University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Influences on principals' leadership practice

(USC Thesis Other)

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

INFLUENCES ON PRINCIPALS’ LEADERSHIP PRACTICE

by

Gloria Duncan

________________________________________________________________________

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Gloria Duncan

ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Rob Duncan. You are my best friend
and soul mate. I thank you for believing in me and your many words of encouragement. You
always provide the necessary emotional and financial support that I need to accomplish my
goals as you did with this dissertation. I also dedicate this dissertation to my three amazing
children, Jennifer, Robby and Ryan. I am so proud of each and every one of you and your
contributions; your technical and editing expertise assisted with the completion of my
dissertation. You accepted the many times that I told you that I was unable to spend time with
you because I had to work on my dissertation. My family, I could not have made it through
this process without your love and understanding. For this, I will be forever grateful, and I
am truly blessed to have all of you in my life.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
When I first met with Dr. Margaret Reed, she described the dissertation process as a
journey. I was able to experience this journey because of some very special individuals. I
would like to start by acknowledging Dr. Reed for giving me a chance to begin my journey
by becoming the chair for my independent dissertation and for her direction. Her knowledge
and teachings were invaluable. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Larry Picus for his
willingness to be a member of my dissertation committee when he was already very busy
chairing his own cohort and later for allowing me to continue my journey by becoming my
chair when Dr. Reed was unable to remain in this position. His effort, support, and guidance
made my journey achievable.
Additionally, I wish to thank Dr. Steven Fish for his instruction and modeling of
effective leadership practice during our leadership class. I appreciated his enthusiasm as a
member of my committee and his positive feedback during my journey. Another special
acknowledgement goes to Dr. Michael Escalante who agreed to become the third member of
my dissertation committee and was instrumental in securing the schools for my study. His
assistance made my journey not just a dream, but a reality.
Also, I have to mention Steve McLaughlin, my colleague and friend who asked me to
join him in the USC Doctoral Program. There were days when I blamed him for recruiting
me into the program because it felt like the doctoral program was overtaking my life. Now, I
am thankful to him because it was his invitation that led me to the start of my journey.
Finally, thank you to the teachers, staff, and principals of the two case study
schools for the opportunity to conduct my research study at their school sites. I
appreciated their hospitality and cooperation during my visits. It was a pleasure to travel
iv

to wonderful places where individuals were committed to helping students become
successful.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ........................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... x
Chapter One: An Overview Of The Study .......................................................................... 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................ 6
Research Questions.......................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................. 8
Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................... 9
Conceptual Leadership Framework ............................................................................... 12
Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 13
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 15
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 16
Organization of the Study .............................................................................................. 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................... 18
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 18
Policy Context of Leadership Practice .......................................................................... 19
Personal Background Influences of Leadership Practice .............................................. 21
District Context of Leadership Practice ......................................................................... 22
Summary of Leadership Context ................................................................................... 23
Definition of Leadership ................................................................................................ 24
Instructional Leadership ................................................................................................ 24
Transformational Leadership ......................................................................................... 25
Learning-Centered Leadership ...................................................................................... 28
Social Justice Leadership ............................................................................................... 32
Principal Effects ............................................................................................................ 33
Effective Leadership Capacity Building ........................................................................ 37
Mentoring as a Leadership Support Structure ............................................................... 41
Coaching as a Leadership Support Structure ................................................................. 42
CLASS Model ............................................................................................................... 43
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 46
vi

Chapter Three: Methodology ............................................................................................ 48
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 48
Description of the Study ................................................................................................ 48
Sample and Population .................................................................................................. 50
Intervention .................................................................................................................... 51
Principal Recruitment .................................................................................................... 53
Gaining Access to Participants ...................................................................................... 53
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................... 54
Instrumentation: Overview ............................................................................................ 55
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) ............................ 55
Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 58
Observations and Documents ........................................................................................ 59
Data Analysis Procedures .............................................................................................. 60
Formative Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 61
Summative Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 61
Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................... 62
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 63
Chapter Four: Analysis And Interpretation Of Data And Findings .................................. 64
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 64
Problem .......................................................................................................................... 65
Focus on Results ............................................................................................................ 66
Case Study One ............................................................................................................. 68
School: Location and Demographic ........................................................................... 68
Casa Valley High School: Culture and Climate ......................................................... 71
Principal Mason.......................................................................................................... 72
Casa Valley High School: Teachers ........................................................................... 73
Case Study One Findings .............................................................................................. 74
Casa Valley Research Question 1 .............................................................................. 74
Casa Valley Research Question 2 .............................................................................. 81
Casa Valley Research Question 3 .............................................................................. 92
Case Study Two ............................................................................................................. 99
School: Location and Demographic ........................................................................... 99
Harris High School: Culture and Climate ................................................................ 102
Principal Jameson ..................................................................................................... 103
Harris High School: Teachers .................................................................................. 104
Case Study Two Findings ............................................................................................ 105
Harris Research Question 1 ...................................................................................... 105
Harris Research Question 2 ...................................................................................... 113
Harris Research Question 3 ...................................................................................... 124
vii

Cross-Case Analysis and Variations............................................................................ 132
Chapter Four Summary ............................................................................................... 133
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, And Recommendations ....................................... 134
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 134
Statement of Problem .................................................................................................. 134
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................... 135
Research Questions...................................................................................................... 136
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 136
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. 137
Research Question 1 ................................................................................................. 137
Research Question 2 ................................................................................................. 141
Research Question 3 ................................................................................................. 144
Implications for Policy and Practice ............................................................................ 147
Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................................... 148
Limitations ................................................................................................................... 149
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 151
References ....................................................................................................................... 153
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 157
Appendix A: Pre-Intervention Principal Interview ..................................................... 157
Appendix B: Post-Intervention Principal Interview .................................................... 159
Appendix C: Pre-Intervention Teacher Interview ....................................................... 160
Appendix D: Post-Intervention Teacher Interview ..................................................... 161
Appendix E: Pre/Post Intervention Observation Protocols ......................................... 163
Appendix F: Information/Facts Sheet for Non-Medical Research .............................. 164

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Comparison of Instructional and Transformational Leadership Models ......... 27
Table 2-2: Twenty-One Responsibilities .......................................................................... 36
Table 3-1: Sample Size ..................................................................................................... 60
Table 3-2: Triangulation of Data Related to Research Questions .................................... 60
Table 3-3: Timeline for Research Project ......................................................................... 62
Table 4-1: Data Analysis of API Assessment Results: Trend Demographic Group
Analysis............................................................................................................................. 69
Table 4-2: Data Analysis of AYP Assessment Results: Percent Proficient and Met
AYP Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 70
Table 4-3: Data Analysis of CAHSEE (10
th
Grade) and Advanced Placement Results ... 71
Table 4-4: Summary of Core Components and Key Processes Scores ............................ 86
Table 4-5: Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement ........................................... 88
Table 4-6: Data Analysis of API Assessment Results: Trend Demographic Group
Analysis........................................................................................................................... 100
Table 4-7: Data Analysis of AYP Assessment Results: Percent Proficient and Met
AYP Criteria ................................................................................................................... 101
Table 4-8: Data Analysis of CAHSEE (10
th
Grade) and Advanced Placement
Results ............................................................................................................................. 102
Table 4-9: Summary of Core Components and Key Processes Scores .......................... 118
Table 4-10: Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement ....................................... 120
ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Conceptual Leadership Framework ............................................................... 12
Figure 3-1: The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education ............................... 57
Figure 4-1: Matrix of Core Components by Key Processes ............................................. 87
Figure 4-2: Matrix of Core Components by Key Processes ........................................... 119

x

ABSTRACT
Preparing principals to be effective instructional leaders is a critical lever for
promoting powerful teaching and learning. Unprepared principals do not improve
schools. The purpose of this research study was to investigate the specific elements and
attributes of a leadership capacity building and support program that influence school
principals’ practice in ways that positively impact teacher professional practice and
improve student learning outcomes. The identified principals of this study participated in
the Focus on Results program. This comprehensive, research and standards-based
executive leadership program included both professional development as well as the
support of a principal coach. The study addressed these primary research questions: 1)
How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare principals
for the unique challenges of high needs schools? 2) How does the Focus on Results
program influence the principal’s ability to create and sustain organizational structures
that promote effective teacher professional practice? 3) How does leadership practice
influence teacher professional practice?
The study examined the practice of two new high school principals who were
participating in the Focus on Results program. Each case study focused on how FOR
prepared the principal to create organizational structures and practices that promoted
effective professional teacher practice that ultimately improved high needs student
outcomes. The study examined the leadership practices demonstrated by each of the
principals to determine (a) the relationship between principal participation in the FOR
program and their leadership practice, and (b) if the practice of the two principals varied,
xi

then what accounted for that variance. Qualitative data were collected in a pre-
intervention and post-intervention design as well as the collection of quantitative data
after the intervention to determine the leader’s change in practice and how these changes
had been shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences on the FOR program over
time.
In this study, multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For
both case studies the following sources were used to gather descriptive data from each
school: pre/post interviews, with each principal and core content teachers; pre/post
observations of the principal interacting with teachers and classroom observations of
teachers interacting with their students and with other teachers; and a collection of
documents and artifacts relevant to the study were collected for analysis. In addition,
post-intervention data were collected from the administration of the Vanderbilt
Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey to each principal and some of
their teachers.
When comparing the two case study schools, findings from the research revealed
differences in each principal’s leadership practice and the level of support form a
principal coach. The differences in leadership practices between the two case study
principals existed mostly because of the dynamics of the schools. The level of coaching
support was determined by the district; however the experiences of the principals with
their coaches suggested that the relationships were helpful to them. Both case studies
produced some of the same findings. There was evidence to support that both principals
implemented several leadership practices that were aligned with the learning-centered
xii

leadership framework. Neither case study provided significant evidence that the
principals were spending considerable time on the teaching function (classroom
observations). This study identified components that could refine the Focus on Results
program and other executive leadership development programs. These recommendations
include: (a) establishing a purposeful criteria for assigning coaches to principals (b)
incorporating clinical supervision of instruction into the FOR program, (c) selecting
coaches skilled at clinical supervision and transformational leadership coaching, and (d)
creating a system that monitors and accounts for the relationship between the coach and
principal.
1

CHAPTER ONE:
AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The most challenging goal for our Nation’s schools, especially schools with high
needs students, is to improve teacher practice in order to close the achievement gap
between African American and Latino students and their white and Asian counter parts
(Hochschild & Scovronich, 2003; Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott & Cravens, 2007).
Aspiring school reforms such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001 have
focused on improving teaching and learning for ―all‖ students. However, most states have
failed to meet the teacher quality standards of NCLB and are not providing those of their
students that have diverse socioeconomic backgrounds with equal access to effective
instruction (Hochschild & Scovronich, 2003; Goldring et al., 2007). This achievement
gap unfortunately results in unequal opportunity between high needs students and their
more socioeconomically advantaged peers. In order to remove this unfair disadvantage,
one must determine who is most capable of solving this problem, and then discover what
course of action will best result in providing these high needs students with the education
and equality that they truly deserve.
Largely overlooked in the reform movements is the critical role of the principal in
creating a learning culture within the school, and influencing teacher professional
practice. According to research, principal leadership can make a difference in student
learning (Halinger & Heck, 1996; Marzano, 2005; Darling-Hammond, Orphanos,
LaPointe, & Weeks, 2007). The recently released Blueprint for Reform of 2010 (the
2

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) explains that
―[by] recognizing the importance of principal leadership in supporting teachers, states
will work to improve the effectiveness of principals‖ (U.S. Department of Education, p.
15).
A principal’s effectiveness is impacted by the demands from federal, state, and
district accountability systems. In many states, policy makers have responded to the
mandates of NCLB by allocating funding based on students’ scores on standardized tests
on states’ academic standards (Edsource, 2005). This is an attempt to help
underperforming schools and their principals act more responsible and ensure that ―all‖
students are learning. The principals at schools with students from low socioeconomic
status have numerous contextual challenges that require leadership skills specific to their
school’s situation. These principals focus upon eliminating the marginalization and
inequity in our urban schools (Theoharis, 2007).
Districts that adopt leadership policies based on the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and require principals to demonstrate these
standards can influence the practice of a principal. These leadership standards describe
the actions necessary for a principal to improve the school’s instructional program. In
California, most districts adopt the California Professional Standards for Educational
Leaders (CPSEL) standards that are aligned with the ISLLC standards (West Ed, 2004).
Other conditions that influence the leadership behaviors of a principal include previous
experience, knowledge base, personal characteristics, and values and beliefs (Murphy,
Elliot, Goldring & Porter, 2006). Leadership behaviors that effectively impact school
3

organization, teacher practice and student outcomes can be organized into leadership
models (Heck, 1992; Leithwood, 2004).
Leadership models that provide a framework for effective leadership practice are
instructional, transformational, learning-centered, and social justice leadership theories.
The instructional model has the principal focused on framing school goals, coordinating
curriculum, and supervising instruction. The transformational model has the principal
concentrating on shared decision making and building a collaborative culture (Hallinger,
2003; Leithwood, 2005). The learning-centered leadership framework blends the
competencies from both the instructional and transformational models. The learning-
centered leadership framework groups these competencies into the following eight major
dimensions: vision for learning, instructional program, curricular program, assessment
program, communities for learning, resource acquisition and use, organizational culture,
and social advocacy (Murphy et al., 2006). Social justice leadership is defined by
overcoming the challenges of race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other
historically marginalizing conditions in schools by advocacy, leadership practice, and
vision (Capper, Theoharis and Sebastin, 2006; Theoharis, 2007). These leadership
theories describe the leadership practices that influence organizational outcomes and
teacher professional practices that, in turn, influence student outcomes.
According to the results of an analysis of research on principals’ effects on
student achievement, Hallinger and Heck (1996) reported that principal leadership can
make a difference in student learning. In addition, through his research, Marzano (2005)
further explicates the critical role that leadership plays in promoting student achievement
4

with the identification of twenty-one leadership ―responsibilities‖ and computes an
average correlation between the responsibility and student achievement. According to the
research, effective leadership has an indirect effect on student achievement and is second
only to teaching as a school-related factor on student learning (Leithwood, 2004).
Based on research, the components of an effective principal development program
are the following: research-based, curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic
contexts, use of cohort groups and mentors, and are structured to enable collaborative
activity between the program and area schools (Davis et al., 2005). In high quality
principal training programs, mentors provide feedback and coaching that helps principals
transition to effective instructional leaders (Spiro et al., 2007; Gray et al., 2007). The
coach can help the principal transform his or her thinking in order to reach the desired
results that eventually maximize student learning at the school (Strong et al., 2002;
Bloom et al., 2005). Thus, there is high potential that such support structures may be able
to close the achievement gap found in schools, and therefore provide a more equal and
fair learning experience for all students.
Statement of the Problem
A principal has to possess the necessary knowledge, beliefs, and skills to
positively affect school organization, teacher practice, and student outcomes (Heck,
1992; Leithwood, 2004). However, many principals have not received the training and
support to become effective learning centered instructional and transformational leaders.
Historically, preparation programs for principals in the United States have been a
collection of courses regarding general management principles and administrative duties
5

with little emphasis on knowledge of student learning, effective teaching, and
organizational change. Most leadership preparation programs and district staff
development trainings are fragmented, lacking in rigor, and not aligned to the state
leadership standards (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).
Most principal preparation programs are deficient in specialized courses that
prepare principals to lead socially just schools. These leadership programs do not prepare
leaders for social justice. They do not include the following components: critical
consciousness of social justice, knowledge of evidence-based practices that can create an
equitable school, and practical skills focused on social justice (Capper, Theoharis and
Sebastin, 2006; Theoharis, 2007).
A number of principal preparation programs do not incorporate partnerships
between schools, universities, and communities. This collaboration model is needed for
principal preparation programs to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Many
principal preparation programs do not use veteran administrators who were effective
principals as mentors to provide relevant and consistent support. Additionally, they do
not use instructional leadership coaches that mentor and facilitate learning for principals
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2005; Young et al., 2007).
The pressures of new accountability systems, expanding responsibilities, and
insufficient training have contributed to the shortage of effective principals, especially in
schools with students of high needs. Many current administrators feel that they are
incapable of meeting the overwhelming demands of their jobs (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2007). Most districts do not have the support structures that allow mentors or coaches to
6

help principals gain the instructional and transformational leadership skills needed to
influence teacher professional practice and student learning. Additionally, limited
empirical evidence exists on how to help principals become more effective leaders and
how to develop their leadership practices in such a way that they improve teaching and
increase student learning (Spiro et al., 2007; Gray et al., 2007).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the knowledge base regarding
effective components of leadership capacity building programs and support structures
which enable and sustain school leader practice. The study will seek to identify two
principals who are participating in a research and standards-based leadership
development initiative and investigate the impact of participation on leader practice and
professional practice of teachers. Specifically, the study will identify features and
attributes of the district’s leadership capacity building initiative that build leader capacity
and take a comprehensive look at the practices they enact which have the potential to lead
to attainment of the district’s core standards for leadership practice and professional
outcomes. Additionally, the study will investigate how working with a leadership coach
affects principals’ knowledge, beliefs, and skills in ways that positively impact teacher
professional practice.
Each case study will focus on how the district’s initiative prepares leaders to
create organizational structures and practices that promote effective teacher practices and
have the potential to improve student outcomes in a high needs district context. The
proposed study will additionally seek to expand the knowledge base in regards to
7

components of effective leadership support structures at the school and district levels
which enable principal’s leadership practice in creating and sustaining the conditions for
effective teacher practice and promoting a more equitable and effective student learning
environment. Qualitative as well as quantitative data will be collected to determine the
leader’s change in practice and how these factors have been shaped or reshaped by
participation and experiences in the program over time.
Through interviews, surveys, and observations, the study will use a qualitative,
case study design to investigate how a principal’s participation in an executive leadership
development initiative influences his or her ability to successfully improve teacher
professional practice. Additionally, the study will observe the value added to leadership
practices as a result of the principal’s work with a leadership coach and participation in
the district’s leadership capacity building program. This study will examine the impact of
leadership support structures such as coaching and mentoring as they relate to the
principal’s leadership practice and how the principal influences instructional practice and
the organizational structures in the school.
The core of the study will focus on descriptive questions to reveal information
about the ―hows‖ and ―whys‖ of changes in principal leadership behavior as a result of
leadership coaching. In addition, the study will explore the impact of the leader’s practice
on teacher practice and organizational structures. For the purpose of this study it is
necessary to examine the phenomenon of educational leadership in a real-life context in
order to gain a better understanding of contextual factors that influence principal
behavior.
8

Research Questions
The following research questions will be the focus for the study:
1. How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare
principals for the unique challenges of high needs schools?
2. How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to create
and sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional
practice?
3. How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?
Significance of the Study
The schools of the 21
st
century require principals that are proficient in improving
school organization and teacher professional practice. As schools strive to close the
achievement gap between their diverse student populations, principals need specific skills
to eliminate the marginalization of students with disabilities, English Learners, and other
students traditionally segregated in schools. In addition, principals must be skilled at
managing the monumental duties of supervising schools while focused on improving
instruction and increasing student achievement. Though the behaviors of effective
leadership practice have been identified through research-based theories, how a principal
acquires these behaviors has not been fully explained. This study will seek to provide
additional research that will assist principals with developing leadership practices that
specifically improve teaching and increase student learning.
Leadership programs of the 21
st
century need to properly equip principals with the
appropriate knowledge, beliefs, and skills that will allow them to successfully close the
9

achievement gap at schools. As a result of this study, policy makers and developers of
leadership programs will become more knowledgeable on the essential components in
building and sustaining leaders’ capacity to positively to reshape the teaching and
learning environment in high needs schools in ways that promote expert teacher
professional practice and improve outcomes for students.
Conceptual Framework
In defining a conceptual framework that demonstrates the influences on
principals’ practice, it is important to note the existing factors that shape the principals’
behaviors before they assume their leadership roles. The background of both the principal
and the school has a significant bearing on the principal’s leadership behaviors and
academic performance of the school. According to the ―Learning-Centered Leadership
Framework‖ by Murphy, Elliott, Goldring and Porter (2006), a leader’s behaviors are
shaped by four main conditions: previous experience, knowledge base, personal
characteristics, and values and beliefs. Other components that influence principal practice
include federal, state, and district leadership policy (Heck, 1992; Leithwood, 2005). In
addition, the influence of the district’s leadership capacity building program and
leadership coaching support are considered strong factors that affect leadership practice.
The conceptual framework in this study will be based on the learning-centered
leadership model which blends the components of instructional and transformational
leadership into major dimensions of leadership behaviors. These identified behaviors are
grouped by their leadership function, and they influence teacher practice and
organizational outcomes that, in turn, influence student outcomes. The eight major
10

functions or dimensions of the framework are the following: vision for learning,
instructional program, curricular program, assessment program, communities for
learning, resource acquisition and use, organizational culture, and social advocacy
(Murphy et al., 2006).
The first dimension of the framework is ―vision for learning,‖ which describes the
leader devoting considerable energy to developing, articulating, implementing, and
stewarding a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. In
the ―instructional program‖ dimension, the leaders are knowledgeable and greatly
involved in the instructional program of the school and are heavily invested on
instruction (spending considerable time on the teaching function). They are focused on
visiting classrooms and working with groups of teachers on instructional issues, both in
formal and informal settings (Murphy et al., 2006).
The next dimension is the ―curricular program,‖ which characterizes leaders as
curriculum experts that are knowledgeable about and extremely involved in the school’s
curricular program. They ensure that all students have adequate opportunity to learn
rigorous content in all academic areas. The ―assessment program‖ dimension requires
leaders to demonstrate expertise in assessment practices. These leaders are personally
involved with teachers creating, implementing, and monitoring assessment systems that
address classroom and school-based activity (Murphy et al., 2006).
Another important dimension of the framework is ―communities of learning,‖
which is based on leaders creating learning organizations and fostering learning
communities. They are actively involved in planning, supporting, and evaluating specific
11

staff learning activities and the school’s professional development system. The
―resources allocation and use‖ dimension is essential for leaders to accomplish all the
previously discussed dimensions. These leaders are gifted at acquiring and using
resources to support every student reaching ambitious learning goals. They are skilled at
targeting resources to create systems, operations, and structures that ensure maximum
student opportunity to learn. They direct the use of financial, human, and material
resources to improve student learning (Murphy et al., 2006).
In the ―organizational culture‖ dimension, culture is explained by five themes:
production analysis, accountability, continuous improvement, safe and orderly learning
environment, and personalized community. The ―social advocacy‖ dimension is
expressed in four overlapping domains: environmental context, diversity, ethics, and
stake holder engagement. Environmental context refers to leaders manipulating
contextual factors to increase success for students and their families. Leaders create
partnerships with families and community members to accomplish school goals, improve
the instructional program, and increase student achievement (Murphy et al., 2006).

12

Conceptual Leadership Framework

Figure 1-1: Conceptual Leadership Framework
Student
Outcomes
Teacher Practice
Organizational
Structure
Focus on
Results Program
District
Leadership
Capacity
Building
Program
Context:
Federal
State
District
School
Principal
Background:
Experience
Knowledge
Personal
Characteristics
Values/Belief
Dimensions of Leadership Behavior
1. Vision for Learning
2. Instructional Program
3. Curricular Program
4. Assessment Program
5. Communities of Learning
6. Resource Acquisition and Use
7. Organizational Culture
8. Social Advocacy
13

Assumptions
There are five critical assumptions that frame this research study. First is the
belief that leadership is a key variable in the process of improving outcomes for students.
Second, is the belief that the context within which leadership is practiced matters and
determines the actions leaders take. Third, leadership is defined as ―the process of
influencing others to achieve mutually agreed upon purposes for the organization‖
(Patterson, 1993, p.3). Leadership involves purpose while focused upon helping
organizations and constituents reach identified goals. Embodied within this definition is
the notion that leadership is not a personal trait or characteristic of an effective school
leader. As a process, effective leadership practice can be taught (Northouse, 2003).
Fourth, this study conceptualizes the effects of principal leadership in promoting and
sustaining valued outcomes in terms of the antecedent with indirect-effects model (e.g.,
Murphy, Boyan, 1988; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood et al.,
1990; Silins, 1994). Leadership behavior is ―shaped by four major conditions: (a) the
previous experiences of a leader (e.g., experience as a curriculum coordinator in a district
office will likely lead to the use of behaviors different than those featured by a leader
who has had considerable experience as an assistant principal); (b) the knowledge base
the leader amasses over time; (c) the types of personal characteristics a leader brings to
the job (e.g., achievement need, energy level); and (d) the set of values and beliefs that
help define a leader (e.g., beliefs about the appropriate role for subordinates in decision
processes),‖ Murphy et al., 2007, pg. 2. Leadership effects occur indirectly through the
principal's behaviors that influence teacher practice and organizational structures and
14

processes (Murphy, Goldring, Cravens, Elliott, Porter, 2007; Hallinger, Bickman, &
Davis, 1996). A principal’s practice of effective leadership behaviors is situated within
the learner centered leadership framework (Murphy, et al., 2007).Fifth, the district’s
leadership capacity building program and support system is an effective leadership
capacity building program. The major components of this leadership development
program align with those found in the literature (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007) to
develop skilled leaders. These programs have 1) well-articulated goals rooted in the
theory of leadership; 2) use preparation strategies that maximize learning, transfer of
learning, and leadership identification; 3) provide strong content and field experience
during leadership preparation.
Delimitations of the Study
The extent of this study is limited to investigating the impact of leadership
capacity building programs on leader practice. This study will not collect data on the
influence of leader practice on student achievement. Participants in this study will be
limited to principals in their first or second year of the district’s capacity building and
support system. Although the focus of the study is on the effect of the district’s capacity
building and support structure on principal practice, this study is not an evaluation of the
initiative.
Since this study will involve only two schools from the same district, the study
will be limited to the principals, coaches, and teachers that are associated with those
particular schools and one district. This study will not provide an extensive analysis of
15

the influences of the initiative on principal practice given that the study will transpire
over a limited time frame, five months.
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations of this study that require consideration before the
researcher begins the study. As mentioned in the previous section, the study will take
place over five months which is a definite time constraint and may limit the researcher’s
ability to observe in-depth changes in behavior over time. This narrow window of time
may confine the number of observations and interviews that can be completed for the
study. In addition, the time factor may contribute to the researcher not being able to
collect in-depth data from observations and interviews of participants as well as
contextual information about the school and community.
Another limitation of the study is related to the pre-post design of the
administration of the VAL-ED instrument. The changes reflected in the second
administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors other than the principals’
participation in the capacity building and support initiative such as the possibility of the
principal having participated in other professional development programs. In addition,
retesting may have the effect of increased ―test-wiseness‖ or greater content familiarity
and show changes that were not brought about through participation in the initiative.
Due to the nature of the measures used in the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership
Practice (VAL-ED: ratings of self, teachers, and supervisors), participants may have a
tendency to assume specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression. However,
to mitigate against this phenomenon, by design, the VAL ED survey required that raters
16

identify the primary source of evidence for their rating on each item (i.e., personal
observation, documents, etc.)
Definition of Terms
Achievement Gap – Differences in academic performance among groups of students
which are identified by ethnicity, economic status or disabilities.
Leadership Coaching – is a process in which the coach facilitates learning in an
individual and enhances the work performance of the individual.
Coaching Leaders to Attain Student Success (CLASS) – is a leadership capacity
building model designed to use leadership coaching to prepare principals to be effective
instructional leaders. It is a product of the New Teacher Center and is sponsored by the
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA).
Focus on Results – is a consulting group that works with an entire district to refocus the
role of the principal to improve teaching and learning, and to develop leadership capacity
through coaching and professional learning.
Instructional Leadership – is a leadership model that represents the leader as an
involved manager and supervisor of the school organization of teaching and learning.
Leadership – is a process that involves influence and relies on the complex relationship
between leaders and followers to accomplish the goals of an organization.
Learning-Centered Leadership – is a leadership model which focuses on the
intersection of two dimensions of leadership behaviors: the core components (what a
leader must create to enhance teaching and learning) and the key processes (how the
leader creates these core components).
17

Mentoring – involves an individual with expert knowledge in a specific area passing on
this knowledge to an individual with less expertise.
Social Justice Leadership – is a leadership model defined by overcoming the challenges
of race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and other historically marginalizing
conditions in schools by advocacy, leadership practice, and vision.
Transformational Leadership – is a leadership model that encourages the leader to
utilize emotions and values while fostering capacity development of each of the staff
members at a school.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters that focus on effective components of
leadership capacity building programs and support structures which enable and sustain
school leader practice. These five chapters provide a special emphasis on leadership
coaching as an intervention to help principals become more effective. Chapter One serves
as an introduction to the study including purpose, significance, and limitations. Chapter
Two provides a review of the salient literature on current leadership theories and
preparation programs as it relates to the development of effective principals. Chapter
Three outlines the research design and methods used in the study including a description
of all data procedures, instrumentation, and analysis. Chapter Four reports the results of
the study’s data analysis while Chapter Five discusses study findings in greater detail and
presents suggestions for practice and future research.
18

CHAPTER TWO:
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review and synthesize the extant literature in the
area of effective leadership, including its development, enactment of practice, and the
support structures that enable and sustain that practice. This review will contribute to the
knowledge base in regard to the salient features of effective leadership development
programs that build the capacity of school leaders to significantly change their practice in
ways that positively impact teacher instructional practices, the culture of the organization,
and improve outcomes for students. As Richard F. Elmore (2000) stated, ―The skills that
matter in leadership are those connected to or lead directly to the improvement of
instruction and student performance‖ (p. 8).
In this chapter, I will review the literature on the characteristics which define
school context, the challenges of increased accountability on schools and theirs leaders,
as well as the unintentional consequences intrinsic in the design of the standards-based
accountability reform. In addition, I will review professional standards for leadership
practice and key theories of effective school leadership: the instructional,
transformational, learning-centered, and social justice leadership theories. The literature
on the effects of leadership practice on student outcomes will be another key facet of the
study that will be discussed. Further research on the components of effective leadership
capacity building programs and support structures to enable and sustain that practice will
be reviewed. This will be followed by a comprehensive description of Coaching Leaders
19

to Attain Student Success (CLASS), which is a leadership coaching model that is aligned
with many of the aspects outlined in the literature of effective leadership development
programs.
Additionally, this chapter will review literature on effective school leadership and
the type of leadership practice needed to lead change in school settings with high needs
students that have a history of achievement disparity among student groups. Further, the
review will examine components of effective leadership development and support
systems that build leader capacity to enhance teacher professional practice and learning
outcomes for students. The next section will begin with a description of the policy
context of leadership practice for a principal, and include the major challenges for leaders
who are focused on closing the achievement gap.
Policy Context of Leadership Practice
For American schools, especially schools with high needs students, the major
challenge of the 21st century is to improve teacher practice and to close the achievement
gap between African American and Latino students (including economically
disadvantaged children) and their white and Asian counter parts. Most of the attention on
improving student achievement and decreasing the achievement gap has focused on the
relationship between effective teachers and student achievement (Hochschild &
Scovronich, 2003; Goldring et al., 2007). This is demonstrated by the adoption of the
federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001 in which all states were required to
provide each student with a highly qualified teacher. However, most states have not met
the teacher quality standards of NCLB and have been unable to provide students of
20

diverse socioeconomic backgrounds with equal access to effective instruction
(Hochschild & Scovronich, 2003; Goldring et al., 2007). A largely neglected aspect of
enhancing teacher quality is the role of the principal (Young, Fuller, Brewer, Carpenter &
Mansfield, 2007). According to Goldring et al. (2007), ―Meeting the excellence and
equity challenge in urban schools depends on school leaders who effectively guide
instructional improvement‖ (p. 10). One of the key priorities of the recently released
Blueprint for Reform of 2010 (the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965) is ―improving teacher and principal effectiveness to ensure that
every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great leader‖ (U.S.
Department of Education, p. 3).
Both the state and federal governments hold schools and districts accountable for
the academic performance of their students by levying sanctions against schools that do
not achieve their required Academic Performance Index (API) score. Furthermore,
California schools are judged on how well they are doing on standardized tests by their
API score and on their ability to meet their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (Edsource,
2005). In addition, a recommendation from the Governor’s Committee of Education
Excellence (2006) is to implement inspections of low performing schools that would
strengthen California’s outcomes-based accountability system and would require
principals to coordinate school site visits from state evaluators.
One component that influences principal practice is leadership policy at the
federal, state, and district levels (Heck, 1992; Leithwood, 2005). Some states and districts
are using the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards as their
21

adopted administrative standards. The ISLLC standards were developed by the Council
of Chief State School Officers in collaboration with the National Policy Board on
Educational Administration (NPBEA) to help strengthen preparation programs in school
leadership (Murphy, 2003). Grounded in extensive research, the ISLLC standards
identify the actions necessary for leaders to positively influence teacher practice, change
school organization, and improve student outcomes (Murphy, 2003; Goldring et al.,
2007). The California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL) were
adapted from the ISLLC standards and the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing adopted CPSEL into their program for administrative credentialing (West
Ed, 2004). Both the ISLLC standards and CPSEL include indicators of leadership action
that contribute to meeting their standards. Principals can utilize these leadership standards
to write goals that focus on improving the instructional program and on increasing
student outcomes. Districts commonly adopt leadership standards that describe the
practices required of their administrators and hold principals accountable for meeting
goals based on these standards. This next section discusses the various personal factors of
a principal that affects leadership practice.
Personal Background Influences of Leadership Practice
Key elements that influence a principal’s effectiveness include professional
leaning experiences, student/family background, and other educational stakeholders such
as unions, community groups businesses, and the local media (Heck, 1992; Leithwood,
2005). The background of both the principal and the school has a significant bearing on
the school’s leadership behaviors and academic performance. These contextual factors
22

include the amount of administrative experience of the current leadership (including the
principal and support staff) in the school. Other school context variables to consider are
the type and location of the school, student demographics, and staff composition
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Goldring et
al., 2007). According to the ―Learning-Centered Leadership Framework‖ by Murphy,
Elliott, Goldring and Porter (2006), a leader’s behaviors are shaped by four main
conditions: previous experience, knowledge base, values and beliefs, and personal
characteristics. Frequently, principals are not motivated to assert themselves as
instructional leaders, as they believe that their lack of experience requires them to work
harder to succeed in this new role than in more familiar roles (Condly, Clark &
Stolovitch, 2003). Furthermore, a principal’s efficacy beliefs influence the level of effort
and persistence that they use each day, as well as how resilient they are to obstacles;
therefore a principal must believe that they can successfully meet their challenges and
effect change in instruction (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). Meanwhile, these
principals often find that they are overwhelmed and distracted with the many time
consuming responsibilities of running a school (Marshall, 2003). The next section
discusses the role of the district context on the leadership practice of a principal.
District Context of Leadership Practice
School district leaders and school board members have monumental expectations
for principals, and may be searching for school leaders that simply do not exist (Copeland
2001). Many scholars and practitioners suggest that the work requirements for a principal
far exceed the reasonable capabilities of any one person. This is exemplified by the fact
23

that districts are having difficulty in attracting and retaining effective principals. Often
principal candidates and existing principals are not prepared for the requirements of their
position, and are insufficiently supported to organize schools to improve learning while
managing all the other demands of the job. According to the Governor’s Committee of
Education Excellence (2006), ―these education leaders are called on to guide their
schools and districts in a myriad of ways, performing deeply challenging yet essential
roles: setting a vision; using assessment effectively; understanding instructional
strategies; managing budgets, personnel, and facilities; and otherwise leading their
educational communities in successful educational delivery and continuous
improvement‖ (p. 41). Consequently, a shortage of highly qualified leaders is being
reported by many districts because principals are retiring and resigning. Some districts
are struggling with finding effective leaders because candidates are not committed to
working in underserved communities and schools (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe
& Meyerson, 2005).
Summary of Leadership Context
A principal’s ability to respond to the numerous expectations of federal, state, and
district policy coupled with the contextual challenges of a school is critical to his or her
success as an instructional leader. Principals at schools with students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds (mostly Latino and African American children) are
struggling to provide the same quality of instruction for their students as schools with
students of high socioeconomic status (Hochschild & Scovronich, 2003; Goldring et al.,
2007). Individual leaders behave differently depending on the circumstances they are
24

facing and the people with whom they are working. A principal needs to be equipped
with the essential knowledge, beliefs and skills to positively affect school organization,
teacher practice, and student outcomes (Heck, 1992; Leithwood, 2004). The following
section will introduce a definition of leadership and will elaborate on different leadership
theories.
Definition of Leadership
Leadership has different meanings for different people; however a review of the
research describes the same key concepts in each of the definitions of leadership.
Leadership is a process that involves influence and relies on the complex relationships
between leaders and followers to accomplish goals of an organization (Burns, 1978;
Northouse, 2003; Murphy et al., 2006). ―Defining leadership as a process means that it is
not a trait or characteristic that resides in the leader, but a transactional event that occurs
between the leader and his or her followers‖ (Northouse, 2003, p. 3). This section will
expand on this definition of leadership and review the attributes of an effective school
leader based on the theories of instructional and transformational leadership, as well as
the perspectives on learning-centered and social justice leadership.
Instructional Leadership
According to Leithwood (2005), leadership is defined as two functions: setting
direction and exercising influence. Based on Leithwood’s core definition, these functions
can be demonstrated in different ways, with such differences distinguishing the many
models from one another. Based on evidence, the two models that have the greatest effect
25

on student achievement are the instructional and transformational models (Hallinger,
2003; Leithwood, 2005).
The instructional model is centered on the core technology of the school
organization-teaching and learning. The instructional model encompasses three
categories of practices with a total of ten specific practices. Defining the school’s mission
includes framing and then communicating the school’s goals. Managing the instructional
program includes supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating the curriculum,
and monitoring student progress. Promoting a positive school learning climate
encompasses protecting instructional time, promoting professional development,
maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers, and providing incentives
for learning (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood, 2005).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is an extension of instructional leadership because it
aspires to increase the contributions of the teachers on behalf of the school, as well as
develop more skilled practice (Marzano, 2005). In the transformational leadership theory,
the leader utilizes emotions and values while fostering capacity development and high
levels of commitment to organizational goals on the part of the leader’s colleagues. The
transformational model contains three broad categories of practice with nine more
specific sets of practice. The ―setting directions‖ category embodies the elements of
building school vision, developing school goals and priorities, and holding high
expectations. The ―developing people‖ category encompasses the dimensions of
providing intellectual stimulation, offering individualized support, and modeling
26

desirable professional practices and values. The ―redesigning the organization‖
component includes the practice of developing a collaborative school culture, creating
structures to foster participation in school decisions, and creating productive community
relationships (Northouse, 2003; Leithwood, 2005). Figure 2-1 provides a comparison
between the instructional leadership model and the transformational leadership model.

27

Table 2-1: Comparison of Instructional and Transformational Leadership Models
(Hallinger, 2003)

This next section will examine learning-centered leadership and the model that
presents the behaviors and relationships that are connected to improving student
outcomes.
Comparison of Instructional and Transformational Leadership Models
Topic Instructional Leadership Transformational Leadership
Vision
Articulate and communicate clear school
goals: emphasizes clarity and
organizational nature of shared goals, set
either by the principal or by and with
staff and community
Clear vision, shared school goals:
emphasizes linkage between personal goals
and shared organizational goals
Curriculum
Coordinate curriculum, supervise and
evaluate instruction, monitor student
progress, protect instructional time
No equivalent elements for these
coordination and control functions;
Assumes others will carry these out as a
function of their roles
Instruction
Assumes that this will come about
through supervision and curriculum
coordination
Individualized support: views meeting
individual needs as a foundation of
organization development
Expectations High expectations High expectations
Rewards
Provide incentives for learners and
teachers: focus on ensuring that rewards
are aligned with mission for school
Rewards: similar focus on ensuring that
rewards are aligned with mission for
school
Professional
Development
Providing professional development for
teachers: model focuses on training and
development aligned to school mission
Intellectual stimulation: views personal
and professional growth broadly Need not
be tightly linked with school goals
Visibility
High visibility: principal maintains high
visibility in order to model values and
priorities
Modeling: essentially the same purpose
Principal maintains high visibility in order
to model values and priorities
Culture
Focuses on culture-building, but
subsumed within the school climate
dimension
Culture-building
28

Learning-Centered Leadership
Learning-centered leadership theory has core elements of the instructional and
transformational models. Their work was based on five core findings about leadership:
(a) leadership matters, (b) in difficult times, leadership matters even more, (c) in periods
of significant organizational transitions, leadership in the major controllable factor in
explaining organizational performance, (d) instructionally focused and change-oriented
leadership are effective frames for education, and (e) team leadership seems to offer
promise for enhancing organizational performance. Leadership is critically important for
providing highly-quality education, and finding ways to thoughtfully and appropriately
assess the right leadership can have an important impact on the quality of leadership, and
thus on the quality of education at our schools (Murphy et al., 2006).
The learning-centered leadership conceptual framework identifies the behaviors
of leaders from effective schools and school districts. This learning-centered framework
was derived from empirical studies of school improvement, as well as principal and
superintendent instructional leadership practices. These identified behaviors are grouped
by their leadership function, and they influence organizational outcomes that, in turn,
influence student outcomes. The eight major functions or dimensions of the framework
are the following: vision for learning, instructional program, curricular program,
assessment program, communities for learning, resource acquisition and use,
organizational culture, and social advocacy (Murphy et al., 2006).
The first dimension of the framework is ―vision for learning,‖ which describes the
learning-centered leader devoting considerable energy to developing, articulating,
29

implementing, and stewarding a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the
school community. Learning-centered leaders ensure the school vision reflects high
standards of learning for all students and high levels of personal and organizational
performance as well as translating the vision into specific and measurable results. The
learning center leaders continuously monitor the implementation of the vision and school
goals while celebrating and recognizing said implementation, as well as the realization of
said goals (Murphy et al., 2006).
In the ―instructional program‖ dimension, the learning-centered leaders are
knowledgeable and greatly involved in the instructional program of the school and are
heavily invested on instruction (spending considerable time on the teaching function).
They are focused on visiting classrooms and working with groups of teachers on
instructional issues, both in formal and informal settings. They work with teachers to
accentuate the use of instructional strategies that maximize student engagement at high
levels of success. These learning-centered leaders are relentless on counseling ineffective
teachers to leave the classroom while supporting and recognizing quality teaching and
student achievement. The majority of their time is devoted to instructional activities
while non-instructional time is kept to a minimum (Murphy et al., 2006).
The next dimension is the ―curricular program,‖ which characterizes learning-
centered leaders as curriculum experts that are knowledgeable about and extremely
involved in the school’s curricular program. They ensure that all students have adequate
opportunity to learn rigorous content in all academic areas. These learning-centered
leaders are coordinating all aspects of the curricular program, including standards
30

alignment, materials, and assessments as well all special programs for high needs
students (Murphy et al., 2006).
The ―assessment program‖ dimension requires learning-centered leaders to
demonstrate expertise in assessment practices. These leaders are personally involved with
teachers creating, implementing, and monitoring assessment systems that address
classroom and school-based activity. They promote data-based decision making and
disaggregate data on the important conditions and outcomes of schooling by relevant
characteristics of students. Additionally, they make certain that assessment data is used
for instructional planning, the identification and design of services for high needs
students, and improvement efforts (Murphy et al., 2006).
Another important dimension of the framework is ―communities of learning,‖
which is based on learning-centered leaders creating learning organizations and fostering
learning communities. They are actively involved in planning, supporting, and evaluating
specific staff learning activities and the school’s professional development system. These
leaders are proficient at the formation and use of group processes, both within the school
organization and the school community. They promote a shared or team approach to
leading the school organization and often form leadership teams to assist with identifying
and implementing school goals as well as managing the school (Murphy et al., 2006).
The ―resources allocation and use‖ dimension is essential for leaning-centered
leaders to accomplish all the previously discussed dimensions. These leaders are gifted at
acquiring and using resources to support every student reaching ambitious learning goals.
They are skilled at targeting resources to create systems, operations, and structures that
31

ensure maximum student opportunity to learn. They direct the use of financial, human,
and material resources to improve student learning (Murphy et al., 2006).
In the ―organizational culture‖ dimension, culture is explained by five themes:
production analysis, accountability, continuous improvement, safe and orderly learning
environment, and personalized community. Production analysis involves learning-
centered leaders creating environments of high performance expectations for themselves,
their staff, and their students. Accountability includes leaders holding teachers and
students accountable for learning while integrating external accountability systems that
support the internal accountability systems of the school. Continuous improvement
involves leaders asserting ongoing school improvement efforts. Safe and orderly learning
environment encompasses leaders maintaining school-wide discipline and an
environment conducive to learning. Personalized environment refers to leaders creating
opportunities for students to form ties to the school and to appropriate adult role models
(Murphy et al., 2006).
The ―social advocacy‖ dimension is expressed in four overlapping domains:
environmental context, diversity, ethics, and stake holder engagement. Environmental
context refers to leaders manipulating contextual factors to increase success for students
and their families. Learning-centered leaders recognize and utilize all forms of student
diversity to meet the needs of all students and to maximize their learning. In addition,
they treat others fairly, respectfully, and equitably, while expecting others in the school
community to act similarly. These leaders create partnerships with families and
community members to accomplish school goals, improve the instructional program, and
32

increase student achievement. This domain of social advocacy will be elaborated upon in
the following section of social justice leadership (Murphy et al., 2006).
Social Justice Leadership
According to 1990 census, 14% of the United States school age children live in
homes in which the primary language was not English. In addition to the increase of
racial, ethnic, and language diversity among the student population, many students are
poor. The percentage of children living in poverty rose from 16.2% in 1979 to 18.7% up
1998 (Terry 2000). These demographics require skilled principals that make use of
intentional leadership practice to resist discrimination and inequity. Social justice
leadership is defined by overcoming the challenges of race, class, gender, disability,
sexual orientation, and other historically marginalizing conditions in schools by
advocacy, leadership practice, and vision. Additionally, inclusive school practice is
utilized with students with disabilities, English Learners, and other students traditionally
segregated in schools. The goal of social justice leadership is to address and eliminate the
marginalization in schools to improve student learning (Capper, Theoharis and Sebastin,
2006; Theoharis, 2007).
A social justice leader goes beyond using good leadership practice and relies on a
strong belief system dedicated to improving student outcomes for disadvantaged children.
The social justice leader places value on diversity, retains an extensive understanding of
diversity, and magnifies cultural respect. The goal of the social justice leader is to
strengthen teaching and curriculum as well as ensure diverse students have access to the
core curriculum. The social justice leader insists that every child will be successful, uses
33

collaboration to address the issues surrounding student achievement, and examines all
data through the lens of equity. In addition, he or she eliminates segregated and pull-out
programs that exclude both emotional and academic success for marginalized students.
The social justice leader is immersed with the life, community and soul of the school
(Capper et al, 2006; Theoharis, 2007). The following section will focus on the effects of
school leadership, specifically the principal, on student achievement.
Principal Effects
One of the central keys to the success of current efforts to improve student
learning is leadership. Effective leadership comes from administrators and teachers along
with parents, school board members, and state officials. According to research, leadership
has an indirect effect on student achievement, but it has a direct effect on the
instructional practices of teachers and on organizational structures; these two components
have a direct effect on student outcomes. Through leadership practices and behaviors,
principals create the conditions conducive to effective teaching and learning
environments (Leithwood, 2004; Davis et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). For example: a
principal organizes teachers into learning communities by specific content areas or grade
level. The teachers are then expected to use collaboration time to identify and implement
effective instructional strategies based on the results of their common assessments. Next,
the teachers improve their instruction by sharing best practices, resulting in students
performing better on their assessments. Thus, the principal creates the condition of the
learning community to help teachers improve their instructional practice, and therefore
enhances student learning. This type of relationship shows a linkage between leader
34

learning experiences, their practices, and their effect on student learning. Most empirical
evidence about a leader’s effects on student learning has come from research on school
level leaders, especially principals. Based on the results of an analysis of research
conducted between 1980 and 1995 on principals’ effects on student achievement,
Hallinger and Heck (1996) reported that principal leadership can make a difference in
student learning.
According to the findings from Hallinger and Heck (1996), the principal
leadership practice that makes the most difference in student outcomes are aimed toward
influencing the internal school process (the instructional organization and the practice of
teachers) that is directly linked to student learning. This includes the principal’s ability to
sustain a school-wide purpose focused on student learning. Instructional leadership
predictors of school achievement are the amount of time principals spend directly
observing classroom practices, promoting discussion about instructional issues, and
emphasizing the use of test results for program improvement (Heck 1992). In 1998,
Hallinger and Heck identified four ―avenues of influence‖ through which principals
influence both individuals (teachers, parents, and students) and the organizational
systems within the school, therefore influencing student outcomes. Hallinger and Heck
(1998) defined the four areas through which leadership may influence the organizational
structure as (1) purposes and goals of the school; (2) the school structure and social
networks; (3) the people; and (4) the school culture.
The effects of school level leaders are justified by three different types of research
evidence. One type is mostly qualitative case study evidence which is based on the
35

effective schools research and reports very large leadership effects; however, the
evidence lacks external validity (Leithwood, 2004). The second type is drawn from large
scale quantitative studies and concludes that combined direct and indirect effects of
school leadership on student outcomes are small, but educationally significant (Hallinger
& Heck, 1996; Leithwood, 2004). The last type is derived from large scale quantitative
research and inquires about the effects of specific leadership practice. The review of
thirty-five years of research by Marzano (2005) identifies twenty-one leadership
―responsibilities‖ and computes an average correlation between each responsibility and
student achievement.
The twenty one leadership responsibilities that describe the specific actions that
are needed by principals to affect student achievement are viewed as a source of evidence
based leadership practices (Leithwood, 2004; Marzano, 2005). These responsibilities that
are identified in the meta-analysis research are not new to research, but are mentioned
explicitly and implicitly by numerous researchers and theorists (Marzano, 2005). In
addition, these twenty-one competencies have a statistically significant relationship with
student achievement and are required operating procedures for effective principals.
Figure 2-2 presents the twenty-one responsibilities in order of their strength of
relationship with student achievement.
36

Twenty-One Responsibilities Listed in Order of Correlation with Student
Academic Achievement
Responsibility The Extent to Which the Principal…
Correlation
with Student
Achievement
Situational Awareness Is aware of issues in the school and uses this information
to address them.
.33
Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the
current situation.
.28
Discipline Protects teachers from influences that detract from
teaching time and focus.
.27
Outreach Is an advocate for the school to all stakeholders.
Monitoring/Evaluating Monitors the effectiveness of school practice and their
impact on student learning.

Culture Fosters shared beliefs and a sense of community. .25
Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures.
Resources Provides materials and professional development.
Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction and Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction,
and assessment.

Input Involves teachers with making decisions and policies.
Change Agent Is actively challenging the status quo.
Focus Establishes clear goals and maintains attention on them. .24
Contingent Rewards Recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments.
Intellectual Stimulation Ensures regular discussion of current educational
practices.

Communication Communicates effectively with teachers and students. .23
Ideas/Beliefs Expresses and operates from strong beliefs on schooling. .22
Involvement in Curriculum,
Instruction, and Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation of
curriculum, instruction and assessment practices.
.20
Visibility Has quality interactions with teachers and students.
Optimizer Inspires and leads new and challenging innovations.
Affirmation Acknowledges accomplishments and failures. .19
Relationships Is aware of the personal lives of teachers and students. .18
Table 2-2: Twenty-One Responsibilities
(Marzano, 2005)

Though some of the responsibilities have higher correlation values than others,
they are all fairly close in size with values between .18 and .33, and are important to the
effective execution of leadership in schools (Marzano, 2005). The next section will
examine the research on effective leadership preparation programs.
37

Effective Leadership Capacity Building
Principals play an important role in determining the direction for successful
schools, but limited knowledge is available on the best methods to prepare and develop
highly qualified leaders. Based on the available literature, the content of an effective
principal development program reflects the current research on school leadership
incorporating knowledge of instruction, organizational development, and change
management. In addition, the program is well-defined, thus connecting goals, learning
activities, and assessments to a set of shared beliefs and knowledge on effective
leadership practice. The curriculum is aligned with state and professional standards,
specifically the ISSLC standards, which emphasize instructional leadership.
An effective program provides student-centered instruction that integrates theory
and practice and stimulates reflection. A variety of methods are used to allow learners to
apply content and solve real world problems (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, &
Orr, 2007; Grogan, Sherman, & Beaty, 2007; Davis et al., 2005). The essential features of
principal preparation programs are: being research-based, having curricular coherence,
providing experience in authentic contexts, using cohort groups and mentors, and being
structured to enable collaborative activity between the program and area schools (Davis
et al., 2005).
An important factor to consider in a principal development program is the context
in which the principal will be working, including the type of school as well as the school
demographics and culture of the school. According to Capper et al. (2006) and Theoharis
(2007), the development of specialized courses or an entire program is needed to prepare
38

principals to lead socially just schools. A leadership program that prepares leaders for
social justice includes the following components: critical consciousness of social justice,
knowledge of evidence-based practices that can create an equitable school, and practical
skills focused on social justice with the students. In addition, this leadership development
program contains the specific curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices that can
influence the consciousness, deepen the understanding, and build skills of future leaders
to carry out social justice work. However, professors of social justice oriented programs
must intentionally create an environment where potential leaders experience a sense of
emotional safety that will allow them to take intellectual and emotional risks toward
social justice (Capper et al, 2006). Discussion and development of strategies that advance
social justice in the face of resistance is another essential feature needed in an educational
leadership program (Theoharis, 2007).
The importance of context has inspired new approaches and delivery models to
principal development programs. The literature on current delivery models of educational
leadership preparation programs notes that state licensure requirements underlie the basic
elements of most programs. Though each program is unique, many are divided into two
distinct components: instructional leadership coursework and internship. Within the
coursework, many programs stress case studies, problem-based learning and hands-on
learning experiences. Lastly, portfolios or other methods of authentic assessment are
usually part of most educational leadership programs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007;
Preis et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2005). According to Preis et al. (2007), ―While individual
features of certain programs have been highlighted as effective in the research literature,
39

very little has been written about what constitutes good or effective models for delivery‖
(p. 4).
The ―cohort model‖ that places a group of students together in a program and
engages them in a common set of courses and/or learning activities until completion of
the program is a widely used delivery model. Students maintain the cohort creates a
trusting environment and praise the support, mutual respect, and lifelong relationships
they build within the cohort. Another significant positive effect of the cohort is the
increasing number of students who persevere and complete their degrees. However,
cohorts depend so much on group dynamics, and thus negative social interaction can be
magnified in a group setting. Other issues with cohorts include the lack of flexibility of a
student’s course load or individual academic exploration. Finally, no conclusive scientific
research exists to validate a positive impact on the leadership abilities of the cohort
participants versus non-cohort participants (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Preis et al.,
2007).
A newly surfacing delivery model is ―distance technology‖ where technology is
utilized as the course format alternative to the tradition classroom setting. The use of
distance technology offers students the opportunity to remain anonymous and may
demonstrate to be a gender, race, and disability equalizer because there is less potential
for bias. In addition, distance technology allows students to network with students from
distant areas and to work at their own convenience. Some of the difficulties with distance
technology are quality control, lack of faculty/institution support, and equipment failures.
40

Lastly, more research is needed to determine how distant technology may be associated
with effective school leaders (Preis et al., 2007).
The creation of partnerships between schools, universities and communities is a
delivery model that has the potential to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Many
of these successful collaborative type models incorporate effective veteran administrators
into the program structure by serving as mentors for those in the leadership preparation
program. Several partnerships involve state departments of education, corporate leaders
and community organizations as well as schools and universities. These partnerships
provide multiple perspectives and offer a number of professional strengths that have
strong opportunity to enhance the depth and quality of an educational leadership
program. Collaborations between universities and districts increase the opportunity for
leaders to receive relevant and consistent support and professional development.
Consequently, insufficient research has not been completed on the effects of leadership
practice by these partnerships (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Preis et al., 2007; Davis et
al., 2005).
Alternatives to the university programs are the recently emerging for-profit and
not-for-profit leadership preparation programs. These programs outside of higher
education are more willing to break from tradition and take risks with new ideas and
approaches. The New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS) program for leadership
development recruits leaders from across the country in both education and business to
provide input on the program’s curriculum. While some researchers have acknowledged
41

the strengths of these programs, some districts are apprehensive about hiring
administrators trained outside the educational environment (Preis et al., 2007).
Although states and districts have been actively involved in designing leadership
programs, policy makers need to have a better understanding of program costs of
effective programs, the financial strategies to fund them, and the necessary policies to
sustain them. Research is needed to examine policies and funding that influence principal
preparation and development programs. More research is needed to determine how
leadership programs can develop the knowledge and skills to create effective leaders, and
further research on the critical features of effective principal development programs
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2005; Young et al., 2007). The following
section will review the research on leadership support structures that build leadership
capacity and sustain effective leadership practice.
Mentoring as a Leadership Support Structure
Mentoring traditionally involves an individual with expert knowledge in a specific
area passing on this knowledge to an individual with less expertise. A mentoring program
for new principals is a leadership support structure that has been adopted by
approximately half of the states in the nation. However many of these current programs
are experiencing numerous problems. Some of the common issues of mentoring programs
include an insufficient focus on instructional leadership with an overemphasis on
managerial role, weak or nonexistent mentor training, and lack of meaningful data to
assess the benefits of a mentoring program to build a case for sustained support.
According to the research, mentoring programs need to move beyond ―buddy systems‖ or
42

check-list of activities that do not help principals become knowledgeable and skilled
leaders of better teaching and learning (Spiro, Mattis, & Mitgang, 2007; Gray, Fry,
Bottoms, & O’Neill, 2007).
A mentoring program should be an integral part of a continuum of professional
development for a principal that begins with pre-service training and continues
throughout the leader’s career, rather than a brief or isolated ―add-on‖. The core goal of a
mentor should be to help a principal be able to challenge the status quo and impact
teacher professional practice and increases student achievement. A veteran administrator,
who was successful as a principal, does not guarantee to be a successful mentor. A skilled
mentor can assist a principal with shaping his or her beliefs about whole-school change,
students’ capacities to learn, relationships with staff and community members, and
ethical leadership practice. The necessary skills of an effective mentor include an
understanding of goal setting, active listening, and conflict management. Mentors need to
be taught these skills and other behaviors that will improve the instructional leadership
practice of a principal. In a high quality training program, mentors learn how to provide
feedback and coaching that helps principals transition to effective instructional leaders
(Spiro et al., 2007; Gray et al., 2007).
Coaching as a Leadership Support Structure
Coaching is often confused with mentoring: while mentoring involves an expert
conveying knowledge that is unfamiliar to an individual, coaching is a process in which
the coach ―facilitates‖ learning in the individual. Coaching is a results-oriented
systematic process in which the coach promotes the enhancement of work performance
43

and self-directed learning and personal growth of the person being coached (Strong,
Barrett, & Bloom, 2002; Bloom, Castagna, Moir, & Warren, 2005).
A ―change coach‖ or ―capacity coach‖ focuses on leadership that addresses
whole-school, organizational improvement of the instructional program. Change coaches
facilitate the process of principals examining their resources (time, money, and
personnel) and determining how to allocate them more effectively on instruction. Change
coaches can help principals understand the importance of inspiring and recruiting
teachers to assume leadership roles to drive whole school change. They engage principals
in discussions on strategies that build shared decision making and responsibility of school
reform. These coaches can enable principals to organize their time so they are able to
visit classrooms regularly to observe instruction. Change coaches can help principals
learn how to offer meaningful feedback to teachers that will improve their practice
(Neufeld & Roper, 2003). This next section will discuss the research on the CLASS
model as a leadership support structure.
CLASS Model
The CLASS model is a product of the New Teacher Center and is sponsored by
the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). The model provides a
principal with at least two hours of coaching once a month from a certified coach who
has been trained through the model. Most coaches are typically retired administrators
who were principals and are knowledgeable about being a principal. These coaches can
serve as mentors when principals need advice on situations; however this is not their
44

main role. The purpose of the coach is to facilitate the principal learning to become an
effective leader (New Teacher Center, 2010).
Each meeting with the coach and principal begins with a question and answer
session. The coach starts by asking ―What’s working at your school?‖ The principal
shares his or her current focus, challenges, and concerns. As the coach is listening
intently, he or she maintains a log of the principal’s responses in order for the coach to
gain a better understanding of the principal’s challenges. This log includes the principal’s
next steps, the coach’s next steps, and the agenda for the next meeting. The coach
continues to ask questions that promote reflective thinking on the part of the principal.
This type of coaching is used to help the principal determine what is needed to increase
student achievement at his or her school (New Teacher Center, 2010; Bloom et al., 2005).
According to Strong, Barrett, and Bloom (2002), the relationship between the
principal and coach is based upon trust and permission in which issues and challenges are
valued as learning opportunities for the principal to improve his or her leadership skills.
The coach is a different observer of the principal and the situation, providing a new
perspective for the principal. Being a good listener is an essential skill for the coach and
is practiced at all the CLASS training sessions that coaches attend to remain a certified
CLASS coach. The coach listens carefully to the principal to be able to pose the
appropriate questions that will help the principal discover solutions to his or her problems
and determine strategies that he or she can continue to use in the future. Additionally, the
coach provides emotional support and advocacy to the principal while maintaining
confidentiality (New Teacher Center, 2010; Bloom et al., 2005).
45

The coaches in the model draw upon a variety of blended coaching strategies and
skills, and bring common practices and characteristics to this unique coaching
relationship. There are two major types of coaching: ―instructional coaching‖, which is
used when the principal is requesting specific information on how to do something, and
―facilitative coaching‖, which is used to encourage the principal to reflect on his or her
thinking. Other coaching strategies include consultative, collaborative and
transformational, which are blended with instructional and facilitative coaching.
Collaborative coaching is the practice of the coach planning together with the leader
while consultative coaching is when the coach completes research and makes
recommendations to the leader. Transformational coaching is when the coach is able to
help the leader move from doing (leadership practice) to being (new habits of leadership
thinking and practice). The main goal of the coach is to help the principal to transform his
or her thinking in order to reach the desired outcomes that eventually maximize student
learning at the school (Strong et al., 2002; Bloom et al., 2005).
Another key component of the CLASS model is the coach assisting the principal
with identifying goals and creating plans to accomplish the goals. Generally, the coach
and the principal complete a 360° Leadership Survey together to begin the process of
selecting the goals for the principal. The survey requests feedback and rate of
performance (from beginning to accomplishing) on the principal’s effectiveness on
essential elements of the CPSEL standards. Teachers provide additional input to the goal
setting process by filling out each of their own 360° Leadership Surveys based on their
perceptions of the principal’s leadership (New Teacher Center, 2010).
46

Once the coach and principal have analyzed and discussed the survey results, the
principal with the assistance of the coach determines goals for the school year.
Additionally, they develop an Individualized Development Plan (IDP) which includes
actions, outcomes, and timeline for completing each of the goals. Discussion of progress
and next steps of the IDP is allocated for each coaching session. Most importantly, the
principal is following a detailed plan that is focused on teacher professional practice and
increasing student achievement while receiving monthly feedback on the progress of his
or her plan from a CLASS coach (New Teacher Center, 2010).
Conclusion
As of the start of the 21st century, efforts have been made to close the
achievement gap of high needs students, specifically between African American and
Latinos students and their white and Asian counterparts. Policy reform, such as the
NCLB Act (2001), has focused on improving the quality of teaching in an attempt to
increase the achievement of underperforming students. Recently, policy makers have
begun to recognize the importance of principal leadership practice in closing the
achievement gap and have stated that improving principal effectiveness is one of the
priorities in the Blueprint for Reform (2010).
Researchers have developed frameworks of leadership models to describe the
numerous behaviors needed for effective principal leadership practice. The key theories
of effective school leadership are the following: instructional, transformational, learning-
centered, and social justice leadership theories. These promising leadership theories have
identified the behaviors of principals that influence teacher professional practice and
47

student learning outcomes. Although many of the behaviors overlap in these leadership
theories, each theory provides specific information on knowledge, beliefs, and skills that
are not conveyed as extensively in the other theories. For instance, the learning-centered
leadership theory recognizes student diversity (Murphy et al., 2006). However the social
justice leadership theory places strong value on diversity and requires a deeper
understanding of it. Social justice leadership provides specific principal practice that
improves a school’s instructional program and increases learning outcomes for high
needs students (Capper et al, 2006; Theoharis, 2007).
Research has determined the components of effective principal preparation
programs and the leadership support structures that build leadership capacity and sustain
effective leadership practice. The CLASS model is a support structure that is rooted in
school leadership theories and incorporates many of the features of effective principal
preparation programs (New Teacher Center, 2010). The CLASS model has the potential
to influence a principal’s leadership practice and in turn, influence teacher professional
practice and student outcomes. Students with high needs deserve highly qualified
teachers as well as highly effective principals that can have a positive impact on their
education and quality of life. The next chapter will outline the methodology for this study
including all research design, data procedures, instrumentation, and analysis.

48

CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the design, sample, intervention, data collection
instrumentation, and data analysis process that were utilized in this study. The purpose of
this study was to investigate if the impact of principal participation in a research and
standards-based leadership development program with coaching support on leader
practice, is effective in influencing change in leader practice and professional practice of
teachers.
Description of the Study
The study identified two high school principals from a high needs school district
who were participating in the Focus on Results (FOR) program and working with a
trained leadership coach. The study focused on how FOR influences principals to create
organizational structures that promote effective leadership and professional teacher
practices that have the potential to improve student outcomes.
The study took a comprehensive look at leadership practices that have the
potential to attain the state’s core leadership standards and district outcomes to determine:
1) the relationship between principal participation in the district’s leadership capacity
building and support system and their leadership practice; and 2) if the practice of the two
principals varies, what accounts for that variance. The study additionally sought to
expand the knowledge base in regard to components of effective leadership support
structures at the school and district levels which enable principals’ leadership practice.
49

These leadership practices include creating and sustaining the conditions for effective
teaching and promoting a more equitable and effective learning environment for students.
Qualitative data were collected in a pre-intervention and post-intervention design to
determine the leader’s change in practice and how the participation in FOR shaped the
change. In addition, quantitative data were collected during post-intervention data
collection to determine the relationship between FOR participation and leadership
practice of the principal.
The case study design is appropriate for this study because the case study design
is particularly suited to situations in which it is impossible to separate the phenomenon’s
variables (e.g., leadership practice, leader knowledge, etc.) from context (Yin, 1994) as is
the case in the study of leadership practice in schools. In case study research, data
collection usually ―involves all three strategies of interviewing, observing, and analyzing
documents‖ (Merriam, 1998, p.136). Patton (2002) contends that multiple sources of
information are sought and used because no single source of information can be trusted to
provide a comprehensive perspective. By using a combination of observations, interviews
and document analysis, the researcher is able to use different data sources to validate and
cross-check findings.
Utilizing a mixed methods design, the two high school principals, and their
teachers were observed for five months during the 2010-2011 school year. Through
pre/post interviews, classroom and principal observations, surveys, and document
analysis, the study investigated the influence of the district’s leadership capacity building
and support system, including the support of a FOR leadership coach on principal
50

leadership practice in their schools. The study was designed to address the following
research questions:
1. How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare
principals for the unique challenges of high needs schools?
2. How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to create
and sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional
practice?
3. How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?
Sample and Population
The unit of analysis for this study was school leadership practice. Purposeful
(Patton, 2002) sampling, was the strategy used to identify participants for this study. This
is an appropriate strategy because the purpose of this study was to increase the
understanding as well as provide insight into the nature of leadership practice. The two
principals were identified for participation were selected based on the following criteria:
1) principal leadership role at the high school level in the same district; 2) no high school
principal experience; and 3) principal was participating in the FOR program. The validity
of the study was strengthened through random identification of teacher participants
within each school. The random sampling of teachers eliminated the potential of selection
bias due to individual opinion or bias and offered a more impartial population of teachers
to interview (Patton, 2002). Principals and their teachers were asked to participate in pre-
intervention and post-intervention interviews and observation data collection activities.
Six teachers (three from each high school) who taught high stakes accountability
51

subjects, math, science and/or language arts, were identified for this study. Additionally,
Focus on Results coaches, district personnel, and Focus on Results instructors were
purposefully identified for the qualitative portion of the study so that information specific
to FOR were collected from those responsible for the design and delivery of the program
components.
Intervention
The sample of principals for this study was purposively identified as those having
participated in Focus on Results (FOR) training. FOR is a consulting group that works
with an entire district to refocus the role of the principal to improve teaching and
learning. Elements of the FOR practice include the emphasis on the ―how‖ as well as the
―what‖ of improving teaching and learning, and the development of leadership capacity
through coaching and professional learning. These FOR research-based elements are used
to help a district implement protocols for measurable, sustaining improvements in student
performance, school leadership, and decision-making. This is accomplished through
training school Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs), and through professional
development embedded in day-to-day work of the schools. The district office is
reorganized to provide ongoing support for goals related to student achievement, schools
regularly participate in instructional walk-throughs, and principals are provided
leadership coaches. The ILT is composed of the principal and other teacher leaders from
the school. These ILTs receive extensive professional development and are committed to
implementing the FOR reform process (Seaton, Emmett, Welsh & Petrossian, 2008;
Focus on Results, 2011).
52

The ILTs, with FOR guidance, execute a reform process that includes the
following seven areas of focus:
1. Select and implement a school-wide instructional focus.
2. Create professional collaboration teams to improve teaching and learning for all
students.
3. Consistently use effective research-based teaching practices to meet the needs of
each student.
4. Monitor a targeted professional development plan that builds expertise in selected
best practices and ensures change in practice.
5. Realign resources (people, time, talent, energy and money) to support the
instructional focus.
6. Engage families and community in supporting the instructional focus
7. Create and monitor an internal accountability system based on student learning
goals that promotes measurable gains in learning for every student and eliminates
achievement gaps (Seaton et al., 2008; Focus on Results, 2011).
Members of the ILTs serve as facilitators and coaches to guide the staff to address
the seven areas of focus in order to gain student achievement. The FOR training and
process develops the capacity of the ILT teachers as instructional leaders. Principals
focus on curriculum and instruction with a commitment to being in classrooms at least for
50 percent of the work day. In addition, leadership coaches meet with principals to
problem-solve issues encountered in implementation of the school-wide focus through an
53

inquiry process. The main goal of the coach is to ensure that a principal’s actions
maximize student learning at a school (Seaton et al., 2008; Focus on Results, 2011).
Principal Recruitment
One of the members of my dissertation committee was instrumental in securing
access to a high needs school district. When I met with him, he communicated interest in
the study and a willingness to offer assistance in identifying participants from a high
needs school district with a leadership training program and a leadership coaching
component. The superintendent from the high needs school district was the initial contact
person and was sent an email requesting his assistance with the study. The assistant
superintendent of educational services responded on behalf of the superintendent and
provided assistance with the study. During the conversation with the assistant
superintendent, two high school principals were identified as possible candidates for the
study because both of them were new, first year high school principals. The assistant
superintendent asked the two high school principals to participate in the study by
emailing the prospective principals and attaching the abstract for the study to the email
message. I explained the study to the principals and answered their questions. Both high
school principals agreed to participate in the study.
Gaining Access to Participants
In August 2010, the superintendent of the high needs school district was contacted
to identify potential candidates who met the criteria for the study. The appropriate
protocol required by the district to participate in the study was completed. District
personnel were contacted by email to determine the protocol necessary to receive
54

approval for participation of their schools in the study. All steps of the protocol were
completed before the prospective principals received invitations to participate in the
study through an ―informed consent‖ letter. A follow up phone call was made to targeted
school principals in September to personally invite them to participate in the study.
Principals were requested to name a lead staff member who assisted with maintaining the
anonymity of all teacher participants from their schools. The role of this staff member
was to assist with obtaining a list of teachers from which I randomly selected case study
participants. All participants in the study were assigned pseudonyms to maintain their
anonymity.

Data Collection Procedures
This study used a mixed methods case study design. The core of the study focused
on descriptive questions which disclosed information about the ―hows‖ and ―whys‖ of
changes in principal leadership behavior as a result of participation in the district’s
leadership capacity building and support system. In addition, qualitative data was
collected to assess the impact of the leader’s practice on teacher practice and
organizational structures. For the purpose of this study, it was necessary to examine the
phenomenon of educational leadership in a real-life context to gain a better understanding
of the contextual factors that to influence principal behavior. Studying the leadership
practice of two principals and collecting data on the unique leadership phenomenon of
each principal for analysis contributed to the robustness of the study.
55

Instrumentation: Overview
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For both case
studies, descriptive data were collected from the following sources: 1) pre and post
intervention interviews with each principal, and a sub-set of three teachers at each school;
2) pre and post intervention observations of the principal interacting with teachers; 3)
classroom observations of teachers interacting with their students and with other teachers;
4) collection of documents from the participating district; and 5) artifacts from each
school relevant to the study were collected for document analysis.
Additionally, post intervention data were collected from the administration of the
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership on Education (VAL-ED) survey to principals, their
supervisors, and their teachers. The administration (post intervention) of the VAL-ED
survey was carried out after the principals had been participating in the FOR program for
five months. Data collected in response to each research question were triangulated to
facilitate the data analysis process and substantiate any inferences made with regards to
changes in leader practice and teacher professional practice.
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
The VAL-ED was developed by researchers to assess the effectiveness of school
principals (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliot and Cravens, 2009). This standards-based
survey of educational leadership is closely aligned with the Interstate School Leaders
Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards. The framework for the VAL-ED assessment is
based on learning-centered leadership theory. The behaviors of the learning-centered
leader include: establishing a clear vision for learning; building effective relationships
56

with staff, students, and community; implementing a culture of learning for all
stakeholders; and maintaining a safe and orderly environment. The learning-centered
leader demonstrates instructional, curricular, and assessment expertise as well as being
involved in the process of teaching and learning. It is through this leadership perspective
that the behaviors for this instrument were identified.
The survey is composed of 72 items which are broken down into six core
component subscales and six process subscales. The six key processes are: 1) planning,
2) implementing, 3) supporting, 4) advocating, 5) communicating, and 6) monitoring.
The six core components are: 1) high standards for student performance, 2) rigorous
curriculum, 3) quality instruction, 4) culture of learning and professional behavior, 5)
connections to external communities, and 6) systemic performance accountability. The
VAL-ED was funded by a grant from the Wallace Foundation and developed by a team
of well-respected researchers in educational leadership (Porter, Murphy, Goldring,
Elliott, Polikoff & May, 2008). Survey respondents indicate their perceptions of how well
the principal engages in actions (the key processes) that impact effective school activities
supported by research (the core components). The survey respondents are also asked to
identify the source(s) of evidence that support these perceptions. The instrument is
designed to provide a 360-degree evidence-based assessment of leadership. It is designed
for completion by the principal, supervisor and teachers at the school.
Respondents rate the perceived effectiveness of the principal on a scale of 1-5 (1=
Ineffective to 5= Outstandingly Effective) for each of the 72 items. The surveys are
designed to take from 30 minutes to complete. The VAL-ED survey is designed to yield
57

both criterion-referenced and norm-referenced scores. Figure 3-1 illustrates a sample of
the VAL-ED survey.

Figure 3-1: The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education
(VAL-ED, 2008)

The VAL-ED (2008) is a new instrument in the research of educational
leadership; however, it has gone through extensive field testing to establish high
standards of content validity and reliability. The conceptual framework is based on the
literature of school leadership effects on student achievement (Porter et al., 2008).
For this study, survey respondents (both principals and all teachers) had the
opportunity to take the on-line version. All respondents were assigned a unique ID code
to protect the confidentiality of each participant. The survey ID codes were distributed by
the researcher in cooperation with the principal and eliminated the possibility of
retaliation against teachers for their responses. Through this process, the exact responses
58

of all participants and their contribution to the overall survey results remained unknown
to the principal. Survey completion was tracked for principals and teachers that were
expected to complete the VAL-ED survey. Although, participation in the survey was
requested at staff meetings and through emails, only 7 out of 120 teachers (6%)
completed the survey at one of the case study schools and 3 out of 100 teachers (4%)
completed the survey at the other school in February, 2011. According to the VAL-ED,
participation below a 50% rate is considered low; therefore the scores needed to be
interpreted cautiously.
Interviews
Interviews were semi-structured and conducted with each principal (N=2) and a
sub-set of teachers (N=3) from each principal’s school site. All of the interview protocols
had a combination of pre-determined as well as open-ended questions. The pre-
intervention interviews took place in the fall (2010) prior to the principal working with a
FOR coach. Principal interviews took forty-five minutes in length and teacher interviews
took thirty minutes in length. The post-intervention interviews took place in February
(2011). In addition, probing questions were asked when the responses required more
elaboration or clarification. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed for
analysis.
Teachers were randomly selected from the master teacher list that was secured
with principal cooperation based on whether or not they taught math, language arts or
science. A maximum of three teachers participated in both pre and post intervention
59

interviews at each school. The interview protocols were designed to elicit responses
which could provide evidence for a change in principal and teacher practice.
Observations and Documents
Three pre/post classroom observations were conducted at each school to gather
additional data. Observational data was necessary to strengthen data obtained through
interviews and the VAL-Ed. Interview and survey data were based solely on individual
perceptions. Observations and document analysis provided additional data that are
somewhat removed from individual perceptions and, in some cases, bias of those working
at the school site. Additionally, this observational data added strength to the study as it
provided another source of data for triangulation. Observations included the following:
1. Principal and teacher interactions in both individual and group settings
(i.e. staff meetings, professional learning community meetings)
2. Teachers instructing students in Math and Language Arts
3. Principal interactions during day-to-day responsibilities
4. School level professional learning opportunities in which the principal is
leading the learning process
Data was collected at the district’s Focus on Results staff development day in
September, 2010. In addition, one day was devoted to collecting qualitative data during
both the pre-intervention and post-intervention period at each school site. A total of five
days were committed to collecting qualitative data for the study. Table 3-1 shows the
number of participants for each type of data collection activity.
60

Principal
VAL ED
Survey
(Post)
Teacher
VAL ED
Survey
(Post)
Principal
Interview

(Pre/Post)
Teacher
Interviews

(Pre)
Teacher
Interviews

(Post)
Teacher
Observations

(Pre/Post)
First Case Study School
1 7 1 3 2 3
Second Case Study School
1 3 1 3 3 3

Total
2 10 2 6 5 6
Table 3-1: Sample Size

Reflective field notes from these observations were recorded using an observation
protocol designed for each type of observation. The notes were transcribed for analysis to
facilitate organization for analysis. Table 3-2 details the triangulation of data in relation
to each research question identified at the beginning of this chapter.

Research Question
VAL ED
Survey
(Pre/Post)
Principal
Interview
(Pre/Post)
Teacher
Interview
(Pre/Post)
Documents

(Pre/Post)
Artifacts of
Practice
(Pre/Post)
Teacher
Observations
(Pre/Post)
Principal
Meetings
(Pre/Post)
1. How does a district’s leadership
capacity building and support system
prepare principals for the unique
challenges of high needs schools?
X X X X X
2. How does the Focus on Results
program influence the principal’s ability
to create and sustain organizational
structures that promote effective teacher
professional practice?
X X X X X X X
3. How does leadership practice
influence teacher professional practice?
X X X X X
Table 3-2: Triangulation of Data Related to Research Questions

Data Analysis Procedures
The data collected for this study were analyzed in accordance with two levels of
analysis, formative and summative. To protect the integrity of each case study, each case
was fully analyzed (i.e. coding, pattern matching, organization by themes, and summative
data analysis) prior to the cross case comparative analysis. Once the data for the two case
studies were individually analyzed, data from both cases were analyzed again in search of
61

patterns and themes that help to make inferences regarding the variance between the two
cases.
Formative Data Analysis
Utilizing Creswell’s (2003) generic six step process, a formative data analysis of
this study was complete. The steps are the following:
1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis which involves transcribing interviews,
field notes, and reviewing documents. Information from participants in the study
were recorded, transcribed, and organized.

2. Read through all the data in order to obtain a general sense of the information and
to reflect on its overall meaning. The data collected from the study was evaluated
and organized.

3. Begin detailed analysis with a coding process—organizing the material into
chunks or categories. The coding process was used to categorize information from
the study that was obtained through interviews, observations, and meetings.

4. Use the coding process from Step 3 to organize the categories into themes for
analysis and look for connections between the themes. Description of settings and
themes from the study were identified.

5. Define how the description and themes are represented in the qualitative narrative.
Figures, charts, and other visuals were used to convey findings from the study.

6. Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data (Creswell, 2003).
Interpretations were made from the findings.

Summative Data Analysis
The analysis of the data was reflective of the literature discussed in Chapters 1
and 2 of this proposal to determine if there was a change in perceptions of leader
behavior and its impact on teacher practice and organizational structures. For the
quantitative data collected from the Val Ed survey, the results of the post administrations
of the assessment were used. These data were triangulated with the qualitative data and
62

used to further support the descriptive analysis of the case study data. This research study
was completed over a six month period of time. The timeline for the study is illustrated in
table 3-3 below.
Data Collection Timeline
Task Timeline
Email Superintendent & Request District Participation August 2010
Contact Assistant Superintendent & Request Principal Information August 2010
Recruit Principals via Email and follow up phone call August/Sept
2010
Qualitative Data Collection on FOR/Support Systems September 2010
Pre-Intervention Qualitative Data Collection On-Site Sept-Nov 2010
Formative Data Analysis December 2010
Post-Intervention Qualitative Data Collection On-Site February 2011
VAL-ED Survey On-Line Administered (Post-Intervention) to Participants February 2011
Summative Data Analysis March 2011
Table 3-3: Timeline for Research Project

Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
policies and procedures for conducting research were utilized in the development of this
research design. Prior to participation in this study each participant was given an
explanation of the purpose, procedures, and scope of the study. In addition, each principal
participant was given an informed consent letter, which outlined the nature of the study
and indicated voluntary participation. To protect the anonymity of each participant
pseudonyms were assigned to the principal and teacher participants. In addition, the
names of the district and high schools with which the participants were associated were
changed to avoid any possible association that might lead to the identification of
participants in this study. All data was stored in a secure location with restricted access to
the data to the researcher only. The proposal for this study received approval for the
63

conduct of human subjects research through the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to the start of data collection in September of
2010.
Summary
In summary, this chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and the research
methodology that was used to accomplish that purpose. Justification for the use of a
descriptive qualitative analysis to address the research questions was given in the
beginning of the chapter. The research design included a detailed description of the
sample and how the individual cases were selected for study. Data collection and analysis
procedures were explained as were instrumentation considerations. Due to its infancy and
limited use in research of educational leadership to date, a brief review of the VAL-ED
survey and its psychometric properties was given to assure readers of its validity and
reliability in assessing leader behavior in this study. Other topics covered in this chapter
included ethical considerations of the study. Also included in this chapter was a brief
description of the FOR program. In the next chapter, the research findings from each of the
two case studies will be examined and critically analyzed while utilizing the literature
from Chapter Two as a framework.

64

CHAPTER FOUR:
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS
Introduction
As presented in Chapter One, the purpose of this study was to investigate the impact
of principal participation on leader practice in a comprehensive, research and standards-
based, executive leadership development program(the Focus on Results, or FOR
program), as well as its impact on the professional practice of teachers. The following
research questions were the focus for the study:
1. How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare
principals for the unique challenges of high needs schools?
2. How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to
create and sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher
professional practice?
3. How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?
This chapter presents the research findings of the case studies on the two high
schools introduced in Chapter Three, and reports the findings for each research question.
This research study explores the effects of participation in the FOR program on the two
high school principals’ leadership practices. The chapter begins with a review of the
problem of leadership practice that serves as the foundation of the study. Secondly, the
study delineates the components of the FOR leadership capacity building and support
initiative, and is followed by a presentation of each case study school (including an
introduction to the principal and school context). After establishing the school’s context
65

and leadership challenges, the study findings are summarized, discussed, and analyzed in
relation to each of the study’s three research questions. Finally, this chapter concludes
with a comparison of the findings for each case study school, and an analysis of the
variations between the two schools with a discussion relating to the possible causes for
those variations.
Problem
A principal has to possess the necessary knowledge, beliefs, and skills to
positively affect school organization, teacher practice, and student outcomes (Heck,
1992; Leithwood, 2004). However, many principals have not received the training and
support to become effective learning centered instructional and transformational leaders.
Historically, preparation programs for principals in the United States have been a
collection of courses regarding general management principles and administrative duties
with little emphasis on knowledge of student learning, effective teaching, and
organizational change. Most leadership preparation programs and district staff
development trainings are fragmented, lacking in rigor, and not aligned to the state
leadership standards (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).
The pressures of new accountability systems, expanding responsibilities, and
insufficient training have contributed to the shortage of effective principals, especially in
schools with students of high needs. Many current administrators feel that they are
incapable of meeting the overwhelming demands of their jobs (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2007). Most districts do not have the support structures that allow mentors or coaches to
help principals gain the instructional and transformational leadership skills needed to
66

influence teacher professional practice and student learning. Additionally, limited
empirical evidence exists on how to help principals become more effective leaders and
how to develop their leadership practices in such a way that they improve teaching and
increase student learning (Spiro et al., 2007; Gray et al., 2007).
Focus on Results
FOR is a consulting group that works with an entire district to refocus the role of
the principal to improve teaching and learning. Elements of the FOR practice include the
emphasis on the ―how‖ as well as the ―what‖ of improving teaching and learning, and the
development of leadership capacity through coaching and professional learning. These
FOR research-based elements are used to help a district implement protocols for
measurable, sustaining improvements in student performance, school leadership, and
decision-making. This is accomplished through training school Instructional Leadership
Teams (ILTs), and through professional development embedded in day-to-day work of
the schools. The district office is reorganized to provide ongoing support to goals related
to student achievement, while schools regularly participate in instructional walk-
throughs, and principals are provided leadership coaches. The ILT is composed of the
principal and other teacher leaders from the school. These ILTs receive extensive
professional development and are committed to implementing the FOR reform process
(Seaton, Emmett, Welsh & Petrossian, 2008; Focus on Results, 2011).
The ILTs, with FOR guidance, execute a reform process that includes the
following seven areas of focus:
67

1. Select and implement a school-wide instructional focus.
2. Create professional collaboration teams to improve teaching and learning for all
students.
3. Consistently use effective research-based teaching practices to meet the needs of
each student.
4. Monitor a targeted professional development plan that builds expertise in selected
best practices and ensures change in practice.
5. Realign resources (people, time, talent, energy and money) to support the
instructional focus.
6. Engage families and community in supporting the instructional focus
7. Create and monitor an internal accountability system based on student learning
goals that promotes measurable gains in learning for every student and eliminates
achievement gaps (Seaton et al., 2008; Focus on Results, 2011).
Members of the ILTs serve as facilitators and coaches to guide the staff to address
the seven areas of focus in order to gain student achievement. The FOR training and
process develops the capacity of the ILT teachers as instructional leaders. Principals
focus on curriculum and instruction with a commitment to being in classrooms for at least
fifty percent of the workday. In addition, leadership coaches meet with principals to
problem-solve issues encountered in implementation of the school-wide focus through an
inquiry process. The main goal of the coach is to ensure that a principal’s actions
maximize student learning at a school (Seaton et al., 2008; Focus on Results, 2011).
68

Case Study One
School: Location and Demographic
Casa Valley High School is located in Los Angeles County in Southern California
and serves approximately 3,000 students in grades 9-12. The staff includes 5
administrators, 5 counselors and 107 teachers. The school demographics are reflective of
the immediate area with 54% White, 34% Asian/Pacific Island, and 10% Hispanic. Other
demographic information includes: 6% English Learners, 6% students with disabilities,
and 8% Free or Reduced-Lunch (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
Casa Valley High School is a high performing school that opened its door to
students in 1960. In 1999 and again in 2005, Casa Valley High School was designated a
California Distinguished School. In 2000, Casa Valley High School was selected as a
National Blue Ribbon Award recipient. Casa Valley High School has received the Los
Angeles BRAVO award as an outstanding visual and performing arts school in the
county and has been recognized by Los Angeles Magazine as one of the top 12 public
high schools in Los Angeles. Newsweek and World Reports have ranked Casa Valley
High School within the top 5% of American schools (Casa Valley High School/School
Accountability Report Card).In 2009-2010, Casa Valley High School met the state
expectation of 800 or above on Academic Performance Index (API) in all groups except
for the sub-groups of Special Education and English Learners (see Table 4-1).

69

Table 4-1: Data Analysis of API Assessment Results: Trend Demographic Group Analysis

Casa Valley High School had a high percentage of students scoring proficient and
above for 2009-2010 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in English Language Arts and
Mathematics in all groups except for the sub-groups of Special Education and English
Learners. The school met the 2009-2010 AYP criteria (minimum targets for percent
proficient and above)in English Language Arts and Mathematics for all groups (see Table
4-2).Additionally, Casa Valley High School made AYP for 2009-2010 by meeting all the
AYP requirements.

Data Analysis of Academic Performance Index (API) Assessment Results:
Demographic Group Analysis Trend
Group 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Overall School 870 879 883
Sub-group: Asian/Pacific Island 914 915 918
Sub-group: Hispanic 806 822 831
Sub-group: White 854 868 875
Sub-group: Special Education 606 664 632
Sub-group: English Learners 811 831 778
Sub-group: Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 810 811 811
70

Table 4-2: Data Analysis of AYP Assessment Results: Percent Proficient and Met AYP Criteria

The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) pass rate for tenth graders has
been high (95% and above) at Casa Valley High School while mostly increasing over the
last three years. Similarly, the number of students that received a three or above on
Advanced Placements Tests has steadily increased during the last three years as well as
the number of students given Advanced Placement Tests (see Table 4-3).

Data Analysis of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2009-2010 Assessment Results:
Demographic Group Analysis Percent At or Above Proficient and Met AYP
Criteria
Group
ELA
Percent At
or Above
Proficient
Met AYP
ELA
Criteria
Math
Percent At
or Above
Proficient
Met
AYP
Math
Criteria
Overall School 86.1 Yes 87.3 Yes
Sub-group: Asian/Pacific Island 86.5 Yes 95.2 Yes
Sub-group: Hispanic 85.3 Yes 71.2 Yes
Sub-group: White 86.1 Yes 87.2 Yes
Sub-group: Special Education 48.6 Yes 46.9 Yes
Sub-group: English Learners 53.3 Yes 76.1 Yes
Sub-group: Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
77 Yes 79.4 Yes
71

Table 4-3: Data Analysis of CAHSEE (10
th
Grade) and Advanced Placement Results

Casa Valley High School: Culture and Climate
Casa Valley High School started the 2010-2011 school year with a change in
leadership. Last May, the previous principal of three years announced her retirement and
was replaced with Dr. Mason. During the pre-interview, Dr. Mason shared that the entire
staff was asked to complete a survey on leadership, climate, culture, and morale. The
survey was then tabulated and the results were discussed by Dr. Mason with the
department chairs during a meeting in the summer. Additionally, Dr. Mason sent an email
to the entire staff and invited them to have a one-to-one meeting with her in the summer.
She asked each of them four basic questions: what is their role, what do they love about
this school, what they would like to see changed about the school, and how could she
support them.
Based on the survey and teacher interview results, Dr. Mason described the
culture of the school as having set structures in place. During the pre-interview, she
explained:
Data Analysis of CAHSEE (10
th
Grade) and Advanced Placement Assessment
Results: Trend Analysis
School Year
CAHSEE
ELA Pass
Rate
CAHSEE
Math Pass
Rate
Number of
AP Tests
Given
Number of
AP Tests
Passed
(3 or Above)
2007-2008 95 97.6 1658 599
2008-2009 96.1 97.3 1700 677
2009-2010 96.8 98.2 1753 684
72

There is a focus on academics, they love each other here, tradition is imbedded in
every aspect of the school, athletics is a very high priority here, and everyone
really likes what’s going on. They don’t want to see a lot of change. While
academics are a big stress for accountability reasons, they also want to infuse
asset building, more things for kids to be connected; we want to also reach out on
the social issues.

Dr. Mason added that ―Casa Valley High School is a great school, and there’s not much
to change here.‖
Part of the Focus on Result program requires each school to draft an ―urgent
message‖ that describes areas of improvement while identifying goals. The Casa Valley
High School urgent message stated the following:
 Meet API and AYP proficiency targets in all subgroups.
o 42% of English Learners and 46% of Special Education students were not
proficient according to the AYP in English language arts.
o 47.8% of Special Education students were not proficient in Mathematics.
 Increase the number of students meeting the a-g requirements for UC/Cal State
entrance.
o Casa Valley High School has been at 63% for the last three years.
 Connect students to the school and community
Principal Mason
Dr. Mason is a white female beginning her seventeenth year in education. She
started as a high school social studies teacher in West Los Angeles, and after two years,
she began teaching history including Advanced Placement European History in
Monrovia. Dr. Mason left the classroom after a total of five years of teaching to become
an assistant principal of a fundamental secondary school in Pasadena. After two years,
73

she left Pasadena to work her way up the ladder of her present district where she became
a high school assistant principal for four years, an associate high school principal for
three years, and a middle school principal for two years. This year is her first position as
a high school principal with no previous experience with Casa Valley High School.
However, Dr. Mason is familiar with the Casa Valley community because of her former
principal position at the middle school, which is the feeder school for Casa Valley High
School.
When Dr. Mason started as associate principal, she became a part of Focus on
Results and started her doctorate program at USC. During those three years, she grew
into becoming an instructional leader. Dr. Mason stated ―I accredit everything that I have
understood now about instruction and running a school and being a leader to Focus on
Results.‖
Casa Valley High School: Teachers
Three of Casa Valley High School’s teachers were randomly selected to be
interviewed during the course of the study. These teachers were selected as
representatives of the four grade levels (9
th
, 10
th
, 11
th
, and 12
th
) and the core content areas
of English and mathematics. The first interviewed teacher, Ms. Red, taught mathematics
for eighteen years and is a member of the Instructional Leadership Team. Ms. Next
taught algebra and calculus with twenty-five years of experience. The third teacher
interviewed was Ms. White; she was teaching several levels of English including
advanced placement and was the department chair for English. The teachers stated that
they believed the school was a safe, clean, and orderly place conducive to learning.
74

Four teachers were also randomly selected to be observed. Teacher observations
were completed in the following classes: Algebra II, English 10, English Literature, and
Math Analysis. All teachers were instrumental in capturing a more complete and accurate
picture of Casa Valley High School.
Case Study One Findings
Casa Valley Research Question 1
How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare principals
for the unique challenges of high needs schools?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how FOR prepared Dr. Mason to
become an effective instructional leader. The primary data collection instruments used to
address this research questions were (a) principal pre/post interviews, (b) teacher pre/post
interviews, (c) observing the principal facilitating various teacher meetings,(d) document
analysis, and (e) observing FOR professional development. The data will be analyzed
from the research perspective of effective leadership capacity building and support
structures that improve and sustain effective leadership practice (Darling-Hammond et
al., 2007; Davis et al., 2005; Young et al., 2007).
Casa Valley High School is not a high-needs school because the number of
students that have high needs is relatively small. The high-needs students at Casa Valley
are the 6% English Learners, 6% students with disabilities (special education), and 8%
Free or Reduced-Lunch students (economically disadvantaged). According to AYP
results, 42% of the English Learners and 46% of the special education students were not
proficient in English Language Arts while 47.8% of the special education students were
75

not proficient in Mathematics. The challenge for Dr. Mason and her staff is to meet the
needs of these students so they can perform as well as the majority of students at Casa
Valley High School.
Key Finding: Professional Development for the Principal. When asked about
the type of training she received from FOR, Dr. Mason explained that participating in the
FOR had taught her and her staff to look at data and examine it. Dr. Mason and her
instructional leadership team attended a full day of district FOR training in September
where they disaggregated data and identified students that were not achieving. I was able
to attend the district training and watched Dr. Mason and the leadership team dialogue
about data trends. They were able to connect their current data to their instructional plan
and reflect on their progress. She and her school team worked together to create an urgent
message based on their critical view of the 2009-2010 data. The urgent message included
an urgency statement as well as a good news report about their data. Additionally, they
began to develop Smart-Measurable-Attainable-Results Oriented-Timely-everyone
(SMARTe) goals based on their data analysis. The urgent message was shared with staff
and parents as well as being posted on the school’s website.
During the first two months of school, Dr. Mason and her instructional leadership
team finalized their urgent message and SMARTe goals. I observed Dr. Mason and
several teacher leaders draft their urgent message during my first visit at Casa Valley
High School. The urgent message was part of the agenda for the next instructional
leadership team meeting. In late October, they attended another district FOR session and
presented their 2010-2011 urgent message and SMARTe goals to the other secondary
76

schools. This allowed the school to share ideas and receive feedback from their
colleagues. They also created a plan to communicate their school’s urgent message to
their staff and community. During the post-interview, Dr. Mason disclosed ―FOR has
really taught us to examine the data and move forward.‖
One of the major components of the FOR program is to have a school to go
through the process of identifying an instructional focus and then provide the necessary
staff development in order for the school to implement the instructional focus in all
classes. Casa Valley High School selected critical thinking as their focus and sent
numerous faculty members to the Foundation of Critical Thinking Conferences.
Additionally, teacher experts presented sessions on critical thinking strategies at the
January staff meeting. This was discussed at the February staff meeting that I attended at
my post-visit. Dr. Mason admitted that the implementation of critical thinking
schoolwide is still a work in progress. She, with the support of the Instructional
Leadership Team, has decided to utilize their April staff development day to train all their
teachers on how to use critical thinking strategies in their lessons. Dr. Mason has solicited
Dr. Linda Elder from the Foundation of Critical Thinking to work with her staff on the
April date.
One of the teachers utilized critical thinking strategies during both my pre and
post observation of her classes. She had several posters on critical thinking displayed in
her classroom. During the pre-observation, English 10 honors students were organized in
reading groups, analyzed a section from the book that they were reading, and wrote a
reflection on their group’s discussion. During the post-observation, English 12 students
77

had been required to analyze a British book for homework. Students presented the literary
and social impact of their books. The other teachers that I observed did not demonstrate
any critical thinking strategies.
Another element of the FOR program is to have the district leadership personnel
focus on instruction. This was evident when I observed the district FOR training in
September. One of the assistant superintendents presented the district leadership
expectations and stressed the importance of improving instruction and student learning.
During the post-interview, Ms. White said ―The important piece of FOR is the clearly
delineated leadership expectations, specifically principal as leader, not simply as an
administrative one. It reminds principals of the work in the classroom.‖ Dr. Mason
explained that the district provided her with extensive time and support to become an
instructional leader. She shared that the influence of FOR on the district changed the
district principal meetings and the principals received one to two hours of training on
instructional topics at every meeting. Dr. Mason added that these meetings were centered
on how to use data, instruction, and student intervention programs.
Key Finding: Coaching of the Principal. This is Dr. Mason’s third year in the
FOR program. Although she was not assigned a coach this year, Dr. Mason had a coach
when she became a new middle school principal. The district assigns coaches to
administrators who are new to the role of being a principal. Even though Dr. Mason has
experience as a middle school principal, she reported that she missed being coached on a
regular basis and would benefit from coaching sessions. Dr. Mason expressed that many
of the responsibilities of a middle school principal are similar to that of a high school
78

principal; however the challenges at the high school level are more extensive and
complex. Dr. Mason has maintained a relationship with her coach and meets occasionally
with her. These meetings have allowed Dr. Mason an opportunity to voice her ideas and
concerns about being a principal to someone who provides her with valuable feedback.
Dr. Mason discussed the informal coaching that she and her other counter parts
(the three comprehensive high school principals) initiated to help each other. In the post-
interview with Dr. Mason, she said ―We coach each other. When we get together, we ask
the following questions: What are we doing at our schools, what have we learned through
FOR, and how do we take it to our staff?‖
Analysis of Findings. One of the central keys to the success of current efforts to
improve student learning is leadership. Effective leadership comes from administrators
and teachers along with district personnel and school board members. According to
research, leadership has an indirect effect on student achievement, but it has a direct
effect on the instructional practices of teachers and on organizational structures, two
factors that do have a direct effect on student outcomes. Through leadership practices and
behaviors, principals create the conditions conducive to effective teaching and learning
environments (Leithwood, 2004; Davis et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). Many principal
preparation programs do not contain the necessary content and structure for principals to
become instructional leaders (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).
An effective leadership preparation program provides student-centered instruction
that integrates theory and practice and stimulates reflection. A variety of methods are
used to allow leader learners to apply content and solve real world problems (Darling-
79

Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007; Grogan, Sherman, &Beaty, 2007; Davis et
al., 2005). The content of principal preparation programs are: being research-based,
having curricular coherence, providing experience in authentic contexts, using cohort
groups and mentors, and being structured to enable collaborative activity between the
program and area schools (Davis et al., 2005). The structure of these programs includes
providing principals with a mentor or a coach (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). The
Focus on Results program provided the content and structure for the principal to become
an instructional leader.
The FOR program is comprised of two components. The first component was to
provide the principal and instructional leadership team with professional development
that was focused on data analysis, identifying goals related to academic achievement and
leadership practice. Dr. Mason and her leadership team were seen analyzing data and
setting goals at the September FOR training. Their ―urgent message‖ was a result of their
data analysis and goal setting. The use of the instructional leadership team to make
decisions about the school’s instructional program was one example of an effective
transformational leadership practice. This is part of the ―redesigning the organization‖
element of transformational leadership, which is the practice of developing a
collaborative school culture and creating structures to foster participation in school
decisions, (Northouse, 2003; Leithwood, 2005).
The FOR professional development trained the principal and leadership team on
establishing systems and structures to support improved teacher practice and student
learning. One of the FOR initiatives was the implementation of a schoolwide
80

instructional focus, which was critical thinking. Dr. Mason admitted that not all of her
teachers are using critical thinking strategies, which were validated by the classroom
observation. However, she and her leadership team were seeking ways to implement
critical thinking schoolwide as evidenced by the February staff meeting and the staff
development day on critical thinking that is scheduled in April.
The second component of the FOR program was designed to provide principals
with a coach who provides instructional coaching and conferencing to enhance
instructional leadership development. Dr. Mason valued her past experience of being
coached and described the relationship that she had developed with her coach as very
supportive. However, because their meetings were casual and informal, the extent to
which her coach assisted her with becoming an instructional leader is questionable.
Similarly, based on the pre and post data collected, the coaching Dr. Mason received
from her principal colleagues did not show any evidence that they supported her with
becoming an instructional leader. Dr. Mason expressed interest in having a coach
assigned to her.
Conclusion. The district, in conjunction with the Focus on Results program,
initiated leadership support structures that provide principals to develop as instructional
leaders. The professional development was aligned with the district’s improvement
initiatives and allowed principals to refine their own practice. They contribute to the
development their teachers’ practice, and ultimately influence student achievement.
There is no evidence that Dr. Mason’s coach influenced her leadership practice.
81

Casa Valley Research Question 2
How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to create and
sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional practice?
The second question strives to discover how FOR influences Dr. Mason’s
instructional leadership practice in implementing the district’s reform initiatives. The
following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the strategies that Dr.
Mason initiated to create and sustain organizational structures that promote effective
teacher practice. The primary data collection instruments used to address this research
questions were (a) principal pre/post interviews, (b) teacher pre/post interviews, (c)
observing the principal facilitating various teacher meetings, (d) document analysis, and
(e) VAL-ED survey results. The data will be analyzed from the learning-centered
framework, which focuses on instructional and transformational leadership behaviors that
promote changes in leader practice (Murphy et al., 2006).
Key Finding: Communities of Learning. One of the structures of the FOR
program is to develop professional collaboration teams to improve teaching and learning
for all students. Each school is expected to create an Instructional Leadership Team
(ILT). The Casa Valley High School ILT consisted of the principal, associate principal,
assistant principal, instructional coaches from mathematics and English, and at least one
representative from each department (a total of twenty members). When Dr. Mason
became the principal, she recruited teachers that did not have a voice for their
departments. During the pre-interview, Dr. Mason explained:
Special Education was not part of the ILT, P.E., or our Visual and Performing
Arts (VAPA) Department, these three areas of the school. There was zero
82

representation on ILT. So I included Special Education, P.E., two people from the
VAPA Department, and we’ve expanded and brought on an assistant principal.
Because before it was the principal and associate, and now I have brought an
assistant principal. So every single chair, and multiple people who were not
department chairs from departments, are also on our ILT. So that was a change I
made.

The ILT attended all FOR trainings, participated in once a month full day planning
meetings, and monthly lunch meetings in which the team discussed data and instruction.
Dr. Mason relied on the ILT to make decisions about the instructional program and plan
staff development activities that would promote the use of critical thinking strategies.
Dr. Mason facilitated another collaboration team that consisted of all of her
department chairs. She met with them once a week at lunch, which was not practice
before she was the principal. Dr. Mason developed a structure that has increased the
communication between her and her department chairs. She was unable to attend every
department meeting because they all met at the same time; Dr. Mason created department
notebooks. In the notebook she listed the department chair, any resource teacher, and
FOR representatives. During the pre-interview, Dr. Mason said ―So this is my welcome.
Since I cannot attend every department meeting, please place your agenda and notes in
this folder. This will help keep me informed and help me respond to your needs.‖ The
next day after a department meeting, the department chair submitted the agenda and notes
to Dr. Mason’s secretary. Dr. Mason read through the notes and wrote comments on
them. Sometimes, she responded to an issue, complemented the department for a good
discussion or thanked them for their contribution. This protocol allowed Dr. Mason to
maintain a constant dialogue with her department chairs.
83

Key Finding: Resource Acquisition and Use. Another important element of the
Focus on Results program is the realign resources (people, time, talent, energy, and
money) to support the instructional focus. Dr. Mason realigned her resources so she could
finance planning time and professional development trainings for her teachers. At the
beginning of the school year, Dr. Mason held back 40% of one of her allocated teaching
positions and cashed it in for $30,000 dollars. She used the money to send teachers to
critical thinking conferences (travel expenses included) and to pay for their substitutes.
Dr. Mason utilized the money to fund full release days for all departments to look at data,
review pacing guides, and share lesson plans. She also used this funding to pay for
substitutes of teachers who spent the day observing his or her colleagues.
Dr. Mason has reorganized the Casa Valley Staff Meeting. Traditional staff
meetings usually involve the principal making announcements and reminding teachers of
their responsibilities. Dr. Mason’s meetings were mostly dedicated to instructional items.
At the post-observation, I attended Casa Valley High School’s staff meetings and
noted the allocation of time for each agenda item. Dr. Mason used the first five minutes
to make announcements such as reminding teachers about the CAHSEE scheduled for
March and to be kind to the students who would be taking the test. The second part of the
meeting was a presentation by teachers of awards for a teacher, a classified person and
six students. The teacher was nominated by another teacher for her collaboration with
other departments and the classified person was nominated for her positive contribution
to the school. The students were recognized for their critical thinking and engagement in
learning. This lasted a total of eight minutes. The next part of the meeting had several
84

teachers take six minutes to quickly highlight their staff presentations on critical thinking.
The last part of the meeting was devoted to WASC Accreditation. After a quick
presentation of the WASC process by two teachers, faculty members organized by focus
groups began discussing the school’s mission statement and Expected Schoolwide
Learning Results (ESLRs). Teachers spent thirty-one minutes engaged in a discussion on
teaching and learning.
Teachers also commented on Dr. Mason’s realignment of resources to support
instruction. They spoke of the release days that were given to their departments. During
the pre-observation meeting, Ms. Red said ―Our current principal is able to get each of
the departments a release day. The entire focus of that particular day was on things like
common assessments and strategies that successful teachers were using that could be
used by all teachers of a particular course.‖ Ms. White explained how Dr. Mason had
realigned the resource of instructional time for CAHSEE testing, specially the school’s
schedule to allow students more time for the test. Additionally, Dr. Mason asked the
teachers to not introduce any new material so students would be more prepared for the
test and hopefully more successful. During the post-observation, Ms. White shared
―There is a focus on the classroom. The principal has realigned resources more
powerfully with professional time to talk about critical thinking and instruction.‖
Key Finding: VAL-ED Results. At the start of the 2010-2011 school year, Dr.
Mason was transferred to Casa Valley High School to serve as the principal; having the
school participate in the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL-ED) online
survey at the orientation of this study would have been premature. Although, Dr. Mason
85

requested participation of the survey at the staff meeting, sent emails out, and letters of
participation with codes were distributed among her staff, only 5% of her teachers (a total
of seven teachers) completed the survey in February, 2011. According to the VAL-ED,
participation below a 50% rate is considered low; therefore the scores need to be
interpreted cautiously. The following is a discussion of the findings from the VAL-ED
survey that Dr. Mason and her teachers completed. The data was analyzed from the
learning-centered leadership perspective (Murphy et al., 2006), which is the leadership
framework that was used to design the VAE-ED survey.
The VAL-ED focused on leadership behaviors defined by six core component
subscales and six process subscales. These core components essentially represent types of
organizational structures that are necessary for influencing teacher performance. The six
core components are: 1) high standards for student performance, 2) rigorous curriculum,
3) quality instruction, 4) culture of learning and professional behavior, 5) connections to
external communities, and 6) systemic performance accountability. The six key processes
are: 1) planning, 2) implementing, 3) supporting, 4) advocating, 5) communicating, and
6) monitoring. Survey respondents indicate their perceptions of how well the principal
engages in actions (the key processes) that impact effective school activities supported by
research (the core components). The survey respondents are also asked to identify the
source(s) of evidence that support these perceptions. The instrument is designed to
provide a 360-degree evidence-based assessment of leadership. Dr. Mason’s overall
effectiveness score was Proficient, which was defined as a leader that ―exhibits learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence
86

teachers positively and result in acceptable value-added to student achievement and
social learning for all students‖. Her mean score was a 3.70 and her percentile rank
against other principals was 60.6. Table 4-4, below, gives a summary of Dr. Mason’s
scores on the core components and key processes.

Table 4-4: Summary of Core Components and Key Processes Scores
(VAL-ED Report, Dr. Mason March 2011)

Another variable that was used to calculate Dr. Mason’s overall VAL-ED scores
were the sources of evidence the principal and teachers cited. The source of evidence that
was cited the most by the principal was personal observations, accounting for 79% of the
responses as a basis for ratings of leadership behavior while 43% was school documents.
Similarly, teachers relied on personal observations as their most used source of evidence,
representing 73% of their answers, however the ―reports from others‖ category was their
second highest source of evidence, which was 26%.
The areas of improvement that were identified from the VAL-ED survey
represents an integrated summary of the principal’s strengths and areas for growth based
on the mean item scores for the intersection of core components and key processes. Each
intersection was given a performance standard of below basic (BB), basic (B), proficient
87

(P) and distinguished (D). Intersections that were identified as below basic were also
identified as the areas of growth for Dr. Mason. Figure 4-1, below, provides an overview
of the matrix.

Figure 4-1: Matrix of Core Components by Key Processes
(VAL-ED Report, Dr. Mason March 2011)

The key processes and core component that were identified for possible
improvement included (a) communicating rigorous curriculum, (b) planning connections
to external communities, (c) implementing connections to external communities, (d)
supporting connections to external communities, (e) advocating performance
accountability, and (f) supporting performance accountability. The results of this matrix
generated a list of suggested leadership behaviors that Dr. Mason could implement for
each area of improvement (see Table 4-4).
88

Communicating Rigorous Curriculum
 Listen to faculty about how to strengthen the curriculum.
 Discusses during faculty meetings how to improve the rigor of the curriculum.
Planning Connections to External Communities
 Plans for the use external community resources to promote academic and social
learning goals.
 Plans activities to engage families in student learning.
Implementing Connections to External Communities
 Builds a positive, open relationship with the community.
 Implements programs to help parents assist their children to be successful in
school.
Supporting Connections to External Communities
 Supports teachers to work with community agencies on behalf of students.
 Motivates teachers to be responsive to all families.
Advocating Performance Accountability
 Promotes an accountability system that represents the diverse views of families
and the community.
 Advocates for shared accountability by faculty for student academic and social
learning.
Supporting Performance Accountability
 Provides procedures that hold students accountable for their learning.
 Provides expertise to make decisions about holding students accountable for
their learning.
Table 4-5: Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement
(VAL-ED Report, Dr. Mason March 2011)

Analysis of Findings. Learning-centered leadership theory has core elements of
the instructional and transformational models. Their work was based on five core
findings about leadership: (a) leadership matters, (b) in difficult times, leadership matters
even more, (c) in periods of significant organizational transitions, leadership in the major
controllable factor in explaining organizational performance, (d) instructionally focused
and change-oriented leadership are effective frames for education, and (e) team
leadership seems to offer promise for enhancing organizational performance. Leadership
89

is critically important for providing highly-quality education, and finding ways to
thoughtfully and appropriately assess the right leadership can have an important impact
on the quality of leadership, and thus on the quality of education at our schools (Murphy
et al., 2006).
The learning-centered leadership conceptual framework identifies behaviors of
leaders from effective schools and school districts. These identified behaviors are
grouped by their leadership function, and they influence organizational outcomes that, in
turn, influence student outcomes. The eight major functions or dimensions of the
framework are the following: vision for learning, instructional program, curricular
program, assessment program, communities for learning, resource acquisition and use,
organizational culture, and social advocacy (Murphy et al., 2006).
An important dimension of the learning-centered leadership framework is
―communities of learning,‖ which is based on learning-centered leaders creating learning
organizations and fostering learning communities. They are actively involved in
planning, supporting, and evaluating specific staff learning activities and the school’s
professional development system. These leaders are proficient at the formation and use of
group processes, both within the school organization and the school community. They
promote a shared or team approach to leading the school organization and often form
leadership teams to assist with identifying and implementing school goals as well as
managing the school (Murphy et al., 2006).
Dr. Mason created several communities of learning. Dr. Mason facilitated an
instructional leadership team that analyzed data, set goals, and made decisions about the
90

school’s instructional program. Additionally, the ILT planned and presented professional
development on critical thinking strategies. Dr. Mason built leadership capacity in her
department heads by allowing them to organize their own agenda for department
meetings and release time. Ms. Red explained that departments used the extra time to
create common formative assessments and discussed ways to improve their instruction.
During the post-observation, she said ―We have a captain for every class and we share
good teaching.‖ Ms. Red added that teacher leaders worked within teacher teams to
create common formative assessments for every course.
Lastly, all Casa Valley teachers were assigned to WASC Accreditation focus
groups and participated in the self-study process. During the post-interview, Dr. Mason
described her vision for the school’s learning communities ―I believe in collaboration and
using our own teacher experts to guide the way. Teachers work with their peers and have
fun, reflect, have conversations on pacing guides, and common formative assessments.‖
Another dimension of the learning-centered leadership framework is the
―resources allocation and use,‖ which is essential for leaning-centered leaders to
accomplish all the other dimensions. These leaders are gifted at acquiring and using
resources to meet the school goals. They are skilled at targeting resources to create
systems, operations, and structures that ensure maximum student opportunity to learn.
They direct the use of financial, human, and material resources to improve student
learning (Murphy et al., 2006).
Dr. Mason demonstrated her ability to allocate and use resources by cleverly
converting staffing funds into professional development funding. As mentioned earlier,
91

Dr. Mason held back 40% of one of her allocated teaching positions and cashed it in for
$30,000 dollars. She used the money to send teachers to critical thinking conferences
(travel expenses included) and to pay for their substitutes. This allowed her to constantly
support her teachers with department collaboration time as well as sending them to
conferences to improve their professional practices. Teachers in both the pre-post
interviews made reference to the release time they utilized to improve their teaching and
the multiple opportunities for professional development. Dr. Mason also organized her
time to listen and dialogue with teachers about instructional topics. During the post-
interview, Ms. White said ―I talk with her twice a week. There is a lot of communication.
She realigns resources, provides the time, supports the teachers, and provides the kids
what they need to ensure continuous school improvement.‖
The learning-centered framework proposes that the VAL-ED school leadership
assessment be used as a tool for leadership improvement. The intent of this multi-
component assessment system is to serve as a guide for diagnostic analysis, performance
feedback, progress monitoring, and decision making. The instrument’s focus is not to
assess the direct effect of leadership practice of student success. Rather, the VAL-ED
goal is to assess leadership behaviors that lead to change in school performance, which in
turn lead to positive student outcomes (Porter et al., 2008).Based on these results, Dr.
Mason showed that she had some success in creating organizational structures that
promote effective teacher practice. However, the VAL-ED survey identified fourteen
intersections of basic and one intersection of below basic that Dr. Mason could improve
(see Table 4-5).
92

Conclusion. Some evidence revealed that Focus on Results influenced Dr.
Mason’s ability to create and sustain organizational structures that improve teacher
professional practice. Dr. Mason followed two key FOR areas of focus by creating
communities of learning and realigning resources. Dr. Mason was able to establish these
FOR organizational structures that promoted effective teacher professional practice.
Although Dr. Mason demonstrated that her overall effectiveness score on the
VAL-ED survey was proficient, she had several behaviors that were relevant targets for
improvement. Providing Dr. Mason with the VAL-ED data could provide her with the
feedback necessary for her to improve her leadership practice. If Dr. Mason had a coach,
the coach within the Focus on Results program could use the VAL-ED survey to help her
and her leadership team better implement the organizational structures that promote
effective teacher professional practice. Only 5% of her teachers completed the VAL-ED
survey; therefore the scores would need to be interpreted cautiously by Dr. Mason and
her coach.
Casa Valley Research Question 3
How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of Dr.
Mason’s leadership practice that influenced teacher professional practice. The primary
data collection instruments used to address this research questions were (a) principal
pre/post interviews, (b) teacher pre/post interviews, (c) observing the principal facilitating
various teacher meetings, (d) document analysis, and (e) pre/post teacher observations.
The data will be analyzed from the learning-centered framework, which focuses on
93

instructional and transformational leadership behaviors, which promote changes in leader
practice (Murphy et al., 2006).
Key Finding: Assessment Program. Under the direction of Dr. Mason, Casa
Valley High School teachers utilized data in a number of ways to influence their practice.
Each department created common formative assessments for all their classes. At the
beginning of the school year, the teachers reviewed formative and summative assessment
data in their departments within their course groups. During the pre-interview, Ms. Red
reported ―Our current principal is able to get each of the departments a release day. The
entire focus of that particular day was on things like our common formative assessments
and strategies that successful teachers were using that could be used by all teachers of a
particular course or subject area.‖ Additionally, Ms. Next communicated ―Everybody has
common formative assessments on campus. We would talk about the assessments, how
our kids performed, where we saw strengths and weaknesses, how we could address
them.‖
Dr. Mason explained that she approved the agenda for department release day and
insisted on certain topics. Her expectations were that teachers review their state
standards, pacing guides, CST data with strands, and formative assessments. If necessary,
the teachers were to revise their common formative assessments, and develop new
teaching strategies or enhance them. Dr. Mason required the new common formative
assessments be printed and shared with the entire department. During the post-interview,
Dr. Mason stated ―Teachers reflect and have conversations about pacing guides and
forms of common formative assessments. These are important talking points.‖
94

The mathematics and English teachers received CAHSEE information on each of
their students who did not pass the exam. The teachers analyzed the results to determine
the strengths and weaknesses of their students. During the Pre-interview, Ms. Next
elaborated, ―We get back our data and we then take every kid who didn’t pass, we look at
them individually. What classes are they in? Are they being provided interventions?‖ The
English department collaborated to determine writing expectations for their students. Ms.
White said ―Our principal has been able to pull the English department out of class for
one day to do a norming session and group scoring of our practice CAHSEE essay that
we give to all sophomores.‖
Additional data that was compiled and distributed to teachers was the numbers of
D’s and F’s given at the end of each grading period by every teacher. According to Ms.
Next in the pre-interview, teachers were expected to individually analyze their grades by
answering the following questions: (a) How many of your students were receiving a D at
the quarter and raised their grade to a C or better at the semester, (b) What strategies did
you use with students that helped them improve, (c) what strategies do you need to think
about to work with students who are still receiving Ds and F’s? Later, teachers in small
groups shared their findings and effective strategies. During the post-interview, Dr.
Mason showed me a comparison of semester grades from last year compared to this year;
the total numbers of F’s had decreased.
Surveys were another type of data collected and used to assess various aspects of
Casa Valley High School. These staff, student, and parent surveys were initiated by Dr.
Mason and included questions on school programs, decision making, school goals,
95

teamwork and morale. Dr. Mason surveyed the staff after every staff meeting and used
the survey results as a tool to help her measure her effectiveness as a leader. According to
the January staff survey, 80.5% of the staff agreed that they used common formative
assessments as a way to find out what students know and help them understand the
material, while only 51% of the students agreed. Additionally, 94% of the staff knew and
understood the schoolwide instructional focus, where only 54% of the students were
familiar with the focus. During the post-observation, I observed teachers discussing these
finding in their WASC focus groups at the February staff meeting.
Key Finding: Vision for Learning. When Dr. Mason and her teachers were
asked about their school’s vision, they all responded that the vision for Casa Valley High
School was critical thinking and preparing students for the next level of education after
high school. During the pre-interview, Ms. Red explained:
We kind of hit on the idea of critical thinking, which at first people looked at us
like we were crazy, because it is a difficult thing to measure. It was an
overwhelming vote by the staff to make our vision, our focus of our school, to just
revolve around the idea of developing critical thinking skills in our students,
because we believed not only would it help their academics, but it would also
make them better citizens for the future. Our goal here has always been to not
only support our students academically, but to enable them to be productive when
they leave here.

During both the pre/post classroom observations, critical thinking strategies were
displayed on one of the teacher’s classroom walls and her students critically analyzed
sections from books. In the post-observation, students made presentations about the
social and historical impact of British literature. As teachers attended conferences on
critical thinking, they discovered that critical thinking was more than Bloom’s Taxonomy
and critical thinking encompassed specific teaching practices that helped students to think
96

more deeply. The teachers learned that questioning was an evidence-based teaching
practice that would help students to think more critically.
Questioning became one of Casa Valley High School’s schoolwide teaching
practices. Teachers discussed how they used Socratic questioning and another
questioning technique that some of the teachers learned from the Critical Thinking
Institute. The technique required students to analyze a reading selection by responding to
the following steps: State-Elaborate-Exemplify-Illustrate (SEXI). ―State‖ ask students to
summarize the main concepts of the entire selection. ―Elaborate‖ require students to write
the important ideas and/or themes with a more detailed explanation of the main concepts.
―Exemplify‖ request students to provide a vivid and specific example that represents the
concepts described in the state and elaborate sections. ―Illustrate‖ ask students to
demonstrate an understanding of the selection and its main ideas, by illustrating those
ideas. Ms. Next added ―Well, the kids all know SEXI because they’ve seen it in history;
they’ve seen it in science, English, and math. So I think what it’s done is it’s given our
students a consistent framework in which they operate under, and they know that critical
thinking is happening everywhere.‖ Student questioning was verified during pre/post
classroom observations, however I did not personally witness any of the teachers utilizing
Socratic questioning or SEXI.
As teachers analyzed their common formative assessment data, they determined
that a number of students had not learned specific content. The teachers explained that
they discovered that sometimes they taught a concept that some students did not
understand, and thus, teachers had to use another strategy for those students to learn the
97

concept. This was called ―re-teaching‖ by the Casa Valley teachers and was another
schoolwide teaching practice. During the pre-interview, Dr. Mason shared ―We feel that
you use the formative assessment as a guide to find out who achieved, who didn’t, and re-
teach the material.‖ Ms. White added:
Our best practices are common formative assessments, re-teaching, and
questioning, and they work really cyclically. You gave an assessment, you re-
teach what needs to be re-taught, you get the kids to engage through questioning
(encouraging them, teaching them how to ask questions). It’s not a repeating cycle
that spirals down; it’s a repeating cycle that spirals up. So kids are reaching higher
levels of achievement.

During the post-interview, Ms. White reiterated that common formative assessment,
critical thinking, and re-teaching were teaching practices that needed to become second
nature to teachers. Pre/post classroom observations did not provide any evidence of
teachers re-teaching content.
Analysis of Findings. Through leadership practices and behaviors, principals
create the conditions conducive to effective teaching and learning environments
(Leithwood, 2004; Davis et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). The learning-centered
leadership dimensions are the following: vision for learning, instructional program,
curricular program, assessment program, communities for learning, resource acquisition
and use, organizational culture, and social advocacy (Murphy et al., 2006).
The ―assessment program‖ dimension requires learning-centered leaders to
demonstrate expertise in assessment practices. These leaders are personally involved with
teachers creating, implementing, and monitoring assessment systems that address
classroom and school-based activity. They promote data-based decision making and
disaggregate data on the important conditions and outcomes of schooling by relevant
98

characteristics of students. Additionally, they make certain that assessment data is used
for instructional planning, the identification and design of services for high needs
students, and improvement efforts (Murphy et al., 2006).
Based on the expectations from Dr. Mason, the Casa Valley High School teachers
analyzed data, shared their analysis with their colleagues, and developed lessons based on
their analysis. The teachers created common formative assessments in all classes and
used the results of the assessments to revise their teaching. Additionally, Dr. Mason
gathered data on grades and surveyed teachers, students and parents. The collected data
was available to all school stakeholders and was used to assist Dr. Mason and her
teachers with making improvements to the school.
The ―vision for learning‖ dimension describes the learning-centered leader
devoting considerable energy to developing, articulating, implementing, and stewarding a
vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. Learning-
centered leaders ensure the school vision reflects high standards of learning for all
students and high levels of personal and organizational performance as well as translating
the vision into specific and measurable results. The learning center leaders continuously
monitor the implementation of the vision and school goals while celebrating and
recognizing said implementation, as well as the realization of said goals (Murphy et al.,
2006).
Dr. Mason demonstrated the elements of the vision of learning dimension of the
learning-centered leader. There was significant evidence based on the interviews and the
teacher surveys that the staff knew about the critical thinking vision. In addition, Dr.
99

Mason and her teachers continued to embrace the components of a critical thinking
program. They were making progress with the implementation of their schoolwide
teacher practices of questioning and re-teaching.
Conclusion. The collected evidence revealed that Dr. Mason’s demonstrated two
of the dimension of learning-centered leadership that influences teacher professional
practice. Dr. Mason was able to establish an extensive assessment program and
implemented a vision of learning that was supported by the Casa Valley High School
staff.
Case Study Two
School: Location and Demographic
Harris High School is located in Los Angeles County in Southern California and
serves approximately 2,100 students in grades 9-12. The staff includes 5 administrators, 4
counselors and 89 teachers. The school demographics are reflective of the immediate area
with 57% White (mostly Middle Eastern), 16% Asian/Pacific Island and 25% Hispanic.
Other demographic information includes 80% English Learners, 8% students with
disabilities, and 50% Free or Reduced-Lunch (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). The
school receives Title 1 funding.
Harris High School has proudly existed for over 80 years and began offering
classes in 1929. Harris High School offers 30 clubs, an Arts Academy, a Business
Academy, an extensive athletic program and a strong focus on community service. Harris
High School’s API score has grown 158 points over the last 10 years and grew 11 points
last year. Harris High School provides Freshmen Focus, a systemic intervention program
100

that includes intensive guidance counseling and planning and extra-curricular
involvement for students transitioning from the middle school to the high school.
Multiple teachers have been finalist for the BRAVO award and two teachers are National
Board Certified teachers (Harris High School Website). In 2009-2010, Harris High
School did not meet the state expectation of 800 or above on Academic Performance
Index (API) in any groups except for the Asian/Pacific Island sub-group (see Table 4-6).
Table 4-6: Data Analysis of API Assessment Results: Trend Demographic Group Analysis

Harris High School met the 2009-2010 AYP criteria (minimum targets for percent
proficient and above) in English Language Arts for all groups except for the sub-groups
of English Learners and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged. However, the school met the
2009-2010 AYP criteria in Mathematics for all groups (see Table 4-7). Because Harris
High School is a Title 1 school and did not meet all the 2009-2010 AYP requirements,
the school was identified as a First Year Program Improvement (PI) school.
Data Analysis of Academic Performance Index (API) Assessment Results:
Demographic Group Analysis Trend
Group 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Overall School 755 761 772
Sub-group: Asian/Pacific Island 864 887 885
Sub-group: Hispanic 709 710 730
Sub-group: White 749 753 766
Sub-group: Special Education 482 551 528
Sub-group: English Learners 695 711 678
Sub-group: Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 709 708 732
101

Table 4-7: Data Analysis of AYP Assessment Results: Percent Proficient and Met AYP Criteria

The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) pass rate for tenth graders at
Harris High School has ranged from 81% to 83% in English Language Arts and 86% to
89% in Mathematics while showing an increase in 2009-2010. The number of students
that received a three or above on Advanced Placements Tests has steadily increased
during the last three years, although the number of Advanced Placement Tests given has
decreased modestly (see Table 4-8).

Data Analysis of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 2009-2010 Assessment Results:
Demographic Group Analysis Percent At or Above Proficient and Met AYP
Criteria
Group
ELA
Percent At
or Above
Proficient
Met AYP
ELA
Criteria
Math
Percent At
or Above
Proficient
Met
AYP
Math
Criteria
Overall School 57.8 Yes 70.1 Yes
Sub-group: Asian/Pacific Island 69.7 Yes 86.4 Yes
Sub-group: Hispanic 51.3 Yes 51.7 Yes
Sub-group: White 57.8 Yes 74.3 Yes
Sub-group: Special Education 19.6 - 19.5 -
Sub-group: English Learners 29.0 No 55.8 Yes
Sub-group: Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
48.5 No 64.5 Yes
102

Table 4-8: Data Analysis of CAHSEE (10
th
Grade) and Advanced Placement Results

Harris High School: Culture and Climate
Harris High School started the 2010-2011 school year with a new principal. Last
January, the previous principal who was a forty year veteran with the district announced
his retirement and was replaced with Dr. Jameson. As the former associate principal of
Harris High School, Dr. Jameson was familiar with the staff, students and community.
When asked about the culture and climate of Harris High School during the pre-
interview, she described the faculty as hopeful. She explained:
I think our faculty has hope. They’re beat up. They’re wounded, distrustful. Lots
of misconceptions about how a school is run, which I started working on last year.
So I have a little bit of a head start on that. The master schedule is not a secret.
And they all seem to think there are monies hidden in places. I’ve got to transition
them from thinking handshakes underneath the table and favors can be done.

Dr. Jameson shared that she understood why her staff had these misconceptions. She said,
―I have to rebuild trust. I think they have hope. I do.‖
Another challenge for Harris High School is the community and students do not
value education. Most students are from different countries while some are refuges with
no education. According to Dr. Jameson in the pre-interview ―Many of the families are
Data Analysis of CAHSEE (10
th
Grade) and Advanced Placement Assessment
Results: Trend Analysis
School Year
CAHSEE
ELA Pass
Rate
CAHSEE
Math Pass
Rate
Number of
AP Tests
Given
Number of
AP Tests
Passed
(3 or above)
2007-2008 83 88 827 348
2008-2009 81 86 808 376
2009-2010 83 89 803 401
103

not doing things that require a high school education and they do not understand the
importance of it.‖ She and her assistant principals are creating ways to get families on
campus and to teach students how to be connected to school. The students are strongly
encouraged to participate in extra-curricular activities.
As previously mentioned in the first case study, part of the Focus on Result
program requires each school to draft an ―urgent message‖ that describes areas of
improvement while identifying goals. The Harris High School urgent message stated:
School-wide one of every two students is not proficient in English and three of every five
students are not proficient in social studies, mathematics, and science based on California
Standards Tests (CST) scores. The school is in Year One of Program Improvement and
70% of Harris High School graduates attend a local community college. Goals include
achieving an API of 800 and to increase the percent of students eligible to attend a four
year college directly after high school from 34.8% to 40% by 2012.
Principal Jameson
Dr. Jameson is a white female and starting her fourteenth year in education. She
received her undergraduate degree in political theory from Wisconsin. Dr. Jameson
taught and coached for seven years while she completed the masters program in
Educational Leadership at Arizona State University. Later, she was accepted into the
EDD program at Arizona State University and graduated with her doctorial degree in
2006. This program had a strong emphasis on international studies and included classes
during the summer in Mexico and London. This allowed her to live in both places and
experience the cultures of different countries. She continued to teach during the school
104

year and opened a community school where she was the activities director. Dr. Jameson’s
first administrative position was the principal of a small gifted academy for
underprivileged students. After one year at the academy, she became an assistant
principal at a high school in Arizona. Two years later, Dr. Jameson moved to California
and became the assistant principal of Gunn High School in her present district, and then
within two years she became the associate principal at Harris High School for another
two years.
This year is Dr. Jameson’s first position as a high school principal of a large
comprehensive school with a high needs student population. Dr. Jameson expressed that
her educational and professional experiences have helped with her new position,
especially providing perspective in working in an international community. During the
pre-interview, she shared that she struggles with the technical part of being a high school
principal, the day-to-day responsibilities. Dr. Jameson said, ―I definitely did not get
training on how to be a principal in my experiences. I need a coach.‖ She added ―Focus
on Results is not for the principal. It’s for leadership.‖
Harris High School: Teachers
Three of Harris High School’s teachers were randomly selected to be interviewed
during the course of the study. These teachers were selected as representatives of the four
grade levels (9
th
, 10
th
, 11
th
, and 12
th
) and the core content areas of English, mathematics
and science. Ms. Andrew taught for twenty-four years and was currently teaching
advanced English and AVID. Ms. Blankenship taught English Language Development
with two years of experience. The third teacher interviewed was Ms. Manning who
105

taught for nineteen years and was the science department chair. She was teaching biology
and bioscience. The teachers shared that they believed that the school was a clean and
orderly place conducive to learning. One teacher mentioned that a boy tried to jump off
the third floor and there was a fight in a room. Another teacher shared that the school
offered numerous student events at lunch such as band and drill team performances.
Four teachers were also randomly selected to be observed. Teacher observations
were completed in the following classes: Algebra I, Advanced Placement Statistics,
Honors English 9, English and Language Development. All of the teachers were
instrumental in acquiring a more complete and accurate picture of Harris High School.
Case Study Two Findings
Harris Research Question 1
How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare principals
for the unique challenges of high needs schools?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how FOR prepared Dr. Jameson to
become an effective instructional leader. The primary data collection instruments used to
address this research questions were (a) principal pre/post interviews, (b) teacher pre/post
interviews, (c) observing the principal facilitating various teacher meetings, (d) document
analysis, and (e) observing FOR professional development. The data will be analyzed
from the research perspective of effective leadership capacity building and support
structures that improve and sustain effective leadership practice (Darling-Hammond et
al., 2007; Davis et al., 2005; Young et al., 2007).
106

Key Finding: Professional Development for the Principal. Dr. Jameson
participated in the Focus on Results program. When asked about the type of training she
received from FOR, Dr. Jameson expressed how FOR had taught her how to analyze
data. During the post-interview, she shared ―FOR is always giving us the tools,
specifically how to use data, which relates to the achievement gap. I feel equipped to look
at my data and empowered to look for new programs because of this constant support of
professional development from the district.‖
Dr. Jameson admitted that she was struggling with the demands of being a high
school principal, but felt the FOR staff development was keeping her focused on the
priorities of her new role. During the post-interview, Dr. Jameson explained ―It is
overwhelming being a principal. Our job is two part: manager, which is old school
principal and educational leader. With FOR, you are constantly reminded that you are an
educational leader.‖ When teachers were asked how FOR had influenced their principal’s
practice, they responded similarly. During the post-interview, Ms. Manning said ―We are
going through reculturation, a change, an emphasis on academics and more instruction.‖
Ms. White divulged ―The principal is very interested in making a shift on campus from
the role of principal being manager to becoming educational leader. It is very evident;
systems are in place so the management piece doesn’t suffocate the rest of what we’re
doing.‖
Dr. Jameson and her instructional leadership team attended a full day of district
FOR training in September where they disaggregated data and identified students that
were not achieving. I was able to attend the district training and watched Dr. Jameson and
107

the leadership team discuss their data trends. They dialogued about their ―at risk‖
students who were in danger of not graduating. She and her school team worked together
to create an urgent message based on their critical view of the 2009-2010 data and the
needs of their struggling students. The urgent message included an urgency statement as
well as a good news report about their data. Additionally, they began to develop
(SMARTe) goals based on their data analysis and identified possible interventions for
their ―at risk‖ students. The urgent message was shared with staff and parents as well as
being posted on the school’s website.
As revealed in the first case study, a major components of the FOR program is for
a school to go through the process of selecting an instructional focus and then provide the
necessary staff development in order for the school to implement the instructional focus
in all classes. Several years ago, Harris High School chose writing as their instructional
focus, but later changed to critical reading. During the pre-interview, Ms. White
explained:
The instructional focus used to be writing… and then it got switched to reading. I
believe it got switched to reading because teachers were intimidated by writing
when they were not English teachers, and there was no professional development
that said to a math teacher, okay, let me show you, let’s talk about it, let’s
practice, what does writing look like in math, what does it look like science. So
they got frustrated with it, they dropped it. So now the focus is on reading, critical
reading.

Dr. Jameson added that she did not feel her staff was ready to implement a
schoolwide instructional focus. She clarified ―When the FOR program started, people did
not understand it. They just did it, but did not understand why they were doing things. I
heard that strongly when I got here. It is not connected to anything.‖ Dr. Jameson shared
108

that she needs to spend her energy with building relationships. She added ―Some of FOL
does not meet our goals right now. I am not going to be able to try it for two more years.
Reminds you how behind you are.‖
Dr. Jameson and her instructional leadership team were planning to determine the core
values of the staff at the next staff meeting. She feels this is necessary before they begin
implementing a schoolwide instructional focus.
The FOR program insists that district leadership personnel focus on instruction.
Dr. Jameson also shared that at the once-a-month district principal meetings, the
principals received one to two hours of professional development. Dr. Jameson spoke of
Core Plus More, a framework of expectations for three groupings of any student
population. In the Core Plus model, 5% of a student population needs intensive individual
intervention, 15% need targeted intervention and 80% need universal interventions.
Based on direction from FOR, Dr. Jameson collected data on the number of D’s and F’s
for every teacher and began to discuss it with her department chairs. During the post-
interview, she explained:
I planted the seed. As a teacher, you’re class should match 80% of the kids’
needs. If it is that far off (some teachers with a 60% fail rate), re-evaluation needs
to start at home, your clientele does not match your delivery. FOR gave me the
framework to have the discussion.

Dr. Jameson added that one of her goals is to present the Core Plus Model to all of her
teachers.
Key Finding: Coaching of the Principal. Dr. Jameson met her coach for the first
time on the day of the pre-interview. During the post-interview, she was able to provide
more details about her coaching experiences. Dr. Jameson started by outlining the
109

background of Ms. Long who was her coach. Ms. Long is a senior consultant for Focus
on Results and was the assistant superintendent for Dr. Jameson’s district. She is a
veteran administrator with thirty-five years of experience serving as an elementary school
principal, high school principal and director of special education. Ms. Long has expertise
in special education as well as being knowledgeable about instructional strategies for
English learners.
Dr. Jameson described her first meeting with Ms. Long as more therapeutic than
anything else, as Dr. Jameson mostly vented and talked about how lonely the principal
job is. During the post-interview, Dr. Jameson said ―I shared my experience of feeling
incapable as a high school principal.‖ She said that Ms. Long listened intently and
acknowledged her feelings. Dr. Jameson added, ―It is difficult and that the common
feeling, especially of female principals is that we are not worthy and we do not belong in
this position. We are imposters.‖ Since Ms. Long was familiar with the district and was a
principal of a high school with similar demographics as Harris High School, she was very
aware of the challenges that Dr. Jameson voiced in their meetings. The majority of their
meetings were spent talking about Dr. Jameson and her staff.
Although there was no planned agenda for the coaching sessions, they did focus
on a general topic and would follow up with that topic at their next meeting. Ms. Long
brought articles on the topic as well as chatting about it through emails. One of their
discussions centered on the culture of the school. During the post-observation, Dr.
Jameson explained, ―I brought up the fact that I need to find the one idea that I can get
this whole faculty to stick to. I kept saying this to her.‖ Ms. Long did some research and
110

found the book, Made to Stick. Ms. Long gave the book to Dr. Jameson and they both
read it. At their meetings, they discussed chapters from the book and a common
understanding of the concepts that can be applied in Dr. Jameson’s situation. During the
post-observation, Dr. Jameson elaborated:
I am not a credible source to this faculty and probably won’t be for a few years. I
am still a representation of the past. Seeing it in writing and acknowledging that,
that is one huge piece that has come out of it, that book. The concept of culture,
credible sources making ideas stick (and what that takes), and building my team.
It seems fluffy, but it is the things you have to have in place to move a struggling
organization forward.

Dr. Jameson expressed the value of Ms. Long being an open sounding board, an
impartial advisor compared to her district leadership personnel. During the post-
observation interview, Dr. Jameson said, ―Even my assistant superintendent and the other
principals have a filter and she is the one person that doesn’t have a filter. She is just
listening to help me find solutions, not comparing it to her situation.‖ However, when Dr.
Jameson talked about a problem, Ms. Long would share her own ideas and past
experience to help solve the problem.
Analysis of Findings. As reported in the first study, the FOR program is
comprised of two components. The first component was to provide the principal and
instructional leadership team with professional development that was focused on data
analysis, identifying goals related to academic achievement and leadership practice. Dr.
Jameson and her leadership team were seen analyzing data and setting goals at the
September FOR training. Their ―urgent message‖ was a result of their data analysis and
goal setting. The use of the instructional leadership team to make decisions about the
school’s instructional program was one example of an effective transformational
111

leadership practice. This is part of the ―redesigning the organization‖ element of
transformational leadership, which is the practice of developing a collaborative school
culture and creating structures to foster participation in school decisions, (Northouse,
2003; Leithwood, 2005).
The second component of the FOR program was designed to provide principals
with a coach who provides instructional coaching and conferencing to enhance
instructional leadership development. When reviewing the data collected about the
coaching sessions, it is evident that Dr. Jameson and Ms. Long had a productive
relationship that contained a number of effective coaching qualities. According to Strong,
Barrett, and Bloom (2002), the relationship between the principal and coach is based
upon trust and permission in which issues and challenges are valued as learning
opportunities for the principal to improve his or her leadership skills. The coach is a
different observer of the principal and the situation, providing a new perspective for the
principal. Being a good listener is an essential skill for the coach. Additionally, the coach
provides emotional support and advocacy to the principal while maintaining
confidentiality (New Teacher Center, 2010; Bloom et al., 2005).
Ms. Long mostly used ―instructional coaching‖ with Dr. Jameson, which is used
when the principal is requesting specific information on how to do something, and rarely
used ―facilitative coaching‖, which is used to encourage the principal to reflect on his or
her thinking. Ms. Long was mostly a mentor to Dr. Jameson, passing on her knowledge
and providing expertise to Dr. Jameson. Other coaching strategies that were utilized
during their meetings included consultative coaching and collaborative coaching.
112

Collaborative coaching is the practice of the coach planning together with the leader
while consultative coaching is when the coach completes research and makes
recommendations to the leader. This was evident by Ms. Long completing research for
Dr. Jameson and bringing her the Made to Stick book (Strong et al., 2002; Bloom et al.,
2005).
Transformational coaching is when the coach is able to help the leader move from
doing (leadership practice) to being (new habits of leadership thinking and practice). The
main goal of the coach is to help the principal to transform his or her thinking in order to
reach the desired outcomes that eventually maximize student learning at the school
(Strong et al., 2002; Bloom et al., 2005). Ms. Long did not do any transformational
coaching. She did not pose questions that would help the Dr. Jameson discover solutions
to her problems and determine strategies that she could continue to use in the future.
Other important aspects of coaching are the coach watching the principal in
teacher meetings and observing teachers with the principal. This allows the coach to
provide valuable feedback on the principal’s leadership practice (Strong et al., 2002;
Bloom et al., 2005).According to Dr. Jameson, Ms. Long limited their coaching sessions
to conversations and emails.
Conclusion. The district in conjunction with the Focus on Results program
implemented leadership support structures that provide principals to develop as
instructional leaders. The professional development was aligned with the district’s
improvement initiatives and allowed principals to improve their own practice. They
113

contribute to the development their teachers’ practice, and ultimately influence student
achievement. It is unclear that Dr. Jameson’s coach influenced her leadership practice.
Harris Research Question 2
How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to create and
sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional practice?
The second question seeks to discover how FOR influences Dr. Jameson’s
instructional leadership practice in implementing the district’s reform initiatives. The
following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the strategies that Dr.
Jameson initiated to create and sustain organizational structures that promote effective
teacher practice. The primary data collection instruments used to address this research
question were (a) principal pre/post interviews, (b) teacher pre/post interviews, (c)
observing the principal facilitating various teacher meetings, (d) document analysis, and
(e) VAL-ED survey results. The data will be analyzed from the learning-centered
framework, which focuses on instructional and transformational leadership behaviors,
which promote changes in leader practice (Murphy et al., 2006).
Key Finding: Communities of Learning. One of the structures of the FOR
program is to develop professional collaboration teams to improve teaching and learning
for all students. Each school is expected to create an Instructional Leadership Team
(ILT). Dr. Jameson renamed the Instructional Leadership Team as a ―Professional
Development Team‖ because of the negative association with the ILT name and the
former principal. Last year, the staff became disenchanted with the former principal’s use
of meeting time and they voted against their special late start schedule that allowed for
114

once a week meetings. The former administration was not asking for teacher input. After
Dr. Jameson became principal, the staff meetings and professional development team
meetings were scheduled late in the afternoon or evening. Dr. Jameson met with the
professional development team once a month and has given teachers a strong voice about
staff development. During the pre-interview, Dr. Mason said
We’ve had to get creative with our Professional Leadership Team. The FOR team
was the administrators and the teacher specialists and one to two teachers, which
obviously is not a good professional development team. This year we have 13
members. We cover all departments. They’re not all department chairs, so I feel
like we’re building leadership capacity. So those people are coming to the FOR
meetings and voluntarily have been coming, too. We’ve had three after school
meetings where we’ve worked on planning our professional development days,
preparing for FOR, working the problem of practice, so I’m really proud of that.

The purpose of the professional development team was to determine the staff
development needs of the teachers and plan for those needs accordingly as well as
encouraging the faculty to change their perception of collaboration and to begin to value
it. During the post-interview, Ms. Andrew explained:
Lots of healing needs to take place. The former principal was abusive to the staff
and system. Our school can become collaborative rather than working in isolation
in our classrooms. We are working on becoming a PLC. The staff needs to
understand the FOR program, the process as well as the results. Faculty need to be
made to understand the process, not just the content. Process is just as important
as outcome. We start with relationships. The principal says we are Ohana. Ohana
means family, we care about each other. We are in it together.

Ms. Andrew shared that the professional development team had started to plan the
curriculum for the next faculty meeting. Again, these faculty meetings were voluntary;
however in the past, most of the staff has attended them. The teachers made it clear that
this next meeting was not going to be used to complete top down tasks from the principal.
The teachers described this faculty meeting as an opportunity to discuss important aspects
115

of the school that are related to instruction and students. The team’s plan included the
entire faculty participating in a process that requires them to identify their core values and
beliefs on teaching and learning. Additionally, teachers will be expected to determine the
legacy that they wish to leave for their students. During the post-interview, Ms. Manning
added ―We are getting the whole school involved in the mission and vision of the school,
a mission that prepares students for achievement and after high school.‖
Dr. Jameson created additional communities of learning for her teaches. She
facilitated a collaboration team that consisted of all of her department chairs. She met
with them once a month where teachers discussed reflections on their teaching practice
instead of Dr. Jameson giving directives to complete. Department chairs met with their
departments at lunch or after school and shared ideas that they learned from conferences.
Additionally, Dr. Jameson provided release days for departments to discuss teaching
strategies. She created another collaboration team, an English Language Development
(ELD) Cohort that consisted of all teachers of English Learners including of ELD classes
(English classes for English Learners) and sheltered classes (math, science, and social
studies classes, specifically designed for English Learners). The ELD Cohort had a
release day to discuss ways that increase the academic vocabulary of their English
Learners and shared their effective practices.
Key Finding: Resource Acquisition and Use. As disclosed earlier, an important
element of the Focus on Results program is the realignment resources (people, time,
talent, energy, and money) to support the instructional focus. Dr. Jameson demonstrated
her ability to realign resources by instituting an ELD department. Before she was the
116

principal, the school had random teachers assigned one or two sections of ELD. These
were considered ―left over classes‖ that many teachers did not care to teach. Dr. Jameson
recruited teachers who were committed to English Learners and assigned them to teach
the ELD and sheltered classes. She built an ELD department for these teachers of ELD
and sheltered classes and provided them with collaboration time. During the post-
interview, Dr. Jameson said ―Not playing this game anymore. I wanted teachers who
were committed to students who have just come to this country and use ELD methods.
Teachers who love what they do to make kids successful.‖
Dr. Jameson made numerous changes in the Harris High School’s master
schedule, in addition to reassigning teachers to different classes; she eliminated all the
core classes that were not meeting the University of California A to G requirements.
Before Dr. Jameson was principal, students (mostly English Learners) were enrolled in
classes such as Introduction to Biology, which was a class that did not offer the
appropriate curriculum to receive A to G credit. Now, these students are enrolled in
college preparatory classes and the teachers are expected to differentiate their instruction
to meet their needs. Another systemic change that Dr. Jameson made in the master
schedule was to have at least two teachers assigned to teaching the same course. Every
teacher had a colleague that was teaching the same course and was provided a
counterpart. During the post-interview, Dr. Jameson explained, ―Every subject teacher
has someone to talk to. You can’t be an island.‖ Additionally, Dr. Mason added classes
for a Visual and Performing Arts Academy and Public Service Academy.
117

Key Finding: VAL-ED results. At the start of the 2010-2011 school year, Dr.
Jameson was promoted from associate principal to principal at Harris High School,
having the school participate in the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL-
ED) online survey at the orientation of this study would have been an assessment of her
leadership behaviors as an associate principal. Although, Dr. Jameson requested
participation of the survey at the staff meeting, sent emails out, and letters of participation
with codes were distributed among her staff, only 4% of her teachers (a total of three
teachers) completed the survey in February 2011. According to the VAL-ED,
participation below a 50% rate is considered low; therefore the scores need to be
interpreted rather cautiously. The following is a discussion of the findings from the VAL-
ED survey that Dr. Jameson and her teachers completed. The data was analyzed from the
learning-centered leadership perspective (Murphy et al., 2006), which is the leadership
framework that was used to design the VAL-ED survey.
The VAL-ED focused on leadership behaviors defined by six core component
subscales and six process subscales. As discussed in the first study, these core
components essentially represent types of organizational structures that are necessary for
influencing teacher performance. The six core components are: 1) high standards for
student performance, 2) rigorous curriculum, 3) quality instruction, 4) culture of learning
and professional behavior, 5) connections to external communities, and 6) systemic
performance accountability. The six key processes are: 1) planning, 2) implementing, 3)
supporting, 4) advocating, 5) communicating, and 6) monitoring. Survey respondents
indicate their perceptions of how well the principal engages in actions (the key processes)
118

that impact effective school activities supported by research (the core components). The
survey respondents are also asked to identify the source(s) of evidence that support these
perceptions. The instrument is designed to provide a 360-degree evidence-based
assessment of leadership. Dr. Jameson’s overall effectiveness score was Proficient, which
was defined as a leader that ―exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors at levels of
effectiveness that are likely to influence teachers positively and result in acceptable
value-added to student achievement and social learning for all students‖. Her mean score
was a 3.81 and her percentile rank against other principals was 72.0. Table 4-9, below,
gives a summary of Dr. Jameson’s scores on the core components and key processes.

Table 4-9: Summary of Core Components and Key Processes Scores
(VAL-ED Report, Dr. Jameson March 2011)

Another variable that was used to calculate Dr. Jameson’s overall VAL-ED scores
were the sources of evidence the principal and teachers cited. The source of evidence that
was cited the most by the principal was personal observations, accounting for 100% of
the responses as a basis for ratings of leadership behavior. However, teachers relied on
personal observations as their largest source of evidence, representing 73% of their
119

answers while the ―school documents‖ category and ―school projects and activities‖
category were both the second highest sources of evidence at 31%.
As indicated in the first case study, the areas of improvement that were identified
from the VAL-ED survey represents an integrated summary of the principal’s strengths
and areas for growth based on the mean item scores for the intersection of core
components and key processes. Each intersection was given a performance standard of
below basic (BB), basic (B), proficient (P) and distinguished (D). Intersections that were
identified as below basic were also identified as the areas of growth for Dr. Jameson.
Figure 4-2, below, provides an overview of the matrix.

Figure 4-2: Matrix of Core Components by Key Processes
(VAL-ED Report, Dr. Jameson March 2011)

120

The key processes and core component that were identified for possible
improvement included (a) supporting culture of learning and professional behavior, (b)
planning connections to external communities, (c) implementing connections to external
communities, (d) monitoring connections to external communities, (e) communicating
performance accountability, and (f) implementing performance accountability. The
results of this matrix generated a list of suggested leadership behaviors that Dr. Mason
could implement for each area of improvement (see Table 4-10).
Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement
Cultures of Learning & Professional Behavior
 Encourage collaboration among faculty that creates a culture of learning.
 Provide a positive environment in which student learning is the central focus.
Planning Connections to External Communities
 Plans for the use external community resources to promote academic and social
learning goals.
 Plans activities to engage families in student learning.
Implementing Connections to External Communities
 Builds a positive, open relationship with the community.
 Implements programs to help parents assist their children to be successful in
school.
Monitoring Connections to External Communities
 Analyzes data about parental involvement.
 Evaluates the effectiveness of its partnerships with the community in advancing
academic and social learning.
Communicating Performance Accountability
 Communicates to families the purpose and nature of its accountability
programs.
 Communicates with faculty the purpose and nature of its accountability
programs.
Implementing Performance Accountability
 Implements programs and practices to hold faculty accountable to reach the
highest levels of performance.
 Implements programs and practices that hold the school accountable to families
for the learning of their children.
Table 4-10: Leadership Behaviors for Possible Improvement
(VAL-ED Report, Dr. Jameson March 2011)
121

Analysis of Findings. Learning-centered leadership theory has core elements of
the instructional and transformational models. Their work was based on five core
findings about leadership: (a) leadership matters, (b) in difficult times, leadership matters
even more, (c) in periods of significant organizational transitions, leadership in the major
controllable factor in explaining organizational performance, (d) instructionally focused
and change-oriented leadership are effective frames for education, and (e) team
leadership seems to offer promise for enhancing organizational performance. Leadership
is critically important for providing highly-quality education, and finding ways to
thoughtfully and appropriately assess the right leadership can have an important impact
on the quality of leadership, and thus on the quality of education at our schools (Murphy
et al., 2006).
The learning-centered leadership conceptual framework identifies behaviors of
leaders from effective schools and school districts. These identified behaviors are
grouped by their leadership function, and they influence organizational outcomes that, in
turn, influence student outcomes. The eight major functions or dimensions of the
framework are the following: vision for learning, instructional program, curricular
program, assessment program, communities for learning, resource acquisition and use,
organizational culture, and social advocacy (Murphy et al., 2006).
An important dimension of the learning-centered leadership framework is
―communities of learning,‖ which is based on learning-centered leaders creating learning
organizations and fostering learning communities. They are actively involved in
planning, supporting, and evaluating specific staff learning activities and the school’s
122

professional development system. These leaders are proficient at the formation and use of
group processes, both within the school organization and the school community. They
promote a shared or team approach to leading the school organization and often form
leadership teams to assist with identifying and implementing school goals as well as
managing the school (Murphy et al., 2006).
Dr. Jameson created several communities of learning. Dr. Jameson facilitated an
instructional leadership team that analyzed data, set goals, and made decisions about the
school’s instructional program. Additionally, the professional leadership team planned
and organized professional development that was devoted to teaching and learning. Dr.
Jameson built leadership capacity in her members of the team by allowing them to plan
agendas for faculty meetings. During the post-interview, Dr. Jameson described the
impact of her professional development team and how they were influencing teachers to
be more collaborative. She said:
If it weren’t for FOR, I wouldn’t have a reason to pull together a professional
development team, so really the district support and expecting the professional
development to come within can’t be measured. It is priceless. The change in the
culture is coming from the leadership team.

All three of the interviewed teachers remarked on the value of FOR and the efforts of the
professional development team. During the post-interview, Ms. Manning added ―FOR
gives us the structure, direction, and focus to plan staff development for our faculty
meetings.‖
As previously stated in the first case study, another dimension of the learning-
centered leadership framework is the ―resources allocation and use‖. These leaders are
gifted at acquiring and using resources to meet the school goals. They are skilled at
123

targeting resources to create systems, operations, and structures that ensure maximum
student opportunity to learn. They direct the use of financial, human, and material
resources to improve student learning (Murphy et al., 2006).
Dr. Jameson demonstrated her ability to allocate and use resources by making
systemic changes in the master schedule and funding release days for teachers. These
changes allowed teachers to observe their fellow staff members and to collaborate with
each other on instructional strategies. During the pre-intervention interview, Ms.
Blankenship shared ―Collaborating with other teachers has given me more ideas and
feedback on things that I’ve done. I’ve also had other teachers come into my classroom
and observe things that I’ve done, so I get feedback from other teachers as well so that
helps a lot.‖ Dr. Mason eliminated classes that were not beneficial to English Learners
and added classes to support her new academies. Teachers in both the pre-post interviews
made reference to the release time they utilized to improve their practice and the multiple
opportunities for professional development. Dr. Jameson also organized her time to listen
to teachers and assisted them with planning staff development. During the pre-interview,
Ms. Andrews said ―This principal, she’s rolling up her sleeves and she’s doing work.
That’s the servant leader. She gets in and does the work, too.‖
As reported in the first case study, the learning-centered framework proposes that
the VAL-ED school leadership assessment be used as a tool for leadership improvement.
The intent of this multi-component assessment system is to serve as a guide for
diagnostic analysis, performance feedback, progress monitoring, and decision making.
The instrument’s focus is not to assess the direct effect of leadership practice of student
124

success. Rather, the VAL-ED goal is to assess leadership behaviors that lead to change in
school performance, which in turn lead to positive student outcomes (Porter et al., 2008).
Based on these results, she showed that she had some success in creating organizational
structures that promote effective teacher practice. However, the VAL-ED survey
identified eight intersections of basic and four intersections of below basic that Dr.
Jameson could improve (see Table 4-10).
Conclusion. Some evidence revealed that Focus on Results influenced Dr.
Jameson’s ability to create and sustain organizational structures that improve teacher
professional practice. Dr. Jameson followed two key FOR areas of focus by creating
communities of learning and realigning resources. Dr. Jameson was able to establish
these FOR organizational structures that promoted effective teacher professional practice.
Although Dr. Jameson demonstrated that her overall effectiveness score on the
VAL-ED survey was proficient, she had several behaviors that were relevant targets for
improvement. Providing Dr. Jameson with the VAL-ED data could provide her and her
coach, Ms. Long, a starting point from which to discuss Dr. Jameson’s leadership
behaviors. Dr. Jameson, with the assistance of Ms. Long, could use the VAL-ED results
to set goals on implementing organizational structures that promote effective teacher
professional practice. This would present formative as well summative data on achieving
those goals.
Harris Research Question 3
How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?
125

The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of Dr.
Jameson’s leadership practice that influenced teacher professional practice. The primary
data collection instruments used to address this research question were (a) principal
pre/post interviews, (b) teacher pre/post interviews, (c) observing the principal facilitating
various teacher meetings, (d) document analysis, and (e) pre/post teacher observations.
The data will be analyzed from the learning-centered framework, which focuses on
instructional and transformational leadership behaviors, which promote changes in leader
practice (Murphy et al., 2006).
Key Finding: Assessment Program. Dr. Jameson had Harris High School
teachers utilize data in a number of ways to influence their practice. Each department
created common formative assessments for all their classes. At the beginning of the
school year, the teachers received CST data and reviewed it in their departments within
their course groups. During the pre-interview, Ms. Manning reported ―We look at the
strands that our students are not performing well in, or as well as the other strands, We
start developing lesson plans, I guess our goals for that specific strand, common
formative assessments around that.‖ Later in the post-interview, Ms. Manning added ―We
look at CST data to improve student achievement.‖ All of the teachers who were
interviewed conveyed that they thought that looking at the strand data was useful.
The formative assessments are maintained in a department binder with course
pacing guides and CST release questions for core classes (math, English, science and
social studies). Additionally, the teachers of core classes analyzed the CST scores and
identified the CST strand that needed the most attention, which was placed in the binder.
126

Foreign language, physical education, and other noncore teachers selected a core subject
that they felt that they could best assist with related instruction. These noncore
departments used the notebooks to determine strands that they could incorporate into
their lessons. Each of the departments of core classes presented examples of the ways
different departments on campus could support the identified CST strands. During the
pre-interview, Dr. Jameson explained:
We learned this through FOR. I remember, well the cause and effect of WWI,
World History always struggles with that. I could support that in P.E., talking
about how WWI affected sports in this country, a cause and effect. English
teachers said, we write cause and effect. Kids don’t always conceptually
understand cause and effect. So the other subjects are saying, we can support your
stand. So it’s not just within their department, it’s the rest of the school.

During the pre-interview, Ms. Manning added ―So we know a little bit about what’s
going on around the whole school in all four core sections right now. So if I’m teaching
something that connects to something happening in math or English, I will make sure I
mention it so the kids make the connection.‖
After the teachers identified the CST strands that required more teaching, they
started to share strategies that they implemented in their classes at their department
release days. During the post-interview, Ms. Blankenship communicated ―We shared
strategies on increasing academic speaking in the ELD classes. I learned something from
another ELD teacher. I learned how to make flash cards that promote academic dialogue
between my students.‖ Dr. Jameson and her teachers realized that their English Learners
were struggling with reading and academic vocabulary. During the post-observation of
Ms. Blankenship, she was teaching new vocabulary on a book that students were reading.
127

Another type of data that was reviewed at Harris High School was American
College Testing (ACT) data and the number of students who attended college. This was
done to remind staff that the goal of the school is increase the percent of students eligible
to attend a four year college directly after high school from 34.8% to 40% by
2012.During the pre-interview, Ms. Andrews voiced ―Every time we have a faculty
meeting or a staff development day, they present data from ACT about college going
data. So to bring the reality home to teachers that we need to prepare our kids for
college.‖
Key Finding: Social Advocacy for Students. One of Dr. Jameson’s leadership
behaviors that influenced the practice of Harris High School teachers was her ability to
promote a positive school climate. When Dr. Jameson started as the principal, the
school’s focus was on discipline. She enacted several strategies to change teacher
discussions from being centered on discipline to teaching and learning. Dr. Jameson
eliminated the old discipline policy and trained the teachers to be less punitive. Their new
focus was to reward students for being successful.
Dr. Jameson started by sending a teacher to a Love and Logic conference who
shared what she learned with her colleagues. Love and Logic is a philosophy of teaching
students, which allows teachers to be empowered, and more skilled in the interactions
with their students. The Love and Logic approach provides students with confidence and
dignity, and teaches them how to become more responsible. These practices incorporate
rewards systems that paralleled the same research that was part of Dr. Jameson’s
dissertation. During the pre-interview, Dr. Jameson stated ―We build in rewards systems
128

for everything from attendance, to CST’s, passing all your classes. We had a celebration
with freshmen that passed all five classes, showing students that they would be rewarded
for positive achievement.‖
Systemic interventions for students who are in danger of not graduating from
Harris High School are more examples of how Dr. Jameson promoted social advocacy.
Dr. Jameson, her administrators, and counselors identified three tiers of 8
th
graders
(approximately 115 students) based on their academic performance data. Counselors and
assistant principals checked grades and progress reports of the third tier students and met
with them for full days and lunchtime. Students in tier two met with college interns
regularly and submitted their grades to them. Dr. Jameson established a guidance classes
for the thirty-six students in tier one with a teacher who is a certified high school
counselor. In addition, the class had thirteen volunteer college interns who supported the
class. The class was a mixture of study skills, school spirit, and therapy sessions. The
students were encouraged to join athletic teams and clubs. Dr. Mason also implemented
parent meetings and pot lucks to educate parents about the school and the benefits of their
children attending college. During the pre-interview, Dr. Jameson described the program:
We created a guidance class. I call it my brainwashing class. We’re going to teach
you to wear purple [the school’s color], to carry a binder reminder, to treat each
other with respect, to read. We use our ESLRs as the standards for the class. I
have a veteran of twenty-seven years teaching who is teaching like a seventeen
year old. He’s so excited and passionate about this curriculum. He’s helping me
grow it. Our main feeder is across the street. So I go over there a lot, especially
second semester to start getting to know the 8
th
graders, and particularly to get to
know what we call – we have a term at Harris we call the ―white flag‖ students.
They’ve thrown up the flag, they surrender, they give up, and they’re not doing
anything anymore.

129

Dr. Jameson requested that all teachers engage students in speaking English
before translating to their native language so students had more practice with academic
speaking. During the pre-interview, Dr. Jameson elaborated:
Every person in this campus has been told that they are expected to use English
with students first. Students go to people they know speak their dialect or their
language and they immediately speak in their Iranian form of Armenian or their
Russian form of Armenian or whatever dialect you speak. I asked everyone
politely, don’t be disrespectful, but ask the child to try in English. Because [in the
community], they don’t have to speak English and our achievement gap is
English. So if we ask them to practice their English, the only place in [the
community] they’ll ever be asked to use English, we should start to see a
difference.

In all pre/post classroom observations, teachers only used English with students.
Dr. Jameson initiated a unique intervention to help her struggling seniors graduate
from Harris High School. She and her administrative/counseling team identified the
seniors that were in danger of not graduating and posted data about these seniors on a
wall that was only accessible to staff members. They created a small display for every
potential non-graduate with his or her photo, name, current number of credits, and the
story behind the student being behind in credits. The purpose of the ―wall of seniors‖ was
for the administrators, counselors, and teachers to know every face and story of these
seniors. The administrators and counselors had conversations periodically with these
students about their grades and provided encouragement to them. During the post-
interview, Dr. Jameson explained some of these conversations. She said ―It’s not just get
to class, tell me your grades right now. You have an F in that and I am not handing you a
diploma? Yes, that’s your choice.‖ The students, who changed from non-graduate to
graduate status had their displays removed from the wall and received extensive
130

recognition from the staff. During the post-interview, Dr. Jameson pointed proudly to a
ring on her finger and shared that one of the senior girls had given the ring to her in
appreciation for helping the senior to be on target for graduation.
Analysis of Findings. As mentioned in the first case study, principals create the
conditions conducive to effective teaching and learning environments through leadership
practice (Leithwood, 2004; Davis et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). The learning-
centered leadership dimensions are the following: vision for learning, instructional
program, curricular program, assessment program, communities for learning, resource
acquisition and use, organizational culture, and social advocacy (Murphy et al., 2006).
The ―assessment program‖ dimension requires learning-centered leaders to
demonstrate expertise in assessment practices. These leaders are personally involved with
teachers creating, implementing, and monitoring assessment systems that address
classroom and school-based activity. They promote data-based decision making and
disaggregate data on the important conditions and outcomes of schooling by relevant
characteristics of students. Additionally, they make certain that assessment data is used
for instructional planning, the identification and design of services for high needs
students, and improvement efforts (Murphy et al., 2006).
Under the direction of Dr. Jameson, the Harris High School teachers analyzed
data, shared their analysis with their colleagues, and developed lessons based on their
identified areas of improvement. Additionally, they collected data on their students to
identify their ―at-risk‖ students and determined teacher practices necessary to help them.
Their best practices included the use of common formative assessments to guide
131

instruction, the utilization of academic language with English Learners, and the
accountability of English Learners using English in classes.
The ―social advocacy‖ dimension is expressed in four overlapping domains:
environmental context, diversity, ethics, and stakeholder engagement. Environmental
context refers to leaders manipulating contextual factors to increase success for students
and their families. Learning-centered leaders recognize and utilize all forms of student
diversity to meet the needs of all students and to maximize their learning. In addition,
they treat others fairly, respectfully, and equitably, while expecting others in the school
community to act similarly. These leaders create partnerships with families and
community members to accomplish school goals, improve the instructional program, and
increase student achievement (Murphy et al., 2006).
Dr. Jameson demonstrated the aspects of the social advocacy dimension of the
learning-centered leader. She helped teachers to change their mind set about student
discipline to more of a focus on student achievement. Dr. Mason and her staff
implemented numerous intervention strategies for their struggling students and involved
the students’ families in the process.
Conclusion. The collected evidence showed that Dr. Jameson demonstrated two
of the dimensions of learning-centered leadership that influence teacher professional
practice. Dr. Jameson was able to establish an extensive assessment program and
instituted systems that promoted student advocacy at Harris High School.
132

Cross-Case Analysis and Variations
The two case study schools were located in different demographic areas of the
district and possessed very dissimilar characteristics. Casa Valley High School was a
high performing school with an overall API score of 883 and was very successful in
almost all aspects of the school. The Casa Valley staff was supportive of the past and
current administration including their new principal, Dr. Mason. Contrastingly, Harris
High School was a high needs school with an API score of 772 and faced many
struggling learners who were new to the United States. The Harris Staff were distrustful
of the previous administration and were just beginning to believe in their new principal,
Dr. Jameson.
The differences in leadership practices between the two case study principals
existed mostly because of the dynamics of the schools. Casa Valley teachers were
overwhelmingly supportive of their instructional focus of critical thinking and were
evolving to the next step in the process by identifying schoolwide teacher practices. The
faculty welcomed Dr. Mason’s as the steward of their critical thinking vision and her
assistance with implementing best practices related to critical thinking. On the contrary,
Harris teachers were skeptical about any type of instructional focus and were still trying
to determine their core values. Harris High School had a number of underperforming
students that required immediate attention and extensive interventions. Dr. Jameson
placed her energy in creating structures and developing programs that would keep
students from failing at Harris High School. Dr. Jameson needed to interact with her
students more than Dr. Mason if she wanted them to be successful.
133

Both case studies produced some of the same findings. There was evidence to
support that Dr. Mason and Dr. Jameson implemented leadership practices that were
aligned with the learning-centered leadership framework. They realigned resources to
support the curricular program with the goal of increasing student achievement. In
addition, they both implemented a comprehensive assessment program and communities
of learning. These leadership practices were key components of the Focus on Results
programs. Their experiences with their coaches revealed that the relationships were
supportive and helpful to them. Neither case study provided significant evidence that the
principals were focused on their instructional programs: both principals rarely visited
classrooms for observations, and there was no mention of the principals working with
specific teachers to help them improve their individual instruction. It appeared that the
teachers received only minor feedback on the quality of their teaching.
Chapter Four Summary
In summary, the findings disclosed that both principals had a positive experience
with the Focus on Results program and displayed learning-centered leadership behaviors,
though the data was inconclusive as to how much the FOR coach prepared and influenced
them to be instructional leaders in comparison to their previous experiences. The fifth
chapter will summarize the findings and discuss the implications for future research,
policy and practice.
134

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the purpose of the study, the key research
questions, and the methodology that was utilized during this investigation. Furthermore,
this chapter presents a summary of the major findings and the significant implications for
future policy and practice. Lastly, it offers several recommendations for practice, policy,
and future research that could prove advantageous in developing and supporting the
leadership capacity of principals of high needs schools.
Statement of Problem
As presented in Chapter One, the pressures of new accountability systems,
expanding responsibilities, and insufficient training have contributed to the shortage of
effective principals, especially in schools with students of high needs. Many current
administrators feel that they are incapable of meeting the overwhelming demands of their
jobs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Most districts do not have the support structures
necessary to allow mentors or coaches to help principals gain the instructional and
transformational leadership skills needed to influence teacher professional practice and
student learning. Therefore, research is needed to:
 Develop effective leadership practices conducive to the challenges associated
with high needs schools.
 Provide appropriate support structures that enable leader practice, teacher
practice, and student outcomes.

135

Additionally, when these practices are implemented systemically at a school site,
the benefits are improved teaching and increased student learning (Spiro et al., 2007;
Gray et al., 2007).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to contribute to the literature regarding
effective components of leadership capacity building programs and support structures,
which enhance and sustain school leader practice. Specifically, it investigated the impact
of principal participation in a fully developed, research and standards-based, executive
leadership development program on leader practice and professional practice of teachers.
The study identified principals in the Focus on Results program, and examined the
practices they enacted, which had the potential to lead to attainment of the district
leadership goals and outcomes. Each case study focused on how the FOR program
prepared leaders to create organizational structures and practices that promote effective
leader practice and professional practices that improve student outcomes.
The study also sought to expand the knowledge base in regards to what
components of effective leadership support structures at the school and districts enable
principal’s leadership practice and promote a more equitable and effective student
learning environment in high needs schools. Qualitative as well as quantitative data
(mixed-methods) were collected to determine the leaders change in practice, and how
these leadership behaviors were shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences in
the FOR program over time.
136

Research Questions
The study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare
principals for the unique challenges of high needs schools?
2. How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to create
and sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional
practice?
3. How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?
Methodology
The study identified two principals who were participating in the Focus on
Results program. Each case study focused on how FOR prepared leaders to create
organizational structures and practices that promoted effective leader practice and
professional teacher practices that ultimately improved high needs student outcomes. The
study examined the leadership practices demonstrated by each of the principals to
determine (a) the relationship between principal participation in the FOR program and
their leadership practice, and (b) if the practice of the two principals varied, then what
accounted for that variance. Qualitative data were collected in a pre-intervention and
post-intervention design as well as the collection of quantitative data after the
intervention to determine the leader’s change in practice and how these changes had been
shaped or reshaped by participation and experiences on the FOR program over time.
Sample, data collection, analysis: The unit of analysis for this study was school
leadership practice. Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For
137

both case studies the following sources were used to gather descriptive data: pre/post
interviews, with each principal and three core content teachers from each school
(language arts, mathematics and science); pre/post observations of the principal
interacting with teachers (e.g., FOR training and staff meetings) and classroom
observations of teachers interacting with their students and with other teachers; and a
collection of documents (e.g., those publicly available) and artifacts (e.g., those that were
generated in conjunction with Focus on Results) relevant to the study were collected for
analysis. In addition, post-intervention data were collected from the administration of the
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) survey to each principal
and some of their teachers which was taken in February 2011.
Data collected in response to each research question was triangulated to facilitate
the data analysis process and substantiate any inferences made with regards to changes in
leader practice and teacher professional practice.
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare principals
for the unique challenges of high needs schools?
Findings and theoretical implications: The analysis of these two case study
schools provided some useful data regarding the preparation of principals through the
Focus on Results program, a leadership capacity building and support program. The FOR
program is comprised of two components: The first component was to provide the
principal and instructional leadership team with professional development that was
138

focused on data analysis and identifying goals related to academic achievement and
leadership practice. The second component of the FOR program was designed to provide
principals with a coach who provided instructional coaching and conferencing to enhance
instructional leadership development. Although each principal was offered the same
aspects of the professional development program, Dr. Mason was not afforded the same
opportunity to have a principal coach as Dr. Jameson. Dr. Mason essentially did not have
a leadership coach, though she expressed strong interest in having one.
In the first case study school, Casa Valley High School, evidence from the
principal and teacher interviews as well as observations of meetings indicated that Dr.
Mason appeared to have fully embraced the professional development opportunities
provided by FOR. Dr. Mason and her leadership team were seen analyzing data and
setting goals at the September FOR training. Their ―urgent message‖ was an outcome of
their data analysis and goal setting that was initiated by FOR. The use of the instructional
leadership team to make decisions about the school’s instructional program was another
result of FOR program.
One of the major requirements of the FOR program is to have a school to go
through the process of identifying an instructional focus and then provide the necessary
staff development in order for the school to implement the instructional focus in all
classes. Casa Valley High School selected critical thinking as their focus and sent
numerous faculty members to the Foundation of Critical Thinking Conferences. Dr.
Mason admitted that not all of her teachers were using critical thinking strategies, which
was validated by classroom observations. However, she and her leadership team were
139

seeking ways to implement critical thinking schoolwide as evidenced by the February
staff meeting and the training on critical thinking that was scheduled for the staff
development day.
In the second case study school, Harris High School, evidence from the principal
and teacher interviews as well as observations from meetings indicated that Dr. Jameson
appeared to have made use of the professional development opportunities provided by
FOR. Similarly to Casa Valley High School, Dr. Jameson and her leadership team were
seen analyzing data and setting goals at the September FOR training. Their ―urgent
message‖ was a product of their data analysis and goal setting that was initiated by FOR.
The use of the professional development team to make decisions about staff development
for teachers was another benefit of the FOR program.
As revealed in the first case study, a major expectation of the FOR program is for
a school to go through the process of selecting an instructional focus and then provide the
necessary staff development in order for the school to implement the instructional focus
in all classes. Based on the principal and teacher interviews, the teachers were confused
about their instructional focus and did not understand how to utilize an instructional focus
to improve teaching and learning. Dr. Jameson did not feel her staff was ready to
implement a schoolwide instructional focus. Instead, Dr. Jameson and her instructional
leadership team determined that the staff needed to identify the core values before they
could begin to select and implement a schoolwide instructional focus.
When reviewing the data collected about the coaching sessions, it is evident that
Dr. Jameson and her coach, Ms. Long, had a productive relationship that contained some
140

effective coaching qualities. Based on the interviews with Dr. Jameson, Ms. Long limited
their sessions to conversations and emails; she had not attended any staff meetings or
classroom observations with Dr. Jameson. According to the research, mentoring
programs need to move beyond ―buddy systems‖ or check-lists of activities that do not
help principals become knowledgeable and skilled leaders of better teaching and learning
(Spiro, Mattis, &Mitgang, 2007; Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O’Neill, 2007).
It appeared that Ms. Long was more of a mentor than a coach. Coaching is often
confused with mentoring: while mentoring involves an expert conveying knowledge that
is unfamiliar to an individual, coaching is a process in which the coach ―facilitates‖
learning in the individual. Coaching is a results-oriented, systematic process in which the
coach promotes the enhancement of work performance and self-directed learning and
personal growth of the person being coached (Strong, Barrett, & Bloom, 2002; Bloom,
Castagna, Moir, & Warren, 2005).
A ―change coach‖ or ―capacity coach‖ focuses on leadership that addresses
whole-school, organizational improvement of the instructional program. They engage
principals in discussions on strategies that build shared decision making and
responsibility of school reform. These coaches can enable principals to organize their
time so they are able to visit classrooms regularly to observe instruction. Change coaches
can help principals learn how to offer meaningful feedback to teachers that will improve
their practice (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).
Based on the current research and the data collected from these two case study
schools, there are three areas of improvement that can benefit the Focus on Results
141

program. First, the criteria for determining which principal receives a coach should be
revised. An experienced principal new to a school or new to a different school level
(elementary, middle school or high school) should be assigned a coach. The coaching
assignments should be based on the needs of the principals such as the case at Casa
Valley High School. Dr. Mason was an experienced middle school principal; however
she was new to being a high school principal. Dr. Mason would have benefited from a
coach that could have assisted her with the situations specific to high school and/or her
new school. Second, there should be ongoing professional development for the coaches to
learn how to be more of a coach and less of a mentor. Lastly, a system should be in place
to monitor and account for the relationship between the coach and principal. This system
would determine the effectiveness of the coach supporting the principal and to what
extent the principal is transforming into an instructional leader.
Research Question 2
How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to create and
sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional practice?
Findings and Theoretical Implications: An analysis of these two case study
schools added to the understanding of how a principal promotes effective teacher
professional practice through the school’s organizational structures and processes. There
were several similar findings from the two case studies under this research. Evidence
collected from the schools demonstrated that both principals had implemented leadership
practices that were associated with the learning-centered leadership framework. They
established communities of learning with the goal of increasing student achievement and
142

realigned resources to support the curricular program (Murphy et al., 2006). These
leadership practices were key components of the Focus on Results programs.
Both case study principals demonstrated their commitment to creating
organizational structures (communities of learning dimension of the learning-centered
leadership framework) to impact teaching in order to have a positive impact in student
outcomes. Dr. Mason and Dr. Jameson facilitated instructional leadership teams that
analyzed data, set goals, and made decisions about the school’s instructional program.
These instructional leadership teams were actively involved in planning, supporting, and
evaluating specific staff learning activities and the school’s professional development
system. Some of these structures overlap with the curricular program dimension which
characterizes learning-centered leaders as curriculum experts that are knowledgeable of
and extremely involved in the school’s curricular program. Based on the evidence
collected by interviews, both principals were involved with coordinating the curricular
program for all their departments, including standards alignment, materials, and
assessments as well as all special programs for high needs students (Murphy et al., 2006).
The principals at both case study schools demonstrated the resource allocation
and use dimension of the learning-centered leadership framework. They each realigned
resources (people, time, talent, energy, and money) to support the instructional program,
although each principal acquired and used different resources to meet their specific
school goals. Dr. Mason realigned her resources so she could finance planning time and
professional development trainings for her teachers by holding back 40% of one of her
allocated teaching positions and cashing it in for $30,000 dollars. She used the money to
143

send teachers to critical thinking conferences (travel expenses included) and to provide
release time for department meetings. Dr. Jameson demonstrated her ability to realign
resources by instituting an ELD department and provided release time for this new
department to have meetings. Dr. Jameson made numerous changes in the Harris High
School’s master schedule, in addition to reassigning teachers to different classes; she
eliminated all the core classes that were not meeting the University of California’s A to G
requirements.
The learning-centered framework proposes that the VAL-ED school leadership
assessment be used as a tool for leadership improvement. The instrument’s purpose is not
to assess the direct effect of leadership practice on student success. Rather, the VAL-ED
goal is to assess leadership behaviors that lead to change in school performance, which in
turn lead to positive student outcomes (Porter et al., 2008). In order for the VAL-ED
results to be meaningful, over 50% of teachers must complete the survey. At Casa Valley
High School, only 5% of the teachers completed the survey, while at Harris High School,
only 4% of the teachers completed the survey. Both principals completed the survey, but
it is difficult to rely on these results as an accurate report of the principal leadership
behaviors without ample input from the teachers.
Based on the few results from the VAL-ED survey, Dr. Mason and Dr. Jameson
showed that they had some success in creating organizational structures that promote
effective teacher practice. Although both principals demonstrated that their overall
effectiveness score on the VAL-ED survey was proficient, they had several behaviors
that were relevant targets for improvement. Providing Dr. Mason with the VAL-ED data
144

could provide her with the feedback necessary for her to improve her leadership practice.
If Dr. Mason had been assigned a coach for this year, the coach within the Focus on
Results program could have used the VAL-ED survey to help her and her leadership team
better implement the organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional
practice. Providing Dr. Jameson with the VAL-ED data could offer her and her coach,
Ms. Long, a starting point from which to discuss Dr. Jameson’s leadership behaviors. Dr.
Jameson, with the assistance of Ms. Long, could use the VAL-ED results to set goals on
implementing organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional
practice. This would present formative as well summative data on achieving these goals.
As mentioned earlier, both principals were committed to creating organizational
structures that would influence teacher professional practice, however these structures
were instituted without any clearly articulated measurable goals or objectives. A specific
assessment tool could be developed and utilized to measure the identified goals.
Additionally, the assessment tool could detect the effectiveness of the structures, the
positive impact of teacher practice and the improvement of student outcomes.
Research Question 3
How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?
Findings and theoretical implications: The analysis of these two case study
schools contributed to the understanding of how a principal’s leadership practice can
impact teacher professional practice. Because the Focus on Results program strongly
emphasized the use of data to improve teacher practice, it is not surprising that both case
study schools had extensive assessment programs. Evidence collected from the schools
145

demonstrated that both principals had implemented assessment systems that were aligned
with the learning-centered leadership framework.
Both Dr. Mason and Dr. Jameson were involved with their teachers creating,
implementing, and monitoring assessment systems that addressed classroom and school-
based activity such as the development and use of common formative assessments. The
principals disaggregated data by subgroups to determine which groups of students were
struggling and made data-based decisions based on the needs of the struggling students.
Additionally, they made certain that the assessment data was used for instructional
planning, the identification and design of services for high needs students, and
improvement efforts (Murphy et al., 2006).
Each of the principals devoted considerable energy to another learning-centered
leadership dimension that was unique to each school. Dr. Mason demonstrated the
elements of the vision of learning dimension while Dr. Jameson focused on the aspects of
social advocacy for students. There was significant evidence based on the interviews and
the teacher surveys that the staff knew about the critical thinking vision. In addition, Dr.
Mason and her teachers continued to embrace the components of a critical thinking
program. The teachers at Casa Valley High School were making progress with the
implementation of their schoolwide teacher practices of questioning and re-teaching. In
contrast, Harris High School teachers were unclear about the school’s vision. However,
Dr. Jameson helped teachers to change their mind set about student discipline to more of
a focus on student achievement. Based on the evidence of the interviews, Dr. Jameson
and her staff implemented numerous intervention strategies for their struggling students
146

and involved the students’ families in the process. Dissimilarly, Dr. Mason had not
created any special classes or implemented specific interventions for her struggling
students.
Neither case study provided significant evidence that the principals were focused
on their instructional programs (spending considerable time on the teaching function).
Both principals rarely visited classrooms for observations, and there was no mention of
the principals working with specific teachers to help them improve their individual
instruction. It appeared that the teachers received only minor feedback on the quality of
their teaching.
A learning-centered leadership dimension that appeared to receive little attention
from either principal was organizational culture. In the organizational culture dimension,
culture is explained by five themes: production analysis, accountability, continuous
improvement, safe and orderly learning environment, and personalized community.
Production analysis involves learning-centered leaders creating environments of high
performance expectations for themselves, their staff, and their students. Accountability
includes leaders holding teachers and students accountable for learning while integrating
external accountability systems that support the internal accountability systems of the
school. Continuous improvement involves leaders asserting ongoing school improvement
efforts. Safe and orderly learning environment encompasses leaders maintaining school-
wide discipline and an environment conducive to learning. Personalized environment
refers to leaders creating opportunities for students to form ties to the school and to
appropriate adult role models (Murphy et al., 2006).
147

Based on the research and the lack of evidence collected at both case study
schools, the principals had not demonstrated production analysis, accountability,
continuous improvement, and personalized community. However, according to
interviews and observations, both case study schools demonstrated safe and orderly
environments that were conducive to learning.
As a result of the data collected, there are several suggestions for the district to
assist principals with improving their learning-centered leadership behaviors that could
influence teacher practice. First, the district needs to work with FOR and train principals
on practical techniques of clinical supervision of instruction. Principals would benefit
from learning how to observe classroom instruction and how to work with teachers to
help them improve their classroom teaching. Second, recruit or train coaches who are
skilled at clinical supervision and transformational leadership coaching. These coaches
could be instrumental in transforming principals into becoming leaders focused on
instruction. Lastly, the district needs to establish high expectations on the amount of time
that principals should spend in classrooms and provide the necessary support in order for
principals to meet those expectations.
Implications for Policy and Practice
This study has a number of implications for policy and practice. The Focus on
Results program was designed to develop leadership capacity through coaching and
professional learning as well as refocus the role of the principal to improve teaching and
learning. The FOR program included research-based elements that were used to help the
district implement protocols for measurable, sustaining improvements in student
148

performance, school leadership, and decision-making. This was accomplished through
training school Instructional Leadership Teams and through professional development
embedded in the day-to-day work of the schools. Even though the FOR program provided
the type of professional development and support needed to influence leadership practice,
it was not sufficient.
Based on the data collected from the two case study schools, several components
of the district’s FOR program was concerning. This raised questions and revealed
possible implications for future policy and practice. First, the process for assigning
coaches to principals should be reviewed. How did the district determine which
principals needed coaches and why (experience, knowledge base, personal
characteristics, beliefs)? Second, knowledge of coaching strategies and coaching skills
should be considered. How were the coaches selected or trained? What was the
curriculum for training coaches? Third, district mandates and training on clinical
supervision of instruction should be incorporated into the FOR program. What were the
expectations for principals completing classroom observations? Lastly, a system that
monitors and accounts for the relationship between the coach and principal should be
implemented. How effective was the coach? It is necessary to make this type of
assessment of the coaching relationship to determine if the coach is helping the principal
transform into an instructional leader.
Recommendations for Future Research
The schools of the 21
st
century require principals that are proficient in improving
school organization and teacher professional practice. As schools strive to close the
149

achievement gap between their diverse student populations, principals need specific skills
to eliminate the marginalization of students with disabilities, English Learners, and other
students traditionally segregated in schools. In addition, principals must be skilled at
managing the monumental duties of supervising schools while focused on improving
instruction and increasing student achievement. Though the behaviors of effective
leadership practice have been identified through research-based theories, how a principal
acquires these behaviors has not been fully explained. This study, in correspondence with
additional research, may provide some evidence indicating that a leadership capacity
building program (including a principal coaching component) may assist principals with
developing leadership practices that specifically improve teaching and increase student
learning.
Leadership programs of the 21
st
century need to properly equip principals with the
appropriate knowledge, beliefs, and skills that will allow them to successfully close the
achievement gap at schools. As a result of this study, policy makers and developers of
leadership programs may become more knowledgeable on the essential components of
building and sustaining leaders’ capacity to positively reshape the teaching and learning
environment in high needs schools in ways that promote expert teacher professional
practice and improve outcomes for students.
Limitations
There were several limitations that the researcher encountered that may have
impacted this study:
150

1. Principal recruitment: The original district that agreed to participate in the study
withdrew in June of 2010. Another district in Texas had expressed interest in
participating in the study, however did not make a commitment until the end of
October of 2010. Fortunately, one of my committee members was able to solicit a
district in California on my behalf.
2. Length of study: Actual principal contact did not occur until the end of September
because of the lengthy time process of receiving approval for the conduct of
human subjects research through the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB). Time for collecting qualitative data from
fieldwork for this study was limited to five months. This presented a challenge in
substantiating the impact of leader practice on teacher practice over time.
3. Limited data collection on coaching: The opportunity to observe the relationship
between the principals and coaches was not available. One principal did not have
a coach. The data collected from the other principal did not demonstrate evidence
that the coach influenced the principal’s practice.
4. Small sample size of VAL-ED participants: Considering the small number of
respondents to the VAL-ED assessment survey, it is difficult to determine the
degree of leadership practice on teacher practice. Additionally, it would have been
beneficial to have each of the principal’s supervisors complete the survey.
5. The ―halo effect‖: Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED survey
(ratings of self, teachers, and supervisors), participants may have a tendency to
assume specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression. However, to
151

mitigate against this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-ED survey required that
raters identify the primary source of evidence for their rating on each item (i.e.,
personal observation, documents, etc.)
Conclusion
The most challenging goal for our Nation’s schools, especially schools with high
needs students, is to improve teacher practice in order to close the achievement gap
between African American and Latino students and their white and Asian counter parts
(Hochschild & Scovronich, 2003;Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott & Cravens, 2007).
Aspiring school reforms such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001 have
focused on improving teaching and learning for ―all‖ students. However, most states have
failed to meet the teacher quality standards of NCLB and are not providing those of their
students that have diverse socioeconomic backgrounds with equal access to effective
instruction (Hochschild & Scovronich, 2003; Goldring et al., 2007). This achievement
gap unfortunately results in unequal opportunity between high needs students and their
more socioeconomically advantaged peers. In order to remove this unfair disadvantage,
one must determine who is most capable of solving this problem, and then discover what
course of action will best result in providing these high needs students with the education
and equality that they truly deserve.
Largely overlooked in the reform movements is the critical role of the principal in
creating a learning culture within the school and influencing teacher professional
practice. According to research, principal leadership can make a difference in student
learning (Halinger & Heck, 1996; Marzano, 2005; Darling-Hammond, Orphanos,
152

LaPointe, & Weeks, 2007). The recently released Blueprint for Reform of 2010 (the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) explains that
―[by] recognizing the importance of principal leadership in supporting teachers, states
will work to improve the effectiveness of principals‖ (U.S. Department of Education, p.
15).
The Focus on Results program is developing leadership capacity through
coaching and professional learning as well as making attempts to focus the principal on
improving instruction and increasing student achievement. The district of the two case
study schools with the help of Focus on Results program are taking a systemic approach
to reform their teaching and learning. This model is moving closer to solving the problem
of closing the achievement gap.
Effective leadership capacity building models have the potential to influence a
principal’s leadership practice and in turn, influence teacher professional practice and
student outcomes. The best course of action that will provide high needs students with the
education and equity that they deserve is to place skilled leaders as principals at their
schools. Students with high needs require highly qualified teachers as well as highly
effective principals that can have a positive impact on their education and quality of life.

153

REFERENCES
Bloom, G., Castagna, C., Moir, E., & Warren, B. (2005). Blended Coaching: Skills and
Strategies to Support Principal Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Capper, C. A., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a Framework for Preparing
Leaders for Social Justice. Journal of Educational Administration. 44(3), 209-
224.

Condly, S. J., Clark, R. E., & Stolovitch, H. D. (2003). The Effects of Incentives on
Workplace Performance: A Meta-analytic Review of Research Studies.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16(3), 7-24.

Copeland, M. A. (2001, March). The Myth of the Superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan,
82(7), 528-533.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. T. (2007). Preparing
School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership
Development Programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute.

Darling-Hammond, L., Orphanos, S., LaPointe, M., & Weeks, S. (2007). Leadership
Development in California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, from
http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/STUDIES/12-Darling-Hammond/12-
Darling-Hammond%283-07%29.pdf

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School
Leadership Study: Developing Successful Principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Edsource, Inc. (2005, June). The State's Official Measures of School Performance.
October 11, 2006, from http://www.edsource.org/pdf/perfmeasguide05.pdf

Elmore, R. (2000, Winter). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington,
D.C.. Albert Shanker Institute. (pp. 6-11).

Focus on Results. (2011). www.focusonresults.net

154

Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing
Learning-Centered Leadership: Connections to Research, Professional
Standards, and Current Practices. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University,
Learning Sciences Institute.

Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing
Learning-Centered Leadership: Connections to Research, Professional Standards,
and Current Practices. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8:1-36

Governor’s Committee of Education Excellence. (2006). Every Child Prepared from
http://www.everychildprepared.org/index.php

Gray, C., Fry, B., Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (2007). Good Principals Aren’t Born -
They’re Mentored: Are We Investing Enough to Get the School Leaders We
Need? Southern Regional Education Board.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the Principal’s Role in School
Effectiveness: A Review of Empirical Research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School
Effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2),
157-191.

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the Practice of
Instructional and Transformational Leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education,
33(3), 229-351.

Heck, R. H. (1992, Spring). Principals’ Instructional Leadership and School
Performance: Implications for Policy Development. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21-34. from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0162-
3737%28199221%2914%3A1%3C21%3APILASP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

Hochschild, J., & Scovronich, N. (2003). The American Dream and The Public Schools,
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
Influences Student Learning (paper commissioned by the Wallace Foundation).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational Leadership: A Review of the Research. Toronto:
Temple University, The Laboratory for Student Success.

155

Marzano, R. (2005). School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Murphy, J., (2003, September). Reculturing Educational Leadership: The ISLLC
Standards Ten Years Out. Austin, TX: National Policy Board for Educational
Administration.

Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-Centered
Leadership: A Conceptual Foundation. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

Northouse, P. G. (2003). Fourth Edition. Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003, June). Coaching: A Strategy for Developing
Instructional Capacity. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

New Teacher Center. (2010). Coaching Leaders to Attain Student Success: California
Network of School Leadership Coaches. Santa Cruz, CA

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Porter, A., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Elliott, S. N., Polikoff, M. S., & May, H. (2008).
Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education, VAL-ED Publications.

Preis, S., Grogan, M., Sherman, W., & Beaty, D. (2007, July). What the Research Says
About the Delivery of Educational Leadership Preparation Programs in the United
States. Journal of Research on Leadership Education. 2(2), 1-36.

Seaton, M., Emmett, R. E., Welsh, K., & Petrossian. (2008, January-February). Teaming
Up for Teaching and Learning. Leadership. 26-29

Spiro, J., Mattis, M. C., & Mitgang, L. D. (2007). A Wallace Perspective: Getting
Principal Mentoring Right: Lessons from the Field. New York: The Wallace
Foundation.

Strong, M., Barrett, A., & Bloom, G. (2002). Supporting the New Principal: Case Studies
on Intensive Principal Induction. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center at the
University of Santa Cruz, California.

Terry, D. (2000). U.S. Child Poverty Rate Fell but is Above 1979 Level. New York
Times, p. 10.

156

Theoharis, G. (2007, April). Social Justice Educational Leaders and Resistance: Toward a
Theory of Social Justice Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly. 43
(2), 221-258.

Tschannen-Moran, M. and Gareis, C.R. (2004), Principals’ Sense of Efficacy: Assessing
a Promising Construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(5), 573-585.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010, March). ESEA Blueprint for Reform. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). DataQuest, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
West Ed. (2004). California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders. San
Francisco, CA. West Ed. from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/867

Young, M. D., Fuller, E., Brewer, C., Carpenter, B., & Mansfield, K. C. (2007, Fall).
Quality Leadership Matters. Austin, TX: University Council for Educational
Administration. Policy Brief Series, 1(1).

157

APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Pre-Intervention Principal Interview
Research Question # 1
How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare
principals for the unique challenges of high needs schools?

1. How would you define the achievement gap at your school? How is the district
helping you and your staff close that gap?
2. What systems are in place in the district that support your leadership practice and
school instruction?
3. What district resources are available to help you improve your leadership
practice?
4. How does the district assist you with insuring the school is a safe, clean, and
orderly environment that is conducive to learning?
5. How would you describe the relationship between district support personnel and
principals?

Research Question # 2
How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to create
and sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional
practice?

1. How would you describe the culture and climate of your school?
2. What organizational structures have you created that promote effective teacher
practices and improve student outcomes?
3. How often do you observe classroom instruction and how do you provide
feedback?
4. What are the professional practices of your teachers that support student learning?
How do you promote these practices?
5. What are the most important activities that your school does to support student
achievement?

158

Research Question # 3
How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?
1. What experiences and training have you had to prepare you for being a principal?
2. How do you see yourself as a leader at your school?
3. What are some of the core beliefs and key ideas embodied within your school
vision? How does it drive the instructional program? How does it impact decision
making?
4. How are your school’s goals and improvement initiatives aligned with the school
vision?
5. How does your leadership practice promote or help student learning?

159

Appendix B:
Post-Intervention Principal Interview
Research Question # 1
How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare
principals for the unique challenges of high needs schools?

1. How has the district/FOR influenced your efforts to close the achievement gap?
2. How beneficial is the district/FOR with assisting you in improving your school’s
instructional program?
3. How has your district/FOR supported you in recognizing the effective practices of
your teachers?
4. How has what you learned from your district/FOR training increased your ability
to support student learning?

Research Question # 2
How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to create
and sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional
practice?

1. How has your FOR coach supported you in recognizing the effective practices of
your teachers?
2. How has what you learned from your FOR coaching sessions increased your
ability to support student learning?
3. What opportunities do you provide for your teachers to work collaboratively?
4. How often do you observe classroom instruction and how do you provide
feedback?
5. What are the professional practices of your teachers that support student learning?
How do you promote these practices?
6. What are the most important activities that your school does to support student
achievement?

Research Question # 3
How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?
1. What changes have you made this year in your leadership practice?
2. How have these changes impacted teacher professional practice?
3. How do you hold teachers accountable?
4. What have you and your staff done to close the achievement gap?
5. What evidence have you collected that demonstrate improvement of your school’s
instructional program?

160

Appendix C:
Pre-Intervention Teacher Interview
1. What is the school’s vision and how was it developed? How has it been
communicated to the staff?
2. Has your school defined an achievement gap and are you closing it?
3. How is teaching and learning supported at your school?
4. What are the instructional priorities at your school? How do they impact teaching
and learning in your content area?
5. What types of Professional Development opportunities are available at your
school?
6. How has professional development impacted your instructional practice?
7. How often do administrators visit your classroom? What kinds of feedback do
you receive?
8. How do you use data to improve teaching and learning?
9. What opportunities do you have for collaboration?
10. How has collaboration impacted instructional practice?
11. How do your encourage parents to participate in their children’s learning process?
12. Is the school a safe, clean, and orderly place that is conducive to learning?

161

Appendix D:
Post-Intervention Teacher Interview
1. How do you think FOR has influenced the principal’s practice?
2. How has FOR impacted professional development at the school and your
teaching?
3. How has the principal communicated the school’s vision?
4. What are some of the high expectations that the principal has communicated to
you and staff?
5. How has the principal promoted growth and success for all students?
6. What are some of the ways that the principal has tried to close the achievement
gap?
7. What opportunities exist for you and other teachers to work collaboratively? How
does it impact your teaching?
8. How are teachers held accountable for implementing improvement initiatives?
9. How often does the principal observe you? What kinds of feedback do you
receive?
10. How does the principal ensure continuous school improvement?
11. How does the principal provide feedback with regard to meeting school-wide
goals?
12. How have you been supported in providing high quality instruction and rigorous
curriculum?
13. What new teaching strategies have you incorporated into your lessons?
162

14. What are the organizational structures that the principal has in place to promote a
safe and efficient learning environment? How do you bring concerns in this area
to the principal?
15. In what ways are staff members involved in decision-making about the school’s
instructional program?

163

Appendix E:
Pre/Post Intervention Observation Protocols
Pre: _____ Post: _____
Focus
Research Question # 2: How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s
ability to create and sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher
professional practice?

Setting Job Title/Role of Participants
Meeting Initiator:

Location of Meeting:

Length of Meeting:

Frequency of Meeting:
Facilitators:

Recorder:

Members:
Protocol of Meeting Purpose/Content
Procedures:

Type of Meeting:
[ ] Informational
[ ] Professional Development
[ ] Problem Solving
[ ] Planning
[ ] Collaborative
[ ] Other:
[ ] Discipline/Student Behavior
[ ] Student Grades
[ ] Intervention Programs
[ ] Facilities and Management
[ ] Budget
[ ] Curriculum
[ ] Instruction
[ ] Assessment
[ ] Other:
Nonverbal Communication Additional Comments/Questions
[ ] Engaging/Exchange of Ideas
[ ] Cooperative/Helpful
[ ] Off-Task
behaviors/Comments/Questions
[ ] Uncooperative/Rude/Disruptive
[ ] Complaining
[ ] Disruptions
[ ] Other:

Results of Meeting Next Steps
Identified Issues:

Decisions Making:

Plans:

Who:

What:

When:
164

Appendix F:
Information/Facts Sheet for Non-Medical Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

************************************************************************
Focus on Results Program

You are being asked to participate in a research study conducted by a graduate student
researcher under the supervision of Larry Picus, Ph.D. (faculty advisor) from the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California. You have been invited to
volunteer for this study because of your participation in the Focus on Results Program
in the Unified School District. The results of this study will contribute to the completion
of graduate student dissertations. You should read the information below, and ask
questions about anything you do not understand before deciding whether or not to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also
decide to discuss it with your family or friends.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of participation in the Focus on
Results Program on principals’ ability to adopt and implement research based leadership
practices associated with the Focus on Results Program. Over time, the study
anticipates assessing the effects of leadership practice on teacher practice and student
outcomes.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

All principals and all of their teachers will be asked to take an on-line leadership survey
(approximately 30 minutes) in the spring and to participate as case study schools. You
will be asked to provide researchers with school documents (i.e., school improvement
plan) for review and to participate in a 45 minute interview in fall 2010 and one follow
up interview in spring 2011. A researcher will shadow you for approximately two hours
once in the fall and once in the spring. And finally, please provide us with a list of your
teachers to facilitate the identification of a teacher leader to distribute survey access
165

codes among teachers and to facilitate the identification of a select group of teachers
(about 6) to participate in similar interview, observation, and survey activities. I will be
audio taping our conversations. If you choose not to have your information recorded, this
will not affect your participation in this study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

There is no monetary compensation for participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY

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

Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. All data from interviews will be transcribed. All data from observations,
interviews and document analysis will be stored in a secured data analysis program to
which only the investigator has access. You name and that of the school to which you are
affiliated will not be used in the reporting of research findings. Pseudonyms will be used
to protect your confidentiality. No personally identifiable information will be included in
this study. The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or
audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be
protected or disguised.

However, all principals will have access to a copy of the results of their leadership
survey. This information can be used to identify strengths and weaknesses in a leader’s
current practice of learning centered leadership behaviors and to plan future professional
development activities. The results can be interpreted based upon performance levels
across the standards based components and in comparison to the norm group.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Gloria Duncan at gduncan@usc.edu.
166

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Preparing principals to be effective instructional leaders is a critical lever for promoting powerful teaching and learning. Unprepared principals do not improve schools. The purpose of this research study was to investigate the specific elements and attributes of a leadership capacity building and support program that influence school principals’ practice in ways that positively impact teacher professional practice and improve student learning outcomes. The identified principals of this study participated in the Focus on Results program. This comprehensive, research and standards-based executive leadership program included both professional development as well as the support of a principal coach. The study addressed these primary research questions: 1) How does a district’s leadership capacity building and support system prepare principals for the unique challenges of high needs schools? 2) How does the Focus on Results program influence the principal’s ability to create and sustain organizational structures that promote effective teacher professional practice? 3) How does leadership practice influence teacher professional practice?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative

PDF

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Promising practices: developing principal leadership succession

PDF

Principal leadership succession: developing the next generation of leaders

PDF

Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals

PDF

The effects of coaching on building and sustaining effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

PDF

Building leadership capacity: Practices for preparing the next generation of Catholic school principals

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

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

PDF

Exploratory study on Race to the Top schools and the impact a school principal has on a school’s academic performance

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Building leadership capacity from the top: how superintendents empower principals to lead schools

PDF

School leadership: preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals

PDF

Principals’ leadership influence on teachers’ capacity to enact 21st-century skills curriculum

PDF

Leadership capacity building: promising practices in principal preparation

PDF

Developing longevity in the K-12 principal position: strategies for preparation, recruitment, and retention

Asset Metadata

Creator Duncan, Gloria Elaine (author)

Core Title Influences on principals' leadership practice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/30/2011

Defense Date 03/28/2011

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

Tag Focus on Results program,high school principal,leadership capacity building program,leadership coaching,learning-centered leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Fish, Steven (committee member)

Creator Email gduncan@usc.edu,gloriaduncan@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3817

Unique identifier UC1472822

Identifier etd-Duncan-4574 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-464343 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3817 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Duncan-4574.pdf

Dmrecord 464343

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Duncan, Gloria Elaine

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