University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
IN HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS

by

Vickie Harri

______________________________________________________________

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 Vickie Harri
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Mary Harri, to the memory of
my father, Albert Harri and to my sisters Kathy Graves, Monica Harri, Theresa Harri
and Diana Harri. Without the support and tolerance of my family throughout my
educational career, I would never have been able to achieve as much as I have.
To my brother-in-law, John Graves, and my nephews Matthew Graves, Scott
Graves, and Andrew Graves for putting up with me as I pursued yet another degree.
And finally, this dissertation is dedicated to my dogs Farley, Baxter and Holly for
their unwavering devotion.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express sincere appreciation to the members of my dissertation
committee for their support and guidance during this study. I would like to especially
thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Kathy Stowe, for her expert advice and assistance
during the dissertation process. Your hard work and dedication to our thematic group
has been a great inspiration as we add to the body of knowledge in urban education. I
would also like to thank committee member, Dr. Lawrence Picus, for your ongoing
support and encouragement throughout this dissertation process. Also, a special
thanks to Dr. Pedro Garcia for his time and support in this dissertation process.
A special acknowledgment to the principal and staff at Sunflower Middle
School for allowing me to conduct my research at their school site and adding to the
body of knowledge of high poverty schools that are enabling academic success for
their students.
I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation thematic group,
Shannon Manista, Rachelle Snyder, Hazel Guisto, Vishodana Thamotharan, and
Leila Gabriel. Your support has truly made this dissertation possible.
A special thank you to my colleagues at Oaks Middle School who have acted
as a sounding board throughout my three years at USC, especially my principal Dave
Foley who spent a year taking the last 15 minutes of my 6
th
period class so I could
make it to LA on time, my teammates, my fellow science teachers, and the Oaks
Bunco Babes.
iv
Last but not least, a very special thank you to my good friends Gayle
Birchfield, Cindy Miyada and John Robinson. You are the soothing calm to my
madness.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication……………………………………………………………………….. …ii
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………… …iii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………… …vi
List of Figures………………………………………………………………….. …vii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………... …viii
Chapter One: The Problem…………………………………………………... …1
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature…………………………………….. …13
Chapter Three: Research Methodology……………………………………….…39
Chapter Four: Findings, Analysis and Discussion………………………….. …60
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications and Recommendations…………….…102
References…………………………………………………………………….. …111
Appendices
Appendix A: Administrator Interview Protocol…………………….. …117
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol…………………………… …119
Appendix C: Classified Interview Protocol…………………………. …121
Appendix D: Classroom Observation Protocol…………………………123
Appendix E: Meeting Observation Protocol………………………... …125
Appendix F: General Site Observation Protocol……………………. …127
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Cass Unified School District: Students by Ethnicity 2008-2009…… …45
Table 2: Cass Unified School District Student Data 2008-2009…………………45
Table 3: Sunflower Middle School Students by Ethnicity 2008-2009………...…46
Table 4: Sunflower Middle School Student Data 2008-2009………………… …47
Table 5: Sunflower Middle School API………………………………………. …48
Table 6: Sunflower Middle School Interviewees……………………………... …54
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Used for the Case Study………………….. …49
Figure 2: Administrator Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions… …51
Matrix
Figure 3: Teacher Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions Matrix.. …51
Figure 4: Classified Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions……... …52
Matrix
Figure 5: Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis…………………... …58
Figure 6: Sunflower Middle School Monthly Meeting Calendar…………….. …66
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this single school case study was to examine the structures
and systems in place at high poverty schools that contribute to high student
achievement, specifically, how they are implemented and maintained. The case
study sought to examine the role instructional leaders play in cultivating effective
school wide classroom instruction in a high performing, high poverty urban middle
school. Furthermore, this study sought to identify themes emerging from the
examination of the policies and practices associated with improving student
performance at the case study school.
A high performing, high poverty urban middle school in the Los Angeles
County area of California was chosen for this study. The criteria for a high
performing school included maintaining or improving API growth during a three
year period, and sustaining a Similar Schools ranking of 8 or above during that same
three year period. High poverty was defined as schools with 40 percent or more of
their student population on free or reduced price lunch.
The case study was completed using a qualitative research design. Methods
of data collection included observations, interviews and document analysis. A total
of seven teachers, two administrators, a school counselor, and school secretary
participated in the interview process. Within this qualitative design, a process of
triangulating data was incorporated in order to gain a larger picture of the structures
and systems at the school site, and to confirm findings.
ix
Analysis of the data uncovered four major themes associated with increasing
student achievement, including a structured use of data, shared leadership,
collaboration and the establishment of a culture of learning. In addition, practices by
effective instructional leaders designed to provide opportunities for teachers to share
in the decision making process in order to foster collegiality and build capacity were
identified. Implications for policy and practice were also discussed.

1
CHAPTER ONE
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Data compiled from the California Department of Education has shown that
students from poor, urban schools underperform on national and state assessments as
compared to students from more socio-economically advantaged schools (California
Department of Education, 2010). Historically, high poverty schools have been
associated with low academic achievement. In 1994, the United States Congress
acknowledged that despite the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, whose goal was to equalize educational opportunities for all
students, a sizable gap in the academic achievement between disadvantaged and non-
disadvantaged children persisted (Riddle, 1994). The greatest need for educational
improvement was in schools that served students from low-income families,
especially those with limited English proficiency. Conducted in response to the Civil
Rights Act of 1965, the Equality of Educational Opportunity study, also known as
the Coleman Report, found that school resources had less of an impact on student
achievement than family background, and that the differences among schools with
average resources were not as great as was predicted (Coleman, Campbell, Hobson,
McPartland, Mood, & Weinfeld, 1966). Despite this conclusion, Coleman reported
that American public education in most areas of the country was largely unequal due
to highly segregated schools, in which African-Americans were the most highly
segregated minority population, and minority students consistently scored below
2
non-minority students in academic achievement. The Coleman Report also noted that
students from both low and high socio-economic backgrounds benefitted from a
student body with a higher than average socio-economic status.
In a continued effort to equalize educational opportunities for all American
students, the National Commission on Excellence in Education released a landmark
study in 1983, A Nation at Risk, which concluded that declines in the educational
performance of American students was in large part the result of inadequacies in the
way the educational process was conducted, specifically in the areas of content,
expectations, time, and teaching. The authors of A Nation at Risk made several
recommendations to address these deficiencies including: strengthening state and
local graduation requirements, with minimum coursework requirements in math,
English, science, and social studies; adopting more rigorous and measurable
standards, and higher expectations for student conduct and academic achievement;
devoting more time to learning which would require a more effective use of the
school day and academic year; and preparing teachers to meet high educational
standards and demonstrate competency in an academic discipline. A Nation at Risk
also recommended that American citizens hold educators and elected officials
responsible for providing the leadership necessary to enact the proposed reforms, as
well as provide fiscal support.
In an effort to provide extra assistance to disadvantaged students, as well as
hold schools accountable for the academic performance of these students at the same
level as non-disadvantaged students, several pieces of federal legislation were
3
authorized over a 40-year period beginning with the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). ESEA was created to provide federal funding to the
neediest students and schools (McLaughlin & Milbery, 1975). Eventually, ESEA
was reauthorized as the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 with the purpose
of enabling schools with high concentrations of students from high poverty
backgrounds to provide the knowledge and skills necessary for students to meet
challenging State content standards (Department of Education, 1994).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was implemented in
response to the under-achievement of students from low income, minority schools.
The purpose of NCLB was to ensure that all children have a “fair, equal, and
significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum,
proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic
assessments” (U. S. Department of Education, 2004). Furthermore, NCLB held
individual states and local educational agencies (local schools and districts)
accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, as well as
identifying and turning around low performing schools that fail to provide a high
quality education for their students. In response to this demand for accountability,
the State of California, implemented an accountability system based on annual
assessments of student achievement. With the intent of increasing overall school
performance, this accountability system was characterized by four primary
components: instructional goals in the form of content standards, measures of
performance such as annual assessments, targets for performance such as the
4
Academic Performance Index (API), and consequences derived from the success or
failure to meet the targets (Hamilton, 2003). California schools that fail to meet their
API targets for two consecutive years can be placed on probationary status known as
Program Improvement (PI). Program Improvement can lead to sanctions such as
school choice for parents, restructuring of the school’s internal organization, or state
takeover (California Department of Education, 2009).
Since the adoption of the NCLB Act in 2001 there has been some evidence of
improved student performance in low-income schools. Many high poverty schools
have successfully attained high academic achievement, despite long-standing trends
of under-achievement. Researchers have shown that students in areas of high
poverty were capable of achieving academic success despite socio-economic status
(Masumoto & Brown-Welty, 2009). According to research conducted by the Center
for Performance Assessment, The 90/90/90 Schools: A Case Study high poverty
schools, characterized by a 90% student eligibility rate for free and reduced lunch
and 90% student ethnic minority rate, have met high academic standards with 90%
of their students as measured by independent assessments (Reeves, 2000). Similar
results were reported by Waits and Campbell (2006) in a study of Arizona
elementary and middle schools conducted for the Center for the Future of Arizona.
Students in high poverty, mostly Latino, urban schools were consistently shown to
out score comparison schools with similar demographics in third grade reading and
eighth grade math tests.
5
According to current educational research, high poverty schools that have
been able to promote high academic achievement have demonstrated organizational
structures and systems such as a focus on instruction and high academic expectations
that support student performance. Marzano (2003) concluded that effective schools
have a substantial impact on student achievement and provided interventions that
were designed to overcome characteristics in the students’ backgrounds that might
interfere with learning. Reeves (2000) identified five characteristics common to all
“90/90/90 Schools”: a focus on academic achievement, clear curriculum choices,
frequent assessment of student progress, as well as multiple opportunities for
improvement, and emphasis on writing; and external scoring of assessments. Waits
and Campbell (2006) also identified six factors that contribute to student
achievement in low income schools: a clear bottom line, ongoing assessment, a
strong and steady principal, collaborative solutions, sticking with a program, and
built to suit intervention.
Statement of the Problem
Current research on education leadership clearly states that effective
leadership makes a difference for student achievement yet there are still many
underperforming, low-income schools. Matusomo and Brown-Welty (2009)
determined that effective leadership was found to be an important factor for student
achievement and school success. They concluded that common contributors to
student success in high performing, high poverty schools included a focus on
improving instruction, setting standards, and raising expectations, in which school
6
leaders maintained a school-wide focus on instruction and high expectations, and
capitalized on strengths of teachers to enhance student outcomes.
There still remains, however, the question of the extent to which educational
leadership directly affects student achievement. Despite the fact that effective
leadership was found to be an important factor for student achievement and school
performance, the relationship between principal behaviors and student achievement
remains unclear. What was not clearly known was the influence instructional
leadership has on the structures and systems that exist in high performing, high
poverty schools that cultivate effective classroom instruction and contribute to
student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the school wide structures and
systems that are in place to impact teaching and student achievement in high
performing, high poverty schools. For this study, the school wide structures were
identified as the institutional mechanisms, policies and procedures implemented by
federal, state, or district mandates implemented at the school site. Systems were
identified for this study as the use of resources such as instructional time, personnel,
funds, or facilities, at the school site that ensure a school’s mission, vision, and goals
were met.
This research study set out to identify the structures and systems
implemented by effective instructional leaders to ensure student achievement in high
poverty schools. The goal of this study was to provide suggestions for best practices
7
in similar, high poverty schools and to contribute to a larger body of knowledge as to
the role instructional leaders play in ensuring student achievement.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following three research questions:
1. What are perceived school wide structures and systems that contribute to
high achievement in high poverty schools?
2. How are organizational structures and systems implemented and
sustained to support higher levels of student achievement?
3. How do instructional leaders cultivate effective school wide classroom
instruction?
The Significance of the Study
This case study was designed to increase the understanding of the effect
school leaders have on student achievement. While much literature exists on the
general effects leadership has on student achievement, there is much less literature
on the specific effects leadership has on student achievement in high poverty, high
performing schools. This case study’s results, orchestrated with the other
dissertation teams’ research findings from other high poverty, high achieving urban
schools will add to the knowledge of structures and systems shown to contribute to
student achievement. This case study was conducted to address the need for further
research into the high academic achievement of high poverty schools.
Instructional leaders, either administrators or teachers, at high poverty, under-
achieving schools will benefit from the results of this study by examining best
8
practices implemented by their colleagues at similar high poverty, high performing
schools. Instructional leaders will be able to identify specific behaviors and practices
that may be transferred to their own schools in order to promote student
achievement. District level administrators will also benefit from the knowledge
provided by this study by recognizing specific behaviors attributed to successful
school leaders. This knowledge can guide district level leaders to enact policy and
provide support to school leaders in implementing these behaviors. This research
will also contribute to the existing body of knowledge on the impact effective
leadership has on student achievement by focusing specifically on the role leaders at
high poverty, high performing schools have on student achievement.
Limitations
The following limitations which prohibited generalizations of the findings
were determined by the doctoral thematic group who were focusing on instruction in
high poverty, high achieving schools:
• Small sample size - due to time constraints, the sample size consisted of a
single middle school,
• The Halo Effect – due to the tendency for self-reported data to be more
favorable than data collected objectively, and
• Self-selection - due to teachers and administrators volunteering to
participate in the study.
9
Delimitations
The following delimitations were determined by the doctoral thematic group
who were focusing on instruction in high poverty, high achieving schools:
• Limited 10 week time frame of the study,
• Selection criteria, including API scores for the past three academic years,
percent of students on free or reduced lunch, similar schools ranking, and
school size of the schools involved in the study,
• Instruments used to gather data, including interviews, observations, and
document analysis, and
• Geographic location of the school, Southern California, involved in the
study.
Definitions
The following definitions were gathered from the California Department of
Education and Ed Source in combination with the dissertation committee’s
operational definitions.
Academic Performance Index (API): According to the 2008-2009 Academic
Performance Index Reports of the California Department of Education, API
measures the academic performance and progress of schools. It was part of the
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. API scores range from a low of 200 to a
high of 1000. The API target for all schools is 800.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): According to the 2009 Annual Yearly
Progress Report Information Guide of the California Department of Education, AYP
10
is an accountability system mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to
monitor annual academic performance goals. It requires each state to ensure that all
schools and Local Educational Agency (LEA) make Adequate Yearly Progress. AYP
criteria encompass four areas: participation rate, percent proficient, API as an
additional indicator for AYP, and graduation rate.
High Performing Schools: are defined by the thematic group as schools
which have an API of 750 or above, and/or consistent growth in API scores over the
last three academic school years.
High Poverty Schools: are defined by the thematic group as schools where
more than 40 percent of students receive free and reduced priced lunch.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) of 1965 was reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
The focus of NCLB was to increase accountability, focus on research-based
practices, provide quality education and empower parents.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC): Per EdSource, the “School
Accountability Report Card (SARC) was identified as an annual report on specified
aspects of a school's operation, which is required as part of Proposition 98”. Other
state legislation and the federal No Child Left Behind Act also require SARCs.
Similar School Ranking: Per the California Department of Education, this
information shows where a school ranks academically on a scale of one to ten
compared with other schools statewide as well as compared with 100 other schools
that have similar demographic characteristics (similar schools rank).
11
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: Per EdSource, “Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged” was defined as students whose parents do not have a high school
diploma or students who participate in the free/reduced price meal program because
of low family income.
Structures: as defined by the thematic group, structures are instructional
mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in place by federal state or district policy
and legislation or widely accepted as the official structure of schools; not subject to
change at the local school site.
Systems: as defined by the thematic group, systems are coordinated and
coherent use of resources (time, personnel, students, parents, funds, facilities, etc.) at
the school site to ensure that school visions, missions, and goals are met.
Organization of the Study
Chapter One of this study provided an overview of the study, including a
historical background of the under-achievement of low-income students,
identification of the problem of under-achievement of low-income students, and the
purpose of the study which was to identify the structures and systems in place in high
poverty, high achieving schools, in order to transfer those practices to similar under-
achieving schools. Chapter Two reviews the salient research on the effect
instructional leaders have on student achievement. Chapter Three provides the
research methodology used in the study including the study’s sample, conceptual
model, instrumentation used, data collection processes and data analysis. Chapter
Four presents the results of the study, and discusses the answers for each of the
12
guiding research questions, followed by the identification of the major themes
deduced from the results. Chapter Five summarizes the findings, presents the
conclusions, and discusses the implications of the study. Recommendations for
further areas of study are also provided. The study concludes with references and
appendices.
13
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
For the most disadvantaged children, improvements in school quality
will make the most difference in achievement. (Coleman, 1966, p. 21)

Introduction
The term “educational leader” has been defined as "an individual (or, rarely,
a set of individuals) who significantly affects the thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors
of a significant number of individuals” (Gardner, 2010). Leadership itself is a
process that involves influence and purpose, and requires interactions and
relationships among people to assist organizations, and the people associated with
them, in achieving desired goals (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). In
education, leadership can play a primary role in closing the gap in academic
performance between traditionally minority children from low socio-economic
backgrounds and their non-minority counterparts from higher socio-economic
backgrounds (Masumoto & Brown-Welty, 2009).
Educational literature shows that there is a substantial relationship between
leadership and student achievement, and effective school leaders know how to
combine the knowledge and skills required to create a learning environment which
supports all stakeholders and provides the resources necessary for student
achievement (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). According to Marzano (2003),
effective schools have a substantial impact on student achievement and provide
interventions that are designed to overcome characteristics in the students’
14
backgrounds that might interfere with learning. Specifically, Waters, et al. (2003)
have identified over 20 specific leadership responsibilities, including order and
focus, communication and input, and culture significantly correlated with student
achievement and can be aligned to the practices of effective school leaders.
Researchers such as Marzano (2003) and Waters, et al. (2003) have
demonstrated that there are organizational structures and systems that promote high
academic achievement in schools with high-poverty levels. Such structures,
previously defined as policies or procedures that have been implemented by federal,
state, or district policy and legislation, include the Title I section of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
The primary purpose of both pieces of legislation was to improve the education of
students from low-income families (McLaughlin & Milbery, 1975; U. S. Department
of Education, 2004).
Systems were previously defined as the coordinated and coherent use of
resources at the school site to ensure that school visions, missions, and goals are met.
Systems related to leadership practices within high-poverty, high-performing schools
include the role of the instructional leader, collective leadership among key staff and
administration, collaboration among staff and administration, and the culture of
learning at the school.
The purpose of this chapter is to review the current literature regarding
educational leadership, which provided the basis of this study. This chapter is
organized around the themes that emerged from the literature such as the direct and
15
indirect effects of leadership on student achievement, the effects of collective
leadership on student achievement, and the effects of leadership on teacher efficacy
and the culture of learning. The first section will summarize the history of
educational reform legislation in the United States over the last 50 years. The second
section will examine the role of instructional leadership as it relates to principal
behaviors and shared leadership; both are structures that are important to ensuring
high academic achievement. The third section will explore the systems that serve as
vehicles for using shared leadership to create a climate of collaboration and a culture
of learning.
Historical Background of Educational Reform Legislation
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
The effort to equalize the educational opportunities between students from
low-poverty and high-poverty backgrounds has lead to the enactment of several
pieces of federal legislation over the last fifty years aimed at lowering what has been
termed the “achievement gap”. In general, the achievement gap can be described as
the difference in academic performance between students from low socio-economic
environments compared to students from higher socio-economic environments, and
between minority and non-minority students (McCall, Hauser, Cronin, Kingsbury, &
Ronald, 2006). The first piece of important legislation aimed at reducing the gap in
academic performance between high-poverty and low-poverty students was the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) was created as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on
16
Poverty to provide federal funding to the neediest students and schools (McLaughlin
& Milbery, 1975). ESEA established, for the first time, a partnership between
federal, state and local governments to “confront poverty and its damaging effects by
targeting federal aid to poor students and schools” (Ohio Education Association,
2007). ESEA contained six sections authorizing funds for professional development,
instructional materials, resources to support education programs and promoting
parental involvement: Title I—Financial Assistance To Local Educational Agencies
For The Education Of Children Of Low-Income Families, Title II—School Library
Resources, Textbooks, and other Instructional Materials, Title III—Supplementary
Educational Centers and Services, Title IV—Educational Research And Training,
Title V—Grants To Strengthen State Departments Of Education, and Title VI—
General Provisions (Jeffrey, 1978). Title I of ESEA was a set of programs
established by the United States Department of Education to specifically distribute
funding to K-12 schools and school districts with a high percentage of students from
low-income families (McLaughlin & Milbery, 1975). Currently, schools qualify as a
Title I school if 40% or more of their students come from families that are designated
as low-income (U. S. Department of Education, 2010).
The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994
In 1994, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as
the Improving America’s School Act (IASA). IASA focused resources on four key
elements of education improvement: high standards for all students; teachers better
trained for teaching to high standards; flexibility to stimulate local reform, coupled
17
with accountability for results; and close partnerships among families, communities,
and schools (U. S. Department of Education, 1995). In the Statement of Policy for
Title 1 of IASA, Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards, the United
States Congress expressed that a “high-quality education for all individuals and a fair
and equal opportunity to obtain that education are a societal good and a moral
imperative, and improve the life of every individual, because the quality of our
individual lives ultimately depends on the quality of the lives of others” (U. S.
Department of Education, 1995).
The U.S. Congress recognized that although the achievement gap between
disadvantaged children and other children had been drastically reduced since the
passage of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, a sizable
gap remained (Riddle, 1994). Congress also recognized that the most urgent need
for educational improvement was in schools with a high concentration of children
from low-income families, especially children from high-poverty schools, children
with limited English proficiency, and children with disabilities, as well as others.
Finally, Congress acknowledged that educational improvement would not be
possible without substantial improvement in schools; and that programs funded by
Title I, designed to enable all children to achieve high standards, needed to become
even more effective in improving schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). In
response to these recognized needs, the reauthorized IASA focused on changing the
way education was delivered to children, promoting comprehensive school reform at
all levels, upgrading professional development to align with high standards,
18
improving accountability, and promoting the coordination of resources to improve
education for all children (Riddle, 1994).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
In 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was
reauthorized in the form of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB was
touted as the cornerstone of President George W. Bush’s administration and
incorporated the principles and strategies proposed by President Bush. These
strategies included increased accountability for states, school districts, and schools;
greater choice for parents and students attending low-performing schools; a stronger
emphasis on reading; and more flexibility for states and local educational agencies
(LEAs) in the use of federal education money (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
In an effort to strengthen Title I accountability, NCLB required states to
implement statewide accountability systems for all public schools and students. This
statewide accountability system must be based upon challenging state standards in
various content areas including math, language arts, science and social studies.
States must also implement annual testing for all students in grades 3-8 in order to
ensure that all groups of students reach proficiency on statewide objectives within 12
years (Hamilton, 2003). To ensure that no group was left behind, assessment results
must be broken down by socio-economic levels, race, ethnicity, disability, and
limited English proficiency. Schools and school districts are expected to make
adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals. Those schools
or districts that do not make AYP can be subjected to corrective actions and
19
restructuring measures in order to get them back on track to meet state standards,
while schools that meet or exceed AYP, or close achievement gaps can be eligible
for State Academic Achievement Awards (Abernathy, 2007).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 significantly increased the choices of
parents and students attending schools designated as Title I that failed to meet state
standards. Local school agencies must give students and parents the opportunity to
attend a more successful public school, including public charter schools, within the
school district and provide transportation (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
School districts must also permit students attending persistently failing schools to use
Title I funds to supplement educational services from public or private sector
educational providers that meet state standards (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2008). NCLB also provided states and school districts with flexibility
in the use of federal education moneys, as well as initiated a Reading First program
in which scientifically based instructional strategies were utilized in order to “help
young children to attain the fundamental knowledge and skills they will need for
optimal reading development in kindergarten and beyond” (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004, p. 3). Finally, NCLB required states to develop Teacher Quality
programs that utilized scientifically based research practices to prepare, train, and
recruit high quality teachers.
Effective Schools Movement
In response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Coleman and colleagues (1966)
conducted the landmark Equality of Educational Opportunity study; also know as the
20
Coleman Report, to determine the extent to which equal educational opportunities
were available to students of varying race, color, religion and national origin. Three
key findings emerged from the Coleman Report: public schools were highly
segregated by racial and ethnic groups; a gap in academic achievement existed
between Black and White students; and school resources had little effect on
academic achievement once the socio-economic background of the student was
controlled for (Gamoran & Long, 2006). The effects of school resources on student
achievement was correlated by a 1972 study by Jenks et al. (as cited in Gamoran &
Long, 2006) who found that the resources of educational institutions could not
address the disparity between minority and non-minority students as long as
inequalities remained between parents’ income, occupational status, and education.
Despite the finding that school resources had little effect on academic
achievement, Coleman (1968) concluded that schools differ in the degree of impact
they have on student achievement. A school’s strengths and weaknesses have less of
an effect on non-minority student achievement than on minority student achievement
(Coleman, 1966). In other words, the achievement of minority students depends
more on the schools they attend than does the achievement of non-minority students
(Coleman, 1966). The results of Coleman’s study (1966) imply that “improving the
schools of a minority pupil will increase his achievement more than will improving
the school of a white child increase his” (p.21), and similarly “the average minority
pupil’s achievement will suffer more in a school of low quality than will the average
white pupil’s” (p. 21). Coleman’s 1966 Equality of Education Opportunity study
21
instigated a re-evaluation of the concept of equal education by focusing on results
(Gamoran & Long, 2006):
A fourth type of inequality may be defined in terms of consequences of the
school for individuals with equal backgrounds and abilities. In this
definition, equality of educational opportunity is equality of results, given the
same individual input (Coleman, 1968, p. 14, as cited in Gamoran & Long,
2006).

Equal opportunities of education were subsequently associated with the equity of
results instead of differences in educational expenditures (Gamoran & Long, 2006).
The Coleman Study (1966) and the succeeding work by Jenks et al. (1972)
laid the groundwork for subsequent research on school improvement projects such as
the effective schools movement which was based on the premise that schools should
be effective in providing students with the skills necessary to become contributing
members of society (Mace-Matluck, 1987). Several prominent researchers
contributed to the development of the effective schools movement (Mace-Matluck,
1987). Weber (1971) identified several factors affecting student achievement in
inner city, low-income schools: strong leadership, high expectations, orderly
climate, careful evaluation of student progress, and emphasis on reading. In a study
of outlier elementary schools in Detroit, either high-achieving or low-achieving
schools, Lezotte, Edmonds, and Ratner (1974) reported that effective schools have
better control or discipline, and high staff expectations for student success. Finally,
Edmond (1979) developed five correlates of effective schools: leadership focused on
the quality of instruction, a pervasive focus on instruction, a safe and orderly climate
that is conducive to teaching and learning, teacher expectation that all students obtain
22
mastery, and student achievement was used to evaluate program effectiveness.
Through the work of educational researchers such as Weber (1971), Lezotte,
Edmonds, and Ratner (1974), and Edmonds (1979) key elements of effective schools
were identified as a focus on student achievement, an emphasis on all students, and a
goal of mastery of basic skills (Mace-Matluck, 1987).
The efforts of the effective schools movement culminated in the publication
of the 2000 Reeves “90/90/90” Study, which identified common characteristics of
high achieving, high poverty schools. Schools that qualified as 90/90/90 schools had
90% of their students eligible for a free or reduced lunch, 90% of their students from
ethnic minority backgrounds, and 90% of their students were high achieving
(Reeves, 2000). Reeves (2000) concluded that high achieving, high poverty schools
shared five common elements: a focus on academic achievement, clear curricular
choices, frequent assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for
improvement, an emphasis on nonfiction writing, and collaborative scoring of
student work. Furthermore, Reeves (2000) found that the techniques used by the
90/90/90 schools were persistent, consistent, and replicable.
Consistent throughout the research of effective schools was the importance of
the strong leadership necessary to build instructional capacity and foster student
achievement. This lead to the establishment of further research on the role
instructional leaders plays in improving student achievement.
23
Direct and Indirect Effects of Educational Leadership
School leaders with moral purpose seek to make a difference in the lives of
students. They are concerned about closing the gap between high-performing
and lower-performing schools and raising the achievement of – and closing
the gap between – high-performing and lower-performing students. (Fulan,
2002, p. 17).

Current educational research has shown that effective school leadership has
an indirect influence on student achievement (Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003;
Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; and Supovits, Sirinidies, &
May, 2009). In their quantitative meta-analysis of recent studies into the effects of
educational leadership on student achievement Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003),
determined that there was no evidence for a direct effect of educational leadership on
student achievement in secondary schools, but instead, educational leaders exerted
an indirect effect on student achievement by improving the learning climate through
teacher job satisfaction, an orientation towards achievement, and through the
evaluation and feedback process. This conclusion was supported by the research of
Walstrom and Louis (2008) on the impact of principal-teacher interactions on
classroom instruction. Walstrom and Louis concluded that, although
transformational leadership behaviors may have had a positive effect on school
climate and teacher efficacy, how these behaviors directly affects classroom
instruction still remains unclear.
Gardner defines indirect leadership as the impact individuals exert through
the works that they create (2010). The effects of educational leadership on student
achievement were mediated by the organization and culture of the school as well as
24
teacher behavior and classroom practices. These findings were supported by
Supovits, Sirinidies, and May (2009), whose research found that principals have an
indirect effect on student achievement through their association with those teachers
who interact with students on a daily basis.
The research clearly shows that the behaviors of educational leaders
influence instructional practice, which impacts student performance. Leaders in high
achieving schools maintain a school-wide focus on instruction and high expectations,
develop multiple support systems for students with varying needs, and capitalize on
strengths of teachers to enhance student outcomes (Masumoto, & Brown-Welty,
2009). School leaders who concentrate on instruction, foster community and trust,
and communicate the school’s mission and goals were reported to have a positive
influence on teachers’ instructional practices, which in turn influences students’
performance (Supovits, et al., 2009). Crucial factors in effective school leadership
were identified as the role principals play in focusing the goals and mission of the
school, and the extent to which leaders actively support instructional improvement
(Supovits, et al., 2009). According to Nettles and Herrington (2007) school
effectiveness can be predicted by the key responsibilities of the educational leader in
maintaining a school-wide focus on critical instructional areas, monitoring school
and student progress, and by communicating expectations for high performance.
Additional educational leadership priorities have been identified as defining and
communicating the school’s educational mission, managing curriculum and
25
instruction, supporting and supervising teaching, monitoring student progress, and
promoting a learning climate (Nettles &Herrington, 2007).
Insufficient evidence exists in current educational research to support the
belief that school leaders have a direct effect on student achievement. Instead, the
research shows that school leaders have an indirect effect on student achievement
through their influence on school systems such as curriculum, instruction, and
teacher practice (Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003; Nettles & Herrington, 2007;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; and Supovits, Sirinidies, & May, 2009). In order to attain
a positive influence on student achievement, school leaders must become effective
instructional leaders (Nettles & Herrington, 2007).
The Effects of Instructional Leadership on Student Achievement
Current trends in educational research have established that educational
leaders have an indirect effect on student achievement through their role as an
instructional leader. According to current research, instructional leaders make
instruction the top priority of the school with a deeper involvement in teaching and
learning, the primary business of schooling (Reitzug, West, & Angel, 2008). As an
instructional leader, the principal creates intellectual and social capacity within their
schools by guiding instruction and professional development (Fink & Resnick,
2001). As a result of a qualitative study in which principals were interviewed to
examine how they viewed themselves as instructional leaders and how their
leadership behaviors impacted teaching and learning, Reitzug, West, and Angel
(2008) classified principals into four categories of instructional leaders: relational
26
instructional leaders in which the principal’s role was to make teachers and students
feel better about themselves in order to try harder and take pride in their work; linear
instructional leaders who developed systems in which one instructional action leads
to a desired outcome, which leads to another outcome, and so on down a causal
chain; organic instructional leaders in which the primary role of the principal was to
develop the leadership capacity within teachers through reflection on instructional
practice and engagement in collaborative discourse; and prophetic instructional
leaders where the principal’s role was to develop a democratic learning community
in which the staff examined the purpose of education and actively critiqued
curriculum, instruction, and the educational function of the school. Although the
linear instructional leader was the most responsive to the current trend of standards
and high-stakes testing, the organic instructional leader was most consistent with
successful schools, “in these schools, there is extensive shared discussion and work
among teachers and other school staff. Specifically, these schools are characterized
by the de-privatization of practice; frequent and sustained dialogue focus on
pedagogy and school practice; continuous improvement resulting from ongoing
inquiry, analysis, evaluation, and experimentation; and frequent and mutual
observation and critique of teaching” (Reitzug, et al., 2008, p 705). Reitzug, West,
and Angel (2008) have shown, instructional leaders impact teaching and learning in a
variety of ways, yet the most effective instructional leaders tend to focus on the
school systems that encourage shared instructional practices and collegiality among
staff.
27
The Effects of Collective Leadership on Student Achievement
Contemporary literature on educational leadership has shown that higher
achieving schools demonstrate a trend towards shared or collective leadership
(McDonald & Keedy, 2002; Liethwood & Mascall, 2008; Mascall, Leithwood,
Straus, & Sacks, 2008; and Robinson, 2008). According to McDonald and Keedy
(2002), the movement toward accountability for student achievement made
collective leadership and shared decision-making essential, and the role of principals
was to act as analytical guides who provided resources and support to teachers, and
“worked together with teachers to monitor progress toward accomplishment of
common goals” (p. 13). McDonald and Keedy (2002) concluded that shared
accountability led to shared leadership, which determined how information was
shared in the context of school-wide accountability for all students. Robinson (2008)
found a strong association between the level to which principals were involved in
teacher’s instructional networks and overall school performance. Leithwood and
Mascall (2008) examined the impact of shared leadership on teacher instruction and
student achievement, specifically the influence of each member of the collective
leadership team on school decision-making practices. Their research found that
school decisions were influenced by a variety of individuals reflecting a dispersed
concept of leadership, including school administration and teachers, as well as
students and parents. Additionally, Leithwood and Mascall (2008) found that the
more formalized the leadership expectations were, the greater was the influence and
28
consequently, therefore those in traditional leadership roles were highly influential in
high performing schools.
Leithwood, Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Memon, and Yashkina, (2007) identified
patterns of shared leadership that “reflect the extent to which the performance of
leadership functions is consciously aligned across the sources of leadership, and the
degree to which the approach is either planned or spontaneous” (p. 215). In the
pattern of planful alignment, the members of the leadership organization have given
prior, planful thought to the tasks or functions they provide to the school. This
pattern of reflective planning has been associated with positive effects for the school
(Leithwood, et al., 2007). In contrast, leadership tasks and functions were distributed
with little or no planning for the leadership pattern of spontaneous alignment, which
was found to make long term achievement difficult to sustain. Accordingly, the
tasks and functions of leadership associated with patterns of misalignment, either
spontaneous or anarchic, are contradictory to the school as a whole. Planned
approaches to shared leadership have been associated with high degrees of academic
optimism by teachers, while unplanned approaches have been associated with low
levels of teacher optimism (Mascall, Leithwood, Straus, & Sacks, 2008). They
identify academic optimism as a combination of three teacher beliefs: trust,
collective efficacy, and academic emphasis (2008). Ultimately, trust encouraged
collective decision-making, and improved the likelihood that educational reform was
widespread with demonstrative improvements in student learning (Mascall, et al.,
2008).
29
Building leadership capacity was a vital feature of successfully sustaining
school improvement (Williams, 2009). According to Williams (2009) high
achieving schools build leadership capacity by incorporating the right people with
the correct training, professionalism, and drive into the right positions of leadership,
and into the decision making process for the school. Williams (2009) also asserts
that the decision making process must be based on an inquiry- based use of
information to inform practice, including a focus on research based instruction, as
well as reflection and education innovation. The role of the principal was to create
structures and time for teachers to lead, by establishing systems that define the roles
and responsibilities of the leadership team (Williams, 2009).
Principal Behaviors and Teacher Efficacy
Leadership behaviors by principals have been shown to have a significant
impact on teachers’ attitudes and performance, as demonstrated by the work of
Mascal, et al. (2008) who ascertained that effective communication, clear vision,
consistency between words and actions, and competent management skills encourage
trust between principals and teachers. Blasé and Blasé (2000) determined that
teachers reported positive effects on motivation, satisfaction, self-esteem, efficacy,
sense of security, teacher reflection, better instruction, and feelings of support from
positive dialogue with principals. They concluded that principals who are attempting
to develop as effective instructional leaders should work to integrate reflection and
growth into the school’s systems in order to build a school culture capable of
critically examining instructional practices so as to promote student achievement.
30
The study found that teachers reported the same positive effects that were associated
with positive dialogue, were also associated with effective principals who promoted
professional growth by emphasizing the study of teaching and learning, supporting
collaboration efforts among educators, as well as developing relationships among
educators (Blasé & Blasé, 2000).
In an investigation into the variables that affect the nature of relationships
among teachers and school leaders, Walstrom and Louis (2008) determined that
leadership practices that share power created greater motivation, increased trust and
risk taking, and built a sense of community and efficacy among its members. The
teachers’ perceptions of the effects of principal leadership on classroom instruction
were particularly affected (Walstrom & Louis, 2008). They concluded that
expanding decision-making processes in schools to include non-administrative
leaders was an important step in lasting efforts to improve instruction.
In an examination of the influence that instructional leaders, either teachers
or administrators, have on other teachers in high-achieving, high-poverty schools,
Murley, Keedy, and Welsh (2008) found that collegial trust was a prerequisite for the
exchange of instructional influence and the emergence of assertive, instructionally
knowledgeable teachers. They also found that principals must exhibit instructional
knowledge in order to have information that was perceived as highly valuable by the
teachers. Murley, et al. (2008), noted that “for these interactions that resonated with
instructional influence to occur, teachers and principals must posses something that
others perceives as highly valuable for improving student outcomes” (p. 396). In the
31
exchange of influence between principals and teachers, as well as between teachers
and teachers, the instructional capacity of the school was built through instructional
improvement efforts initiated by both the principal and the teachers which led to
enhanced classroom instruction (Murley, et al., 2008). Ultimately, when instructional
leadership was depicted by an atmosphere of collaboration and trust, and a focus on
instructional improvement, an environment where teachers work together to
constructively engage with each other on issues of teaching and learning emerged
(Supovits, et al., 2009).
The Effects of Leadership on the Culture of Learning
Collaboration among the instructional leaders and staff of high performing
schools was imperative in order to establish a positive, productive school climate,
which enhances the learning environment (Styron, & Nyman, 2008). According to
Devos (2009) successful school leaders perform a key role in the development of
strong, effective school climates: “Effective leaders are committed, able to motivate
staff and students, and able to create and maintain conditions necessary for the
building of professional learning communities within schools” (p. 177).
Consequently, Devos (2009) also found that principals who work in climates that
stimulate professional learning are considered, in general, strong leaders by their
staff. Fulan (2002) connected teacher morale and student learning to the ability of
leaders to transform the culture of the school. He asserted that leaders who were
able to create a fundamental transformation of the learning culture of the school were
able to improve teachers’ working conditions and morale, which in turn, improved
32
the energy and instructional capacity of the teachers. Energized teachers, according
to Fulan (2002) enabled deeper student learning by encouraging problem solving and
thinking skills, and by nurturing motivated and engaged learners.
In a 2008 study, Styron and Nyman compared student achievement in low-
performing and high-performing middle schools in order to investigate differences in
school climate, school health, organizational structures, and instructional practices.
They determined that leaders of high performing schools established a learning
climate of honesty, communication and risk-taking that cultivated supportive
relationships among staff. Styron and Nyman (2008) further found that school
leaders of high performing schools provided ongoing professional development to
“increase teacher knowledge, confidence, and skill in teaching adolescent learners”
(p. 12). By providing a safe environment in which teachers were allowed to share
ideas and utilize innovative techniques and strategies, principals were able to ensure
that the diverse need of all learners were met, which expectedly lead to the elevation
of student performance (Styron & Nyman, 2008). Professional learning
communities and the relationships they built were essential for information to
become knowledge through the social process of sharing (Fulan, 2002). Ultimately,
as stated by Styron and Nyman (2008), effective instructional leaders should
recognize the importance of teacher relationships and their impact on student
achievement and provide opportunities for teachers to interact. Instructional leaders
should also build relationships among diverse groups, especially among people who
think differently (Fulan, 2002).
33
Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, and Porter (2006) introduced five themes to
augment the concept of organizational culture: production emphasis, accountability,
continuous improvement, safe and orderly learning environment, and personalized
community. In the context of education, leaders of high-performing schools created
an environment of high performance expectations for both staff and students while
holding teachers, students, and themselves accountable for learning (Murphy et al.,
2006). Learning centered leaders, as designated by Murphy et al. (2006), established
clearly defined, well-communicated school-wide academic and behavioral standards,
which were then translated into the school structure (Murphy et al., 2006). Systems
were created to support staff, challenge teachers to think critically about their
instruction, and promote an atmosphere of collaboration (Murphy et al., 2006). In
order to facilitate continuous improvement in student achievement, learning centered
leaders also ensured that structures and systems were regularly reviewed and
modified to guarantee the most productive strategies were in place (Murphy et al.,
2006).
Maslowski (2006, as cited in Dumay, 2009) identified three aspects of
effective school or organizational culture as content, homogeneity, and strength. The
cultural content of an organization described the basic assumptions, norms, and
values shared by the members of the organization, while the cultural homogeneity
referred to the extent to which members of the organization shared these basic
assumptions, norms, and values (Malowski, 2006, as cited in Dumay, 2009). The
strength of the culture described the extent to which the shared assumptions, norms,
34
and values influenced the behaviors of the organizational members (Malowski, 2006,
as cited in Dumay, 2009). Dumay (2009) referred to Maslowki’s (2006) three
aspects of culture as “cultural homogeneity” which was important to the success of
high poverty schools. Dumay (2009) suggested that high poverty schools with
strong cultures were more effective than high poverty schools with weak cultures,
and that cultural homogeneity moderated the relationship between schools’ cultural
values and academic achievement. Williams (2009) recommended establishing
structures and systems within the school for “the betterment of culture, climate, and
student achievement” (p. 32).
An examination of the literature revealed that effective instructional leaders
have a significant impact on the learning culture of the school (Murphy, et al., 2006;
Styron, & Nyman, 2008; Devos, 2009; and Dumay, 2009). Successful leaders
created a safe, climate of learning by establishing structures and systems that
supported communication, risk-taking and professional growth.
Summary of the Literature Review
A review of educational literature has shown that effective instructional
leaders can make a significant impact on student achievement through their
influences on teacher performance and the learning culture of the school (Fulan,
2002; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003; Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Styron &
Nyman, 2008; and Supovits, Sirinidies, & May, 2009). As studies have shown,
effective school leaders were able to establish organizational structures and systems
that promote high academic achievement in schools with high-poverty levels
35
(Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003; Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Leithwood & Jantzi,
2008; and Supovits, et al., 2009). Yet despite this knowledge, many high-poverty
schools continual to fail.
Historically, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB) was the
culmination of a half-century of education reform legislation that started with the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Ohio Education Association,
2007). Each successive piece of legislation has striven to reduce the gap in academic
achievement between traditionally minority children from low socio-economic
backgrounds and their non-minority counterparts from higher socio-economic
backgrounds (Masumoto & Brown-Welty, 2009). Notably, the Title I section of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) established programs to equitably
distribute federal funding to K-12 schools and districts that primarily serve students
from low-income families (McLaughlin & Milbery, 1975). The next step in
legislation aimed at reducing the achievement gap was the Improving America’s
Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) which focused on establishing high standards for all
students, improved teacher training, accountability, and partnerships among schools,
families, and communities (Riddle, 1994). Ultimately, IASA was reauthorized in
2001 as NCLB with the intent of increasing accountability for student achievement
and providing greater choice for parents and students attending low-performing
schools (Abernathy, 2007).
Inspired by the findings of landmark research into the equality of public
education by Coleman (1966), Weber, (1971), Jenks, et al. (1972), Lezotte, et al.
36
(1974), and Edmonds (1979), the effective schools movement developed alongside
federal legislation aimed at reducing the achievement gap. The goals of the effective
schools movement were to focus on the academic achievement of all students,
especially in the mastery of basic skills (Mace-Matluck, 1987). The importance of
strong academic leadership capable of building instructional capacity and fostering
student achievement emerged from the effective schools movement, and prompted
further research into the role of instructional leaders in student success.
With increasing pressure for accountability and improved student
performance, the role of the instructional leader has taken on an even greater
importance. Numerous research studies have clearly illustrated that leaders have an
indirect effect on student achievement through their influence on teacher practices,
and their responsibilities in maintaining a school-wide focus on instruction and
student progress (Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003; Nettles & Herrington, 2007;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; and Supovits, Sirinidies, & May, 2009). The literature
also showed that school leaders were most effective as instructional leaders when
they created instructional and social capacity in their schools by guiding instruction,
professional development, and collegiality among staff (Fink & Resnick, 2001;
Reitzug, West & Angel, 2008).
The need for accountability has also lead to the necessity to share leadership
responsibilities and decision-making duties among key staff members (McDonald &
Keedy, 2002). Leithwood, et al. (2007) found that when shared leadership
responsibilities were planned, levels of teacher optimism improved, as well as levels
37
of trust, collective efficacy and an emphasis on academics. According to Williams
(2009) the role of the effective leader was to ensure that those people with the
appropriate training, professionalism and drive were incorporated into positions of
leadership, in addition to creating school-wide structures and systems that defined
the roles and responsibilities of the leadership team.
As multiple studies have demonstrated, the behaviors of effective
instructional leaders have considerable influence on teacher efficacy and the learning
culture of the school (Blasé & Blasé, 2000; Fulan, 2002; Mascal, et al., 2008; Styron
& Nyman, 2008; and Supovits, et al., 2009). Principals and leaders who clearly
communicated vision and expectations, as well as demonstrated consistency between
words and actions and competent management skills, encouraged trust, motivation
and efficacy among their staff (Blasé & Blasé, 2000). Similar research has
connected teacher morale and motivation to student achievement and the effects
strong leaders have on both (Fulan, 2002; Styron & Nyman, 2008; and Devos, 2009).
The research showed that by establishing a learning climate in which teachers were
allowed to share ideas and innovative instructional strategies, principals were able to
ensure that the needs of all learners were met and student achievement improved
(Styron & Nyman, 2008). A gap exists though in the literature detailing the explicit
practices of effective instructional leaders in guiding teacher and student
performance in high-poverty, high-achieving schools. Structures and systems
established to promote collaboration, teacher efficacy and collegiality are referred to,
but rarely clearly described.
38
The next section, Chapter Three, will provide the research methodology used
in this study. The study’s sample, conceptual model, instrumentation, data collection
processes, and data analysis will be discussed in depth.
39
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
In the No Child Left Behind era of increased demand for accountability from
the public, parents, and policymakers, educators must strive to identify elements
crucial to continual improvement of student academic performance. Despite the
historical trend of high-poverty schools demonstrating low student achievement,
research has shown that effective instructional leadership makes a significant
contribution to the success of high-poverty, high performing schools (Marzano,
2003; Masumoto & Brown-Welty, 2009: Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). An
increased school wide focus on improving instruction, setting standards, and raising
expectations for students and teachers were found to be common attributes of high-
poverty, high-performing schools, in which successful leaders capitalized on the
strengths of teachers to enhance student performance (Masumoto, & Brown-Welty,
2009).
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine a high-poverty, high performing
urban middle school in order to investigate the leadership structures and systems in
place which impact instruction and student achievement. For this study, the school
wide structures were identified as the institutional mechanisms, policies and
procedures implemented by federal, state, or district mandates at the school site.
Systems were identified as the use of resources such as instructional time, personnel,
40
funds, or facilities, at the school site that ensure that a school’s mission, vision, and
goals are met. Specifically, this research study identified the structures and systems
implemented by effective instructional leaders to ensure student achievement in high
poverty schools.
Research Methodology Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research design, sample and
population, instrumentation, data collection plan, proposed data analysis, ethical
considerations, and limitations of this study. The intent of this study was to
investigate the structure and systems established by effective leaders that contribute
to student achievement in high-poverty, high-performing schools. Student
achievement is connected to the school’s overall Academic Performance Index
(API); therefore schools with high API scores were labeled as high performing
schools. Additionally, the attribute of high-poverty was determined by the
percentage of students that qualify for the National School Lunch Program. A single
middle school in the Cass Unified School District was used to answer three
established research questions.
1. What are perceived school wide structures and systems that contribute to
high achievement in high poverty schools?
2. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support
higher levels of student achievement?
3. How do instructional leaders cultivate effective school wide classroom
instruction?
41
Research Design
A qualitative case study research method was used in this investigation.
Merriam (2009) defined a case study as an “in-depth description and analysis of a
bounded system” (p. 40) in which a bounded system represents a single entity or unit
surrounded by boundaries. According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007) case studies
provide instances of phenomena in real life settings and are looked at from the
perspective of the participants involved with the phenomenon. As a descriptive case
study, the end product will be a rich description of the phenomenon under
investigation (Merriam, 2009). The use of a case study allows the researcher to
uncover knowledge that is concrete, contextual, developed and based on populations
determined by the researcher (Merriam, 2009). Case studies also provide researchers
with the thick descriptions necessary to develop theories and interventions that might
not be obtainable from quantitative research alone (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007).
The decision to investigate a single school site was based on the desire to
gain a rich, in-depth knowledge of the leadership and instructional practices
employed at the site and to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomena of high
poverty, high achieving schools. According to Patton (2002), this study can be most
closely aligned to applied research as it sought to “contribute to knowledge that will
help people understand the nature of the problem” (p. 217). This case study’s results
added to the knowledge of structures and systems shown to contribute to student
achievement, as well as contributed to the existing body of knowledge on the impact
42
effective leadership had on student achievement by focusing specifically on the role
leaders at high poverty, high performing schools have on student achievement.
Sample and Population
A specific set of selection criteria was utilized to identify a middle school to
be used in this single school case study. This section outlines the selection criteria,
the sampling procedure, and participants of this study.
Selection Criteria
The rationale for purposeful sampling is to select cases that are information-
rich that will provide insight into, and in-depth understanding of a specific
phenomenon (Patton, 2002; Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). In order to identify a single,
information-rich high-poverty, high-achieving middle school for this case study, the
following selection criteria was used:
• The middle school had a 2008-2009 API of 750 or above, and/or
consistent growth in API scores for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-
2009 academic school years.
• The middle school had at least 40% or more students qualifying for free
or reduced priced lunch.
• The middle school had a current Similar Schools Ranking of 8 or above,
and a consistent Similar Schools Ranking of 8 or above for the 2006-
2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 academic school years.
• The middle school had a student population of 500 or more.
43
Selection Process
A variety of resources were used to locate a study school that fit the criteria
for this study, including the California Department of Education (CDE) Education
Data Partnership (Ed-Data) and Data Quest websites, as well as the School Digger
and Great Schools websites. Information retrieved from these websites included
Similar School Rankings, school demographic characteristics, and Title I rankings.
Both Great Schools and School Digger websites are used to locate schools using test
scores, rankings, district boundaries, student/teacher ratios, ethnic makeup, and
scores of other useful metrics and information on school performance. Additionally,
the Great Schools website was used to compare the demographics of schools within
the district, city, or nearby areas.
The California Department of Education Ed-Data and Data Quest websites
provided current information on fiscal, demographic, and performance data on
California’s K-12 schools, specifically API and AYP data, as well as Similar School
Rankings, for previous school years (2006 -2009).
Using information obtained from the above resources, a school was identified
as having met the criteria described in the previous section of this chapter. The
principal was initially contacted via email. Upon consent of the school’s
administration and leadership team to participate in this case study, observations and
interviews were scheduled via email and phone calls.
44
Participants
This study involved administrators, the school counselor, the office manager,
and teachers. The principal and assistant principal, school counselor, and six
teachers directly informed this study through semi-structured interviews. The semi-
structured interviews were a mix of “more or less structured interview questions”
(Merriam, 2009, p. 89) used flexibly. Semi-structured interviews consisted largely
of a list of questions to be explored in no pre-determined order, with specific data
required from all respondents (Merriam, 2009). The teachers were members of the
leadership team and/or content area department chairpersons and were self-selected
volunteers. These teachers represented a wide range of teaching experiences.
Overview of the District and School
The middle school selected for this study was Sunflower Middle School.
Sunflower Middle School is located within the Cass Unified School District
(CUSD). CUSD has over 5,000 students in five elementary schools, one 6-8 middle
school, one comprehensive high school, and a continuation high school. The student
population of CUSD consists primarily of Hispanic students (93.3%) with
significantly smaller Asian (1.7%), White (1.6%) and African American (1%)
student populations. Table 1 describes the student ethnicity of CUSD.
45
Table 1: Cass Unified School District: Students by Ethnicity 2008-2009

Enrollment Percent of Total
American Indian 12 0.2%
Asian 88 1.7%
Pacific Islander 7 0.1%
Filipino 53 1.1%
Hispanic 4696 93.3%
African American 52 1%
White 80 1.6%
No Response 45 0.9%
Total 5033 100%

CUSD has a large English Language subgroup, with the majority being
Spanish-speaking, 36.1% of enrolled students, as well as a large socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED) population; 77.9% of CUSD students receive free or reduced
price meals. Table 2 illustrates the populations of English Language Learners and
students receiving free and reduced priced meals for Cass Unified School District.

Table 2: Cass Unified School District Student Data 2008-2009

Number of Students Percent Enrollment
English Learners 1,815 36.1%
Free/Reduced Price Meals 3,919 77.9%
46
Cass Unified School District as a whole is in Program Improvement Year
Three due to its failure to meet 2008-2009 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria
in English Language Arts (ELA) for the Hispanic, or English Learners subgroups,
and ELA and Mathematics for the Students with Disabilities subgroup. Currently,
the overall API is at 732, a sixteen point growth from the previous year.
Sunflower Middle School (SMS) is the only middle school located in the
Cass Unified School District. SMS has a current student population of 739 students,
94.6% of whom are Hispanic, with significantly smaller populations of Asian
students (1.5%), White students (0.9%) and African American Students (0.9%).
Table 3 described the student ethnicity of Sunflower Middle School.

Table 3: Sunflower Middle School Students by Ethnicity 2008-2009

Enrollment Percent of Total
American Indian 2 0.3%
Asian 11 1.5%
Pacific Islander 3 0.4%
Filipino 5 0.7%
Hispanic 699 94.6%
African American 7 0.9%
White 7 0.9%
No Response 5 0.7%
Total 739 100%
47
Sunflower Middle School has a large English Language subgroup, with the
majority being Spanish-speaking (33%), as well as a large socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED) population, 84.2% of Sunflower students receive free or
reduced priced meals. Due to its high SED population, Sunflower Middle School
has been designated as a school-wide Title I school. Table 4 illustrates the
populations of English Language Learners and students receiving free and reduced
priced meals for Sunflower Middle School.

Table 4: Sunflower Middle School Student Data 2008-2009

Number of Students Percent Enrollment
English Learners 244 33%
Free/Reduced Price Meals 622 84.2%
Title I Yes, School-wide Plan N/A

Sunflower Middle School has a current API of 800 with a 17 point growth
from the previous year, with a Similar School Ranking of 10. Sunflower Middle
School has demonstrated steady, consistent API growth over the past several years;
in 2008 the API was 774 with a 39 point growth, in 2007 the API was 735 with a 20
point growth, and in 2006 the API was 721 with a 38 point growth. Table 5
illustrates the API growth of Sunflower Middle School over the past several school
years.
48
Table 5: Sunflower Middle School API

Academic
Year Base API API Growth API
Similar Schools
Ranking
2009 783 17 800 10
2008 735 39 774 10
2007 715 20 735 10
2006 683 38 721 10

Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework (Figure 1) was developed by the dissertation
thematic group to guide the investigation of school-wide structures and systems that
contribute to high academic performance in high-poverty schools. Merriam, (2009)
described the conceptual framework as the underlying structure or frame for the
study that drew upon the “concepts, terms, definitions, models, and theories of a
particular literature base and disciplinary orientation” (p. 67). Furthermore, Merriam
(2009) explained that the framework would generate research questions, data
collection and analysis, and interpretations of the findings. The conceptual
framework developed to guide this study was based on the Logic Model by McDavid
and Hawthorn (2006) which was designed to assess the effectiveness of a program,
or in this case a school (Figure 1).
49
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Used for the Case Study

The Logic Model has six parts: 1) needs 2) objective 3) input 4) activities 5)
output 6) actual outcomes. For this study, the needs were based on the particular
needs of the target population to close the achievement gap between high poverty
and low poverty schools. The objectives, based on the needs of the population, were
to have a high-poverty, high-performing school. The inputs in this study were the
structures of the school. The structures in the study are policies, such as NCLB and
State Standards, and structures within the school, such as the master calendar. The
50
systems within the study are socio-cultural learning activities within professional
learning experiences. The focus, or outputs, of this study was the change in teacher
beliefs. Finally, the actual outcomes were the impact the structures and systems had
on the output. The goal in assessing a program was to confirm that the outcomes
have met the objective of the program. If the outcomes have met the objective, the
program is labeled effective. In the case if this study, the school has been defined as
highly effective because the outcomes of the school (API scores) have shown that the
school has met its high performance objective. The focus of this study was to
identify the essential structures and systems of the school that led to the outcome of
high performance.
Instrumentation
In order to ensure internal validity and strengthen the results of the study,
multiple sources of data, known as triangulation, were utilized (Patton, 2002;
Merriam, 2009). The instruments used for this research study were semi-structured
interview protocols for administrators, teachers, and classified staff/office manager
(see Appendix A, B, and C), observation protocols (see Appendix D, E, and F), and
document/artifact analysis. The interview protocols were refined through cohort field
tests to ensure validity and adequate insight into the three research questions.
Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the connection between the research questions and data
collection for the administrator interview protocol, teacher interview protocol, and
classified interview protocol respectively.
51
Figure 2: Administrator Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions Matrix

Interview Question RQ1 RQ2 RQ3
1 X X
2 X X X
3 X X
4 X X
5 X
6 X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X X
10 X X
11 X X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X

Figure 3: Teacher Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions Matrix

Interview Question RQ1 RQ2 RQ3
1 X
2 X X
3 X X
4 X X
5 X X
6 X X X
7 X X
8 X X
9 X
10 X X
11 X X
12 X X
13 X X
14 X X
15 X X
52
Figure 4: Classified Interview Protocol Related to Research Questions Matrix

Interview Question RQ1 RQ2 RQ3
1
2 X
3 X
4 X X
5 X
6 X X
7 X X

Data Collection Procedures
The data collection process consisted of semi-structured interviews,
observations, and document analysis. Prior to the interviews and observations, the
researcher met with each participant to explain the study, the interview and
observation processes, and how confidentiality would be ensured. Each participant
signed informed consent forms for participation in the research study. This section
outlines the specific procedures for data collections and the potential for bias.
Semi-Structured Interviews
The purpose of the qualitative interview was to allow the researcher to take
part in another person’s perspectives, which can be assumed to be meaningful and
able to be made explicit (Patton, 2002). As a research tool, the interviews promoted
open-ended examinations of phenomena from the unique perspective of the
interviewee (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). The dissertation cohort developed protocols
for interviews with administrators, teachers, and classified staff. According to Patton
53
(2002) development of an interview guide or protocol ensures that the same lines of
inquiry are pursued with each person interviewed while providing the researcher the
freedom to ask probing, exploratory questions. Merriam (2009) further clarified that
the interview guide of a semi-structured interview included a mix of more and less
structured questions. The primary focus of the administrative interviews was to
determine which structures and systems had been established at the schools site that
contribute to the high-performance of the students, and how those structures and
systems were implemented and maintained school wide. The secondary purpose was
to determine how instructional leaders cultivated collaboration and effective
classroom instruction school wide. The focus of the teacher interviews was similar
to that of the administrative interviews, but from a teacher’s perspective. The
primary focus of the classified interview was to examine his/her perspective on how
well structures and systems had been implemented and maintained, as well as the
dynamics of administrator/teacher interactions.
Interviews were conducted at the single site with the principal, assistant
principal, school counselor, office manager and five teachers. Each interview
occurred in the private setting of the participant’s office or classroom in order to
provide the most familiar and comfortable environment for the participants. Every
effort was made by the researcher to put the participants at ease, assuring them of
complete anonymity in the reporting of the study’s results in the dissertation
document in keeping with the ethical guidelines prescribed by the Institutional
Review Board. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes and was conducted
54
in October 2010. Table 6 details the position of each staff member interviewed and
their number of years experience at Sunflower Middle School.

Table 6: Sunflower Middle School Interviewees

Interviewee Position
Years Experience
at SMS
Administrator A Principal 2 years
Administrator B Assistant Principal > 1 year
Counselor School Counselor 6 years
Teacher A 8
th
Grade Math/Science Lead 8 years
Teacher B 6
th
Grade ELA/Social Studies Lead 10 years
Teacher C 7
th
Grade ELA/Social Studies Co-Lead 10 years
Teacher D 7
th
Grade ELA/Social Studies Co-Lead 10 years
Teacher E 7
th
Grade Math/Science Lead 3 years
School Secretary 3 years

Observations
The purpose of the observations was to obtain direct, personal observations
of the program in order to increase the researcher’s understanding of the program
(Patton, 2002). According to Patton (2002) there are several advantages to
conducting observations; direct observations allow the researcher to better capture
the context within which the participants interact, firsthand experience allows the
researcher to be open, discovery-oriented, and inductive, and the researcher has the
opportunity to observe things that may routinely escape awareness of the
participants.
55
The classroom observation protocol (Appendix D) was developed by the
dissertation cohort to determine the structures and systems practiced within the
classroom that contribute to high student performance at Sunflower Middle School.
The cohort established four specific areas to observe within the classroom: styles of
interaction between individuals, established classroom routines, the physical
environment, and instructional strategies utilized within the classroom. Similar
formats were used to develop meeting observation protocols (Appendix E). The
primary focus of the meeting observation protocol was to determine how the
administration and staff contributed to the establishment and implementation of
structures and systems at the school site. The meeting observation protocol utilizes
the same four specific areas to observe as the classroom observation protocol.
Finally, the general school observation protocol (Appendix F) was developed in
order to examine the overall physical environment, established routines, and
interactions between individuals at the school site.
Observations were conducted at the single site over a period of five days.
The general school observation was conducted on the first day at the school site,
prior to any interviews or other observations. In total, six classrooms were observed,
three math and three English language arts (ELA). The chairpersons for each
department, as well as two additional teachers from each department were observed.
The researcher chose to observe math and ELA classrooms due to their importance
in determining the API and AYP status of the school. School proficiency was
determined primarily by student performance on California Standards Test in math
56
and ELA. The meeting protocol was used to observe staff meetings, department
meetings, leadership meetings, and professional development activities.
Document Analysis
The analysis of school documents provided the researcher with information
about many things that cannot be observed, including events that may have occurred
before the study began, private interchanges, and goals and decisions that might
otherwise remain unknown to the researcher (Patton, 2002). A document review was
conducted to gather information on the school’s background and profile. The School
Accountability Report Card and the Single School Plan for Student Achievement
provided information on class sizes, attendance rates, number of suspensions and
expulsions, instructional minutes, population breakdown, special programs,
enrichment opportunities, electives, and extra-curricular clubs. Also examined were
the agendas and minutes of school groups’ meetings (i.e. staff meetings, department
meetings, leadership team, principal advisory group, and School Site Council),
vision and mission statements, and professional development plans (as outlined in
the Single School Plan for Student Achievement). Additional documents included
the student and teacher handbooks, school wide behavior policy, master schedule,
bell schedule, and lesson plans.
Student achievement results of the California Subject Tests (CST) for the past
three years were gathered and analyzed, including statistical data from the Annual
Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability
57
systems. District benchmark achievement results provide by the district office were
also gathered and analyzed.
Data Analysis
Data from this study was analyzed using the six step method identified by
Creswell (2003): 1) organize and prepare data, 2) read data thoroughly to get a
general sense, 3) chunk or code the data, 4) design a detailed description of the data,
5) convey the findings, and 6) interpret and assign meaning to the data (see Figure
5). The researcher both audiotaped data from interviews and observations as well as
made written notes about aspects of the data that the audiotape did not pick up (i.e.
facial expressions or gestures). The data was transcribed as it was collected. The
transcribed data was initially coded according to the three research questions that
guided this study. Each question was given a different color, and relevant comments
made by the participants were highlighted according to those colors. Commons
themes emerged from the coded data, which were generalized into the phenomenon
of the study. Finally, conclusions from this analysis were generated in the form of
charts following each of the three research questions.
58
Figure 5: Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis

Ethical Considerations
This case study followed the basic principles for human subjects research
outlined in the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research’s The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and
Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (The National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research, 1978). The Belmont Report summarized three fundamental and essential
research principles to be followed by all research involving human subjects: respect
for persons, beneficence, and justice (National Institutes of Health, 2010).
This research study followed the principles outlined in The Belmont Report
and the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB)
59
guidelines in which all participants were treated in an ethical manner designed to
maximize the benefits to those involved in this research. This investigation was
conducted so that no individual was placed at risk of harm, each individual was fully
informed of the purpose and intent of the study, participation was made completely
voluntary, and confidentiality of participant responses was assured to maintain the
anonymity of all participants. All data collection instruments and research
methodology utilized in this study received full USC IRB approval before the
research began. Finally, use of all existing public records, test data, written
observations, and interviews has been done with the utmost ethical care.
60
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
Chapter four presents the findings from a case study of a high poverty school
by identifying the organizational structures and systems perceived to contribute to
the impact of leadership on high student performance. In order to learn more about
what organizational structures and systems were in place in high poverty, high
achieving schools, one middle school was selected to serve as the subject of this case
study.
Sunflower Middle School is located in Los Angeles County. Sunflower
Middle School has a total enrollment of 739 students, with 94.6% Hispanic, 0.95%
African American, 0.9% White and 1.5% Asian. The school had 84.2% of their
students on free or reduced lunch and 33% of the students identified as English
language learners. API scores for Sunflower Middle Schools were 721 in 2006, 735
in 2007, 774 in 2008, and 800 in 2009. The findings in this chapter were based on
data from interviews, observations, and artifacts.
Research Questions
The findings presented were directly related to the following three research
questions:
1. What are perceived school wide structures and systems that contribute to
high achievement in high poverty schools?
61
2. How are organizational structures and systems implemented and
sustained to support higher levels of student achievement?
3. How do instructional leaders cultivate effective school wide classroom
instruction?
Data were interpreted and analyzed and findings were triangulated using interviews,
observations and artifacts in relation to one another whenever possible. This
methodology served to increase the reliability and validity of the findings. The
findings, presented in direct relation to the three research questions for the study,
were followed by a detailed analysis and discussion.
Research Question 1: School-wide Structures and Systems
The first question asked, “What are the perceived school-wide structures and
systems that contribute to high achievement in high poverty schools?” While
structures were defined as policies or procedures that had been implemented by
federal, state, or district policy, and federal and state legislation to improve the
education of students from low-income families which were widely accepted as the
official structure of the schools, systems were the coordinated and coherent use of
resources at the school site to ensure that school visions, missions, and goals were
met.
At Sunflower Middle School (SMS), the implementation of the structured use
of data to guide instruction and the decision making process at all levels has led to
high student achievement school wide. Systems relating to the structured use of data
at SMS, as well as leadership practices included collective or shared leadership
62
among key staff and administration, and collaboration among and between staff and
administration.
The following sections will discuss the structure and systems operating at
SMS to ensure academic growth for all students as revealed by interviews,
observations and artifact analysis.
Use of Data
The use of data at Sunflower Middle School, which encompassed several
forms of information, guided all decision making, and was evident at all levels of the
organization. The primary form of data used at SMS was student data collected from
a variety of assessments including CST, district benchmark, and diagnostic pre/post
tests, but other forms of data including teacher surveys and teacher
questions/comments/concerns gathered from staff and grade level/content area
meetings were utilized as well. At the administration and leadership team level of
the organization, data was used to determine school wide areas of need in order to
guide the instructional focus of the school, and to create professional development
opportunities for teachers. According to interviews with administration and the
school counselor, student performance data such as CST scores, benchmark scores,
and diagnostic/placement tests were used to place students in classes based upon
ability levels. This was also observed during a meeting between administrators and
the school counselor, where appropriate student placement based on assessment data
was discussed.
63
At the grade level/content area level of the organization, assessment data was
used collaboratively to determine areas of strength and weakness, and to guide
instruction. During their grade level meetings, teachers examined CST scores to
determine which English language arts and math standards the student scored
proficient on, and which standards the students did not. This information was then
used to modify instructional strategies related to those standards. For example,
during an interview, Teachers C and D, the seventh grade ELA/social studies co-
leads, explained that Sunflower students had not been scoring well on specific
writing standards, so as a team, the ELA department developed a flip chart of key
writing terms for the students to make and keep in their binders at all times. Teacher
C explained the role of the teacher leader in the use of data,
As a leader, our job is to bring data in front of our teachers to just take a look
at how we are doing, and look for trends, look for oddities, something that
might stick out. Another area that is a little more global is, as the head of
ELA we are looking at what are areas, that are, across the board, issues that
we are dealing with and noticing that we have a couple of standards or areas
that keep causing a problem. We have to decide how we are going to create
something that addresses that without going too far afield and wasting our
time teacher hyphens or something. That is something we are all
experimenting with. That’s kind of our job.

The importance of data in the structural organization of SMS was apparent in
the environment at SMS. Data analysis was a key component of each meeting
observed through the data collection process of this case study. Student assessment
data was analyzed at each grade level/content area meeting, as well as at the meeting
between the administration and school counselor, where data was used to clarify
student placement in classes and identify specific at-risk students for the
64
administrators and counselor to focus on. Assessment data was also visible at SMS,
frequently posted in classrooms as well as the in front office and common areas of
the school. Sunflower students even carried their individual data in their notebooks
in the form of graphs and academic goals. Students were observing in the classroom,
creating and working with graphs of their CST and benchmark data to generate
academic goals and prepare for upcoming parent/teacher conferences. Students were
also observed explaining their graphs and goals to the school principal.
In order to support the structure of using data to guide instruction and
decision making, Sunflower Middle School established systems of shared leadership
and collaboration that can be attributed to high student achievement.
Shared Leadership
Effective principals in high achieving schools create structures and time for
teachers to lead by establishing systems that define the roles and responsibilities of
the leadership team (Williams, 2009). At Sunflower Middle School, this was
accomplished through monthly leadership meetings consisting of key instructional
and support staff. The leadership team at SMS consisted of the principal, assistant
principal, school counselor, and grade level/content area lead teachers. The lead
teachers involved in the Leadership Team include the sixth, seventh and eighth grade
English/Language Arts (ELA) and social studies lead teachers, the sixth, seventh,
and eighth grade math/science lead teachers, the physical education (PE) lead
teacher, the Special Education lead teacher, and the All Study Body (ASB) advisor.
65
As stated in the 2009-2012 School Site Plan for Sunflower Middle School,
the role of teacher leaders is to “assist in the implementation of the Professional
Learning Community model” (p. 23). This role encompassed several duties as
evidenced by Teacher A, the eighth grade math/science lead teacher,
My role as a teacher leader is to be a facilitator in our meetings; I want to say
I am more a facilitator than actually a lead. I put together the agenda for the
day, I also monitor basically the way the meeting goes and try to do some
data analysis at the same time regarding benchmarks or just regular tests we
had given to our students. In addition, I try to be a support to the other
teachers in regards to their strategies in mathematics.

As well as facilitating grade level/content area meetings, lead teachers at Sunflower
Middle School also acted as guides in collaboration at grade level curriculum
meetings, and in the use of data to improve classroom instruction. When asked to
describe her role as a teacher leader, Teacher B, the sixth grade ELA/social studies
lead teacher, stated “I coordinate meetings, I collaborate, help teachers collaborate
and stay on track. I collaborate with teachers to make sure we are on pace”. Another
role of a teacher leader at Sunflower Middle School, according to Teacher E, the 7
th

grade math/science lead teacher, was to participate in the monthly leadership team
meetings and to “Bring up any concerns that they (the content area teachers) have at
the leadership meetings”.
According to Reitzug, et al. (2008) instructional leaders of high performing
schools participate in “frequent and sustained dialogue focused on pedagogy and
school practice” (p. 705). Implementation of shared leadership at Sunflower Middle
School occurred primarily through the leadership team and regularly scheduled
66
leadership meetings. Through observations and interviews, it was determined that
the purpose of the leadership team was to participate in the decision making process,
to develop and present professional development, and to address the instructional
needs of the entire staff.
All meetings at Sunflower Middle School, including the school leadership
team, staff development, and grade level/content area, as well as others, were
scheduled on a regular basis. The 2010-2011 Sunflower Middle School Staff
Handbook contained a monthly meeting calendar to in order to enable meeting
participants to plan their schedules. The school leadership team meetings at
Sunflower occurred regularly on the first Monday of each month.

Figure 6: Sunflower Middle School Monthly Meeting Calendar

67
Prior to the school leadership team meeting, the support staff met to
determine the agenda for the leadership team meeting. The support staff met during
a counseling meeting on a weekly basis in the principal’s office to plan and
coordinate school activities, as well as to discuss general school issues such as
communication between teachers, and student activities. The counseling meetings
occurred without an agenda; instead they were professional interactions in which
each member freely contributed to the discussion. The School Counselor described
the purpose of the counseling meetings,
What we do in our support staff meetings with the principal and vice
principal, we’ll discuss what we think is going on. We’ll talk about, he’ll say
“what do you guys think we should put on for next month?” So we already
have a list of ideas that we generate and then we take it to the leadership
team. Then we’ll take it back to the leadership team, and from there we will
pick which one is more important.

During the leadership meeting, the lead teachers were able to bring questions
and concerns from the other teachers to the administrators, as well as take issues
from the administration back to the teachers. Administrator A stated that one way
the school has been able to overcome challenges was by “bringing issues back to the
teachers and asking teachers how do we address this or that” through the leadership
team.
The leadership team at Sunflower Middle School shared in the decision
making process by addressing the instructional needs of the teachers and developing
professional development activities as evidenced through interviews of key
personnel and observations of a leadership team meeting. Teacher B explained, “in
68
our leadership meetings we look at areas of need and then we create professional
development, or develop professional development that will meet the needs of the
teachers. We had a survey that asked teachers what they felt would be beneficial to
them as far as professional development, and we used that information as well as just
observing from our grade level meetings what is needed”.
A leadership team meeting was observed over the course of this case study.
While Administrator A facilitated the meeting, the lead teachers drove the discussion
from an agenda set forth by the administration. The administration did not dictate
information to the lead teachers to take back to their content area teachers; instead
decisions were made following a group discussion. During this particular meeting,
the leadership team addressed issues of possible fundraising activities and how to
spend the money raised from the activities; they determined criteria/qualifications for
student government members; and clarified decisions made by the discipline
committee regarding homework policy and the discussed how best to disseminate
information to parents and students. Finally, the leadership team determined what
type of professional development would occur at the upcoming staff meetings,
including EL training, training on the “Sunflower Culture” for new teachers, and
training on using the Zangle system for grades and discipline. The best personnel to
present training, district personnel, administration, or teachers, was also discussed.
As Teacher D explained, “once in a while Mr. G (Administrator A) will have the
final authority. Once in a while, but pretty much he opens it up and he opens up the
discussion, opens up the decision, opens up a lot of stuff to the teachers”.
69
Shared leadership was an effective system established at Sunflower Middle
School that promoted high student achievement. Research has shown that effective
leaders in high achieving schools build leadership capacity by incorporating the right
people with the correct training, professionalism, and drive into the right positions of
leadership, and into the decision making process for the school (Williams, 2009). At
Sunflower Middle School Teacher B best described the efficacy of an established
system of shared leadership;
I tell you, they (the administration) really listen. They give us a voice. They
listen to what we have to say. They value what we say. They support us in
as far as getting the things that we need to be effective teachers . . .the most
important thing is they give us a voice.

Providing a voice and the opportunity to share in the decision making process at
SMS allowed the administration to develop people and build capacity, one of the
core practices of successful leaders according to Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and
Wahlstrom (2004). Empowering the instructional staff at SMS improved their
efficiency as teachers, which contributed to high student achievement.
Collaboration
Systemic collaboration was a key factor in the success of students at
Sunflower Middle School. In order to meet the academic goals of 56.8% proficiency
for all students in English Language Arts and 58% proficiency for all students in
math, the 2009-2012 School Site Plan for Sunflower Middle School established
specific curriculum goals:
70
• Rigorous academic content and performance standards will be provided
to all students.
• Curriculum and instruction that is aligned and appropriate will be
provided to all students.
• Assessment and accountability will be extended and improved.
• Assessment based and accelerated student interventions will be continued
and improved.
• Professional development that is school-based, comprehensive and
ongoing will be continued.
• Parent and community partnerships to support student achievement will
continue to be developed.
Among the actions to support these goals, systems were established within the
Sunflower Middle School Site Plan to ensure collaboration among faculty and
administration. The Site Plan specified that 100% of ELA and mathematics teachers
receive “weekly grade level/content area meetings to examine student work, reflect
on current practices and plan for future instruction” (p. 11). Furthermore, the Site
Plan established that “teachers will use grade level meetings to review standards,
assess student work, plan and prepare effective delivery of core curricula and work
with coach/administrator to refine instructional practice” (p. 23). In order to achieve
this goal, the leadership at SMS established regularly scheduled grade level/content
area meetings on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month, as well as an all
grade level math and ELA meetings on the third Monday of each month as indicated
71
by the monthly meeting calendar located in the SMS Staff Handbook. As per
Teacher E, this opportunity to collaborate as a grade level allowed teachers to “meet
to discuss the needs of the ELL, or whatever we need to do” and was a significant
system of administration supporting instruction.
When asked what the strengths at Sunflower Middle School were, several
teachers and administrators cited collaboration as a primary strength of the school.
Administrator A, the principal, stated that a strength of the school was the
willingness of teachers to work together in Professional Learning Communities
(PLC) to find the “best practices and the best lessons to deliver the standards”.
Teacher A specifically cited the ability to collaborate as one of the practices and
policies that she believed contributed to the high student performance at Sunflower
Middle School:
Well the fact that we have this learning community set up in our school. You
know, we have our little agendas going on in very grade level, and this is
already normal. It’s the norm. And that contributes to our success, always
keeping ourselves communicated within our grade level, within our school.
School wide.

Collaboration between teachers at Sunflower Middle School was
accomplished primarily through twice monthly grade level/content area PLC during
which teachers analyzed data and shared best practices. Each grade level and
content area PLC at Sunflower was run in a similar manner on a regular basis as
established by the monthly meeting calendar. Teacher B described what commonly
occurred during these content area meetings:
72
During our meeting we look at data first and decide where our weaknesses
are, our strengths are, and based on that, we ask, we can ask for help. If one
teacher has had success in a particular standard, we ask what ask what
strategy and then we share.

Teacher A believed that this was one of the policies that contributed to high student
achievement at Sunflower; “well, the fact that we have this learning community set
up in our school is what’s, you know we have our little agendas going on in every
grade level, and this is already normal. It’s the norm, and that contributes to our
success, always keeping ourselves communicated within our grade level, within our
school. School wide”. All teachers within a specific grade level, sixth, seventh or
eighth, and content area, ELA/social studies and math/science, participated in the
PLC as well as a special education teacher and an administrator or school counselor.
The administrators and school counselor attended a specific grade level PLC each
month, which rotated on a monthly basis. This way, over the course of three months,
the administrators and counselor would participate in all grade level and content area
PLC at least once. Meeting minutes were taken for each PLC and shared not only
with the administration but also with the entire school, informing each teacher and
staff member exactly what occurred at the meeting, what data was analyzed, which
standards were addressed, and what decision were made. Administrator A explained
how the professional learning communities contribute to high student achievement
by allowing the teachers to take pride in their work:
Teachers take pride in coming together twice a month formally where
minutes are jotted down, agendas are put together by a lead teacher, minutes
are turned in to the school, not just their departments, but to the whole school.
Of course, I get a copy and put it into my binder.
73
Over the course of this case study, several grade level/content area meetings
were observed. Each meeting followed a similar format, starting with data analysis
where the participants looked at clustering students by proficiency levels, or
reviewed benchmark assessment results, they then looked at upcoming standards,
shared best practices and participated in instructional planning, and finally, each
content area coordinated information to be presented at the upcoming Back to School
Night.
Collaboration between administration and faculty could occur in a variety of
ways. Teacher A explained that collaboration with administration can occur on a
one-to-one basis by email or during a teacher’s conference period or after school,
during a monthly staff meeting, or mainly, through the leadership meetings; “most of
all, I think that if you want to collaborate with your principal, one of our ways is the
lead teachers, we have our meeting once a month where we get together with our
administrators”. The administration at Sunflower also maintained an active presence
in the classroom, making frequent classroom visits and providing immediate
feedback, either electronically via email or personally, to the teacher about what they
observed. According to Administrator A, this feedback was used to ask specific
questions, provide suggestions, or just acknowledge good instructional strategies.
Administrator A also described another collaborative strategy that he and
Administrator B were planning to implement this school year where they will meet
individually with each teachers to discuss what was working and what was not
working in terms of instruction and student achievement.
74
Another form of collaboration between and among teachers and
administrators that occurs at Sunflower was through professional development. Each
year, the teachers and administrators returned a week early to school to participate in
the Sunflower Summer Institute as dictated in the School Site Plan,
To ensure the success of all students, Sunflower conducts summer institutes
in order to provide relevant and appropriate school based comprehensive
ongoing professional development.

Administrator B described what happened during the Summer Institute;
We had a week’s worth of trainings based on different areas, AVID strategies
were presented so that all teachers use these strategies…it was very specific.
A whole lot of areas were covered so that everybody was on the same page.
What we did was, any decisions that were made were made as a group for the
school. We talked about discipline, we talked about decisions on how we
were going to handle certain aspects of discipline, and certain concerns about
instruction in the classroom, discussion and the consensus were established
during the Summer Institute.

Several teachers and administrators identified the Summer Institute as one of the
practices that lead to collaboration among staff. Teacher B stated “I think it all
begins at the Summer Institute, aside from just giving policies and guidelines and so
forth, this the time where we collaborate as a team and come to consensus on certain
rules and procedures that we want implements school wide”.
In lieu of staff meetings, Sunflower Middle School held two professional
development meetings per month, one specifically geared towards English language
development and the other determined by the leadership team. As Teacher D
explained, “we do a lot of professional development, in fact our staff meetings are no
longer staff meetings. They have not been staff meetings for a long time. They are
75
in fact, professional development”. The leadership team at Sunflower not only
determined what types of professional development were necessary based on the
needs of their teachers, but successfully employed the strategy of “teachers, teaching
teachers” by presenting much of the PD. Teacher B cited this practice as a school
strength, “another strength would be that teachers basically do all of our professional
development, the majority of them”. The school counselor described the benefits of
Sunflower teachers providing professional development for the staff,
So we'll give them professional development and it's within our own staff.
It's not like we'll get people from outside agencies. Sometimes we might do
that depending on the situation, but we all have participated in being in
charge of the professional development. I think that's really powerful
because we are learning from each other, and everybody is very, we are very
transparent here, we don't hide results. It's always up there for everybody to
see.

Collaboration at all levels between and among teachers and administrators was
essential to the success of students at Sunflower Middle School.
Analysis and Discussion for Research Question One
During the data analysis process of Research Question One, structures and
systems identified at Sunflower Middle School aligned with structures and systems
of high performing schools established in the literature reviewed in Chapter Two.
The use of data to guide decision making at all levels, and the pervasive themes of
promoting a climate of shared leadership, and collaboration among and between
teachers and administrators, were perceived to be organizational structures and
systems at Sunflower Middle School which were observed and discussed as
organized, consistent practices to support high poverty students.
76
A key element in Sunflower Middle School’s success was collaboration
among and between teachers and administrators with a focus on student
achievement. Creating a structure of shared leadership at Sunflower by developing a
strong, cohesive leadership team allowed teachers and administrators to effectively
collaborate with one another, as well as providing the resources, opportunity and
time, for collaboration to occur. Order was established at Sunflower through the
leadership team based on the hierarchal structure of grade level/content area lead
teachers and administrators. With an emphasis on communication at all levels,
teachers were provided a voice in the decision-making process as well as the
opportunity to analyze data and share best instructional practices. According to
Styron and Nyman (2008) collaboration among the instructional leaders and staff of
high performing schools was imperative in order to establish a positive, productive
school climate, which enhanced the learning environment.
At Sunflower Middle School systems of teacher collaboration and input were
supported by the establishment of an effective leadership team, grade level/content
area professional learning communities and professional development based on the
instructional needs of the teachers.
The administration of Sunflower Middle School supported teacher
collaboration by instituting structured blocks of time for teachers to meet, during
both leadership team meetings as well as grade level/content area meetings.
The research shows that professional learning communities and the
relationships they build are an essential tool for the process of sharing information
77
and developing knowledge (Fulan, 2002). At Sunflower Middle School, PLC
followed a clear format in which assessment data was analyzed and discussed, best
instructional practices were shared, and cooperative lesson planning occurred.
Sunflower Middle School provided professional development based entirely on the
instructional needs of the teachers as determined by teacher surveys and the
leadership team, which acted as a conduit between the administration and
instructional staff. Furthermore, experienced staff members provided the majority of
professional development at Sunflower, which created a safe learning environment
for teachers to share ideas and strategies.
Summary
Findings related to Research Question One demonstrated organized structures
and systems at Sunflower Middle School that contributed to high student
performance at a high poverty school. Research in the case study identified the
perceived structures and systems that contribute to student achievement as the
organizational use of data to guide instruction and decision making at all levels, and
a climate of shared leadership and collaboration. These structures and systems were
working together to provide a positive climate of student achievement and a culture
of learning emphasizing the belief that all students can be academically successful.
Research Question 2: Implementation of School-wide Structures and Systems
The second question asked, “How are organizational structures and systems
implemented and sustained to support higher levels of student achievement?”
Current educational research has shown that leaders of high-performing schools
78
create an environment of high performance expectations for both staff and students
while holding teachers, students, and themselves accountable for learning (Murphy
et al., 2006). Learning centered leaders established clearly defined, well-
communicated school-wide academic and behavioral standards, which were then
translated into the school structure (Murphy et al., 2006). These leaders created
systems to support staff, challenge teachers to think critically about their instruction,
and promote an atmosphere of collaboration (Murphy et al., 2006). In order to
facilitate continuous improvement in student achievement, learning centered leaders
ensured that structures and systems were regularly reviewed and modified to
guarantee the most productive strategies were in place (Murphy et al., 2006).
Successful leaders created a safe, climate of learning by establishing structures and
systems that supported communication, risk-taking and professional growth.
The leadership at Sunflower Middle School had developed a culture of
learning that had been implemented and sustained to facilitate continuous student
achievement within the structure and systems of SMS. In the following section, the
culture of learning established at Sunflower Middle School based upon academic
goal setting, active participation by all stakeholders, and a philosophy of discipline
before instruction will be discussed.
Culture of Learning
The Sunflower Middle School Vision stated that Sunflower Middle School
“aspires to be a place where excellent teaching, purposeful communication with
parents, challenges, supports and encourages all young scholars to achieve
79
academically, socially, and personally to their maximum potential in a nurturing,
inspiring, and creative environment”. The culture of learning was prevalent at
Sunflower Middle School as demonstrated by a focus on academic goals, a school
wide emphasis on discipline and behavior standards, and an active participation by
all stakeholders, parents, teachers, students and administrators in the learning
process. Administrator A stated that he believed the number one practice or policy
that contributed to the high academic performance of students at Sunflower Middle
School was the philosophy of discipline before instruction and “the mentality that
you are here for school, you are here for academics, here to learn”.
The Sunflower culture was evident in every classroom on campus. Each
class was set up in a similar manner with students seated at tables arranged in a
variety of ways to promote cooperative groups. Each classroom displayed the same
set of posters: the Sunflower uniform policy, the Sunflower free dress policy, the
Sunflower classroom expectations and discipline policy, the homework policy,
binder tab labels, mortar words (academic terms used regularly during instruction),
and A-G college requirements. Each classroom also displayed both content and
language objectives for the current lesson, as well as student work and, in most
classrooms, student data. When questioned about the learning culture at SMS both
teachers and administrators acknowledged that consistency in classroom design and
in the display of student expectations lead to a learning climate in which all students
were engaged. Teacher A explained that the seating arrangements used at SMS gave
the students the opportunity to interact while enabling the teacher to monitor student
80
discussions. In fact, the 2010-2011 Sunflower Middle School Staff Handbook states
“Classroom furniture should be arranged to facilitate various instructional
strategies”.
Academic Goals
Although the academic goals of 56.8% proficiency for all students in English
Language Arts and 58% proficiency for all students in math by the spring of 2010
are stated in the 2009-2012 School Site Plan for Sunflower Middle School, more
recent numerical goals could not be located on the school or district websites.
Instead of focusing on a specific AYP or API target, teachers and administrators at
Sunflower concentrated on the academic goal of improving California Standards
Test (CST) scores and moving students up proficiency bands. Teacher C
acknowledged that goal setting was a factor that contributed to high student
achievement, not necessarily numerical goals. When asked what the academic goals
for student achievement were, Administrator A replied:
My academic goals are for all my students to move a band in their California
state standards, or move up in their points. If they could move up on their
points or move up to the next band then we are doing our job. That’s the way
it has to be, either jump a band or move up in points. I think those are my
academic goals for my student achievement.

These goals were repeated by Teachers A and B who also replied that their
academic goals were for students to “increase their CST scores” and to “go up at
least one full band” respectively. According to Administrator B, the emphasis on
academic goals established at Sunflower ensured teachers and administrators meet
81
the needs of their students and moved them up to the next level of progress. Teacher
D summed up the learning culture at Sunflower Middle School,
It’s no longer how high you can raise the bar, because wherever you place
that bar, they’ll get over it. But, it’s more how tall are your stanchions to put
the bar, and the higher you go, the higher they reach.

Academic goals for students were initially determined during the Summer
Institute by teachers and administrators. According to Administrator B, during the
Summer Institute the teachers were able to examine CST scores from the previous
spring and identified areas of weakness, both school wide and individually by
teacher, as well as standards that needed to be focused on in the upcoming year.
Goals were established on how best to meet these needs and were continually
revisited during PLC’s, grade level/content area meetings, professional development,
and on an individual basis during meetings between teachers and administrators.
This data was also used to cluster students into proficiency levels and ability groups.
Participation by all Stakeholders
Active participation by parents, students, teachers, and administrators in the
learning process was another aspect of establishing a systemic culture of learning at
Sunflower Middle School. At the start of the school year, all stakeholders
(administrators, teachers, students, and parents) were required to sign a School
Compact in which students and parents took responsibility for actively participating
in the learning process. This Compact encouraged students to share in their
academic success by attending class, being prepared to learn by having all their
school materials and completing all homework assignments, and following school
82
and classroom rules. Parents were encouraged to provide a home environment
conducive to learning, and to “maintain open communication” with their child’s
teacher. As a result both students and parents were actively involved in the
educational process and were proud of their achievement.
Teachers and administrators at Sunflower took pride in student accountability
and active involvement in learning. According to Administrator B, the Sunflower
staff “wants students to identify where they performed last year and to make a
personal goal as to where they want to perform this year”. Students were informed
of their proficiency levels and CST scores, as well as their CELDT scores, at the
beginning of the school year. This information was then used to make bar graphs in
their math classes and to establish academic goals for the current school year. These
graphs and goals were kept in their binders for easy access. Furthermore, according
to Administrator B, these goals were constantly revisited by both the teacher and the
student, and added to using benchmark assessments in order to “see where they are
and where they are headed and what areas they need to focus on”. According to
Teacher A, sharing achievement data with the students was very powerful, and could
be attributed to much of the success at SMS. Information sharing provided intrinsic
motivation to the students and encouraged them, “Students want to improve. It was
a sense of pride and the students really came through with doing better with their
CST scores” (Teacher A). Administrator A explained the importance of information
sharing and goal setting to student achievement at Sunflower,
83
One of the things that we have at Sunflower, and it’s a culture at Sunflower is
the identification of their scores and for them to make their own personal
goals and where we are going next. They have that available in their binder,
they have that at their desk. That way it is something they are talking about.
When a parent/teacher conference is put in place, those goals are discussed
with the parent. That’s the communication piece to the parent. They talk
about these goals, the student will open up their binder and they will show
what they are doing to address those goals. And the teachers will make their
students accountable for having the organization of their work to support that
they are doing something about their goals.

As stated by Administrator A, the student’s achievement graphs and
academic goals were shared with the parents on a regular basis during parent/teacher
conferences. Parent/teacher conferences followed a precise format at Sunflower
Middle School which Teacher E described, “at parent conferences we will provide
the parents with a parent conference sheet that specifically identifies the goals of the
student and if the student is not proficient we will put on there that the goal is for the
student to score proficient, but we also have strategies that we include on the parent
conference sheet, and if the students are going to participate in tutoring we will put
that on there and tell the parent this is what we need from you, so the parents are
aware and most of the time they’ll say “yeah, that’s fine” because they know how
important it is”.
A parent/teacher conference was observed during this case study.
Participants in the conference included the student, the parent, the ELA/social studies
teacher, the math/science teacher, and the special education teacher. The student had
her Sunflower binder with her, because, as Administrator B pointed out, if the
student does not have their binder at the conference, the conference will be
84
rescheduled. The conference started with the teachers sharing student work and
assessment scores, and informing the parent where the student’s ability level was.
The participants then discussed the student’s academic goals and what each
participant, student, parent and teachers, needed to do for the student to reach those
goals. All participants in the conference were actively involved with the process and
focused on student learning.
Discipline Before Instruction
Several teachers and administrators have identified the implementation of
discipline before instruction as one of the practices and policies that contribute to the
high student performance at Sunflower. According to Administrator A, discipline
before instruction was a major strength of the school, “the organization, the
philosophy of discipline before instruction, teachers buying into this and
implementing the culture as well as new teachers coming in and wanting to learn the
culture”. The philosophy of discipline before instruction at SMS was based on the
belief that order, or discipline must be established before learning can take place.
The 2009-2012 School Site Plan for Sunflower Middle School clearly stated
“teachers will raise expectations of student behavior by explicitly teaching
procedures and expecting adherence to school rules” (p. 18). This philosophy was
further clarified in the 2010-2011 Sunflower Middle School Staff Handbook:
Discipline as a Function of Training in Citizenship and Work Habits
The discipline of students is an integral part of a classroom teacher’s duties.
The maintenance of a safe environment that is conductive to learning is a
foundational prerequisite to all learning. Providing discipline is, however,
85
more than merely maintaining order. It is one of the most effective ways to
teach numerous skills. Those skills range from improving work habits, to
accommodating diversity in others. The optimum location for teaching those
skills is the environment in which they are needed. The optimum trainer is
the classroom teacher, the person who is most likely to be near the student
when correction is needed.

Implementation of the “discipline before instruction” philosophy began with
the Sunflower Classroom Expectation that was available in both the teacher and
student handbooks and posted in every classroom. Sunflower students were
expected to be ready to work when the bell rings, prepared with their
homework/binder and supplies, listen carefully and follow directions, work quietly,
ask permission to speak or get out of their seat, have respect for everyone and their
property, and abide by the uniform policy.
According to the staff handbook, SMS employed a progressive discipline
plan in which escalating behaviors received escalating consequences (i.e. detention,
in-house suspension, school suspension, expulsion). The administration at
Sunflower supported instruction by supporting classroom discipline according the
Administrator A, “making sure that we support the behavior consequences of the
students in their class. Making sure that if a student needs to be dealt with as a
backup plan, that we are the backup plan, because that will support instruction for
the kid as well as everybody else if the kid needs to be moved out, suspended, in-
house, whatever it is. That will support instruction”. A culture of learning based
upon academic goals, active participation by all stakeholders and a philosophy of
discipline before instruction has been developed at Sunflower Middle School to
86
sustain the structures and systems that contribute to high student achievement. This
culture of learning was best be described by the School Secretary,
I know what they want, their goals are to try to make every student a high
achieving student. I mean they are trying to strive for that and that's why
they do things the way they do it, because by sticking together, by everybody
teaching the same way and holding the kids accountable for not doing their
homework, for not doing what they are supposed to do, their standards and all
that. That's the way they are going to make the kids be responsible, by
holding them accountable.

Analysis and Discussion for Research Question Two
A key factor in the success of students at Sunflower Middle School was the
establishment of a culture of learning as demonstrated by a focus on academic goals
and an active participation by all stakeholders in the learning process, as well as a
school wide emphasis on discipline and behavior standards. Research has shown
that the strength of the culture is important to the success of high poverty schools,
and effective instructional leaders have a significant impact on the learning culture of
the school (Murphy, et al., 2006; Styron, & Nyman, 2008; Devos, 2009; and Dumay,
2009). High poverty schools with strong cultures were more effective than high
poverty schools with weak cultures. From the students’ appearances, which included
a strict uniform policy of blue pants and tucked in, white collared shirts, to the design
of each classroom with required school posters and a limited choice of seating
arrangements, the “Sunflower Culture” was evident at all levels at Sunflower Middle
School.
Creating an environment of high performance expectations allowed leaders of
high performing schools to hold teachers, students, and themselves accountable for
87
learning (Murphy et al., 2006). Through the process of information sharing, students
and parents at Sunflower have knowledge of all assessment scores, CST, benchmark,
and CELDT, and ability levels. With this knowledge students were able to generate
academic goals and monitor their own progress towards those goals. In the course of
the established forum of parent/teacher conferences, parents were able to work
together with teachers to share in the learning process, monitor their child’s progress,
and help their child succeed.
According to Murphy et al. (2006) learning centered leaders established
clearly defined, well-communicated school wide academic and behavioral standards,
which could be translated into school culture. Applying a philosophy of “discipline
before instruction” allowed the administration at Sunflower Middle School to
implement a school culture derived from a safe learning environment. According to
multiple studies done by researchers during the Effective Schools Movement,
effective schools have better control or discipline and one of the factors affecting
student achievement in high poverty schools was an orderly climate (Weber, 1971;
Lezotte, Edmonds, & Ratner, 1974). Edmond (1979) described a safe and orderly
climate that was conducive to teaching and learning as one of his five correlates of
effective schools. The Sunflower Middle School philosophy was that “the
maintenance of a safe environment that is conductive to learning is a foundational
prerequisite to all learning” (Staff Handbook, 2010). Discipline before instruction
has become a mantra at Sunflower Middle School, and when asked, was identified as
one of the major strengths of the school. This philosophy guided every routine at
88
Sunflower from the students’ uniform policy, to classroom seating arrangements, to
how students move between classes during passing periods, before and after school
and at lunch. The belief at Sunflower Middle School was that learning can only
occur in a safe structured environment, and to achieve that environment discipline
must be the priority of all adults on campus.
Summary
A culture of learning has developed at Sunflower Middle School to provide
effective implementation of, and support for structures and systems that contribute to
high levels of student achievement. The culture of learning at SMS was sustained
through the active involvement of students and parents in the learning process, and a
safe learning environment based on the philosophy of discipline before instruction.
Research Question 3: Instructional Leaders
The third question asked, “How do instructional leaders cultivate effective
school wide classroom instruction?” Current research on the effects of leadership on
student learning stated that leadership was second only to classroom instructions
among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn (Leithwood,
Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Leithwood, et al. (2004) identified three
basic practices of successful instructional leaders: setting directions, in which
specific practices such as identifying and articulating a vision, fostering the
acceptance of group goals, and creating high performance expectations were
enhanced by monitoring the organizational performance and promoting effective
communication and collaboration; positively developing people utilizing practices
89
such as offering intellectual stimulation, providing individualized support and
providing an appropriate model of best practice; and redesigning the organization
with practices that include strengthening the school culture, modifying
organizational structures and building collaborative processes.
The leadership at Sunflower Middle School cultivated effective school wide
classroom instruction by providing opportunities for leadership and collaboration,
which in turn fostered an atmosphere of collegiality and trust in order to build
teacher capacity.
Provide Opportunities for Leadership
Research into the effects of leadership on student achievement has stated that
expanding the decision-making process to non-administrative leaders in schools was
an important step in efforts to improve instruction (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). At
Sunflower Middle School, Administrator A developed his leadership team to include
representatives from each grade level/content area professional learning community
in order to incorporate “more ideas, more suggestions”. He described his leadership
team as follows,
I kind of brought a lot of people together, it was to make sure from each area
of the professional learning communities. Right now we have two math, two
reps from 6th grade, two reps from 7th grade, and two from 8th. Actually in
7th I have three because I have a combo [of] teachers, they are both co-
leaders of ELA so I have them both in my meetings as well, they are the
AVID coordinators so they would be in my meetings anyway. I have
somebody come from special education, I have somebody come from PE, and
I did have a union person in there, in my leadership meetings. I did a combo,
of course with my assistant principal and my counselor.

90
The administration at Sunflower used the leadership team to determine areas of
instructional weakness that need to be addressed at future professional development
meetings as well as who will present the professional development. As
Administrator A explained, “We discuss it as a group. It's not something that I come
down with saying ‘this is what we are going to do’ or the district office comes down,
no, it's something about ‘what do we need to get better at, what do we need to learn?’
We talk about that at leadership and we decide who is going to do what”. Teacher D
corroborated this account of the leadership team, stressing the current administration,
unlike the previous administration which used the leadership team as if they were “a
conduit from the principal down”, considers them to be “more of a decision making
body”.
Provide Opportunities for Collaboration/ Foster Collegiality and Trust
According to Blasé and Blasé, (2000) effective principals promoted
professional growth by supporting collaborative efforts and developing collegial
relationships among teachers. The establishment of professional learning
communities (PLC) was a successful tool utilized by the leadership at Sunflower
Middle School to foster collegiality and trust among their teachers. The
administration not only provided the instructional staff with structured opportunities
to collaborate, but actively participated in the PLC as well. In this manner, the
administration was building community as well as improving classroom instruction.
Each of the support staff, Administrator A, Administrator B, and the school
counselor, took on the responsibility of participating in a different grade level PLC
91
each month on a rotating basis in order to look at data with the teachers throughout
the year and to ensure that they were observing student achievement at each grade
level. According to Administrator A, their role was to “provide input, or just there to
listen to what they were doing”. They also received minutes from each meeting in
order to “have an idea to see what they were looking at, the data they were looking at
whether I was there or not” (Administrator A).
The administration at Sunflower also took an active role in classroom
instruction. Administrator B made the concerted effort to participate in the same
training and professional development that the teachers attend in order to have
instructional knowledge and information that might be helpful to teachers,
I attend all the training as much as I can because I want to make sure that my
instruction is just at the same if not, I need to become that expert myself. I
like to attend the teacher trainings if I can. When I was observing in the
classroom one day the teacher said "I'm stuck can you help me" and I said
"sure" and I actually did a lesson. Very short, I was 10-15 minutes with the
students and I tried to model what I thought would be helpful for the teacher
and she was like "that was so helpful, thank you so much". Last year when I
received training for a writing program, I made sure that I knew how to do it.
I had been out of the classroom for two years, so I asked if I could go into a
classroom and do this. I trained teachers and I would do lessons for the
classroom myself and the other teachers that were on special assignment, we
did this.

When asked what strategies he used as an administrator to support instruction,
Administrator A responded, “A strategy is being available and visible often, as much
as possible. When I go into a classroom, it’s got to be something that is normal and
happens every day. It can't be something that happens once in a while. You have to
make yourself available to be in the classroom. That will support instruction”.
92
Administrator A visited 25 classrooms each week during the course of his duties, on
an informal or formal basis and expected his assistant principal to visit between 15
and 20 classrooms per week in order to get a better understanding of the instruction
taking place at Sunflower. He also provided immediate feedback to the teachers he
observed either verbally, or electronically via email,
One of the things that I am doing, and trying to get my AP to do is to try to
give feedback, and I've been taking my laptop in and giving them feedback
on what I see, what I question, a concern, a compliment, whatever it is I want
to share with that teacher. Let them know this is what I see. Whether I saw it
wrong or it’s something that maybe they don't know it’s actually coming out
that way, I can give them the opportunity to look at that and see if they can
change or adjust it the next time around.

Administrator A stated that another strategy he used to support instruction
was to always be a “learner of the trade” by “trying to keep up with readings, sharing
the readings, sharing quotes, giving out a good article here or there, via email or hard
copy. Letting them know that I am constantly looking for best practices so they can
feel ok that we always need to look for best practices”. Effective principals
promoted professional growth by emphasizing the study of teaching and learning
(Downing, et al., 2008) and, in order to continue building a climate of collegiality
and trust, the administration had instituted a system of peer observations in which
teachers can observe other teachers during their preparation time, or by having
substitute teachers available on an “as needed” basis. Administrator A explained the
purpose of peer observations is so “teachers can get better at their craft”. He further
stated that “the more capacity we can build before school, outside of school, will get
them to be better teachers and what we do all year in terms of observing them and
93
looking at them, having outside people may be looking at them and giving
suggestions will make them become a better teacher”. Several teachers agreed that
the implementation of peer observations had a positive effect on the learning
community at Sunflower, and Teacher A described how the process was
accomplished,
We do have peer observations, this is where the teachers will come, again if
the teacher is not doing so well and the CST scores have dropped perhaps, so
administration, or even within the grade level teams, will decide if so and so
can start making some observations. You know, so and so is a good person
you can go to, and so that person will come to us and say “can I observe you
on such and such date”? So you will make arrangements through that, so we
can make peer observations. But then again, it's also about the modeling,
going into the classrooms and modeling for them because sometimes we are
like children and we also need to see how it’s done, not just be told how it’s
done.

With the aim of establishing a community of collegiality and trust, the
administration at Sunflower had developed a community in which both teachers and
administrators participated in the collaborative processes of sharing best instructional
practices. Teacher D described how this attitude has extended to the communal
atmosphere at Sunflower Middle School,
At the beginning of the year we walk though everybody's classroom, to get
the sense of "are you projecting on your walls, the subject you are teaching",
do we have some conformity? We try to have meetings in different people's
rooms, whatever, just to kind of keep seeing that kind of thing. We have
established this idea of an open door policy. If you have to get from point A
to point B, try to walk through classrooms rather than around. We really
want to get people in, just casually instead of "I'm here now".

The physical set up of SMS supported the concept of an open door policy.
The school buildings were circular “pods” in which eight classrooms circle and open
94
into a central classroom area. During the course of this case study, students were
observed working independently and in small groups in this area, and both teachers
and students were observed moving from class to class using the center pod.
Building Teacher Capacity
The purpose of fostering collegiality and trust at Sunflower Middle School
was to improve instruction and build capacity in teachers. In the Actions to Support
Goals for English Language Arts and math sections, the Sunflower School Site Plan
detailed the monthly and weekly staff in-services and grade level/content area
meetings to used to examine student work, reflect on current practices and to plan for
future instruction and stated “All this professional development is provided to build
teacher capacity as a means toward addressing the ELA and math standards” (page
6). Teacher A stated that the collaborative efforts instituted at Sunflower allowed
teachers to talk to each other about their lessons and share effective lessons with
each other, she stated, “So there is a lot of sharing with other teachers to get other
ideas and to get better as a teacher”. The administration at Sunflower utilized
professional development to build teacher capacity, which began with the Summer
Institute prior to the start of school. Administrator A explained the how the Summer
Institute was used to build teacher capacity,
When you are talking about professional development and talking about
building capacity that's one of the tools that we do before school starts. And
it’s a five day, all day, six hour professional development for all teachers and
it's going over topics that the leadership puts together at the end of the year,
and we give planning hours to the facilitators to put together a professional
development. For example we talked about RTI this summer for a possible
intervention for Torch as well as going over our AVID strategies, our
95
homework policies, things we want to make sure everybody is on the same
page. We did that during the Summer Institute, but coming over after
Summer Institute, we continue to have professional development.

Professional development at Sunflower was also used to build teacher
capacity through curriculum development and instructional support. When
Sunflower teachers were new to a specific curricular area, the administration
provided professional development for curriculum building by allowing the time and
opportunity to review the text, go over lessons, and share lessons/information with
colleagues. Administrator A explained how he used professional development to
build capacity in new algebra teachers, “I provided math weekend professional
development to help teachers get stronger because there were teachers coming from
elementary school that now had to teach algebra. I did it last year. I did it this year.
We have done it two years in a row already”. The use of professional development
to build instructional capacity was corroborated by standard 3.1of the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP), demonstrating knowledge of subject
matter, academic content standards, and curriculum frameworks, which was found in
the Sunflower Staff Handbook. In terms of instructional support, the administration
relied on the recommendations of the teachers on the leadership team to determine
areas of concern in which instructional support was needed. According to
Administrator A,
I think my strategies are to be able to listen to the lead teachers, find out the
areas that are coming from their teams - what are their biggest concerns and
their biggest needs. And then my strategy is to be able to build that capacity.
Where am I going to find the money to bring somebody in to talk to them
96
about that particular best practice, or to facilitate my teachers to teach their
teachers to get better at it? I think that’s a strategy.

Teacher D concurred that the current administration was more focused on
determining the instructional needs of the staff and building capacity by providing
professional development, “Now it's more of a matter of, ok if there's a weakness
what does that teacher need for support. Can we give that teacher more professional
development or something like that”.
A similar strategy used by the administration at Sunflower to build teacher
capacity was to have teachers provide professional development which was
supported by CSTP 6.3 found in the staff handbook; collaborating with colleagues
and the broader professional community to support teacher and student learning.
Administrator A stated that he made it a point to have professional development
facilitated by senior Sunflower teachers that have been on the campus for several
years because, “In terms of building capacity, I'm a real big believer of teachers
teaching teachers”.
Analysis and Discussion for Research Question Three
Current research showed that there was a substantial relationship between
leadership and student achievement in high poverty, high performing schools.
Effective school leaders knew how to combine the knowledge and skills required to
create a learning environment which supported all stakeholders and provided the
resources necessary for student achievement (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).
Additionally, leadership responsibilities which included the creation of order and
97
focus, an emphasis on communication and input, and the development of a culture of
learning had been significantly correlated with student achievement and could be
aligned to the practices of effective school leaders (Waters, et al., 2003). During the
analysis process of Research Question Three, practices utilized by instructional
leaders at Sunflower Middle School to cultivate effective classroom instruction were
connected to the practices of effective leaders of high performing schools established
in the Chapter Two literature review. The leadership routines observed at SMS
contribute to high student achievement by providing opportunities for leadership and
collaboration, which foster an atmosphere of collegiality, trust, and building the
instructional capacity of teachers.
Although the literature review showed that principals who were able to
establish a learning climate in which teachers were allowed to share ideas and
instructional strategies, were able to ensure student achievement, explicit practices
performed by effective instructional leaders in guiding teacher and student
performance in high-poverty, high-achieving schools remain vague. Structures and
systems established to promote collaboration, teacher efficacy and collegiality are
referred to, but rarely clearly described (Styron & Nyman, 2008).
In order to build the instructional capacity of teachers and therefore increase
student achievement at SMS, the leadership actively encouraged teachers to
participate in the decision making process by providing opportunities for leadership
and collaboration, thereby fostering an atmosphere of collegiality. The leadership
team at SMS was comprised of experienced teacher leaders who were given the task
98
of determining the direction of professional development (PD) for the teaching staff,
as well as frequently conducting the PD. The administration provided the time,
structure and format for teacher leaders to voice their opinion, discuss school issues,
and bring the concerns of their grade level/content area teachers to the attention of
the administration. According to Leithwood, et al., (2004), allowing teachers to
participate in the decision making process built teacher loyalty, enhanced the
teachers’ role as professional decision makers, enhanced feelings of professional
self-efficacy, and made better use of the intellectual capacities distributed throughout
the organization.
Collaboration via professional learning communities was another tool used
successfully by the administration at SMS to build teacher capacity. The
administration not only provided the instructional staff with structured opportunities
to collaborate, but actively participated in the collaboration as well, thereby building
community as well as improving classroom instruction. The structured use of PLC
allowed the teachers and administrators to share norms and values, focus on student
learning, and participate in reflective dialogue regarding instructional practice.
Leithwood, et al., (2004) stated that “school administrators, in particular, help
develop professional community through their attention to individual teacher
development, and by creating and sustaining networks of conversation in their
schools around issues of teaching and learning” (page 66). With the intent of
establishing an atmosphere of collegiality and trust, the leadership at Sunflower
99
Middle School had developed a collaborative community in which both teachers and
administrators participate in the process of improving student achievement.
Summary
The administration at Sunflower Middle School had enacted specific
practices designed to build teacher capacity and increase student achievement. By
establishing a learning climate in which opportunities for leadership and
collaboration fostered an atmosphere of collegiality and trust, instructional leaders
were able to improve instruction and student performance.
Conclusion
Research in educational literature had shown that principals have an indirect
effect on student achievement, primarily through teacher efficacy and job satisfaction
(Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003; Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Leithwood & Jantzi,
2008; and Supovits, Sirinidies, & May, 2009). The case study at Sunflower Middle
School revealed several key practices performed by its administration to support and
enhance teacher effectiveness. These practices were evident in the structures and
systems that contribute to high student achievement at SMS.
First and foremost, the administration at Sunflower had established a culture
of learning that encouraged active participation by all stakeholders; students, parents
and teachers. The use of data at all levels to guide instruction and establish academic
goals had determined the instructional and professional path followed by SMS.
Secondly, SMS administration provided teachers the opportunity to
participate in site level decision making through leadership and collaborative
100
processes. Sunflower had adopted a professional learning community model in
which experienced, lead teachers guide members of their grade level and content
areas through a self-reflective process using data analysis to identify areas of
instructional strength and weakness, and to share instructional practices that best
support student learning. SMS teacher leaders also had a significant voice in the
decision making process through participation in regularly scheduled leadership
meetings during which they assisted in deciding the direction in which school wide
professional development took place.
Finally, SMS administration supported instruction by actively participating in
grade level/content area PLC, as well as all instructional trainings and professional
development attended by Sunflower teachers. SMS administrators took pride in
being “learners of the trade”, and being able to model lessons for teachers.
Administrators at Sunflower also provided instructional support to teachers by
encouraging peer observations and assistance, and collegiality among the faculty.
The success of high poverty students at Sunflower Middle School
demonstrated that the policies and practices of effective school leaders outlined in
educational literature could be applied to real world situations. The question remains
though, “why are some high poverty school achieving while others are not?” In
order to replicate the high student achievement at Sunflower Middle School, the
structures and systems that had proven to be effective at SMS must be implemented
at all levels of school site organization.
101
Chapter Summary
This chapter investigated the findings of data based on a single case study of
Sunflower Middle School, a high-poverty, high-performing school. The structures
and systems perceived to contribute to high student achievement at SMS were
identified and analyzed, as well as the mechanisms by which the structures and
systems were implemented and sustained to support high levels of student
achievement. Finally, the practices established by instructional leaders to support
effective classroom instruction school wide were discussed. The findings discussed
in this study were based on multiple sources of data, including interviews,
observations, and artifact analysis, which served to reinforce their validity. The
summary, conclusions, and implications of this study are presented in the next
chapter.
102
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Educational research has clearly established a correlation between low
academic achievement and student poverty. Students from poor, urban schools
frequently underperform on national and state assessments as compared to students
from more socio-economically advantaged schools, resulting in a sizable gap in
achievement between students from disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged
backgrounds (Riddle, 1994). Therefore, the greatest need for educational
improvement has been found to be in schools that serve students from low-income
families, especially those with limited English proficiency. Despite the association
between low academic achievement and student poverty, high poverty schools that
have been able to promote high academic achievement exist, but have not been
sufficiently studied in order to improve student achievement in similar, high poverty
schools and districts.
High poverty, high achieving schools have demonstrated organizational
structures and systems that focus on instruction and high academic expectations to
support student performance. Current research on education leadership has
demonstrated that effective leadership makes a difference for student achievement;
however, the question of the extent to which educational leadership directly affects
student achievement still remains. Despite the fact that effective leadership was
found to be an important factor for student achievement and school performance, the
103
relationship between principal behaviors and student achievement remains unclear
(Walstrom & Louis, 2008). What is not clearly known is the influence instructional
leadership has on the structures and systems that exist in high performing, high
poverty schools that cultivate effective classroom instruction and contribute to
student achievement.
The purpose of this study was to identify the structures and systems
implemented by effective instructional leaders to impact teaching and to ensure
student achievement in high performing high poverty schools. These successful
structures and systems were investigated at an urban intermediate school in Southern
California that met the criteria set by the thematic dissertation group.
This study was conducted to address the need for further research into the
high academic achievement of high poverty urban schools and to increase the
knowledge base of how organizational structures and systems implemented in high
poverty urban schools contribute to student success.
Research Questions
Research questions were developed after a review of the literature revealed
that successful instructional leaders share similar organizational structures and
systems that have been implemented at high performing schools. The research
questions that guided this study were as follows:
• What are perceived school wide structures and systems that contribute to
high achievement in high poverty schools?
104
• How are organizational structures and systems implemented and
sustained to support higher levels of student achievement?
• How do instructional leaders cultivate effective school wide classroom
instruction?
Summary
The primary structure perceived to contribute to high student achievement at
Sunflower Middle School was the comprehensive use of data to guide decision
making at all levels of the organization. The structured use of data at SMS was
supported by systems of shared leadership and collaboration among administration
and teachers. By implementing systems of shared leadership and collaboration
between key staff members, the SMS leadership provided the time and opportunity
for teachers to effectively work together to analyze data, share best practices and
make crucial decisions regarding student performance.
A strong culture of learning at Sunflower Middle School was the principle
instrument through which the structures and systems that contributed to high student
achievement were implemented and sustained. The culture of learning established at
SMS was based upon two unexpected themes that emerged from the data, which
were not included in the review of the literature; the active involvement of students
and parents in the educational process, and a safe learning environment based on the
philosophy of “discipline before instruction”. Through the sharing of assessment
data with students and parents, students were able to generate academic goals and
monitor their own progress, while parents were able to work together with teachers
105
to share in the learning process, monitor their child’s progress, and help their child
succeed. The philosophy of discipline before instruction was developed around the
belief that in order for students to learn, a safe, structured environment must first be
created. At SMS a safe, learning environment was the priority of both teachers and
administrators.
Finally, three practices of the leadership at Sunflower Middles School were
found to cultivate effective, school wide classroom instruction which included
providing opportunities for leadership, fostering an atmosphere of collegiality among
the staff and building teacher capacity. The administration provided the time and
structure for teachers to voice their opinions and discuss issues and concerns through
shared leadership and collaboration. Professional learning communities allowed
teachers and administrators to build community and improve instruction by sharing
norms and values, focusing on student learning, and participating in reflective
dialogue regarding instructional practice.
Conclusions
Research has shown that effective instructional leaders can make a significant
impact on student achievement through their influences on teacher performance and
the learning culture of the school (Fulan, 2002; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003;
Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Styron & Nyman, 2008; and Supovits, Sirinidies, &
May, 2009). In fact, these effective school leaders were able to establish
organizational structures and systems that promoted high academic achievement in
schools with high-poverty levels.
106
The structures and systems in place at Sunflower Middle School supported
school wide instruction where all stakeholders, parents, students, teachers and
administrators, were actively engaged in the learning process through the use of data
to guide the processes of decision making, collaboration, professional development
and instruction, as well as to create academic goals for students and parents to
follow. In addition, teachers and administrators were committed to working
collaboratively to generate and implement policies and practices that improved
instruction and bolstered student learning. Finally, by providing the time and
opportunity for teachers to share in leadership responsibilities and work
collaboratively in professional learning communities, the administration at
Sunflower was able to improve instruction by fostering an atmosphere of collegiality
and cooperation.
Research in this case study identified organizational structures and systems
that supported a learning environment based on the use of data, collaboration, and
shared decision-making processes. These structures and systems were working
together to provide a climate of achievement in which all stakeholders had a voice,
and shared in the belief that all students can be academically successful.
Implications for Practice and Policy
An analysis of this study’s finding in conjunction with prior research on
structures and systems of high performing, high poverty schools has produced
implications for practice and policy. While this study focused on the effects
instructional leadership had on student achievement, the results may provide useful
107
information on the future practices of leaders at high poverty schools, and the
educational policies established to improve student achievement. In order to identify
what has worked at similar schools, educators at low performing, high poverty
schools should consider the following implications.
School Culture
Establishing a school culture in which all stakeholders are committed to
learning is vital to the success of students at all schools, especially urban schools in
areas of high poverty. Research has shown that high poverty schools with a strong
academic culture are more effective than those without and school leaders have a
significant impact on establishing that culture (Murphy, et al., 2006; Styron, &
Nyman, 2008; Devos, 2009; and Dumay, 2009). To facilitate the development of a
strong school culture, school leaders need to provide the time, training and
opportunity for teachers to collaborate through organized professional learning
communities, as well as participate in decision-making at the school site level
through collective leadership. The decisions of professional learning communities
(PLC) must be based on data analysis and reflect research based best practices.
Professional development (PD) opportunities must also be based on established
instructional needs of students and teachers at the school, with the principle intent of
student achievement.
Leadership
Instructional leaders, either administrators or teachers, at high poverty, under-
achieving schools will need to examine the structures and systems implemented by
108
their colleagues at similar high poverty, high performing schools in order to replicate
their success. School leaders will also need to identify specific behaviors and
practices, such as creating opportunities to collaborate through PLC and PD, and
fostering collegiality in order to build teacher capacity, that may be transferred to
their own schools in order to promote student achievement. In addition district level
administrators will need to recognize specific behaviors attributed to successful
school leaders such as shared leadership and providing opportunities to collaborate
with teachers. This knowledge can guide district level leaders to enact policy to
improve administrator efficacy, and provide support to school leaders in
implementing these behaviors. Educators need to understand the impact effective
leadership has on student achievement, specifically the role leaders at high poverty,
high performing schools play in promoting student achievement.
Implementation of Research Based Practice
The ability to develop and implement strategic school improvement plans has
been identified by Lethiwood, et al., (2004), as one of the practices of successful
school leaders. The results of this case study imply that implementation of
researched based best practices contribute to student achievement. The teachers and
administrators of Sunflower Middle School, a high performing, high poverty school,
worked together to actively seek and implement practices shown by educational
research to improve instruction and student performance. Therefore, the teachers and
administrators of high poverty, low performing schools need to identify and
implement research based practices designed to meet the instructional needs of their
109
students, such as developing professional learning communities to analyze student
assessment data, and collaborating on best instructional practices and strategies.
Teachers and administrators of high poverty, low performing schools also need to
create or put into practice a system of collective leadership in order to provide
teachers with a voice in the school site decision making process.
Recommendations for Further Research
The following recommendations for future research are based on what could
be done to better understand how school leadership affects academic achievement:
• A longitudinal study of multiple successful principals might be conducted
in order to determine how the leadership practices that support instruction
and promote student achievement are sustained over a three to five year
period. This study would examine how the administrator responds to and
overcomes factors that directly influence the effectiveness of the school
leadership such as changes in staff or budget cuts.
• A natural extension of this case study would be to examine how district
level leadership nurtures and supports school site administrators to
maintain instructional leadership. This study would provide insight into
how the decisions and actions of district level leaders impact the
effectiveness of school site leaders.
• The direct effect of leadership practices on students at high poverty, high
performing schools could be studied using the value-added model. This
model could be used to identify the practices that impact student
110
achievement the most, while controlling for factors that the school or
leadership has no control of such as student or family background, and
poverty level.
111
REFERENCES
Abernathy, S. F. (2007). No Child Left Behind: And the public schools. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Blasé, J., and Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership teachers’
perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools.
Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), pg. 130.

California Department of Education. (2009). NCLB Program Improvement School
Requirements. Retrieved on February 28, 2010 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/nclbpireq.asp.

California Department of Education. (2010). Ed-Data. Retrieved on February 28,
2010 from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp.

Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity study. Retrieved on April
25, 2010 from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/06389.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Devos, G. (2009). An exploratory study on principals’ conceptions about their role
as school leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8, 173-196.

Dumay, X. (2009). Origins and consequences of schools’ organizational culture for
student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 523-555.

Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational
Leadership, 37, 15-27.

Fink, E., and Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders.
Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598-606.

Fulan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.

Gall, M., Gall, J. and Borg, W. (2007). Educational Research- An Introduction (8th
ed.), Pearson Education Inc.

112
Gamoran, A., and Long, D. (2006). Equality of Educational Opportunity: A 40-
year retrospective (WCER Working Paper N. 2006-9). Madison: University
of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved
on February 28, 2010 from
http://www.wcer.wise.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php.

Gardner, Howard. (2010). Howard Gardner’s Definition of Leadership. Retrieved
from http://www.newhorizons.org/trans/gardner.htm on 4-12-10.

Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in
Education, 27, 25-68.

Jeffrey, J. R. (1978). Education for the Children of the Poor: A Study of the Origins
and Implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Jenks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. S., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., et al. (1972).
Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America.
New York: Basic Books.

Leithwood, K., and Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The
contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(4), 496-528.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., and Yashkina, A.
(2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: taking the ego out
of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37-67.

Leithwood, K., and Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student
achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529-561.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning. University of Minnesota, Center for
Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Retrieved on January 3,
2001 from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/Curr
entAreasofocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/HowLeadershipInfluencesStude
ntLearning.aspx

Lezotte, L. W., Edmonds, R., and Ratner, G. (1974). A final report: Remedy for
school failure to equitable basic school skills. East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University, Department of Urban and Metropolitan Studies.
113
Mace-Matluck, B. (1987). The effective schools movement: Its history and context.
Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

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

Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Straus, T., and Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship
between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of
Educational Administration, 46(2), 214-228.

Maslowski, R. (2006). A review of inventories for diagnosing school culture.
Journal of Educational Administration, 44, 6-35.

Masumoto, M., and Brown-Welty, S. (2009). Case study of leadership practices and
school- community interrelationships in high-performing, high-poverty, rural
California high schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(9).
Retrieved on 1-6-10 from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-1.pdf.

McCall, M. S., Hauser, C., Cronin, J., Kingsbury, G. G., and Houser, R. (2006).
Achievement gaps: An examination of differences in student achievement
and growth. Retrieved on April 15, 2010 from
http://www.nwea.org/research/achievementgap.asp?ref+prevpr.

McDavid, J. C., and Hawthorn, L. R. (2006). Program Evaluation and Performance
Measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McDonald, D., and Keedy, J. (2002). Principals as Teacher Leaders in the
Kentucky Education Reform Act Era: Laying the Groundwork for High-
Achieving, Low Income Schools. University of Louisville. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association.

McLaughlin, and Milbery W. (1975) Evaluation and Reform: The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Murley, L. D., Keedy, J., and Welsh, J. F. (2008). Examining School Improvement
through the Lens of Principal and Teacher Flow of Influence in High-
Achieving, High-Poverty Schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(4),
380-400.
114
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., and Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered
leadership: A conceptual foundation. Vanderbilt University, Learning
Sciences Institute.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk; The
Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2008). No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. Retrieved on October 7, 2008, from
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/NCLB/NCLBHistory.htm

National Institutes for Health. (2010). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and
guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved on
May 21, 2010 from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html.

Nettles, S. M., and Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct
effects of school leadership on students’ achievement: The implications for
school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 724-
736.

Ohio Education Association. (2007). The elementary and secondary education act of
1965: from the war on poverty to No Child Left Behind. Retrieved on April
15, 2010 from
http://www.ohea.org/GD/Templates/Pages/OEA/OEADetail.aspx?page=3&T
opicRelatio nID=170&Content=8038.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Reeves, D. (2000). The 90/90/90 schools: A case study. Accountability in action:
A blueprint for learning organizations. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning
Press.

Reitzug, U. C., West, D. L., and Angel, R. (2008). Conceptualizing instructional
leadership: the voices of principals. Education and Urban Society, 40(6),
694-714.

Riddle, W. C. (1994). Education for the disadvantaged: Analysis of 1994 ESEA
Title I Amendments under P. L. 103- 382. Library of Congress: Washington
D. C. Congressional Research Service
115
Robinson, V. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and
educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241-
256.

Styron, R. A., and Nyman, T. R. (2008). Key characteristics of middle school
performance. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 31(5), 1-17.

Supovits, J., Sirinides, P., and May, H. (2009). How principals and peers influence
teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and
guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington
D.C.: DHEW Publications.

U.S. Department of Education. (1995). The Improving America’s Schools Act of
1994. Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
brochure.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965. Retrieved on February 28, 2010 from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994.
Retrieved on February 28, 2010 from
http://www.2.ed.gov/legistlation/ESEA/toc.html.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Executive Summary of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved on June 16, 2009 from
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html.

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

Waits, M.J., and Campbell, H. E. (2006). Why some schools with Latino children
beat the odds and others do not. Arizona State University, Morrison Institute
for Public Policy.

Walstrom, K. L., and Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal
leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared
responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
116
Waters, T., Marzano, R., and McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student
achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and
Learning.

Weber, G. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful
schools. Washington, D.C. Council for Basic Education (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 057 125).

Williams, H. S. (2009). Leadership capacity – a key to sustaining lasting
improvement. Education, 130 no. 1, 30-41.

Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., and Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and
student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.
117
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name: __________________________________ Date: _______________
Name of Person Interviewed: ___________________________________________
Position: ____________________________________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ___________ Total Time: ____________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the University
of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying structures and
systems in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the nomination
process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The purpose
of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge
and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire
educators to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview Questions
1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role as a leader at the school.

2. Describe the practices and policies at your site that you believe contribute to
your students’ high student performance?
a. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last
3-5 years to improve student performance?
i. If this is your first or second year, what are some things that
your predecessor put in place?
118

3. How has your school adapted to policy and practices that have been
implemented?
a. How did the school overcome challenges, make changes, and / or
maintain status quo?

4. How do you create and maintain a climate in the school that engages all
students?
a. How does the climate in the school affect the school’s culture of
___________?

5. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are
made clear for teachers / students / parents?
a. How do you monitor student progress?
b. How are teachers held accountable for student achievement?
c. What assessment tools do you use?
d. How are the expectations for meeting those goals made clear?

6. How are the needs of students in different sub-groups addressed in the
school-wide plan (i.e. EL, SED, Hispanic, etc.)?

7. How are the needs of teachers met to facilitate high student achievement?

8. How would you describe effective teaching at your site?
a. In what ways do teachers differentiate instruction in order to meet the
needs of all students?
b. What is your role in helping teachers provide effective instruction?

9. Describe your level of confidence in teaching in facilitating student
achievement?

10. How do you think your beliefs impact student achievement?

11. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, which
demonstrate high student performance?
b. What is your role as a school leader in guiding the use of data to
improve the school climate and classroom instruction?
119
APPENDIX B
TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
Name of Person Interviewed: ____________________________________________
Position: ____________________________________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ___________ Total Time: ____________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the University
of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying structures and
systems in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the nomination
process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The purpose
of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge
and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire
educators to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview Questions
1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role as a teacher and a leader at the
school.

2. Describe the policies and practices at your site that you believe contribute to
the school’s high student performance?
a. Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these
policies and practices? If so, how did the school overcome them or
maintain them?
120
b. How has your school adapted to policy and practices that have been
implemented?

3. What role do teachers play in maintaining a climate in the school that
engages all students?
a. How does the climate in the school affect the school’s culture of
___________?

4. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are
made clear for teachers / students / parents?
a. How do you monitor student progress?
b. How are teachers held accountable for student achievement?
c. What assessment tools are used?
d. How are the expectations for meeting those goals made clear?

5. How familiar are you with the school-wide plan?
a. How are the needs of students in different sub-groups addressed in the
school-wide plan (i.e. EL, SED, Hispanic, etc.)?
b. In what ways do teachers differentiate instruction in order to meet the
needs of all students?

6. How are the needs of teachers met to facilitate high student achievement?

7. How would you describe effective teaching at your site?
a. What are the three most effective things teachers have done over the
last 3-5 years to improve student performance?
b. What does professional development look like at your school?
c. What does collaboration look like at your school?
d. How does leadership support teachers?

8. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, which
demonstrate high student performance?
b. What is your role as a teacher leader in guiding the use of data to
improve the school climate and classroom instruction?

9. Describe your level of confidence in teaching in facilitating student
achievement?

10. How do you think your beliefs impact student achievement?
121
APPENDIX C
CLASSIFIED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
Name of Person Interviewed: ____________________________________________
Position: ____________________________________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ___________ Total Time: ___________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the University
of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying structures and
systems in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the nomination
process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The purpose
of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

The information garnered from this research will be used to spread new knowledge
and innovation about achieving high levels of student achievement and to inspire
educators to improve school performance.

The interview should take about 45 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview Questions
1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role at the school.

2. Describe the policies and practices at your site that you believe contribute to
this school’s high student performance?
a. Has your school encountered any obstacles in maintaining these
policies and practices? If so, how did the school overcome them or
maintain them?
b. How has your school adapted to policy and practices that have been
implemented?
122

3. How would you describe the school climate here?
a. In what ways does the school engage/involve all students?
b. What do you think your role is in contributing to the school climate?

4. What are the expectations for meeting academic achievement goals here?
a. Do you know how the students here are doing academically?
b. What indicators let you know how they are doing?

5. How are the needs of all students being met at this school?
a. What is in place to support these students?
b. What is in place to support the staff?

6. How would you describe an effective teacher at your site?
a. How do you know when a teacher is doing a good job?

7. How do you see teachers and administrators working together?
a. How do you work with teachers and administrators at the school site?
123
APPENDIX D
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
School Name: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
Classroom / Teacher Observed: __________________________________________
Grade / Department: ___________________________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ___________ Total Time: ____________

Interaction Styles Routines
What are you
looking for?
What do you think?
Questions?
What are you
looking for?
What do you think?
Questions?
Teacher /
Student
Feedback
Student /
Student
Entrance
Teacher /
Other Adult
Help-Seeking
124

Physical Environment Instructional Strategies
What are you
looking for?
What do you think?
Questions?
What are you
looking for?
What do you think?
Questions?
Seating
arrangement
Cooperative
Learning
Groups

Student work Direct
Instruction

Standards Differentiated
Instruction

Achievement
Data
Independent
Work

Bulletin
Boards / On
Display
Check for
Understanding

Student
Engagement
Progress
Monitoring

125
APPENDIX E
MEETING OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
School Name: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
Type of Meeting Observed: _____________________________________________
Participants: _________________________________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ___________ Total Time: ____________

Interaction Styles Routines
What are you
looking for?
Notes What are you
looking for?
Notes
Evaluation Norms and Protocol
Commentary How Are Decisions
Made?

Investment Agenda Being
Followed /
Timeliness

How Does
Each Member
Contribute?

126

Physical Environment Instructional Strategies
What are you
looking for?
Notes What are you
looking for?
Notes
Seating
Arrangements
Facilitator
Where Is The
Meeting Held?
Lead Speaker /
Presenter

How Are
Teachers
Grouped?
Collaboration
Supplies Cooperative Groups
by:
*Grade Level
*Department Level
*Mixed Groups

Focus / Meeting
Objective

Evaluation
Follow Up
127
APPENDIX F
GENERAL SITE OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
School Name: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ___________ Total Time: ____________

Interaction Styles Routines
What are you
looking for?
What do you think?
Questions?
What are you
looking for?
What do you think?
Questions?
Student /
Adult
Behaviors
Student /
Teacher /
Administrator /
Support Staff
Behavior
During Passing
Periods

Peer / Peer Lunch / Recess
- Supervision
- Interaction
Among
Kids
- Following
the rules

Groupings
- Students
- Teachers
Parent
Communication

Cliques
128

Physical Environment
What are you looking for? What do you think?
Questions?
Cleanliness
Symbolic (Postings)
- Data
- Student Work
- Goals
- College Going Culture
- School Wide Happenings
- Missions
- Extra-curricular Activities
- Sports
- After School Programs

Recognitions
- Teacher
- Students
- Trophies

Furnishings
Lighting
Graffiti?
Student Supervision
Dress Code
- Teachers
- Students

Safety Precautions
School Spirit

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this single school case study was to examine the structures and systems in place at high poverty schools that contribute to high student achievement, specifically, how they are implemented and maintained. The case study sought to examine the role instructional leaders play in cultivating effective school wide classroom instruction in a high performing, high poverty urban middle school. Furthermore, this study sought to identify themes emerging from the examination of the policies and practices associated with improving student performance at the case study school. A high performing, high poverty urban middle school in the Los Angeles County area of California was chosen for this study. The criteria for a high performing school included maintaining or improving API growth during a three year period, and sustaining a Similar Schools ranking of 8 or above during that same three year period. High poverty was defined as schools with 40 percent or more of their student population on free or reduced price lunch. The case study was completed using a qualitative research design. Methods of data collection included observations, interviews and document analysis. A total of seven teachers, two administrators, a school counselor, and school secretary participated in the interview process. Within this qualitative design, a process of triangulating data was incorporated in order to gain a larger picture of the structures and systems at the school site, and to confirm findings. Analysis of the data uncovered four major themes associated with increasing student achievement, including a structured use of data, shared leadership, collaboration and the establishment of a culture of learning. In addition, practices by effective instructional leaders designed to provide opportunities for teachers to share in the decision making process in order to foster collegiality and build capacity were identified. Implications for policy and practice were also discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing high-poverty urban schools

PDF

A study of academic success with students of color: what really matters? Lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from a high-performing, high-poverty urban school

PDF

Organizational structures and systems in high-performing, high-poverty urban schools: the construct of race and teacher expectations as mediating factors in student achievement

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools

PDF

A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

Overcoming a legacy of low achievement: systems and structures in a high-performing, high-poverty California elementary school

PDF

School-wide implementation of systems and structures that lead to increased achievement among students of color: a case study of a high-performing, high-poverty urban school

PDF

A case study of student engagement in a high performing urban continuation high school

PDF

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

PDF

Systems and structures at a high performing high poverty school: A case study using RTI to promote student achievement

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

PDF

Implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high performing, high poverty ubran schools

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lesson from a high performing high poverty urban elementary school

PDF

Secondary school reform: student achievement in mathematics -- a case study: Hot Springs High School

PDF

School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school

PDF

Doubling student performance through the use of human capital at high-performing high-poverty schools

PDF

Student engagement in a high-performing urban high school: a case study

PDF

A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high-poverty schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Harri, Vickie (author)

Core Title The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 03/29/2011

Defense Date 03/09/2011

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

Tag Educational Leadership,high poverty schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,student achievement

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email bearspet@msn.com,harri@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3709

Unique identifier UC1478990

Identifier etd-Harri-4479 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-445387 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3709 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Harri-4479.pdf

Dmrecord 445387

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Harri, Vickie

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