90 days

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/26/2007

Defense Date 04/26/2007

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

Tag first 90 days,leadership,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal

Language English

Advisor Price, Scott (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email glitfin@tusd.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m553

Unique identifier UC1174896

Identifier etd-Litfin-20070626 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-509289 (legacy record id),usctheses-m553 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Litfin-20070626.pdf

Dmrecord 509289

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Litfin, Grant

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