University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

(USC Thesis Other)

An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN EXPLORATION OF LEADERSHIP CAPACITY BUILDING
AND EFFECTIVE PRINCIPAL PRACTICES

by
Paula J. Chamberlain
___________________________________________________________________________

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

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Paula J. Chamberlain

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Paul Chamberlain and my children
Jeremy Black, Shannon and Andre Edwards, Kevin Kelly, and Emily Chamberlain for
their support and patience throughout the entire doctorate program.
To my mother, Patricia De Anne Baer, for always believing in me and for telling
me from very early childhood that I could achieve anything.
To my father in-law, Dee Chamberlain, the first Trojan in the family and my
mother in-law, Valerie Chamberlain for their encouragement and understanding when we
couldn’t be there because I was working on my paper.
I sincerely appreciate all my family members for the time they sacrificed for me
to work on this study.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I give my thanks and appreciation to my dissertation chair, Dr. Margaret Reed, for
her leadership and belief in me through this very rigorous process, as well as for her time
and valuable contributions to my work. Also, I give appreciation to my dissertation
committee members, Dr. Dennis Hocevar and Dr. Pedro Garcia, for the use of their time
and expertise to make valuable contributions to better my work.
A very special acknowledgement is made to my cohort colleague and friend
Omaira Lee who listened to my endless questions, who wrote with me, encouraged me,
and pushed me at the end when I didn’t think I could do this. To the remainder of my
cohort group: Sunday Abbott, Paula Libby, Diane Kammeyer, Chris Hert, and Chuck
Flores, I extend my appreciation for the opportunity to work with and collaborate with
such a great group of people. I am grateful for the opportunity we have had to study
together and compare notes along the way.
I also acknowledge my colleagues and friends Dr. Kimberly Cabrera and Dr.
Michael Vaughn. Thank you Kim for sharing this program with me when you first
became involved; without your suggestion to check it out this would not have happened
the way it did. Thank you Michael for all the rides and fun while going to and from
campus; both in Irvine and Los Angeles. And thanks to both of you for that first year in
Irvine. I am grateful for all the time we have had together comparing notes, comparing
papers, and working together trying to figure out what different professors wanted. And
to both of you I am grateful for the friendships we have forged.

iv
And finally, to the participants of both study schools and to the DISD: I am
thankful and grateful for the opportunity I have had to conduct research with such a great
group of people. Your commitment to building the capacity of others and to student
learning is an inspiration and stands as an example of how the learning needs of all
students can be met.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 19
Chapter Three: Methodology 63
Chapter Four: Findings 90
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations 163
References 181
Appendices
Appendix A: Letter of Support 187
Appendix B: Informed Consent Letter 188
Appendix C: VAL ED Reliabilities and Validity Document 191
Appendix D: Interview Protocol: Principal/Teacher (Pre/Post) 192
Appendix E: Observation Protocols 195
Appendix F: Outcomes Chart 198
Appendix G: Document Analysis Protocols 200
Appendix H: Classroom Observation Protocol 207
Appendix I: Recruitment Letter #1 208
Appendix J: Principal Recruitment Letter 209
Appendix K: Val Ed Survey 210

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Texas AYP Achievement Results, 2007-2008 and 2007-2006 68
Table 2: Triangulation Table 83
Table 3: Data Collection Timeline 86

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 12
Figure 2: Sample VAL ED Survey 78
Figure 3: VAL ED Performance Levels 79

viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research study was to examine the impact of participation in
the Durham Principal Coaching Initiative on urban school principal leadership practice.
This mixed-methods case study investigated the following five questions: 1) How does
participation in the Durham ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) prepare principals
to become effective instructional leaders? 2) How does the DPCI influence the
knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of urban school principals? 3) How does an
urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures and processes that
promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes? 4) What leadership
support structures enable leader practice? 5) How can the VAL ED Instrument serve as a
coaching tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Qualitative data were collected from pre and post intervention interviews with
two principals, six teachers, and two principal supervisors. Document analysis and field
observations of principals, teachers, and staff development days were also conducted to
collect data on the principals’ leadership practice. In addition, quantitative data were
collected from the results of the pre-post online Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in
Education (VAL Ed) Survey. The VAL Ed Survey is an instrument that provided a
summary of the principal’s, teachers’, and supervisors’ perceptions of leader
effectiveness on learning-centered leadership behaviors that have been found to correlate
with student achievement (Murphy et al., 2006).
Key findings revealed that participation in the District’s comprehensive
leadership capacity building program and instructional leadership coaching initiative

ix
enabled the principals to enact student centered leadership behaviors. This study also
found that the structures of the principal network, the supervisor support, and the Campus
Instructional Leadership Team (CILT) were effective in enabling leader practice. Lastly,
the findings suggest that the school principals created specific conditions that created a
learner-centered focus on instruction. These conditions included implementing and
monitoring nested learning communities, data driven instruction, and internal
accountability. There was some evidence that these conditions had a positive influence
on teacher practice; however, the extent to which these practices were impacted was
beyond the scope of this study.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
In 1983 a government appointed commission published A Nation at Risk
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), which brought to the public’s
attention the inequities in public education. One consequence has been the demand for
performance based accountability reforms like No Child Left Behind (2001), which has
translated into an educational challenge for the 21
st
century: to achieve higher levels of
learning for all children. While we may be in agreement that all children should have
access to a high quality education, the new accountability based standards have increased
the pressure on principals and challenges them to find innovative ways to move their
schools into compliance.
Meanwhile, demographics are reshaping both the student population, the
administration, and the teaching force (Levine, 2005). It is clear and alarming that
various groups of our public school population experience negative and inequitable
treatment on a daily basis. When compared to White middle-class students and their
Asian peers, students of color; students of low socioeconomic status; students who are
learning English as a second language; and students with disabilities consistently achieve
lower test scores. These students often experience lower teacher expectations and often
are assigned teachers who have been inadequately prepared (Brown, 2006; Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Delpit, 1995). As a result, these students are ―left behind‖ without
hope and without equal access to equitable educational experiences.

2
During this period of rapid change, school leaders have the job of overseeing an
increasingly diverse population, with the responsibility to lead the redesign of their
schools in an outcome based accountability era. Principals can no longer only oversee
the management and fiscal responsibilities of their schools; they are responsible and
accountable for the effectiveness of the school instructional program and student
outcomes. Yet despite agreement on both the high stakes and the demanding job
description, principals generally have not received the resources, the preparation, or the
mentoring that would increase their capacity to respond to these increased demands
(Darling-Hammond & Orphanos, 2009).
To add to the complexity of the problem, principals are confronted with
competing forms of leadership theory (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006) as vehicles for reform. For example,
instructional leadership, which emerged in the 1980s, ―identified strong, directive
leadership focused on curriculum and instruction from the principal‖ that was effective at
teaching children in poor urban communities (Hallinger, 2003, p. 329). Scholars have
questioned the capacity of principals to fulfill the overwhelming responsibilies inherent
in this model, while others have critiqued instructional leadership as supporting the
―heroic‖ view of the principal (Hallinger, 2003).
In response to the restructuring era of the 1990s new forms of leadership such as,
transformational leadership, distributed leadership, and learning centered leaderhsip
began to emerge (Hallinger, 2003). Transformationl leadership is grounded in the
understanding of the needs of individual staff rather than on how the principal controls

3
instructional programs. This ―model seeks to influence people by building from the
bottom-up rather than the top down‖ (p. 337) as in the instructional leadership model.
Transformational approaches to leadership emphasize how leaders can instill in others
motivation and capacity that alters practice that leads to gains in student acheivement
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). Such leadership reforms require significant capacity
development on the part of individuals, as well as organizations (Leithwood & Jantzi,
2000).
Distributed leadership can be defined as leadership that is less heirarchal in nature
where tasks are distributed among stakeholders as need occurs and distributed to those
who have the knowledge and capacity to solve or address the problem (Spillane,
Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). The practice of distributing leadership brings
transparency to the leadership process and supports a collaborative framework in which
leaders can begin to think about and reflect on their practice. Distributed leadership
challenges the conventional belief that leadership is assoiciated with specific positions
and focuses instead on specific activities that constitute leadership.
Learning Centered Leadership (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006)
incorporates the concepts of vision, instructional programs, and school climate from the
instructional leadership model proposed in Hallinger’s framework (Hallinger, 2003) with
concepts from both transformational and distributed leadership models. However, one
very important distinction is the shift to a student learning outcomes focus. Embedded in
this theory of leadership are aspects of transformational and distributed leadership as it
relates to assessment and building communities of learning. For example, learning

4
communities and professional development foster collaboration, which is a concept also
found in distributed forms of leadership (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006).
Given the reseach base on effective leadership practice and how it might be informed by
leadership theories, much remains implicit regarding how leaders gain the capacity to
enact and sustain such leadership practice.
While we know that effective leadership is essential to closing the achievement
gap and we have research based examples of what effective leaders do, ―we still have not
progressed to the point where as a field we are capable of developing the number of
effective leaders necessary to meet the excellence and equity challenges in urban
schools‖ (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2007, p. 19). This has led many
researchers and practioners to further explore the preparation of effective school leaders
in an effort to identify ways of building greater leadership capacity for the purpose of
developing leaders who enact effective leadership practice that promotes high standards,
quality instruction, and a culture of repsect for students’ academic success (Goldring,
Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2007).
Peterson (2002) argues that professional development programs, designed around
critical program structures and cultural elements, build the capacity of principals to be
effective leaders. For example, field-based internships, problem-based learning, and the
implementation of cohort groups and mentoring have been cited as effective pedagogical
methods for the instruction of adult learners (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999).
Mentoring is a component of preparation programs designed to improve school and
student performance (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2007). Neufeld and Roper (2003)

5
suggest coaching as a school based component of leadership development that has the
potential to contribute to effective leadership practice. Neufeld and Roper (2003)
acknowledge that there is a lack of research in the area of mentoring and coaching, but
they believe it holds the promise of supporting educational leaders as they take on the
responsibilities of school leadership and shields new leaders from the trials of the ―sink or
swim‖ (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2007, p. 9) method of on the job training.
Research that identifies whether capacity building leadership programs actually
influence or change principal practice is sparse (Peterson, 2002). There is an absence of
research on the actual outcomes of capacity building leadership programs and how
outcomes might be measured (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2007).
According to Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005) only classroom
instruction matters more than leadership and that the principal’s influence and abilities
are key to buidling schools that promote effective teaching and learning for all students.
While there is research demonstrating how principals influence school effectiveness;
there is a gap in the research that informs how such capacity is developed and how
principal leadership influences teacher practice and what students learn (Davis, Darling-
Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005).
The framework for this study is grounded in the sociocultural theory of learning
which suggests learning is social in nature, has a situational context, (Teemant, Smith,
Pinnegar, & Egan, 2005) and occurs as the learner connects new knowledge to existing
beliefs and values. This study will focus specifically on how participation in a leadership
capacity building program prepares principals for the unique challenges of the urban

6
context and how knowledge and beliefs might be modified as a result. The socio cultural
theory of learning provides a well established lens in which to examine how principals
gain and enact this knowledge in ways that promote and sustain effective school
leadership.
Statement of the Problem
Principals are being called upon to redesign and lead the instructional programs of
their schools. Administrators must lead their schools in the rethinking of goals, priorities,
finances, staffing, curriculum, pedagogies, learning resources, assessment methods,
technology, and the use of time and space (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, &
Meyerson, 2005; Levine, 2005). They have to recruit and retain effective staff; ensure
relevant professional development; prepare parents and students for the rigors of a
standard based education; engage in the evaluation of continuous school improvement;
create a sense of community; and build morale and a community of cooperation and
collegiality at their school site. Few, if any, of today’s leaders have been prepared to
carry out these responsibilities (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005).
There is a good deal of research documenting that principals make a difference in
the success of students (Levine, 2005), yet there is no systematic research documenting
the impact of educational leadership programs on the achievement of children in the
schools that these graduates lead. Levine (2005) argues that research leaves one to
wonder what value educational leadership programs add and what aspects of the
curriculum make a difference in enhancing student learning in the K-12 setting.
According to Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005), effective

7
school leaders influence student achievement; however, research is necessary to
determine the influence leadership may have on curriculum, assessment, and school
culture.
Currently, there are a number of indicators that principal leadership is in crisis.
Two particularly troubling factors include the struggle districts are experiencing retaining
an adequate supply of highly qualified candidates for leadership roles (Knapp, Copland,
& Talbert, 2003). Second, principal candidates and existing principals are often ill
prepared for the professional tasks and competencies necessary for today’s leaders
(Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Levine, 2005). Evidence
indicates that effective leadership programs must be research based, have currilcular
coherence, use cohort groupings, and provide an experience that is the context as it
relates to the challenges leaders face (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson,
2005). However, empirical evidence for the impact of these program features are
minimal. For example, additional research is needed to find out what skills excellent
leaders have and use; what experiences can support the development of these skills; and
what program structures best support the learning of these experiences.
A sense of urgency is part of the environment of educational settings today as
students struggle to meet the high standards set by their state, and nation and as principals
work toward improving educational quality and experiences for all students.
Achievement gaps persist, and parents of students who attend low-performing schools
increasingly seek to escape the offerings of public education (Knapp, Copland, & Talbert,
2003). The need for strong educational leadership is unmistakable. We need leadership

8
that brings about significant improvement in learning and in closing the achievement gap.
A disturbingly high number of principals and other school leaders report that their time is
consumed by matters unrelated to student learning. This needs to be corrected and
replaced by a culture of educational leadership that is student centered and focused on
builiding the capacity of principals to build the support structures necessary to complete
task.
Purpose of the Study
The primary function of this research was to contribute knowledge that will help
stakeholders in education better understand how to close the achievement gap by
preparing school leaders that have the capacity to function in ways that influence teacher
practice resulting in improved student outcomes. According to Levine (2005), ―there is
an absence of research on what value these programs add, what aspects of the curriculum
or educational experience make a difference, and what elements are unnecessary or
minimally useful‖ (p. 44) in enhancing student learning in the K-12 setting. For
example, additional research is needed to find out what skills excellent leaders have and
use; what experiences can support the development of these skills; and what program
structures best support the learning of these experiences.
The study examined how participation in the Durham Principal Coaching
Initiative (DPCI) impacted the practice, skills, and knowledge of principals in the areas of
curriculum and assessment as they focused on improving student outcomes in their local
contexts. Data were collected and examined to determine whether there had been a

9
change in the leader’s practice and how these factors had been shaped or reshaped by
their participation and experiences in the program.
The study demonstrated that quality leadership matters. There is wide consensus
among researchers and policymakers that teachers directly impact student achievement
and that principals indirectly impact student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000;
Young, Fuller, Brewer, Carpenter, & Mansfield, 2007). This study sought to identify
specific, observable, and measurable leadership practices that are associated with
improvements in teacher quality and instruction, and ultimately student achievement. It
focused on how we prepare educational leaders. For example, educational leadership
preparation programs that establish a focus on learning, build professional communities,
engage external environments, share leadership, and create coherence provide the
structures necessary for principals to be learning centered leaders (Davis, Darling-
Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006;
Peterson, 2002).
Research Questions
There were five primary research questions for this analysis, which were situated
within the context of the Durham Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI). The study was
concerned with how new principals are prepared to face the challenges of urban school
leadership. The following five research questions were examined:
1. How does participation in the Durham ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?

10
2. How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of
urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student
outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to
become effective instructional leaders?
Significance of the Study
According to Knapp, Copland, and Talbert (2003), leaders face complex tasks,
and it is not always clear what they should do to keep the focus on guiding improvement
in learning and narrowing the achievement gap. This study may bring some clarity to
these issues and some support to principals and teacher leaders by providing a framework
to build a coherent, collaborative system that supports powerful, equitable learning for all
students. The framework sought to address issues such as improving student learning,
improving teacher practice through professional development, exploring how principal
practice influences what teachers and learners do, and by providing pathways to
understand how to build coherent instructional programs to sustain the process.
This framework may provide clarity for policy makers and provide them with
valuable information that would inform how programs are funded at the federal and the
state level. The research may inform the area of effective school leadership practice and
inform ways programs might be sustained and improved. Policymakers could use the

11
data gathered in this study to begin to create infrastructures that identify effective
leadership preparation programs by designing data collection structures that could track
program improvement and evaluation efforts (Young, Fuller, Brewer, Carpenter, &
Mansfield, 2007).
Finally, the findings of this study may add to the research base content that clearly
focuses on instruction, principal leadership, and organizational structures. It may provide
a pathway to understanding how a coherent curriculum links all aspects of the preparation
experience around a set of shared values, beliefs, and knowledge about effective principal
leadership and effective organizational practice. The study may add to the research
surrounding how cohort structures foster collegiality and collaboration; as well as inform
university based leadership programs about how to create a seamless and coherent
program for leadership development programs (Young, Fuller, Brewer, Carpenter, &
Mansfield, 2007).

12
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

-

DPCI

Context
Urban Setting
NCLB
Standards
Antecedent Factors
Knowledge
Experience
Values
Beliefs

Leader

Teacher
Practice

School
Organization

Student
Learning

13
Assumptions
There are five key assumptions that frame this research study. First is the belief
that leadership is a key variable in the process of improving outcomes for students.
Second, is the belief that the context within which leadership is practiced matters as well
and determines the actions leaders take. Third, leadership is defined as ―the process of
influencing others to achieve mutually agreed upon purposes for the organization‖
(Patterson, 1993, p.3). Embodied within this definition is the notion that leadership is not
a personal trait or characteristic of an effective school leader. As a process, effective
leadership practice can be taught (Northouse, 2003). The exercise of leadership involves
influence. As such, it requires interactions and relationships among constituents.
Leadership involves purpose while focused upon helping organizations and
constituents reach identified goals. Fourth, this study conceptualizes the effects of
principal leadership in promoting and sustaining valued outcomes in terms of the
antecedent with indirect-effects model (Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Hallinger &
Heck, 1998; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). Leadership behavior is ―shaped by four
major conditions: (a) the previous experiences of a leader (e.g., experience as a
curriculum coordinator in a district office will likely lead to the use of behaviors different
than those featured by a leader who has had considerable experience as an assistant
principal); (b) the knowledge base the leader amasses over time; (c) the types of personal
characteristics a leader brings to the job (e.g., achievement need, energy level); and (d)
the set of values and beliefs that help define a leader (e.g., beliefs about the appropriate
role for subordinates in decision processes),‖ (Murphy, Goldring, Cravens, Elliott, & Xiu,

14
2007, pg. 7). Leadership effects occur indirectly through the principal's behaviors that
influence teacher practice and organizational structures and processes (Goldring, Porter,
Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2007; Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996). A principal’s
practice of effective leadership behaviors is situated within the learner centered
leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2007). Fifth, the Durham ISD Leadership Initiative
is an effective leadership capacity building program. The major components of this
leadership development program align with those found in the literature to develop
skilled leaders (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). These
programs have 1) well articulated goals rooted in leadership theory; 2) use preparation
strategies that maximize learning, transfer of learning, and leadership identification; 3)
provide strong content and field experience during leadership preparation.
Limitations
At the core of science is inferential reasoning: explanations, conclusions, and
predictions based on what is known and observed. Making scientific inferences is not
accomplished by merely applying an algorithm for using accepted techniques in correct
ways. Rather, it requires the development of a logical chain of reasoning from evidence
to theory and back again that is coherent, shareable, and persuasive to the skeptical
reader. The validity of inferences made through this process is strengthened by
identifying limitations and biases, estimating uncertainty and error, and systematically
ruling out plausible counter-explanations in a rational, compelling way. Detailed
descriptions of procedures and analyses are critical to permit others to critique, to
analyze, and to attempt to replicate a study (Shavelson & Towne, 2004).

15
The data collected was triangulated from multiple sources (i.e., interviews,
observations, document analysis, and the VAL-Survey, Murphy, 2000). While
triangulation increases validity and may generate evidence about the effects of
educational support programs, limitations persist (Patton, 2002). For instance, limitations
could include missing data, insensitivity to potentially important variables, low
participation rates for the VAL Ed Survey, and potential researcher bias.
Limitations of interviews arise because of their focus on what people say they say,
write, and do; rather than what they actually do say (Pole & Morrison, 2003), as well as
limitations that might arise as a result of the questions asked and not asked, and limits on
the participant and researcher time. While observations can be used to confirm interview
responses, limitations remain. For example, observations are influenced by researcher
perception, are confined to external behaviors, are limited by the sample of activities
being observed, and include how the researcher might impact the observed (Patton,
2002). While document analysis provides another window through which information
can be gathered it is often limited because of inaccurate or incomplete data. Time
constraints, due to length, as well as costs of the VAL-ED Survey (Murphy, 2000)
contribute to limitations on this data collection tool. Finally, adequate time needs to be
allowed for researcher feedback and joint analysis.
Another limitation to this study is the length of the study. This required the pre-
post interviews, observations, and the VAL-ED survey data collection to be collected
over a relatively short amount of time (i.e., seven months). This may have limited the
degree to which the study could fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas

16
assessed. In addition, time for the fieldwork in this study was limited to six months.
Another concern was that the pre/post design of the administration of the VAL-ED may
have inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected in the second administration of
the VAL-ED may have reflected results of factors other than the participant’s
participation in the Durham Principal Coaching Initiative. In addition, issues of validity
arose due to the low participation rate during the post administration of the VAL ED
Survey for the second case study school.
Finally, the ―halo effect‖ may have been a limitation due to the nature of the
measures used in the VAL-ED (ratings of self and colleagues), raters may have a
tendency to assume specific traits or behaviors based on a general impression. However,
to mitigate this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-ED survey requires the raters to
identify the primary source of evidence for their rating on each item (i.e., personal
observation, documents, etc.).
Delimitations
The primary delimitation of this investigation is the sample of principals, teachers
and other site and program staff. The participating schools and districts were limited to
the state of Texas. The results of this study are indicative of this sample only and should
be interpreted with caution when attempting to generalize to the population at large. The
design of this study is that of a descriptive, qualitative analysis in which the investigator
seeks to describe, in depth, the phenomenon of changes in effective leadership practice
and teacher practice. The results of this study will not yield causal inferences about the
success of a particular training program. Rather, the results of this study are limited to

17
inferences of emerging patterns or themes among two case studies. In addition, this study
uses two theoretical frameworks through which changes in leadership behavior were
studied and were described; socio-cultural learning theory and learning centered
leadership theory. This study was also delimited by the length of time the principals were
studied.
Definition of Terms
Achievement Gap: The discrepancy in student academic performance as compared by
subgroup outcomes.
CPSELs: California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders: California’s
standards for principal and leadership behaviors.
ISLLC: Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium: The national standards of
principal and leadership behavior.
NCLB: No Child Left Behind Act (2002) is the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. It is a federal bill that provides money to schools who receive
Title I funds.
VAL-ED: The data collection instrument that will be used to quantify leadership
practice, which is based on the ISLLC standards and was developed by Joseph Murphy at
Vanderbilt University. It is a 360 survey assessment.
360 Survey Assessment: An evaluation tool that provides a comprehensive view of
the school leader by assessing various stakeholders’ (i.e., teachers, supervisors, parents,
students, other colleagues, and classified staff members who interact with the school
leader) perspectives on principal practice.

18
Organization of the Study
This study focused on how effective leadership capacity building programs
prepare urban principals to influence how schools function, in relationship to professional
practice of teachers, and what students learn, is organized into five chapters. Chapter
One is an overview, in which the problem of the study is defined. Chapter Two will
provide a review of the literature on effective school leadership and support structures
required to improve principal leadership in the urban school context. Chapter Three
describes the methodology, population and sample selection process, instrumentation,
data analysis process, validity, and ethical considerations, and unit of analysis in the
design of the study. Chapter Four presents the finding and an analysis for each research
question explored and Chapter Five closes with a discussion of the findings, possible
impact on policy and practice, and implications for future research.

19
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the extant literature related to
the theme of leadership capacity building and support structures. Because more than two
decades of research has established the importance of school leadership as a factor in
improving academic achievement (Darling-Hammond & Orphanos, 2006; Elmore, 2000)
it is crucial that we consider how leadership capacity is developed and look at ways we
can provide evidence for its attainment. The focus of this study is to add to the
knowledge base related to how leadership capacity building programs support new
administrators as they tackle the responsibilities of school leadership, as it relates to
teacher practices and improving student-learning outcomes.
We know that principal leadership has a direct impact on teacher practice and
indirectly on student learning outcomes (Youngs & King, 2002). We know that teachers
who are adequately prepared have a direct impact on student achievement (Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Levine, 2005; Wenglinsky, 2000). Arthur Levine (2005), studied 1,206
education schools and found them lacking in the coherency necessary to prepare and
develop school leaders. Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005)
studied eight highly developed pre- and inservice program models in five states that
addressed key issues in developing strong leaders and tracked graduates into the schools
they led. Their findings suggest key elements of good leadership; effective program
design, multiple pathways to high quality leadership development, and policy reform

20
(Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). What we do not know
enough about is how to use this knowledge to build leadership capacity as leaders attempt
to influence teacher practice and student learning outcomes. While there is growing
consensus regarding the knowledge, skills, and dispositions commonly found among
effective principals (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004), little is
known about how to help principals develop the capabilities necessary to influence how
schools function and what students learn (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, &
Meyerson, 2005).
Organization of Literature Review
First, the context of urban schooling is considered as it relates to the social,
political, economic and instructional challenges leaders confront. Next, leadership theory
is considered and how theories have been modified as a result of social and political
constructs and the needs of society. Third, leadership capacity building is considered
through the lens of the professional standards: Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC). An in depth description of the leadership capacity building
program, the Durham Leadership Initiative, is also be a part of this review. The purpose
of this section is to consider how leadership programs have been influenced by the
standards movement and how this has translated to building capacity for new leaders.
Next, extant literature on organizational support structures that are created
through principal leadership to promote effective teacher practices are reviewed. In
addition, the literature on specific leadership support structures designed to enable leader
practice, such as coaching and mentoring, are included in the review. Finally, a

21
framework is presented using the current research to guide how leadership capacity
building can be instituted at the school site, which will lead to improved student
outcomes.
The Urban School Context
For the sake of the next generation, the vitality of cities, and the health of society, urban
schools must do far more than raise test scores and prepare workers. They must prepare
students to live in a multicultural society where individual character, community
involvement, and civic competence are as essential as job skills and academic degrees.
-- Cuban, 2001.

Cuban (2001) describes urban settings as those found within large cities and
characterized by high concentrations of poor and minority families. He also argues that
the current reform movement driven by No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) is a one size
fits all reform measure and fails to consider that those who lead urban schools confront
different expectations, obligations, and community contexts. For example, urban schools
are characterized by poverty, low representation of leaders of color, violence, academic
underachievement, fiscal inequalities, substance abuse, high dropout rates, and high
teacher turnover (Orr, Byrne-Jimenez, McFarlane, & Brown, 2005; Resnick & Glennan,
2002).
Leading city schools is not the same as leading suburban, small town and rural
schools (Cuban, 2001). For example, large cities have long been characterized by
diversity, conflicts surrounding assimilation of minorities, desegregation, poverty, and
issues related to color and class. Urban school leaders must be sensitive to inequalities
and have a well developed capacity to deal with the context of racial isolation, ethnic
conflict, and economic disparities as they affect academic achievement. Urban schools

22
and districts often lack curriculum coherence because unions and others seem to believe
pedagogy is the professional realm of the individual teacher and that the principal’s
intervention or support intrudes on the teachers’ professional judgment. As a result,
curriculum that has been identified as ―highly effective‖ is often not fully implemented
by school staff or districts adopt curricular programs on a voluntary basis (Resnick &
Glennan, 2002).
The urban context can be framed by its community and its district and is often
characterized by inadequate resources of its schools, the educational and social problems
of its students, and the conditions of poverty in its community (Orr, Byrne-Jimenez,
McFarlane, & Brown, 2005). Urban communities are often seen as ―school-dependent‖
where academic, socialization, and developmental needs are addressed within
communities that lack outside enrichment and other educational support structures.
Forces inhibiting high performance in urban schools include bureaucratized
management structures that often provide fragmented direction, a lack of coherence, and
limitations in the district’s capacity to provide instructional support. This leads to
inadequate development of professional competencies (Resnick & Glennan, 2002).
Teacher and school staff beliefs also impact student achievement as it relates to their
―deficit thinking‖ about low-income and racial/ethnic minority students (Orr, Berg,
Shore, & Meier, 2008). Principals and assistant principals become more and more distant
from issues involving instruction and learning as a result of demanding workloads and
high expectations. Principals and district administrators spend little or no time in
classrooms and therefore are not aware of the lack of professional competencies, which

23
leads to a lack of capacity to provide adequate professional development experiences
(Schmoker, 2006). Training programs for administrators reinforce these conventions by
focusing on administrative competencies and devoting little time to questions of learning,
curriculum, and professional development (Houle, 2006; Resnick & Glennan, 2002).
According to the literature there is a need for leadership programs to prepare
leaders who will work successfully in urban schools. Leaders need to have a strong
commitment to valuing diversity and the skills to respond to the challenges and
opportunities brought by constantly changing demographics in many urban communities.
Leadership programs need to design curriculum that 1) addresses the need for leaders to
understand diversity; 2) support the development of qualified teachers; 3) acknowledge
the cultural differences between teachers and students; and 4) develop a school climate
that is inclusive of all student views and home backgrounds (Nevarez & Wood, 2007).
Evidence suggests that careful and sustained attention to the quality of instruction
and the conditions of learning can make a difference in the urban context (Resnick &
Glennan, 2002). Orr et al. (2008) found that the most predictive organizational factors
associated with higher performance in urban schools ―were prioritizing academic
achievement, implementing a coherent standards-based curriculum and instructional
program, using assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction, and
ensuring the availability of instructional resources‖ (p. 674). Their work also confirmed
that low-performing urban schools reflected partially implemented reforms and
uncoordinated supports and interventions that often overwhelm staff as opposed to
supporting the development of effective instruction. Their findings further suggest ―that

24
the core organizational and leadership capacities that are integral and need to be fostered
can be clustered in five thematic areas: 1) instructional leadership integrity; 2) distributed
leadership and professional collaboration; 3) consensus on good instruction and ways to
foster continuous improvement; 4) valuing, trusting, and having confidence in the
learning capacity of students and staff; 5) school-region-city relationship (Orr, Berg,
Shore, & Meier, 2008, p. 689). These five themes will be explored and considered as the
review of the literature is further developed.
Leadership Defined
Social constructs in American culture tend to romanticize leadership. This leads
to misconceptions about how successful leaders structure the organizations they lead
(Elmore, 2000; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Copland, 2003). For example, the notion of
the gifted leader, such as Horace Mann’s leadership of the common school movement in
the 1840’s and Deborah Meier’s modern day school reform, tend to paint a picture that
one must have a gift to lead a successful school reform project (Copland, 2003). This
misconception leads one to think that to correct the woes of education equates to finding
the ―right person.‖ Brown (2006) asserts that leadership can be defined as a practice that
can be improved through the process of experience, reflection, and discourse.
Elmore (2000) defines leadership as the guidance and direction of instructional
improvement; a process that can be learned and is not subject to innate traits. He
suggests a definition of leadership that is focused on instruction and instructional
improvement and guided by standards based instruction. Copland (2002) builds on
Elmore’s definition of leadership and describes leadership in the context of improving

25
schools through a collective at the school level. This collective model for leadership
requires less dependence on the actions of a singular visionary individual (Copland,
2000; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001) and suggests a distributed or shared theory
of leadership.
Other definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that leadership involves the
social influence process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person or group
over other people or groups (Leithwood & Duke, 1999). Because of the complexity of
the concept of leadership it is difficult to define leadership precisely. Leithwood and
Duke (1999) reviewed the literature from four peer reviewed educational journals and
assigned six broad categories to leadership models. The two models mentioned most
frequently in the literature they reviewed were instructional and transformational
leadership. Each of these models will be included in this review (i.e., distributed
leadership, leadership for social justice, and learner centered leadership).
Leadership is highly complex and often dependent on context. As a result,
inconsistencies and variation surround the definition of what leadership should look like;
however, there is a clear research base of effective leadership practices that are translated
to knowledge and skills that can be learned (Northouse, 2007). Northouse (2007) defines
leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve a common goal. The ―goal‖ component is critical because it drives the energies
of individuals as they move toward the attainment of the goal. In the context of
schooling, this goal is often identified as improving student-learning outcomes.

26
For the purpose of this study, leadership will be defined as a process of
influencing, a process viewed from a knowledge and behavior or practice perspective;
and a process focused on instructional improvement leading to increased student learning
(Elmore, 2000; Northouse, 2007; Leithwood & Duke, 1999). Next the history and
political structures of schooling will be addressed as a way to understand how leadership
and the role of the principal have evolved in relationship to societal pressures.
The History and Political Structures of Schooling and the Role of the Principal
Murphy & Seashore Louis (1999) suggest ―Parsons Framework‖ for
understanding three fundamental levels of educational organization: 1) administration, 2)
managerial, and 3) institutional, that have driven leadership in the past and influence it to
this day. The framework suggests how shifts in the demands of schooling and the
definitions of learning and teaching have driven the expectations and role changes in
school leadership administrative positions.
Hallinger (1992) describes the evolving role of the principalship as transitioning
from managerial to instructional and then to transformational and suggests the role of the
principal has evolved through the stages of program manager, instructional leader, and
transformational leader. One can compare Hallinger’s (1992) description of principal
roles with ―Parsons Framework‖ and begin to gain insight into how professional rhetoric
readily adapts to public expectations while the larger body of professional practice is
mostly unaffected.
The first level, educational administration, includes a technical description,
which suggests how the teaching process has changed over time. According to Murphy

27
& Seashore Louis (1999) there has been a shift in the theoretical underpinnings of the
education production function from a behavioral psychology view to a constructivist
psychology view. Underlying the change are changes in the way society thinks about
what children should know when they graduate from high school. These changes have
come to the public’s attention because of the gaps in achievement between different
ethnic and socio economic groups in the United States. The dominant view, driven by
the NCLB legislation (2001), is that the function of education is not to sort youth
consistent with the various strata needed to fuel the economy, but to transform education
to ensure equal opportunity for all learners (Murphy & Seashore Louis, 1999).
In contrast, Cuban (2001) argues that public demands for improved academic
achievement among those students who have historically done least well in school have
driven the NCLB (2001) movement. The resulting accountability measures support the
production of winners and losers in the educational arena. Accountability driven reforms,
like NCLB (2001), demand that principals influence teachers in relationship to
instructional matters and move urban schools from being inadequate and just ―good-
enough‖ to ones that are meeting Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) targets. The prevailing
assumption hidden within standards-based reform is that school leadership looks the
same across districts, when in truth school leadership varies among schools within
districts (Cuban, 2001).
The new vision for schools of tomorrow includes key paradigm shifts in our
assumptions about intelligence and knowledge. The view of knowledge as an external
entity is evolving to a more equitable view of knowledge as being subjective and internal;

28
with the learner being a key player in the learning process. Learning is seen as a social
phenomenon and considered in the situational context (Murphy & Seashore Louis, 1999).
This view of knowledge and learning is rich and complex, highlighting the importance of
learning to learn.
The traditional view of learning as independent and competitive is giving way to a
vision of learning as cooperative and collaborative in nature. This new vision of learning
calls for a curriculum that addresses the needs of all learners, that covers fewer topics in
more depth, and that highlight higher-order thinking skills and the use of technology
(Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). This learner-centered
pedagogy demonstrates learning as a construct of prior knowledge and teaching as a
guiding experience, which is replacing the stand and deliver model. Student learning
becomes the focus, with student learning outcomes, in the form of formative and
summative assessment, being the evidence that learning is occurring. This shift in how
the learner is viewed has implications for how leaders are trained and how that training is
translated to the school site (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004).
The second level of school organization is the managerial construct which is
concerned with the organizational structure of schooling. The organizational structure of
schooling is changing from one heavy in bureaucracy to one that is more decentralized
(Murphy & Seashore Louis, 1999). According to Murphy & Seashore Louis (1999),
school organizations are transitioning to more professionally controlled systems that
create new designs for school management. Traditional roles of leadership have shifted
over the past 80 years where authority is less hierarchal and role definitions have become

29
more flexible. Leadership from this perspective is connected to competence for needed
tasks and assumed by those staff members who have the ability to complete the task. This
form of leadership is transformational leadership as described by Leithwood and Duke
(1999).
The third level of ―Parson’s Framework‖ (Murphy & Seashore Louis, 1999) is the
institutional level. The institutional level of schooling addresses how the school
interfaces with the community and the larger environment. Traditionally, professional
educators controlled the activities at school, while the parents watched impassively from
the sidelines. The new paradigm for school improvement envisions the school as more
responsive to the needs of the community. Examples of this trend include school
selection choice, voice in school governance, and a blurring of the boundaries between
home and school. Community pressure is also another source that is shaping principal
practice (Cuban, 2001).
This review of the trends in the structure of schooling as an organization implies
new directions for school leadership and alludes to the importance of leadership capacity
building programs that can prepare leaders to take on the new responsibilities implied by
the vision of student learning that puts student learning outcomes at the center of what
learning is about. New directions for school leadership also has closing the achievement
gap as another important goal that must be addressed as leaders move through an era of
high stakes testing and school level accountability. Given the importance of school
leadership, leadership theories will be explored next to shed light on how leaders might

30
approach the challenges they face in closing the achievement gap and increasing student
learning outcomes.
Instructional Leadership Theory
During the 1980s, as the push for more effective schools increased, principals
became responsible for the instructional effectiveness of their schools; their role evolved
to that of instructional leader (Hallinger, 1992; Marks & Printy, 2003). This role required
the principal to be knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction and to work with
teachers directly to guide instructional improvement (Hallinger, 1992). Principals were
considered the primary source of knowledge; suggesting that others must follow and
those teachers were not knowledgeable enough to provide instructional leadership for
school staff (Sergiovanni, 1999 as cited in Hallinger, 1992; Bass & Avolio, 1993).
The principal manager view persists as the principal takes on the responsibility of
managing the instructional improvement of teachers; while policy continues to pressure
instructional reforms from outside the school building (Hallinger, 1992). High
expectations for teachers and students, close supervision of classroom instruction, co-
ordination of the school’s curriculum, and close monitoring of student progress became
synonymous with defining the principal as an instructional leader (Hallinger, 1992;
Hallinger & Murphy, 1986). One of the problems with this model of leadership is that it
does not address how principals gain the content knowledge needed to accomplish the
tasks outlined by the theory (Stein & Nelson, 2003).
Stein and Neslon (2003) conducted a study that looked at how leaders might
address the need to understand subject matter content. They argue that instructional

31
leaders, who are respsonsible for improving teaching and learning in their schools, must
be able to recognize ―strong instruction when they see it, to encourage it when they don’t,
and to set the conditions for continuous academic learning among their professional
staffs‖ (p. 424). This type of knowledge is defined as ―leadership content knowledge‖
and descibed as ―the intersection of subject matter knowledge and the practices that
define leadership‖ (p. 424).
Hallinger and McCary (1990) considered instructional leadership and the way
principals manage ―strategic thinking‖ to solve problems of practice related to
instructional leadership. They argue that the role of instructional leadership is
―dependent on personal, contextual, and organizational factors‖ (p. 91) and that
successful instructional leadership requires skillful planning and management, as well as
understanding the complexities of the social system of the organization. Their
interpretaion of the literature suggest ―that strategic leadership is characterized by clear
vision and coordinated, consistent, purposeful actions‖ on the part of the leader
(Hallinger and McCary, 1990, p. 94).
According to Hallinger and Murphy (1986) the primary focus for the instrucional
leader is on the development of curricuculm and instruction rather than on human
relations. The studies they reviewed ―suggest that instructional leaders develop a clear
mission, systematically monitor student progress, coordinate curriculum, protect
instructional time from interruptions, and maintain high standards for teachers and
students‖ (p. 332). They suggest that principals in the effective schools studies were not
solely responsible for all instructional leadership; however, they were viewed as the key

32
actor in promoting schoolwide instructional improvement. Stein and Nelson (2003)
argue that leaders who spend all of their time focused on instructional leadership are
overlooking key personnel and suggest leaders consider ―how expertise and authority are
distributed throughout the organization‖ (p. 425).
One of the greatest strengths instructional leaders bring to this practice ―is the
accountablity they bring to the reform process‖ as evaluators (Stein & Nelson, 2003, p.
426). It is an important task for principals to be able to assist teachers to improve their
performance. Principals as instructional leaders must know something about subject
matter and more importantly know something about teachers as learners and about
effective ways of teaching teachers. Stein and Nelson (2003) argue that the role of the
principal as teacher then is like the role of the teacher in the classroom. The instructional
leader is not the transmitter of knowledge, but one who takes responsibility for
understanding the learning needs of individuals; understands how to design tasks that
support and encourage learning; employs a strategic mix of incentives and sanctions; and
ensures there are adequate resources available to support learning.
As a way to address the numerous repsonsibilities of instructional leadership a
new theory began to surface during the 1990s that began to consider how leadership
might transform the organization through decentralizion of authority.
Transformational Leadership Theory
The 1990s saw the normative environment for the practice of leadership change
once again to one of transformational leadership (Hallinger, 1992, 2003).
Transformational leadership required the decentralization of authority over curriculum

33
and instructional decisions, expanded the role of teachers and parents, and suggested new
roles for principals and teachers as ―problem finders and solvers‖ (Hallinger, 1990, p. 93;
Marks & Printy, 2003). Fox example, the transformational leadership theory suggests
that professional development is an acknowledged career responsibility, and that
collegiality, experimentation, and reflection are the norm of practice. Transformational
leadership is associated with site based professional development and the movement to
restructure schools.
Transformationl leadership is grounded in the understanding of the needs of
individual staff rather than on how the principal controls instructional programs. This
―model seeks to influence people by building from the bottom-up rather than the top
down‖ (Hallinger, 2003, p. 337) as in the instructional leadership model.
Transformational approaches to leadership emphasize how leaders can instill in others
motivation and capacity that alters practice that leads to gains in student acheivement
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). Such leadership reforms require significant capacity
development on the part of individuals, as well as organizations (Leithwood & Jantzi,
2000).
Pepper and Hamilton Thomas (2002) report on Pepper’s autoethnogary that
documents how the climate of a school is influenced by the principal’s leadership style.
She found that as she made the change from an authoritarian style of leadership to a
transformational style of leadership, the school learning climate became more positive
and more conducive to student learning. She cites fewer student referrals, more teacher
collaboration, and fewer teacher complaints as some of the changes in the environment as

34
a result of transformational leadership. Her leadership style focused on three
fundamental goals of transformational learning: 1) helping staff develop a professional
school culture, 2) ―promoting teacher development,‖ and 3) ―helping the school
community solve problems together more effectively‖ (Pepper & Hamilton Thomas,
2002, p. 157).
Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) studied the effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement. In the framework that guided the
study they have included six dimensions of transformational leadership as well as a
transactional practices component. The transformational leadership model is often
criticized because it does not address the managerial responsibilitites leaders must
address on a daily basis. To overcome this objection Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) added
four managerial functions to the model.
The study explored how transformational leadership might influence school
conditions, classroom conditions, and student engagement with school. The ―family
culture of education‖ (p. 119) was used as a variable instead of socioeconomic status
(SES). They conducted two surveys, one to collect data from the teachers and the other
to collect data from the students. The results ―indicate that transformational leadership
effects are significant although weak‖ (p. 124) on student engagement, which may
confirm previous study findings that principals have an indirect effect on student
engagement. The findings involving ―family educational culture‖ were significant and
indicate that transformational leadership models may influence organizational conditions.
Leithwood and Jantiz (2000) report that the use of the variable ―family educational

35
culture‖ behaved in a manner statistically ―comparable to the behavior of SES in most
previous school effects studies‖ (p. 126).
The findings of the study are replicated in a follow up study that also goes into
some depth regarding two design limitations of the study. One is the reliance on students
to gather data regarding family educational culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). The
concern is that ―students may selectively attend to some features of that culture, not
noticing or taking for granted other important features‖ (p. 467). The literature on
organizational and social cultures reminds us that those immersed in a culture usually do
not ―see it‖ explicitly, thus bringing into question the value of their opinion concerning it
(Delpit, 1995). The second design limitation involved teachers as sources of evidence
because of how the leader might influence the teacher in sublte ways (Leithwood &
Jantzi, 1999). Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) conclude that research needs to incorporate a
broader set of student outcome variables that aligns with the outcomes of school
curruicula and that the interaction between school conditions, family educational culture,
and leader are more complex than previouly considered.
While Hallinger (2003) acknowledges the significant advances in our
understanding of transformational leadership with respect to Leithwood and his
colleagues work, there remains limitations in the knowledge base. One limitation is the
ambiguity of the model in that it requires tolerance and the acceptance of uncertainty
(Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). Another is that transformational leadership
is hard to study because there is not a single leader. In addition, questions remain

36
regarding valid ways to measure outcomes because this model goes beyond traditional
student achievement outcomes variables (Hallinger, 2003).
The next section will address distributed leadership, which is also known as
collective leadership, and at other times identified as transformational leadership
(Hallinger, 2003). Distributed leadership is considered a type of shared leadership and
the studies presented add to our understanding of school leadership and bring insight to
the transformational as well as the distributed leadership model.
Distributed Leadership Theory
The theory of distributed leadership will be addressed through Elmore’s (2000),
work on instructional improvement in Community School District #2; Spillane’s (2001)
Distributed Leadership Study; the findings of Copland’s (2003) longitudinal study of
school renewal entitled the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASCR); a multi
case study on successful school leadership (Moller, Eggen, Fuglestad, Langfeldt,
Presthus, Skrovset, Stjernstrom, & Vedoy, 2005); and a study by Leithwood and Mascall
(2008) that looked at the effects of collective leadership on student achievement.
Collective leadership is a form of distributed leadership that considers administrators,
teachers, secretaries, parents, the community, and the district as potential collaborators in
leadership functions, with the principal allocated the highest levels of influence in
schools at all levels of achievement.
Copland (2003) defines distributed leadership as 1) leadership that is a collective
activity, focused on collective goals; 2) leadership involving a negotiation of
institutionalized role relationships, where tasks, responsibilities, and power boundaries

37
are redefined; and 3) leadership that rests on a base of collective expertise as opposed to
hierarchical authority. Theoretically, distributed leadership supports a process of inquiry
that gives voice and merit to the views of parents, teachers, students, and administrators
in the development and implementation of a focused effort to improve student learning.
Successful principal leaders working through the distributed leadership theory were
described as men and women with varied professional backgrounds who worked in
collaboration with teacher leaders and shared responsibility for school improvement.
Distributed leadership can be defined as leadership that is less hierarchal in nature
where tasks are distributed among stakeholders as need occurs and distributed to those
who have the knowledge or capacity to solve or address the problem (Spillane,
Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). Elmore (2000) describes distributed leadership as
leadership that is primarily enhanced through the skills and knowledge of people in the
organization, where a common culture of expectation is created and individuals are held
accountable for their contributions. Elmore suggests a ―new model‖ (pg. 19) for
distributed leadership consisting of two main tasks: 1) describing ground rules that all
leaders would follow that would lead to increased student learning; and 2) describing
how leaders in different roles and positions would share responsibility for increases in
student learning outcomes.
With an explicit focus on learning and school improvement, Elmore (2000)
defined the main themes of school improvement as continuity of focus on core
instruction, investments in professional development for teachers and principals; explicit
accountability by principals and teachers for the quality of practice and the level of

38
student performance; and a normative climate in which adults take responsibility for their
own, their colleagues, and their students’ learning (Copland, 2003; Elmore 2000). At all
levels of the system, isolation is seen as working against a collaborative framework that
connects teachers, principals, professional development activities, and district
administrators with each other and with outside experts around specific problems of
practice.
Elmore (2000) argues that standards-based reform poses problems about how we
think about the organization of schooling and the function of leaders. This shift in
thinking requires a redefinition of leadership, away from role-based conceptions and
toward a distributive conception of leadership that requires concerted action among
people with different areas of expertise. Principal leadership will be required to guide
this process and to avoid the repetition of past school reforms in which a lack of
coherence around the reform process distracted from the goal to bring about school
improvement efforts focused on student learning.
An investigation of school leadership by Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond
(2001) more deeply defines distributed leadership as leadership that is grounded in
activity rather than position or role. They argue that the ways principals enact leadership
practice through leadership tasks may be what is most important in the process of
influencing teachers and that leadership is teamwork and should focus on instructional
practice. The practice of distributing leadership brings transparency to the leadership
process and supports a framework of collaboration in which leaders can begin to think

39
about and reflect on their practice. In this way expertise can be distributed across the
organization in ways that most support instructional practices and student learning.
The Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC, 2003), a region wide
school renewal effort, incorporated the focus of distributed leadership, continual inquiry
into practice, and collective decision making at the school site (Copland, 2003). Their
analysis of qualitative and quantitative data suggests the use of an inquiry process as
being centrally important to building capacity for school improvement, and a vehicle for
developing and distributing leadership. The focus for the BASRC was to highlight new
understandings of school leadership that support student learning as the focal point of
school improvement (Copland, 2003; Elmore 2000).
BASRC’s (2003) theory of action for leadership rests on three principles: 1)
school improvement defined as improved student learning outcomes as a collective
process; 2) school improvement as a process of continual inquiry, and 3) the collective
identification of the problem (Copland, 2003). These principles suggest a model of
leadership that is less dependent on the vision of a single person and distributed across a
broad segment of the school community. The role of the principal is changed, and yet
remains a critical piece in the reform process. The findings in this study suggest
emerging themes of the principalship. For example, principals who had been successful
in promoting shared leadership perform key functions that protect and promote the vision
for the school’s reform process. In addition, principals who had been successful with the
distributed concept of leadership engaged in the process of framing questions and
problems, and provided space and support for inquiry to occur. Successful principals

40
viewed teaching colleagues as professional equals with expertise that could be employed
in the process to further the work of change. Furthermore, successful principals
exemplified practices of good teaching such as asking guided questions and being
examples of the reflective process, rather than exerting the authority of their position by
telling others what to do (Copland, 2003).
Some challenges and limitations to the concept of distributed leadership for
instructional improvement are that structural changes in themselves are not enough to
broaden leadership and that the structures require people with the expertise to carry out
the work. Turn-over in key staff was a limitation to ongoing school improvement and the
preparation for leadership turnover is seldom addressed (Copland, 2003). Turn-over in
leadership and a lack of capacity to plan for such obstacles hamper the sustainability of
the reform process. Other challenges include competing demands for teachers involved
in the reform process, in addition to competing interests, and lack of support.
In a study conducted by Moller, Eggen, Fuglestad, Langfeldt, Presthus, and
Skrovset (2005) that looked at successful school leadership practice within a Norwegian
context found that leadership was almost entirely practiced through collaboration and
team efforts. Successful leadership focused on a learner-centered approach to instruction
with respect given to the individual student and colleague in building professional
communities of practice guiding the norm of conduct. Within their research they
acknowledged the ambiguos nature of defining school leadership and considered
alternative approaches to their research paradigm. Rather than a production function
model situated in a rationalist paradigm, they explored a constructivist grounded theory

41
approach and a distributed perspective that builds on activity theory as a theoretical
framework and has leadership practice as the unit of analysis (Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2001).
The key findings of the study highlight the concepts of distributed leadership,
which Moller, et al. (2005) termed team-centered leadership. This team-centered
approach was a departure from an earlier observed individualized approach to teaching,
in which observations included collaborative planning and co-teaching at the elementary
and secondary level. They found in most cases the principal had developed a close
cooperative community that embraced their vision of instructional improvement. There
were clear examples of co-principalships and collaborative teamwork that addressed long
term development of instructional plans. They identified important leadership tasks and
functions as part of a distributed leadership practice (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond,
2001), which focused on instructional leadership. Moller’s et al. (2005) findings are
consistent with the findings reported in studies discussed previously in this section.
The final study looked at in this section by Leithwood and Mascal (2008),
considered collective leadership and its impact on key teacher variables and on student
achievement. The study used a mixed methods approach and collected data through
surveys of teachers from more than 90 elementary schools and student achievement data
from school websites. The term ―collective leadership‖ is used in this study rather than
distributed leadership because the researchers chose to narrow the field of participants in
what would be considered distributed leadership. For example, instead of focusing on all
school staff and other stakeholders who might be considered in the distributed concept of

42
leadership, this study focused ―collectively‖ on administrators, teachers, students, and
parents.
While Leithwood and Mascall (2008) acknowledge the potential benefits of
distributed leadership for the nature of organizational processes and outcomes, they point
out that there is little empirical evidence to support previous findings. As a result, they
designed this study to empirically look at the impact of collective leadership on key
teacher variables and on student learning; the relative influence on school decision
making of each group included in their measure of collective leadership; and whether
differences in the patterns of collective leasdership are related to differences in student
achievement levels. The study presumed a framework of indirect leadership effects and
conceptualized a set of teacher performance antecedents as mediators, these included
motivation, capacity, and work settings. Sources of evidence were student achievement
data and teacher perceptions reported in the surveys.
They found that collective leadership is significantly related to all three teacher
variables with the strongest relations associated with teacher work settings. Their model
explained 20% of variation in student achievement across schools. Their findings
suggest that collective leadership has modest but significant indirect effects on student
achievement. Of the three teacher variables studied, the influence of collective leadership
on students is through its influence on teacher motivation and work setting. While
collective leadership did show a significant effect on teacher capacity, this variable was
not significanlty linked to student achievement in this study (Leithwood & Mascall,
2008).

43
Findings as they relate to the influence of collective leadership sources indicate
that school decisions are influenced by a broad array of groups and people, reflecting a
distributed conception of leadership. However, the degree of influence attributed to
people and groups reflects a traditional hierarchical conception of leadership because
teachers rated traditional sources of leadership higher than non-traditional sources. The
influence of parents and students was found to be significantly related to student
achievement, which Liethwood and Mascall (2008) suggest likely reflects the effects of
student socio economic status (SES) on achievement. Teachers also reported that teacher
influence increased as leadership expectations increased.
Patterns of collective leadership and student achievement reveal that teachers
perceived influence to be exercised in a distributed fashion but still in a hierarchical
manner. While teachers in higher achieving schools generally attribute higher levels of
influence to all people and groups than lower achieving schools, traditonal leadership
roles retained their status related to the higher levels of influence as opposed to non
traditional leadership roles (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Leithwood and Mascall
(2008), suggest that this combination of distributed leadership with a hierarchical
influence does not support previous claims of a flat organizational structure. They
suggest that this conception of leadership reflects a hybrid form of leadership composed
of influence that rises from within a hierarchical level and a polyarchic form of leadership
that supports high levels of influence for all.
In conclusion, the studies referenced reinforce the idea of distributed leadership as
a concept of educational leadership that involves the practices of mulitiple individuals

44
and occurs through a complex network of relationships and interactions among the entire
staff of a school (Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers, 2007; Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2001). This type of networked leadership challenges the conventional belief
that leadership is associated with specific positions and focuses instead on specific
activities that constitute leadership. We can no longer look at leadership as a
phenomenon exclusively associated with specific roles, positions, or behavioral traits
(Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, & Myers, 2007). These studies suggest new ways for us to
understand what leadership is, how it develops, and how we can foster it.
Building on the notion of a hybrid theory of leadership (Leithwood & Mascall,
2008) Hallinger (2003) suggests an integration of leadership models. The emphasis
instructional leadership places on the principal is a common objection to the instruction
leadership model. However, a blending of instructional leadership and transformational
leadership would highlight ―the synergistic power of leadership shared by individuals
throughout the school organisation‖ (Hallinger, 2003, p. 345). Learning centered
leadership, which is discussed next is an integration of instructional and transformational,
which sheds light on the studies investigating distributed leadership.
Learning Centered Leadership Framework
Learning centered leadership, a framework that brings together ―instructional
leadership‖ and ―leadership for learning‖ (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006, p.
3) has been cited numerous times in the literature as leadership that makes a difference in
low performing urban schools. According to Knapp, Copland, and Talbert (2003),
―leadership for learning means creating powerful, equitable learning opportunities for

45
students, professionals, and the system, and motivating or compelling participants to take
advantage of these opportunities‖ (p. 12).
The learning centered leadership framework sees the impact of leadership
behaviors as having an indirect influence on student outcomes and mediated by school
context (Hallinger & Murphy, 1986; Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Hallinger P. ,
2003). The framework captures the knowledge base (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, &
Porter, 2006, p. 6) of leadership under eight dimensions; 1) vision for learning, 2)
instructional program, 3) curricular program, 4) assessment program, 5) communities of
learning, 6) resource acquisition and use, 7) organizational culture, and 8) social
advocacy. The research base for this framework is grounded in the instructional
leadership theory and the effective schools reform literature.
The first dimension of learning-centered leadership, vision for learning, focuses
on developing a mission that is created with and among stakeholders (Murphy, Elliott,
Goldring, & Porter, 2006). It is driven by a variety of sources, such as student
assessment data, student demographic data, and information on opportunities to learn
(Wimpelberg, 1986 as cited in Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). The vision for
learning is a reflection of high standards for learning and a belief that all students,
teachers, and organizations can learn. The second dimension, the instructional program,
is centered on the leaders’ knowledge of pedagogy, design, and implementation of
instructional programs. Learner centered leaders ensure quality teachers in classrooms,
provide relevant professional development opportunities, provide performance feedback,

46
protect academic learning time, and are expert in providing recognition and rewards
(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006).
Learning centerd leaders are familiar with the school’s curricular program, the
third dimension of the framework. They work with colleagues to ensure a curriculum
that establishes high standards and is carefully coorindinated so that it is coherent across
disciplines and grade levels. The fourth dimension of learning centered leadership
involves the design, implementation, and monitoring of the assessment program.
Learning centered leaders communicate assessment data to all stakeholders. Assessment
data is used to monitor progress toward student progress, such as academic outcomes,
attendance, and graduation rates. Assessment is at the heart of the school mission,
instructional planning, evaluation of curricular programs, monitoring progress toward
school goals, and the evaluation of staff (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006).
The fifth dimension describes the learning centered leader as one who fosters
communities of learning and collaboration among colleagues and parents. They model
their own professional growth and provide opportunities for professional development
based on principles of learning theory, such as the socio-cultural theory of learning,
which support the practice of learning through collaboration and cohort groups. They do
this by promoting a shared team approach to learning, which has also been called
distributed leadership in the literature (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006).
Resource use and allocation, the sixth dimension of the framework, directs resources
whether human (e.g., teachers, staff, parents, etc.), financial, or material to the main
focus, student learning. It is here that we begin to see an overlap that aligns with the

47
dimensions of vision for learning, instructional programs, and curricular and assessment
programs.
The seventh dimension, organizational culture, focuses on a commitment to
results and accountability informed by the assessment program findings. Learning
centered leaders build a sense of commitment and accountability to high performance
expectations of self, staff, and students. They foster an understanding of how the school
community is connected to the larger community and to society in general, which is
aligned to core collective values. To create a culture of effectiveness they ensure a safe
and orderly learning environment and secure acceptance and support for a school code of
conduct. Finally, the social advocacy dimension, suggests that learning centered leaders
recognize and utilize ethnic, racial, and economic diverstiy in the school community.
This would be evidenced by the use of culturally rich curriculum and the relationships
among and between diverse groups (Bennett, 2001).
Murphy’s framework for learning centered leadership presents an exhaustive
description of what learning centerd leaders do in effective schools. However, the review
of the literature repeatedly reports a lack of understanding of how leaders learn to be
successful implementing and sustaining such leadership dimensions. There is no
question, the research clearly defines what effective leaders do (Hallinger & Heck, 1998),
and the framework supports ―leadership learning‖, but the research is lacking in
identifying how this might be done effectively (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter,
Leaders for productive schools, 2006).

48
The next section will explore how the concept of leadership for social justice
might inform an educational system that sustains the status quo through curriculum,
pedagogy, individualism, and social inequities that often go unoticed in schools (Bennett,
2001). It will focus on how leader’s deal with inequity as they implement effective
principal practices.
Leadership for Social Justice
The research on leadership mostly focuses on how to improve academic
achievement and student learning and what leadership practices support this. While this
is paramount, Heck and Hallinger (2005) argue that what remains to be questioned is how
traditional research has focused on administrative processes and improvement within an
unjust educational system. Scholars pursuing the social justice framework acknowledge
the importance of student achievement, but focus on leadership as a moral endeavor and
one that increases equity in education as well as student achievement (Cambron-McCabe
& McCarthy, 2005).
Policy makers suggest state standards define how issues of social justice are being
addressed. School leaders are being called on to engage in analysis of how institutional
structures and culture perpetuate inequality and injustice within the school building and
beyond into the community (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005; Marshall & Ward,
2004). Leadership preparation programs are grappling with designing and implementing
frameworks and curriculum that bring some meaning to how educational leaders,
specifically principals, enact a socially just culture (Capper, Theoharis, & Sebastian,
2006).

49
Bogotch and Schoorman (2008) cite the absense of a clear defintion of social
justice and a lack of research addressing the problems associated with social juctice and
social injustices as compounding the problem (Bogotch & Schoorman, 2008; Hallinger &
Leithwood, 1998). They argue that the burden of proof in relationship to identifying
social justice problems falls on scholars and researchers to ―establish legitimacy and
validity‖ (p. 2).
As the review of the literature moves forward in this section it is with the
acknowledgement that the field of educational social justice is relatively young and that
researchers have not yet established a clear understanding of how to make social justice
issues explicit. When researchers have made progress in this area the pracitioners in the
field have not put it into practice (Bogotch & Schoorman, 2008; Marshall & Ward,
2004). Scheurich and McKenzie (2006) argue that by defining and making social jusice
explicit, deepening our understanding of social justice, engaging in a self reflective
process, and taking an acitivist stance one can begin to address inequities that are
pervasive in society and therefore in schooling (Brown, 2006; Cambron-McCabe &
McCarthy, 2005).
Social justice in education can be defined around the common themes of ―moral
values‖, ―justice‖, ―respect‖, ―equity‖, ―race‖, ―class‖, ―gender‖, ―sexual orientation‖,
and ―disability‖ (Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005, p. 203). To address these themes
Scheurich and McKenzie (2006) suggest that educational leaders and the institutions that
train them must acknowledge that the struggle for social justice continues. In education
some indicators for this claim are the persistence of the achievement gap along color

50
lines, disparities in graduation rates, college attendance, and college graduation rates
(Darling-Hammond, 1998; Marshall & Ward, 2004; Scheurich & McKenzie, 2006).
Capper, Theoharis, and Sebastian (2006) suggest a framework for preparing
leaders for social justice that address the many concerns of social justice researchers,
leadership preparation programs, and school leaders. The framework suggests the
overlap of the three domains of; 1) ―critical consciousness‖; which is the values and
beliefs leaders hold; 2) ―knowledge‖; of what equitable practice looks like and ; 3)
―skill‖; how to implement practice and use data to guide equitable school improvement
(pg. 220). The remaining three domains ―curriculum‖, ―pedagogy‖, and ―assessment‖
address what is taught, how it is taught, and what evidence is gathered to inform the
process. These domains are set against the background of the ―big idea‖ of leadership
for social justice. This is one example of how leadership preparation programs might
begin to unpack the complexities of social justice as a way to prepare leaders to
understand the complexities of social justice and their leadership practice.
This completes the discussion on leadership theories and suggests how the needs
of society have shaped leadership expections and how effective practices have evolved.
The literature brings understanding to the imperative of a leadership theory that is
integrated throughout. For example, instructional leadership without the building of
capacity component transformational brings to the mix would be ineffective because
leadership needs to focus on student learning and not on the leaders instructional
effectiveness. The definitions of the distributed theory and tranformational theory
overlap in profound ways and in much of the research reviewed these terms were used

51
interchangeably. When one considers how the leading for learning leadership theory has
integrated the student learning focus component, with the instructional leadership theory,
the transformational theory, and the distributed theory one can see the impact an
integrated leadership theory might have. One missing piece is the social justice
leadership theory. It should permeate all of the leadership theories, however as the
literature review developed the reference to social justice leadership in relationship to the
other leadership theories was for the most part absent from the discourse. The next
section will consider the organizational structures of schooling and how they impact
leadership practice.
Organizational Structures
How do principals create and sustain organizational structures and procedures that
promote effective teacher practice? Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and
Wahlstrom (2004) argue that effective educational leaders develop their schools as
organizations that support and sustain the performance of teachers as well as students.
One way they do this is through small learning communities. The research on school size
suggests students benefit from being part of small organizations (Lee, 2000). School size
is most often not a variable the principal can control as an alternative; small learning
communities within schools have been established as schools within schools. Another
way districts have supported principals in building the school organization is through
decentralization where principals have control to practice site-based management and
distribute decision making among staff and other school stakeholders (Leithwood,
Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004).

52
Another way principals address building effective organizations is through
professional learning communities. Professional learning communities are evidenced by
a culture of school wide learning that emphasizes professionalism, teacher inquiry and
reflection, student learning, and connectedness (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2004). According to Kruse, Seashore Louis, and Bryk (1994) the impact of
professional learning communities is observed in the decision making processes teachers
engage in, the sense of community present at school site, and the motivation of teachers
and other staff to create an environment that puts student learning first. Critical elements
of professional learning communities include ―reflective dialogue‖, ―de-privatization of
practice‖, ―collective focus on student learning‖, ―collaboration‖, and ―shared norms and
values‖ (Kruse, Seashore Louis, & Bryk, 1994, p. 4; Newmann, 1994).
Professional learning communities can be established through guidance from the
principal or through the teacher leadership; however the principal is seen having the most
influence in establishing structures such as professional learning communities (PLC);
even though the process may be executed through the transformational or distributed
theory of leadership (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004;
Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). Principals can support PLC’s through structural
conditions that provide physical space and through human resource conditions that
emphasize building relationships (Kruse, Seashore Louis, & Bryk, 1994).
Kruse, Seashore Louis, and Bryk (1994) cite the human resource frame as the
most important in designing, implementing, and sustaining PLC’s. Newmann (1994)
reminds us that principals must be aware of three barriers that can stand in the way of

53
teachers working together. For example, teachers are conditioned to be autonomous
professionals, have limited background knowledge in the ways to share and discuss
student work and student learning, and formal and informal power structures between
staff members could hamper the process. Even with these obstacles to overcome it is
evident by the research that PLC’s are a positive support structure for student learning
and one the principal should consider in the design of school support structures.
Principals also build strong school organizations through developing instructional
program coherence (Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Bryk,
Camburn, and Seashore Louis (2001) define instructional program coherence as ―a set of
interrelated programs for students and staff that are guided by a common framework for
curriculum, instruction, assessment and learning climate and that are pursued over a
sustained period (p. 297). Instructional program coherence contributes to student
―learning by connecting students’ learning experiences and building on them over time‖
(Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 56).
Based on Copland’s (2003) sample of Leadership Schools in the BASRC Study,
several new leadership structures developed or were reinforced by the school reform
effort. Examples include organizational schema like rotating lead teachers, co-principals,
reform coordinators, and inter-school leadership strategies and structures. Other ways
principals design school organizations is through teacher hiring, teacher assignment,
providing school based extracurricular activities, class and teacher scheduling, teacher
working conditions, and taking an active role in curriculum, providing professional
development, evaluation and feedback, and being visible and accessible to teachers and

54
other stakeholders (Copland, 2003; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
This is an exhaustive list of an effective principalship and the organizational
structures to be considered in leading for learning. Even though the literature supports
effective elements of program design there is relatively little research illuminating how
effective principals carry out these duties. The next section will address the components
of effective leadership development and capacity building programs and describe how
Durham Achieves meets the requirements to be considered an effective leadership
capacity building program.
Leadership Capacity Building: Effective Program Components
According to Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004)
effective leaderhip development programs should be long term, job-embedded, have a
coherent curriculum, be focused on student achievment, and provide a way for principal
candidates to engage in reflective practice, as well as continue the development of their
professional learning through an ongoing mentor or coaching component (Houle, 2006;
Peterson, 2002). Peterson (2002) goes on to say that leadership education should have
four objectives; 1) ―developing individual leadership effectiveness‖ 2) ―enhancing career
transition into leadership positions‖ 3) ―instilling a vision, values, and mission of the
organization‖ and 4) ―developing skills and knowledge to implement long-term strategic
objectives‖ (p. 214). Resnick and Glennan, (2002) argue that the learning needs of
principals should be grounded in practice and in the communities in which they work
where the ―day-to-day teaching and learning‖ (p. 19) take place.

55
Houle (2006) describes how the Urban Principal’s Association in Connecticut
creates effective professional development for principal leadership that focuses on
instructional leadership, capacity building, and personal renewal in coordination with
local universities. The instructional leadership component is assessed through the
collection of artifacts such as student work, reflection journals, and videotaped lessons.
The capacity building component seeks to support principals to make connections
between instructional programs and stakeholders, such as teachers, parents, and students.
Houle’s (2006) findings suggest that leadership capacity building programs need to align
curriculum that is coherent and relevant to the context and complexity principals confront
as they work toward creating a school organization that focuses on student learning.
Jackson and Kelley (2002) studied six programs that they described as
―exceptional‖ and ―innovative‖ (p. 192). Each of the programs studied are guided by the
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for School Leaders.
The standards were developed by Murphy and Hallinger ―to anchor the profession‖ (p.
155) and to provide a knowledge base related to what principals should know and be able
to do (Murphy, 2005). The support structures identified as effective through a review of
the literature included ―cohorts‖, ―collaborative partnerships‖, ―field experiences‖, and
―technology‖ (Jackson & Kelley, 2002). Based on their findings they argue that
effective leadership capacity building programs have ―some common characteristics‖
which include a clear vision and development of program coherence that reflect a well
defined knowledge base.

56
In a recent school leadership study, Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and
Meyerson (2005) suggest program features that are essential to the development of
effective school leaders. They cite research based programs, curricular coherent
programs, programs that provide an authentic context, cohort structures and mentoring,
and collaboration between the program and the participants’ schools as evidence of the
components of effective leadership development programs. They report that their review
of the literature on leadership development programs suggest that the most popular
components of leadership development programs are based on self reports of participants
and not on research. Davis et al. also report that, ―there is virtually no evidence for how
graduates of different kinds of programs perform on the job‖ (p. 7). As a result,
leadership programs are delivering educational programs that are not based on ―empirical
research to inform their design‖ (p. 7).
Their review uncovered in the literature research based components of effective
development of school leaders (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005).
These include content that is research based and designed with curricular coherence.
They argued that pedagogy should be delivered through a variety of methods to meet the
needs of adult learners. For example, field-based internships, problem-based learning,
and the implementation of cohort groups and mentoring have been cited as effective
pedagogical methods for the instruction and learning of adult learners (Donovan,
Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999). Mentoring is a component of preparation programs
designed to improve school and student performance (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill,
2007). Neufeld and Roper (2003) suggest coaching as a school based component of

57
leadership development that has the potential to contribute to effective leadership
practice. Neufeld and Roper (2003) acknowledge that there is a lack of research in the
area of mentoring and coaching, but they believe it holds the promise of supporting
educational leaders as they take on the responsibilities of school leadership and shields
new leaders from the trials of the ―sink or swim‖ (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2007,
p. 9) method of on the job training.
Preis, Grogan, Sherman, and Beaty (2008) examined the research on leadership
preparation programs and report that there is a need for leadership programs to follow
recent graduates to assess whether the leadership practices studied are transferred into
practice. They report the research on adult learning supports the use of cohort structures
as an effective pedagogical tool. The purpose of this section was to explore how the
literature defines effective leadership capacity building programs and identify gaps in the
literature. Within the literature there are clear patterns of effective program components.
However, preparation programs need to address if their graduates are implementing the
strategies of effective leadership practice delivered in the program. This next section will
describe the leadership capacity building program that is the focus of this study; which is
aligned with the ISSLC standards and is designed around what the review of the literature
has described as effective leadership development programs.
Durham Achieves!
―Durham Achieves,‖ the district’s initiative to become the best urban school
district in the country by 2010, provides both principal training and coaching
components. Durham Achieves is the plan for student achievement designed by the

58
Durham Independent School District (DISD). It was established in November 2005,
when the Board of Trustees set the vision for Durham ISD to be the premier urban district
by 2010. At that time they established the expectation that all students will graduate
college and workforce ready. Since that time, the district has engaged in a systematic
redesign of the teaching and learning systems within the district. To enact their plan, the
district adopted a theory of action about teaching and learning based on collaboration
with the IFL. The IFL and the DISD are currently in the fourth year of program
implementation. The education plan goals are outlined below (Durham Achieves, 2006):
1) Academic rigor and student engagement
2) Professional development and capacity building
3) Leadership
4) Accountability for learning and results
5) Parent and community engagement
Durham Achieves: Leadership Development Initiatives
The leadership development initiatives were developed as part of the
comprehensive plan for student achievement. In order to meet the district goals and
fulfill its mission the district implemented an exemplary professional development
program. Their reasoning and commitment to student learning is made clear by this
statement, ―The effectiveness of an education system is measured by the academic
achievements of its students and is impacted by the quality of instruction. Increased
student achievement demands a focused professional delivery and implementation of

59
instruction‖ (Micheaux & Landry, 2009, p. 1). The goal of the district was to provide job-
embedded relevant professional development.
Administrator development programs that became part of the district initiatives
were influenced by the Texas State Performanc Review (TSPR), the Texas Professional
Development Imperative , and the National Center for Educational Accountability
(NCEA). The purpose of the in-district programs was to ―continually build capacity
among campus administrators‖ (Micheaux & Landry, 2009, p. 2). The district intiatives
included 1) Durham Achieves! Leadership Institute; 2) 1
st
Time Campus Administrator’s
Induction; 3) Transforming Our Public Schools; 4) Principal Empowerment; and 5)
Durham Principal Coaching Model.
Durham Achieves Leadership Institute
The Durham Achieves Leadership Institute in association with the IFL is the
leadership institute that is participating in the IFL professional development. It is focused
on the IFL Principles of Learning (POLs), the Learning Walks, Nested Professional
Learning Communities, and Disciplinary Literacy.
Durham Principal Coaching Initiative
The Durham Principal Coaching Initiative model was developed initially in the
business community. Participants are experienced, often retired, principals who commit
to offering support to current principals. They are assigned to one or two principals and
work with them for one full school year. Principals and their coaches attend professional
development sessions together. The IFL is involved in the design and implementation of
much of the curriculum for the program. This involvement ensures coherence between

60
the Durham Achieves Initiatives across the district. Content also involves the
development of greater capacity in instructional leadership practice. The program is
designed to develop strong instructional leaders and to build leadership capacity by
focusing on what effective principals need to know and be able to do in order to provide
guidance and direction for instructional improvement, leading to high student
achievement (Micheaux & Landry, 2009).
The Institute for Learning
The Institute for Learning (IFL) at the University of Pittsburgh is a program based on
principles of cognitive psychology. The IFL is a program committed to developing
instructional leadership in schools and districts; especially in urban districts. Through
their work with urban school districts, coupled with their research, they have developed a
set of design principles. The goals of the design principles are to support districts
through educational reform. The design principles are (Resnick & Glennan, 2002):
1) A commitment to an effort-based concept of intelligence and education
2) A focus on classroom instruction
3) A culture emphasizing continuous learning and two-way accountability
4) Continuing professional development for all staff, based in schools and linked to
the instructional program for students
5) Coherence in standards, curriculum, assessment, and professional development
Inherent in these design principals is the belief that districts with these qualities will be
high performing (Resnick & Glennan, 2002).

61
The IFL program is designed to develop the skills of instructional leadership at all
levels of the district; focusing primarily on principal leadership. However, district
membership in the program requires the commitment of the superintendent and deputy
superintendents to be actively engaged in the instructional reforms of their district. The
IFL program provides sustained training in instructional leadership that promotes
coherent leadership practice throughout the district. Districts participating in the IFL
program are also committed to the training of literacy and math coaches and on-site
coaches for principals coupled with study groups (Resnick & Glennan, 2002).
Conclusion
The research evidence is overwhelming as it relates to the impact quality
principals have on quality schools (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2007). The
components of quality leadership capacity programs are evident in the literature.
Murphy’s (2006) learning centered leadership theory, which integrates the instructional
leadership model, with the transformational and distributive leadership model develops
the practice effective principals engage in. The ISSLC standards specifically state what
effective leaders need to know and be able to do. The tools of effective leadership are in
plain site; however schools still struggle to overcome the challenges of the urban context.
The literature reveals gaps in our understanding of how leaders develop the
capacity to engage in effective leadership practice, how to make leadership for social
justice explicit, and how to assess the effectiveness of leadership participation on
capacity building programs. This study hopes to make some of these problems of
practice more transparent and shed light on how participating in an effective leadership

62
capacity building program influences principal practice toward the development of
quality leadership and therefore quality schools.

63
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter will describe the study’s design, sample selection, instrumentation,
data collection and data analysis processes. The purpose of this study was to investigate
how participation in the DPCI influences leader practice and on investigating how then
does leader practice influence teacher professional practice.
This study was part of a larger study conducted by the University of Southern
California in partnership with the Durham Independent School District (ISD) through a
generous grant provided by the Meadows Foundation. The overall study included 14
participating schools and seven graduate student researchers. The dissertation chair for
my committee, Dr. Reed was instrumental in securing access to the district and to the 14
schools. Through a research proposal designed to have graduate student researchers from
the University of Southern California study the impact of the Durham DPCI program on
leader practice, teacher practice, and student outcomes, the Meadows Foundation
awarded the district a grant to put this study into place beginning in the fall of 2009. The
Chief Administrative Officer for the district drafted a letter of support for this project
(Appendix D).
Study Design
The case study design was appropriate for this study because it was suited to
situations in which it was impossible to separate the phenomenon’s variables (e.g.,
leadership practice, leader knowledge, etc.) from context (Yin, 1994) as was the case in

64
the study of leadership practice in schools. In case study research, data collection usually
―involves all three strategies of interviewing, observing, and analyzing documents‖
(Merriam, 1998, p.136). Patton (2002) contended that multiple sources of information
were sought and used because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a
comprehensive perspective. By using a combination of observations, interviews and
document analysis, different data sources were used to validate and cross-check findings.
This study was designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does participation in the Durham ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(GDPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does the DGPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership
practices of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve
student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals
to become effective instructional leaders?
Sample and Population
The unit of analysis for this study was urban school leadership practice. Non-
probability sampling, specifically, purposeful (Patton, 1990) sampling, was the strategy
used to identify participants for this study. This strategy was appropriate for this study
because the intent was to discover and gain a better understanding as well as insight into

65
the nature of leadership practice. Therefore, it was important to identify a sample from
which the most could be learned.
Patton (1990) contended that ―the logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in
selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases were those
from which one could learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose
of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling‖ (p. 169).
Selection Criteria
For this multicase, comparative, qualitative study, the first level of sampling
involved selection of the ―case.‖ Two schools that met predetermined criteria were
identified for participation in the study. The intent was to explore variation in leader
practice and its effect on teacher professional practice between schools where principals
were participating in the DPCI. For this study, criteria were established for the
purposeful identification of case study schools:
Percent minority population was greater than or equal to 50%.
Percent low income student population was greater than or equal 50%.
Percent English language learner was greater than or equal to 5%.
Principal experience was less than or equal to five years.
School levels were elementary and secondary.
Percent of minority population proficient in math and reading was less than or equal
to 50%.
Gap in math and reading proficiency among student groups were greater than or equal
to 20%.

66
To strengthen the validity of the study, teacher participants identified from within
case sampling were randomly identified. Each participant, principals and their teachers
were asked to participate in preintervention and postintervention interview and
observation data collection activities. A minimum of six teachers who taught high stakes
accountability subjects, math reading and/or science were identified for this level of
sampling.
Each DISD executive leader brought together their Nested Learning Communities
in September 2009 to learn about the importance of the DPCI and encouraged them to
participate. All 14 principals volunteered to participate as case study schools. The DPCI
program coordinator identified and assigned two principal participants to each of the
seven researchers.
Participants and Setting
Participants in this study were recruited from among K-12 Durham public schools
serving an ethnically diverse student population and substantial numbers of low-income
families. The district had a 2008 student enrollment of 157,804 (K-12) students who
were served in 230 schools (Texas Education Agency). The 2008 student demographics
in Texas were as followed: Hispanic 65%, African American 29%, White 5%, and Other
1%.
The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) is the standardized test
given to students in grades 3-11th annually. The Texas Assessment Knowledge of Skills
(TAKS) is the accountability measure that quantifies student performance in English
Language Arts and Mathematics. The possible ratings for districts and campuses were:

67
Exemplary – For every subject, at least 90% of the tested students pass the test.
Recognized – For every subject, at least 75% of the tested students pass the test.
Academically Acceptable – Varies by subject:
Reading/ELA – At least 70% of the tested students pass the test.
Writing – At least 65% of the tested students pass the test.
Social Studies – At least 65% of the tested students pass the test.
Mathematics – At least 50% of the tested students pass the test.
Science – At least 45% of the tested students pass the test.
The district continues to increase the percent of schools rated Exemplary and Recognized
while decreasing the schools that are rated Academically Acceptable and Academically
Unacceptable. The number of schools currently rated Exemplary increased by 20 from
2008-2009. There was a decrease in the amount of schools from 2006 to 2008 that were
rated Academically Unacceptable.
Durham ISD is currently rated under three distinct systems: (1) Local – School
Effectiveness Index, (2) State – Academic Excellence Indicator System, (3) Federal
Annual Yearly Progress. Because of the three distinct systems, student results were
reported as exemplary, recognized, academically acceptable, and academically
unacceptable or ―met standard‖ or ―commended‖. For the purpose of portraying the
Texas Disaggregated student achievement on the (TAKS) during the 2006-2008 school
year, the third system was used – Federal AYP.

68
Table 1. Texas’ AYP Achievement Results, 2007-2008 & 2007-2006
________________________________________________________________________
Student Group Reading 2007-2008 2006-2007
% Met Standard % Met Standard
_______________________________________________________________________
Durham ISD/Texas Durham ISD/Texas
All 80%/ 88% 78%/ 87%
African American 78% / 83% 77% / 83%
Hispanic 81% / 84% 78% / 83%
White 91% / 94% 90% / 94%
Economically Disadvantage 79% / 83% 77% / 82%
Special Education 53% / 62% 69% / 77%
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 72% / 76% 69% / 75%
________________________________________________________________________
Student Group Math 2007-2008 2006-2007
% Met Standard % Met Standard
_______________________________________________________________________
Durham ISD/Texas Durham ISD/Texas
All 71%/ 79% 69%/ 79%
African American 62% / 68% 62% / 68%
Hispanic 74% / 75% 70% / 74%
White 84% / 88% 84% / 88%
Economically Disadvantage 71% / 73% 68% / 72%
Special Education 50% / 50% 69% / 74%
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 69% / 72% 65% / 71%
________________________________________________________________________
Source: Texas Education Agency Website http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/2008

Table 1 illustrated Texas AYP Achievement Results for 2007-2008 and 2007-
2006. While in both mathematics and reading in the aggregate the percent of Durham
ISD students who met the standard was below the state level; the disaggregated data
revealed that the percent of Hispanic students who met the standard was slightly above
African American. Within the Durham ISD school district, the TAKS results revealed
that significant gaps existed between minority groups and their White counterparts. For

69
example, the White student group in both math and reading had a higher percentage of
students meeting the standard than any other student group.
Gaining Access to Participants
Letters of introduction to case study principals were sent in late September
(Appendix A). An ―informed consent‖ letter accompanied all letters of introduction
(Appendix B). A follow-up phone call was made to all case study principals in
September to thank them for their willingness to participate in the study. Principals were
asked to identify a lead teacher to assist in maintaining the anonymity of all teacher
participants from their schools. It was anticipated that this person would distribute
survey access codes to all teachers and secured a list of teachers from which to randomly
select case study participants. All participants in the study were given pseudonyms to
maintain their anonymity.
Intervention: Durham Principal Coaching Initiative
In order to meet the district’s goal and to fulfill its mission, the district must have
at its centerpiece exemplary professional development for ―everyone who affects student
learning.‖ (Durham Achieves: Leadership Development Initiatives Executive Summary
2009). Coaching programs provide an avenue in which problem-focused learning can
take place (Neufeld & Roper, 2003).
Based on research from the business community, executive coaching has received
positive research support. The DPCI was a district-wide executive leadership capacity
building strategy which combines the district’s standards-based leadership curriculum
with a leadership coaching support structure for principals. To ensure the success of

70
Durham ISD’s newly hired campus-based administrators, the Texas Education Agency
mandated that all new administrators - those new to the district, those promoted to
principal positions, and those moving into administrative positions from the classroom
received a mentoring component whereby experienced campus administrators provided
ongoing support and information to new administrators (Durham Achieves: Leadership
Development Initiatives Executive Summary 2009). Each DISD executive leadership
brought together their Nestled Learning Communities to discuss the importance of the
DPCI and encouraged them to participate. Coaches were employed through the district in
varying capacities; some were part-time employees, some were contracted, and others
were provided through the Region 10 Education Service Center. Each principal was
assigned one coach.
The program gave participants an opportunity to:
 Meet and interact with the senior leadership of the district,
 Receive information about district wide programs,
 Gain valuable understanding of the administrative structure of Durham
ISD and its organization and operations,
 Establish a professional and personal network with other administrators,
 Allow principals to visit successful campuses (Durham Achieves:
Leadership Development Initiatives Executive Summary, 2009).
 Going beyond the scope of a mentor/mentee relationship, principals and
their coaches attended professional development sessions together.
Sessions were designed to build leadership capacity and to strengthen

71
principal awareness and understanding of Durham Achieves and initiative
content.
 The program also provided a venue for sharing successes, challenges, and
solutions to common or individual problems (Durham Achieves:
Leadership Development Initiatives Executive Summary 2009).
The DPCI was also predicated on building leadership capacity to improve student
achievement. The three DPCI core standards for practice aligned with Murphy’s
Learning Centered Framework, 2006:
1. The leader has the knowledge and skills to think and plan strategically,
creating an organizational vision around personalized student success.
2. The leader is grounded in standards-based systems theory and design and
was able to transfer that knowledge to his/her job as the architect of standards-
based reform in the school.
3. The leader knows how to access and use appropriate data to inform
decision-making at all levels of the system (Texas Education Agency Website).
The Durham ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) provides a standards-based
capacity building curriculum and the support of a leadership coaching structure. The
district is focused upon building capacity in school leaders by focusing on what they need
to know and be able to do in order to provide the guidance and direction of sustained
instructional improvement leading to higher student achievement. The DPCI (2009) is
designed to provide principals with a principal coach who provides elbow to-elbow

72
coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership development and build
leadership capacity to ensure improved academic success for students.
Each principal would be in their first year of receiving coaching assistance either
by phone or ―elbow to elbow" that enhanced instructional leadership development and
equitable learning for outcomes for all students. Each case study focused on how the
DPCI (2009) prepared and supported leaders to create organizational structures and
practices that have the potential to promote effective leader practice and professional
teacher practices. The study took a comprehensive look at the leadership practices
enacted that have the potential to lead to attainment of the DPCI core standards and
implementation of the Durham Achieves improvement initiatives to determine: (1) the
relationship between principal participation in the DPCI (2009) program and their
leadership practice; and (2) if the practice of the two principals varies, what accounts for
that variance. The proposed study additionally sought to contribute to the knowledge
base in regards to components of effective leadership support structures at the school and
district levels which enabled principal’s leadership practice in creating and sustaining the
conditions for effective teacher practice and promoted a more equitable and effective
student learning environment in the urban school context. Additionally, the district was
interested in learning more about how the VAL ED Survey could be used as a tool to
facilitate the leadership coaching process and to promote effective leadership practice.

73
Data Collection Procedures
This study utilized a qualitative, comparative, case study design. Qualitative as
well as quantitative data were collected in a pre-intervention and post-intervention design
to determine the leader’s change in practice and how these factors were shaped or
reshaped by participation and experiences in the DPCI (2009) program over time. In
general, case studies focus on discovery and exploration rather than hypothesis testing
and the development of deductive inferences (Merriam, 1998). Case studies were most
appropriate in situations where the researcher had little control over the events in the
context surrounding the phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Therefore the focus of this study
centered on descriptive questions which revealed information about the ―hows‖ and
―whys‖ of changes in principal leadership behavior through participation in the DPCI
2009 program as well as the impact of the leader’s practice on teacher practice and
organizational structures.
Yin (1984) defined a case study as ―an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used‖ (p. 23). For this study it was important to analyze the phenomenon of
educational leadership in a real-life context to gain a better understanding of what factors
about the context seemed to influence principal behavior. As such, a multiple case study
design was the best methodological approach for this study. The design of this study
supported the ability to identify and purposefully collect data for analysis of the
leadership phenomenon from a very distinct capacity building context: DPCI (2009)

74
participants. Not only would a comparative case study design contribute to the
robustness of the study, it would contribute to the base of knowledge supporting the
importance of context in change in professional practice.
According to Patton (2002), ―multiple sources of information were sought and
used because no single source of information was trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective on the program. By using a combination of observations, interviews, and
document analysis, the fieldworker was able to use different data sources to validate and
crosscheck findings‖ (p. 306). In addition, Patton (2002) also pointed out that each type
of data source had its strengths and weaknesses. Triangulation (the use of multiple data
sources) increased validity because the strengths of one approach compensated for the
weaknesses of another approach.
Instrumentation: Overview
Multiple sources of data were collected for analysis in this study. For both case
studies the following sources were used to gather descriptive data: pre and post
intervention interviews with each principal and a sub-set of their teachers; pre and post
intervention observations of the principal interacting with teachers and classroom
observations of teachers interacting with their students and with other teachers; and a
collection of documents (e.g., those that were publicly available) and artifacts (e.g., those
that were generated in conjunction with DPCI 2009 and IFL) relevant to the study were
collected for analysis.
In addition, principals, their supervisors, and their teachers will take the on-line
version of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education Survey (VAL-ED) in a

75
pre/post design to determine what leader practice was like prior to the intervention and
after a few months of having participated in the DPCI. For DPCI participants, the first
administration for the pre-intervention took place in the fall 2009 and the post
intervention in the spring (2010) over a five month period.
Patton (1990) contended that, ―multiple sources of information were sought and
used because no single source of information was trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective‖ (p. 244). Data collected in response to each research question were
triangulated to facilitate the data analysis process and substantiate any inferences made
with regards to changes in leader practice and teacher professional practice. The VAL-
ED survey was administered to each case study school.
Instrumentation: The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education survey (VAL-ED)
(Murphy et al., 2007) is a standards-based survey of educational leadership that is closely
aligned with the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and
the Texas Administrative Code (Appendix G). The VAL-ED was funded by grant by the
Wallace Foundation and developed by a team of well-respected researchers in
educational leadership (Murphy et al., 2007). Learning-centered leadership theory which
was discussed in Chapter Two was the framework used for the development of the VAL-
ED. The learning-centered leader is one who establishes a clear vision, exhibits
instructional proficiency, aligns the curriculum to assessment, personally knows his or
her staff, implements a culture of learning for adults and children, encourages a safe and
orderly environment, and communicates with all actors in the teaching and learning

76
process. It is through this leadership perspective that the behaviors for this instrument
were developed.
The VAL-ED is designed to provide a summary of effectiveness of a principal’s
learning-centered leadership behaviors. The survey was composed of 72 items which
were broken down into six Core Component subscales and six Key Process subscales.
The six core components were (1) high standards for student performance, (2) rigorous
curriculum, (3) quality instruction, (4) culture of learning and professional behavior, (5)
connections to external communities, and (6) systemic performance accountability. The
six Key Processes were: (1) planning, (2) implementing, (3) supporting, (4) advocating,
(5) communicating, and (6) monitoring.
In reviewing the key principles of the learning-centered framework it was evident
that core components of effective school leadership closely aligned to the Core-Texas
Statewide Leadership Standards and the Durham Achieves Leadership Development
Curriculum. Murphy et al. (2007) asserted that these ―specific actions‖ are correlated
with high student achievement. The resulting data reflected the principal’s performance
level and percentile rank at an intersection where the core components and key processes
collide. This intersection where the core components - high standards for student
learning, rigorous curriculum, quality instruction, culture of learning and professional
behavior, connections to external communities, and performance accountability—and the
six key processes - planning, implementing, supporting, advocating, communicating, and
monitoring (Murphy et al., 2006) combine is the place where effective leadership is born.

77
It is important to note, according to Murphy et al. (2006), that the key processes are
essential to achieving each of the six core components of effective leadership.
The resulting data highlights the strength of the assessment tool by: (1) requiring
a 360
o
view of leadership behaviors using the principal, teachers, and the supervisor as
respondents; (2) respondents are required to evaluate the principal based on sources of
evidence such as ―reports from others, personal observations, school documents, or
school projects or activities‖ (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2009, p.2).
For this study, all survey respondents took the on-line version. The surveys were
administered to three respondents: (a) the principal, (2) certificated teachers and (c) the
principals’ supervisor. All respondents were assigned a unique ID to protect the
confidentiality of each participant. A lead teacher (responsible for providing the master
list of teachers and their contact information) was identified to distribute survey IDs
which avoided the possibility of retaliation by the principal for their responses. Through
this process, the responses from individual participants and their contribution to the
overall survey results remained unknown to the principal.
Survey respondents were asked, ―How effective the principal is at ensuring the
school …‖ The effectiveness ratings, based on evidence, were on a 5-point effectiveness
scale (1 = Ineffective, 2 = Minimally Effective, 3 = Satisfactorily Effective, 4 = Highly
Effective, and 5 = Outstandingly Effective; (VAL-ED Principal Report, 2008, p. 3) for
each of 72 leadership behaviors. Figure 3 illustrates a sample of the VAL-ED survey.

78
Figure 3. Sample VAL-ED survey

Parallel forms of the assessment were used to measure growth over time, from the
pre-intervention assessment in the fall to the post-intervention period in the spring of the
following year. Both principal and teacher surveys were designed to take from 20-30
minutes to complete. The VAL-ED survey was designed to yield both criterion-
referenced and norm-referenced scores. The VAL-ED provided an average score across
all respondents, as well as separately by each respondent group. The total score and Core
Component and Key Process effectiveness ratings were interpreted against a national
representative sample that included principals, supervisors, and teachers, which provided
the percentile rank. The results were also interpreted against a set of performance
standards: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished. Figure 3 illustrates the
descriptions of each performance level.

79

Figure 3. VAL-ED Performance Levels.

The VAL-ED (2008) was a new instrument in the research of educational
leadership. To establish high standards of content validity and reliability, it went through
extensive field testing. The conceptual framework was based on the literature on school
leadership effects on student achievement (Porter, Murphy, Goldring, Elliott, Polikoff, &
May, 2008). The developers completed a nine-school pilot test in the fall (2007 to
establish both face and content validity). Estimated reliability coefficients for each of the
twelve subscales were also established as a result of this pilot. Overall, the investigation
revealed high reliability coefficients for the seventy-two-item scales (α = >.98).
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to investigate data fit to the conceptual
model. The factor analytic model was designed to parallel the conceptual framework for
the VAL-ED by incorporating higher-order factors for core components, key processes,
and an overall score (Porter et al., 2008).
Because each item contributed to both a core component and a key process, the
factor analytic model was split into two separate analyses: one on core components and
the other on key processes. Results from the confirmatory factor analyses revealed that
both the core components and the key processes model fit the data very well, having

80
goodness of fit indices between .96 and .99. A primary source of validity evidence was
the core component and key process inter-correlations. The correlations were high, both
for core components and for key processes, though they appeared somewhat higher for
key processes. For core components, correlations ranged from a low of .73 (Connections
to External Communities and High Standards for Student Learning) to a high of .90
(Quality Instruction and High Standards for Student Learning). For key processes,
correlations ranged from a low of .89 (Supporting and Monitoring) to a high of .94
(Monitoring and Communicating). Correlations of core components and key processes
with total score were all quite high, with none lower than .9. These high inter-
correlations, along with the factor analysis results described above, suggested that the
instrument was measuring a strong underlying construct, principal leadership. A full
description of the VAL-ED reliabilities and psychometric properties is provided in
Appendix C. In the winter of 2008 a 300-school field test was completed. The purposes
of this test were; (a) to replicate reliability and validity tests from the initial nine-school
pilot in the fall of 2007, (b) to conduct differential item functioning to determine biases,
and (c) to establish norms (Porter et al., 2008).
For this study, all survey respondents took the on-line version. The surveys were
administered to three respondent groups: (a) the principal, (b) all certificated teachers and
(c) the principal’s supervisor. All respondents were assigned a unique ID to protect the
confidentiality of each participant. A lead teacher (responsible for providing the master
list of teachers and their contact information) was identified to distribute survey IDs
which avoided the possibility of retaliation by the principal for their responses. Through

81
this process, the exact responses of all participants and their contribution to the overall
survey results remained unknown to the principal.
Interviews
Semistructured interviews were conducted with each principal (N = 2) and two
subsets of teachers (N = 3) from each principal’s school site. Principal and teacher
interview protocols had a mixture of pre-determined as well as open-ended questions.
The pre-intervention principal interviews (Appendix D) took place in the fall (2009) for
approximately forty-five minutes with principals and thirty minutes with teachers. The
post-intervention principal interviews (Appendix D) took place in the winter (2010) after
each principal received their results from the first survey administration. In addition,
probing questions were asked when the responses required more elaboration or
clarification. The interviews were recorded and later transcribed for analysis.
Teachers were randomly selected from the master teacher list secured with
principal cooperation based on whether they taught one of the core content areas; reading,
math, or science. A minimum of three teachers participated in both pre and post
intervention interviews at each school. The interview protocols were designed to elicit
responses which provided evidence for a change in principal and teacher practice in
alignment with the outcomes of value to this study which were aligned with the DISD
Core Leadership standards, the outcomes of the Durham Achieves Leadership
Development Curriculum (IFL) and Leadership Institutes, and the learning-centered
leadership framework (Murphy et al., 2008).

82
Observations and Documents
In addition to interviews, a pre/postintervention observation (Appendix E) was
conducted at each school to gather additional data. Observational data were necessary to
strengthen data obtained through interviews and the VAL-ED. Interview and survey data
were based solely on individual perceptions. Observations and document analysis
provided additional data that were somewhat removed from individual perceptions and,
in some cases, bias of those working at the school site. Additionally, these observational
data added to the strength of the study as they provided another source of data for
triangulation. Observations included the following:
1. Principal and teacher interactions in both individual and group settings (i.e.
staff meetings, professional learning community meetings).
2. Teachers instructing students in Math, Language Arts, and Science.
3. Principal interactions during day-to-day responsibilities.
4. School level professional learning opportunities in which the principal was
guiding the learning process.
In total, two days were devoted to collecting qualitative data in the field in the fall
and two days in the spring. Reflective field notes from these observations were recorded
using an observation protocol designed for each type of observation. The notes were
transcribed for analysis to facilitate further organization of the data for analysis.

83

Table 2. Triangulation Table

Table 2 details the triangulation of data in relation to each research question
identified at the beginning of this chapter.
Data Analysis Procedures

Research Question

VAL ED
Survey
(Pre/Post)
Principals,
Teachers,
Supervisors
Principal
Interview/
Observation
(Pre/Post)
Interview
(Pre/Post)
Teachers
Analyze
Documents
Artifacts of
Practice
(Pre/Post)
Classroom
Observations

1. How does participation in
the Durham ISD Principal
Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
prepare principals to become
effective instructional leaders?
X X X X
2. How does the DPCI
influence the knowledge,
beliefs and leadership
practices of urban school
principals?
X X X X X
3. How does an urban school
principal create and sustain
organizational structures and
processes that promote
effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
X X X X X
4. What leadership support
structures enable leader
practice?
X X X X
5. How can the VAL ED
Instrument serve as a
coaching tool to assist
principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
X X

X X X

84
There is no single, accepted approach to analyzing qualitative data, although
several guidelines exist for this process (Creswell, 2005). Data collected for this study
were analyzed in accordance with two levels of analysis, formative and summative. To
protect the integrity of the each case study, each case was fully analyzed (i.e., coding,
pattern matching, organization by themes, and summative data analysis) prior to the cross
case comparative analysis. Once the data for the two case studies were individually
analyzed, data from both cases were analyzed again in search of patterns and themes that
helped to make inferences regarding the variance between the two cases.
Formative Data Analysis Procedures
A formative data analysis of this study was completed utilizing Creswell’s (2003)
generic six-step process:
1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis which involved transcribing
interviews, field notes, and reviewing documents.
2. Read through all the data in order to obtain a general sense of the information and
to reflect on its overall meaning.
3. Began detailed analysis with a coding process—organize the material into chunks
or categories.
4. Use the coding process from Step 3 to organize the categories into themes for
analysis and looked for connections between the themes.
5. Define how the themes were represented in the qualitative narrative.
6. Formulate an interpretation or meaning of the data (Creswell, 2003).

85
Summative Data Analysis
While emphasizing the theoretical implications from the conceptual framework
that guided this study, for each research question, the data from this study were analyzed
through the lenses of the literature discussed in Chapter Two of this proposal to
determine if there was a change in perceptions of leader behavior and its impact on
teacher practice and organizational structures. For the quantitative data collected from
the Val-ED survey, the mean differences between the results of the pre and post
administrations of the assessment were used. A positive value was considered a change
in the direction towards effective learning-centered leadership practices. A negative
value was considered a loss. The data were triangulated with the qualitative data and
used to further support the descriptive analysis of the case study data.
This research study was completed over a five-month period of time. Below is a
table illustrating the timeline for the study.

86
Table 3. Data Collection Timeline
________________________________________________________________________
Task Timeline
_______________________________________________________________________
Proposal Development and Planning June/August 2009
Recruitment of Study Participants
August/September
2009
Pre-Intervention
 On-Site Case Study Qualitative Data Collection(Fall):
Observe case study principals leading PL; interview
principals & classroom teachers; collect documents for
analysis; Collect & Analyze Principal Artifacts of
Practice
 Observe master principals, IFL presentations;
coordinate/monitor case study data collection process
September, 2009
ON-LINE VAL ED Survey Administration (Fall)
All principal participants; teachers, coaches, supervisors Sept. to Oct. 2009
Data Analysis Nov. to Dec. 2009
Post-Intervention
Case Study Qualitative Data Collection (Spring):

Observe principals leading PL; interview principals &
classroom teachers; collect documents for analysis; Collect
& Analyze Principal Artifacts of Practice
February 2010

ON-LINE VAL ED Survey Administration (Spring)
All principal participants; teachers, coaches, supervisors February 2010
Data Analysis
January to March,
2010

Validity

Validity strategies were used to determine the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba,
1985 as cited in Creswell, 2005) and accuracy of interpretations and findings. The
accuracy and credibility of the findings of this study were established using the following
validation strategies: data triangulation and peer debriefing. Triangulation was the
process of corroborating evidence from various individuals, sources and methods. Data
collected in this study came from a variety of individuals (i.e. principals, mentors,

87
supervisors, and teachers), sources and methods (i.e., survey, interviews, observations,
and review of artifacts). Peer debriefing was utilized through a process of identifying a
colleague to whom responsibility for reviewing and asking questions about the
interpretations and findings was given. Through this process, it was anticipated that
clarity could be gained from someone other than the researcher.
Though various limitations and delimitations of the study were addressed in
Chapter 1, it is important to recognize additional threats to validity. Some potential
threats to internal validity are outlined below:
1. Length of the Study: Time for collecting qualitative data from fieldwork for this
study was limited to six months.
2. The fact that the post-assessment of the VAL-ED survey came relatively soon
after the pre-assessment (approximately five months) limits the degree to which it
could fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas assessed.
3. Pre-test Treatment Interaction: The pre-post design of the administration of the
VAL-ED had inherent issues of validity, in that changes reflected in the second
administration of the VAL-ED could reflect results of factors other than the
participants’ participation in DCPI (2009).
4. The ―halo effect:‖ Due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED (ratings
of self and colleagues), there is potential for participants to assume specific traits
or behaviors based on a general impression. However, to mitigate the effect of
this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-ED survey requires that raters identify the

88
primary source of evidence for their rating on each item (i.e. personal observation,
documents, etc.).
5. Low participation rates of those who took the VAL ED Survey during the spring
administration reduce the validity of the findings.
Ethical Considerations
The University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
policies and procedures for conducting research were utilized in the development of this
research design. Prior to participation in this study each participant was given an
explanation of the purpose, procedures, and scope of the study. In addition, each
principal participant was given an informed consent form, which outlined the nature of
the study, to read and sign indicating their voluntary participation. To protect the
anonymity of each participant pseudonyms were assigned to the principal and teacher
participants. In addition, the names of the districts and schools which the participants
were associated with were changed to avoid any possible association that would lead to
the identification of participants in this study. All data was stored in a secure location
with restricted access to the data to the researcher only. The proposal for this study went
under a rigorous approval process for the conduct of human subjects research through the
University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), and approved,
prior to the start of data collection in the fall (2009).
Summary

In summary, this chapter reviewed the purpose of the study and the research
methodology that was used to accomplish that purpose. Justification for the use of a

89
descriptive qualitative analysis to address the research questions was given in the
beginning of the chapter. The research design included a detailed description of the
sample and how the individual cases were selected for study. Data collection and
analysis procedures were explained as were instrumentation considerations. Due to its
infancy and limited use in research of educational leadership to date, a brief review of the
VAL-ED survey and its psychometric properties were given to assure readers of its
validity and reliability in assessing leader behavior in this study. Other topics covered in
this chapter included ethical considerations of the study. Also included in this chapter
was a brief description of the University of Southern California’s larger longitudinal
study in partnership with Durham ISD.

90
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Introduction
The primary focus for this study was to explore the ways in which participation in
the Durham Independent School District’s (DISD) comprehensive leadership capacity
building program affects principal instructional leadership practice. The Durham
Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) is aligned to the district’s leadership standards and
school improvement initiatives. Case study research methods were used to collect the
data that are presented and analyzed in this chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to 1) present and analyze the data collected for this
study; and to 2) report on the findings for each research question. The data for this study
were collected over a five month period during the 2009-2010 school year and were
comprised of the following: A) Interviews with the school principal and three classroom
teachers; B) Classroom observations; C) Results from the Vanderbilt Assessment of
Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) online survey, D) Field observation of the school
principal (i.e., conducting professional development and classroom Learning Walks), and
E) Analysis of school documents including the School Improvement Plan (SIP) 2008,
School Accountability Report Card (SARC), the Special Reports on Pupil Achievement
(SRPA), and the Durham Achieves Initiative (2007). The following five research
questions were the focus for this study:

91
1) How does participation in the Durham Independent School District Principal
Coaching Initiative (DPCI) prepare principals to become effective
instructional leaders?
2) How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices
of urban school principals?
3) How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve
student outcomes?
4) What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5) How can the VAL-ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals
to become effective instructional leaders?
The following section is organized with an overview of the components of the
Durham ISD leadership capacity building and support initiatives followed by a
presentation of each case study school. This will be followed by a discussion and
analysis of the findings in relation to each of the five research questions that guided the
study. Next, for each case study school, the chapter will present a summary of the
findings. The chapter will conclude with a comparison of the findings for each case
study school and an analysis of the variations between the two with a discussion relating
the possible causes of the variance.
The Durham Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI)
The (DISD) has taken a proactive approach ensuring effective instructional
leaders guide their public schools. The (DPCI) provides a standards-based leadership

92
capacity building curriculum and the support of a leadership coaching structure. The
district is focused on building capacity in school leaders by focusing on what they need to
know and be able to do in order to provide the guidance and direction of sustained
instructional improvement leading to higher student achievement.
One support structure provided through the DPCI is a coach who provides ―at-
elbow‖ coaching and conferring to enhance instructional leadership development and
build leadership capacity to ensure improved academic success for students. Principals
and coaches participate in professional development focused on data analysis, goal
setting related to academic achievement, research based leadership practice, and
strategies for establishing systems and structures to support improved teacher practice
and student learning. Research confirms that effective school leaders have an impact,
although indirect, on student achievement (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004). A focused program of continued professional education can help leaders develop
the knowledge and skills they need to become more effective in improving the learning
environment for teachers and students. The DPCI is structured to build capacity through
the Institute for Learning Framework (IFL), which includes the nine Principles of
Learning (POLs), Learning Walks (LWs), Disciplinary Literacy, and Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs). Embedded within the program are the coaching and
nested learning community features of the program.

93
Case Study School: Litel Elementary
Litel Elementary is located in the Durham Independent School district in the
Northwest Learning Community. It is a PK-5 school with 60 teachers and approximately
960 students. The student population is 99% Hispanic with 80% Limited English
Proficient, with 98% of students eligible for free/reduce lunch, and 2% Special education
students. Litel elementary has an accountability rating of ―Academically Acceptable‖
with a goal of reaching the ―Commendable‖ rating this year. The school mission is
―Education is our Vision and Achievement is our Mission.‖
Special programs offered at the school include a Bilingual program, English as a
Second Language (ESL) program, a Dual Language Program, a Special Education
program, and a Talented and Gifted Program. Parent involvement includes a Parent
Teacher Association (PTA) site-based decision making committee, parent workshops,
and weekly informal principal/parent meeting.
According to the School Scorecard for 2008, 80% of the student population met
the minimum standard in mathematics, with 15% of students at grade level, 36% on the
―Path to College-Ready‖, and 15% at an advanced level; with all areas reporting a
decrease in scores over the last three years (Scorecard, 2008-2009). Eighty six percent of
students met the minimum standard in reading, with 90% reading at grade level, with
36% reported being ―On Path to College-Ready‖, and 49% begin at the advanced level;
which puts the school reading scores in the top 25% of the school district. The 2010 goal
for the Texas Academic Skills and Knowledge (TAKS) is for 90% of students to have

94
met the minimum standard in the academic areas of Mathematics, Reading, Science, and
Writing.
Karen, the principal at Litel Elementary School, is focused on a growth mindset,
as opposed to an ―I can’t do it‖ mentality. She has participated in the district leadership
training from its inception. Previous to becoming an assistant principal she taught
reading and fourth grade in a self contained classroom, reading and social studies K-4
and 6
th
grade, and received her MA in Educational Leadership. She served as an
administrative intern at a K-3 school and a PK-5 school and became an assistant principal
at the end of the school year. She later transferred and became an assistant principal
where she served two years in that capacity before taking on the responsibilities of the
principalship. She is currently going in her third year as principal at Litel Elementary and
has served as a principal for a total of five years.
Her training with Durham Achieves and the Institute for Learning (IFL) began
when she was promoted to the principalship two years ago. This is also when she
discovered how far behind Litel Elementary was academically in comparison to other
schools in the district (Principal Interview, 2009). Although she has had to overcome an
approximately 25% turnover rate among teachers, she acknowledges that this has also
given her an opportunity to hire and train her own staff. During the 2008-09 school year
the teacher retention rate was 91% (Scorecard, 2008-09). The next section will discuss
the findings for each research question followed by an analysis of the data.

95
Research Question 1: How does participation in the Durham ISD Principal Coaching
Initiative prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the DPCI prepared principals to
become effective instructional leaders. The data will be analyzed from the research
perspective of the design of effective leadership capacity building and support structures
for improving and sustaining effective leadership practice (Davis, Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006; Neufeld &
Roper, 2003). Data collection instruments used to explore this question included a pre-
post principal interview and observation, pre-post teacher interviews, classroom
observations, and document analysis.
Key Finding: DPCI Prepared Principals Through Comprehensive Professional
Development
There was some evidence that the DPCI prepared leaders to become effective
instructional leaders focused upon the district’s instructional improvement plan through
comprehensive professional development. Professional development was brought to the
district through consulting services in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh’s
Institute for Learning (IFL). Principals were introduced to the Principles of Learning
(POLs), Disciplinary Literacy, and Learning Walks (Executive Summary, 2009).
Karen provided insight into the depth of her understanding of the POLs when she
stated during the fall interview session, ―The process goals are increasing academic rigor,
assessment, and data teams‖ and that this was connected to the, ―IFL framework, the
POL’s, and the Learning Walks.‖ In the spring 2009 interview Karen shared ―The main

96
POL we look at is academic rigor, teachers have the tools for academic rigor; the goal is
the lesson has to be rigorous enough so that children can answer questions about what
they are learning.‖
Karen also provided some evidence of ongoing professional development when
she said, ―We had a training called Transforming Culture with Dr. Anthony Muhammad,
based on his book Transforming School Culture: How to Overcome School Division. I
think it’s been one of the biggest eye openers for me because it has helped me understand
how to work with and support teachers.‖
The professional development calendar for the 2009-2010 presented a schedule of
the regular and ongoing professional development activities planned for the year. The
calendar begins in June 2009 with summer professional development sessions for
teaches, the CILT team members, associate principals, and principals. Professional
development activities provided by the DISD are planned through the school year and
into the summer of 2010. The professional development calendar provides some
evidence for ongoing and in depth professional development.
Other documents that provided some evidence that the DPCI prepared leaders to
become effective instructional leaders included the fall and spring staff development
agenda. The fall agenda presented better learning strategies for English Language
Learners. In this activity I observed teachers working together; brainstorming the POLs
for clear expectations, socializing intelligence, accountable talk, academic rigor, and
organizing for effort.

97
During the spring staff development the agenda presented breakout sessions based
on Disciplinary Literacy. Teachers gathered into groups based on reading, writing,
science, and math. In their groups they focused on the Disciplinary Literacy that aligned
with their academic area. In groups they used a Disciplinary Literacy correlation table to
look at student work. During the afternoon session I observed teacher groups working in
data teams. Teachers were working collaboratively with student profiles, the data portal,
and state assessment progress monitoring plans.
Even though teachers were observed brainstorming the POLs during the fall staff
development, teacher responses during the fall interviews did not reveal whether teachers
knew that academic rigor was the focus for the year. Only one teacher mentioned the
POLs during the fall interviews. She said, ―We are using the curriculum, using the POLs,
in which we are using accountable talk, centralizing intelligence, and using teaching
objectives and instructional strategies.‖
During spring interviews teachers expressed a better understanding that academic
rigor was the POL focus for the year. Linda stated, ―The instructional priorities are to get
students on grade level through increasing academic rigor; that is our POL to focus on
this year.‖ Carol shared, ―The instructional priorities are the POLs and Disciplinary
Literacy. We are working on academic rigor and self management of learning‖. Linda
said, ―We are using self management of learning so the students know what they need to
learn, and academic rigor to plan our lessons and focus on instruction.‖ The teacher
interview responses provide some evidence of teacher learning since the fall interview,
which provides some evidence of effective instructional leadership practice.

98
Key Finding: Instructional Leadership Coaching
One component of the DPCI is ―at elbow‖ coaching. In this coaching model
principals are provided with an on-site coach and meet at regular intervals with their
coach during the school day. The coaching model provided some evidence that the DPCI
prepared leaders to become effective instructional leaders focused upon the district’s
instructional improvement plan through comprehensive professional development.
During the fall interview, Karen reported that she had worked with a phone coach
the previous year, which she found helpful. She expressed her belief that having a coach
on site would make her more accountable. Karen said, ―Last year I had a telephone
coach and this year I have the side by side, elbow to elbow coach. This is my first year
with the side by side coach. I like the side by side better. I loved my telephone coach,
but I could hide from the telephone coach.‖ This provides some evidence that the
telephone coach may not have provided the support necessary to influence the learning of
effective leadership practices. No teachers mentioned the principal coach during the fall
interviews. This provides some evidence that the telephone coach was not as influential
as the on-site coach.
During the spring interview Karen said, ―From the time I saw you last the biggest
changes have been influenced by my coach.‖ She shared how the coach had helped her
maintain a focus on the school vision and provided support in her preparation of staff
development. During my observations in classrooms and in the hallways of the school I
observed banners displaying the school vision, the POLs, and the Disciplinary Literacy.
These were not observed during the fall observations.

99
During the spring Karen stated, ―I love my coach. She has been phenomenal in
teaching me things and keeping me grounded, especially in my professional development
staff meetings; teaching me to be a leader instead of a worker; teaching me to be a
presenter.‖ Cheryl, a teacher, said, ―We have more of a focus on where we need to be
now. Meetings are based on instruction more than any other year. We concentrate more
on how we can make change and we always have a plan now‖. Based on document
analysis from bulletin boards posted throughout the school building, Karen made changes
to the campus instructional teams, implemented an encouraging word initiative, and made
the school goals and mission visible throughout the school building. Carol said, ―The
coach has added visuals in the hallway for the school vision, the POL’s, the disciplinary
literacy’s, and teacher team meetings.‖
During the spring interview Karen stated, ―I see my coach at least twice a week.
We do three minute learning walks. She observes my professional development and
gives me feedback. We determine what to work on by looking at what we see in
classrooms, like student work and instructional strategies.‖ Principals and their coaches
also participated in district led professional development sessions on how to use the
coaching model to improve and guide school improvement initiatives. Karen said, ―My
coach and I attend trainings together. We are learning the same model. I learn how to
coach my teachers; my coach is learning to coach me.‖
Analysis
As stated in chapter two, field-based internships, problem-based learning, and
mentoring have been cited as effective pedagogical methods for the instruction and

100
learning of adults (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999). The findings of Davis et.al,
(2005) suggest that effective leadership development programs are ―research based, have
curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic contexts, use cohort groupings and
mentors, and are structured to enable collaborative activity between the program and area
schools‖ (pg. 7). The DPCI has embedded within their program these research based
components of effective leadership development.
Mentoring is a component of preparation programs designed to improve school
and student performance (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2007). Copland (2003), sites
―principal/reform coordinator partnerships‖ (p. 388), like the princial coaching initiative
as a leadership structure that has contributed to building the capacity of principals.
Neufeld and Roper (2003) acknowledge that there is a lack of research in the area of
mentoring and coaching, but they believe it holds the promise of supporting educational
leaders as they take on the responsibilities of school leadership and shield new leaders
from the trials of the ―sink or swim‖ (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2007, p. 9) method
of on the job training. The findings reported confirm the previous suggestion that
coaching as a school based component of leadership development has the potential to
contribute to effective leadership practice; adding to the current research base.
Summary
One major theme associated with these findings is that effective leadership
practice can be learned through professional development (Northouse, 2007). The DPCI
has accomplished this through the alignment of their professional development program
to core components of the Texas State-Wide Leadership Standards. The core component

101
associated with the previously reported findings is: the leader is grounded in a standards-
based systems theory and design and is able to transfer that knowledge to his/her job as
the architect of standards based reform in the school. There is some evidence that Karen
transferred the knowledge she gained in professional development to practice at her
school site.
The Durham Achieves Leadership Development Curriculum (IFL) aligns with
Murphy et al’s. (2006) Learning-Centered Leadership in that it develops leader
knowledge, outlines expectations and standards, provides the opportunity to learn, and is
aligned with the IFL’s Leadership for Learning and the Texas Leadership Standards. It is
through these structures that the findings from this study align with previously cited
leadership literature. The findings add to our knowledge and understanding of how a
coherent research based leadership development program can advance the
implementation of effective leadership practice.
Research Question 2: How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
Knowledge and beliefs guide leadership practice and are keys to effective
instructional leadership behaviors that nurture a culture of learning and professional
behavior (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). The following is a discussion and
analysis of how the DPCI influenced leader practice in implementing the district reform
initiatives. To determine the value added from participation in the DPCI for five months,
the data will be analyzed from the learning centered leadership practices perspective

102
which focuses on instructional leadership behaviors that promote change in leader
practice (Elmore, 2000; Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2007).
Key Finding: Initiative Implementation
There was some evidence that the POLs and the Disciplinary Literacy were being
internalized and implemented at Litel Elementary. One document that provided evidence
of how the POLs and Disciplinary Literacy were being internalized was a rubric designed
by Karen’s supervisor. In the rubric the POLs and the Disciplinary Literacy were aligned
to the academic areas of Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science. The rubric was
observed being used to examine student work during the fall 2009 staff professional
development day (Appendix F).
During the fall 2009 observation and data collection period Karen said, ―The
instructional priorities at the school will be met by applying the Institute for Learning’s
(IFL) tools: the Principles of Learning (POL’s) and the Learning Walks.‖ Karen also
reported that evidence of implementation of POLs and Disciplinary Literacy was
observed and monitored through Learning Walks. Karen said, ―When we do Learning
Walks we listen for accountable talk, we ask students questions about what they are
learning, and we look for academic rigor.‖ She also stated that the focus POL for the
year was ―academic rigor.‖
Based on fall teacher interviews it was unclear how many teachers were working
toward implementation of district initiatives. Carol said, ―There is pretty much mixed
buy in.‖ Linda shared, ―I’m pretty sure they (teachers) are all working on them.‖ Cheryl
stated, ―Most of the teachers get it. We have a lot of new people; so the brand new ones

103
are on board. I think it is too much; everybody’s ideas are awesome but I think we are
putting too much all at one time‖. Karen, shared, ―When it comes to changing a school
no one likes change. We are trying to get all teachers on board to change the culture of
the school; teachers are overwhelmed with all the new initiatives‖.
There is some evidence of change in teacher practice and knowledge over the
study period as it relates to implementation of the POLs. Even though teachers were
observed using the POLs rubric in the fall, teacher responses during the fall interview did
not reveal whether teachers knew that academic rigor was the focus for the year. Only
one teacher mentioned the POLs during the fall interview, ―We are using the curriculum,
using the POLs, in which we are using accountable talk, socializing intelligence, and
using teaching objectives and instructional strategies.‖
During spring interviews teachers expressed a better understanding that academic
rigor was the POL focus for the year. Linda stated, ―The instructional priorities are to get
students on grade level through increasing academic rigor; that is our POL to focus on
this year.‖ Carol shared, ―The instructional priorities are the POLs and Disciplinary
Literacy. We are working on academic rigor and self management of learning‖. Linda
said, ―We are using self management of learning so the students know what they need to
learn, and academic rigor to plan our lessons and focus on instruction.‖
Teacher responses suggested an increase in knowledge as it related to their
understanding of the POLs and Disciplinary Literacy. Having all three teachers report
the use of academic rigor as the POL of focus may indicate a more coherent
implementation of the POLs, the Disciplinary Literacy, as well as the school curriculum.

104
The VAL ED Survey results provide some evidence that supports the claim that
initiatives are being implemented. In the fall (2009) the percentile rank for
implementation of core components of effective instructional leadership was 14.5%,
which is below basic. The spring (2010) percentile rank for implementing core
components of effective instructional leadership had increased to the percentile rank of
54.7%, which is a proficient rating. The proficient rating indicates that Karen is
exhibiting learning-centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely
to influence teachers positively and that result in acceptable value-added to student
achievement for all students.
The fall (2009) results indicate that Karen was proficient in two areas of
implementing; culture of learning and professional behavior and connections to external
communities. High standards for student learning, rigorous curriculum, quality
instruction, and performance accountability all received a below basic score. The spring
(2009) results show improvement in all areas but two. In the area of culture of learning
and professional behavior the score changed from proficient to basic and in connections
to external communities there was no change. Quality instruction improved from below
basic to basic. The remainder of the core components; high standards for student
learning, rigorous curriculum, and performance accountability increased from below
basic to proficient between the fall (2009) and spring (2010) administration.
Karen, her supervisor, and 74% of the teachers completed the VAL ED Survey
for the fall (2009) administration. This response rate is considered low, which means the
resulting scores must be interpreted with caution. A response rate of greater than or equal

105
to 75% is considered high and the results considered trustworthy. The spring (2010)
administration of the VAL ED Survey reported a 61% participation rate. This response is
considered low and the resulting scores must be interpreted with caution.
Key Finding: Staff Professional Development
There is some evidence that the DPCI influenced leadership practice. Changes in
leadership practice were exemplified in the way teachers and the principal described staff
professional development meetings. During the spring interview Karen said, ―The
professional development we are doing now we were not doing before. Almost all the
meetings I have on site are professional development. Professional development is what
we are working on this year.‖ Carol said, ―We are using what we learned in the staff
meeting. We use a student learning tracking tool; which is being used school-wide, for
the self management of learning.‖ When asked about staff meetings Cheryl stated,
―Before we just talked about the problems, but now we have a plan. We look for
observable behaviors and we use a lot of data this year.‖
The fall interview data did not provide any references to the staff professional
development; most likely because the fall (2009) observation was the first staff meeting
of the year. However, when comparing the agendas for each meeting the spring (2009)
agenda has a Disciplinary Literacy break out session for each academic area clearly
stated on the agenda. Observation notes from the fall (2009) meeting reveal a
brainstorming POL activity; however there was not a specific break out session.

106
Key Finding: Feedback and Learning Walks
There was some evidence that the frequency of classroom observations and
Learning Walks increased. Fall interview data collected revealed that the principal tried
to be in classrooms every day and provided feedback both formally and informally to
teachers. Karen said, ―I need to be in classrooms 40% of the time. So it’s every day I
need to be in classrooms. I try to be in classrooms every day I am on campus.‖
Informal and often ongoing feedback was provided through the ―Preparation for
Professional Learning‖ notebook, which includes a section for a learning dialogue in
which the teacher and principal write back and forth to each other about what the
principal observes and may wonder about. Cheryl said ―Karen writes in our book, it is
like a journal and she writes what she saw and we write back to her there.‖ Linda said,
―For administrators we have a learning notebook and it has a place for the administrator
or the coach to write what was noticed or wondered. We write back in it. It’s a dialogue
notebook.‖ Carol said in response to how feedback was provided, ―Official paper, or the
journal we are keeping this year. She (Karen) will put her wonderings in it. It’s an
opened ended non-evaluative response journal. For example, she was wondering about
something she saw in my classroom and she asked me how this benefited the children.‖
Karen described three forms of feedback she receives about instructional practices
in classrooms: learning dialogue notebooks, compelling conversations, and feedback
from campus instructional coaches. She has three coaches, one each for mathematics,
science, and reading. Karen said:

107
One way is when I go into classrooms; I write in the learning dialogue notebook.
I write what I notice and I write what I wonder. Teachers write back to me. The
second form of feedback is when we have a compelling conversation in the fourth
week. Those meetings last about twenty minutes. Another form of feedback
comes from my instructional coaches. Their responsibility is to put teaching
strategies in the newsletter for professional development.
During the spring interview Karen stated that she is in classrooms ―way more‖
and that has resulted in more productive Learning Walks. An example of how this was
different from the beginning of the year is embedded in the way teachers are being held
accountable for how instruction and assessment are planned and implemented in their
classrooms and how the resulting data is being used to guide instruction. Karen said:
When I walk the building with my assistant principal and coach we look for
trends across the building. Then I bring my Curriculum Instructional Leadership
Team (CILT) to see if they notice the same trends in classrooms. We look to see
if the learning objective is posted in a prominent place where all students can find
it. So when we noticed some people didn’t have it posted we talked about it the
faculty meeting and told them this is what we are going to be looking for as a
focus. When we do follow up walks everyone walks the building and is looking
for whatever the focus is. We want teachers to look at what they are doing and
make sure all kids are getting the same education; equal access to education.
What we found is that if your room was walked and you didn’t have the objective,
the next time you did. The one thing that makes a difference is my presence in
the classroom. I’m still out a lot, but when I’m here I am in classrooms.
During a teacher interview Linda’s response revealed how the Learning Walks
were being implemented as well when she said, ―Karen goes to district meetings where
they tell her what they expect in the Learning Walks. This year she is expected to
provide some kind of feedback. In the past there was no feedback. It was hard to tell
where the school was. The teachers didn’t know what to do. Now teachers are
exchanging ideas and doing Learning Walks. Teachers go to other teachers rooms.

108
We’ve been doing that for the last few years, but now we are using the information we
are gathering.‖
The Learning Walk binder describes the Learning Walk as a tool for getting
smarter about teaching. The binder suggests the Learning Walk is an organized walk
through the school building that uses the POLs to focus on how teachers teach and how
students learn. It also focuses on how a school is organized to create an environment the
nurtures effort and creates ability. The Learning walk provides a structure in which
professional development is followed by classroom implementation, classroom
observations, and professional development. It is a cycle of learning for teachers as well
as students. The principal and teacher interviews provide some evidence that the
Learning Walk is being implemented as it was intended.
Analysis
The School Leadership Study, Davis et al. (2006) reports ―growing consensus‖ on
the attributes of effective school principals. These attributes include the ability to
influence student achievement through the support and development of effective teachers
and the implementation of effective organizational structures. Karen’s changes in
leadership practice are having an impact on the ways teachers understand and implement
the POLs and the Learning Walks.
Murphy et al. (2006) describe effective leadership as being directly involved in
the design and implementation of the instructional program. Karen’s implementation of
an instructional program that puts student learning at its center exemplifies her
knowledgeable and involvement in the school’s curricular program. Karen’s

109
participation in the DPCI is preparing and supporting her as she develops her expertise as
an effective instructional leader. As a result changes in leadership practice were
observed. In addition, participants in the study all reported a better understanding of
district initiatives and revealed a coherent understanding of how to monitor and
implement program components like the POLs, the Disciplinary Literacy, and the
Learning Walks.
There is some evidence to support the findings that changes in the principal’s
leadership practice have been influenced by participation in the DPCI. Karen’s
participation in the DPCI has influenced her capacity to lead as a student-centered
instructional leader. As a result, the components of learning-centered leadership and the
POLs are becoming more evident in her daily practice and observable in classrooms.
With the support of her coach and her focus on professional development she is creating
an environment in which adults take responsibility for the academic performance of
students. Elmore (2000) has documented how this instructional leadership practice has
influenced teacher practice as well as student learning outcomes.
Summary
One of the core Texas state-wide leadership standards evident in the findings is
―the leader has the knowledge and skills to think and plan strategically, creating an
organizational vision around personalized student success‖ (DPCI Core Components
Alignment Matrix). The findings suggest changes in leadership practice have been
influenced by participating in the DPCI. The findings suggest the DPCI has influenced
Karen’s knowledge and understanding of how to implement a student-centered learning

110
framework (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). The components of learning-
centered leadership and the POLs are becoming more evident in her daily practice and
observable in classrooms. With the support of her coach and her focus on professional
development she is creating an environment in which adults take responsibility for the
academic performance of students. Elmore (2000) has documented how this instructional
leadership practice has influenced teacher practice as well as student learning outcomes.
Karen’s leadership practice aligns with Murphy’s et al.’s (2006) vision for
learning in that it reflects high academic standards for all students learning and is focused
on student learning. There is some evidence that Karen, through the support of her coach
and the DPCI, demonstrated her ability to keep the focus of the school vision in the
forefront of curriculum planning and lesson implementation. Her actions in this respect
show how the DPCI has influenced her knowledge and practice as well as how her
actions have influenced teacher practice.
Murphy’s et al. (2006) learning-centered conceptual framework presents
leadership as a process, not a trait, a process that involves influence and ―requires
interactions and relationships between people‖ (p. 1). Implementation of the Durham
Achieves initiatives has become part of what Karen does; it is an internalized construct of
her leadership decision making processes. These changes in practice are important
because the research has shown effective leadership practices contribute to increased
student achievement.

111
Research Question #3: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
strategies that the principal put into place to create and sustain organizational structures
and processes to promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes. The
data will be analyzed from the perspective of the direct effect that leader practice has on
creating the structures and learning environment that can potentially have a positive
influence on student outcomes (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005;
Elmore, 2000; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahistrom, 2004; Murphy, Elliott,
Goldring, & Porter, 2006).
Key Finding: Nested Learning Communities
The Learning Walk binder, given to researchers prior to the fall observations,
provided some insight into the organizational structure of the Nested Learning
Community. It is the structure that umbrellas all the campus collaborative meetings, the
professional development presentations, the Learning Walk, and the formal evaluation
process. The primary goal of all of the conversations in a learning community should be
to advance one’s own learning and to assist the learning of others. It provides an avenue
to assess one’s work. It is grounded on the premise that the work of the student is the
window on the work of the teacher; just as the work of the teacher is the window on the
work of the principal. It further suggests that work of the principal is the window on the
work of the superintendent and central leadership.

112
There is some evidence that Karen created and sustained effective nested learning
communities. During the fall interview teachers revealed that Karen had implemented
the nested learning community. Cheryl said, ―We collaborate a lot. That’s one thing
Karen has brought. Everyone sits and talks about the student data. Apart from that we
collaborate on our lesson planning, we talk to our instructional coaches and we
collaborate by grade level. We also do vertical and horizontal collaboration.‖ Linda
shared, ―We have vertical teams that meet by content every three weeks. We are held
accountable for the work in the nested learning communities by the data. We have a
focus each week and we look for that in classrooms. In response to collaboration time
Carol shared, ―We have vertical teams and grade level teams.‖ Teachers’ interview
responses consistently indicate that they are meeting collaboratively. No teachers
specifically referenced the POLs and the nested learning communities together.
The spring interviews with teachers provided some evidence of the Nested
Learning Community as well as the use of the POLs during meetings. Carol said,
―During our meetings we are using student work more and talking more about. We are
looking at data in our vertical teams and by department. We look at student work from
the grade level below and the grade level above.‖ Linda said, ―We are working on the
self management of learning. We had the training and now we are asking kids questions
in class about what they are learning.‖ Linda said, ―We had math training with our grade
level and we are implementing what we learned in the training. We are working together
in our meetings to help each other learn and create lessons.‖

113
During the fall interview Karen described Nested Learning Community activities
when she said, ―We are having our second staff data team meeting and we are starting
with who has been retained.‖ In relationship to teacher meetings she said, ―We looked at
student work and discussed what the expectations were, then teachers took the rubric and
discussed the work. We met every six weeks last year. The meetings focused on what
teachers could do to get kids to the next level on the rubric.‖
During the spring interview Karen talked about the math trainings teachers
participated in. She said, ―We’ve had a lot of support in math that comes through the
professional learning community, which is district training. I want teachers to make
decisions about how to use the data. I want them to do what is best for kids. That’s a big
piece for us; that teachers are using the data in their meetings and that is making a
difference in changing the culture of our school to one that puts kids first.‖
Key Finding: Data
Data was not mentioned very often during the fall interviews; however there was
some evidence that data was being used. Cheryl said, ―Counselors and the principal
started on the third and sixth week to meet and discuss which students were below grade
level.‖ She also said, ―Data is used to see how lessons are impacting kids and scores.
We talk about the student data in our collaborative groups.‖ Linda said, ―We are held
accountable by the data.‖ She did not go into detail about what kinds of data they were
held accountable for. Carol mentioned the PLC and collaborative time, but did not
mention data being used during any of the meetings she described.

114
During the fall interview Karen mentioned how data was used when she said,
―We use the data from Accelerated math and Accelerated reading instruction to identify
kids who are not meeting the standard. We used data from last year. Teachers were
surprised to see that only two kids from the first grade were commendable or college
ready.‖ Karen said, ―I am using data to look at every teacher. I want to see the numbers.
I want to know what the assessments show. I want to know how this child is making
progress. I want to know how teachers know when kids have learned what they meant to
teach.‖ Karen’s focus on data, described during the fall interview, may have influenced a
teacher change in practice in relationship to the use of data.
The spring interviews revealed that there was some evidence that data were used
to influence instructional decisions. Spring interviews responses from all teachers
revealed that they were using data to guide instruction. Linda said, ―We are using the
student achievement profile for the self management of learning and to monitor their
progress during our nested learning meetings.‖ Carol said, ―Student data is being used
school wide to monitor student progress on assessments during collaboration time. We
are using student work more and talking more about it. We are looking at it in our
vertical teams and by department in our nested learning communities‖. Cheryl shared,
―Teachers gather data for each student on a student achievement profile which aligns
student work to the Principles of Learning (POLs) related to accountable talk, rigor, self
management of learning, and organizing for effort.‖ Two of the three teachers referenced
the POLs during the spring interviews.

115
Teacher responses also revealed that they feel more comfortable using data and
they believe their efforts are making a difference. Cheryl said, ―We use a lot of data this
year. From September until now I have seen a lot more teachers come together in
planning, using the data to see what else we can do to get these scores up.‖ Cheryl said,
―There is a lot more documentation, testing and documenting...it informs our planning.
We document for lesson planning, we are working two weeks ahead. We believe this is
working because we see improvement on their (student) ongoing assessment.‖ In the
spring interview Karen said, ―I know teachers are using data because I hear it in their
conversations. I see it when they work together.‖
The professional development day observed in the spring provided opportunities
for observations and document analysis. During the afternoon session teachers met in
grade level groups. During the meeting teachers worked in data teams on student
profiles, on my data portal, on state assessment progress monitoring plans, and on
collaborative planning. Some of the documents being used at the meeting were the
Estimated 2009 AEIS Rating and benchmark results. All documentation for the meeting
was turned in at the end of the day to Karen.
Key Finding: Internal Accountability
During the fall interview Karen said, ―I need to be in classrooms 40% of the time.
So it’s every day I am in classrooms. I am in classrooms every day I am on campus.‖
Karen received and gave specific feedback through the learning dialogue and compelling
conversations, but it was unclear how this may have affected internal accountability.

116
In the fall interview Linda said, ―We are held accountable by the observations, the
data, the content area coaches, and the tests the kids take.‖ She was not explicit about
how accountability was monitored. Cheryl said, ―We are held accountable by observing
the students, by communicating clear expectations, and by teaching socializing
intelligence.‖ She is referencing the use of the POL’s during lesson delivery in this
comment. Carol said teachers were held accountable by Karen. She said, ―When the
principal comes in and evaluates you. If she doesn’t see the strategies everyday she pulls
you aside. She starts with the team, therefore not identifying a specific teacher.‖
There was little evidence of internal accountability measures in the fall. This does
not mean they were not present. However, they were not observed or mentioned as often
in the fall as the spring.
There was some evidence that targeted accountability measures promoted
effective teacher practice. Karen’s spring interview revealed teacher practices that had
changed since the fall. She shared, ―Now teachers turn in lesson plans weekly, they plan
for instruction using the data discussed at their meetings. They turn in meeting reports
after the nested learning community meetings. Teachers are beginning to understand
how to implement IFL strategies.‖ Weekly lesson plans, student data profiles, and using
data to plan lessons are all examples of accountability practices that have been
implemented since the fall data collection period. Carol shared ways Karen is holding
teachers accountable:
She is the enforcer; she is there to make sure we are accountable for what we do; this
is something that was missing in previous years and something that is really good
about our campus; having people be accountable for what they do in their room;

117
that’s a big change and it is really helping. This is making an impact on what
teachers are doing in the classroom, especially in terms of data teams. It is making us
more aware of what the data means.
Linda added, ―This year we are implementing because we have been doing it for
two years and we have to show the principal what we are doing.‖
Accountability documents observed during the spring professional development
day were teacher participation sheets and the request for meeting documentation. Karen
also shared with me the product of the most previous data team meeting; which included
the participation sheet, an article on data-driven teachers, the cycle on inquiry handout,
and the benchmark one results.
The VAL ED Survey results provide some evidence that supports the claim for
monitoring and internal accountability. In the fall (2009) the percentile rank for
monitoring of core components of effective instructional leadership was 5.0%, which is
below basic. Karen received her lowest percentile rank in this area, when compared to
the other five key process scores. This may be an indication of the area in need of the
most growth.
The spring (2010) percentile rank for monitoring core components of effective
instructional leadership had increased to the percentile rank of 63.8%, which is a
proficient rating. The proficient rating indicates that Karen is exhibiting learning-
centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are likely to influence
teachers positively and that result in acceptable value-added to student achievement for
all students.

118
The fall (2009) results indicate that Karen was below basic in all but two areas of
the key process of monitoring. She received basic ratings in the areas of culture of
learning and professional behavior and connections to external communities. The below
basic rating was assigned to high standards for student learning, rigorous curriculum,
quality instruction, and performance accountability. The spring (2010) results rate her
performance as proficient in all key process areas except connections to external
communities, which remained unchanged as a basic rating.
Analysis
A major theme associated with these findings is that implementing and
monitoring nested learning communities is an organizational process that can facilitate
the development of effective teacher practice. With an explicit focus on learning and
school improvement, Elmore (2000) defined the main themes of school improvement as
continuity of focus on core instruction, explicit accountability by principals and teachers
for the quality of practice, and a normative climate in which adults take responsibility for
the academic performance of children. The findings suggest that Karen has created a
normative environment in which teachers are working collaboratively for the benefit of
students.
Another theme that emerged from the findings is that teachers are using data to
plan and guide instruction. This use of data to guide instruction, while working
collaboratively in nested learning communities are examples Murphy et al., (2006)
dimensions for learning. According to Murphy’s (2006) research, leaders in high
performing schools made sure that assessment data were related to student learning, that

119
goals were focused on student learning, and that communities of professional learning
were established. The findings reveal that Karen’s work with the DPCI has increased her
capacity to guide her staff to incorporate into their collaborative meetings effective
dimensions of student learning.
Summary
The findings for creating and organizing nested learning communities suggest
Karen is developing people and setting the direction for her organization. Davis et al.
(2005), report that enabling people to do their jobs effectively by developing shared goals
and monitoring performance are key elements essential for good leadership. Karen has
accomplished this through the way she is supporting and monitoring the activities of the
data teams in the nested learning communities. The findings expand on what we know
about how organizing and monitoring nested learning communities impacts teacher
practice and the related use of data to guide and plan instruction. By focusing on
leadership practices that put student learning at the center of decision making Karen has
exemplified what Leithwood et al. (2004) described as helping teachers develop a shared
understanding about the organization. This is important because research suggests this is
a key factor in promoting effective teacher practice and increasing student learning
outcomes (Elmore, 2000).
The findings expand on what we know about how organizing and monitoring
nested learning communities impacts teacher practice and the related use of data to guide
and plan instruction. By focusing on leadership practices that put student learning at the
center of decision making Karen has exemplified what Leithwood et al. (2004) described

120
as helping teachers develop a shared understanding about the organization. This is
important because research suggests this is a key factor in promoting effective teacher
practice and increasing student learning outcomes (Elmore, 2000).
Research Question #4: What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and
teacher levels) that enabled teacher practice and subsequent movement in the direction of
implementation of the district’s and the school’s improvement initiatives. The support
structures embedded within the Durham Achieves Initiative include an area supervisor, a
principal network, and a Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT). The data will
be analyzed from the perspective of effective strategies for building and sustaining
learning centered leadership practice (Leithwood, 2004; Murphy, 2006).
Key Finding: Principal Network
There is some evidence that the principal network enabled effective instructional
practices. In the fall interview Karen stated, ―As a learning community what we did was
set up quads. There are forty of us, ten teams of four. We worked together last year to
see how we could take what we were learning in the IFL and apply it to our teachers and
their practice. My network helped me come up with ideas to communicate with
teachers.‖ One decision the principal network made was to bring journal articles back to
their respective school sites and use them as part of the staff professional development.
One article Karen shared with me was Michael Copeland’s Leadership of Inquiry:
Building and Sustaining Capacity for School Improvement. Karen also said, ―We are

121
reading a book throughout this year, Professional Parlay and selected articles. This is
how we have compelling conversations. I used this for teacher conferences; it is part of
the coaching piece.‖
Two of the three teachers interviewed in the fall commented on how the principal
was supported by the principal networking group; corroborating what Karen shared
during the fall and spring interviews. For example, Linda shared, ―Four principals work
together. There is lots of training; they have a coach.‖ Cheryl said, ―The district
supports her a lot. She has a community. I think it is four principals.‖ The teacher
interview responses align with how Karen described the support she received from the
district.
During the spring interview Karen stated, ―I am in a learning community that is
soaring. I had to start focusing only on Litel.‖ She shared the power point presentation
at this time and showed me how her learning community was supporting her to focus on
her school. This document revealed that the learning community is working together to
support each other as they move their schools toward their academic goals and district
implementation of initiatives. The power point presentation I reviewed, which was
presented during a networking meeting, was entitled ―Leadership Matters.‖ This
presentation focused on the research of Leithwood and Riehl (2003), Liethwood and
Louis (2004), Waters, Marzano, McNulty (2003) and Resnick (1999). Karen also stated
that, ―the teachers are reading books all the time‖, which was part of the principal
network support revealed during the fall interview and was reported again in the spring
interview.

122
Supervisors have provided books that principals used during their networking
cohort meeting and during staff development. Two books Karen cited during the fall
interview were, What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, From Assistant Principal to
Principal and Reading Above, Reading Across, and Reading Down”. During the spring
interview Karen shared, ―We (the principal network) would be in a round table and
discuss these books and how it is working at the school site.‖ During a teacher interview
Cheryl said, ―She (Karen) has a director at the district and she brings what she learns
back to us.‖ The interview responses provide insight into how the support structure of
the principle network enabled leader practice.
Analysis
The findings in relationship to support structures that enable leader practice
suggest that Durham Achieves has embedded effective leadership capacity building
initiatives within and throughout their program. Through these support structures the
district is setting the direction by ―charting a clear course that everyone understands‖
(Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 1) and developing people by
providing appropriate support structures and professional development to succeed. The
data also reveal that support structures have been sustained over time. This is important
because sustaining support structures over time is an indication that Durham Achieves is
providing a model of professional development that is supporting leadership practices
that contribute to staff and student learning (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004).

123
Murphy and Meyers (2009) suggest that support structures in organizations, like the
principal network and the supervisor support, are the foundation of sustainable change in
leader practice and contribute to empowering people and creating a school culture that
promotes student centered leadership and student learning. Based on interview responses
the evidence would suggest that the support structures cited are having an impact on
principal practice and capacity. Copland (2003) suggests that for support structures to be
effective they must be embedded within the program and implemented throughout the
district. The data suggest that the support structures of the princpal network and the
supervisor support have been embedded and implemented in such a way that they are
having an impact on principal practice as well as teacher practice.
Summary
A major theme associated with these findings is that Durham Achieves is
redesigning their organization by embedding coherent support structures like the
principal network and the area supervisor within their leadership capacity building
program. Karen has been able to employ these support structures as a resource that
connects the mission of improving student learning outcomes to her capacity to influence
her staff. Liethwood et al. (2004), report that successful educational leaders develop their
schools as effective organizations that support and sustain the performance of staff and
teachers, as well as students. This aligns with the Core Texas State-wide Leadership
Standard of, ―The leader has knowledge and skills to think and plan strategically, creating
an organizational vision around personalized student success ‖ (DPCI Core Components
Alignment Matrix).

124
Research Question #5: How can the VAL ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to
assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
potential for the data collected from an instructional leadership assessment instrument,
the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL ED), to be used as a tool to
inform the coaching support designed to promote effective instructional leadership. The
data will be analyzed from the perspective of the research on developing learning
centered leadership practice and effective coaching practices designed to promote and
support effective leadership practice (Murphy, 2006; Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott,
& Cravens, 2007).
Key Finding: Professional Growth
There is some evidence that suggest the VAL ED Survey can be used to guide
effective instructional leadership by identifying areas of strength and areas of weakness.
At the time of the fall interview Karen had taken the VAL ED, but had not received the
results. Karen shared, ―This year I am working on monitoring teaching and learning for
teachers. I think the VAL ED results may be a useful tool to determine areas of need and
an area of focus for future growth.‖ During the spring interview Karen restated her high
priority goal for this year as monitoring teaching and learning and that this was ―tied to
the VAL ED high standards for student learning, rigorous curriculum, and quality
instruction.‖
Respondents to the VAL ED were asked how effective the principal is at ensuring
the school carries out specific actions that affect the core components of learning-

125
centered leadership. As stated earlier, the core components that Karen is focusing on this
year that align to the VAL ED are high standards for student learning, rigorous
curriculum, and quality instruction. According to the fall VAL ED survey results, areas
for improvement include monitoring of performance accountability, high standards for
supporting student learning, and high standards for monitoring student learning.
The fall VAL ED Survey results report an overall rating of below basic for
principal leadership behaviors that will influence teacher practice and student learning.
The principal, the area supervisor, and 74% of the teachers completed the survey. A
response rate of 50% to 74% is considered moderate, therefore classification of below
basic would be considered trustworthy. The below basic classification rating describes a
principal who exhibits learning-centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness
that are unlikely to influence teachers positively or result in acceptable value-added to
student achievement and social learning for students. Teachers’ responses to the survey
indicate the need for more monitoring in the areas of performance accountability, high
standards for student learning, quality instruction, and a rigorous curriculum.
The spring VAL ED results support the previous claim that the VAL ED could be
implemented to guide and assess effective leadership practice. The spring results provide
some evidence that Karen’s focus this year on monitoring teaching and learning of
teachers has had an impact. Her effectiveness score for the spring survey was proficient.
However, as stated earlier, to be considered trustworthy there must be at least 74%
participation. The spring survey only received a 61% response rate from teachers, so the
results must be interpreted with caution.

126
Key Finding: Substantiates Findings
The spring VAL ED results provide insight and some evidence for many of the
observations and claims made in relationship to previous key findings. For example, the
fall data indicated below basic in the core components of: 1) monitoring of performance
accountability, 2) high standards for supporting student learning, and 3) high standards
for monitoring student learning. The spring VAL ED report provides some evidence for
a change in leadership practice. Karen’s overall rating had increased to proficient in each
of the three core component areas. This data in isolation might not be very useful
because of the low participation rate; however the results seem to align with possible
evidence from previously stated findings.
Analysis
A main theme associated with the VAL ED report is assessing learning-centered
leadership practices. Because the VAL ED report substantiates many of the study
findings it would serve as a trustworthy coaching tool; a tool used to measure pre and
post knowledge of student-centered leadership and a tool used to set organizational goals.
The VAL ED survey is aligned with Murphy’s (2006) core component and key processes
of student-centered learning. Findings reported in relationship to the research questions
suggest Karen has implemented and monitored organizational support structures like the
nested learning communities. The VAL ED report substantiates these finding in the way
that the data was reported between the pre and post administration of the survey.

127
Summary
The findings suggest that Karen has moved toward proficiency as a student-
centered leader. The VAL ED survey report is a tool that can be used to develop
effective school leaders and guide their professional development (Goldring, Porter,
Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2007). It is a tool that provides a comprehensive look at
where the principal is in relationship to the core components and key processes
associated with effective student centered leadership. In addition, the VAL ED Survey
provides a tool for leadership evaluation that provides the information needed to improve
leadership practice.
Case Study Summary
When considered as a whole the findings from the research questions suggest the
DPCI is having an impact on leader practice as well as teacher practice. The coaching
initiative was a key support structure as was the professional development Karen
participated in. Changes in leadership practice were observed and measured by the VAL
ED Survey. Karen’s implementation of learning centered leadership practice was
substantiated not only by her actions, but also by the change in teacher practice as they
implemented the Durham Achieves initiatives.
The findings suggest that the coach supported and enabled Karen’s leadership
practice by building her capacity to focus on the key components of schooling. Murphy
et al. (2006) suggest the key components of schooling are learning, teaching, curriculum,
and assessment. Based on the findings and changes in leadership practice documented
the

128
Durham Achieves initiative is focused on implementing effective methods for getting the
school and its members to become more productive.

129
Case Study School: Townsend Middle School
Townsend Middle School is located in Durham Independent School District in the
West Secondary Learning Community. The school mission is, ―Townsend Middle
School, Where Learning is Everything.‖ The school serves grades 6-8, has 192 students
enrolled, and 15 teachers. The student population is comprised of 65% Hispanic, 25%
African American, 8% White, and 3% Other. Of that population 4% are classified as
Limited English Proficient (LEP), with 75% eligible for free/reduced lunch. One percent
of the school population is classified as Special Education.
Specialized academic programs include environmental science, a pre-engineering
lab, and STEM. Parent involvement is supported through the PTA, Career Day, school
field trips, and the Rose Camp-Out Partners in Education. The school as an
accountability rating of ―Exemplary‖ based on the TAKS assessment. Ninety to 100% of
students have met the minimum standards established in the TAKS and exceed the goal
of 90% set as an expectation for the current school year. In Mathematics 59% of students
have met the College Ready Standard and in Reading 85% of student meet the
requirement. This school in the top 25% of all schools in the district in all academic
areas tested. These areas include Mathematics, Reading, Science, Social Studies, and
Writing.
Sean, the principal at Townsend Middle School, previously taught as a certified
life science teacher grades 7-12 and received his MA in Educational Administration and
Policy Studies. Sean served as assistant principal at Townsend Middle School (TMS)

130
during the 2008-09 school year and was promoted to the principalship this year. This is
his second year as a school administrator and his first year as head principal.
Research Question 1: How does participation in the Durham ISD Principal Coaching
Initiative prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion and analysis of how the DPCI prepared principals to
become effective instructional leaders. The data will be analyzed from the research
perspective of the design of effective leadership capacity building and support structures
for improving and sustaining effective leadership practice (Davis, Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006; Neufeld &
Roper, 2003). Data collection instruments used to explore this question included a pre-
post principal interview and observation, pre-post teacher interviews, classroom
observations, and document analysis.
Key Finding: DPCI Prepared Principals through Comprehensive Professional
Development
There was some evidence that the DPCI prepared principals to become effective
instructional leaders focused upon the district’s instructional improvement plan through
comprehensive professional development. Professional development was brought to the
district through consulting services in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh’s
Institute for Learning (IFL). Principals were introduced to the Principles of Learning
(POLs), Disciplinary Literacy, and Learning Walks as part of the comprehensive
professional development trainings (Executive Summary, 2009).

131
During the fall interview Sean provided insight into the depth of his
understanding of the district’s instructional plan when he described a gap between what
the district wanted implemented and what was actually being implemented in classrooms.
He shared, ―There is a gap between knowing what the initiatives are and implementing
them in the classroom.‖ He demonstrated his understanding of the POLs and
Disciplinary Literacy when he said,
We have a lot of tools and we use the district protocols. We focus on what we
teach using the curriculum guides and implement the POLs. A big piece of this is
the data driven model. We use the POLs and data to close gaps in student
learning. We are focused on Disciplinary Literacy and the POL of academic rigor
and effort based learning. We are also focusing on content knowledge of the
teachers and then focusing on the habits of mind that go along with that content
area. The district calls that learning on the diagonal. The district has done a
fabulous job at providing professional development as it related to the POLs and
Disciplinary Literacy.
There was some evidence that the district supported leader practice through
ongoing professional development. Sean shared that he had participated in two
leadership training opportunities since our initial meeting in the fall. The first was a
leadership training called transforming culture based on Dr. Anthony Muhammad’s book
Transforming School Culture. The second training he participated in was based on
leadership through art, which the district offered to principals they have classified as
master principals. He did not say how this classification was gained or if the trainings
were a direct result of his supervisor’s involvement.
The professional development calendar for the 2009-2010 presented a schedule of
the regular and ongoing professional development activities planned for the year. The
calendar begins in June 2009 with summer professional development sessions for

132
teaches, the CILT team members, associate principals, and principals. Professional
development activities provided by the DISD are planned through the school year and
into the summer of 2010. The professional development calendar provides some
evidence for ongoing and in depth professional development.
The fall (2009) and the spring (2010) staff development agendas each substantiate
Sean’s claim that the district provides a lot of tools and a focus on the POLs. The fall
agenda morning session presents training on district tools and protocols, specifically the
Professional Learning Community and the Learning Walk. The agenda also presents the
book study on Mindset, by Carol Dweck, which my observation notes reveals focuses on
effort versus ability. Effort based learning is a reference to the POL ―Organizing for
Effort‖. The Disciplinary Literacy framework is presented through an article study called
Hard Questions about Practices. The day ends with a session on rigor and relevance in
the classroom which includes time to examine student work.
The spring (2010) staff development agenda presents another article study on
Looking at Student Work, by Deuel, Nelson, Slavit, and Kennedy. The IFL ―Studying
Student Work Protocol‖ was presented and used with the article during mid-morning
breakout session. Each group, which I had the opportunity to observe, was organized by
one of the POLs. The two groups I observed were clear expectations and academic rigor.
Key Finding: Instructional Leadership Coaching
There is some evidence that principal participation in the DPCI program prepared
leaders to become effective instructional leaders. One component of the DPCI is ―at
elbow‖ coaching. In this coaching model principals are provided with an on-site coach

133
and meet at regular intervals with their coach during the school day. At the time of the
fall interview Sean stated that he had not worked with a coach previously and had only
recently received information from the district on the coaching initiative.
During the spring interview Sean described how the coach had supported his
improvement in leadership communication skills. He said,
Having an experienced coach has allowed me an opportunity to grow and learn
from her experiences. The coach has helped me find non-confrontive ways to talk
to teachers and have courageous conversations. The coach has good ideas about
how to approach conflict and I was able to solve the problem with her help. This
has also helped my approach with parents.
I observed the coach during the spring staff development day. She facilitated one
of the POL groups observed during the morning session. She was involved with the
teachers and guiding them through the protocol for looking at student work. She was
demonstrating through the modeling of guided questioning strategies.
The teachers reported during the spring interviews that Sean’s coach was in the
building often and was also in classrooms. Sharyn said, ―Teachers enjoy working her,
she collaborates with staff as well as working with Mr. Huggans.‖ Ron said, ―She was
instrumental in the documentation process of a new teacher, but she mostly works with
Mr. Huggans.‖ Nicole said, ―The coach is here seeing what we are doing. To see if there
is something we can do better, she is not here every day. She works mostly with Mr.
Huggans.‖
Analysis
As stated in chapter two, field-based internships, problem-based learning, and
mentoring have been cited as effective pedagogical methods for the instruction and

134
learning of adults (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 1999). The findings of Davis et al.
(2005) suggest that effective leadership development programs are ―research based, have
curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic contexts, use cohort groupings and
mentors, and are structured to enable collaborative activity between the program and area
schools‖ (p. 7). The DPCI has embedded within their program these research based
components of effective leadership development.
Mentoring is a component of preparation programs designed to improve school
and student performance (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2007). Copland (2003), sites
―principal/reform coordinator partnerships‖ (p. 388), like the princial coaching initiative
as a leadership structure that has contributed to building the capacity of principals.
Neufeld and Roper (2003) acknowledge that there is a lack of research in the area of
mentoring and coaching, but they believe it holds the promise of supporting educational
leaders as they take on the responsibilities of school leadership and shield new leaders
from the trials of the ―sink or swim‖ (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill, 2007, p. 9) method
of on the job training. The findings reported confirm the previous suggestion that
coaching as a school based component of leadership development has the potential to
contribute to effective leadership practice; adding to the current research base.
Summary
One major theme associated with these findings is that effective leadership
practice can be learned through professional development (Northouse, 2007). The DPCI
has accomplished this through the alignment of their professional development program
to core components of the Texas State-Wide Leadership Standards. The core component

135
associated with the previously reported findings is: the leader is grounded in a standards-
based systems theory and design and is able to transfer that knowledge to his/her job as
the architect of standards based reform in the school. Sean’s ability to build his
knowledge through the coach’s experience and then implement this knowledge is an
example of how he transferred new knowledge to his practice. He did this successfully as
he maneuvered through communicating his ideas and concerns with teachers and parents.
The Durham Achieves Leadership Development Curriculum (IFL) aligns with
Murphy et al’s (2006) Learning-Centered Leadership framework in that it develops
leader knowledge, outlines expectations and standards, provides the opportunity to learn,
and is aligned with the IFL’s Leadership for Learning and the Texas Leadership
Standards. It is through these structures that the findings from this study align with
previously cited leadership literature. The findings add to our knowledge and
understanding of how a coherent research based leadership development program can
advance the implementation of effective leadership practice.

136
Research Question 2: How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and
leadership practices of urban school principals?
Knowledge and beliefs guide leadership practice and are keys to effective
instructional leadership behaviors that nurture a culture of learning and professional
behavior (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). The following is a discussion and
analysis of how the DPCI influenced leader practice in implementing the district reform
initiatives. To determine the value added from participation in the DPCI for five months,
the data will be analyzed from the learning centered leadership practices perspective
which focuses on instructional leadership behaviors that promote change in leader
practice (Elmore, 2000; Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2007).
Key Finding: School Vision
There was some evidence that Sean’s participation in the DPCI influenced his
knowledge and beliefs relating to the school vision. The fall interview with Sean
revealed his focused conviction to the core concepts that embodied the school vision.
Sean said,
The school vision is to be world class in everything we do. We are looking for
excellence in everything from lesson plans to instructional delivery to the
expectations we have for our kids. Included in these are four core beliefs: 1)
Students come first, 2) High expectations, 3) Remain teachable, and 4) Team
work; you have to be accountable to yourself and your kids.
The vision and core values were restated during the spring interview and observed
during the spring staff development presentation. This provides some evidence for
consistency over time in relationship to the school vision and the core beliefs that guide
Sean’s leader practice. Sean commented in response to how he ensured the vision and

137
district initiatives were being implemented by stating, ―I inspect what I expect. Everyone
is accountable.‖
During my fall visit to Townsend Middle School I had asked Sean to provide me
with a list of documents that would assist me in my data collection. Sean presented me
with a binder which included each of the requested documents and some others he
believed were relevant to the school. The school vision and mission statement were
prominently placed in the binder and clearly stated, ―To be a world class science
academy.‖
Key Finding: Initiatives Implementation
There was some evidence that the POLs and the Disciplinary Literacy were being
internalized and implemented at Townsend Middle School. One observation that
provided evidence of how the POLs and Disciplinary Literacy were being internalized
was observed in the fall staff development. During the initial presentation the Campus
Instructional Leadership Team (CILT) presented the district wide tools and protocols
associated with the Nested Learning Community and Learning Walk. They showed how,
through these structures, the schools high priority goals related to student academic
achievement could be attained. This was followed by a teacher presented module on
effort based learning and the growth mindset. Another teacher group presented the
disciplinary literacy framework and followed that with an article study activity focusing
on disciplinary literacy.
The fall (2009) and the spring (2010) staff development agendas document how
the POLs and Disciplinary Literacy are being implemented. The fall morning session

138
agenda presents training on district tools and protocols, specifically the Professional
Learning Community and the Learning Walk. The agenda also presents the book study
on Mindset, by Carol Dweck, which my observation notes reveals focuses on effort
versus ability. Effort based learning is a reference to the POL ―Organizing for Effort‖.
The Disciplinary Literacy framework is presented through an article study called Hard
Questions about Practices. The day ends with a session on rigor and relevance in the
classroom which includes time to examine student work.
The spring (2010) staff development agenda presents another article study on
Looking at Student Work, by Deuel, Nelson, Slavit, and Kennedy. The IFL ―Studying
Student Work Protocol‖ was presented and used with the article during mid-morning
breakout session. Each group, which I had the opportunity to observe, was organized by
one of the POLs. The two groups I observed were clear expectations and academic rigor.
During the fall interview Sean revealed how his staff implemented the POL’s
when he said, ―We focus on what we teach, how we teach, which is our curriculum piece;
and implementation of the principles of learning. If it’s not working we focus on what
we are doing to scaffold the learning and close the gap.‖ He stated, ―The instructional
priorities we are focused on are the Disciplinary Literacy and making sure our teachers
have strong content knowledge. We are focused on academic rigor, we want students
think critically about what they are learning. We also want kids to know learning is
about effort not about ability. Another focus is on effort based learning.‖ Sean said in
relationship to instructional strategies teachers use, ―Teachers are using the POLs in their
classrooms. I have observed teachers using self management of learning, academic rigor,

139
socializing intelligence to meet the learning needs of all students.‖ He said that he also
sees teachers using the POLs in the lesson plans they turn in weekly. Sean said, ―They
have to demonstrate the POLs in their lesson plans. They are required to show how they
will illicit accountable talk and academic rigor. They have to show what techniques they
are going to use to implement to ensure self management of learning. I also see this in
the lessons I observe. Then we get together and talk about what I saw and what I didn’t
see.‖ He stated that academic rigor was the principle of learning for focus this year.
The spring (2010) interview revealed how staff professional development and
implementation of initiatives are coupled when Sean said,
The site professional developments are influencing teachers by keeping the focus
on the schools instructional priorities and goals. The professional developments
are focused on studying student protocols like the POLs and Disciplinary
Literacy. We are looking at student work and asking questions about student
work. We are addressing questions about what made a lesson rigorous and what
the evidence was for rigor. We are asking how the lesson can be more rigorous.
We ask about the goal of the assignment and if it wasn’t rigorous enough we ask
what we could do next.
Teacher interviews reveal some evidence of implementation of the POLs. In the
fall Ron said, ―One of my instructional priorities is to get students to analyze questions
more. I try to think about how my lesson is going to increase a student’s analytical skills
to encourage higher level thinking and get them the use accountable talk.‖ Accountable
talk is one POL and the use of analyzing questions is an example of the POL socializing
intelligence. During the spring interview Ron said, ―Our instructional priorities are to get
students ready to go the high school and college of their choice. One way we do this is
by focusing on their overall academic achievement, life skills, and critical thinking.‖
Without naming a POL Ron has described the use of socializing intelligence and self

140
management of learning. Sharyn said, ―That Mr. Huggans makes sure we are adhering to
the POLs through his observations and our evaluation.‖ During the spring interviews
many of the responses from teachers reflected their preparation for upcoming benchmark
and state exams describing the POL of fair and credible evaluations.
The VAL ED Survey results provide some evidence that supports the claim that
initiatives are being implemented. In the fall (2009) the percentile rank for
implementation of core components of effective instructional leadership was 98.5%,
which is a distinguished rating. The distinguished rating indicates that Sean is exhibiting
learning-centered leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are virtually certain
to influence teachers positively and result in strong value-added to student achievement
and social learning for all students.
The fall (2009) results indicate that Sean was proficient in all of the core
components for student centered instructional leadership. These include high standards
for student learning, rigorous curriculum, quality instruction, culture of learning and
professional behavior, connections to external communities, and performance
accountability. The supervisor and 81% of the teachers participated in the survey. Sean
was not able to complete the survey due to technical difficulties with his pass code.
However, this participation rate is considered high and the results considered valid.
There is no data for the spring (2010) VAL ED Survey. It appears that only Sean
completed the survey. There was no teacher or supervisor data. As a result no report not
enough data was collected to generate a report.

141
Analysis
One major theme associated with these findings was a consistency and focus on
implementation and monitoring of the school vision and core values of student centered-
instructional leadership. The School Leadership Study Davis et al. (2006) reports
―growing consensus‖ on the attributes of effective school principals. These attributes
include the ability to influence student achievement through the support and development
of effective teachers and the implementation of effective organizational structures.
Sean’s consistent focus on the school vision and implementing a rigorous curriculum
supported by quality instruction suggest a depth of knowledge as it relates to effective
student-centered leadership practice. Another major theme associated with the findings
includes high standards for student learning, rigorous curriculum, and quality instruction
focused on a culture of learning (Murphy, 2006).
Summary
The findings, based on the fall administration of the VAL ED Survey, suggest
Sean is a distinguished leader as it relates to the six core components and key processes
of student centered instructional leadership. This correlates with the themes of high
standards for student learning, a rigorous curriculum, and quality instruction. Elmore
(2000) has documented how these instructional leadership practices have influenced
teacher practice as well as student learning outcomes.
The distinguished instructional leader exhibits learning-centered leadership
behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are considered virtually certain to influence
teachers positively and result in strong value-added to student achievement. Generally

142
the VAL ED Survey is taken by the principal, the supervisor, and the teachers. However,
Sean was not able to complete the survey online due to technical difficulties. However,
his supervisor and 81% of his teachers completed the online survey. This response rate is
considered high and the resulting scores reliable. The standard error of measurement is
.05. The findings suggest the DPCI is having an impact as it relates to influencing
Sean’s knowledge, beliefs, and leadership practices.
Research Question #3: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
strategies that the principal put into place to create and sustain organizational structures
and processes to promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes. The
data will be analyzed from the perspective of the direct effect that leader practice has on
creating the structures and learning environment that can potentially have a positive
influence on student outcomes (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005;
Elmore, 2000; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Murphy, Elliott,
Goldring, & Porter, 2006).
Key Finding: Nested Learning Communities
There was some evidence that nested learning communities promoted effective
teacher practice. During the fall interview Sean said, ―Teachers meet to discuss
instructional strategies and the POLs used to improve the achievement of the lowest
performing students during their collaborative time. All teachers have collaborative

143
planning time dedicated to them in which teachers get together to discuss the district
goals.‖ Ron said, ―We have collaborative time, a department collaborative time, and then
we have grade level. We are seeing and supporting each other across the board. Our
department meetings are weekly. We meet every week, because of the block schedule
our planning is every other day. So the collaboration time is every other day too.‖
Nicole and Sharyn reported the same structure for collaborative time and added that the
meeting every other day is 40 minutes long.
The spring interviews with teachers revealed how Sean supported teachers in the
nested learning communities. Ron said, ―Sean is always looking for new and different
ways of getting us information. He is always finding something to improve what we do;
like going paperless and getting a grant for laptops. The laptops gave access to resources
for kids who did not have laptops.‖ Sharyn said, ―He has 100% involvement from
following the POLs to sitting in on our collaborative meetings to give us input.‖ Nicole
agreed when she said, ―Sean is very present and plays an important role with the kids.
He communicates goals and helps us get the resources we need to accomplish those
goals.‖
There was also some evidence of how staff development influenced the nested
learning community agenda. All three teachers described being involved in a book study
this year. Ron said, ―We have a book study on the book Mindset. Each department had
to prepare and present a power point on a chapter.‖ Sharyn and Nicole shared that the
book was discussed and the presentations were planned and shared during the nested
learning community collaboration time.

144
In the binder Sean provided me with during the fall data collection period there is
section labeled Professional Learning Community Guidelines that was designed
specifically for the school. It is unclear who designed the guidelines, but the layout
suggests a power point presentation. The documents outline the focus and practice of the
collaborative planning process. It aligns the focus and planning with the Learning Walk,
the Professional Learning Community, and Celebrations. Celebrations are an
incorporation of the POL recognition of accomplishment. The documents also outline
the focus around what is taught and how it is taught using POLs and Disciplinary
Literacy coupled with formative and summative assessment. The collaborative planning
practice is aligned with using my data portal to analyze recent benchmark results and the
re-assessment of instructional and learning needs.
Key Finding: Data
There is some evidence that the way data is being implemented is promoting
effective teacher practice. During the fall interview Sean said, ―We are getting smarter
about the way we are teaching. That in turn influences the teachers. The way to measure
this is when our benchmarks come out and then we get a quantifiable measurement. We
can look and assess whether the goals really are impacting what we do. The benchmarks
will inform instruction.‖ When asked about evidence for student learning and POL
implementation Sean said, ―I am a data driven manager. I look at the bottom line;
benchmarks, TAKS, teacher tests, and grades. This gives me an idea of what teachers are
doing and not doing.‖

145
Teacher interviews provided some evidence of how the use of data was promoting
effective teacher practice. Sharyn stated that, ―instructional priorities were determined
after the staff and Sean analyzed the data from the prior year.‖ Nicole’s responded,
―Sean is very data driven. He is very involved. He is pushing us to increase our
knowledge and our performance. He is real adamant about showing us the data because
this is proof of what he’s trying to get us to do.‖ Ron said, ―Within our departments we
look at formative and summative data and look at student work to determine learning
needs.‖ Ron said, ―Sean is very strong on studying the data. For example, during our
collaboration time we are looking at last year’s data and benchmarks and applying the
findings to this year’s students. We see where the weaknesses are and determine what
teaching strategies or areas we need to improve.‖
During the spring interviews teachers responses suggested there was some
evidence that data driven decision making was sustained. Ron said, ―To look for
evidence that learning has occurred we look at test scores. We analyzed benchmark tests
we took in October and we saw where the weaknesses were. We went back and
addressed what we saw with our groups.‖
One document analyzed was titled the collaborative planning process. This
document clearly outlined the steps to analyzing and using student data to make
instructional decisions. It begins with using my data portal and recent benchmark exam
results. Then areas of concern are determined, the results are discussed with students,
and an intervention plan is designed. This is followed by a reassessment based on
ongoing data analysis provided through student work and future test results.

146
Data reflections were also present on the fall 2009 staff development agenda.
However, they were not observed as my observations were limited to the morning
presentation. The high priority goals were one of the opening presentations during the
spring (2010) staff development, which was outlined on the agenda. I observed this part
of the staff development, in which the high priority goals were presented to the staff.
Each high priority goal was based on the previous Texas Academic Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS) assessment and the goal for the current year.
Key Finding: Internal Accountability
There is some evidence that accountability promoted effective teacher practice.
During the fall interview Sean said, ―Teachers have to send their lesson plans to me
electronically and then I read them and may have some wonderings. I may ask a teacher
how they are planning their formative assessment for a particular lesson. There is
accountability in that and it’s one way I can see inside classrooms.‖ Sean referenced
academic rigor as the POL of focus for the 2009-2010 school year and shared how he
knew teachers were implementing the POLs. He said, ―Teachers are required to focus on
the POLs. They have to demonstrate how they are going to illicit accountable talk and
academic rigor. I ask them what techniques they are going to implement to ensure self
management of learning. Also I watch for the POLs in the lessons I observe and then I
meet with teachers to talk about what I saw or didn’t see.‖
Fall interviews with teachers suggested some evidence of lesson plan
accountability. Nicole said, ―Teachers are held accountable for implementing initiatives
by submitting our lesson plans. Sean will take a look at them and ask what we are doing

147
for the POL. He also will check kids lesson plan books to see what we are doing in
class.‖ Ron said, ―We are held accountable through our evaluations. A lot of it is based
on student test scores. The test scores are tied to the teacher.‖
There was some evidence that accountability was sustained between the fall and
spring data collection period. During spring interviews Ron said, ―We are held
accountable through our observations and our evaluations. Sean makes sure teachers are
adhering to the POLs during observations.‖ Nicole said, ―We turn in weekly lesson
plans, and Sharyn said, ―We are held accountable through our evaluations.‖ Sean said,
―Accountability starts with me. You have to remind teaches constantly. You have to
inspect what you expect.‖
The VAL ED Survey results provide some evidence that supports the claim for
monitoring and internal accountability. In the fall (2009) the percentile rank for
monitoring of core components of effective instructional leadership was 94.4%, which is
distinguished. For each of the core components of monitoring Sean was rated as
proficient. The core components include high standards for student learning, rigorous
curriculum, quality instruction, culture of learning and professional behavior, connections
to external communities, and performance accountability.
As stated previously there was no data generated for the spring administration due
to the lack of participation of the staff and supervisor.
Analysis
A major theme associated with these findings is that implementing and
monitoring nested learning communities is an organizational process that can facilitate

148
the development of effective teacher practice. With an explicit focus on learning and
school improvement, Elmore (2000) defined the main themes of school improvement as
continuity of focus on core instruction, explicit accountability by principals and teachers
for the quality of practice, and a normative climate in which adults take responsibility for
the academic performance of children. The findings suggest that Sean has created a
normative environment in which teachers are working collaboratively for the benefit of
students.
Another theme that emerged from the findings is that teachers are using data to
plan and guide instruction. This use of data to guide instruction, while working
collaboratively in nested learning communities are examples Murphy et al. (2006)
dimensions for learning. According to Murphy’s (2006) research, leaders in high
performing schools made sure that assessment data were related to student learning, that
goals were focused on student learning, and that communities of professional learning
were established. The findings reveal that Sean’s work with the DPCI has increased his
capacity to guide his staff to incorporate into their collaborative meetings effective
dimensions of student learning.
Summary
These findings for creating and organizing nested learning communities suggest
Sean is developing people and setting the direction for his organization. Davis et al.
(2005), report that enabling people to do their jobs effectively by developing shared goals
and monitoring performance are key elements essential for good leadership. Sean has
accomplished this through the way he is supporting and monitoring the activities of the

149
data teams in the nested learning communities. The findings expand on what we know
about how organizing and monitoring nested learning communities impacts teacher
practice and the related use of data to guide and plan instruction. By focusing on
leadership practices that put student learning at the center of decision making Sean has
exemplified what Leithwood et al. (2004) described as helping teachers develop a shared
understanding about the organization. This is important because research suggests this is
a key factor in promoting effective teacher practice and increasing student learning
outcomes (Elmore, 2000).
Research Question #4: What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
leadership support structures put in place throughout the system (district, school, and
teacher levels) that enabled teacher practice and subsequent movement in the direction of
implementation of the district’s and the school’s improvement initiatives. The support
structures embedded within the Durham Achieves Initiative include an area supervisor, a
principal network, and a Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT). The data will
be analyzed from the perspective of effective strategies for building and sustaining
learning centered leadership practice (Leithwood, 2004; Murphy, 2006).
Key Finding: CILT and Area Supervisor
There is some evidence that the CILT team, a district support structure embedded
within the Durham Achieves Initiative, is impacting effective leader practice. During the
fall interview Sean shed light on how this support structure enabled his practice when he
said, ―I have a wonderful staff who exemplifies the core value that kids come first. When

150
I have a new idea I go to my CILT and bounce ideas off of them. If there is something
new I want to roll out or the district has something new I go to them.‖
Ron, one of the teachers interviewed shared similar information during the fall
interview when he said, ―The principal is supported at his meetings with the district and
the area supervisor, and the staff. When he (Sean) goes to meetings at the district he
brings what he has learned to us and shows us.‖ Ron is part of the CILT. Sharyn
described the effectiveness of the CILT support structure and how Sean is involved. She
said, ―Sean is 100% involved in the school improvement process. In the summer the
CILT team met for our district meeting. We got our school data and when we work
together to determine the needs of our school. Then the CILT team has meetings with the
departments at school to discuss where we need to go. We’ll talk about what worked and
what didn’t and decide what we need to change. We get information from Sean and he
inputs it into policy for the school.‖
There was some evidence that the area supervisor supported effective leader
practice. During the fall interview Sharon and Nicole both shared that Sean was
supported by the area supervisor. Sharon said, ―The supervisor gives a lot of support.‖
Ron’s comments added to our understanding of the way the area supervisor supported
Sean and his staff. He said, ―Sean talks to her, she gives a lot of support. For example,
she came and visited with us when we did our summer planning and she was very
supportive when she saw what we were doing.‖
During the spring interviews there was some evidence that this support has been
sustained since the fall interviews. Ron said, ―The area supervisor is very involved with

151
the school. I know of three times she has been here. She is in classrooms and asks kids
what they are doing and to explain assignments.‖
During fall (2009) observations I had the opportunity to observe the members of
the CILT team present at the staff development day. They supported Sean by working
with him to plan and deliver presentations on effort based learning, the disciplinary
learning framework, and formative assessment. The agenda for the day and observation
notes were both used to establish this finding. During the spring (2010) observation of
the staff development day the area supervisor was present and participated as the lead in a
teacher group looking at student work and using the POL of academic rigor.
The district professional development calendar for 2009-2010 also outlines how
the year is planned. This includes professional development involving CILT Planning
days, which include the CILT Team and the principal. The calendar also provides the
timeline for the planned professional development involving both the area supervisor and
the principal.
Analysis
The findings in relationship to support structures that enable leader practice
suggest that Durham Achieves has embedded effective leadership capacity building
initiatives within their program. Through these support structures the district is setting
the direction by ―charting a clear course that everyone understands‖ (Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 1) and developing people by providing appropriate
support structures and professional development to succeed. The data also reveal that
support structures have been sustained over time. This is important because sustaining

152
support structures over time is an indication that Durham Achieves is providing a model
of professional development that is supporting leadership practices that contribute to staff
and student learning (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004).
Murphy and Meyers (2009) suggest that support structures in organizations, like
the CILT team and the supervisor support, are the foundation of sustainable change in
leader practice and contribute to empowering people and creating a school culture that
promotes student centered leadership and student learning. Based on interview responses
the evidence would suggest that the support structures cited are having an impact on
principal practice and capacity. Copland (2003) suggests that for support structures to be
effective they must be embedded within the program and implemented throughout the
district. The data suggest that the support structures of the princpal network and the
supervisor support have been embedded and implemented in such a way that they are
having an impact on principal practice as well as teacher practice.
Summary
A major theme associated with these findings is that Durham Achieves is
redesigning their organization by embedding coherent support structures like the
principal network and the area supervisor within their leadership capacity building
program. Sean has been able to employ these support structures as a resource that
connects the mission of improving student learning outcomes to his capacity to influence
his staff. Liethwood et al. (2004), report that successful educational leaders develop their
schools as effective organizations that support and sustain the performance of staff and
teachers, as well as students. This aligns with the Core Texas State-wide Leadership

153
Standard of, ―The leader has knowledge and skills to think and plan strategically, creating
an organizational vision around personalized student success ‖ (DPCI Core Components
Alignment Matrix).
Research Question #5: How can the VAL ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to
assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
The following is a discussion of the findings from the investigation of the
potential for the data collected from an instructional leadership assessment instrument,
the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership Practice (VAL ED), to be used as a tool to
inform the coaching support designed to promote effective instructional leadership. The
data will be analyzed from the perspective of the research on developing learning
centered leadership practice and effective coaching practices designed to promote and
support effective leadership practice (Murphy, 2006; Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott,
& Cravens, 2007).
Key Finding: Professional Growth
There is some evidence that suggest the VAL ED Survey can be used as a guide
effective instructional leader practice. Based on the fall administration of the survey,
possible areas of growth for Sean, indicated by a basic rating, were connections to
external communities in the areas of planning and monitoring, and culture of learning in
the areas of communicating and monitoring. According to the VAL ED Survey the
specific areas assessed for connecting to external communities were monitoring the
effectiveness of community school connections, collecting information to learn about
resources in the community, and developing a plan that involves the community. The

154
areas assessed for culture of learning were assessing the culture from the student’s
perspective and communicating with parents about the aspects of a positive school
culture.
Sean had seen the VAL ED Survey results before the spring interview. Even
though he was rated as a distinguished leader, he believed he could use the information to
guide his leadership practice. During the spring interview he said, ―I see the results as
directional in the sense that they gave me some insight into areas I need to focus on. But
you have to look at it carefully; I recognize first and foremost there is still a lot of growth
and work to be done. It is only one way of measuring.‖ Sean’s comment reinforces the
idea that he understands the importance of implementing multiple measures and he
acknowledges that being classified as distinguished does not imply his work is done.
Inferences relating to movement in the categories for possible growth cannot be
made because the spring VAL ED Survey was completed only by Sean. As a result there
was no survey data to report.
Key Finding: Substantiates Findings
There is some evidence that the VAL ED Survey results substantiate previous
findings. For example, the fall VAL ED Survey results indicate that Sean has an overall
effectiveness rating of distinguished. The previous findings repeatedly provided some
evidence to substantiate Sean’s leadership practice as effective in relationship to learner-
centered instructional leadership framework (Murphy, 2006). The principal, the area
supervisor, and 88% of teachers completed the survey. This percentage rate of
completion is considered high and therefore the results are considered trustworthy.

155
Sean shared during the spring interview how he believed this rating was achieved
when he said, ―The areas the VAL ED measures are areas we value here. Having goals,
focus, and rigor; we value these. Every meeting we have with teachers, whether it is the
collaborative meeting or the faculty meeting; we send the message clear that we are
focusing on rigorous lessons; we’re focusing on quality instruction.‖ Sean shared that the
results had not been discussed with supervisors yet.
Analysis
Major themes emerging from the findings are assessing effective instructional
leadership practice and guiding professional growth as an effective instructional leader.
Sean’s rating as distinguished suggests he is a leader exhibiting learning-centered
leadership behaviors at levels of effectiveness that are virtually certain to influence
teachers positively and result in strong value-added to student achievement and social
learning for all students. The VAL ED Survey provides a summary of the effectiveness
of Sean’s’ learning-centered leadership behaviors during the current school year. The
results are interpreted against both norm-referenced and standards-referenced criteria that
highlight areas of strength and possible areas for improvement. The scores are
considered technically sound, however it is recommended that it be used with other
information when making important evaluative decisions.
Summary
The findings suggest that the VAL ED Survey could be a useful tool for the
purposes of identifying and developing effective leadership practice. Leadership
evaluation has the potential to provide educators with valuable information which can be

156
used to both improve leadership practices and provide information for accountability
purposes (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2007). Sean’s interview
responses suggest he would use the VAL ED Survey findings to evaluate and guide his
instructional leadership practice.
Case Study Summary
When considered as a whole the findings from the research questions suggest the
DPCI is having an impact on leader practice as well as teacher practice. The coaching
initiative was a key support structure as was the professional development Sean
participated in. Three key terms come to mind when considering Sean’s leadership
practice: 1) Focused, 2) Vision, and 3) Data Driven. Sean’s vision for the school was
clearly evident in everything he did.
Sean’s persistence in monitoring what he expected and using data to support his
instructional practice most likely influenced how he was rated on the VAL ED Survey.
His reliance on his CILT team to support the professional development of his staff; while
maintaining sole accountability for instructional decisions is an example of how Sean
distributed leadership effectively. While Sean acknowledges that the work of becoming
an effective learning-centered leader is never done, the findings suggest that he has
implemented many of the core components and key processes of effective leadership
(Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006).
Cross Case Analysis
In this section the results of a cross case analysis are presented in an effort to
bring some understanding as it relates to how each principal endeavored to implement the

157
Durham Achieves initiatives. First I will consider how the case study schools differed
and present challenges that arose as a result. Then I will explore the findings from each
research question and describe similarities and variance at it relates to each case study
school. This will be followed by a summary of the study conclusions.
The two case study schools were different in many ways. Litel Elementary is a
school serving prekindergarten through fifth grade, has a student population of
approximately 960 students and maintains a staff of 60 teachers. There is one head
principal and an assistant principal who is new to the school this year. It is a
neighborhood school and the enrollment is defined by district boundaries. Townsend
Middle School serves sixth through eighth grade students, has a student population of
approximately 192 students and maintains a staff of 15 teachers. There is one head
principal and no assistant principal. The school is an academy and enrollment is open to
all students within the district. Students who seek admission must meet minimum
academic requirements and not all students who enroll are accepted into the academy.
Both schools have a student population of over 90% minority; however Litel
Elementary has an 80% Limited English Proficient population compared with Townsend
Middle School, which has a Limited English Proficient population of only 4%. The
population at Litel Elementary is at 98% free and reduced lunch, while Townsend Middle
School has a rate of 75% free and reduced lunch. Karen has been a principal for five
years, serving three of those years at Litel Elementary. This is Sean’s second year as
principal.

158
Based on this comparison of school characteristics Karen had many more
challenges to overcome. In addition to having a larger staff and school population she
experienced a 25% turnover rate in teachers after her first year; while the teacher turnover
rate at Townsend has remained stable. While presenting her with the challenge of hiring
new staff and acculturating them to the expectations of the school, this gave Karen an
opportunity to hire teachers who shared her views of high standards for student learning.
Another challenge Karen had to overcome was getting all teachers to implement
district initiatives. This required her to build the capacity of her staff in ways that
supported their learning and understanding of the district initiatives. She did this with the
support of the Campus Instructional Leadership Team (CILT), implementing
accountability measures for the nested learning communities, and implementing the
Learning Walk as a way to monitor progress. As reported in the findings not all teachers
were implementing in the fall. However, the spring interview and observation data
suggest more teachers were implementing district initiatives.
Sean was also working with teachers to implement district initiatives. He also
depended on the CILT team for support, as well as the nested learning community. One
difference between leadership practices was that Karen and her staff mentioned using the
Learning Walk more to monitor the progress of initiative implementation. However, the
fall interview data suggest most teachers were already implementing district initiatives.
As a result Sean did not have had to spend as much time building capacity and
monitoring. His time was allocated more the using the data to drive instruction and

159
involving his teachers in the process through his nested learning communities, staff
development, and classroom observations.
As it related to the DPCI both principals participated in the same way in the
professional development and both were impacted by the instructional leadership of their
coach. Both found this to be a positive experience and both reported ways their
leadership capacity had grown as a result. Based on the fall interview data, Sean’s school
vision was more developed and focused than Karen’s. Karen’s school vision may have
been less developed because she was addressing ways to implement district initiatives
and staff development, working more as a manager than a leader. Karen shared during
the spring interview that her coach was supporting her to implement more leadership
behaviors and teaching her how to delegate other responsibilities. As a result Karen was
able to articulate her vision more precisely during the spring interview. Based on
observations and interview data the school vision was becoming the driving force
providing some of the direction for how district initiatives were being implemented.
Karen also had the challenge of influencing more teachers to implement a
rigorous curriculum and develop a culture of learning. When comparing student
population it becomes apparent that the students at Litel Elementary had more academic
gaps in learning than did the students at Townsend Middle School. Litel Elementary
school has an academic rating of Acceptable, while Townsend Middle School is rated
Exemplary. Based on the reported findings, to address this challenge Karen employed
the support structures provided by the DPCI more often than Sean.

160
For example, both principals were implementing initiatives through staff
development, but the use of the Learning Walk was much more evident at Karen’s
school. Karen sited the principal network frequently as a support structure enabling her
practice, while this support structure was not reported during Sean’s interview. This
could be because he did not have as much need for it; or it could have been that he was
not established within a principal network.
Both principals relied on their CILT team and their area supervisors in much the
same way. Both principals had instituted nested learning communities and used them as
a support structure for teachers to collaborate and to implement data driven decision
making. Karen’s teachers reported the most growth in this area. One possible reason for
this is that Sean’s teachers were already very much involved in using the data during the
fall. This conclusion is based on observation and interview data collected during this
time. Another possible reason is Sean’s personal characteristic of being a data driven
manager.
The VAL ED Survey data also provides some information that substantiates much
of what was reported. As stated previously, Sean’s leadership behaviors were rated as
distinguished, with a percentile rank of 90.3, based on the fall administration. Even
though Sean was a second year principal he had many of the district initiatives in place
and was working toward monitoring full implementation. As stated previously Sean did
not face the challenge of overcoming academic learning gaps, as a result there was not
opposition to implementation of district initiatives reported at his school site. The VAL
ED Survey confirms he is implementing learner centered leadership practice that will

161
directly influence teachers. Based on the interview responses from both Sean and his
teachers it is easy to see why he would earn this rating. Sean is focus on the school
vision and understands the concept of learner centered leadership and data driven
decision making. The VAL ED Survey results were not a surprise, nor did he or I
question their validity. However, what we both did question and wonder about was how
his capacity to lead would have impacted a school where was a gap in student
achievement.
Karen’s fall VAL ED Survey result rated her leadership behaviors as below basic
in the fall and as proficient in the spring, with a percentile ranking of 66.6. As stated
earlier of the two schools, Karen had more obstacles to overcome. The results suggest
that in the fall she was not implementing learning-centered leadership behavior. The
spring findings suggest that in all areas her capacity to lead as a learner-centered leader
has improved. This suggests that her participation in the DPCI had an impact on her
leadership practice. The data reported in the findings and her implementation and use of
more support structures align with these findings. Even though Karen agreed that she
had begun to implement learning-centered leadership behaviors and the VAL ED Survey
confirmed that, we both had questions and wonderings about the validity of the survey
findings because regardless of respondents reporting the data used to make decisions;
people still were answering the survey questions. As a result, responses to survey
questions would be influenced by personal opinion and not necessarily on verifiable data.
However, both principals did concur that the VAL ED Survey was a useful tool to

162
monitor leadership behavior and agreed that they could use it to guide and improve their
leadership development.
Summary
Based on the data collected both principals and their staff benefited from
influence of the DPCI initiative. There were changes in practice documented for both
principals and each believed they would be successful at moving their respective schools
toward their academic learning goals. They both believed that the professional
development they were receiving through the Durham Achieves initiative was supporting
their efforts to increase the academic achievement of the students in their respective
schools.
Research suggests that organizational factors associated with higher performance
in urban schools were prioritizing academic achievement, implementing a coherent
standards-based curriculum, and using assessment data to improve student achievement
and instruction (Orr, Berg, Shore, & Meier, 2008). The findings suggest some evidence
that the DPCI has embedded within their comprehensive professional development
program the organizational factors associated with higher performance and improvement
in instructional delivery. This claim is supported by the data collected that principal
participation in the DPCI built leadership capacity that directly influenced teacher
practice. This confirms the findings of Young and King (2002) that suggest principal
leadership has a direct impact on teacher practice.

163
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter provides a summary of the case study and significant findings from
the data reported in Chapter Four. The following will provide a discussion of the
implications for future practice, future research, and policy.
Statement of the Problem
Currently, there are a number of indicators that principal leadership is in crisis. Two
particularly troubling factors include the struggle districts are experiencing retaining an
adequate supply of highly qualified candidates for leadership roles (Knapp, Copland, &
Talbert, 2003). Second, principal candidates and existing principals are often ill prepared
for the professional tasks and competencies necessary for today’s leaders (Davis,
Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Levine, 2005). Evidence indicates that
effective leadership programs must be research based, have currilcular coherence, use
cohort groupings, and provide an experience that is the context as it relates to the
challenges leaders face (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005).
However, empirical evidence for the impact of these program features are minimal. For
example, additional research is needed to find out what skills excellent leaders have and
use; what experiences can support the development of these skills; and what program
structures best support the learning of these experiences.

164
Purpose of the Study
The primary function of this research was to contribute knowledge that will help
stakeholders in education better understand how to close the achievement gap by
preparing school leaders that have the capacity to function in ways that influence teacher
practice resulting in improved student outcomes. This case study was one of 7 thematic
dissertations within a cohort group of doctoral students seeking to identify specific,
observable, and measurable leadership characteristics that are associated with
improvement in teacher quality and instruction. It focused on how providing a
comprehensive professional development initiative influenced principal leadership
practice.
Research Questions
The study addressed five research questions:
1. How does participation in the Durham ISD Principal Coaching Initiative
(DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
2. How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices
of urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational
structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve
student outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
5. How can the VAL ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals
to become effective instructional leaders?

165
Methodology Summary
The research study involved a case study of two principals in an urban school
setting. The study identified fourteen principles who were participating in the GPCI
program to participate in a mixed-methods case study during the 2009-2010 school-year.
Each researcher worked with two schools. Each case study focused on how the GPCI
program prepares leaders to create organizational structures and practices that promote
effective leader practice and professional teacher practices that improve student outcomes
in the urban context.
Data were collected from pre/post VAL ED Surveys, interviews with principals
and teachers, school documents, and principal and classroom observations. The VAL ED
Survey measures core component leadership behaviors that support the learning of
students and enhance the ability of teachers to teach. It also measures key processes
leaders use to create and manage core components leadership behaviors. This study has
the potential to develop conceptual tools to lend transparency to effective school
leadership capacity building components and to make leadership practices visible.
Sample and Population
Participants in this study were recruited from among K-12 Durham public schools
serving an ethnically diverse student population and substantial numbers of low-income
families. The district had a 2008 student enrollment of 157,804 (K-12) students who
were served in 230 schools (Texas Education Agency). The 2008 student demographics
in Texas were as followed: Hispanic 65%, African American 29%, White 5%, and Other

166
1%. Participants included one principal from each school site, one supervisor from each
school site, and three teachers from each school site.
Litel Elementary is located in the Durham Independent School district in the
Northwest Learning Community. It is a PK-5 school with 60 teachers and approximately
960 students. The student population is 99% Hispanic with 80% Limited English
Proficient, with 98% of students eligible for free/reduce lunch, and 2% Special education
students. Litel elementary has an accountability rating of ―Academically Acceptable‖
with a goal of reaching the ―Commendable‖ rating this year.
Townsend Middle School is located in Durham Independent School District in
the West Secondary Learning Community. The school serves grades 6-8, has 192
students enrolled, and 15 teachers. The student population is comprised of 65%
Hispanic, 25% African American, 8% White, and 3% Other. Of that population 4% are
classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), with 75% eligible for free/reduced lunch.
One percent of the school population is classified as Special Education.
Data Collection
This study utilized a qualitative, comparative, case study design. Qualitative as
well as quantitative data were collected in a preintervention and postintervention design
to determine the leader’s change in practice and how these factors were shaped or
reshaped by participation and experiences in the DPCI (2009) program over time.
Analysis
While emphasizing the theoretical implications from the conceptual framework
that guided this study, for each research question, the data from this study were analyzed

167
through the lenses of the literature discussed in Chapter Two of this proposal to
determine if there was a change in perceptions of leader behavior and its impact on
teacher practice and organizational structures. For the quantitative data collected from
the Val-ED survey, the mean differences between the results of the pre and post
administrations of the assessment were used. A positive value was considered a change
in the direction towards effective learning-centered leadership practices. A negative
value was considered a loss. The data were triangulated with the qualitative data and
used to further support the descriptive analysis of the case study data.
Summary of Findings and Theoretical Implications
Research Question 1: How does participation in the Durham ISD Principal Coaching
Initiative prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders?
There were two key findings that help us answer this question. The first was that
the DPCI prepared principals through comprehensive professional development. As
stated in Chapter Two, effective leadership development programs are ―research based‖,
have curricular coherence, provide experience in authentic contexts, use cohort groupings
and mentors, and are structured to enable collaborative activity between the program and
area schools‖ (pg. 7), (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). The
DPCI is grounded in the components of effective leadership development programs.
Both principals’ leadership practice was enhanced to become more effective learning
centered leaders through the professional development provided them. Examples of this
were observable in their understanding of the POLs and the Learning Walks. Evidence
of this understanding was reinforced by the way they implemented district initiatives.

168
The findings add to the research base that effective leadership development programs do
impact principle practice and support the development of effective instructional leaders.
The second finding was that the coaching initiative prepared leaders to become
effective learning-centered leaders. Both principals reported that the coach had supported
them to gain new knowledge and understanding as well as being a support in the
implementation of district initiatives. Mentoring is a component of preparation programs
designed to improve school and student performance (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O'Neill,
2007). Neufeld and Roper (2003) suggest coaching as a school based component of
leadership development that has the potential to contribute to effective leadership
practice. Based on a review of the literature there is a gap in the research that informs
our understanding that coaching has the potential to contribute to effective leadership
practice. The findings from both case study schools add to our understanding and
knowledge as it relates to how the coaching model contributes to effective leadership
practice.
Research Question 2: How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs, and
leadership practices of urban school principles?
The findings suggest that participating in the DPCI influenced leader knowledge,
beliefs, and leadership practices. Evidence of this was provided in the way both
principals implemented the school vision, the POLs and the Learning Walks, and led
their staff development. The School Leadership Study Davis et al. (2006) reports
―growing consensus‖ on the attributes of effective school principals. These attributes
include the ability to influence instructional planning and lesson delivery through the

169
support and development of effective teachers. The leadership practices of both
principals had an impact on teacher decision making and lesson planning. This finding
adds to our understanding and the knowledge base of how effective school leadership
practices influence the focus of instructional practices in the classroom.
The findings also suggest that changes in leader practice influenced
implementation of high standards for student learning, rigorous curriculum, and quality
instruction focused on a culture of learning (Murphy, 2006). The finding that leadership
practice can be influenced by participation in the DPCI suggests that effective leadership
practice can be learned. Elmore (2000) defines leadership as the guidance and direction
of instructional improvement; a process that can be learned and is not subject to innate
traits. The change in leadership behaviors, based on the findings from each case study
school, add to our understanding and bring transparency to how changes in leadership
practice influence student learning, implementation of a rigorous curriculum, and quality
instruction.
Research Question 3: How does an urban school principal create and sustain
organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and
improve student outcomes?
The findings from both case study schools suggest that implementation of nested
learning communities supported the implementation of data driven instruction and that
accountability measures had an impact on both. Through these organizational structures
both principals are developing people and setting the direction for their organizations.
The research of Davis et al. (2005), suggests that enabling people to do their jobs

170
effectively by developing shared goals and monitoring performance are key elements
essential for effective leadership. Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom
(2004) argue that effective instructional leaders build their schools as an organization that
support and sustain the performance of teaches as well as students. By implementing and
monitoring nested learning communities both principals are supporting the professional
development of their teachers. This is important because we know that teachers, who are
adequately prepared, have a direct impact on student achievement (Darling-Hammond,
2000; Levine, 2005; Wenglinsky, 2000).
Another finding associated with this research question is that both principals are
implementing components of learning-centered leadership, which research has shown
indirectly influences student learning outcomes (Hallinger & Murphy, 1986; Bickman &
Davis, 1996; Hallinger, 2003). Learning centered leaders are familiar with the school’s
―curriculum program‖; working with colleagues to ensure a curriculum that establishes
high standards for student learning. Both principals did this by monitoring lesson plans
for rigorous content, the POLs, and evidence of how assessment would guide instruction.
Learning centered leaders are involved in designing, implementing, and monitoring the
―assessment program‖. Learning centered leaders use assessment to monitor progress
toward student progress.
One way Karen did this was through the student profile, a tool teachers used to
monitor student progress and a tool Karen used to monitor teacher practice as it related to
how teachers use assessment data to guide instruction. Sean did this by his consistent use
of assessment data to guide teacher practice. The was some evidence that assessment

171
was as the heart of the school mission, instructional planning, monitoring progress toward
school goals, and the evaluation of staff (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006).
The findings expand on what we know about how organizing and monitoring
nested learning communities impacts teacher practice and the related use of data to guide
and plan instruction. By focusing on leadership practices that put student learning at the
center of decision making both principals have exemplified what Leithwood et al. (2004)
described as helping teachers develop a shared understanding about the organization.
This is important because research suggests this is a key factor in promoting effective
teacher practice and increasing student learning outcomes (Elmore, 2000).
Research Question #4: What leadership support structures enable leader practice?
The evidence suggests that support structures that enabled leader practice were
the CILT team, the principal network, and the area supervisors. Findings for how Sean
accessed the CILT team suggest they were a support to him directly as it related to how
he would implement new district initiatives during staff meetings. This is an example of
how distributed leadership practice brings together the resources of individuals in the
organization. Leithwood and Mascall, 2008 found that implementing distributed
leadership practice this way had a positive impact on teacher capacity. Karen reported
that she worked with her CILT team during meeting times and during Learning Walks as
a way to monitor how the POLs were being implemented and to assess the needs of
future staff development meetings. Her CILT team played more of a role in supporting
teachers in their classrooms as instructional coaches.

172
While Sean implemented the support of his CILT team in distributed leadership
practices, Karen relied on the principal network to enable her practice. Both principals
worked closely with their area supervisors and described these experiences in positive
ways. At Sean’s school teachers reported the area supervisor was visible in classrooms,
engaging students, and during their summer planning activities. Karen’s teachers said the
area supervisor only worked with the principal. Karen reported that her area supervisor
met with her regularly and had provided her with professional books which were used
with the principal network. These examples give us insight into how each principal
implemented support structures in unique ways to address the specific needs of their
school. Resnick and Glennan (2002) suggest that effective leadership principles are not
static and should evolve based on need and experience.
The findings in relationship to support structures that enable leader practice
suggest that Durham Achieves has embedded effective leadership capacity building
initiatives within and throughout their program. Through these support structures the
district is setting the direction by ―charting a clear course that everyone understands‖
(Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 1) and developing people by
providing appropriate support structures and professional development to succeed. The
data also reveal that support structures have been sustained over time. This is important
because sustaining support structures over time is an indication that Durham Achieves is
providing a model of professional development that is supporting leadership practices
that contribute to staff and student learning (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004).

173
Murphy and Meyers (2009) suggest that support structures in organizations, like
the principal network and the supervisor support, are the foundation of sustainable
change in leader practice and contribute to empowering people and creating a school
culture that promotes student centered leadership and student learning. Based on
interview responses the evidence would suggest that the support structures cited are
having an impact on principal practice and capacity. Copland (2003) suggests that for
support structures to be effective they must be embedded within the program and
implemented throughout the district. The data suggest that the support structures of the
princpal network and the supervisor support have been embedded and implemented in
such a way that they are having an impact on principal practice as well as teacher
practice. The findings add to our understanding of how districts can implement support
structures within reform intiatives that have a positive influence on leader practice.
Research Question #5: How can the VAL ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to
assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?
Leadership evaluation has the potential to provide educators with valuable
information which can be used to both improve leadership practices and provide
information for accountability purposes (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens,
2007). Sean’s interview responses suggest he would use the VAL ED Survey findings to
evaluate and guide his instructional leadership practice as did Karen’s.
The VAL ED Survey produced an overall effectiveness score for Sean has
proficient. Based on findings from previous research questions regarding implementation
of district initiatives and support structures that enable leader practice this score in not

174
surprising. The VAL ED Survey generates a results report which includes a plan for
professional growth. During the interview Sean said he believed he could use the
resulting plan for professional growth to improve his practice, indicating he believed it
could be used to improve effective leader practice. There is no data from the spring
administration because the staff did not complete the survey.
Karen and her staff completed both the fall and spring administration of the VAL
ED Survey. The fall results indicated her overall effectiveness score was below basic.
Based on the interview data I collected I would have expected areas in need of
improvement, but I was surprised her score was so low. The spring administration of the
VAL ED Survey did show growth. Karen’s overall effective score increased to
proficient. Based on the findings from the previous research questions I would have
expected improvement in all areas of the VAL ED Survey. Karen made a lot of changes
between the two data collection periods and cited her coach multiple times in supporting
her and keeping her focused on the school vision and the district initiatives.
Some questions do remain concerning the VAL ED Survey. The two schools
studied were very different, which was revealed as part of the cross case analysis. One is
left to wonder what the results would have been for each principal if the school they led
were reversed. The research says that survey results take into consideration the context
of the school, but it is not clear how that is done (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, &
Cravens, 2007). The challenges the two schools faces were quite different.
Acknowledging this concern, the findings do suggest the VAL ED Survey can be used as

175
a tool to inform effective leader practice. As with any assessment data it should be one of
many forms implemented in the process of evaluation.
The VAL ED Survey is grounded in the research of learner-centered leadership;
which has been shown to be effective in influencing teacher practice and student learning
outcomes (Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2007). The VAL ED Survey
measures the core components of effective learning centered leadership, as well as the six
key processes, which indicate how the core components are being implemented. It is
very comprehensive and the findings from the study suggest its usefulness as a tool to
improve leader practice.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The findings from the two case study schools suggest several implications for
policy and practice for supporting the development of effective instructional leaders.
One is that the implementation of a comprehensive professional development program
designed to build the leadership capacity of the principal would impact teacher
professional practice. Based on the findings from this study, implementing a
comprehensive leadership development program through a district allows for
implementation based on the context and need.
However, if districts are to begin this process it should be supported by a research
based program like the Institute for Learning. Implementation of effective teacher
professional practice has been shown to have a positive impact on student learning
(Darling-Hammond, 2000). If we are to close the achievement gap and provide an
equitable education for all students, then all students must have access to highly effective

176
instructional leaders and teachers who have developed the capacity to implement learning
centered instructional practice.
The findings from the study add to our understanding and knowledge of how a
mentor or coach influences leader practice. This knowledge should be used as leadership
development programs are designed either in private practice or in the university setting.
The findings also highlight the importance of ongoing professional development and the
possibilities of the implementation of assessing effective leader practice through an
evaluative tool like the VAL ED Survey. This study also highlights how implementation
might be sustained through the process of accountability and data driven decision
making.
Implications for Future Research
The findings from this study have reinforced what we know about effective learning
centered leadership practice and helped us to understand how principal leadership can be
internalize and implemented in ways that influence teacher practice. In addition, it has
added to our understanding of how a principal coach can increase the capacity of the
principal through on site mentoring. However, many questions remain. The following is
a list of areas where there remain gaps in the literature as it relates to effective leader
practice implementation and capacity building:
 There is a need to do more research on the assessment of leader practice using
the VAL ED Survey
 There needs to be further research examining how effective leader practice
influences student learning outcomes

177
 There is a need to examine teacher retention rates in the context of effective
leadership practice
 There is a need to examine assistant principal leadership practice and capacity
building
Limitations
The proposed design of the study triangulated the data collected from multiple
sources (i.e., interviews, observations, document analysis, and the VAL-Survey, Murphy,
2000). While triangulation increases validity and may generate evidence about the
effects of educational support programs, limitations persist (Patton, 2002). For instance,
limitations could include missing data, insensitivity to potentially important variables,
low participation in the VAL Ed Survey, and potential researcher bias.
Limitations of interviews arise because of their focus on what people say they say,
write, and do; rather than what they actually do say (Pole & Morrison, 2003), as well as
limitations that might arise as a result of the questions asked and not asked, and limits on
the participant and researcher time. While observations can be used to confirm interview
responses, limitations remain. For example, observations are influenced by researcher
perception, are confined to external behaviors, are limited by the sample of activities
being observed, and include how the researcher might impact the observed (Patton,
2002). While document analysis provides another window through which information
can be gathered it is often limited because of inaccurate or incomplete data. Time
constraints, due to length, as well as costs of the VAL-ED Survey (Murphy, 2000)

178
contribute to limitations on this data collection tool. Finally, adequate time needs to be
allowed for researcher feedback and joint analysis.
Another limitation to this study is the length of the study. This will require the
pre-post interviews, observations, and the VAL-ED survey data collection to be collected
over a relatively short amount of time (i.e., six months). This will limit the degree to
which the study can fully measure the principal’s growth in the areas assessed. In
addition, time for the fieldwork in this study is limited to five months. Another concern
is that the pre/post design of the administration of the VAL-ED has inherent issues of
validity, in that changes reflected in the second administration of the VAL-ED could
reflect results of factors other than the participant’s participation in the DPCI program.
Another limitation of this study was created by the low participation rate for the spring
VAL Ed Survey for Townsend Middle School. Finally, the ―halo effect‖ could be a
limitation due to the nature of the measures used in the VAL-ED (ratings of self and
colleagues), raters may have a tendency to assume specific traits or behaviors based on a
general impression. However, to mitigate against this phenomenon, by design, the VAL-
ED survey requires the raters to identify the primary source of evidence for their rating
on each item (i.e., personal observation, documents, etc.).
Conclusion
This study sought to understand how participating in a leadership capacity
building program influenced leader practice. The literature review revealed that there
was a lack of research that identified if leadership capacity building programs actually
influenced leader practice. Leadership practice is important. Davis, Darling-Hammond,

179
LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005) identified leadership as ―second only to the influence of
classroom instruction‖ (p. 3). The findings suggest that implementation of a research
based program like the Durham Achieves Leadership Institute support and influence
changes in leader practice.
Previous research has identified curricular coherence as a crucial component of
leadership development programs if they are to be effective (Davis, Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). There was some evidence to suggest that the Durham
Achieves Leadership Institute had implemented curricular coherence. Almost without
fail the discussion of each research question presented findings that revealed each
principal participant in this study was implementing on some level the components of the
comprehensive professional development they had participated in. Student learning
outcomes were outside the scope of this study; however there was some evidence that
suggested teacher practice had been influenced by the effective leadership practices of
each site principal. It can be inferred, based on prior research that supports the notion
that effective teacher practice has a positive influence on student learning outcomes that
changes in teacher practice impact student learning outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2000).
To improve student learning outcomes and the academic success of all students
we need to find ways to implement effective leadership capacity building programs
throughout districts across the United States. There is a significant need to address the
achievement gap and turn schools toward success. There are many examples of
turnaround schools in the literature, so the knowledge is there to address every student’s
academic achievement (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). In addition, the

180
findings from this study suggest how leadership capacity building and the support
structures on site principal coaches, professional learning communities, accountability,
and data driven decision making support the implementation of effective learning-
centered leadership.
There is still much more to learn about effective leadership practice and support
structures like the principal coaching model. As we add to our understanding of how
leadership capacity building programs influence leader practice and we begin to
implement assessment tools like the VAL ED Survey to guide leader practice it is my
desire that policy and practice will be influenced in ways influence the preparation of
more effective principal leaders.

181
REFERENCES
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership:A response to critiques. In M.
Chemers, & R. Ayman, Leadership theory and research perspectives and
directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego: Academic Press.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Reveiw of Educational
Research, Vol. 71, No. 2 , 171-217.

Bogotch, I., & Schoorman, D. (2008). Social justice research: Matters of obligation,
resources, and, yes, methods. Washington DC: AERA.

Brown, K. (2006). Leadership for social justice and equity: Evaluating a transformative
framework and andragogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 5 ,
700-745.

Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Seashore Louis, K. (1999). Professional community in
chicago: elementary schools; Facilitating factors and organizational
consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35, Supplement.

Cambron-McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. (2005). Educating school leaders for social
justice. Educational Policy, Vol. 19, No. 1 , 201-222.

Camburn, E., Goldring, E., May, H., Supovitz, J., Barnes, C., & Spillane, J. (2007).
Lessons learned from an experimental evaluation of a principal professional
development program. Washington DC: AERA.

Capper, C., Theoharis, G., & Sebastian, J. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing
leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration , 209-224.

Copland, M. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school
improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 4 , 375-
395.

Cresswell, J. W. (2005) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2
nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership-different in
kind and degree. Washington DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc.

182
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Phoenix, Arizona, USA: Educational Policy Analysis
Archives.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Orphanos, S. (2006). Leadership development in california.
Stanford: Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School
leadership study developing successful principals. Stanford: Standford
Educational Leadership Institute.

Donovan, M., Bransford, J., & Pellegrino, J. (1999). How People Learn, Bridging
Research and Practice. Washington: National Academy Press.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington DC: The
Albert Shanker Institute.
Goldring, E., Camburn, E., Huff, J., & Sebastian, J. (2007). Effects of professional
development for school leadership: Early results from a randomized field test.
Washington DC: UCEA.
Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing
learning-centered leadership. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S., & Cravens, X. (2007). Assessing
learning-centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards,
and current practices. St Louis: The Wallace Foundation.
Gray, C., Fry, B., Bottoms, G., & O'Neill, K. (2007). Good principals aren't born-they're
mentored. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.
Hallinger, P. (1990). Developing the strategic thinking of instructional leaders. The
Elementary School Journal, Vol. 91, No. 2 , 89-108.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leadering educational change: reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leaderhip. Cambridge Journal of Education,
Vol. 33, No. 3 , 329-351.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of american principals: From managerial to
instructional to transformational leaders. Armidale, Vol. 30, No. 3 , 35-49.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 9,
No. 2 , 157-191.

183
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American
Journal of Education, Vol. 94, No. 3 , 328-355.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and
student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal , 527-549.
Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 33, No. 2 , 229-244.
Houle, J. (2006). Professional development for urban principals in underperforming
schools. Education and Urban Society, Vol. 38, No. 2 , 142-159.
Jackson, B., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 , 192-212.
Knapp, M., Copland, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective tools for
school and district leaders. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching Policy.
Kruse, S., Seashore Louis, K., & Bryk, A. (1994). Building professional community in
schools. Madison: Center on Organization and restructuring of schools.
Lee, V. (2000). School size and the organization of secondary schools. In M. T. Hallinan,
Handbook of the Sociology of Education (pp. 327-344). New York:
Klewer/Plumer.
Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A century's quest to understand school leadership. In
J. Murphy, & K. Seashore Louis, Handbook of research on educational
administration (pp. 45-72). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of
Education , 112-129.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational school leadership effects: A
replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 451-479.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-school
reform: effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement , 201-227.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student
achievement. Educational Administrative Quarterly , 1-33.

184
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning. New York: Learning from Leadership
Project Executive Summary.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: The Education Schools Project.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Adminstration Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3 , 370-397.
Marshall, C., & Ward, M. (2004). Strategic policy for social justice training for
leadership. Ford Foundation: Leadership for Social Justice.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works from
research to results. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
McGregor, D. M. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study application in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moller, J., Eggen, A., Fuglestad, O., Langfeldt, G., Presthus, A.-M., Skrovset, S., et al.
(2005). Succuessful school leadership: the norwegian case. Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 43, (6) , 584-594.
Murphy, J. F., Goldring, E. B., Cravens, X., & Elliott, S. (2007). The vanderbilt
assessment of leadership in education: measuring learning-centered leadership.
East China Normal University Journal, August , 1-37.
Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing
concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly ,
154-191.
Murphy, J., & Seashore Louis, K. (1999). Framing the project. In J. Murphy, & K.
Seashore Lousi, Handbook on research on educational administration (pp. xxi-
xxvii). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. (2006). Leaders for productive schools.
New York: paper prepared for the Wallace Foundation.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. (2006). Leaders for productive schools.
New York: paper prepared for the Wallace Foundation.

185
Murphy, J., Elliott, S., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. (2006). Learning-centered leadership:
A conceptual foundation. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching a strategy for developing instructional
capacity. Cambridge: The Aspen Institute Program on Education.
Nevarez, C., & Wood, J. (2007). Developing urban school leaders:Building on solutions
15 years after the los angeles riots. American Educational Studies Association,
Vol. 42, No. 3 , 266-280.
Newmann, F. (1994). School-wide professional community. Madison: Center on
Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Orr, M., Berg, B., Shore, R., & Meier, E. (2008). Putting the pieces together. Education
and Urban Society, Vol. 40, No. 6 , 670-693.
Orr, M., Byrne-Jimenez, M., McFarlane, P., & Brown, B. (2005). Leading out from low-
performing schools:The urban principal experience. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, Vol. 4, No. 23 , 23-54.
Patterson, J. L. (1993). Leadership for tomorrow’s schools. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Patton, M.C. (2002). Third Edition. Qualitative research & evaluation methods.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Pepper, K., & Hamilton Thomas, L. (2002). Making a change: The effects of the
leadership role on school climate. Learning Environment Research , 155-166.
Peterson, K. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and
opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 , 213-232.
Preis, S., Grogan, M., Sherman, W., & Beaty, D. (2008). What educational research and
literature say about the delivery of educational leadership preparation programs
in the united states. Washington DC: UCEA and AERA.
Resnick, L.B. (1999). Making America Smarter. Education Week Century Series, 18(40),
38-40.
Resnick, L., & Glennan, T. (2002). Leadership for Learning: A theory of action for urban
school districts. Santa Monica: Rand Corp.

186
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 5 , 635-674.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development and Supervision.
Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S., & Myers, V. (2007). Teacher teams and
distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 1 , 67-100.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 3 , 23-
28.
Stein, M., & Nelson, B. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Education Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 4 , 423-448.
Teemant, A., Smith, M., Pinnegar, S., & Egan, M. (2005). Modeling sociocultural
pedagogy in distance education. Teachers College Record, Vol. 107, No. , 1675-
1698.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory
of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-
258. Sage Publications.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters bringing the classroom back inot
discussions of teacher quality. Princeton: Milken Family and Educational Testing
Service.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1
st
ed.), Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3
rd
ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Young, M., Fuller, E., Brewer, C., Carpenter, B., & Mansfield, K. (2007). Quality
Leadership Matters. Austin: University Council for Educational Administration.
Youngs, P., & King, B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to
build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 5 , 643-
670.

187

APPENDIX A

LETTER OF SUPPORT

188
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

189

190

191
APPENDIX C
VAL ED RELIABILITIES AND VALIDITY DOCUMENT

192
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL-PRINCIPAL/TEACHER-PRE/POST
Principal Teachers
1. How does
participation in the
Dallas ISD
Principal Coaching
Initiative (DPCI)
prepare principals to
become effective
instructional
leaders?

2. How does the DPCI
influence the
knowledge, beliefs
and leadership
practices of urban
school principals?

 How would you define the
―gap‖ at your school? Please
describe that gap and ways
in which you and your staff
have decided to close that
gap.
 How often do you observe
classroom instruction? How
do you provide feedback?
 Does your school have a
school-wide vision? If so,
through what process was it
developed and who was
involved?
 What are some of the core
concepts and key ideas
embodied within your
school vision?
 How is the school’s vision
aligned with the elements of
a standards based
instructional system?
 Though what strategies are
the goals of the vision
achieved?
 How is your school vision
instrumental to planning and
implementing school-wide
improvement initiatives?
 How is the vision used in the
school’s decision making
process?
 In what ways is the vision
used at your school to
achieve equitable student
results?
 How often are you
observed during
classroom instruction?
Who observes you?
 How are you provided
with feedback from the
observations?
 In what areas is your
school focusing its
improvement efforts
this year? Why?
 What are some of the
improvement goals that
guide your work?
 Are all teachers
working on these
improvement areas? In
what ways?
 How were these
improvement areas
determined?

 What are the
instructional priorities
at your school? How do
they impact teaching
and learning in your
content areas?
 *Which students/groups
at your school are
having the most success
demonstrating
proficiency on school-
wide measures? Why?

193
 What are the instructional
priorities at your school?
How do they impact
teaching and learning in core
content areas?
 What programs are in place
to support students that are
not meeting identified state
standards?
 What makes your school
vision achievable and worth
fighting for?
 How do you ensure that the
vision and its goals get
implemented?
 What evidence will you look
for that improvement has
occurred?

Which students/groups
at your school are
having the greatest
difficulty demonstrating
proficiency on school-
wide measures? Why?
 *Describe the
improvement
activities/strategies that
your school will be
implementing?
 What programs are in
place to support
students that are not
meeting identified state
standards?
 How have resources
been distributed to
facilitate achievement
of the improvement
goals? Do you believe
that these resources are
sufficient to achieve the
goals? Why or why not?
 How are teachers held
accountable for
implementing the
improvement
initiatives?
 What evidence will you
look for that
improvement has
occurred?
 What role does your
school principal play in
the school improvement
process?
 In what ways does your
school principal provide
you with the support
that you need to ensure
that your classroom

194

teaching and learning
activities meet the needs
of all students?
3. What leadership
support structures
enable leader
practice?

 In what ways is your work
supported at this school?
 Where and to whom can you
go if you need to try out an
idea before moving
forward? Has this strategy
worked for you in the past?
If so, why? If not, why not?
 What additional support do
you need to realize results
and achieve the goals of
your school wide vision?

 What support does your
principal have in
identifying and
implementing the
school improvement
initiatives?
 From your perspective,
is this working? If so,
why? If not, why not?
What evidence can you
cite in support of your
answer?
4. How does an urban
school principal
create and sustain
organizational
structures and
processes that
promote effective
teacher practice and
improve student
outcomes?

 What new instructional
strategies/practices will
teachers be implementing to
improve performance of the
lowest performing students?
To maintain performance of
the higher performing
students?
 How are opportunities for
your teachers to work in
collaboration around core
issues of practice provided?
 What opportunities
exist for you and other
teachers to work in
collaboration around
core issues of practice?
 How often do you come
together and how do
you spend your time?
 How are you held
accountable for this
work?
5. How can the
VAL ED Instrument
serve as a coaching tool
to assist principals to
become effective
instructional leaders?
 

195

APPENDIX E
OBSERVATION PROTOCOLS
Pre/Post Observation Protocols
Pre: _____ Post:_____
Setting People
Type of Meeting:

Location of Meeting:

Duration of Meeting:

Who attends the meeting? (e. g.,
certificated only, certificated & classified,
students, parents, etc.)

Who facilitates the meeting? (Principal,
assistant principal, facilitator, department
head, etc.)

Is there a particular committee,
department, group, or person that has
specific responsibilities, or reports out
during every meeting? Explain

196

Frequency of Meeting:

Routines/Procedures Content/Focus
What seems to be some of the normal
procedures? (e. g., sign-in sheets,
announcements, celebrations, review of
minutes or agendas, seating arrangement,
etc.)

What are the goals of the meeting?
Circle all that apply

 Professional development/training
 Sit and get of information
 Collaboration among department or
grade level
 Combination of the abov
 Other __________________

What is the focus of the meeting?
Circle all that apply.

 Curriculum and Instruction
 Analyzing Data
 District & Site Announcements
 Facilities and Management
 Discipline/Students
 Student Grades
 District Problems/Complaints
 Variety of Information
 Other ___________________
Who seems to be responsible for Outcomes
Chart: Alignment of the Texas Core
Leadership Standards, Durham
Achieves Leadership Curriculum (IFL),
and Murphy’s Learning-Centered
Framework
preparing the content/focus of the
meeting?

197
Nonverbal Communication Additional Comments & Questions
What is the tone and attitude of the
participants? Circle all that apply

 Engaged/Interactive/Ask questions
 Complaining (Length of meeting,
students, parents, school issues, etc.)
 Off-task behaviors/comments/questions
 Uncooperative/rude/disruptive
 Leaves early
 Other _______________________

What outside factors or school issues
seem interfere with the goal of the
meeting?

198

APPENDIX F
OUTCOMES CHART
Core Texas
State-wide
Leadership
Standards Addressed
Dallas Achieves Leadership
Development Curriculum
Murphy’s Learning-
Centered Framework
(8 Dimensions)
1. The leader has
the knowledge and
skills to think and
plan strategically,
creating an
organizational vision
around personalized
student success.

Transforming Our Public
Schools (TOPS)
Develop Vision and Goals
 Institute for Learning (IFL)
Institutes & IFL’s Leadership
for Learning: A Theory of
Action for Urban School
Districts*
 District design principles and
theory of change
 District Initiatives and
Procedures

Vertical Learning
Communities
 Learning Walk within and
across feeder patterns
 Book studies and article
discussions
 Sharing artifacts that impact
student achievement
I. Vision for Learning
A. Developing vision
B. Articulating vision
C. Implementing vision
D. Stewarding vision

II. Instructional Program
A. Knowledge and
involvement
B. Hiring and allocating
staff
C. Supporting staff
D. Instructional time

III. Curricular Program
A. Knowledge and
involvement
B. Expectations,
standards
C. Opportunity to learn
D. Curriculum alignment

IV. Assessment Program
A. Knowledge and
involvement
B. Assessment
procedures
C. Monitoring instruction
and curriculum
2. The leader is
grounded in
standards-based
IFL’s Leadership for

199
Core Texas
State-wide
Leadership
Standards Addressed
Dallas Achieves Leadership
Development Curriculum
Murphy’s Learning-
Centered Framework
(8 Dimensions)
systems theory and
design and is able to
transfer that
knowledge to his/her
job as the architect
of standards-based
reform in the school.

Learning:
A Theory of Action for Urban
School Districts*
 District design principles and
theory of change

 Foundation of Effective
Learning: The Principles of
Learning

 Disciplinary
Literacy/Academic Rigor
D. Communication and
use of data

V. Communities of
Learning
A. Professional
development
B. Communities of
professional practice
C. Community-anchored
schools

VI. Resource Acquisition
and Use
A. Acquiring resources
B. Allocating resources
C. Using resources

VII. Organizational
Culture
A. Production emphasis
B. Accountability
C. Learning environment
D. Personalized
environment
E. Continuous
improvement

VIII. Social Advocacy
A. Stakeholder
engagement
B. Diversity
C. Environmental context
D. Ethics
3. The leader
knows how to access
and use appropriate
data to inform
decision-making at
all levels of the
system.

Leading for Results
 Learning Walks
 Focus on Data Analysis
 Nested Professional
Learning Communities
 Leadership Instructional
Conferring/Coaching and
Reflective Practice
Strategies

200

APPENDIX G
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS PROTOCOLS
Department Curriculum Maps
Research Questions:
1. How does participation in (NISL) prepare principals for the unique challenges of
an urban context?
2. How does (NISL) influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of
urban school principals?
3. How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures
and processes that promote effective teacher practices and improve student
outcomes?
4. What leadership support structures enable leader practice?

 Unit Focus & Title

 Unit Objectives

 Essential Questions

201

 Standards Met

 Texts & Other Sources

 Evidence of
differentiated
instruction/strategies

 Formative Assessments

 Summative Assessments

Meeting Agendas and Minutes
 Type of Meeting
(Faculty, Dept., PLC,
SLC, Grade Level,
Special Program, Etc.)
& Date

202
 Attendance
 Facilitator

 Focus Areas of Meeting

 Decisions made
regarding or impacting
teacher instruction and
practices

 Decisions made
regarding or impacting
student access and
achievement

 Decisions made
regarding or impacting
the school’s
organizational structures

 Decisions made
regarding or impacting
the school’s
stakeholders (parents,
district level personnel,
community, students,
etc)

203

Single Plan for Student Achievement
Comprehensive
Needs Assessment

API Data

AYP Data

 Standardized
test data

 AMAO’s

204
 District
Assessments

 Other Findings

 Achievement
Goals for
Students
Reading/Writing: Math:
Plan for
Student
Achievement

 Measures 1 - 6

WASC Document Analysis Protocol
Chapter 1: School
Profile

205

Chapter 2: Analysis of
Data

Chapter 3: Progress
Report

Chapter 4:
Organization

Chapter 4:
Curriculum

Chapter 4: Instruction

206
Chapter 4:
Assessment &
Accountability

Chapter 4: Climate
and Culture

Chapter 5: Action Plan

Appendix: Documents
& Reports

207
APPENDIX H
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
___pre ____post
Research Question #3: How does an urban school principal create (and sustain)
organizational structures (climate) and processes that promote effective teacher practices
and improve student outcomes?

1. Content: According to the teacher, the purpose of this lesson was. What is the activity
being observed? Who are the participants?

2. Strategies: How are the participants being observed learning/participating/applying
skills, knowledge and concepts? What are they doing?

3. Alignment: Design of the lesson was reflective of best practices and consistent with the
Professional Development training that staff has received. The instructional strategies
and activities reflected attention to issues of access, equity, and diversity for students.

Adapted from California Network of School Leadership Coaches 2007-2008 New
Teacher Center at University of California of Santa Cruz.

208
APPENDIX I
RECRUITMENT LETTER #1

209
APPENDIX J
PRINCIPAL RECRUITMENT LETTER

210
APPENDIX K
VAL ED SURVEY

211

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this research study was to examine the impact of participation in the Durham Principal Coaching Initiative on urban school principal leadership practice. This mixed-methods case study investigated the following five questions: 1) How does participation in the Durham ISD Principal Coaching Initiative (DPCI) prepare principals to become effective instructional leaders? 2) How does the DPCI influence the knowledge, beliefs and leadership practices of urban school principals? 3) How does an urban school principal create and sustain organizational structures and processes that promote effective teacher practice and improve student outcomes? 4) What leadership support structures enable leader practice? 5) How can the VAL ED Instrument serve as a coaching tool to assist principals to become effective instructional leaders?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative

PDF

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

PDF

The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools

PDF

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

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

PDF

Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school

PDF

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

PDF

An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors

PDF

Building capacity for leadership in urban schools

PDF

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

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

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

PDF

Liberation through preparation: building capacity to lead America's urban schools

PDF

Preparing leaders for the urban school context: a case study analysis for effective leadership

PDF

Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals

PDF

Leadership capacity building: promising practices in principal preparation

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Chamberlain, Paula J. (author)

Core Title An exploration of leadership capacity building and effective principal practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/10/2010

Defense Date 04/12/2010

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

Tag achievement gap,capacity building,Coaching,mentoring,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal leadership,Val Ed survey

Place Name Durham (city or populated place), Texas (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Reed, Margaret (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis J. (committee member)

Creator Email paula_chamberlain@chino.k12.ca.us,pchamber@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3377

Unique identifier UC1451550

Identifier etd-Chamberlain-3923 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-386495 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3377 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Chamberlain-3923.pdf

Dmrecord 386495

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Chamberlain, Paula J.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu