University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A case study of what really matters: Examining educational leadership and student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

A case study of what really matters: Examining educational leadership and student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A CASE STUDY OF WHAT REALLY MATTERS:
EXAMINING EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT

by

Shannon R. Manista

_______________________________________________________________

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Shannon R. Manista
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my students: past, present, and future.
Together, we have learned much about each other and from each other. I appreciate
your hugs, laughter, flexibility, resilience, and perseverance. I went through this
process to become a better teacher, and I hope that it was worthwhile for you!
It is also dedicated to my family. Thank you for always believing in me and
for understanding my need to strive for the best.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation could not have been accomplished without the support from
a number of people. I would like to express my appreciation to them.
My advisor, Dr. Kathy Stowe, who helped me to set and stick to deadlines,
who gave excellent feedback, and who encouraged us all along the way. My
dissertation committee: Dr. Lawrence Picus who got me thinking about what really
matters in schools and the value of creating a culture of inquiry long before this
dissertation topic came to fruition and Dr. Pedro Garcia for providing helpful
suggestions and encouragement during my proposal. To my thematic groupmates:
you girls rock!
To my colleagues for asking about the process along the way and to my
students (2008 – 2011) who didn’t always get their papers back from me in a timely
manner as I tried to balance work and school. I hope that I’ve set a good example for
you about how important education is and how much fun learning can be!
To my friend and colleague, Dr. Lauren Cohen, who began the journey with
me and was a constant source of support, intellectual stimulation, and humor.
To my mom for being so understanding, to my dad for texts and Emails of
encouragement just when I needed them, and to my grandmas who have been my
biggest cheerleaders throughout my life. To my sister, Lauren Page, for practicing
her research skills on my topic and for the late night iChats. To Cheryl, for keeping
me grounded in reality and providing much needed study breaks over the phone and
in person.
iv
I especially thank my husband, Jeremy: Your understanding and willingness
to lose time together so that I could pursue my dream makes me feel like the luckiest
girl in the world. I love you, babe!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 16
Chapter Three: Methodology 52
Chapter Four: Findings, Analysis, and Discussion 69
Chapter Five: Summary and Implications of Findings 135
References 144
Appendices 152
Appendix A: Administrator Interview Protocol 152
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol 155
Appendix C: Classified Interview Protocol 158
Appendix D: Classroom Protocol 160
Appendix E: Meeting Protocol 161
Appendix F: General Site Protocol 162
Appendix G: Consent Form 164
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participants in Study 57
Table 2: Special Programs at Sunshine Elementary School 58
Table 3: Student Ethnicity 58
Table 4: API Results and Similar Schools Ranking 59
Table 5: Certificated and Classified Staff 70
Table 6: Structures and Systems Perceived to Exist at Sunshine 73
Elementary
Table 7: Sunshine’s Systems of School Culture 100
Table 8: Sunshine Leadership Committees 109
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sunshine Elementary School compared to District Ethnicities 59
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 61
Figure 3: Theoretical Framework 63
Figure 4: Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis 64
Figure 5: Teacher Levels of Education 111
viii
ABSTRACT
Historically, urban schools underperform according to national averages and
standards for proficiency, according to years of research. The relationship between
leadership and student achievement may provide insight into what really matters in
increasing student achievement, especially in high poverty schools.
This study aimed to identify the perceived school-wide systems and
structures that contributed to high achievement in a high poverty school; how the
organizational systems were implemented and sustained to support higher levels of
student achievement; and how the leadership systems and structures built collective
efficacy for increasing student achievement. A qualitative case-study was
conducted, including eleven semi-structured interviews with principals, faculty, and
staff along with five classroom, school, and collaborative meeting observations.
School documents were also collected and analyzed to triangulate the data.
This research focused on the three key structures perceived to exist in support
of school-wide effective classroom instruction, including a climate of achievement,
collective leadership, and collective efficacy. Within those structures, organizational
systems were in place to contribute to high achievement, including the promotion of
involvement and knowledge of curriculum, alignment of instruction and assessments
to the standards; communicating a vision, monitoring and providing feedback, and
professional development focused on evaluating instructional methods for
improvement, interventions, and teacher collaboration.
ix
Six organized subsystems at the case-study school were found to be
implemented and sustained to support higher levels of student achievement,
including school-wide expectations for faculty, staff, and students; an emphasis on
academics and instruction; systems for regularly assessing individual students;
collaborative decision making; a strong work ethic and high faculty morale; and the
promotion of caring, respectful relationships.
The leadership systems and structures at the case-study school included
parent and community leaders, support staff leaders, and administrator leaders.
Together, the various leadership groups formed to comprise collective leadership
within the school and developed a shared sense of collective efficacy.
As research suggests, collective efficacy can directly impact student
achievement, and it is an essential factor in closing the achievement gap in high
poverty areas, especially. While the construct of collective efficacy is relatively
young in the field of educational research, it would seem that a foundation of a
culture of success would be worthwhile studying in the future as an attribute of
increased academic achievement. Implications for practice (academic achievement)
and policy (leadership) are discussed.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The landmark federal report, A Nation at Risk provided the perspective that
the education system in the United States of America was failing to educate its
children. The document was intended to be a call to action:
All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair
chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and
spirit to the utmost. This promise means that all children by virtue of their
own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed
judgment needed to secure gainful employment, and to manage their own
lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the progress of
society itself. Our Nation is at risk (A Nation at Risk, 1983).

However, our nation is still at risk.
Background of the Problem
Over 25 years ago, A Nation at Risk was published to shed light on the fact
that the United States’ unchallenged superiority in commerce, industry, science, and
technological innovation was being surpassed by competitors throughout the world.
The document likened its current educational disposition to an “act of war” and
called for the American people to do what is “right for their children and for the
generations to come.” It posited that to improve upon the competitive edge that the
U.S. still retained in world markets, the American people must dedicate themselves
to the reform of the educational system for the benefit of old and young, affluent and
poor, majority and minority.
Twenty-two years after A Nation at Risk, Epps (2005) notes that wealth
continues to affect achievement through its effect on the amount of cultural capital to
2
which a child is exposed, through the ability of families to live in communities with
good public schools or to choose private schools, and through the provision of an
ethos of high academic and career expectations (Beachum et al., 2008, p. 222). In
other words, wealth is still a factor in maximizing students’ potentials to achieve; yet
many of our nation’s schools are not privileged with wealth. In fact, the nation’s
official poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2007. There
were 39.8 million people in poverty in 2008, up from 37.3 million in 2007 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2009).
Public concerns about the “achievement gap” based on poverty levels may
have begun with “A Nation at Risk,” yet it took almost 20 years to pass aggressive
policy that would address the gap. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, enacted
in 2002, aimed to raise student achievement and close achievement gaps for students
of different races, ethnicities, and income levels, in addition to students with
disabilities and English language learners (Srikantaiah, Moilanen, and Swayhoover,
2009). Just as soon as it was implemented, the NCLB act drew criticism for its
overreliance on testing and accountability, especially with regard to urban school
contexts. For example, Beachum et al. (2008) quote, “Urban schools and the
children who attend them languish under third world-like conditions, even as [the
president] boldly promises to ‘leave no child behind.’ Millions of dollars from
private and public sources are spent in the name of reform and restructuring, and an
entire industry of education experts has been created to go about the work of
3
improving America’s schools, but the situation in inner-city schools remains largely
unchanged” (p. 191).
Research maintains that poor urban schools continue to underperform
according to national averages and standards for proficiency. Specifically, reading
and mathematics scores showed disparity between national and central city public
schools which increased when looking at the largest urban / central city public
schools. They increased even more when looking at students who were eligible for
free/reduced price school lunch in these largest urban areas (Belfiore, Auld, & Lee,
2005).
The importance of improving our nation’s schools continues to be a
significant focus in policy. In fact, President Barak Obama, in his address to joint
sessions of Congress in 2009, stated:
In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your
knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity – it is
a pre-requisite… We know the countries that out-teach us today will out-
compete us tomorrow. That is why it will be the goal of this administration
to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education
– from the day they are born to the day they begin a career” (U.S. Department
of Education, 2010).

In spite of longstanding achievement trends, many high poverty schools have
had success in attaining high academic achievement. Research conducted at the
Center for Performance Assessment on the “90/90/90 Schools” has proven that there
are pockets of such successful schools. “90/90/90 Schools” are schools in which
more than 90 percent of the students are eligible for free and reduced lunch, are from
ethnic minorities, and met or achieved high academic standards (Reeves, 2000).
4
Springboard Schools, a California – based network of educators dedicated to
raising student achievement and closing the achievement gap, has changed the way
schools do business and enhanced a greater sense of community, engagement, and
belonging in over 86 school districts comprising over 1,334 schools serving over a
million students, 60% of whom live in poverty and 32% of whom are learning
English (Springboard Schools Annual Report, 2006). In 2006, Springboard Schools
began work in 13 partner districts in the Los Angeles area, serving almost 250,000
children, of whom, 67% are living in poverty and nearly half are learning English.
In Arizona, schools deemed “Beat the Odds” schools (schools with a mostly
Latino, mostly poor student population) showed either steady performance or steady
improvement in the achievement of their students compared to other similar schools
in a study conducted between 1997 and 2004 (Waits et al., 2006). The report’s
message is clear: public schools are capable of turning around academic
performance. The researchers found that many public schools are already doing an
excellent job of helping their students toward high academic achievement under
difficult circumstances such as poverty, tough neighborhoods, and difficulty with
English. They succeed even though, according to history, they shouldn’t (Waits et
al., 2006).
Marzano (2003) posits that schools can have a tremendous impact on student
achievement if they follow the direction provided by research and highlights some of
the research that has demonstrated organizational structures and systems that
promote high academic achievement in high poverty schools. For example, the
5
“90/90/90 Schools” case study identifies five characteristics common to high
poverty, high achieving schools: a focus on academic achievement, clear curriculum
choices, frequent assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for
improvement, an emphasis on writing, and external scoring (Reeves, 2000). Smith
and Hoy (2007) studied 99 urban elementary schools in Texas with 55 percent to 93
percent of students on free and reduced lunch programs. They found that academic
optimism predicts student achievement in spite of lower socioeconomic status,
suggesting that schools can internally impact student achievement, regardless of
external factors.
High performing, high poverty schools exist, yet there are still many schools
that are underperforming. Several studies suggest what can be done to intervene in
such schools. For example, the MCREL report (2005), suggests that it is not
necessary to reorganize low-performing, high-needs schools in order to move them
toward higher performance. Rather, the role of leadership is important in shaping or
supporting a professional community among teachers, the strongest relationship in
the low performing, high-needs schools. The report further asserts that leadership is
also key in influencing the school environment (i.e., in establishing effective parent
involvement and an orderly climate), and in supporting teachers in monitoring
student progress and holding high standards for all students. As these two are
strengthened, their role in realizing improved instruction is also strengthened
(MCREL, 2005). Marzano (2003) identifies five school level factors (based on a
variety of prior studies that would not require a drastic addition of resources) to
6
describe what works in schools: guaranteed and viable curriculum, challenging goals
and effective feedback, parent and community involvement, safe and orderly
environment, and collegiality and professionalism. “Beat the Odds” schools
employed a set of six factors that helped drive gains in student achievement: a clear
bottom line, ongoing assessment, a strong and steady principal, collaborative
solutions, selecting good, ongoing programs, and building interventions to suit each
student’s needs (Waits et al., 2006).
If it is possible to increase academic achievement in high poverty schools,
why aren’t there more examples for similar schools to emulate?
Statement of the Problem
Effective leadership has been previously studied; yet there are many
underperforming schools that are continuing to fail. While there has been much
research, empirical and theoretical, conducted in the area of school leadership and
accountability, there is not a strong research base connecting leadership to school
improvement or academic achievement (Mayrowetz, 2008). Marzano (2003, p. 175)
even points out that it is somewhat rare in the research on leadership to find student
achievement as the criterion for effectiveness. The relationship between leadership
and student achievement needs to be investigated further in order to provide insight
into what really matters in increasing student achievement.
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) assert that one of the great challenges for
school researchers is to learn how school organizations contribute to students'
academic success. Schools, no matter how similar or different they are from one
7
another, affect students and their achievement differentially. Identifying school
characteristics associated with differences in student achievement is important to the
development of effective schools (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000).
Purpose of the Study
The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act corresponds to what educators
have long desired for their students: to equip every child with the knowledge and
skills necessary for success in future schooling and in life (Cicchinelli, Gaddy,
Lefkowits, & Miller, 2003, p. 7). Therefore, this study aimed to expand the research
base available to educators to guide their efforts in improving student achievement in
high-poverty elementary schools so that all students demonstrate proficiency in
reading and mathematics by 2014. Under the current trajectory, it is not clear that
schools nationwide are prepared to meet this goal. In 2008-2009, for example, more
than 4,000 (approximately 49%) schools did not reach their target for annual yearly
progress (AYP), and 46% of those schools were identified as Program Improvement
schools (CA State Accountability Report Card, 2008-2009). Furthermore, the
disaggregated data show that economically disadvantaged students significantly
scored below proficiency in English Language Arts (50%) and Mathematics (46%).
The purpose of this study was to investigate the leadership structures and
systems that are in place to impact collective efficacy in high poverty, high achieving
schools. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) refers to 21 responsibilities of
leaders and their correlations with student achievement; including communication
with and among teachers and students, building culture by way of fostering shared
8
beliefs and a sense of community and cooperation, involvement and knowledge of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and monitoring / evaluating the
effectiveness of school practices and their impact on student learning.
The intent of this study was to link these specific selected responsibilities to
distributed leadership and collective efficacy for increasing student achievement in
high poverty schools. The collective personality of the school is made up of the
varying roles of shared leadership and the shared beliefs of collective efficacy. The
social and professional interactions of the individuals in the school involve the ways
in which individuals and groups communicate, collaborate, and provide and receive
feedback. To attain high levels of academic achievement, the principals and teachers
must have involvement in and knowledge of the curriculum, instruction, and
assessments (Marzano, Waters, and McNulty, 2005). Altogether, this climate of
academic achievement should foster a culture of learning in which the collective
leadership and collective efficacy of principals and teachers increase academic
achievement.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant in that it adds to the limited literature base linking
effective leadership practices to a high performing, high poverty school’s sense of
collective efficacy. This linkage helps contribute to the ongoing search for “what
works,” especially as it pertains to closing the achievement gap in spite of a school’s
socioeconomic status.
9
Northouse (2007) would agree that it is important to study school leadership
and student achievement, because leadership is a process whereby an individual
influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. It is not a linear, one-
way event but an interactive event. Leadership is available to everyone; it is a
process; it involves influence; it occurs in a group context; and it involves goal
attainment (Northouse, 2007). As schools are run by administrators and teachers
together to achieve the purpose of maximizing student learning, examining
relationships between leadership and school achievement is not only important; it is
imperative if we are to ensure that no child is “left behind.”
Furthermore, research is needed on efficacy-building of teachers. Leithwood
and Jantzi (2008) maintain that future research should inquire more deeply into the
leadership behaviors of administrators that nurture a sense of efficacy and
confidence, especially in elementary schools, as they are typically more sensitive
than secondary schools to leadership influence, and the rapid turnover of principals
has been “widely decried as anathema to school improvement efforts.”
There are a plethora of complex issues that teachers and administrators face
on a daily basis. Many people now assume that teachers can and should teach all
students to world-class standards, be the linchpins in educational reforms of all
kinds, and produce a well-qualified labor force to preserve the US position in the
global economy (Cochran-Smith, 2005). The pressures that teachers feel require that
the accountability systems in place are fair, justifiable, and reasonable, and they need
leaders who can help them navigate those demands. Fullan (2001) noted that today’s
10
leaders need to be able to deal with complexity, chaos, and change (Beachum et al.,
2008).
It is these complex issues, the high stakes of the No Child Left Behind
standards, and the educational change by way of reforms and new curriculum that
make it even more essential for schools to develop a sense of collective efficacy.
“Collective Efficacy” is the group members’ shared perception or belief that they can
dramatically enhance the effectiveness of an organization (Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty, 2005). According to Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2004), the collective
efficacy of the teachers in a school is a better predictor of student success in schools
than is the socioeconomic status of the students. In simple terms, collective efficacy
is the shared belief that “we can make a difference.”
Because this collective belief of teachers in high poverty schools is essential
for increasing academic success, the following research questions were used to guide
the investigation in identifying what “really works” in high poverty, high achieving
schools.
Research Questions
This study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived school-wide systems and structures that contribute
to high achievement in high poverty schools?
2. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support
higher levels of student achievement?
11
3. How do the leadership structures build collective efficacy to impact
student achievement at high poverty, high performing schools?
Definition of Terms
The following terms were defined by the Department of Education, in
combination with the dissertation committee’s operational definitions, as they relate
to this study:
Academic Performance Index (API): According to the 2008-2009 Academic
Performance Index Reports of the California Department of Education, API
measures the academic performance and progress of schools. It was part of the
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. API scores range from a low of 200 to a
high of 1000. The API target for all schools is 800.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): According to the 2009 Annual Yearly
Progress Report Information Guide of the California Department of Education, AYP
is an accountability system mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to
monitor annual academic performance goals. It requires each state to ensure that all
schools and local educational agency (LEA) make Adequate Yearly Progress. AYP
criteria encompass four areas: participation rate, percent proficient, API as an
additional indicator for AYP, and graduation rate.
Climate of Academic Achievement: The collective personality of a school
based upon an atmosphere distinguished by the social and professional interactions
of the individuals in the school for the purpose of attaining high levels of academic
12
achievement (based on the definition of an “organizational climate” posed by Deal
and Kennedy, 1983 as cited by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty, 2005, p. 89).
High Performing Schools: schools with an API of equal to or greater than 750
(and / or schools that have shown continual growth over the last three years. These
schools have met their growth targets for all of their sub groups and proven,
according to the California state standards, that they are successfully closing the
achievement gap.
High Poverty Schools: are defined as schools where more than 40 percent of
students receive free and reduced priced lunch considered based on schools receiving
funds for the Title I program. Such schools also have a minimum population of 500
students comprising their student body.
Leadership: a process whereby an individual influences a group of
individuals to achieve a common goal.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) of 1965 was reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
The focus of NCLB was to increase accountability, focus on research-based
practices, provide quality education and empower parents.
Structure: Instructional mechanisms, policies, and procedures put in place by
federal state or district policy and legislation or widely accepted as the official
structure of schools that are not subject to change at the local school site.
13
System: Coordinated and coherent use of resources (time, personnel, students,
parents, funds, facilities, etc.) at the school site to ensure that school visions,
missions, and goals are met.
Title I: Federally funded support for schools that are considered to be "at
risk." Primary qualification is through Free and Reduced Lunch counts.
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: Students whose parents do not have a
high school diploma or who participate in the free/reduced price meal program
because of low family income.
Limitations
This study was limited to one, case-study elementary school. While the
observations and conversations surrounding “best practices” exist at the case-study
school, the “best practices” may or may not be able to be generalized to other similar
schools. Each school has its own climate and culture that may impact what works
and what does not work. Furthermore, the case-study school agreed to participate in
the study and identified which school personnel were observed and interviewed.
This may or may not have produced a “Halo Effect” which is a “general bias in
which a favorable or unfavorable general impression of a person affects our
inferences and future expectations about that person (Aronson, 2008, p. 141). The
researcher only observed pre-determined positive practices, which may not be
representative of an “every day” scenario. This would affect the researcher’s general
notions of the people being interviewed or the environments being observed,
affecting the researcher’s inferences and future expectations about the systems and
14
structures operating within the school. Also, faculty and staff were interviewed and
observed, making for a qualitative study. It was out of the scope of this dissertation
to conduct a more sophisticated statistical analysis. Due to the time constraints of
the Ed.D program at the University of Southern California, a single school is the
only unit of study. This also limited the sample size, the number of interviewees and
observation participants, which may have affected the outcome. Finally, the
geographic region of selecting schools may also be a limitation. The researcher
focused her area of interest around schools in the Orange County area of southern
California.
Delimitations
Delimitations were determined by a group of doctoral candidates who were
focusing on best instructional practices in high achieving, high poverty schools.
“High performing schools” were considered to be schools with an API equal to or
greater than 750 and/or showing a growth trajectory over a three-year time span.
Furthermore, high performing schools earned a Similar Schools ranking of 8 or
above. These schools have met their growth targets for all of their sub groups and
proven, according to the California state standards, that they are successfully closing
the achievement gap. “High poverty” schools are defined as schools where more
than 40 percent of students receive free and reduced priced lunch considered based
on schools receiving funds for the school-wide Title I program. Such schools also
have a minimum population of 500 students comprising their student body. While
15
this could have been a longitudinal study, the thematic group set a timeline of data
collection, over approximately ten weeks, from September to November (2010).
Organization of the Study
Chapter one provided an overview of the study including the purpose and
significance. Chapter two reviewed salient research on collective efficacy,
communication, feedback, culture, instructional leadership, and professional
development. Chapter three provided the research methodology used in the study.
Chapter four presented the results of the study. Chapter five presented the
conclusions and the recommendations of the study.
16
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Whether or not a school operates effectively increases or decreases students’
chances of academic success. This affirms why studying how school organizations
contribute to students' academic success is so challenging for researchers (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Because different schools affect students and their
achievement in such diverse ways, the identification of school characteristics
associated with varieties in student achievement is important to the development of
effective schools (Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2000).
The importance of a student’s family socioeconomic status and its impact on
academic achievement has been studied since the mid 1960s (Coleman et al., 1966).
Educators acknowledge that teaching in urban schools is challenging for a variety of
reasons such as poverty (low SES), lack of resources, cultural differences, and
violence (Brown, 2002; Haberman, 1995; Haberman & Post, 1998; Michie, 1999,
2005; Zeichner, 1996).
Loweb, Darling-Hammond, and Luczak (2005) explain that a variety of
studies have found that teachers are prone to leave schools with high proportions of
low-achieving, low-income and minority students than in more educationally and
economically advantaged schools. The challenges posed to schools with high
teacher turnover rates include a lack of continuity in instruction, a lack of adequate
teaching expertise for making curriculum decisions and providing support and
17
mentoring, and lost time and resources for replacement and training. They
concluded that while the racial, ethnic, poverty, and language composition of the
student body influences teacher turnover for a school, the working conditions add
substantial predictive power to models of turnover. When these working conditions
are added, the influence of student demographics on reported turnover rates is
reduced. School conditions included tangible supports (working conditions, physical
facilities, and availability of textbooks and technology) and conditions that impact
other aspects of teaching, such as the quality of professional development, the
involvement of parents, and the quality and appropriateness of tests teachers are
required to administer. From their discussion, other predictors included whether the
school was on a multi-track schedule, suggesting less than optimal conditions for
teaching (overcrowding, condensed teaching schedules, class periods that begin very
early or very late in the day), and year-round teaching schedules that require teachers
to pack up their rooms and move periodically throughout the school year. In other
words, the systems and structures that are (or are not) in place can significantly
impact teacher efficacy, positively or negatively, especially in low SES schools.
The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature, which provided the
basis of this study. This chapter is organized around the themes that emerged from
the literature. The first section will examine the collective leadership as it relates to
collective efficacy in schools, as both are structures that are important to ensuring a
climate of academic achievement. The second section will explore the systems that
18
serve as vehicles for using collective leadership and collective efficacy to create a
culture of learning.
Effective Systems of High Poverty, High Achieving Schools
Collective Leadership
Porter and Beyerlein (2000) indicate that the study of groups in work-related
contexts began as far back as the 1920s and 1930s with the human relations
movement focusing on collaborative efforts at work (as cited in Northouse, 2007).
Studying organizational development surfaced in the 1960s and 1970s, focusing on
developing team and leadership effectiveness through interventions in ongoing work
teams. Competition from Japan and other countries in the 1980s encouraged
Americans to focus on quality teams, benchmarking, and continuous improvement.
While still focusing on quality in the 1990s, the study of organizational teams shifted
to a global perspective focusing on organizational strategies for maintaining a
competitive advantage. Technology has enabled communication across time and
space among team members (Northouse, 2007).
Leadership has historically been perceived to be important to the effective
functioning of organizations in general, and of schools more recently. Marzano,
Waters, and McNulty conducted a 35-year meta-analysis which indicated that school
leadership has a substantial effect on student achievement (2005). Marzano (2003)
noted that leadership is an overarching variable that impacts the effective
implementation of the school-level factors, teacher level-factors, and the student-
level factors that make schools that work. Elmore (2000) provided a unique
19
perspective on the role of leadership. He emphasized the importance of
understanding effective practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment and the
ability to work with teachers on the day-to-day problems related to such topics,
requiring the instructional leader to have a vast knowledge base. His solution is an
organization that distributes the responsibility for leadership. While the principal
might not have the time, energy, or disposition to master the wide knowledge base
regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment, others within a school might.
Therefore, Elmore called for the use of distributed models of leadership as opposed
to models that look to the principal to provide all leadership functions for the school
(Elmore, 2000).
Leadership is conceptualized in several different ways. Northouse (2007)
identifies leadership as a process in which an individual influences a group of people
to achieve a common goal. Furthermore, leadership involves influence, occurs in a
group context, and involves goal attainment. Northouse (2007) explains that
leadership is not a trait or characteristic that resides in the leader but something that
occurs between a leader and his or her followers. The idea that leadership is a
process implies that a leader influences and is influenced by -- affects and is affected
by -- followers. It is an interactive event, not a linear, one-way event. Thus,
leadership is available to everyone; it is not restricted only to one formally
designated leader in a group. Also, Northouse asserts that leadership occurs in
groups, as groups are the context in which leadership takes place (2007). Leadership
involves influencing a group of individuals who have a common purpose. Goals
20
involve leaders directing a group of individuals toward accomplishing some task or
end. Leaders direct their energies toward individuals who are trying to achieve
something together. Raelin (2006) argues that since a group can have more than one
leader operating at a time, we can conclude that people might be operating as leaders
together. In other words, leadership is a plural phenomenon. These collective views
of leadership propose that leadership does not arise from individual influence; rather,
it springs from the process of people working together for a common purpose.
Team structures of leadership are discussed in and outside of education.
Whether examining sports teams, military teams, or organizational teams, structural
profiles of successful teams at work depend on the game – on what the team is trying
to do. Hill (as cited in Northouse, 2007, p. 207) notes that leadership in
organizational groups or work teams has become one of the most popular and rapidly
growing areas of leadership theory and research. She defines teams as organizational
groups composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals,
and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals” (p. 207).
Bolman and Deal (2008) cite Katzenbach and Smith’s (1993) definition of a team as
a small number of people with complementary skills, who are committed to a
common purpose, a set of performance goals and an approach for which they hold
themselves mutually accountable (p. 111). Katzenbach and Smith’s research
highlights six characteristics of high-quality teams:
1. High performing teams shape purpose in response to a demand or an
opportunity placed in their path, usually by higher management.
21
2. High performing teams translate common purpose into specific,
measurable, performance goals.
3. High performing teams are of manageable size (between two and twenty-
five people).
4. High performing teams develop the right mix of expertise.
5. High performing teams develop a common commitment to working
relationships.
6. Members of high-performing teams hold themselves collectively
accountable (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
A large part of team leadership is collaboration. Raelin (2006) posits that
collaborative leadership is concurrent and collective. Leadership may therefore
emerge from multiple members of the organization, especially when important needs
arise, such as preparing for a strategic intervention, creating meaning for the group,
or proposing a change in direction. Northouse (2007) defines two types of
leadership: assigned and emergent. While administrators are considered “assigned”
leaders (leadership based on occupying a position in an organization), they do not
always become the real leader in a particular setting. Emergent leaders can also
make a huge impact in an organization, as their leadership role is based on others’
perceptions of them over a period of time through communication.
Team leadership seems likely to be an observable phenomenon in high
achieving schools, as Northouse (2007) defines teams as organizational groups
composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who
22
must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals. Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005) add that when school leadership is the responsibility of a leadership
team within a school (as opposed to the principal acting as lone leader), the
superhuman-like expectations demanded of principals can be met collectively. Team
leadership in schools is in synch with collective leadership; it is not dependent on
any one member, not the sole administrator, not the idea initiator; everyone is
participating. Further, the collective nature of leadership incorporates the critical
components of learning and meaning making. Team members use conversations to
invent new ways to attack problems and collectively make sense together from what
once was a state of “not-knowing” (Raelin, 2006).
Having considered the synchronized perspective of leadership — that it can
be practiced by members of a team at the same time — it is accurate to view
leadership as something that the entire community does together, collectively
(Raelin, 2006). In a school setting, everyone is challenged to learn; no one should
stand by in an independent capacity. Accordingly, school members should willingly
seek feedback, openly discuss errors, experiment optimistically with new behaviors,
reflect mutually on their operating assumptions, and demonstrably support one
another. Learning teams where teachers begin to question one another about their
students’ experiences develop a culture of inquiry in which student learning can
occur. Working as a team helps teachers to develop a peripheral awareness of
others. They come to know learning as a collective process that extends beyond the
individual. In the learning team, the questioner learns as much as the speaker; and
23
the entire group comes to learn together as all members become mutually responsible
for the decisions and actions of the team (Raelin, 2006).
In sum, collective leadership entails teamwork. Effective teams find ways to
hold the collective accountable. When teams enjoy a common purpose and
approach, they inevitably hold themselves responsible as individuals and as a team to
benefit the team’s performance. Teams need training and support and a focused,
cohesive structure (Bolman & Deal, 2008). As applied to education, the concept of
teacher leadership has become increasingly embedded in the language and practice
of improving education. The central tenet of teacher leadership is aligned with ideas
of individual empowerment, localization of management, and changing the functions
of teaching and learning. Recognition of teacher leadership stems from
understandings of organizational and leadership development.
Collective Efficacy
As school leadership becomes collective – everyone participating – the
collective efficacy of the teachers and principals working together at a school site is
also important to study.
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2004) claimed that individual efficacy beliefs are
excellent predictors of individual behavior based on previous research. Bandura
(1994) defined self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in his or her ability to utilize his
or her knowledge and skills effectively to solve specific problems (as cited by
Stevens, To, Harris, & Dwyer, 2008). Ross & Bruce (2007) specified that teacher
efficacy is a teacher’s expectation that he or she can bring about student learning.
24
Over the last 20 years, researchers have established strong connections between
teacher efficacy and teacher behaviors that foster student achievement (Goddard,
Hoy, and Hoy, 2000). Teachers who have high efficacy will work hard to ensure
that all students learn; they set high expectations for all students; they emphasize
mastery goal performance to meet specific standards; and they are more likely to
create an autonomy supportive classroom that encourages students to make choices
and take risks, which are associated with greater subject interest and conceptual
understanding (Stevens, To, Harris, & Dwyer, 2008).
While there is much research to link teacher efficacy to student achievement,
Bandura (as cited in Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2008) argued that one powerful
construct that varies intensely among schools and that is systematically tied to
student achievement is the collective efficacy of teachers within a school. Goddard,
Hoy, & Hoy (2008) define collective teacher as the perceptions of teachers in a
school that the efforts of the faculty as a whole will have a positive effect on
students. They based their definition on Bandura's social cognitive theory, a theory
of changing behavior. Social cognitive theory centers on human agency, or the ways
that people exercise some level of control over their own lives. Central to the
exercise of control is sense of self-efficacy or "beliefs in one's capabilities to
organize and execute a course of action required to produce a given attainment"
(Bandura, 1997, p. 3). However, social cognitive theory acknowledges that "personal
agency operates within a broad network of sociostructural influences" (p. 6) and thus
the theory "extends the analysis of mechanisms of human agency to the exercise of
25
collective agency" (p. 7) -- people's shared beliefs that they can work together to
produce effects (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2008).
In their earlier research, Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2004) determined that the
collective efficacy of the teachers in a school is a better predictor of student success
in schools than is the socioeconomic status of the students. Leithwood and Jantzi
(2008) also note that belief about the collective capacity of colleagues across schools
can improve student learning. Through their studies, they concluded that school-
based research associates collective teacher efficacy with faculty trust in students and
parents, as well as student achievement in math and reading. Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005) noted that a purposeful community is one with the collective
efficacy and capability to develop and use assets to accomplish goals that matter to
all community members through agreed-upon processes. Ross and Bruce (2007)
also mentioned that teacher efficacy, at the individual and collective level
consistently predicts a plethora of enabling teacher beliefs, functional teacher
behavior, and valued student outcomes.
Collective efficacy is important in creating a “purposeful community,”
defined by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) as a community with “the
collective efficacy and capability to develop and use assets to accomplish goals that
matter to all community members through agreed-upon processes” (p. 99). In order
for a level of effective collective efficacy to be attained, the principal of the school
must be the optimizer for the belief that the staff operating as a cohesive group can
effect substantial change (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Given the collective
26
efforts of a staff to lead together, it is the job of the principal, as the assigned leader,
to foster a belief in the power of collective efficacy. Sergiovanni (2004) refers to the
change in perspective as developing a “community of hope.” This hopefulness is
derived from principal and peer affirmation, recognizing and celebrating the
legitimate successes of individuals within the school and the school as a whole. This
acknowledgement provides evidence to the staff that their efforts are producing
tangible results and further validate that they should continue to work together for
the common good of the school (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) said that to understand the influence of
collective teacher efficacy in schools, it is key to also understand that teachers'
shared beliefs shape the culture of their school, as it influences both personal and
organizational behavior. In other words, teachers' beliefs about their collective
capability to educate students comprise a standard that influences the actions and
achievements of their school. For example, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) found that
schools with a high degree of perceived collective teacher efficacy set challenging
goals and were persistent in their efforts to meet such goals. Other researchers
(Marsh, Walker, & Debus, 1991; E.M. Skaalvik & Bong, 2003; Goddard et al., 2004;
as cited by Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) have argued that these high expectations
create pressure that encourages all teachers to do what it takes to excel and
discourages them from giving up when they are faced with challenging or difficult
situations. Furthermore, a high degree of perceived collective efficacy provides a
reciprocal relationship between collective efficacy and individual teacher efficacy.
27
The better the instruction given by other teachers at a school, the more able and
motivated the students will be, creating the effect that all of the teachers might set
more challenging goals.
Collective efficacy, then, is both a product of and a requirement for collective
leadership. When teachers collectively believe they are effectively teaching “our
students,” a goal that matters to all of the members involved, then there is a
responsiveness to work together to solve problems and inquire about the school’s
consistency between its actual operations and its espoused ideals and beliefs.
Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2007) noted that past school successes build teachers’ belief
in the capability of the collective faculty. While the extent to which schools utilize
an evidence-based approach to define their academic success varies, perceived
collective teacher efficacy is based on joint experiences in schools where teachers
interact frequently to plan, observe, and evaluate teaching (Parker, Hannah, &
Topping, 2006).
As Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) warn, collective teacher efficacy is not a
universal solution. There are other reasons that schools have different effects on
student achievement. Still, research supports that when teachers believe they are
members of a collection of teachers who are both competent and able to overcome
the detrimental effects of the environment, the students in their school will have
higher achievement scores than students in schools with lower levels of collective
teacher efficacy.
28
Climate of Academic Achievement
As the climate of Earth’s atmosphere can change with rising or dropping air
pressure, so can the climate of achievement of a school change with increasing or
decreasing test scores, teacher attitudes and beliefs, and changing structures of
leadership. Niebuhr and Niebuhr (1999) reviewed historical literature on school
climate. In the past, school climate has been related to the investigation of school
effects and the study of organizational climate (Anderson, 1982). Halpin and Croft
(1962) visualized school climate as the personality of the organization. Gondor
(1994) perceived the school climate as the psychological and physical environment
with a direct link to academic achievement. Miskel and Ogawa (1988) shifted gears
and viewed school climate as an antecedent, focusing on the factors that affect
academic achievement. Positive school climate has been demonstrated to influence
student achievement and student behavior (Weishen and Peng, 1993).
Tableman and Herron (2004) assert that the school climate is characterized
by the physical and psychological aspects of the school that are more susceptible to
change and that provide the preconditions that are necessary for learning and
teaching to occur. In this regard, school climate refers to the “feel” of a school, and
individual schools can develop climates independently of larger organizations (as in
the school district). School climate is a significant aspect of improving academic
performance and school reform, as there are four aspects of the school environment
in which school climate is defined according to Tableman and Herron (2004):
29
• A physical environment that is welcoming and conducive to learning.
• A social environment that promotes communication and interaction.
• An affective environment that promotes a sense of belonging and self-
esteem.
• An academic environment that promotes learning and self-fulfillment.
For the purpose of this study, a climate of academic achievement is defined
as the collective personality of a school based upon an atmosphere distinguished by
the social and professional interactions of the individuals in the school for the
purpose of attaining high levels of academic achievement (derived from the
definition of an “organizational climate” posed by Deal and Kennedy, 1983 as cited
by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty, 2005, p. 89). The collective personality of the
school is made up of the varying roles of shared leadership and the shared beliefs of
collective efficacy. The social and professional interactions of the individuals in the
school involve the ways in which individuals and groups communicate, collaborate,
and provide and receive feedback. To attain high levels of academic achievement,
the principals and teachers must have involvement in and knowledge of the
curriculum, instruction, and assessments (Marzano, Waters, and McNulty, 2005).
Altogether, this climate of academic achievement should foster a culture of learning
in which the collective leadership and collective efficacy of principals and teachers
increase academic achievement, regardless of the socioeconomic status of the school
community.
30
Effective Structures of High Poverty, High Achieving Schools
In this section, effective structures of high poverty, high achieving schools
will be discussed, entailing the involvement in and knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment; communication, monitoring, and evaluating principals
and teachers; and fostering a culture of learning.
The climate of academic achievement in a school district can dictate how
leadership is organized through the ranks. Certain structures will be considered for
further review to provide evidence for what really matters in a successful school:
involvement and knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and
communication, monitoring, and evaluating. As knowledge and involvement in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment are structures for how leadership works, the
district leadership can directly and indirectly effect how principals lead. Among the
many qualities of effective principal leaders, their individual self-efficacy and
collective efficacy (between other district administrators and employees), can hugely
impact the way in which principals lead (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). One way
principals can alleviate some of their numerous responsibilities is through the
structures of communication, monitoring, and evaluating. Distributive leadership
encourages teachers and coaches to monitor instruction and evaluate student
achievement. Through valuable and timely feedback, principals can encourage
teachers, and other teachers can become collaborators through vehicles of staff
development and professional learning communities. Once these structures are in
31
place, systems to promote a culture of learning within a school and positive teacher
efficacy can be implemented to increase academic achievement.
Involvement / Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
According to Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), school principals
should be directly involved in the design and implementation of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment activities at the classroom level. As defined by their
meta-analysis, they found three specific behaviors and characteristics associated with
this responsibility:
1. Being directly involved in helping teachers design curricular activities
2. Being directly involved in helping teachers address assessment issues
3. Being directly involved in helping teachers address instructional issues
(p. 54).
Furthermore, knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment involves
the extent to which the leader is aware of best practices in these domains (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). A principal’s knowledge of effective practices in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment is necessary to provide guidance for teachers
on the day-to-day tasks of teaching and learning. Citing Reeves (2004), the authors
explained that in effective schools, the principal personally evaluates student work
and participates in collaboration scoring sessions in which the percentage agreement
by the faculty is measured and posted. The principal personally reviews faculty-
created assessments as part of each teacher evaluation and coaching meeting.
32
In addition, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty mentioned a study conducted by
the National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance, Policymaking, and
Management (1999), which concluded that an administrator’s ability and willingness
to provide input regarding classroom practices was one of the most highly valued
characteristics that teachers reported. Also included in the report was one large
school district where both the superintendent and the principals regularly visited
classrooms with the goal of learning to recognize and describe good teaching and to
provide better instructional feedback to teachers.
In the next section, the importance of involvement in and knowledge of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment is broken down by district leadership,
principal leadership, and teacher leadership. As previously established, when all
district employees work collectively and maintain collective efficacy, they can foster
a culture of learning for increasing academic achievement.
Principal leadership.
According to Stein and Nelson (2003):
Without knowledge that connects subject matter, learning and teaching to
acts of leadership, leadership floats disconnected from the very process it is
designed to govern. Just as the construct of pedagogical content knowledge
has marked out new and very generative research questions and sites for
research, so the construct of leadership content knowledge may open up some
new questions about what it means to provide instructional leadership in
schools (p. 446).

A variety of research indicates the importance of principals as instructional leaders.
Leithwood and Jantzi (2008) indicate that planning and supervising instruction;
providing instructional support; monitoring the school’s progress (including student
33
progress); and buffering staff from external demands unrelated to the school’s
priorities all work toward increasing student achievement. Marzano, Waters, and
McNulty (2005) list involvement and knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment as two of their 21 practical and researched qualities of leaders. Ruebling,
Stow, Kayona, and Clarke (2004) maintained that student achievement of the
curriculum is the school’s reason for being. They asserted that leaders must
orchestrate opportunities for teachers to work in teams, focus resources effectively
on implementing the curriculum, and establish accountability for results. Hence,
they pinpointed four critical outcomes of curriculum development:
1. The creation of well-written documents that use a common framework
2. Curriculum that is aligned with state and national standards
3. An understanding and teaching of the curriculum by teachers
4. All students successfully learning the curriculum
Citing Fullan (2001), Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, and Clarke (2004) noted that
without guidance and support of principals, efforts to change classroom practices
have a greater chance of failure. Only principals who are prepared to handle
complex, rapidly changing environments can implement the reforms that lead to
sustained improvement of student achievement. Tableman and Herron (2004)
suggest that both school culture and school climate require considerable attention
when a principal is new or when major changes are being implemented in the school
system. Furthermore, Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, and Clarke (2004) recommended
that leadership should participate actively in the development of the curriculum,
34
ensuring that the curriculum documents followed an established framework and were
well written, communicated the importance of curriculum to teachers, and built high
leadership capacity by modeling, teaching, coaching, and providing leadership
training and feedback to school staff members as they become collective leaders.
To be involved and to demonstrate knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment, principals must hold teachers, students, and themselves accountable for
achieving results (Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, & Clarke, 2004). Principals should
establish an assessment program (multiple, valid, and reliable measures, both
objective and subjective), emphasizing that teaching the curriculum and using the
assessments are not negotiable. They must ensure that teachers are able to analyze,
interpret, and use assessment data. The authors maintained that what is needed is a
more comprehensive approach to school improvement that includes curriculum,
instruction, and professional development, and principal leaders are the ones to make
this happen.
According to Tableman and Herron (2004), when teachers are supported,
students are supported. They assert that within each building, the principal plays a
primary role, providing leadership, supporting staff, and articulating goals and
behavioral expectations of teachers in order to develop an effective school. They
maintain that improving academic performance usually requires changing school
climate and school culture, which takes time to accomplish.
The fact of the matter is that old strategies have not satisfactorily improved
learning results over the past several decades. As the design of leadership becomes
35
more collective, it is essential for collective efficacy to have high individual efficacy
of instructional leaders.
Individual self-efficacy.
Efficacy is an imperative variable in better understanding effects in most
organizations. Pointing to the similarity of efficacy and self-confidence, McCormick
(2001) claimed that leadership self-efficacy or confidence is likely the key cognitive
variable controlling leadership roles in a dynamic environment. “Every major review
of the leadership literature lists self-confidence as an essential characteristic for
effective leadership” (p. 23, as cited by Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). They summarize
Bandura’s work, entailing the variety of effects that self-efficacy beliefs can have on:
• One’s choice of activities and settings and how they affect coping efforts
• Determining how much effort one will expend and how long he or she
will persist in the face of failure or difficulty
• One’s positive evaluation of one’s competence
• The degree to which goals that are set (for themselves and their
colleagues) are challenging
• The extent to which one remains systematic and efficient in problem
solving
• How controllable or alterable one’s working environment is (one’s ability
to influence what goes on in the environment through effort and
persistence and the malleability of the environment itself
36
• The evolution in response to motivational and affective processes
(discrepancy reduction and discrepancy production)
Most people can identify goals that they want to accomplish, changes in their
lives that they would like to make, and list what they hope to achieve. However,
most people also realize that making these plans a reality is not quite so easy.
Bandura (1994) posits that an individual’s self-efficacy plays an important role in
how tasks, goals, and challenges are approached. People with a strong sense of self-
efficacy view challenging problems as tasks to be mastered, develop deeper interests
in the activities in which they participate, form a stronger sense of commitment to
their interests and activities, and recover quickly from setbacks and disappointments.
Conversely, people with a weak sense of self-efficacy tend to avoid challenging
tasks, believe that difficult tasks and situations are beyond their capabilities, focus on
personal feelings and negative outcomes, and quickly lose confidence in personal
abilities.
Bandura also noted that the judgment of what a person can do with the skills
he or she possesses is more important than skills alone. “It is when one is applying
skills that high efficacy intensifies and sustains the effort needed to realize a difficult
performance” (Bandura, 1997, p. 394). Bandura (1997) found that self-efficacy is
vital to leadership because, “When faced with obstacles, setbacks or failures, those
who doubt their capabilities slacken their efforts, give up or settle for mediocre
solutions. Those leaders who have a strong belief in their capabilities redouble their
efforts to master the challenge” (p.120). Self-efficacy beliefs make it possible to
37
design a course of action to produce specific results, which is essential to creating a
climate of achievement and a culture of learning, despite any external circumstances.
Collective efficacy.
Collective efficacy, as previously discussed, refers to the perceptions of
teachers in a school that will positively affect students when they work together.
According to Schunk, Pintrich, and Meece (2008), collective teacher efficacy should
be affected by the extent that “administrators stress improvement and assist teachers
to accomplish goals and overcome roadblocks” (p. 162). They cite Bandura (1993)
who reported research demonstrating that the collective efficacy of school staff
members influenced academic achievement of students. As far as the instructional
leader can work with teachers to impart knowledge of and be involved in curriculum,
instruction, and assessment, building collective efficacy and distributing leadership
tasks can be an effective way to increase student achievement.
Teacher leadership.
Merideth (2007) states:
In an ideal world, all schools would be fully equipped and provide exciting
and safe learning environments where everyone could learn. Moreover, this
magical environment would be managed effortlessly so that everyone’s needs
were met and all community members were happy and fulfilled. In the real
world of education, however, the challenges often exceed the magic, and it is
a real effort for all members of a school to work toward the shared goals of
school improvement and student achievement. By recognizing and
developing their potential as leaders, however, teachers can become authentic
contributors in a collaborative learning environment and change an arduous
effort toward school improvement to synergistic energy used for growth
(p. 12).

38
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) indicate that it is imperative for
school leaders to develop a strong leadership team, thereby distributing some of the
21 qualities of leadership and providing the opportunity for collective leadership.
They note that the concept of a purposeful community that provides guidance as to
how a leadership might be best developed and maintained should be among a
leader’s priorities. A strong leadership team is the natural result of a purposeful
community. A purposeful community is one with collective efficacy and a capability
to develop and use resources to accomplish goals that matter to all staff members
through agreed-upon processes. Ruebling, Stow, Kayona, and Clarke concur by
stating that teachers must work in teams, focus resources effectively on curriculum
development and implementation, and establish accountability for results (2004).
Tableman and Herron (2004) note that teachers must believe that they and the
school are accountable and that all children can and must learn in order to lead
reforms for increasing academic achievement. In addition, they believe that
teachers’ roles are to participate in learning communities to participate in the
decision making process. They posit that when teachers are actively involved in
mapping change, improved morale and willing participation will result.
In sum, teachers must consider and accept that intentional engagement in
their own learning is essential to be a professional, and they must expect to be held
accountable for continuously improving instructional practice. Similarly, principals
must provide professional development for their teachers and also have the
knowledge, skills, and strength of character to hold teachers accountable for
39
integrating what they have learned in professional development into their ongoing
practice. Professional development will be addressed later as it relates to another
section. Provided their roles as supporters and evaluators, administrators hold
significant influence in the systemic improvement of instruction.
Communication, Monitoring, and Evaluation
According to Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005), it is a school leader’s
responsibility to establish strong lines of communication with and among teachers
and students. In addition, leaders should monitor the effectiveness of school
practices and their impact on student learning. These characteristics help to foster a
climate of academic achievement.
Communicating the vision.
As the old proverb says, “A vision without a plan is just a dream. A plan
without a vision is just drudgery. But a vision with a plan can change the world.”
Having a vision and communicating the plan to reach it are essential to creating a
school that works to increase student achievement.
Bennis and Nanus (1985, as cited by Northouse, 2007) identify having a clear
vision as one of their four common strategies used by leaders in transforming
organizations. This clear vision of the future state of the organization includes an
image of attractive, realistic, and a believable future. They maintained that visions
do not need to be complex; rather, they are simple, understandable, beneficial, and
they create energy. When an organization has a clear vision, it is easier for people
within the organization to learn how they fit in with the overall direction of the
40
organization. It empowers them, because they feel they are a significant dimension
of a worthwhile enterprise. Bennis and Nanus found that to be successful, the vision
had to grow out of the needs of the entire organization and be claimed by those
within it. Also, although leaders play a large role in articulating the vision, the
emergence of the vision originates from both the leaders and the followers.
Kouzes and Posner (1987, 2002, as cited by Northouse, 2007) created a
model consisting of five fundamental practices that enable leaders to get
extraordinary things accomplished, one of which being inspiring a shared vision.
They maintained that effective leaders create compelling visions that can guide
people’s behavior. They are able to visualize positive outcomes in the future and
communicate them to others. Leaders also listen to the dreams of others and show
them how their dreams can be realized. Through inspiring visions, leaders challenge
others to transcend the status quo to do something for others.
Leithwood and Jantzi (2008) indicated that a critical aspect of leadership is
helping a group develop shared understandings about the organization and its
activities and goals that can facilitate a sense of purpose or vision. Efficacy beliefs
are fostered based on the emotional arousal processes due to the inspiration of such
visions. In accordance with goal attainment theory, people are motivated by goals
that they find compelling and challenging but also achievable. Such goals are
essential to the development of efficacy. Schunk, Pintrich, and Meece (2008)
summarized that when operating under a mastery goal orientation, there is a greater
concern with learning, task mastery, and increasing one’s competence. While
41
reviewing research geared toward students, the same conclusions can apply to
teachers. They concluded that this orientation leads one to interpret outcome
feedback differently than a performance goal orientation, where the focus is on
maintaining or enhancing perceptions of ability to others. Instead, a mastery goal
orientation enables one to see a strong link between effort and outcome, make more
effort attributions for success and failure, and see that more effort equals more ability
(p. 190).
Dweck and Leggett (1998, as cited by Schunk, Pintrich, and Meece, 2008)
showed that mastery oriented people were able to maintain positive and adaptive
efficacy beliefs and perceptions of competence in the face of difficult tasks.
Focusing on improving and learning create mastery oriented people to interpret
feedback in terms of their progress, thereby supporting their efficacy beliefs (p. 192).
The importance of feedback will be discussed in the next section.
Feedback.
After reviewing almost 8,000 studies, Hattie (1992, as cited in Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005) concluded that “the most powerful single modification
that enhances achievement is feedback” (p. 55). Braksick (2000) has argued that
feedback is one of the most powerful consequences one can deliver to shape desired
performance (Chase & Houmanfar, 2009). Not only is it important for teachers to
provide feedback to students, it is also important for principals to provide feedback
to teachers, and for teachers to provide feedback to each other. This section will
42
primarily focus on feedback provided to teachers through administrators and/or other
staff members involved in the school who are not peer teachers.
To discuss feedback, in general, Braksick (2000) distinguishes between
positive, negative, and constructive feedback. Positive feedback is used to
encourage desired behavior, but negative feedback focuses on the ‘‘bad side’’ and
does little to improve performance (Chase & Houmanfar, 2009). Negative feedback
is often thought of as criticism and is often directed at the individual rather than to
the undesired behavior of the individual. As an alternative to negative feedback,
Braksick (2000) suggests the use of constructive feedback. Constructive feedback is
intended to discourage an undesired behavior and replace it with a preferred
behavior. Constructive feedback punishes the undesired behavior by describing what
was wrong with it and specifies what the preferred behavior would be. In other
words, constructive feedback involves identifying the behavior we wish to
discourage, while also drawing attention to preferred behaviors. Chase & Houmanfar
(2009) explained the implications for education, as beneficial. Feedback can be both
positive and instructive.
When it comes to increasing student achievement, the use of effective
teaching strategies is tantamount. Marzano (2003) found that students in classes of
the most effective teachers will gain much more in achievement than is expected
over the course of one school year. However, students in the classes of the least
effective teachers will gain much less in achievement than is expected. Marzano
therefore discussed three teacher-level factors that influence academic achievement:
43
instructional strategies that work, classroom management, and classroom curriculum
design. He stated that if a school is willing to do all that it can at the school level,
and if all of the teachers in the school are at least competent in their profession, then
the school can have a remarkable impact on student achievement. Alternatively, if
teachers do not receive any feedback regarding their instructional strategies,
classroom management, and/or curriculum design, they may be categorized as “least
effective teachers,” regardless of their good intentions. Inconsistent implementation
of effective practices is exacerbated if supervisors fail to provide sustained
professional development and technical feedback regarding these teacher level
factors (Chase & Houmanfar, 2009).
Teachers who attempt to try new teaching methods must receive regular
feedback about the impact of new practices on student learning (Scheeler, Ruhl, &
McAfee, 2004). This may be accomplished through feedback; however, feedback
may take many forms, may be delivered in many ways at different parts of the
learning process, and may be provided by different individuals. The nature of the
behavior that is the focus of the feedback may also impact feedback effectiveness
(Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004). Van Houten (1980) organized attributes of
feedback into three categories: the nature of the feedback, the frequency and whether
the feedback is delayed or immediate), and who delivers the feedback (peers or
supervisors). Within these categories, feedback can be studied on numerous
dimensions or attributes (Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004).
44
According to Scheeler, Ruhl, and McAfee (2004), the nature of feedback
includes feedback content (e.g., what is delivered), and the means or medium
through which it is delivered (e.g., verbal, narrative, checklists, formal, informal,
etc.). Some content attributes may be used in combination with others, so it is
important to identify what is already known to be effective and look for ways to
become even more so. Corrective feedback (e.g., feedback that identifies the type
and extent of errors, and provides specific ways to correct them) is considered to be
one of the most useful tools for well-learned errors because it demonstrates correct
responses. If one way of providing feedback is more effective than another, it should
be identified and used consistently (Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004).
It is also important to consider the chronology of feedback, including
frequency and timing. Scheeler, Ruhl, and McAfee (2004) acknowledged that
teachers are influenced by the same behavioral principles as the students they teach,
and they therefore suggested that the frequency of feedback by supervisors to
teachers should be studied to determine how to apply this principle in teacher
training. Ideally, immediate feedback prevents teachers from committing errors that
might otherwise go uncorrected with more delayed feedback. Feedback can take the
form of positive reinforcement (i.e., praise) as well as error correction. If
reinforcement is not immediate, it is possible that a superseding behavior will be
reinforced instead. Just as timing and frequency are critical dimensions of
reinforcement, they are also important in attempts to change a teacher’s behavior
through feedback (Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004).
45
The role of the person delivering feedback is the final dimension. Feedback
may be delivered to teachers by administrators or peer coaches. The traditional
person delivering feedback to teachers is the school site administrator. However,
through collaboration, teachers may provide each other with peer feedback. This
will be discussed in the next section.
Collaboration (teachers providing feedback to each other).
Teachers can provide feedback to each other through collaboration during
staff development and through the model of Professional Learning Communities.
Staff development.
Engaging teachers in meaningful staff development is one way Marzano
(2003) proposed to address the issue of professionalism. Although many schools
have regularly scheduled staff development meetings, much of the content and
activities are not necessarily meaningful or useful in terms of impacting student
achievement. Citing Judith Little, Marzano notes, “…Professional development
must be constructed in ways that deepen the discussion, open up the debates, and
enrich the array of possibilities for action. Marzano also cites a survey of 1,000
teachers revealing features of staff development with the strongest relationship to
reported change in teacher behavior. Garet, Porter, Desmone, Birman & Yoon
(2001) learned that staff developments should focus on content knowledge, provide
opportunities for active learning, and there should be an overall coherence of the
staff development activities.
46
Even in other countries, staff development is a huge part of teacher
education. In Japan, beginning teachers must receive a minimum of twenty days of
in-service training during the first year on the job. Their staff development activities
employ hands-on efforts to change specific lessons and units (Stevenson & Stigler,
1992, as cited in Marzano, 2003). To transfer some of the practices to the United
States, Stevenson and Stigler recommend that:
Teachers organize themselves into teams based on common interests of
issues in teaching their subjects. Then, they systematically employ specific
techniques in the context of specific lessons and observe each other doing so.
They provide each other feedback regarding what worked well and what
could be changed in these trial lessons. Finally, they capture and archive
collective knowledge gained from these efforts for others to build on
(Marzano, p. 67).

Professional learning communities.
Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) provide a way to ensure ongoing
professional development within schools. According to DuFour (2004), there are
three “big ideas” that represent the foundational principles of professional learning
communities that can guide a school to changing its culture for increasing academic
achievement: ensuring that students learn, a culture of collaboration, and a focus on
results.
The first big idea is that PLCs are based on the assumption that the mission of
formal education is to ensure that students learn. To stay on target, all school
personnel must be involved in inquiring about what they want each student to learn,
how they will know when each student has learned it, and how they will respond
when students experience difficulty in learning. Responses to students who
47
experience difficulty should be timely, based on intervention (rather than
remediation), and directive, requiring students to devote extra time and receive
additional assistance until they have mastered the necessary concepts.
The second big idea of PLCs is creating a culture of collaboration in which
educators realize they must work together to achieve their collective purpose of
learning for all students. Hanson (2001) explains that every school has a unique
culture that is shaped around a particular combination of feelings, beliefs, and values.
It emphasizes what is of ultimate importance to them as they strive to develop their
knowledge base in a particular direction (such as increasing student achievement)
(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Trice and Beyer (1991) explain that human
cultures grow from and reside in the expressive side of human behavior. Over time,
through social interaction and behavior, people develop shared understandings about
how to cope with and manage the uncertainties they face, which are derived from
and are validated by experience. Ideas come to be invested with strong emotions to
the extent that they seem successful. People need some sense that they understand
how the world works in order to behave relatively confidently and consistently
within it. By providing this sense of understanding, cultures help to motivate people
to continue to exert effort in socially acceptable behaviors toward collectively
defined ends. To make cultures concrete and keep them vital, members of cultures
repeatedly communicate and affirm their shared understandings. The kind of
collaboration that characterizes PLCs is a systematic process in which teachers work
together to analyze and improve their classroom practices. Teachers work together
48
in teams, engaging in the process of inquiry, an ongoing cycle of questions, that
promote deep team learning, leading to higher levels of student achievement
(DuFour, 2004).
The last big idea of PLCs is for teachers to judge their own effectiveness on
the basis of their students’ results. Working together to improve student
achievement becomes routine, every teacher team participates in an ongoing process
of identifying the current level of student achievement, establishing a goal to
improve the current level, working together to achieve that goal, and providing
periodic evidence of progress by way of common formative and summative
assessments.
Peer coaching, in a sense, is a part of professional learning communities. It
has been described as a process in which teams of teachers regularly observe each
other and provide support, feedback and assistance in order to help improve or refine
instructional practice (Mallette, Maheady, & Harper, 1999). When evaluation is
eliminated as a purpose of supervision, as is done in some peer coaching models, it is
possible to have a learning environment that is unlikely in more traditional
supervisor systems (Showers, 1985). Comparing the impact of feedback as a
function of the role of the person providing the feedback may produce some practical
implications for providing more frequent and effective feedback (Scheeler, Ruhl, &
McAfee, 2004).
Tableman and Herron (2004) support the previous research in that they
maintain that an academic environment that promotes learning and self-fulfillment
49
can be an outcome of teachers who strive to enhance the school climate. Teachers
support learning when:
• There is an emphasis on academics, but all types of intelligence and
competence are respected and supported.
• Teaching methods respect the different ways children learn.
• Expectations are high for all students. All are encouraged to succeed.
• Progress is monitored regularly.
• Results of assessments are promptly communicated to students and
parents.
• Results of assessments are used to evaluate and redesign teaching
procedures and content.
• Achievemetns and performance are rewarded and praised.
• Teachers are confident and knowledgeable.
Conclusion
Beachum et al. (2008) quote, “Urban schools and the children who attend
them languish under third world-like conditions, even as [the president] boldly
promises to ‘leave no child behind.’ Millions of dollars from private and public
sources are spent in the name of reform and restructuring, and an entire industry of
education experts has been created to go about the work of improving America’s
schools, but the situation in inner-city schools remains largely unchanged” (p. 191).
While many high poverty schools in the United States of America are
underperforming, there are small pockets of high poverty schools that are attaining
50
high student academic achievement. As previously discussed in Chapter one,
90/90/90 Schools, Springboard Schools, and Beat the Odds schools are just a few
successful schools that are closing the achievement gap. However, considering the
number of schools in America that are high poverty, these successful schools are few
and far between. There is still a limited amount of research regarding what works in
high poverty, high performing schools, especially with respect to the link between
leadership and achievement.
Marzano (2005) helps to contribute to what we do know regarding
leadership, as he discusses the 21 responsibilities of leaders and their correlations
with student achievement; including communication with and among teachers and
students, building culture by way of fostering shared beliefs and a sense of
community and cooperation, involvement and knowledge of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment, and monitoring / evaluating the effectiveness of school practices and
their impact on student learning. He emphasizes the shared collective responsibility
of leadership in order to ensure that all of the leadership duties can get carried out in
a school.
DuFour also contributes to the importance of collective leadership:
When educators do the hard work necessary to implement these
[collaborative] principles, their collective ability to help all students learn will
emerge. Initiating and sustaining this work requires discipline if schools are
likely to be effective. When educators commit to and persist within the
professional learning community process, increased student achievement is
likely (DuFour, 2004).

51
The intent of this study was to investigate the leadership structures and
systems that are in place to impact collective efficacy in high poverty, high achieving
schools based on the contributions of the literature reviewed in this chapter.
52
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Current research on essential school factors alludes to the importance of
effective leadership to impact academic achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996;
Hoachlander, Alt, & Beltranena, 2001; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom,
2004; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; MCREL, 2005; Waits et al., 2006).
Matsumoto and Brown-Welty (2009) determined that effective leadership was found
to be an important factor for student achievement and school success. They
concluded that common contributors to student success in high performing, high
poverty schools included a focus on improving instruction, setting standards, and
raising expectations, in which school leaders maintained a school-wide focus on
instruction and high expectations, and capitalized on strengths of teachers to enhance
student outcomes.
Chapter three will provide the research design, define the sample, population,
and participants, explain the theoretical and conceptual frameworks, and explain the
data collection methods and ethical considerations of the study.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate the leadership structures and
systems that impact academic achievement in high poverty, high achieving schools.
For this study, the school-wide structures are identified as the institutional
mechanisms, policies and procedures implemented by federal, state, or district
53
mandates implemented at the school site. Systems are identified as the use of
resources such as instructional time, personnel, funds, or facilities, at the school site
that ensure a school’s mission, vision, and goals are met. Specifically, this study
identified the systems and structures implemented by principals and teachers to
ensure proficient student achievement in a high poverty school.
This study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived school-wide systems and structures that contribute
to high achievement in high poverty schools?
2. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support
higher levels of student achievement?
3. How do principals build collective efficacy to impact student
achievement at high poverty, high performing schools?
Research Design
The research design for this study was a purposeful sample using one case
study school to gather and analyze qualitative data. In order to investigate the real-
life systems and structures impacting high academic achievement in a high poverty
school, a case study allowed for the exploration and explanation of any phenomena
(Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007; Merriam, 1998). According to Patton (2002), qualitative
case studies provide in-depth descriptions of individuals, groups, and interventions
with great attention to detail.
Furthermore, Merriam (1998) explains that qualitative case studies provide
rich data for analysis. As the systems and structures that make up a climate of
54
academic achievement are intricately complex, it was necessary to interview school
personnel and observe them in their daily operations in order to get a sharp image of
what really works.
This study was strengthened by the triangulation of data sources, which
substantiated the collected evidence and “cross-data validity checks” (Patton, 2002,
p. 248).
Sample and Population
Specific criteria were established to identify a single high poverty, high
achieving elementary school for this case study. This section will summarize the
selection criteria, sampling procedures, participants, and an overview of the district
and school.
Rationale for a Single School Sample
The purpose of choosing Sunshine Elementary School for a case study design
was to develop a deeper understanding of the phenomena of high achieving, high
poverty schools with regard to collective leadership and collective efficacy. This
case study may provide a basis for identifying systems and structures that may help
to increase student achievement in similarly high poverty schools. In addition, it
may provide a foundation for developing educational interventions, and it will
continue to add to the currently limited research base linking leadership to student
achievement.
55
Selection Criteria
The sample for this study focused on one elementary school located within
one southern California school district. Selection was made based on purposeful
sampling so that the information rich cases could provide “insights and in depth
understanding” (Patton, 2002, p. 230). The selected sample consisted of an
elementary school site that has met the criteria set forth by a thematic dissertation
group. The established selection criteria for indentifying a high poverty high
achieving elementary school for this case study included:
• API Scores of 750 or above with evidence of consecutive API growth
over the past three years
• School met their API Target for the 2008 – 2009 school year
• Similar Schools ranking of 8 or above
• School-wide Title I with at least 40 percent or more of the student body
qualifying for the Free and Reduced Lunch program (qualifying for “high
poverty”)
• A student enrollment of 500 or more
Sampling Procedures
Finding high poverty, high performing schools to meet our rigorous criteria
was not an easy task. The thematic group began sampling from a variety of
websites, including the California Department of Education (CDE), Great Schools,
Ed Data, and School Digger. Each website contained relevant data for the selection
of the case-study school, including API scores, school demographics, student
56
ethnicities, Title I Status, and participating Free and Reduced Lunch program
percentages. The case-study school was selected based on meeting the criteria for
being both high poverty and high achieving, narrowed by the information provided
from the variety of websites, and through contact with the schools’ principals. The
researcher was able to identify a school that provided valuable insight into the
systems and structures within the school to support effective leadership structures for
building collective efficacy.
Participants
Sunshine Elementary School
This study involved the site administrator, school psychologist, Resource
Specialist, six general education classroom teachers, and clerical staff at the school
site. Participation was voluntary, and only staff that was willing to be interviewed
and observed were part of the study. The school staff had varying years of
experience at the school site (Table 1). A total of 11 faculty and staff members
participated in this study.
57
Table 1: Participants in Study

Position Years at Sunshine
Principal (former) 3
Principal (current) < 1
Kindergarten Teacher 22
Second/Third Grade Teacher 11
Third Grade Teacher 22
Fourth Grade Teacher 20
Fifth Grade Teacher 6
Fifth Grade Teacher 26
Sixth Grade Teacher 12
Office Manager 11
School Custodian 2

Overview of the District and School
Sunshine Elementary School is a K-6 Elementary School in Orange County,
California. During the 2008 – 2009 school year, it maintained an enrollment of 658
students, 45.1% of whom were English Language Learners and 53.2% of whom
qualified for the Free / Reduced Price Meal program. Sunshine Elementary School
has a School-wide Plan for Title I, receiving special federal funding for support
programs and staff.
58
Table 2: Special Programs at Sunshine Elementary School

School District

Number of
Students
Percent of
Enrollment
Percent of
Enrollment
English Learners 297 45.1% 54.4%
Free / Reduced
Lunch Price Meals
350 53.2% 71.1%
Title I
Yes, School-
wide Plan
N/A N/A
Source: California Department of Education

The majority ethnicities at Sunshine Elementary were Hispanic (51.5%),
White (18.8%) and Asian (16.7%) (Table 3, Figure 1).
Over the past four years, Sunshine Elementary School has exceeded their
base API scores, showing consistent growth over time. In addition, Sunshine has
consistently outperformed the district in overall API scores over the past four years,
as well (Table 4). In 2008 – 2009, Sunshine Elementary received a Similar Schools
Ranking of 10; each rank has a10% of the 100 most similar schools, where 1 is the
lowest and 10 is the highest.

Table 3: Student Ethnicity

African
American
American
Indian Asian Hispanic White
Sunshine
Elementary
2.3% 0.3% 16.7% 51.5% 18.8%
District 3.1% 0.2% 10.9% 67.4% 10.4%
Source: California Department of Education
59

Figure 1: Sunshine Elementary School compared to District Ethnicities

Table 4: API Results and Similar Schools Ranking

2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009
API
Score
Similar
Schools
Rank
API
Score
Similar
Schools
Rank
API
Score
Similar
Schools
Rank
API
Score
Similar
Schools
Rank
Sunshine
Elementary
815 8 818 10 841 9 855 10
School
District
727 743 771 798
60
Maxwell (2005, p. 33) defines a theoretical framework as “the systems of
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs
your research.” Among the literature reviewed in this study, particular concepts,
terms, definitions, models, and theories have shaped the framework in order to
generate the problem of the study, formulate the specific research questions, select
appropriate methodology for collecting data and analysis techniques, and provides
insight as to how the findings were interpreted (Merriam, 2009).
The conceptual framework, designed by the thematic group, was based on
Mc David and Hawthorn’s Logic Model (2006). The Logic Model was created to
assess the effectiveness of a program, or in this case a school (Figure 2). The logic
Model has 6 parts: 1) needs 2) objective 3) input 4) activities 5) output 6) actual
outcomes. The need is based on closing the achievement gap between high poverty
and low poverty schools. The objective is to actually close the achievement gap in a
high performing high poverty school. The input consists of the perceived and
observed structures of the school, from policies, such as NCLB and State Standards,
to decisions and documents, such as the school site plan and structures of leadership,
that guide the daily operations of the school. The activities within the study are the
systems that are implemented within the structures of the school to aid in increasing
academic achievement, such as professional development and staff collaboration.
The focus, or output, of this study was the facilitation of collective efficacy for
creating a culture of academic achievement. Finally, the actual outcomes are the
impact that the structures and systems have on the output.
61
The goal in assessing a program is to confirm that the outcomes have met the
objective of the program. If the outcomes have met the objective, the program is
labeled effective. In the case if this study, we have defined the school as highly
effective because the outcomes of the school (the API) have shown that the school
has met its objective (high performing). This study focuses on the structures and
systems of the school to identify what works in leading to the outcome of high
performance in a high poverty school.

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework
62
According to Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2004), there is an undeniable
relationship between teachers’ sense of efficacy and perceived collective efficacy,
providing evidence that organizational socialization often involves the
communication of normative expectations that can be hugely influential in impacting
student achievement. The mutual influence relationship (a strong sense of collective
efficacy enhances teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs while weak collective efficacy
beliefs undermine teachers’ sense of self efficacy) helps explain the consistent
finding that perceived collective efficacy is an essential factor in the attainment of
the organizational goals of the school (namely, increased student achievement).
Furthermore, research suggests that when teachers are empowered to influence
decisions that are instructionally relevant to the school, they are likely to be more
confident in the capability of their staff to educate students than if the teachers were
given less control and participation in making decisions that affect them
professionally.
Figure 3 summarizes Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy’s (2004) initial conceptual
model that shows the hypothesized formation and influence of collective efficacy
beliefs in schools. This model demonstrates the social cognitive underpinnings of
collective efficacy belief research and suggests several areas for future research. A
clearer understanding of the outcomes of perceived collective efficacy possesses a
potential to extend our understanding of how to improve the culture of a school.
In sum, Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2004) believe that the study of collective
efficacy beliefs “provides an opportunity to understand organizational culture and its
63
influence on participants and group outcomes in new ways that hold promise for
deeper theoretical understanding and practical knowledge concerning the improved
function of organized activity, particularly schooling.”

Figure 3: Theoretical Framework. A proposed model of the formation, influence,
and change of perceived collective efficacy in schools (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy,
2004).

Methods
This study used three types of methods for data collection: semi-structured
interviews, observations, and document collection. Participants were provided with
an explanation of the interview and observation process and assured confidentiality.
Informed consent forms were signed prior to each interview. Interviews contributed
to the study as the primary source of data, while observations were conducted to
reinforce the data from the interviews. Documents provided by the school and
64
available for public access provided additional information to triangulate the data.
According to Merriam (2009), triangulation increases internal validity through the
use of multiple sources of data. Any and all information collected can be confirmed
or disconfirmed through these various sources. The consistencies and
inconsistencies found in the data through the multiple methods via triangulation
allows for a richer analysis (Patton, 2002). Data was collected from September to
November, 2010.
Data analysis was completed according to Creswell’s Model for Data
Analysis (2003) (Figure 4). Data was first recorded through scripting or digital
recording. All digital recordings were transcribed. Data was then coded and
analyzed for emerging themes, in which meaning was extracted from the data.

Figure 4: Creswell’s Model for Qualitative Data Analysis (Creswell, 2003)
65
Semi-structured Interviews
The intent of the interview process is to allow an open-ended exploration of
the instructional process and the school site. The interviews will be semi-structured
with probing questions, and will last 30-45 minutes each. One or two interviews will
be conducted for each participant. Potential school personnel to be interviewed are
administrators (principal and assistant principal), school counselor, five to seven
teachers (preferably teachers either on a leadership team or department chairs), and
key classified personnel such as the school secretary or instructional aides. All the
participants, administrative, classified and certificated, will be volunteers, and will
be chosen based upon their roles as instructional leaders at the school site.
According to Merriam (2009, p.89), semi-structured interviews should
include a mixture of more and less structured interview questions that enable the
interviewer to be flexible in the direction that the interview goes. While some data is
specifically required from all respondents, and the interview is guided by the list of
questions or issues to be explored, there is no predetermined wording or order. In
other words, the interviewer has a set of predetermined questions but maintains the
flexibility to ask follow-up questions or questions for clarification as needed.
Citing Patton (2002), Merriam also notes that the researcher uses interviews
to find out what is in and on someone else’s mind:
We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly
observe… We cannot observe behaviors that took place at some previous
point in time. We cannot observe situations that preclude the presence of an
observer. We cannot observe how people have organized the world and the
meanings they attach to what goes on in the world. We have to ask people
66
questions about those things. The purpose of interviewing, then, is to allow
us to enter into the other person’s perspective (pp. 340-341).

Following Merriam’s (2009) advice on what constitutes “good questions” and
what kinds of questions to avoid, and taking the research questions into account, the
thematic group developed interview protocols for Administrators (Appendix A),
Teachers (Appendix B), and Classified Staff (Appendix C). A Consent Form
(Appendix G) was distributed to all participants who were interviewed.
Observations
In order to determine how the instructional leaders interact among themselves
and with other school personnel, as well as to corroborate information gained from
interviews, data will also be collected through observations of classroom instruction,
staff meetings, leadership meetings, and principal/staff, staff/staff interactions.
Merriam (2009) also provides information on what to do to maintain accurate
observations. Prior to the interview, the researcher made sure to identify:
• That she was going to be observing the physical setting, participants,
activities and interactions, conversations, subtle factors, and own
behavior.
• That she would try to avoid disruption as much as possible
• That she was using the findings in a doctoral dissertation
• Why and how the school, principal, and teachers were chosen for this
study, and
• That the school, principal, and teachers would stand out as potential
models for what systems and structures are working at their school that
67
might be transferrable to other high poverty schools in order to increase
student achievement.
Patton (2002) explains that when conducting observations, attention should
be made on the setting, social environment, interactions, and activities. Field notes
were tape recorded and transcribed to ensure detail and accuracy of descriptions,
direct quotations, and the researcher’s commentary. The observation protocols were
developed by the thematic dissertation group for Classrooms (Appendix D),
Professional Development and other Leadership Meetings (Appendix E), and a
General Site Observation (Appendix F).
Document Collection and Analysis
Data were collected through the examination of school documents such as the
school plan, the school accountability report card (SARC), and meeting agendas and
minutes, in order to get an overall portrait of the school. According to Patton (2002),
documents can provide information that cannot always be observed through a
historical perspective and a “behind-the-scenes” look at programs and processes.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical practices in setting up and conducting the study were thoughtfully
considered by the thematic group. To ensure ethical means of data collection, the
students adhered to the rules and regulations set forth by the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The essential research principles of
respect for persons, beneficence and justice as described in The Belmont Report
68
further provided ethical guidance for this research study (The National Commission
for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1798).
All participants were asked to sign a consent form (Appendix H) that
provided a description of the research procedure, their purposes, risks and anticipated
benefits, alternative procedures, and a statement offering the subject the opportunity
to ask questions and to withdraw at any time from the research. Participants were
also provided assurance of the confidentiality of their statements and the benefits that
could result from this study. The school and all participants were given pseudonyms
to enhance anonymity.
Conclusion
The methods used to complete this study can and should be replicated for
future validation and to add to the significance of the findings. Chapter four will
discuss the findings from the data analysis in narrative form using the research
questions to organize the data.
69
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
Chapter four presents the findings from a case study of a high poverty school
by identifying the organizational systems and structures that are perceived to
contribute to high levels of academic achievement. In order to learn more about
what organizational structures and systems are in place at high poverty schools, one
elementary school was selected to serve as the subject of this case study.
The population was changing at a school that was successful. The challenge
was to maintain positive movement, to continually change and reflect on teaching
and to not rest on any laurels. They were a school that did very well with their API
but knew they had to keep the climb. The clientele was changing, and in some cases,
there was a lack of sympathy with some of the things that were happening with the
students: living in a hotel or in an apartment with seven other kids. The teachers had
to learn how to balance their high expectations with the unique needs of some
students coming from challenging economic situations.
Sunshine Elementary school is located in Orange County, California and
serves the population of a single urban city. In 2010, it had an enrollment of 658
students, 45.1% of whom were identified as English Language Learners and 53.2%
of whom qualified for the Free / Reduced Price Meal program. Sunshine Elementary
School had a School-wide Plan for Title I, receiving special federal funding for
support programs and staff. The findings in this chapter are based on data from
interviews, observations, and artifacts. A total of 11 interviews were conducted with
70
administrators, teachers, and certificated staff members. Administrator A was the
principal at Sunshine from 2007 – 2010, and Administrator B was in her first year as
principal at Sunshine during the interviews and observations (2010 – 2011 school
year). The following Table 5 describes certificated teachers and classified staff
members who were interviewed at the school.

Table 5: Certificated and Classified Staff

Position Held
Number of Years
in Position at
Sunshine
Total Number of
Years in Education
Teacher A
2/3 Combo (former
1st grade teacher)
11 11
Teacher B Kindergarten 22 22
Teacher C Fifth Grade 26 33
Teacher D Fourth Grade 20 20
Teacher E Fifth Grade 6 10
Teacher F Third Grade 22 22
Teacher G Sixth Grade 12 12
Office Manager Office Manager 11 12
Head Custodian Head Custodian 2 3

Along with five classroom, school, and collaborative meeting observations,
various artifacts which informed the research questions were reviewed and analyzed.
The chapter was organized to present the qualitative data in response to each
research question.
71
Research Questions
This study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived school-wide systems and structures that contribute
to high achievement in high poverty schools?
2. How are the organizational systems implemented and sustained to support
higher levels of student achievement?
3. How do the leadership systems and structures build collective efficacy to
impact student achievement at high poverty, high performing schools?
Data were interpreted and analyzed, and findings were triangulated using
interviews, observations, and artifacts in relation to one another whenever possible.
This methodology served to increase the validity and reliability of the findings. The
findings, presented in direct relation to the three research questions for the study, are
followed by a detailed analysis and discussion.
Data Findings
Research Question 1: School-wide Systems and Structures
The first research question asked, “What are the perceived school-wide
systems and structures that contribute to high achievement in high poverty schools?”
The organizational structures implemented to support school-wide effective
classroom include a climate of achievement, collective leadership, and collective
efficacy. The organizational systems that contribute to high achievement include the
promotion of involvement and knowledge of curriculum, alignment of instruction
and assessments to the standards; communicating a vision, monitoring and providing
72
feedback, and professional development focused on evaluating instructional methods
for improvement, interventions, and teacher collaboration.
As defined in Chapter one and discussed in the Literature Review in Chapter
two, structures are instructional mechanisms, policies, and procedures that are widely
accepted as the official structure of schools that are not subject to change at the local
school site. A climate of achievement, collective leadership and collective efficacy
were thought to be significant structures that enabled the instructional mechanisms to
ensure successful achievement, especially in a high poverty setting. Chapter one
also defines systems as coordinated and coherent uses of resources at the school site
to ensure that school visions, missions, and goals are met. At Sunshine, involvement
and knowledge of curriculum and communicating, monitoring, and evaluating were
two major systems that work within the previously discussed structures to facilitate
high levels of achievement. Within those systems, alignment of instruction to
standards will be discussed, in addition to communicating a vision, monitoring and
providing feedback, and teacher collaboration, which includes professional
development.
In this chapter, structures will be discussed initially, followed by the systems
that operate within them. Table 6 depicts the thematic structures and systems that
will be discussed in this chapter.
73
Table 6: Structures and Systems Perceived to Exist at Sunshine Elementary

Perceived Structures Perceived Systems
1. Climate of Achievement Involvement and knowledge of
curriculum
Alignment of instruction and assessment
to the standards
2. Collective Leadership Communicating a vision
Monitoring and providing feedback
3. Collective Efficacy Teacher collaboration through dialogue
and professional development

Structure 1: Climate of Achievement
Tableman and Herron (2004) posited that the school climate is characterized
by the physical and psychological aspects of the school that are more susceptible to
change and that provide the preconditions that are necessary for learning and
teaching to occur. School climate, then, refers to the “feel” of the school, and has
shown to be a significant aspect of improving academic performance and school
reform. Such a climate should reflect a physical environment that is welcoming and
conducive to learning, a social environment that promotes communication and
interaction, an affective environment that promotes a sense of belonging and self-
esteem, and an academic environment that promotes learning and self-fulfillment.
As a high poverty, high performing school, Sunshine demonstrates a climate that
encompasses all of these beliefs. Throughout the observations, data collection, and
interviews, there was substantial evidence supporting the types of environment that
reflect a climate of achievement through the systems of administrator and teacher
74
involvement and knowledge of curriculum and the alignment of instruction to the
standards.
Involvement and knowledge of curriculum.
There is a commitment to ongoing improvement of knowledge of curriculum
among Sunshine faculty and administration through the implementation of special
programs, consistency among grade levels, instructional strategies based on “best
practices,” support from administration, and the use of data.
Noticeable in Administrator B’s office was her collection of all of the
Language Arts Teacher’s Editions for each grade level. Both administrators
interviewed discussed their involvement and knowledge of the California State
Standards and the instructional practices of their teachers. Administrator A said:
Sunshine’s strength is that it has strong instructors who teach the standards
and have high expectations for the school and the kids. They are very
professional, and they take pride in what they do. It’s a strong instructional
group who collaborate. I have a lot of respect for them.

Administrator A recalled that when initiating new programs, he had to be
conscientious about balancing staff needs. He said, “As a leader, you hear their
concerns. You show that you understand their needs and concerns, but you say,
‘This is what we’re doing!’” Support was provided through coaches who could
model strategies for teachers and through classroom visits. As a staff, essential
agreements were created so that the whole staff could work together to decide what
would be effective instruction and so that they could agree upon what would be
happening in each classroom at the school, by grade level (through literacy dialogues
and collaboration), at leadership meetings, etc. All of the essential agreements were
75
charted, and the staff found five commonalities. So, while Administrator A walked
through classrooms, he could guarantee that he would find at least two or three
agreements happening in every classroom, and in many classrooms, he would notice
all five. He felt that was a way to move the teachers forward and to make sure that
they were seen and heard. As a result, he felt he was then in a position to show them
data, which in his words meant, “Data don’t lie!”
A district priority in the 2009-2010 school year was to target the English
Language Learner population. The data showed that this particular population had
not made sufficient academic progress over the last four years (according to
standardized test scores), that the population of the school was changing, and that the
ELL population was increasing. The district offering the California Reading and
Literature Project (CRLP) training (professional development in literacy and
language instruction) was getting the buy-in from the staff. The staff recognized the
need for improving and fine-tuning their instruction geared toward those students,
which in turn, helped other non-ELL students in the long run, as well. All of the
professional development Thursdays (students are scheduled to leave early every
Thursday so that teachers have time during the school day to collaborate) were
focused on those strategies for the remainder of the year. Administrator A explained
that at the start of the school year, everyone was just beginning to implement what
they were learning at the trainings. He said that by the time representatives from the
District Office visited in the spring, they were very pleased by what they saw in the
way the staff came up with the Essential Agreements. They believed that when they
76
walked around the school, it wasn’t just for show. When the teachers saw that their
data showed a need, they were more willing to work on the strategies, because it
became apparent to them that they did not know how to meet the distinct needs of
the ELL subgroup.
Administrator B, being new to the school for the 2010-2011 school year,
stated that she was facing guiding the teachers through regrouping and re-
familiarizing with increased class size. She highlighted providing support to the
teachers in this area, as she had to reorganize some of the structures that weren’t
needed to the same extent in previous years in order to compensate for this new
change. To assist, she used 50-60% of the Instructional Practices Coach to do
groups for grades 3-6 daily to help students with the transition to the larger class
sizes. She also looked at getting impact teachers who would specialize in Reading /
Language Arts and Math for four hours in the afternoons to have after school
intervention for primary students and an hour beyond that for upper grade students.
By extending the day for the students right “on the bubble” or “intensive” students,
she hoped that those students would be able to move assessment bands.
In looking at past practice, Administrator B noted, “In all of the grade levels,
kids who have been proficient or advanced stay there. The only trend (statewide,
also) is that students often move from “Proficient” to “Basic” between second and
third grade, and that’s the same for [Sunshine].” To combat this trend, Administrator
B showed that she looked at the California Standardized Test (CST) data with each
grade level and counted out how many students needed to be “Proficient” or
77
“Advanced” to meet their AYP target. They deemed students who were “Basic” as
“Critical Care” students and developed academic and behavioral plans for them.
Students who were “Strategic” and “Intensive” had Individual Education Plans
developed, though not necessarily through the traditional formal process.
Administrator B said, “I want us to know before we even get into the CST where the
kids are going to be.”
Other supports continue to be in place, from Standards Plus Intervention Kits
to Instructional Aides who “push in” to the classrooms for English Language
Development instruction and to instruct using the Systematic Instruction in Phoneme
Awareness, Phonics, and Sight Words (SIPPS) program in the primary grades (K-3).
Sunshine’s faculty also know the importance of being involved and knowing
about the curriculum. According to Teacher D, teachers make the curriculum the
best for maximizing student learning. She said:
We’ve had a lot of change in principals, but that hasn’t made a change in
scores. It can make a difference about morale. A poor principal causes the
trickle down theory, starting at the District Office. When teachers are either
being expected to do things that are unrealistic or wrong (not good teaching),
then it sabotages your whole classroom. The personality of the principal can
contaminate a classroom, and you have to prevent that from happening. On
the flip side, you can have a dynamite principal who filters things from the
District Office, and then it’s a great place to come to work, and that trickles
down.

In other words, the administrators who have a strong sense of the curriculum
and want to be involved can not only increase the academic achievement of the
students at the school, but it can also boost morale, which results in an increase in
teacher efficacy and the fine-tuning of instructional practices.
78
Alignment of instruction and assessment to the standards.
Sunshine teachers regularly use data to ensure the alignment of instruction to
and assessment of the standards, whether it is in their grade level collaboration
meetings regarding benchmarked literacy assessments or common assessments in
math. In addition, the faculty, with the help of the administrator, regularly assesses
their progress as collective components of the school. Teachers discussed and
demonstrated alignment of instruction and assessment to the standards.
Evidence of teachers monitoring student work was prevalent and occurred in
different forms via checking for understanding throughout their lessons, using
common assessments, and using technology. While one teacher called on students
randomly during a language arts lesson, another teacher looked for students who
could provide a substantial model for their thinking during a math lesson. In another
class, students approached the Promethean Smart Board and recorded their answers
for the rest of the class against which other students checked their individual
answers. In two of the classrooms observed, the teachers walked around the
classroom to physically check students’ work, and in another classroom, the teacher
sat at the front to model examples on an overhead projector while asking multiple
questions of many students as the lesson progressed. Students were actively engaged
in every classroom visited. School and district benchmarks seemed to be the
primary assessments by which teachers monitored student progress toward
proficiency on state standards (using assessments such as DIBELS fluency,
Beginning Phoneme Segmentation Test (BPST), and Words Their Way). In earlier
79
examples, monitoring student progress toward the standards was not only conducted
by teachers; the administrators also played an active role in ensuring the alignment of
instruction to the standards.
The feeling was one of an overall acceptance of using data among the
Sunshine staff. Teacher D said:
Data is good. I use it in my classroom all the time. I use white boards a lot
to be able to do a quick check. I have kids come to the board all the time,
because that gets kids involved. I check daily with quizzes, little problems,
and chapter tests. Conversations are essential, because that’s how I know
when a student really understands it. Math is easier to assess, because the
kids have to show, explain, and teach the class. That helps me know who I
need to work with. Comprehension requires so much front loading,
especially with vocabulary for ELL students, so I have them use the words in
sentences in class, as homework, etc.

At the start of each lesson observed, the objective was stated as something to
the effect of: “This is what you will know by the end of the lesson. If you don’t
know, you need to tell me.” Objectives are set and explained to the students; they
repeat the objectives back to the teacher; and then, they are revisited throughout the
lesson and again at the end of the day. Teacher D continued, “That’s how students
feel accomplished. They know what is expected of them and they know when
they’ve achieved the objective.” Teachers at Sunshine seem to put a lot of
responsibility on the student, so keeping them engaged, and assessing both academic
standards and the school’s own work habits and citizenship is common practice.
Many teachers provide progress reports, planner checks, or newsletters each week
that require a parent’s signature.
80
All students are assessed on a regular basis. Daily assessments communicate
students’ progress toward the standards, and teachers can decide from there if
students need modifications. The philosophy of Teacher D is that homework is
responsibility, work ethic, and practicing skills. In her class, it won’t be anything
that the students can’t do. She feels like the culture and environment of her
classroom really contribute to getting the kids to feel cared for, which aids in their
buy in and understanding of the concepts being taught. Teacher G explained,
“You’re going to see more success from formative tests than summative tests.” In
other words, regular, ongoing assessment to check for understanding provides the
teachers with more information about individual students and can help guide their
instruction.
Teacher E discussed assessing her individual students. Every student in her
class has three written goals taped to their desks. The first goal of the year is to
reach 25 Accelerated Reader points by March 1
st
. Other goals are created by the
students, such as to improve from 80% to 90% correct on spelling tests. She
encourages her students to create measurable goals for themselves. Initial goals are
communicated to parents during the conference at report card time. The next
conference and report card is based on their goal achievement. In her class, each
student is an individual.
A challenge that a lot of the teachers are facing is that the children do not
have the language support at home. Considering the language on standardized
assessments, such students are not likely to hear words like “analyze” or “evaluate”
81
in other languages. So, if they are not reading at home and gathering vocabulary, it
is essential that the teachers prepare the students as much as possible at school.
The District Office seems to make data driven instruction a clear expectation
of teachers. Access to databases with student information and assessment results is
provided to the teachers and to be called upon at professional development meetings
and during literacy dialogues. Teachers call the students performing at the “Basic”
band as “350s,” knowing that they are close to “Proficient” and putting a lot of time
into those students in order to boost them to the next level. The “200s” are students
with different types of needs. Teacher E explained:
For writing, I don’t just hand it back and tell the student that it’s not their best
work. Instead, I say, ‘Let’s try it again. How can I help you?’ At this
school, we don’t just say, ‘Well, you got a C.’ We all understand that its
indicative that we need to re-teach the skill we were assessing. We hold
ourselves accountable.

Perseverance and flexibility were common themes when discussing
instructional and assessment practices with the teachers and administration. Teacher
B commented, “We have high expectations and high standards. We follow the
California State Standards to help drive our classroom teaching. We’ve had to go
with the flow and change some of our techniques to meet the needs of the kids. One
Kindergarten teacher explained that Kindergarten use to be so loose. Now, it is
about focusing on the curriculum and using worksheets. Currently, there are after
school programs that did not occur before, and there is a push for the students who
get stuck at the “Intermediate” level of language acquisition to try to move them into
becoming “Proficient” at English. One teacher also pointed out that the teachers at
82
Sunshine don’t jump on every new bandwagon. Because of their experience, they
use their successes from the past and build upon that foundation. Each grade level
has their own set of expectations, correlating with the California State Standards,
beginning from Kindergarten where students are expected to be “readers and
writers.” As Teacher D explained, “Education is a business. We have to analyze if
we’re being given a good product or not. In many programs’ totality, there are good
elements. It’s up to us to distinguish those elements and implement them.”
Focused standards based instruction is attributed to high student achievement.
Administrator A said:
Good teaching practices basically lead to student learning. When you look at
data and you see that the teachers focused on vocabulary and utilized
strategies, and that data shows that the students did well, then you know it’s
effective based on the student outcomes.

Teacher E pointed out that the concerted efforts of the entire faculty do not
go unnoticed:
Something really magical must happen in Primary to prepare them [for upper
grades]. They’ve already learned to read and to be a student by the time they
get to me. For the most part, the majority of the kids come prepared to learn.
You totally notice kids who come from other schools or districts. Something
about the discipline of those kids is different.

Structure 2: Collective Leadership
Collective Leadership is evidenced in the staff’s collaborative decision
making. Marzano (2003) noted that leadership is an overarching variable that
impacts the effective implementation of the school-level factors, teacher level-
factors, and the student-level factors that make schools work. Elmore (2000) called
83
for the use of distributed models of leadership as opposed to models that look to the
principal to provide all leadership functions for the school. Considering the variation
of the “Special Teams” committees (Curriculum and Instruction, School Climate,
Staff Advisory, and Essential Services) or the expectation that all faculty and staff
members participate, it is evident that Sunshine Elementary operates on collaboration
through various leadership roles.
In addition to school-wide structured teams, grade level teams work together
in a coherent manner. One team mentioned that they like to get down to business at
their team meetings, because they know once their work is completed, they have
time to have some fun with each other. The camaraderie – along with the sense of
professionalism and responsibility – observed and discussed corresponded with
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) six characteristics of high-quality teams:
1. High performing teams shape purpose in response to a demand or an
opportunity placed in their path, usually by higher management.
2. High performing teams translate common purpose into specific,
measurable, performance goals.
3. High performing teams are of manageable size (between two and twenty-
five people).
4. High performing teams develop the right mix of expertise.
5. High performing teams develop a common commitment to working
relationships.
84
6. Members of high-performing teams hold themselves collectively
accountable.
The teams come into play as an obvious forum for shared decision-making.
However, there are some underlying systems that promote the ability for the teachers
to feel that they have buy-in to the decisions made at Sunshine. Those systems
include having a clear vision that is communicated from year to year, month to
month, and day to day and providing ongoing feedback to one another and to the
students for increasing academic achievement.
Communicating a vision.
Bennis and Nanus (1985, as cited by Northouse, 2007) identify having a clear
vision as one of their four common strategies used by leaders in transforming
organizations. To be successful, the vision has to grow out of the needs of the entire
organization and be claimed by those within it. Also, although leaders play a large
role in articulating the vision, the emergence of the vision originates from both the
leaders and the followers. This is evidenced by the fact that Sunshine has been led
by four different administrators in the last nine years.
As a new principal, Administrator B designed an activity to gain perspective
on the staff’s vision for their students as she began the school year. She asked the
staff what all students needed at Sunshine to perform optimally and achieve
academic success at Sunshine and in life. Staff responses included:
• A quality teacher who puts academic needs of students first
• Motivation
85
• Stress management
• Positive role models
• Positive safe environment
• Parent support and involvement
• High expectations (teachers and parents)
• Self-esteem
• Students feel important to you
• Communication
• Accountability
• Teacher confidence / competence
• Character building
• Student desire to learn
• Desire to teach
• Excellent attendance
• Dental / vision
• Exercise
• Social support
• Flexibility to think on your feet
• Teach the whole child (don’t just go for test scores!)
As a follow up, the principal asked the teachers, in their collaborative groups,
to come up with a slogan or a message they could use to guide their decisions and
actions as they work to help all students reach their potential and achieve academic
86
success in the year ahead. Favorites included: “Every day, every way, we get better,
better, better,” and “Everyone should make a difference everyday.”
She concluded the activity by asking the staff how they would know that they
had a successful year. Responses included that students and staff would feel happy
about their accomplishments; there would be improved scores and behavior; and that
children would be inspired to learn and grow. The culminating phrase all the staff
agreed they would use to guide their practice during the year was, “Students will
show year-long improvement academically, socially, and emotionally.”
The past administrator and the current administrator made it a point to
communicate their expectations for the teachers through their vision for the students.
The teachers communicate their expectations for the students in a variety of ways,
from behavior contracts to positive reinforcement to progress reports and report
cards.
Monitoring and providing feedback.
Braksick (2000) has argued that feedback is one of the most powerful
consequences one can deliver to shape desired performance (Chase & Houmanfar,
2009). Not only is it important for teachers to provide feedback to students, it is also
important for principals to provide feedback to teachers, and for teachers to provide
feedback to each other.
Teacher C indicated that she had worked for 12 different principals in her
career. She noted that each one brings a different style and requires something
different. As a teacher, if you adapt to it, you are fine. If you go against it, it will be
87
different. She said, “I respect a principal that respects my teaching and my teaching
style and appreciates the fact that I’m giving the highest quality education. [I
appreciate someone who] gives me individuality.” The staff at Sunshine has seen
many administrative changes over their tenure but still manages to maintain
continual progress. The staff has felt negativity depending on the principal, but
they’ve also seen negative situations turn positive quickly. They recognize that the
administrator is in charge of the school, and depending on how the principal treats
the staff, there aren’t usually any issues. Teacher F commented:
With the changes in administration, there hasn’t been a lot of consistency.
The right combination of parents and teachers is what makes us continue to
be successful in light of it. This is my third principal in the last five years. I
think it’s hard for us to adjust all of the time. The principal I walked in with
was so diverse from [Administrator A]. [Administrator A] was very hands
on, and he was positive. Even when you know you messed it up, you never
felt like you were getting beaten down.

In spite of the changes, Administrator B credits the monitoring of
achievement and feedback regarding achievement to district leadership. She
describes the previous superintendent as someone who was a strong leader and put
certain belief systems into place, district wide. For example, some schools really
needed the Reading First program. However, to ensure that all schools had
continuity, all schools participated. There was Staff Development for all schools,
shared best practices, instructional practices coaches, Friday meetings, and specific
staff development that contributed to ongoing academic success, especially at
Sunshine. According to Administrator B, “[Success comes from] having a solid
88
base, the enthusiasm and skills of the staff who have embraced [what’s been given
to] them, and the ability to apply the strategies at a high level.”
Throughout the many observations and discussions, the teachers were very
reflective and empowered to really do the best for their students. Beyond having
good intentions, each teacher takes pride in what they do and takes initiative to do it.
Working together as a team, in committees and grade levels, they take on different
school related roles and communicate with one another to improve individually and
collectively.
Teacher G expressed the regularity of ongoing communication with her
administrators. She explained that there are regular evaluations for teachers every
other year or so, unless you have a new principal, in which the new principal usually
wants to evaluate the teachers so that he or she can get to know them. During
Administrator A’s tenure, he felt that teachers who were most effective had a strong
knowledge of the standards and effectively delivered them. Teachers who were not
as strong did not have the same results. He ensured that a coach worked with
underperforming grade levels to monitor their instruction and provide ongoing
feedback for improvement.
Teachers are provided feedback from one another during their Professional
Learning Community (PLC) meetings where they collaborate with one another
regarding lesson planning and pacing and during Literacy Dialogues where they
examine data from assessments and plan and pace accordingly. They are also
provided feedback from parents and provide feedback to parents in the form of
89
papers sent home, twice-per-year teacher conferences, report cards, progress reports,
newsletters, and other daily, weekly, and monthly communication. Teacher C
mentioned that she insists on two-way communication with the parents of her
students. The very second students don’t turn in their homework, she calls the parent
two or three times if that is what it takes to reach them. After that, if the parents are
not following through, she communicates with the child to come to an agreed upon
expectation for completing homework for that individual. With Accelerated Reader,
students are provided with feedback on their progress. They can earn necklaces and
tags to wear with the number of books they’ve read and quizzes they’ve taken. With
the Positive Behavior Intervention System (PBIS) system, students also know how
they are behaving from the positive reinforcements given by the teachers
(certificates, “Do-Rights,” verbal praise, etc.).
Structure 3: Collective Efficacy
It is unclear if the teams share collective leadership because they are
efficacious or if the faculty and staff are efficacious because of their shared
leadership. Either way, it is clear that the faculty and staff at Sunshine feel good
about what they do and know that they do it well; as individuals and as a collective
unit.
Teachers who have high efficacy will work hard to ensure that all students
learn; they set high expectations for all students; they emphasize mastery goal
performance to meet specific standards; and they are more likely to create an
autonomy supportive classroom that encourages students to make choices and take
90
risks, which are associated with greater subject interest and conceptual understanding
(Stevens, To, Harris, & Dwyer, 2008). Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy (2008) define
collective teacher efficacy as the perceptions of teachers in a school that the efforts
of the faculty as a whole will have a positive effect on students. The upper grade
teachers at Sunshine alluded to the fact that many of the instructional aides and
intervention programs were designated for the primary grades because it is so
essential that the students learn the basics as early as possible. Therefore, any
student who was not performing up to the standard expectations needed immediate
strategies and interventions in order to ensure that any gaps were filled before
moving on to the next skills, strategy, or grade level. The Kindergarten teachers,
especially, recognized that they are the foundation for the students at Sunshine and
prided their team as a cohesive unit to guarantee that the students met all of the
benchmarked standards for their grade level. Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2004)
determined that the collective efficacy of the teachers in a school is a better predictor
of student success in schools than is the socioeconomic status of the students. This
was quite evident at Sunshine Elementary School.
The feeling of collective efficacy perpetuates the understanding of how
important collaboration is to ensuring high levels of achievement, which propels the
teachers’ levels of commitment in maintaining frequent and quality collaboration.
Teacher collaboration through dialogue and professional development.
According to DuFour (2004), there are three “big ideas” of professional
collaboration that can guide a school to increasing academic achievement: ensuring
91
that students learn, a culture of collaboration, and a focus on results. At Sunshine
Elementary, there are 40 meetings scheduled for the current school year, alone.
They range from staff meetings to School Site Council (approval of budget
spending), to ELAC (English Language Acquisition Committee for parents of
English Language Learners). Most of the meetings are attended by members who
have volunteered to be on the committee or they have been assigned as an adjunct
duty. The mandatory meetings for the faculty are six site staff development
meetings and eight district staff development meetings. There are many
opportunities for teachers to be involved in the decision-making process or gain
additional training at the school-site and district levels.
The school district supports the professional preparation of its teachers. In
order to provide time for in-services on new materials and teaching methodology, as
well as school level planning for a consistent program, students are dismissed early
every Thursday so that teachers can meet together with their grade level teams, on
school curriculum, committees, or as a whole district staff. The purpose of this time
is for planning and improving school programs. The district claims that it values
professional preparation time, as it helps to ensure effective instruction.
Teacher G described the collaboration calendar:
On Thursdays we get out early at 1:30. We meet from 2:00-3:00. We get
about fifteen teacher days to grade papers, collaboratively plan, or work on
whatever we want. There are some days that are reserved for staff
development at our school site, where we focus on school-wide issues. Last
year, we talked about PBIS. The other days are for district development
where we use the trainer/trainer model. Last year we spent a lot of time on
ELD and CRLP.

92
At the school-site level, teachers meet on a regular basis, in different areas.
The special teams provide another opportunity for shared leadership and decision-
making. There is a team built for strictly talking about curriculum, and one time per
month they come together and discuss what they have learned and what they think
about future endeavors. They provide suggestions for improvement and the staff
decides whether they are going to implement new programs or interventions or not.
Previous staff development days have focused on extensive training for English
Language students, improvements for oral language, the UCI Writing Project,
evaluation of after school clubs, and this year, in particular, Thinking Maps.
Aside from the school-site and district prescribed trainings, many teachers at
Sunshine take advantage of outside professional development, as well. One teacher
observed explained that the lesson she was modeling came from a training she had
recently attended. She was using one of her math blocks to encourage critical
thinking skills through Math Journals. She was very excited not only to see her
training come to fruition but to also see her teaching techniques taken to a new and
improved level. The students were actively engaged and modeling the skills outlined
in the teacher’s lesson objective.
A culture of collaboration is evident at Sunshine. There is a unique sense of
familial support that the teachers provide one another. Teacher G said, “We all
know when kids are not making good choices, and then we problem-solve together.”
Another teacher mentioned that it seems silly now that collaboration meetings are
required. When they are scheduled, they seem forced and superficial. Since the
93
team works as such a tight unit, they collaborate informally together on a regular
basis without the mandatory meetings. The faculty is used to multiple staff
development days and seems to appreciate the variety of occasionally splitting up the
upper grade teachers from the lower grade teachers for vertical articulation and even
meeting at other schools to share best practices with district colleagues. There is an
understanding that personalities can impact the ease of collaboration, but overall,
every team was observed working well together. Because of the common ideal that
all Sunshine teachers are present to teach the children academic and behavior
standards and to see them through their successes and mistakes gives them a
common purpose through which to get the job accomplished.
Most teams reported meeting once per month to discuss curriculum, share
good ideas, talk about activities they wanted to do together, and to make sure they
are on the same page. Aside from discussing what works, many of the teachers
reported that they discuss what didn’t work, their frustrations, and sought advice for
what to do better next time. They frequently discussed student issues with
academics, behaviors, and outside issues, as well. Teacher B said, “Even if there are
challenges, we talk to each other about how to help struggling students, within our
grade level and even with other colleagues from other schools. We don’t water
things down for them. It’s all about improving education.” Collaborative meetings
often occur informally during their lunchtimes. During the Literacy Dialogues, a
partial day substitute is provided so that teachers can be released during the school
day.
94
While the district has asked teachers what they would like to focus on in the
past, there is a current shift towards identifying areas of need at individual school
sites since each school has different issues. Sunshine teams meet three times per
year to set grade level SMART goals, using the data from assessments to drive them.
Common assessments are given and communicated to one another to track student
achievement and plan for future lessons.
Teacher B sums it up best:
Even though we’re all individuals, we come together as a group, wanting and
striving for the same things for the students. Everyone is an individual and
has their own personality. In the end, we know where we want the kids to be.
I think because we’ve been here for so long, we’ve seen a lot of changes,
from administrator to administrator to what the District chose to have as a
focus for us. Each one of us holds our core [beliefs], and if ever things go
awry, it takes a village; we all step in to support one another.

Analysis and Discussion of Research Question One
Major themes were observed at Sunshine Elementary School that came from
the organizational structures and systems that contribute to academic achievement.
The major themes include the promotion of involvement and knowledge of
curriculum, alignment of instruction and assessments to the standards;
communicating a vision, monitoring and providing feedback, and professional
development focused on evaluating instructional methods for improvement,
interventions, and teacher collaboration.
Involvement and knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessments was
an emergent theme, as discussed in Chapter two. Having an instructional leader who
is knowledgeable about the curriculum and involved in instructional practice is a
95
good indicator that Sunshine will continue to thrive. According to Marzano, Waters,
and McNulty (2005), school principals should be directly involved in the design and
implementation of curriculum, instruction, and assessment activities at the classroom
level. As defined by their meta-analysis, they found three specific behaviors and
characteristics associated with this responsibility:
1. Being directly involved in helping teachers design curricular activities
2. Being directly involved in helping teachers address assessment issues
3. Being directly involved in helping teachers address instructional issues
(p. 54)
Furthermore, knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment involves
the extent to which the leader is aware of best practices in these domains (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). In addition, as professional experts, the faculty at
Sunshine also demonstrated collaborative involvement and knowledge of curriculum.
Merideth (2007) states, “By recognizing and developing their potential as leaders,
teachers can become authentic contributors in a collaborative learning environment
and change an arduous effort toward school improvement to synergistic energy used
for growth” (p. 12). Both principal and teachers were involved in discussions about
and observed being involved in and having knowledge of curriculum.
Monitoring and Providing Feedback was also an emergent theme, entailing
communicating a shared vision, professional development, and teacher collaboration
among the faculty, as well as positive interactions between teachers and students and
teachers and parents. Key research findings regarding feedback include the idea that
96
when feedback is corrective in nature, explaining where and why students (and by
extension, teachers) have made errors, significant increases in learning occur
(Walberg, 1999). This was evidenced by the administrator's usage of instructional
coaches to help struggling teachers with the implementation of new programs and by
many of the teachers observed who used immediate feedback throughout their
lessons and as described by their assessment of more substantial assignments
(research reports and essays, for example). As Hattie (1992) explained, feedback has
been shown to be one of the most significant activities a teacher can engage in to
improve student achievement. Providing feedback is a regular practice at Sunshine.
As one teacher described providing students additional opportunities to
correct their mistakes (rather than returning the paper with a C grade on it), research
demonstrates that asking students to continue working on a task until it is completed
and accurate (until the standard is met) enhances student achievement (Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). This practice was both observed and discussed as a
tried and true practice in all grade levels, K-6.
Other researchers describe effective learning as a result from students
providing their own feedback, monitoring their work against established criteria
(Trammel, Schloss, & Alper, 1994; Wiggins, 1993). This was evidenced by both
observations and discussions, as well. The math journals activity was an excellent
way for students to monitor their critical thinking skills against teacher-selected
models. The teacher who incorporated student "clickers" into her class had the
advantage of monitoring student understanding in "real time," and the students really
97
seemed to enjoy using them throughout the lesson. Teachers who encouraged their
students to set goals for themselves and to monitor their progress toward their
individual goals certainly promoted effective learning, just as the grade level teams
who set SMART goals for themselves to guide their focus during the school year
also ensured effective learning.
Scheeler, Ruhl, and McAfee (2004) reviewed literature regarding providing
performance feedback to teachers. They found that attributes of feedback for
teachers fell into three categories: nature of feedback, temporal dimensions of
feedback, and who gives feedback. Only immediate feedback was identified as an
effective attribute, including specific, positive, and / or corrective feedback. Both
administrators interviewed discussed the importance of being visible to the teachers
in order to provide such immediate feedback. Administrator A specifically discussed
his effort to stop by teachers' classrooms and to have a good understanding of who
was implementing the practices and instructional strategies expected of them. On
top of that, he made sure that support was provided to those teachers who appeared
to need it most.
Finally, a culture of learning seems to drive the continuous improvements in
core instructional strategies, best practices, and increased student achievement. It is
unclear exactly when this culture was established, perhaps long before the last chain
of administrators came and went. Conner & Clawson (2002) stated:
If organizations can sense and respond to emerging opportunities, there is a
good chance they will endure. If they can sense and respond to each new
opportunity with greater ingenuity and speed—that is, if they can get better at
getting better—there is a good chance they will bloom. Bruce Henderson, one
98
of the early writers on business strategy, noted that strategy and its
implementation are related to the natural system of evolution and survival of
the fittest. His argument—that organizations, like organisms, must adapt or
die—is perhaps even more poignant today.

It seems as if Sunshine Elementary has done more than just adapt to the
needs of their changing student body; they have done it quickly and intelligently,
making learning the central part of their strategy for survival and growth. As the
leaders and the teachers are learning all the time and applying the right strategies at
the right times, students will continue to achieve at high levels. The collective
efficacy of the faculty and staff, the collective leadership, and the climate of
academic achievement collaboratively yield this culture of learning at Sunshine
Elementary School.
Research Question 2: Implementation and Sustainability of Systems
The second research question asked, “How are the systems implemented and
sustained at a high poverty, high achieving school?” Current research identifies
organizational climate as an essential structure of high levels of achievement, which
can be applied to academic organizations, as well. The climate of academic
achievement was observed at Sunshine Elementary School. The climate of academic
achievement is the collective personality of a school based upon an atmosphere
distinguished by the social and professional interactions of the individuals in the
school for the purpose of attaining high levels of academic achievement (derived
from the definition of an “organizational climate” posed by Deal and Kennedy, 1983
as cited by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty, 2005, p. 89). Research has also shown
that a positive school culture is a product of good use of time, personnel, and
99
resources in a coherent manner. Kannapel and Clements (2005) studied high
poverty, high performing schools that did better than low performing schools on
seven items related to school culture, including:
• School-wide ethic of high expectations for faculty, staff, and students
• Emphasis on academics and instruction
• Systems for regularly assessing individual students
• Collaborative decision making
• Strong work ethic and high faculty morale
• Caring, respectful relationships
• Purposeful recruitment, hiring, and assignment of teachers
As indicated in Table 7, Sunshine Elementary School demonstrated six of the
seven characteristics of a coherent culture, which will be discussed as systems that
have been implemented and sustained to facilitate high academic achievement within
the structure of a Climate of Achievement.
100
Table 7: Sunshine’s Systems of School Culture

Perceived Structures Perceived Systems
Structures and
Systems discussed
by Kannapel and
Clements (2005)
Implemented and
Sustained Systems
at Sunshine
Climate of
Achievement
Involvement and
knowledge of
curriculum
High Expectations
Emphasis on
Academic
Instruction
X
Alignment of
instruction and
assessment to the
standards
Regular Assessment X
Collective
Leadership
Communicating a
vision
X
Monitoring and
providing feedback
Collaborative
Decision Making

Collective Efficacy Strong Work Ethic
& High Morale
X
Caring, Respectful
Relationships
X

Teacher
collaboration
through dialogue
and professional
development
Purposeful
Recruitement,
hiring, &
assignment of
teachers

High Expectations
The organizational systems that support high expectations of all students and
professionals at Sunshine Elementary School include behavior management as a top
priority. Faculty and staff are expected to initiate the Positive Behavior Intervention
System (PBIS) in order to reward students who are behaving appropriately. It is the
school’s position that a safe, secure, and positive learning environment is required
101
for all students to do their best. This includes common school-wide behavioral
expectations, a district-wide uniform policy, standards for student behavior, shared
problem- solving techniques, positive rewards for desired behavior and
consequences for undesired behavior as described in the Parent Handbook.
All around the school, the expectations for each area were posted via student-
created banners. Expectations for the hallways, lunch tables, classrooms, and
restrooms were displayed to remind students of the positive expectations, such as
“Walk!” and “Don’t forget to wash your hands!” All teachers on duty on the first
day of school were instructed to reward positive behavior right from the get-go.
Teachers decided to award a Golden Trashcan (a trashcan painted gold) to the
cleanest classroom and one “Do-Right” award per student, as determined by the
school’s head custodian each week. On the first day of school and on Spirit Days,
teachers wore custom designed T-shirts with the school’s mascot and school-wide
expectations displayed on them. In addition, teachers were provided with lanyards to
hold their school IDs and a pouch full of the “Do-Right” awards with the intent to
hand out at least 20 awards each week for the entire school year.
The school’s Parent Handbook also emphasizes the importance of a safe,
secure, and positive learning environment so that all students can perform their best.
Students are expected to use high standards of personal behavior at all times during
school hours; to develop responsibility for their own actions, cooperation with
others, and a positive attitude toward themselves and the school learning
environment; and to be courteous and respectful to others at all times.
102
It is the belief of the faculty and staff that the majority of the students already
possess the behavioral qualities associated with being a good citizen and a successful
student. These students receive positive rewards for appropriate behavior and
successful school tasks. Teacher A mentioned, “Having the behavior expectations
and consistently enforcing those expectations are rewarding. Having [students] have
something to do all the time [keeps them] constantly on task and not getting into
trouble.”
Emphasis on Academics and Instruction
This emphasis clearly involves leadership from the District down to the
school site. Per the school district website, the district goals and priorities for the
2010-2011 school year included refining their approach to ELD instruction,
continuing the implementation of RtI (Response to Instruction), and assisting
principals in their effort to support teachers while holding them accountable for high
quality instruction. Furthermore, the district made it clear that writing would be this
year’s number one priority, and all teachers would be provided with staff
development opportunities in order to ensure that everyone was supported in the
implementation of their new district-wide writing program.
Sunshine Elementary School faculty and staff repeatedly mentioned that they
had high academic and instructional expectations for the students and for each other.
Teacher B said:
Everything we do is for student achievement – it’s all related. We have good
citizens of the month, dragons of the month (academics), and [Sunshine] ‘Do-
Rights.’ In my classroom, anyone who has been responsible, had excellent
behavior, or turned in all of their homework gets mentioned in the newsletter.
103
The newsletter is a way to communicate to parents what we’re studying for
the week, special events (back to school night, family fitness night, field
trips, etc.), a change in homework, and overall information that I want to
mention.

Not only are the high expectations shared among the staff communicated to the
students, the teachers ensure that parents are kept in the loop regarding the
expectations, as well.
Everyone in the school is dedicated to ensuring that the instructional day is
maintained with fidelity. The office staff provides a school message board for
students in an effort to minimize the times a classroom is interrupted. The board is a
way for students to receive items that were brought into the office for them. If a
parent brings something that the student left or forgot at home, the office makes
every effort to put his/her name on the message board outside the office. It is the
student’s responsibility to check the message board and pick up their item during
their recess or lunch. This way, valuable instructional time is not interrupted with
forgotten lunches or messages to walk home with a friend after school.
Also, in every classroom observed, routines were clearly displayed and
schedules for the day were clearly written so as to communicate expectations to each
student. Thinking Maps were posted in each classroom, as well, as part of the
academic push towards a district-wide program for reading and writing instruction.
Curricular supports were also evident in the form of Focus Walls (reading), Math
posters, Academic Vocabulary, and Science and Social Studies visuals. Students
were engaged, as evidenced by laughing, a positive student / teacher interaction, and
respectful listening and responding.
104
Sunshine Elementary uses many of the latest technological devices in their
classrooms, including document cameras, Smart Boards, and student “clickers” to
increase student interest and to incorporate real-world examples and quick-time
evidence related to the curriculum. One teacher spoke of her teammate as the
“Google Queen,” being able to look up any questions students had on the spot on her
Smart Board and modeling how to find the answers on the Internet.
Administrator A said he made it a priority to come into the classrooms to
give attendance awards and to be out on the playground before and after school and
at recess to promote the behavioral expectations. He said:
For behavior, being out there at recess time [provided me] an opportunity: if
a kid was screwing up, I had the conversation: ‘We don’t do that here, and
I’m disappointed.’ I think expectations were established before I got there.
It’s important to be visible and to make connections with the kids.

In the first staff meeting, Administrator B asked all teachers to make nametags for
their students to wear during the first two days of school so that she would be able to
learn their names. In an interview, she discussed that being visible was also
important for her, not only to be a disciplinary figure but to cheer the students on as
they achieved high levels of learning.
Furthermore, the classified staff works together to ensure that students are
achieving, as well. When interviewing the office manager, she mentioned one of her
responsibilities is to help kids achieve their highest potential, to make the whole
child. She said, “It’s innate [to the whole staff]. It’s built into our system. We all
work together to make each child the best person he or she can be.” She continued
to note that because the staff has a sense of family, and the kids can sense that unity,
105
it comes out in the learning process. She said that she is often involved in
conversations about how “we” can help a particular child become a better person – a
better student – utilizing everything “we” can to “make better people out of these
little guys.”
The head custodian also understands the importance of academics. He
considers Sunshine his home as if he were getting it ready for a party for his closest
family and friends. It is not enough to have things spot cleaned; rather, everything
needs to be immaculate. His philosophy is that kids cannot learn if they are home
sick, so he ensures that the toilets and the drinking fountains, the lunch tables and the
sinks are all sanitized every day to protect the kids from getting sick. He said, “Kids
can’t learn if there are paper towels all over the bathroom floor. That’s just one more
thing that can be distracting.” He believes that having a positive relationship with
the students helps to maintain the expectations that everyone cares about them and
their school and that they should take responsibility to keep it nice. “That way, they
can keep on learning and take advantage of the opportunities they’re given at
[Sunshine].”
Systems for Regularly Assessing Individual Students
Sunshine Elementary School maintains a regular structure for communicating
progress for every individual student. Each grade level provides common
assessments in reading and in math and has regular “Literacy Dialogues” to formally
communicate students’ progress toward those goals. During the Literacy Dialogues,
the principal comes together with grade level teams and coaches to analyze various
106
data on a grade level, individual classroom, and individual student basis. Based on
the conclusions drawn from the data, the teachers plan for the next month until the
next assessments yield new data. Because this is a priority for Sunshine Elementary,
teachers are given substitutes so that these meetings can be held within the regular
school day hours and teachers do not have to sacrifice their personal time outside of
the classroom.
When asked what factors contributed to such high levels of student success,
many teachers mentioned being held accountable for student achievement as one of
the dynamics. Teacher A noted that assessment data is a huge part of ensuring
success for students. “We talk about ‘data’ in a non-threatening way for Literacy
Dialogues, even though we are compared to each other as far as test scores.” The
systematic collection of student data from common assessments seems to have its
advantages and disadvantages. While many teachers interviewed were proponents
for this system, one teacher had a different view: “[The district] doesn’t understand
the importance of controlling the variables when we use data [from the electronically
scored assessments]. There’s something to be said for hand-scoring tests to analyze
whether it’s a careless mistake or a misunderstanding of the concept.” Regardless of
the assessment method, Sunshine teachers clearly use student data to drive their
instruction.
In addition, the Student Study Team (SST) process is used to identify
students’ individual strengths, known information, modifications already taken, areas
of concern (academic, social-emotional, attendance), suggested strategies for
107
interventions, and action plans holding the student, teacher, support staff, and parent
all accountable for the improvements. SSTs are held, as needed, at the
recommendation of a teacher. There is a four-member team of teachers who help
brainstorm possible strategies and actions for those involved.
Students at Sunshine know when they’re doing well, because the staff makes
it a priority to provide feedback to students after assessment, whether it is formal or
informal, formative, summative, or cumulative. From verbal praise to pats on the
back, students are intrinsically and extrinsically rewarded when they make progress.
One teacher provided individual student pockets on the backs of their chairs
containing goals that the students created and the teacher modified as needed. These
goals were shared at Parent-Teacher conferences and are adapted as students reach
their goals. Another teacher regularly pulls small groups of students whom she
knows will need extra support with the basics before they can feel good about
themselves and move on to the next level of application of skills.
Collaborative Decision-Making
Collaborative decision-making was observed and discussed at Sunshine with
regard to grade-level decisions and school-wide decisions. Teacher B discussed that
her grade level team has daily meetings at lunch at the start of the school year. She
said:
Usually, we do overall team planning – what we’re going to be teaching for
the week or starting a unit. We try not to be on the same page but in the same
vicinity for each subject area. Lately, because we’re starting to group kids
for intervention, that takes a lot of planning and time. Later [in the school
year], we usually move to at least once per week at lunch with planned
teacher day meetings.
108
While other teams do not meet as frequently, they absolutely discuss students and
their academic and behavioral progress. At the beginning of the year staff meeting,
many teachers were observed discussing former students with their new teachers,
providing valuable background information about students’ family situations,
academic concerns and praises, and behavior management tips.
School-wide, it is the current administrator’s belief that all staff members are
essential and contributing individuals of the school. In addition to the grade level
representatives who serve on the Leadership Team, all faculty and staff members are
encouraged to provide valuable input regarding critical issues affecting school life.
To facilitate this process, staff members are encouraged to join a team of interest.
Certificated staff members are requested to sign up for one team that meets on
Mondays (in lieu of a second Monday staff meeting). Grade levels are asked to
ensure representation at all Monday team meetings. Classified staff members who
are still on campus on Thursdays at 1:45 are requested to attend the Essential
Services Team. All staff members are always welcome to attend additional team
meeting if they choose to do so on a strictly voluntary basis. Meeting agendas are
sent out electronically to all employees prior to each meeting. Highlights from the
meetings are also sent out electronically. The intent of these special committees are
to focus on school-wide systems in a given area. Faculty and staff are asked to
consider committees that they are passionate about or that they have not tried before
each year.
109
The committees include a Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction Team; a
School Climate Team; a Staff Advisory Team; and an Essential Services Team. The
teams are described in Table 8.

Table 8: Sunshine Leadership Committees

Team Purpose Duties
Curriculum, Assessment,
and Instruction Team
(CAIT)
CAIT’s purpose is to support
classroom instruction and the
implementation of programs
and structures designed to
meet the needs of Sunshine
students
Intervention, Instructional
Resources, Assessment
School Climate Team
(SCT)
SCT’s purpose is to promote
a positive school climate
through the integration of
programs and services
PBIS, Social Committee,
PAL, Student Council
Staff Advisory Team (SAT) SAT’s purpose is to ensure
effective and efficient
operating procedures.
Current Issues, Emergency
Procedures, Safety,
Scheduling,
Communications
Essential Services Team
(EST)
EST’s purpose is to ensure
that all students flourish and
learn at their potential.
Attendance, Hearing,
Vision, Dental Screenings,
Health, Nutrition, Special
Needs, SST Process

The collaborative decision-making process is nothing new at Sunshine. It has
been a transformative process for the last few years. Administrator A believed that
in his tenure (2007 – 2009), he built a climate of mutual respect. “I don’t feel like I
ever disrespected my office manager, custodian, kids, or teachers. I tried to have that
climate out there – a positive climate. I found that the climate had high
110
expectations.” Due to the high expectations for behavior, academic progress, and for
teacher collaboration, the Sunshine staff is able to continue working together for the
benefit of good instruction.
Strong Work Ethic and High Faculty Morale
The faculty and staff at Sunshine exude both strong expectations for their
students and for each other. Teacher D claimed, “[Sunshine] is high achieving!
We’re the best school in the District, and we have a top-notch staff!” Another
teacher mentioned, “The kids see us as a united front.” Several factors impact the
staff’s work ethic and morale, including their expertise in the field of education, their
various roles as teacher-leaders, their dedication to learning, and their
professionalism.
The average experience of teachers at Sunshine Elementary School is 17.9
years. All teachers have at least a Bachelor’s Degree plus 30 post-baccalaureate
units, suggesting that every teacher employed at Sunshine has taken continuing
education classes for credit at some point in their career. Of the 30 teachers
employed, 12 have Master’s Degrees, and 9 have Master’s Degrees plus another
additional 30 post-baccalaureate units. Figure 5 demonstrates the teacher levels of
education at Sunshine Elementary School.
111

Average Experience: 17.9 years; no first or second year teachers
Figure 5: Teacher Levels of Education

Many interviews illustrated the sense of pride each of the teachers has for the
work they do and for the work of their colleagues. Teacher C said:
Almost every teacher here goes above and beyond their job quota for the
children. I run a 7:30 math club every morning. We have a lot of
challenging children that need the extra help. [We all work] lots of hours
before and after school to get the work done and to make interesting lessons.
I have a working lunch, too.

Teacher B insisted, “What helps us are our years of experience. We just know what
to look for, what stands out. Then we can pick each others’ brains.”
Teacher F said:
The grade levels themselves are strong. The people that work within the
grade level… have really good ideas and can bounce them off of each other.
The teachers have been professional and the staff is really professional. To
112
bond, we take our Friday lunch together and make it not about school. We go
off campus to go to lunch.

In every classroom observed, the teachers were actively involved in
facilitating learning among their students. On the playground, the teachers were
laughing and talking to the students, rather than standing in a corner and merely
supervising. It was clear through the discussions and observations that the Sunshine
staff loved working at Sunshine with the students and with each other. One teacher
mentioned that Sunshine was the place that every teacher in the district wanted to
retire, because it is such a happy place.
Caring, Respectful Relationships
Sunshine Elementary has a sense of community that rivals most other
schools. According to the office manager, “My main job is to be the liaison between
the principal, parents, teachers, and students so that we’re all working together to
help kids raise their potential, financially, academically, socially.” With that
attitude, it’s no wonder that the staff, parents, and teachers enjoy caring, respectful
relationships.
Sunshine Elementary School supports professional development
opportunities for staff members to enhance understanding of effective parent
involvement strategies. The school also recognizes the importance of administrative
leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental
participation.
According to the Parent Handbook, the entire school community recognizes
that a child’s education is a responsibility shared by the school and family during the
113
period the child spends in school. To support the goal of the school to educate all
students effectively, the school and parents must work as knowledgeable partners.
Although parents are diverse in culture, language, and needs, they share the school’s
commitment to the educational success of their children. Sunshine Elementary
School, in collaboration with parents, establishes programs and practices that
enhance parent involvement and reflect the specific needs of students and their
families.
In addition to programs at the school level, the school community supports
the development, implementation, and regular evaluation of a program to involve
parents in decisions and practices of the school. Engaging parents is essential to
improved student achievement. Active parent involvement is facilitated by all
faculty and staff members at Sunshine Elementary School.
Teacher B explained:
The parents have high expectations, as well. They assume [Sunshine] is the
best. We were the only GATE school (magnet) for a long time, but that’s
changed. In the last ten years, our [Economically Disadvantaged] kids come
to us with fewer and fewer skills, but we still score higher than everyone else.

When asked how she knows that Sunshine is a high performing school, the
office manager said,
I know first and foremost because the kids are doing so well. Secondly, [I
know], because the parents are happy and make comments that they’re
happy. Third, everyone wants to come to [Sunshine]. They will practically
lie, cheat, and steal to come here! They just know that this is the best school
around. We obviously have the scores. We have children and grandchildren
of others who have gone to [Sunshine], and they come back to beg and plead,
because they know that their kids are going to get the best education. People
know we work hard to keep their kids safe, secure, and in a warm learning
environment.
114
Such caring relationships among the school community definitely impact the
high levels of achievement for the student body.
Analysis and Discussion for Research Question Two
During the data analysis process of Research Question two, systems
implemented at Sunshine Elementary School align with systems and structures of
high performing schools that are grounded in the literature reviewed in Chapter two.
The organizational systems and structures at Sunshine Elementary School were
observed and discussed as coordinated, coherent operations to support high poverty
students.
A theme of promoting a climate of achievement and a culture of learning was
identified within the systems and structures. Kannapel and Clements’ (2005) study
of high performing, high poverty schools found that there were seven items serving
as indicators for how high performing schools were succeeding over low performing
schools based on the school culture, as seen in Table 7. Sunshine Elementary was
observed to have six of the seven characteristics working collaboratively.
Unique to the discussions and observations was a focus on the whole-child.
Due to the economic status of the community, the faculty and staff were attuned not
only to the academic needs of the students but also to the social-emotional and basic
needs of the students. Many teachers referred to having vision and hearing
screenings and basic dental exams as a huge priority at the beginning of the school
year to ensure the overall health of the students as essential to have in place before
learning could take place. The custodian also discussed the health and well being of
115
the students as being his top priority so that they could come to school to learn each
day. The office manager and multiple teachers discussed going beyond teaching the
basic standards and making sure that the students had a good sense of responsibility
and respect beyond scoring high on tests.
When considering the overall well-being of the student, faculty and staff are
not only intending to do what is best for students; they are actually doing it by
satisfying their basic needs so that they are set up for successful learning. The
faculty and staff are demonstrating that they put students first, align resources to
students’ multiple needs, and advocate for a more balanced approach to education. It
seems to be their belief that the students’ health, safety, and connection to school
prepare them to be ready to learn. Many teachers insinuated that having at least one
adult in school who understands their social and emotional needs and attribute that
understanding to their ability to garner high levels of academic achievement.
Students not only have access to academically challenging programs, the bar is set
high for them behaviorally, as well. Because the teachers have command of the
curriculum and management of their classrooms, it is no wonder that the students
demonstrate their learning at proficient (and above) levels.
Research Question 3: Leadership Systems and Structures
for Collective Efficacy
Research Question 3 asked, “How do the leadership structures build
collective efficacy to impact student achievement at high poverty, high performing
schools?” Elmore (2004) describes improvement as change with direction, sustained
116
over time, that moves entire systems, raising the average level of quality and
performance while decreasing the variation among units and engaging people in
analysis and understanding of why some actions seem to work and others don't.
Furthermore, Elmore notes that leaders must create a "common culture of
expectations" regarding skills and knowledge and hold individuals accountable for
their contributions to the collective result. At Sunshine, leadership has been
distributed among groups of collaborative people, including parents and community
members, teachers, support staff (including literacy coaches, psychologists,
counseling interns, the head custodian, the office manager, etc.), and administration
(principal and District). The degree of involvement has varied over time, but the
common culture of expectations has remained a constant.
Parents and Community Member Leaders
Parents and members of the community are perceived to have different
degrees of leadership potential according to who was interviewed. Some teachers
felt that the parent and community involvement was what set Sunshine apart from
other schools in the District, while other teachers who have experienced more
involvement at other schools of employment or at their children's schools felt that the
parent involvement was lacking. Overall, there was a general agreement that as the
community is changing and more families are immigrating into the neighborhood,
the academic expectations remain while familial support may be hard to come by.
Teacher B described, "The parents at [Sunshine] have high expectations.
They assume that [Sunshine] is the best." The office manager supported this
117
acknowledgement by noting, "We have some really good parents here. The school
itself isn't transitory, so people want to be in our school. And, if they're coming from
other schools in the district, they come to [Sunshine]." She spoke specifically of a
family who was desperate to have their second grader come from another school
district and generally of families who remain in the neighborhood of the school for
multiple generations. Teacher A said, "Parents that we have here want their kids to
be here. They might move to the neighborhood or lie about their address. It just
shows that they recognize that it's the best of all the schools."
Many teachers discussed the challenges of teaching so many diverse students.
For example, Teacher A explained that the Hispanic parents might feel intimidated
or uncomfortable communicating with the teacher. However, having a community
liaison has helped close the communication gap. In the past, Sunshine has employed
a bilingual Spanish liaison. Recently, they hired a Vietnamese liaison to help the
parents feel more comfortable at asking questions and getting involved. If teachers
need anything translated or want to make a phone call home, the liaisons can assist.
Administrator B has recently set up a new parent volunteer program, meeting every
Thursday in the Teacher's Lounge. She has made a commitment to be there to
supervise for the first few meetings. Most of the teachers noted having a parent
volunteer or two whenever they needed them.
As the district and Administrator A pushed for better EL instructional
practices among the teachers, they really started to focus on their changing
community makeup. Teacher F commented:
118
The culture [of our students] is significant. Those who are in that group of
poverty are immigrants from a distance, like Romania and Vietnam. Because
they know that they are not returning to their home countries, they have a
dedication to their learning that we don't always see.

Teacher B attributes the maintenance of the high expectations to the core of houses
in the school community. She said:
We do have a core of houses (a lot of apartments and motels, too), but [the
majority of our families are] people who have been here a long time, so we
don’t have a huge transiency even if there are 3 families living in one house.

Teacher C noticed that the SES climate has changed dramatically. She
pointed out that there has been a definite change in the family unit; that now, she's
dealing with more parents who don't have a high school education or language
difficulties or parents who aren't able to help their children at home. Now, it seems
that more of the parents cannot assist their kids, so kids come to school without the
typical toolbox of resources, there is no after -school care at home, and they don't
have a good idea of how the American school system works.
In the district, many schools do not have an active PTA. While Sunshine's
may seem small in comparison to other higher SES schools (a core of about 10
parents), the parents who are involved make up a mighty supportive force. Teacher
F mentioned, "The current group of parents wants the teachers to feel good, so they
decorate our lounge for holidays; they bring us lunch; and last year, we each got a
case of paper." Regardless of their numbers, they show that they appreciate the
teachers and are there to support them. This seems to definitely increase the teacher
morale and provide them fuel to keep working hard to support the many students
119
they work with each day. Teacher F said, "Once the parents know you're not going
to give up on their kid, they start stepping up."
The community also supports the school's achievements. [Achievement
Academy] is an organization that comes on campus to help students after school.
They provide homework help, and they get the students involved in school and in the
community by participating in food drives, going off campus to participate in
activities with other students from other schools, and facilitating sports activities.
According to the office manager, "Parents feel much more comfortable now that we
have this group to come on campus and to be involved in school." Also, Sunshine
has accepted involvement from the YMCA to get students involved in additional
activities outside of school. The head custodian also mentioned the music after
school program, provided by the school district. According to him, the staff is
always trying to get the high numbers in test scores, but they know that academics
aren't everything. So, they try to provide the students with opportunities to
participate in sports and in musical activities. The teachers have been able to speak
with the staff from both programs and provide input for ways to support the students
in their academics and social development.
The teachers push hard to keep up as much parent involvement as they can.
They have Back to School Night approximately four weeks after the start of the
school year, explaining all of the routines, expectations, and behaviors for the school
and individual classrooms. Since there are so many large families, they split up their
talks into two sessions. At that time, parents can also sign up for parent-teacher
120
conferences. Taking the time to front load the parents shows them the importance of
showing up for conferences. Teacher B estimated that about 95% of the parents
participate in conferences.
Teacher Leaders
Due to the vast experience of the teachers at Sunshine, they have individually
held a variety of leadership positions. Some include:
• Coordinated Liaison
• CELD Testing Coordinator
• ELL Coordinator
• School Site Counsel
• ELAC (English Language Acquisition Committee)
• DELAC (District English Language Acquisition Committee)
• PTA Representative
• Social Committee
• Union Representative / Bargaining Chair
• Grade Level Chairperson
• CART (Curriculum and Assessment Review Team)
• Report Card Revision Team
• PAR
• Joint Panel
• English and Math Committees
• BTSA (Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment) Provider
121
While grade level leadership teams have varied from year to year,
Administrator A described how he structured his "go to" team as choosing teachers
based on each grade level having representation. He said he tried to balance
experience with less experience. From 2007-2009, they met about 4-5 times per
year. He kept them posted on what was happening in the District and getting their
buy-in on strategies. Specifically, they got PBIS moving last year, and it was
important to him that the grade level representatives got the buy-in to spread the
word that it was 'OK' talking about "our kids" compared to "my kids." Administrator
A used his leadership team as the messengers to get the word out about what was
happening or to survey the teachers for a sense of how they were feeling about any
changes being made.
One teacher commented that it seems the staff is open to learning from each
other. She said, "Teachers come to me to ask what my opinion would be or how I
would handle a situation. It's interesting, because it comes from teachers who have
taught the same number of years as me." Administrator A observed that when the
teachers focused on their designated "Power Standards," “they were able to
collaborate and work on what would be essential to emphasize at each grade level,
rather than cramming in whatever they could, as in the past." Deep levels of
collaboration were evident in the classrooms of grade level teammates. The sixth
grade classrooms, for example, had similar academic posters and the same
expectations posted in their classrooms. They described themselves as collaborating
to a level that is totally innate. Having worked with each other for 7 years (all three
122
of them) and 12 years (two of them), if one teammate sees something that he or she
deems valuable, there is not even a need for conversation about who wants it or not.
They trust each other to an extent that they will automatically copy or prepare
whatever is required of the lesson or activity for themselves and their teammates.
Other teachers were observed seeking out teachers from other grade levels to find out
what worked and what didn't work for particular students. This type of collaboration
was said to occur throughout the school year. For example, two teachers were
overheard discussing a particular student in third grade. The second grade teacher
was describing what strategies were working in second grade and that in third grade,
he should be able to start working at a particular level. The former teacher also
suggested that the new teacher speak with the parent about a particular issue as soon
as possible so that they wouldn’t lose any progress that had already been made. The
small size of the staff and their longevity both contribute to their ability to
communicate effectively and work efficiently with one another.
Teacher D mentioned that some of the other schools in the district perceive
Sunshine teachers as "stand-offish." She said that everyone is serious and puts in
long hours, but they are not "cumbaya-ish." She explained:
People seriously do their jobs. They collaborate. Everyone doesn't feel that
they have to be on the same page at the same time, but we’re all teaching
mostly the same things around the same time. We include instructional
assistants, parents, and parent programs (like Family Math Night and Family
Fitness Night). The library does a Reading Night, and other teachers do
different things to involve the community by way of parent-teacher
Information Nights.

123
Having all of the teachers on board with the recently installed Positive
Behavior Intervention System (PBIS) helps to reinforce the high behavior
expectations. It provides a vehicle for everyone to be on the same page, enforcing
the rules and the behaviors in the same way. As Teacher C described, "Now the
children all know the expectations, and they're followed through. We all have high
expectations for the children to be respectful, honest, safe, and responsible from
Kindergarten on. That makes for a safe environment so that all children can learn."
Administrator B spoke fondly of the faculty she inherited:
They all have high expectations for the students and provide the support and
assistance. Teachers are willing to go beyond expectation to do that. You'll
see [Teacher C] in the cafeteria with additional math support groups in the
mornings. You might walk into another teacher's class, and she's pulled a
group during recess time to work with struggling students. Teachers want the
students to be successful and are willing to go to extra lengths to help them
do that. They aren't willing to let kids fail.

Administrator A explained that the Sunshine staff needs to "pat themselves
on the back for their success!" Instead, he said they feel like, "This is my job; this is
what I do." That speaks to their level of confidence in what they do each and every
day as leaders in their community, school, and classrooms; individually and
collectively. They also know that their jobs are never finished. Teacher A
complained that she wished she had more time to talk to her instructional assistants
and that she had more time to debrief with them about all of the things going on in
the classroom. It is clear that the Sunshine faculty feels that collective efforts are
required to really meet the needs of all of their students.
124
Teacher involvement and commitment to the community does not go
unnoticed. The office manager suggested that over half of the staff would be at that
evening's Fitness Night. She said, "They [teachers] love interacting with the parents
and seeing the kids outside of school. They're very involved in fundraisers, outside
school activities, and some teachers even go to their students' baseball games." The
teachers at Sunshine all work very hard; they really care about the students; and they
want them to do well. They want the kids to have a positive learning experience, and
because they have the experience and the expertise, they are able to deliver lessons
with exceptional efficacy and efficiency.
Teacher C recognizes the superior efforts of the Sunshine staff but cautions
about the future. He said:
There are so many teachers who have retired and who will retire in the
coming years. There just aren't that many master teachers left; someone who
could take any classroom at any grade and whip it into any ideal classroom.
The climate of education is changing, and it seems that newer teachers have a
different work personification at times.

He implied that Sunshine does not currently have that issue but speaks to his concern
about the future of Sunshine and the beginning teachers who might not be equipped
to continue the legacy.
Support Staff Leaders
As a Title I school, Sunshine has had the resources available to hire a variety
of support staff to aid in the outstanding instruction of the students. Counseling
interns are regular additions to the Sunshine staff, providing services to families who
had challenges. The Administrators both credited a strong psychologist and a strong
125
SST process that help to come up with modifications that might help students and an
overall staff that is geared toward student achievement.
The head custodian considers it his personal responsibility to keep the school
in order and serves as a leader for the other custodians, staff members, and students,
even though this is only his third year at Sunshine. He said that his job is to make
sure everything is cleaned up and to be a security guard to make sure no one is
wandering on campus during the day. Although he does not directly impact the
students in the classrooms, he is privy to the instructional expectations of the
teachers at Sunshine:
The teachers are the core: they keep the classrooms going. If you can keep
45 teachers happy, life will be happy. If you keep the class clean or the area
nice, kids are going to want to learn. My role is a big role to helping the
students learn, so the teachers support me.

He said that his standard of cleanliness rivals that of Disneyland, which can be tricky
considering that the school was built in the late 1950s. "Just because the school is
old doesn't mean you have to keep it that way. I want to make the bathroom stalls
white and sanitized. The drinking faucet has to be sanitized."
The head custodian’s philosophy is that college starts now. He understands
that the students at Sunshine Elementary school are no different from the freshmen
who are going to college: at every level of education, what you learn is based on the
basics, most of which you learn in Elementary school! He said, "I believe if any kid
is challenged to do something, he or she can do it." He says that he tries to be a role
model to the students.
126
The office manager takes on a leadership role to support the relationships
between the principal, teachers, students, and parents. She noted that there has
definitely been a huge influx of students (and their parents) who don't speak English,
which causes a problem for the teachers to be able to communicate with them in the
cultural atmosphere of the school and of the country. To assist, she interacts with
students when they are really bad, really good, or in-between if they just have a
problem. Sometimes parents come to the office with the students, so she helps them
look at the best way to start working on whatever the problem is. Usually, that
means going back to the teacher and being open about the situation. She said, "I'm
not the disciplinarian, I just point people in the right direction. I play the
intermediary." Downplaying her essential role, most faculty members insinuated
that the office manager provides more support to them than she realizes. Having the
same perspective of most of the faculty as to why Sunshine has and continues to
thrive shows that the office manager is an invaluable member of the staff leadership.
Administration Leaders
Administration can make a huge impact on the degree to which a school is
successful. Millions of books have been written about corporate leadership, and
more recently, about school leadership, specifically. Whether the decisions are made
by the school district or by the direct school administrators, managing and leading a
staff can be tricky. The variety of administrative leaders at Sunshine have created
the need for the teachers to be flexible and to be able to adapt to different leadership
styles and demands.
127
Administrator A described one of his strengths as connecting to the kids as a
leader. He said that he always felt connected with them. He added that he had to get
to know the kids, to be visible, and to visit classrooms, because whether or not the
teacher was able to motivate the students, he could make sure that he motivated them
to do well. Because the community at Sunshine was already pretty high performing
when he joined the staff in 2007, his job wasn't too difficult. He described a great
deal of parental support at home and teaching at the site to be strong, very much
geared toward the grade level standards and driven by high expectations. He said:
What's nice about the staff is that the expectations are consistent, and they
have a feeling that all students can learn. Even though the population is
changing and the SES, they are still expecting the students to perform at a
high level.

It wasn't difficult for Administrator A to join them in their high expectations.
Realizing that not every student was able to perform at such high levels
without additional support, Administrator A made sure to implement after school
interventions based on data, fluency levels, and comprehension levels, all driven by
whatever the data reflected. In addition, he ensured that each teacher was
maintaining their expectations for the students. He attended grade level meetings to
discuss how things were going with each individual team. He also made sure to
provide support to a specific teacher who had switched grade levels to connect him
with the teachers above and below his grade level to have a better understanding of
what his standards were based on and where his students needed to be at the end of
his year with them.
128
The teachers seem to be able to roll with the punches when it comes to who
their administrative leader is. Teacher B explained:
Some principals are better with budgets, backing teachers, knowing kids’
names, being at recess and at the bus every day. One principal who came
was in her office with the door shut. People focus differently – if they just
leave us alone, we can do what we need to do in here! It’s their leadership
skill. We have had some principals who just funnel down [information from
the District] as the messenger. Then you have other principals who just
protect you [what is going on]. They just tell you, 'This is what the District is
saying, but that's not what you're going to do.'

She suggested that if things at the school start to go awry, everyone steps in;
"It takes a village." She continued:
Even though we’re all individuals, we come together as a group, wanting and
striving for the same things for the students. Everyone is an individual and
has his or her own personality. In the end we know where we want the kids
to be. I think because we’ve been here so long, we’ve seen a lot of changes,
from administrator to administrator, what they chose to have as their focus.
Each one of us held our cores. It’s frustrating when you have to relearn a
style. Change is good, but too many little changes can be too much. The
staff's mentality, on the other hand, is: ‘If it ain't broke, don’t fix it’ when it
comes to their daily operations.

Teacher B said, "That’s the rumor why we get a new principal every so often.
Supposedly because the District says the [Sunshine] teachers have it under control
and have it figured out." Teacher A also said that she thinks when new principals
come in, they recognize that Sunshine has done so well, and they try not to make too
many drastic changes. While she didn't think they ran themselves as a faculty, she
noted that they definitely police themselves and don't need much supervision. It
would seem, then, that the role of the administrator is of little significance or
importance when it comes to the achievement of the students at the school. Rather,
the teachers’ knowledge and experience plays a greater role.
129
Administrator A disagreed. He said that he didn't want to diminish the role
of the administrator. "The wrong administrator could be detrimental. It's on how
you move the group." He credits the positive increase in test scores with the positive
environment he fostered. "If teachers feel motivated and respected and cared for,
they'll make more of an effort in the classroom." The office manager concurred,
noting that the principal definitely sets the tone for the staff and the kids:
For an administrator, you have to be sensitive to the different personalities
that are on your staff, and know how to deal with them. And to see the
potential in each person to be the best staff member they can be. And to be
visible.

Because some of the previous principals have met her expectations and others
haven't, she said she had to hand it to the teachers that they've rolled with it.
Administrator B hopes to continue the positive climate and culture at
Sunshine. She met with parents at Back to School night before the teachers. She's
also begun utilizing the Connect Ed system "In Touch" making telephone calls to the
parent community to foster more communication. She participates in the PTA,
School Site Council, and ELAC meetings, as well.
Analysis and Discussion of Research Question Three
The collective efficacy of the staff is founded on its culture of success. The
staff has had many years of continual academic growth and understands that if they
believe it, they can achieve it. It would seem that it doesn’t matter who is at the
figurative “head of the table” at Sunshine in the role of the Administrator leader.
Rather, what has been embedded in the culture of success is the idea that success is
not only possible; it is expected.
130
In trying to explain the differences among schools and the outcomes they
achieve, it makes sense to consider the role of collective efficacy beliefs. In the
social context of the school, collective efficacy explains the determination,
resilience, and the resolve that the teachers have to plan, work, and overcome
obstacles and interact to facilitate student success. Sunshine’s collective efficacy
manifests in their high levels of expectation that all children can learn, a willingness
to do whatever it takes, and a feeling of intense ownership and personal
responsibility for every child’s learning. These beliefs perpetuate a love of learning
in students that sets them up for future success, while they’re still students at
Sunshine and into the future.
Active learning, commitment, perseverance, flexibility, self-reflection, an
ability to work with others, and intentionality were all characteristics that were
observed and discussed with the teachers at Sunshine. When you have these
qualities staff-wide, in addition to teachers who have explicit knowledge of the
multiple subjects they teach and practice researched based instructional strategies,
it’s no wonder that Sunshine is a school that has achieved such high levels of
achievements.
Sergiovanni (1992) describes the commitment of effective teachers as
“competence plus virtue.” The Sunshine staff has the ability to understand their
context even as it's changing in front of their eyes. They recognized that the ELL
student population was increasing and learned how to address their needs effectively.
By doing so, they also learned strategies that were beneficial to their native English
131
speakers, as well. The practices they had in place were validated, and the practices
that were new to the staff were implemented and supported by their administrator.
There is a willingness to actually do what is best for their students and an awareness
that their students’ needs are constantly changing. There is a new group of students
who are coming to school with a plethora of outside problems, from living in hotels,
to having drug-addicted parents, to being in the foster care system. To them,
academics are not so important; survival is. The Sunshine staff not only recognizes
that this is an issue, they make it their priority to ensure that those basic fundamental
needs are met for each student so that they can deliver effective academic instruction
to facilitate learning. The “whole child” approach that the Sunshine staff adheres to
can only support the academic expectations. They feel that each child deserves to be
healthy, safe, supported, engaged, and challenged, from the custodial staff to the
office staff to the faculty.
When it comes to dealing with change, the Sunshine staff has had their share.
Regardless of the administrator, being visible or locked in an office doesn’t effect the
teachers’ daily practices. Sunshine has a positive school climate with clear goals and
expectations. Teachers teach the standards with rigor, ensuring that all students are
actively participating and engaged. The teachers have a passion and a love for what
they do to get kids excited for learning. They are able to think on their feet, finding
new (and remembering older) ways to teach concepts, from using manipulatives or
through scaffolding. By following the California State Standards, the teachers are
132
driven to have high expectations for achieving those standards, constantly striving to
change their techniques to meet the needs of their changing student population.
In most of the conversations with teachers, they spoke of themselves as “we”
and “our” and “us.” There is a confidence, staff wide, that clearly states, “We have
what it takes as a staff to help all students learn, regardless of their background.”
The teachers have a deep desire for their students to improve over the year. They
recognize that each student individually needs to make growth socially,
academically, and emotionally. To do so, they provide a lot of opportunities for
success. When analyzing data about their students, the faculty focuses on the
“Critical Care” students, a new term for this year. They classify their students by
their needs (as shown by their data) like a triage, utilizing universal access time and
differentiating their instruction. The sense of “We know what we’re doing!” is
overwhelming when speaking with any of the teachers.
School leadership would seem to be what staff members would attribute to
the uniqueness of their school. However, in the foundational research of Bandura
and Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy on collective efficacy, they only briefly mention the role
of the principal as a facilitator. Bandura (1993) discusses teacher self-efficacy and
mentions, “Strong principals excel in their ability to get their staff to work together
with a strong sense of purpose and to believe in their capabilities to surmount
obstacles to educational attainments” (p. 141). Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) only
mention once that there is strong reason to lead schools in a direction that will
133
systematically develop teacher efficacy that may be rewarded with continuous
growth in both collective teacher efficacy and in student achievement.
At Sunshine, somehow, sometime, someone in a leadership role must have
reinforced the mindset that the teachers were fantastic at what they do as a collective
unit. That foundational ideal laid the groundwork for the resiliency of the staff in
coping with a variety of principals and their leadership styles in addition to the
changing community population. As principals have changed, teachers have
continued to take advantage of opportunities for instructional improvement, whether
it was initiated individually, through the administrator, or through the district, and
implement those strategies in their classrooms. As their practice has improved so
has their academic achievement, thereby increasing their collective efficacy.
In addition, some leader must have provided a vision in order to
communicate the instructional expectations. Because they have such clear
expectations of their students, academically and behaviorally, the teachers can
recognize when they are on par with their instruction and interactions with their
students and when they are not. The same can be said for their consistent use of
data. One would be hard-pressed to find an entire staff who is inherently strong at
using data to drive their instruction. At some point, a leader modeled the use of data
and guided teachers to apply it to their instruction. As Administrator A explained,
buy-in has a lot to do with the motivation behind everyone being on the same page.
Most teachers do not spend their free time researching best practices. Naturally,
those would be shared by a school leader with the school staff.
134
Goddard (2001) states that from a practical perspective, the positive
relationship between student achievement and collective efficacy is important; for
teachers to believe their collective actions can make a difference, they need the
power to exercise collective agency. The Sunshine staff has been led in such a way
that they have been able to set small, short-term goals that have been achievable and
have helped develop their collective efficacy through mastery experiences (the idea
that when a person or group perceives that their performance has been successful,
efficacy beliefs tend to increase). Whether the leadership came from the district,
from their administrator, or from the variety of teacher-leaders is not clear. What is
clear is that Sunshine is a developed, empowered staff who help each other set and
achieve collective goals thereby positively impacting continuous student
achievement.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings based on the data collected for this study
followed by a detailed analysis and discussion of the answers to the three research
questions based on how they were established in the literature presented earlier in
this study. The findings offered in this study were based on multiple data sources,
interviews, observations, and artifacts, which served to reinforce their validity. The
summary, conclusions, and implications of this study are presented in the next
chapter.
135
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
Introduction
Historically, urban schools underperform according to national averages and
standards for proficiency as evidenced by years of research. The importance of
improving our nation’s schools continues to be a significant focus in policy. In spite
of longstanding achievement trends, many high poverty schools have had success in
attaining high academic achievement.
Marzano (2003) claims that schools can have a tremendous impact on student
achievement if they follow the direction provided by research. Research has
demonstrated that there are organizational structures and systems that promote high
academic achievement in high poverty schools. Several studies suggest what can be
done to intervene in such schools. For example, the MCREL report (2005), suggests
that it is not necessary to reorganize low-performing, high-needs schools in order to
move them toward higher performance. Rather, the role of leadership is important in
shaping or supporting a professional community among teachers, the strongest
relationship in the low performing, high-needs schools. The report further asserts
that leadership is also a key factor in influencing the school environment and in
supporting teachers in monitoring student progress and holding high standards for all
students. As these two are strengthened, their role in realizing improved instruction
is also strengthened (MCREL, 2005).
136
Effective leadership has been previously studied; yet these underperforming
schools continue to fail. While there has been much research, empirical and
theoretical, conducted in the area of school leadership and accountability, there is not
a strong research base connecting leadership to school improvement or academic
achievement (Mayrowetz, 2008). Marzano (2003, p. 175) even points out that it is
somewhat rare in the research on leadership to find student achievement as the
criterion for effectiveness. The relationship between leadership and student
achievement needs to be investigated further in order to provide insight into what
really matters in increasing student achievement.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the leadership structures and
systems that are in place to impact collective efficacy in high poverty, high achieving
schools. Marzano (2005) refers to 21 responsibilities of leaders and their
correlations with student achievement; including communication with and among
teachers and students, building culture by way of fostering shared beliefs and a sense
of community and cooperation, involvement and knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment, and monitoring / evaluating the effectiveness of school
practices and their impact on student learning.
Summary
This study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the perceived school-wide systems and structures that contribute
to high achievement in high poverty schools?
137
2. How are organizational systems implemented and sustained to support
higher levels of student achievement?
3. How do principals build collective efficacy at high poverty, high
performing schools to impact student achievement?
While many structures within a school organization exist, this research
focused on the three key structures perceived to exist in support of school-wide
effective classroom instruction, including a climate of achievement, collective
leadership, and collective efficacy. Within those structures, organizational systems
were in place to contribute to high achievement, including the promotion of
involvement and knowledge of curriculum, alignment of instruction and assessments
to the standards; communicating a vision, monitoring and providing feedback, and
professional development focused on evaluating instructional methods for
improvement, interventions, and teacher collaboration.
Six organized subsystems at Sunshine Elementary were found to be
implemented and sustained to support higher levels of student achievement (based on
research by Kannapel and Clements, 2005), including:
• School-wide ethic of high expectations for faculty, staff, and students
• Emphasis on academics and instruction
• Systems for regularly assessing individual students
• Collaborative decision making
• Strong work ethic and high faculty morale
• Caring, respectful relationships
138
The leadership systems and structures at Sunshine included parent and
community leaders, teacher leaders, support staff leaders, and administrator leaders.
Together, the various leadership groups formed to comprise collective leadership
within the school. Founded on a climate of academic achievement and a culture of
success, the leaders at Sunshine continue to maintain high expectations for all
students in the face of an ever-changing socioeconomic shift. As the student
population has changed, the collective leaders have continued to adapt to meet the
needs of each student, taking a whole-child approach to education. Having support
from all parties involved, the teachers at Sunshine have developed a shared sense of
collective efficacy, that together, they can accomplish anything they set their minds
to.
Conclusions
Ron Edmonds (1979) wrote:
How many effective schools would you have to see to be persuaded of the
educability of poor children? If your answer is more than one, then I submit
that you have reasons of your own for preferring to believe that basic pupil
performance derives from family background instead of school response to
family background . . . We can, whenever and wherever we choose,
successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us.

The academic, behavioral, and social well-being of all 650+ students at
Sunshine are of invaluable interest to the Sunshine faculty and staff. The systems
and structures in place at Sunshine Elementary support school wide instruction as
teachers, parents, students, and administrators work together to ensure the formation
of well-rounded and developed children.
139
Research in the case study identified organizational systems and structures
that supported a positive school culture, which is considered to be the biggest
contributor to high performance. These systems and structures identified are working
together to provide a positive climate of achievement and a culture of learning
through the shared belief that Sunshine is the best school evidenced by the high
expectations that all kids can and will learn.
As research suggests, collective efficacy can directly impact student
achievement, and it is an essential factor in closing the achievement gap in high
poverty areas, especially. While the construct of collective efficacy is relatively
young in the field of educational research, it would seem that the foundation of a
culture of success would be worthwhile studying in the future as an attribute of
increased academic achievement.
As Aristotle said, we can demonstrate the possible by studying the actual. To
make it possible for other high poverty schools to improve their student achievement,
we must study more successful schools who have become “experts” at understanding
their school’s culture, community, and collective efficacy.
Implications for Practice and Policy
This study focused on how leadership affects academic achievement. While
much of what was observed and discussed at Sunshine was researched-based
practice, the results of this study may be helpful for future practice in improving
academic achievement and district policy for administrator roles and placement in
schools in high poverty areas.
140
Academic Achievement
Sunshine demonstrated a strong climate of achievement. Teachers had high
expectations for their students stemming from teacher beliefs that all students can
learn and teacher attitudes ensuring that they do. What was particularly unique about
this school was their evident awareness of how the culture and community of their
school had changed. Because the teachers had the experience of seeing students
grow academically and socially, they knew what worked best for them
instructionally. When attending inservices for professional development, they were
able to glean best practices suitable for their classrooms and not get mired in the
additional details. The teachers definitely owned their beliefs and had a huge
commitment to ensuring that their practice was implemented with the fidelity in
which research intended. Being flexible and resilient in changing with the
community is a significant factor in what seemingly sets this school apart from other
high poverty schools.
The faculty and staff also made it a priority to take care of the whole child,
from vision and hearing exams to breakfast and lunch to social development to
academic achievement. The rapport between teachers not only enhances individual
efficacy (as the teachers feel confident in discussing student achievement and
teaching strengths and weaknesses with one another); it also enhances collective
efficacy. As teachers experience individual successes, they share them with their
colleagues, boosting collective efficacy. This was evident not only through
observations, it was also expressed in the teacher phrase, “Together, we can…!”
141
Sunshine’s emphasis on teamwork and professional community (fostering the flow
of ideas through the district, supporting teacher collaboration within the school, and
encouraging the staff to continuously develop their teaching practice) lends itself to
the amount of academic success that they have experienced.
Leadership
With the impossible demands of elementary school administrators, it is
increasingly evident that shared leadership is an essential characteristic of effective
schools. This can be very difficult to establish, but through the observations and
discussions at Sunshine, it seems that it may be possible to sustain once it is set as a
structure, regardless of who is at the figurative “head of the table.” At Sunshine,
leadership has been a revolving door of the “Who’s Who” in the district. However,
through reflection and data driven instruction, the teachers have been able to build
efficacy (individual and collective). This has led to feedback from the administrator,
from coaches, and from each other, and appropriate adjustments have been made in
order to perpetuate student achievement.
Leithwood and Jantzi (2008) report evidence suggesting that school-level
leaders’ individual and collective sense of efficacy for school improvement can be
linked to district leadership and other organizational conditions. Districts should
seriously consider intentionally developing collective efficacy, especially in urban
schools. Specifically, the findings in this study imply that how teachers are
developed and how time and articulation are structured among principals, teachers,
and staff plays a huge role in perpetuating efficacy for impacting academic
142
achievement. This could be done via administrator training / mentoring. Investment
in instructional leadership at the school and district levels (training for principals in
school improvement processes, and systematic and written appraisals of principals’
performance) could also contribute to other schools developing collective efficacy
for the enhancement of academic achievement.
Recommendations for Further Research
The following recommendations for future research are based on what could
be done to better understand how school leadership affects academic achievement:
• Student and parent perceptions were not included in this study and would
present a different perspective on the systems and structures in place at a
high poverty, high achieving school that could contribute to high levels of
academic success.
• Sunshine’s school district typically rotates principals on a five-year-per-
site cycle. However, Sunshine had five principals in nine years. More
information might be gleaned through a study of principal rotation
structures and the effect a variety of rotations might have on student
achievement.
• With a value-added model, the cumulative effect of a variety of
administrators could be studied, over time, to provide more specific
attributes of the school’s success.
• Further research should be conducted on the relationship of collective
leadership structures and high academic achievement. Effective teacher
143
leaders may have more of an impact than principals in building collective
efficacy in schools that serve high poverty populations. This information
could have implications for a new system of improving high poverty
schools across the nation.
144
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the research.
Review of Educational Research, 52, 368-420.

Aronson, E., Aronson, J. (2008). The social animal. New York, New York: Worth
Publishers.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior,4. New York: Academic Press, pp. 71-81.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Freeman.

Beachum, F.D., Dentith, A.M., McCray, C.R., & Boyle, T.M. (2008). Havens of
hope or the killing fields: The paradox of leadership, pedagogy, and
relationships in an urban middle school. Urban Education, 43(2), 189-215.

Belfiore, P.J., Auld, R., & Lee, D.L. (2005). The disconnect of poor-urban education:
equal access and a pedagogy of risk taking. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8),
855-863.

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

Braksick, L.W. (2000). Unlock behavior, unleash profits. New York: McGraw-Hill.
As referenced in Chase, J.A. & Houmanfar, R. (2009). The differential
effects of elaborate feedback and basic feedback on student performance in a
modified, personalized system of instruction course. Journal of Behavioral
Education 18, 245-265.

Brown, D. F. (2002). Becoming a successful urban teacher. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

California Budget Project. (May 19, 2010). Accessed from
http://www.cbp.org/documents/100514_May_Revise.pdf on May 24, 2010.

California Department of Education. (May 21, 2009). Budget crisis report card.
Accessed from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/re/ht/bcrc.asp on May 24, 2010.
145
California Department of Education. (2009). State report card: 2008-2009.
Retrieved on May 8, 2010 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sc/documents/reportcard0809.pdf.

Chase, J.A., & Houmanfar, R. (2009). The differential effects of elaborate feedback
and basic feedback on student performance in a modified, personalized
system of instruction course. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 245-265.

Cicchinelli, L., Gaddy, B., Lefkowits, L., & Miller, K. (2003). No Child Left Behind:
realizing the vision [policy brief]. Retrieved on April 11, 2010 from
http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/PolicyBriefs/5032PI_PBNCLBBrief.pdf

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Presidential address: The new teacher education: For
better or worse? Educational Researcher, 34(7): 3-17.

Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F., &
York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Conner, M.L. & Clawson, J.G. (2002). Creating a learning culture. The Darden
School Foundation. Originally printed in Transforming Culture: An
Executive Briefing on the Power of Learning. Reprinted at
http://agelesslearner.com/articles/lc_connerclawson_tc600.html. Accessed
on December 30, 2010.

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

DuFour, R (2004). Educational Leadership. 61(8), 6–11. Retrieved on May 8, 2010
from http://www.allthingsplc.info/articles/articles.php.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,
37, 15-18, 20-24.

Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York:
Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F. (2004). School Reform from the Inside Out, Massachusetts: Harvard
Education Press.

Epps, E. G. (2005). Urban education: Future perspectives. In F. E. Obiakor & F. D.
Beachum (Eds.), Urban education for the 21st century: Research, issues, and
perspectives (pp. 218-234). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
146
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinking in action.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gall, M., Gall, J. & Borg, W. (2007). Educational Research - An Introduction (8
th

ed.), Pearson Education Inc.

Goddard, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of
schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3),
467–476.

Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure,
and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(2), 479-507.

Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., & Hoy, A.W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs:
Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions.
Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.

Gondor, P. (1994). Improving school climate and culture. American Association of
School Administrators.

Haberman, M. (1995). Selecting ‘star’ teachers for children and youth in urban
poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 777–781.

Haberman, M., & Post, L. (1998). Teachers for multicultural schools: The power of
selection. Theory into Practice, 37(2), 97–104.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.

Halpin, A.W. and Croft, D.B. (1962.) The organisational climate of schools.
Washington DC. Office of Education.

Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional theory and educational change. Education
Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 637-661.

Hattie, J. (1992). "What Works in Special Education" Presentation to the Special
Education Conference, May 1992 [On-line; Acrobat file] NZ Available:
http://web.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/fms/default/education/staff/Prof.%20John%20
Hattie/Documents/John%20Hattie%20Papers/talks%20from%20western%20
aus/Special_Education.pdf. Accessed December 30, 2010.

147
Hoachlander, G., Alt, M., & Beltranena, R. (2001). Leading school improvement:
What research says. A review of the literature. Atlanta, GA: Southern
Regional Education Board.

Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. K. (2005). Inside the black box of high performing
high-poverty schools. Lexington, KY: The Prichard Committee for Academic
Excellence.

Knoblauch, D. & Hoy, A.W. (2008). “I can teach those kids.” The influence of
contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 24, 166-179.

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

Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning: Review of research. New York, NY: The
Wallace Foundation.

Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict
teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3),
44-70.

Mallette, B., Maheady, L., & Harper, G. F. (1999). The effects of reciprocal peer
coaching on preservice general educators’ instruction of students with special
learning needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 201-216.

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

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

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School Leadership That
Works: From Research to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Matsumoto, M. & Brown-Welty, S. (2009). Case study of leadership practices and
school-community interrelationships in high-performing, high-poverty, rural
California high schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(1), 1-18.

148
Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2
nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the
multiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 44, 424-435.

McDavid, J., & Hawthorn, L. (2006). Program evaluation and performance
measurement. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

McREL. (2005). Final Report: High-Needs Schools - What Does it Take to Beat the
Odds? (Technical Report). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning.

Merideth, E. M. (2007). Leadership strategies for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Michie, G. (1999). Holler if you hear me: The education of a teacher and his
students. New York: Teachers College Press.

Michie, G. (2005). See you when we get there: Teaching for change in urban
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Miskel, C. & Ogawa, R. (1988). Work motivation, job satisfaction, and climate. In
N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration. New
York: Longman Publisher.

Niebuhr, K.E., & Niebuhr, R.E. (1999). An empirical study of student relationships
and academic achievement. Education, 119(4), 673-675.

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

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

149
Parker, K., Hannah, E., & Topping, K. J. (2006). Collective teacher efficacy, pupil
attainment and socio-economic status in primary school. Improving Schools,
9, 111–129.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Raelin, J. (2006). Does action learning promote collaborative leadership? Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 5(2), 152-168.

Reeves, D. B. (2000). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning
organizations. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Reeves, D. B. (2000). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning
organizations (2
nd
ed.). Engelwood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Ross, J., & Bruce, C. (2007). Professional development effects on teacher efficacy:
Results of randomized field trial. The Journal of Educational Research,
10(1), 50-65.

Ruebling, C.E., Stow, S.B., Kayona, F.A., & Clarke, N.A. (2004). Instructional
leadership: An essential ingredient for improving student learning. The
Educational Forum, 68(3), 243-253.

Scheeler, M.C., Ruhl, K.L., & McAfee, J.K. (2004). Providing performance
feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Edition,
27(3), 000-000.

Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in education:
Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Why we should seek substitutes for leadership. Educational
Leadership, (5), 41-55.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (2004). Building a community of hope. Educational Leadership,
61(8), 33-38.

Skaalvik, E.M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain
factors, collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611-625.

150
Smith, P.A., & Hoy, W.K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement in
urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5),
556-568.

Springboard Schools. (2006). Springboard schools annual report 2006. Retrieved on
June 11, 2010 from www.SpringboardSchools.org.

Srikantaiah, D., Moilanen, C., & Swayhoover, L. (2009). Lessons from the
classroom level: Federal and state accountability in Washington state. Center
on Education Policy. www.cep-dc.org.

Stein, M.K., & Nelson, B.S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.

Stevens, T., To, Y., Harris, G., & Dwyer, J. (2008). The LOGO project: Designing
an effective continuing education program for teachers. The Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(2), 195-219.

Tableman, B. & Herron, A. (2004). Best practice briefs. University Outreach and
Engagement, Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, 31. Retrieved
on June 12, 2010, from http://outreach.msu.edu/bpbriefs/issues/brief31.pdf.

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

Trammel, D.J., Schloss, P.J., & Alper, S. (1994). Using self-recording and graphing
to increase completion of homework assignments. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 27(2), 75-81.

Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1991). Cultural leadership in organizations.
Organization Science, 2(2), 149 – 169.

United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983 A nation at
risk: the imperative for educational reform : a report to the Nation and the
Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education / by the
National Commission on Excellence in Education The Commission : [Supt.
of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor], Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Income, poverty and health insurance coverage in the
united states: 2008. Retrieved on March 1, 2010 from
http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/
014227.html.
151
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). 2009: A year in review. Retrieved on January
20, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2009review.html.

Waits, M.J., Campbell, H.E., Gau, R., Jacobs, E., Rex, T., Hess, R.K. (2006). Why
some schools with latino children beat the odds… and others don’t. Arizona
Board of Regents, 156.

Walberg, H. J. (1999). Productive teaching. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg
(Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research, 75-104. Berkeley,
CA: McCutchen Publishing Corporation.

Weishen, N., & Peng, L. (1993). Variables predicting students' problem behaviors.
Journal of Educational Research, 87, 5-17.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performances: Exploring the purpose and
limits of testing. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Zeichner, K. M., & Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization for cultural diversity. In
J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (pp. 525–547). New York: MacMillan Publishing.
152
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name: ____________________________________ Date: _______________
Name of Person Interviewed: ____________________________________________
Position: ____________________________________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: _________ Total Time: ____________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the University
of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying systems and
structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the nomination
process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The purpose
of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

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

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview Questions
1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role as a leader at the school.
a. How long have you been at this school?
b. What is your educational and professional background?
c. What is your role as a leader at this school?

2. What are the strengths at this school?
a. What challenges have you seen at this site?
b. How has the school overcome challenges, made changes, and / or
maintain status quo?

153
3. What are your goals for student achievement?
a. How do you establish those goals?
b. How are they communicated?
4. Describe the practices and policies at your site that you believe contribute to
your schools’ high student performance?
a. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last
3-5 years to improve student performance?
i. Specifically for students with special needs?
ii. If this is your first or second year, what are some things that
your predecessor put in place?
b. Why are you doing these things? What is the rationale behind the
policies and practices at your site?

5. Professional Development
a. When?
b. How?
c. Collaboration?
6. What strategies do you use to engage all students?
a. What do you do to create a climate to ensure that you engage all
students?
b. How does the climate in the school affect the school’s culture of
inclusion?
c. How are the needs of students in different sub-groups addressed in the
school-wide plan (i.e. EL, SED, Hispanic, etc.)?

7. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are
made clear for teachers / students / parents?

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

9. How do you monitor student progress?
a. Formative
b. Benchmarked
c. Summative

10. What happens when the students succeed? When they don’t?
154

11. How are teachers held accountable for student achievement?
a. Measures of good teaching practices
b. Measures of student outcomes
i. All?
ii. Subgroups?
iii. Special needs?
c. Peer observation / review / collaborative efforts?
d. Curriculum maps / lesson plans?
e. Coaches?

12. What strategies do you have in place to support instruction?
a. Specifically for high-risk groups such as students with special needs?

13. How do you think your beliefs impact student achievement?
14. What are you doing for each of the proficiency levels? What are you doing
for each of the learners? Upper end of the proficiency level – how are you
maintaining the scores?

15. How do you structure your “go to” team? Teacher capacity. How do you
address concerns with teacher capacity to put into practice these structures,
policies, etc.? Assertiveness vs. backdoor approach.

16. How do you reach your vision? Desired outcome or goal? How do you
initiate new programs? How do you address concerns about teacher efficacy?
Capacity? Executing / collaboration / authoritative?
155
APPENDIX B
TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name: ____________________________________ Date: _______________
Name of Person Interviewed: ____________________________________________
Position: ____________________________________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: __________ Total Time: ___________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the University
of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying systems and
structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the nomination
process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The purpose
of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview Questions
1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role as a teacher-leader at the
school.
a. How long have you been at this school?
b. What is your educational and professional background?
c. How would you describe your role as a teacher-leader?

2. What are the strengths at this school?
a. What challenges have you seen at this site?
b. How has the school overcome challenges, made changes, and / or
maintain status quo?
156

3. What are your goals for student achievement?
a. How do you establish those goals?
b. How are they communicated?

4. Describe the practices and policies at your site that you believe contribute to
your schools’ high student performance?
a. Which are the three most effective things you have done over the last
3-5 years to improve student performance?
i. Specifically for students with special needs?
ii. If this is your first or second year, what are some things that
your predecessor put in place?
b. Why are you doing these things? What is the rationale behind the
policies and practices at your site?

5. Professional Development?
a. When?
b. How?
c. Collaboration?

6. Does your school have a school-wide plan?
a. How re the needs of students in different sub-groups addressed in the
school-wide plan (i.e. EL, SED, Hispanic, etc.)?
b. In what ways do teachers differentiate instruction in order to meet the
needs of all students?

7. What strategies do you use to engage all students?
a. What do you do to create a climate to ensure that you engage all
students?
b. How does the climate in the school affect the school’s culture of
inclusion?
c. How are the needs of students in different sub-groups addressed in the
school-wide plan (i.e. EL, SED, Hispanic, etc.)?

8. Describe how expectations for meeting academic achievement goals are
made clear for teachers / students / parents?

9. Describe how your school uses data to guide instruction.
a. What evidence do you look for, besides assessment scores, which
demonstrate high student performance?
b. What is your role as a school leader in guiding the use of data to
improve the school climate and classroom instruction?
157

10. How do you monitor student progress?
a. Formative
b. Benchmarked
c. Summative

11. What happens when the students succeed? When they don’t?

12. How are teachers held accountable for student achievement?
a. Measures of good teaching practices
b. Measures of student outcomes
i. All?
ii. Subgroups?
iii. Special needs?
c. Peer observation / review / collaborative efforts?
d. Curriculum maps / lesson plans?
e. Coaches?
158
APPENDIX C
CLASSIFIED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
School Name: ____________________________________ Date: _______________
Name of Person Interviewed: ____________________________________________
Position: ____________________________________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ___________ Total Time:___________
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am currently working with the University
of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and am studying systems and
structures in high achieving, high poverty urban schools. Through the nomination
process, your school was identified as a high-achieving urban school. The purpose
of this interview is to learn more about how you achieve high levels of student
performance at your school.

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

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

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

Interview Questions
1. Tell me briefly about your experience and role at the school.
a. How long have you been at this school?
b. How would you describe your role (in school wide decision making?)

2. What are the strengths at this school?
a. What challenges have you seen at this site?
b. How has the school overcome challenges, made changes, and / or
maintain status quo?
159

3. What is the school environment like?
a. In what ways does the school engage/involve all students?
b. What do you think your role is in contributing to the school
environment?

4. What are the goals for this school?
a. How do you know?

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

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

7. How do you see teachers and administrators working together?
a. How do you work with teachers and administrators at the school site?

8. How do students know when they’re doing the right thing?

9. What do you do to make sure students have what they need? Are being cared
for?
160
APPENDIX D
CLASSROOM PROTOCOL
School Name: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
Classroom / Teacher Observed: __________________________________________
Grade / Department: ___________________________________________________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: __________ Total Time: ___________
Physical Environment Instructional Strategies
What are you
looking for?
What do you
think?
Questions?
What are you looking
for?
What do you think?
Questions?

Seating
arrangement

Student work

Standards

Achievement
Data

Bulletin Boards /
On Display

Student
Engagement

Cooperative Learning
Groups

Direct Instruction

Differentiated
Instruction

Independent Work

Check for
Understanding

Progress Monitoring

161
APPENDIX E
MEETING PROTOCOL
School Name: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
Type of Meeting Observed: _____________________________________________
Participants: _________________________________________________________
Researcher: _________________________________________________________

Physical Environment Instructional Strategies
What are you
looking for? Notes
What are you
looking for? Notes

Seating Arrangements

Where Is The Meeting
Held?

How Are Teachers
Grouped?

Supplies

Facilitator

Lead Speaker / Presenter

Collaboration

Cooperative Groups by:

*Grade Level

*Department Level

*Mixed Groups

Focus / Meeting
Objective

Evaluation

Follow Up

162
APPENDIX F
GENERAL SITE PROTOCOL
School Name: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
Researcher: __________________________________________________________
Time Started: ___________ Time Ended: ___________ Total Time: __________

Interaction Styles

Routines
What are you
looking for?
What do you
think?
Questions?

What are you
looking for?
What do you
think?
Questions?

Student / Adult
Behaviors

Peer / Peer

Groupings
• Students
• Teachers

Cliques

Student / Teacher /
Administrator /
Support Staff
Behavior During
Passing Periods

Lunch / Recess
• Supervision
• Interaction
among Kids
• Following the
rules

Parent
Communication

163

Physical Environment
What are you looking for? What do you think? Questions?

Cleanliness

Symbolic (Postings)
• Data
• Student Work
• Goals
• College Going Culture
• School Wide Happenings
• Missions
• Extra-curricular Activities
• Sports
• After School Programs

Recognitions
• Teacher
• Students
• Trophies

Furnishings

Lighting

Graffiti?

Student Supervision

Dress Code
• Teachers
• Students

Safety Precautions

School Spirit

164
APPENDIX G
CONSENT FORM
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038

INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

*******************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
School-Wide Implementation of the Elements of Effective Classroom Instruction:
Lessons From High-Performing, High-Poverty Urban Schools

School Staff
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Vishodana
Thamotharan, Leila Gabriel, Hazel Giusto, Vickie Harri, Shannon Manista, Rachelle
Snyder, and Kathy Stowe, Ed.D., Principal Investigator and Faculty Advisor, from
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. This study
is being completed as part of a thematic dissertation team investigating school-wide
implementation of effective classroom instruction in a high performing urban school.
You were selected as a possible participant in this study based on your status as an
employee at a high performing urban school. Your participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much time
as you need to read the information sheet. You may also decide to discuss it with
your family or friends. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to identify the practices and strategies that lead to high
performance in students of color in high poverty urban school and how they are
implemented to support school-wide effective classroom instruction that promote
student learning.

Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.
165
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:

Participate in a recorded interview, which may take from 30-60 minutes to complete.
The interview questions will focus on describing the practices and policies at your
school site that you believe contribute to your students’ high student performance
practices. It should be noted that the researcher is focusing on positive school
practices that helped make your school successful.

Additionally, the investigator will conduct field observations on site, gather
information and record notes. The investigator will also observe some classrooms,
faculty meetings and campus activities.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Any discomforts you may experience with questions may be managed by simply not
answering these questions. You will not be identified in any part of the interview by
name.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not benefit from your participation in this research study. However, it is
hoped that the results may contribute to the existing knowledge base of best practices
in urban schools. These results may also provide insight into practices and strategies
that may prove successful in other schools, which in turn may benefit the students at
those schools.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law. When the results of the research are published or
discussed in conferences for educational purposes, no information will be included
that would reveal your identify. Audio recordings will be secured and stored in the
office of the investigator and destroyed immediately upon transcription. Personal
information, research data, and related records will be coded, stored, and secured in
the home of the investigator. Only the investigators will have access to the data. The
166
data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed, except audio-tapes which will be destroyed immediately.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research
team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research
staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Dr. Kathy Stowe at kstow1
e@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Historically, urban schools underperform according to national averages and standards for proficiency, according to years of research. The relationship between leadership and student achievement may provide insight into what really matters in increasing student achievement, especially in high poverty schools.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools

PDF

Whatever it takes: Systems and structures at a high-performing, high-poverty high school and the implications for special education

PDF

School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools

PDF

The relationship of parental involvement to student academic achievement in Latino middle school students

PDF

Passing CAHSEE but failing math and English: what best predicts high school classroom achievement?

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Leadership, school culture, collaborative practice, and teacher beliefs: A case-study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high performing high poverty school

PDF

The role and value of educational technology in California fourth and fifth year (2006-2007) program improvement elementary schools that achieved AYP growth targets

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools

PDF

Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools

PDF

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

PDF

Sustainability of a narrowed achievement gap: A case study

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Manista, Shannon R. (author)

Core Title A case study of what really matters: Examining educational leadership and student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2011-05

Publication Date 04/29/2011

Defense Date 03/09/2011

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

Tag Academic Achievement,collective efficacy,Educational Leadership,high performing school,high poverty school,OAI-PMH Harvest,student achievement,teacher efficacy

Place Name California (city or populated place), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email mrsmanista@gmail.com,smanista@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3810

Unique identifier UC1478284

Identifier etd-Manista-4532 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-463394 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3810 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Manista-4532.pdf

Dmrecord 463394

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Manista, Shannon R.

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