University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Strategies Orange and San Diego county superintendents employ to build capacity in secondary principals as instructional leaders

(USC Thesis Other)

Strategies Orange and San Diego county superintendents employ to build capacity in secondary principals as instructional leaders

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

1

STRATEGIES ORANGE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS
EMPLOY TO BUILD CAPACITY
IN SECONDARY PRINCIPALS AS INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS

By
Keely Hafer
______________________________________________________________________________
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 2020

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

2
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to anyone trying to make a difference in the field
of education. Every educator I have worked with has had a passion for learning and the desire to
make a difference in the lives of their students. That was my same goal in completing this
program and this dissertation. To all of the future teachers, leaders, principals, and
superintendents, I hope to inspire you to continue doing what is best for students and to never
stop learning.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

3
Acknowledgements
I want to start off by thanking Dr. Rudy Castruita for his guidance and encouragement
during this dissertation process. Additionally I want to thank Dr. John Roach and Dr. David
Cash for their valued support as committee members. Rich, Liz, Danielle, Natalie, Monique, and
Jennaca, thank you for all of the support over the last three years. Rich, thank you for embarking
on this dissertation journey with me and always listening or sharing stories with me.
I would not have ever dreamed of being in this program and achieving a doctorate
without the continued love and support from Dr. Issaic Gates. He has pushed me to think outside
of the box and encouraged me to be a leader in education. I also want to thank Diane Astiazaran
who kept me organized and made sure that I left for class on time every week. She continued to
support me and always ensured that everything in the office was running smoothly. For the past
three years we have learned and grown together and I could not have done any of it without her
by my side.
The mountain of support from family and friends is something that I am truly grateful
for. To my parents, who continually told me I was crazy yet at the same time encouraged me
and told me I was amazing, I am who I am today because of both of you. Thank you to my
sister, brother-in law, and friends who provided me endless support when I needed it most.
Last but not least, none of this would be possible without the love and support of one
person in particular. Jackson, you have watched me spend hours on the computer, reading,
researching, and typing papers and never once showed anything to me but compassion and
understanding. Every errand you ran or meal you made while I was working did not go
unnoticed. You truly are amazing, I love you, and I could not have done this without you.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………2
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..3
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….4
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...6
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………..7
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………............8
Preface……………………………………………………………………………………............10
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study……………………………………………………….............11
Background of the Problem………………………………………………………...........12
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………...............17
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………......................17
Research Questions………………………………………………………........................17
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………...............18
Limitations and Delimitations………………………………………………………........19
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………........................19
Organization of the Study………………………………………………………..............20
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature………………………………………………………...........21
The Role of the Principal………………………………………………………...............22
The Role of the Superintendent……………………………………………………….....24
Relationship between the Superintendent and Principal…………………………………25
Leadership Theories……………………………………………………….......................26
Educational Leadership Concepts………………………………………………………..30
Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………..................39
Conclusion……………………………………………………….....................................41
Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………............................42
Introduction………………………………………………………....................................42
Instrumentation and Protocols……………………………………………………….......46
Data Collection………………………………………………………..............................48
Data Analysis……………………………………………………….................................49
Summary………………………………………………………........................................52
Chapter 4: Findings………………………………………………………....................................53
Introduction………………………………………………………....................................53
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………......................53
Coding of Data………………………………………………………...............................54
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

5
Presentation of Findings………………………………………………………................55
Descriptive Characteristics………………………………………………………............55
Findings for RQ #1………………………………………………………........................57
Findings for RQ #2………………………………………………………........................61
Findings for RQ #3………………………………………………………........................65
Findings for RQ #4………………………………………………………........................70
Discussion………………………………………………………......................................75
Chapter 5: Conclusion………………………………………………………................................78
Introduction………………………………………………………....................................78
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………...............78
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………......................78
Research Questions………………………………………………………........................79
Review of the Literature………………………………………………………................79
Methodology………………………………………………………..................................81
Key Findings………………………………………………………..................................82
Comparing and Contrasting between Counties…………………………………………..83
Implications for Practice………………………………………………………................84
Limitations……………………………………………………….....................................85
Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………….86
Conclusion……………………………………………………….....................................86
References………………………………………………………..................................................88
Appendix A: Survey Questions……………………………………………………….................97
Appendix B: Interview Protocol………………………………………………………..............101
Appendix C: Participant Cover letter……………………………………………………….......105

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

6
List of Tables
Table 1. Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Superintendents 36
Table 2. Interview Respondents
Table 3. Ways in which Superintendents Provide Support
Table 4. Frequency of Communication between Superintendents and Secondary Principals
Table 5. Methods of Communication between Superintendents and Secondary Principals
Table 6. Superintendent Perceptions of Money Spent on Professional Development for
Secondary Principals
Table 7. Superintendent Perceptions of Leading Professional Development as a Method of
Support for Secondary Principals

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Instructional Leadership framework 31

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

8
Abstract
Research has shown that some superintendent leadership practices have a positive
correlation to student achievement (Cudeiro, 2005; Eck & Goodwin, 2010; Waters & Marzano,
2006), but there is little that explains the complex relationship between the superintendent and a
principal. With this shift in role expectations, the question being asked is how superintendents
prepare, train, and support principals as instructional leaders. Specifically, how do
superintendents in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties build capacity in
their secondary principals as instructional leaders, if at all.
The broader joint research investigated school districts in four counties—Orange,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego. Specifically, this study explored the strategies that
superintendents of school districts use to build capacity in their secondary principals as
instructional leaders in accordance with Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional
leadership.
The research questions used to guide this study were: What support systems do
Superintendents in Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino counties provide to assist
secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders? What are superintendents’ perceptions of
the support provided to secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders? What supports
do Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino county superintendents provide to their
secondary principals as instructional leaders? And finally: What strategies are seen as most
valuable by Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino counties’ superintendents in
affecting secondary principals’ role as an instructional leader?
The researchers selected a mixed-methods design for the study. There were quantitative
(surveys) and qualitative (interviews) data collected and analyzed. A thematic approach was used
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

9
to analyze data because qualitative data analysis focuses on identifying themes, categories,
patterns, and answers to research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The first key finding was
that superintendents in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties use a cycle-
of-inquiry aligned goal setting and professional development as support systems to assist
secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders. Moreover, in Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and San Diego counties, superintendents’ perceptions of the support provided to
principals in becoming instructional leaders showed a disconnect in terms of the professional
development provided. They acknowledged that there are layers between the superintendent and
principal, and there needs to be a balance between being a leader versus a manager. Third, the
most used supports offered by superintendents in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San
Diego counties are communication and relationships and coaching and modeling. Finally,
superintendents in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties identified
professional development, buy-in/large decision making bodies, alignment/consistent
communication, and visibility as the most valuable strategies that affect principals’ roles as an
instructional leader.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

10
Preface

Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with one other doctoral candidate,
Richard Moore. As doctoral students, the two of us met with the aim of further understanding the
role of the secondary principal as an instructional leader and how the superintendent supports
this role. However, the process for dissecting and resolving the problem was too large for a
single dissertation. As a result, the two dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively
address this inquiry (see Moore, 2020).

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

11
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

The 21st century student looks different and has different demands than students did 50
years ago (Suarez-Orozco, 2009; Suarez-Orozco & Baolian Qin-Hilliard, 2004; Trilling & Fadel,
2009). Similarly, school administrators have different roles to meet the changing needs of our
students than they did 50 years ago. Principals are no longer just managers but are asked to
assume the role of manager, politician, and instructional leader, while still raising student
achievement (McGowan & Miller, 2001). With bureaucratic accountability and the
implementation of high stakes testing and reforms such as No Child Left Behind and Common
Core State Standards, more and more pressure is being put on site principals and district level
administrators to raise student achievement and test scores (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Elmore,
2002; Firestone & Shipps, 2005). The research has found that principals are being asked to
perform these roles and act as instructional leaders despite a huge disconnect in administrator
preparation programs (Eckman, 2004; Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2009;
Jazzar, 2015; López, 2003). Now more than ever, principals need support for their new role as
instructional leaders. With a large amount of research on the role of the superintendent and their
effectiveness, there is a gap in the literature in relation to the superintendent’s new role in
building the capacity of their principals, specifically in regards to the principal’s role as an
instructional leader. Research has shown that some superintendent leadership practices have a
positive correlation to student achievement (Cudeiro, 2005; Eck & Goodwin, 2010; Waters &
Marzano, 2006), but there is little that explains the complex relationship of the superintendent
and a principal . With this shift in role expectations, the question being asked is how
superintendents prepare, train, and support principals as instructional leaders. Specifically, how
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

12
do superintendents in Southern California build capacity in their secondary principals as
instructional leaders, if at all.

Background of the Problem

The Chief State School Officers of Washington D.C, (2015) suggests that the model
principal supervisor (superintendent) falls into three broad categories: developing principals as
instructional leaders, getting the board to buy in so that the superintendent can balance time spent
with the board and at individual sites, and improving the capacity and effectiveness of the
principal as a leader. Although the superintendent is the supervisor, the literature does advise that
the relationship is collaborative (Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M.
2007). The primary role of the superintendent is to support and improve the principal’s capacity
for instructional leadership (2015). The Chief State School Officers of Washington D.C, supports
this with professional performance standards that monitor the superintendent’s progress in
developing their principals’ capacity as an instructional leader.
According to Hitt and Tucker (2016), instructional leadership has been viewed as
foundational work for principals since the 1980s. Leaders influence student achievement through
employing various practices. The principal establishes and conveys the vision, they explain how
it will be set and why it is necessary (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). The vision is the why behind the
school and has a direct correlation to what the learner experiences in their classes. It is also the
responsibility of the principal to build professional capacity using district goals or setting goals
pertaining to the school’s vision. Most important, the principal must create a supportive
organization for learning (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). The principal then needs to cultivate a culture of
ensuring the school is doing everything possible to support high achievement for all of its
students. This process is cumbersome and takes people-work such as building relationships and
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

13
trust. In addition to this work, principals are still in charge of the managerial tasks of running a
school such as the budget, evaluation of teachers, discipline, attendance, and more. The problem
being examined here is how superintendents are able to support their principals as instructional
leaders in a setting where they are being asked to be both managers and leaders at the same time.
The role of the Superintendent is so complex and measured by such high standards tied to
accountability that few people are willing to tackle this job (Cudeiro, 2005). This leadership
position is also shaped by the socio-economic forces of the generation and consistently
challenged by the reform movement both at the state and federal level (Wolf, 1988). Wolf
(1988) also described how in the mid-1970s superintendents were expected to provide direction
and leadership to improve teaching and learning while at the same time remaining the efficient
manager of funding, facilities, and day to day activities. Another article noted that the position
of Superintendent is also the most influential in regards to forming curriculum policy with the
ability to influence curriculum in a positive way (Andero, 2001). The same author also found
that the role of the superintendent is diminishing under state and federal policies. With all of the
challenges facing the superintendent role, research still finds that superintendents play a major
role in improving student learning (Cudeiro, 2005; Eck & Goodwin, 2010; Waters & Marzano,
2006). Wolf (1988) discusses how the superintendent must see curriculum and instruction issues
as more important in their daily activities. Others have noted however that the role of the
superintendent should be one of teaching, noting that good teaching is more than just lecturing
and giving directions, so the role of the superintendent needs to be more than just issuing
authoritarian directives (Doremus, n.d.). Senge (1990) had similar findings stating that the leader
as a teacher does not mean leader as authoritarian expert, but a leader to help those in the
organization gain more insight into the current reality, acting mainly as a coach or facilitator.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

14
The evolution of the superintendent’s role is emerging as an active instructional-leadership style
to improve the education of students (Shirley, 1990).
Similarly, the role of the principal is changing to focus more on an instructional style of
leadership rather than only focusing on managerial leadership tasks. Public education systems
often reinforce and expect its principals to be managers and not leaders due to the high levels of
accountability. However the current school system requires that principals and administrators be
able to be both managers and leaders (McGowan & Miller, 2001). The principal must be able to
further the enthusiasm and spirit within a school, advocate for their staff, establish procedures,
and perform a participatory function at community events (Hertz, 1980). The role of the principal
is at a critical intersection with a focus on improving teaching and learning due to increased
accountability (Fink & Silverman, 2014). Ramsden (1998) reviews qualities of a learner leader in
relation to the four responsibilities of a leader: looking after people, organized management,
direction, and assessment of performance. All of these are asked of principals as both managers
and instructional leaders. Riehl (2000) also defines the role of a school administrator as
communicating vision, promoting inclusion, and building relationships. A common theme is the
principal acting as more than a manager, but as someone who is an integral part of the school
culture, including classroom culture. The challenge that many principals are finding is to be
responsive to the managerial tasks, while simultaneously developing a sense of responsibility
and building capacity in others (Murphy, 1988). The nature of principal work frequently involves
less discrete and unidirectional activities and more interconnected practices (Scribner, Crow,
Lopez, & Murthada, 2011). Principals need to be more than just managers, they need to have a
variety of leadership skills in order to make an impact on the school and student achievement.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

15
While the role of the superintendent and principal have shifted to reflect a variety of
leadership traits needed for success, it is important to examine their roles in relation to each
other. The relationship between the superintendent and principal is interwoven, where one
balances the other. Specifically, the skills each needs to be successful are closely linked (Hertz,
1980). More recently, there seems to be a need for superintendents and principals to dialogue
together about role definition, expectations, school board relationships, and the place of teaching
and learning (Wolf, 1988). Hatchel (2012) found that the principal-superintendent relationship
was centered around trust building. Superintendents support their principals in a variety of ways
including shared leadership, teachers as leaders, accountability for results, and a continued focus
on development as an instructional leader (Spanneut & Ford, 2008). Principals must build
relationships with their superintendents and vice versa to ensure a competent team (West, 2011).
Their relationship provides a foundation for the principal’s role as a manager versus an
instructional leader.
Bolman & Deal (1994) compare managers and leaders by noting that while both skills
can be exercised by the same individual, we look to leadership when our institutions no longer
serve their intended purposes, while managers focus their attention dealing with an endless queue
of seemingly urgent problems. They summarized these concepts by stating that leaders need to
be both defenders of values and as educators, create, inspire, or motivate cultures, reflecting both
the manager and leadership role. With the shifting role of the principal to instructional leader,
support is needed to ensure the principal’s success. Superintendents who want to develop their
principals as instructional leaders begin by establishing common understandings with them about
what instructional leadership is necessary and then provide support for them to develop and
refine their skills (Spanneut & Ford, 2008). A foundational idea behind the new role of the
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

16
principal is reciprocal accountability where district leaders are going to hold principals
accountable for high quality teaching and learning, but also have the responsibility to ensure that
principals have the knowledge and skills needed to deliver on those expectations (Fink &
Silverman, 2014). In this new role principals are being held accountable for a skill set that they
were not trained in. Much of the literature surrounding the topic of the principal as an
instructional leader points to how administrator preparation programs are not providing adequate
training for principals in this new role (Bolman & Deal, 1994; Cray & Weiler, 2011; Eckman,
2004; Goldring et al., 2009; Jazzar, 2015; Olson, 2000; Scribner et al., 2011; Wolf, 1988).
In addition to preparation programs, education reforms are affecting the role of manager
and instructional leader for many administrators. School change is a perplexing equation with
variables such as higher expectations, common standards, parent involvement, technology,
assessment, professional development, teaching, facilities, and more (McGowan & Miller, 2001).
The missing piece in this extensive list is a focus on leadership. Additionally, McGowan and
Miller (2001) stated that the primary factor contributing to the disappointing results of
nationwide reform efforts is the inability to invest in local leadership. Effective leadership from
school administrators is extremely critical and involves shifting roles from a managerial style to
a focus on instructional leadership. There is a large push within school reform for our leaders to
be learning centered. Goldring et al. (2009) lists six roles of the learning centered leader needed
in schools today: planning, implementing, supporting, advocating, communicating, monitoring.
With this new idea of a learning centered leader, one study found that superintendents identified
their first priority as promoting the principal’s role as instructional leader by placing a focus on
student learning in the district vision and held principals accountable for being instructional
leaders (Cudeiro, 2005). A different article stated that principals should become leaders of
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

17
instruction, almost exclusively focused on raising student achievement rather than being building
managers (Olson, 2000). Shared instructional leadership calls for leaders to inspect teaching
practices less and focus instead on facilitating continual teacher growth (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
They found that effective leaders are geared toward enhancing the most important school-based
factor in student achievement, teaching.

Statement of the Problem
This study examines strategies superintendents use to build capacity in their secondary
principals as instructional leaders. It is important to examine and understand the complex
relationship that superintendents have with their principals and how this relationship impacts
each person’s role as an instructional leader.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the strategies superintendents in Southern
California use to build capacity in their secondary principals as instructional leaders. This study
examined the supports provided and the perceptions of the supports provided by superintendents
to secondary principals in relation to the principal’s role as an instructional leader. By
examining this question through the lens of superintendents it provided reflection on how
superintendents could form a more collaborative and supportive relationship that meets the
principals’ needs as a leader.
Research Questions

The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. What support systems do Southern California superintendents in Orange and San Diego
counties provide to assist secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders?
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

18
2. What are superintendents’ in Orange and San Diego counties perceptions of the support
provided to principals in becoming instructional leaders?
3. What supports to Southern California superintendents in Orange and San Diego counties
provide to their secondary principals as instructional leaders?
4. What strategies are seen as most valuable by superintendents in Orange and San Diego
counties in affecting principals’ roles as an instructional leader?
Each of these questions is significant because it allows the researcher to gain a deeper
understanding of the principal-superintendent relationship and how the superintendent can
support secondary principals. These questions also focus on the principal’s role as an
instructional leader through the eyes of the superintendent. Gaining insight into the
superintendent’s perception of the principal as an instructional leader will help to further
understand how they see their role in supporting the principal. Ultimately, this study will reveal
various strategies employed by superintendents in southern California to build the capacity of
secondary principals as instructional leaders thus, helping to transition the role of the principal
from manager to instructional leader.
Significance of the Study

The significance of this study has to do with examining the strategies superintendents
employ to build capacity in principals as instructional leaders. There exists literature that
describes the superintendent principal relationship (Hitt & Tucker, 2016) but this study aims to
fill a gap in the literature focusing on strategies used to build capacity in principals as
instructional leaders. This study will act as a useful piece of literature for both superintendents
and principals in examining their relationship and ways in which they can effectively build
capacity in their principals. Without administrative preparation programs changing their
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

19
curriculum to provide more training for principals in their role as an instructional leaders, this
study can serve to fill in the gaps in the literature needed to support school leaders.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study were limited to sitting superintendents and secondary
principals in the Southern California region. This limited the generalizability of the results
because it does not examine all K-12 principals’ perceptions of the support provided by the
superintendent. In addition, limitations were present in the results due to the Southern
California regions used and the small sample of superintendents and secondary principals
interviewed.
The delimitations of the study were limited to three areas: the role of people surveyed and
interviewed (superintendents and secondary principals), the geographic region (Southern
California), and the number of superintendents and principals surveyed and interviewed.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:

1. Superintendent and superintendency: the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the school
district (Norton, Webb, Dlugosh, Sybouts, 1996).

2. K-12: kindergarten and first through twelfth grade (Glass & Franceschini, 2000)

3. Instructional leader: one who defines the school’s mission, manages the instructional
program, and promotes a positive school-learning climate (Philip Hallinger & Murphy,
1985).

4. Manager: one who focuses on maintaining existing relationships and order, using proven
ways of doing things, working within what people think is desirable, and of course, working
harder and longer (Zaleznik, 2001)

5. Build capacity: individualized learning and responsibility for learning; building trust (Hitt
& Tucker, 2016)

6. Secondary: grades 7 through 12 in public schools (Glass & Franceschini, 2000).

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

20
Organization of the Study

This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter one provides an overview of the study
and articulates why research on this topic is important. Additionally, the background and context
that the problem results from are listed in chapter one. Chapter two examines the literature
related to this topic as that relates to the research questions. Chapter two also highlights the lack
of present literature on this topic and provides comments as to why there is a need to support the
study of this topic. Chapter two will begin with background on the role of the superintendent
and principal and then begin to examine what instructional leadership is and the different
components that make up an instructional leader.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

21
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Good principals are widely acknowledged as the cornerstones of good schools. Without a
principal’s leadership, efforts to raise student achievement in a school are unlikely to succeed
(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004). The principal is a key agent that sets the tone and direction
for the school, initiates change, provides expertise, marshals resources, unifies partners, and
maintains effort (Gareis & Tschannen-Moran, 2004). The principalship is a complex and
demanding job, it requires a depth of professional knowledge, an array of skills, and a particular
set of beliefs or dispositions about how and why to act (Gareis & Tschannen-Moran, 2004). As
complex as the job of the principal sounds, it is equally important for superintendents to ensure
that their principals possess the self-efficacy beliefs to navigate the rigorous demands of the job
(Gareis & Tschannen-Moran, 2004).
This study adds to the growing body of academic literature on the impact superintendent
leadership exerts on secondary principal capacity as instructional leaders. There is a total of four
sections delineated in this literature review.
The first section defines the role of the principal, the superintendent, accountability to
whom and how. This segment also examines the principal’s duties and how they are delineated.
The context in the next section is important for the reader to see what else the superintendent
does besides support their principals and examines how the role has evolved over time. The next
subsection focuses on the relationship between the superintendent and the principal, a bond that
invites and enables objective feedback and personal growth. The second section focuses on
leadership theories, identifying four styles of leadership: Transformational, Accountable, Learner
Leader, and Adaptive. This segment discusses leadership styles and background information on
various types of leaders. The third section examines educational leadership concepts. In this
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

22
section the researcher will analyze three educational leadership concepts: Four Frames (Bolman
& Deal, 2008), Manager vs. Leader, and Instructional Leadership where the researcher will also
define the term instructional leader and further examine the mission of an instructional leader,
the managing of an instructional program, and school climate. All are variables that define the
effectiveness of a principal as an instructional leader (Fisher & Frey, 2008).
This review of literature concludes with the conceptual framework that will guide this
study and outline the characteristics that will be examined in studying the strategies
superintendents employ in order to build capacity in secondary principals as instructional
leaders. The conceptual framework for this study is based off of the instructional leadership
model developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) and is one of the models that has been used
frequently in empirical studies and scholarly journals.
The Role of the Principal
Principals play managerial, political, instructional, institutional, human resource, and
symbolic leadership roles in their schools (Bolman & Deal, 2013). The principal’s role has
become increasingly complex as the nature of society, political expectations, and schools as
organizations have changed (Valentine & Prater, 2011). Principals sit at a critical intersection
during this time of increased accountability (Fink & Silverman, 2014). Leaders influence
student achievement through the employing of various practices. The principal establishes and
conveys the vision, they explain how it will be set and why it is necessary (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
The vision is the why behind the school and has a direct correlation to what the learner
experiences in their classes. It is also the responsibility of the principal to build professional
capacity using district goals or using goal setting pertaining to the school’s vision. These
characteristics express those of an instructional leader (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). According
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

23
to Hitt and Tucker (2016), instructional leadership has been viewed as foundational work for
principals since the 1980s. This process of school leadership is cumbersome and takes people
work such as building relationships and trust, but when done at a high level you will have a
successful administrator, successful teachers, and most importantly a successful school based on
student achievement (Hitt and Tucker, 2016). The principal must create an environment where
students and teachers grow and learn together (DuFour, 1999). Most important, the principal
must create a supportive organization for learning (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). Hitt and Tucker (2016)
further emphasize, that the principal then needs to cultivate a culture of ensuring the school is
doing everything possible to support high achievement for all of its students. Principals must
exercise leadership in instructional organization and climate through their power, authority, and
influence (Bossart, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982). Similarly, even the best consultant is no
substitute for a school culture that fosters a learning community, and the hard work of building
that culture must fall to the people within the school (DuFour, 1998). Effective principals must
work with their staff members to articulate clear and measurable goals, to identify indicators that
offer evidence of progress, and to develop systems for monitoring those indicators on a
continuous basis (DuFour, 1999). Fullan (2002) takes it one step farther and discusses how
schools need leaders who can transform the learning culture of a school and that defining the
principal as an instructional leader alone is too narrow a concept for the kinds of reforms that
will create the schools needed for the future. Bossert et al., (1982) state that ...
effective principals provide coherence to their schools’ instructional programs,
conceptualize instructional goals, set high academic standards, stay informed of policies
and teachers’ problems, make frequent classroom visits, create incentives for learning,
and maintain student discipline. (35)
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

24
In examining the role of the principal for this literature review, this will be the lens in which they
are viewed through.
The Role of the Superintendent
Superintendents are the highest organizational leaders in school districts; therefore, they
are entrusted with the responsibility of creating conditions for all students’ needs to be met
academically, socially, and emotionally (Waters & Marzano, 2006). A meta-analysis conducted
by Waters and Marzano (2006) found a statistically significant relationship (a positive
correlation of .24) between district (superintendent) and student achievement. The role of a
successful superintendent is complex, but it is extremely structured (Bjork & Gurley, 2003). One
of the most imperative components of being a successful district is for superintendents to run a
goal-oriented district (Marzano & Waters, 2006). The process of setting goals should be
collaborative, contain non-negotiable achievement and instruction goals, must be school board
aligned, and support district goals, the goals need to be monitored, and the districts resources,
including time, money, personnel, and materials shall be allocated to accomplish the district’s
goals (Marzano & Waters, 2006). Moreover, effective superintendents may set clear, non-
negotiable goals for learning and instruction, yet provide school leadership teams with the
responsibility and autonomy for determining how to meet those goals (Marzano & Waters,
2006). The capacity building is what the superintendent will do and the evaluation serves as the
accountability measure to ensure that the principal is following through on the guidance provided
by the superintendent (Marzano & Waters, 2006). While most states and districts have adopted
new principal evaluation systems, they still do not provide principals clear direction on the
highest priority activities they should be involved in day to day (Fink & Silverman, 2014). As
the face of the school district the superintendent has immense impact on the district; however,
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

25
research reveals that he or she must be able to balance being goal-oriented and allowing their
principals autonomy (Superville, 2014). Principal autonomy is a necessity, it is equally important
that the principal and superintendent have a relationship that invites open, honest, feedback and
discourse (Frey, Rosin, & Wilson, 2007).
Relationship Between the Superintendent and Principal
A key step in leadership development is helping superintendents, principals, and school
boards understand who they are, what they believe, what their vision is, what values they have,
and how their behavior affects others (McGowan & Miller, 2001). The Chief State School
Officers of Washington D.C (2015), suggests that the model principal supervisor
(superintendent) falls into three broad categories: developing principals as instructional leaders,
getting the board to buy in so that the superintendent can balance time spent with the board and
at individual sites, and improving the capacity and effectiveness of the principal as a leader.
Although the superintendent is the supervisor, the literature does advise that the relationship is
collaborative (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007). Similarly, leadership
must be conceptualized as a mutual influence process, rather than as a one-way process in which
leaders influence others (P. Hallinger, 2003).
The primary role of the superintendent is to support and improve the principal's capacity
for instructional leadership (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2009). The Chief
State School Officers of Washington D.C, support this with professional performance standards
that monitor the superintendent’s progress in developing their principals’ self-efficacy. From
this point of view, it is the responsibility of district leaders to ensure that they have created
expectations, supports, and conditions necessary for principal effectiveness (Fink & Silverman,
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

26
2014). The limited authority of principals is compounded with the needs to meet the
expectations of those above and below them in the hierarchy (Hallinger, 2003).
Leadership Theories
Transformational
Transformational leadership focuses on developing an organization's capacity to innovate
and seeks to support the development of changes to the practices of teaching and learning,
ultimately creating a climate of continuous learning for teachers (Hallinger, 2003). The best
leaders are both transformational and transactional because transformational behaviors augment
the effects of transactional behaviors (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Transformational leadership
emphasizes emotions and values, acknowledges the symbolic behavior, and conceptualizes the
role of the leader as helping to make events meaningful for followers (Yukl, 1998). Similar to
the framework for instructional leadership designed by Hallinger (1985), Leithwood and Jantzi
(2005) identified transformational leadership behaviors identified in empirical studies that almost
mirror the framework created by Hallinger. The same authors found that transformational
leaders: set directions through a vision, goals, and high expectations; help people through
modeling and individualized support; and redesign the organization by building and fostering
collaborative cultures and creating productive relationships with parents and the community.
These ideas support the same three overarching principles of instructional leadership that
Hallinger and Murphy (1985) discuss with a focus on setting goals, managing and supporting
staff, and promoting a school climate. From this lens, instructional leaders act as and express
behaviors also found in transformational leaders.
However, Hallinger (2003) does distinguish between the two leadership models by
stating that transformational leadership seeks to influence people by building from the bottom-up
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

27
where as instructional leadership uses a top-down approach emphasizing the principal’s control
of instruction and school improvement. The principals in one study combined the structural task
of developing school goals, the political needs to build alliances, and the need to improve
teaching and learning with the symbolic leadership by inspiring, and demonstrating care and
support for their staff (Day, Harris, & Hadfield, 2001). Transformational forms of leadership
encourage secondary principals to focus their energy on the capacities of classroom teachers
because teachers are in a position to impact direct leadership in the classroom (Valentine &
Prater, 2011). This theory of leadership works in conjunction with principal’s role as an
instructional leader in schools.
Accountable
Accountability is a matter of organizational response rather than compliance or
implementation (Elmore, 2005). Elmore (2005) continued to state that accountability policy
tends to revolve around getting schools and districts to comply with the requirements of the law
and, in so doing, implement what legislators intended. Educational accountability begins with
collecting consistent information on specific outcomes and inputs of interest over time (Deming
& Figlio, 2016). These accountability measures are derived from goals collaboratively set by the
superintendent and principal that contain non-negotiable achievement and instruction goals, the
goals are school board aligned, and the goals need to be progress monitored. The change in
demands is largely a consequence of the introduction of performance-based accountability—
policies that evaluate, reward, and sanction schools on the basis of measured student
performance (Elmore, 2005). He also stated that ...
school leaders form their conceptions of accountability from three sources: individual
beliefs and values about what they can and should do, or individual responsibility;
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

28
collective norms and values that define the organization in which individuals work, or
collective expectations; and formal mechanisms by which teachers account for what they
do. (135)
Accountability systems can be designed based on high or low stakes outcomes,
incentives, and even consequences (Deming & Figlio, 2016). Some argue that accountability
systems with low stakes for educators will not induce them to improve educational practice, and
push for strong consequences associated with measured performance. However, the problem
with high-stakes accountability is that the objective metrics are typically incomplete descriptions
of performance (Deming & Figlio, 2016). Moreover, an inherent tension also arises between
using achievement tests both as a diagnostic tool and also as a high-stakes performance measure
(Neal, 2013). Furthermore, as long as what is being measured is only a proxy for the desired
outcome, the effects of accountability efforts are theoretically ambiguous (Deming & Figlio,
2016). There is a shift towards reciprocal accountability in schools meaning that if district
leaders are going to hold principals accountable for high quality teaching and learning, district
leaders must ensure that principals have the appropriate knowledge and skills to follow through
with those expectations. In short, principals cannot be held accountable for something they do
not know how to do (Fink & Silverman, 2014).
Learner Leader
A final theory of leadership focuses on the principal as a leader focused on learning.
Schools and organizations must foster knowledge giving as well as knowledge seeking,
endorsing continual learning for all individuals (Fullan, 2002). The rate at which organizations
learn may become the only substantial source of competitive advantage (Senge, 1990). Fullan
(2002) also describes the principal as the lead learner in the school by modeling, sharing,
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

29
engaging in research, and implementing inquiry groups within the staff. The principal is no
longer required to be the head teacher but the more crucial role is head learner: experiencing and
modeling the expected behaviors of teachers and students (Barth, 1986). In an era where the
need for understanding how organizations learn and accelerating that learning is greater today
than ever before, it is imperative that the leaders embrace a learning approach to leadership
(Senge, 1990).
Adaptive leadership
Adaptiveness is the first stage in moving toward learning organizations (Senge, 1990).
The impulse to learn goes deeper than desires to respond and adapt more effectively to
environmental change. The impulse to learn, at its heart, is an impulse to expand our capability
(Senge, 1990). Senge’s findings exhibit why there is a focus on learning leadership which
requires taking an adaptive approach. Therefore, as a leader, it is imperative to see the systems
that control events. Failing to grasp the systemic source of problems, results in trial and error
rather than eliminating underlying causes. The best that can be done is to embrace adaptive
learning (Senge, 1990). In addition to focusing their attention and improvement efforts on
practices that are highly likely to improve achievement, principals must also skillfully adapt their
leadership behaviors based on the “order of magnitude” (Marzano & Waters, 2006).
Collaborative goal-setting
Effective superintendents include all relevant stakeholders, including central office staff,
building-level administrators, and board members, in establishing non-negotiable goals for their
districts. In particular, they ensure that building-level administrators throughout the district are
heavily involved in the goal-setting process since these are the individuals who, will implement
articulated goals in schools (Marzano & Waters, 2006). While a consensus may not be reached
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

30
among all stakeholders, initial agreement regarding district goals among stakeholders will
support attainment of the proposed goals. This opinion of the importance of goal setting and
school vision is found in the instructional leadership model proposed by Hallinger and Murphy
(1985).
Marzano and Waters (2006) also found that “defined autonomy” contributes positively to
student achievement. Richard Elmore (2000) describes that in order for principals to focus on
leading learning with their staff, principals have to first understand their core purpose and align
their actions more intentionally with the mission of the school. He found that articulating a
learning focused vision that is shared by others creates the necessary platform for all other
leadership actions. Thus, further stressing the importance of collaboration in theory of learner
leadership and incorporating this into the role of the principal as an instructional leader.
Educational Leadership Concepts
Four Frames
Bolman and Deal delineated a four-part model that can be used to examine successful
superintendent and site-level leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2013). The four-frames provide
distinctive lenses and skills needed by change agents and transformational leaders with different
objectives. Bolman and Deal (2013) proclaim four frames: structural, human resource, political,
and symbolic which are intended to support leaders in being effective. These four frames support
organizational standards by substantiating excellence, empathy, justice, and faith. Marzano and
Waters (2006) contend that the expertise and talent of organizational leaders to respond to
organizational stakeholder demands positively influence student achievement. Leaders such as
superintendents and principals need to cultivate site-level trust and leadership to fulfill the
mission and vision by promoting collective responsibility (Elmore, 2000). Possessing the ability
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

31
to successfully navigate the four frames will increase the instructional leader’s ability to select
the proper frame to purposely address the mission and vision, and in this case, positively impact
student achievement, thus fully epitomizing Hallinger and Murphy’s model (1985).
Manager versus Leader
Differentiating the role of manager and instructional leader is another component to be
examined because both the superintendent and the principal have to balance these two roles. The
role of the principalship is a paradox with competing demands that pull principals in opposite
directions. The predominant role enacted by principals from the 1920s until the 1970s was one
of administrative manager (Valentine & Prater, 2011). Managers generally exercise less control
over core tasks in organizations and tend to focus on activities that are less ambiguous or those
that entail less personal risk (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). With these competing demands,
principals do not have enough time to be effective instructional leaders and have not allocated a
significant portion of their time to managing instructional activities (Fink & Silverman, 2014;
Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). This creates a divide between school leader’s roles as managers
and leaders where even the most skillful high school principal cannot be knowledgeable in all of
the disciplinary domains that comprise the secondary school curriculum (Hallinger & Murphy,
2012). Through their role as managers and instructional leaders, it is widely understood that
principals play a pivotal role in the improvement of teaching and learning, yet many districts
have not created the necessary conditions for principal success (Fink & Silverman, 2014).
Previously, an administrator trying to be an instructional leader has had little direction in
determining just what it means to do so (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). The solution to this
dilemma of manager versus leader cannot be found with old models of the principal as a
disciplinarian but instead with the principal as leading learning (DuFour, 1999). While
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

32
management skills are necessary in any school leader’s job, management skills and time are no
longer sufficient to meet the increasing challenges and demands within a school (McGowan &
Miller, 2001). One study found that many principals say they spend more time on management
and paperwork than on instructional leadership because that is what they perceive to be the
district’s priorities (Cudeiro, 2005). Valentine and Prater (2011) conducted a study of high
school principals and their leadership role in connection to student achievement and found that ...
day-to-day managerial skills such as effectively organizing tasks and personnel,
developing rules and procedures, evaluating employees, and providing appropriate
information to staff and students are vital to a successful school operation and cannot be
overlooked when discussing a comprehensive model of principal leadership. (22)
The researcher found in the literature review the two-way pull that principals experience
to act as both managers and as instructional leaders. One facet of this has instructional leaders
leading through building a mission and through managing activities that increase alignment of
activities with those purposes (Hallinger, 2005). However, a lack of support or professional
development that principals need to improve their skills is a common condition of a school site
and district that could impact a principal’s effectiveness as an instructional leader (Fink &
Silverman, 2014). A study by Day et al., (2001) had findings that supported the need for a
principal to act as both a manager and an instructional leader. Day et al., (2001) studied
principals, teachers, and parents in the UK and found that principals were both transactional by
maintaining that the school ran smoothly and transformative by building on human competence,
raising achievement, and inspiring others. Their research agrees with the previous literature
discussing the dual role of the principal to manage the day to day functions of the school and
focus on the instructional leadership aspects of the school. The same authors continue to say
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

33
how many principals put an emphasis on the quality of their relationships with staff and stressed
the need to build supportive and critical relationships as a means of developing a collaborative
culture.
Looking at the role of a principal as both a manager and a leader, research has found that
principal management behavior has both direct and indirect effects on student learning (Bossert
et al., 1982). With this in mind, it is imperative that principals and superintendents undergo a
continuum of learning in relation to student achievement. These findings overall, stress the need
for principals to act as instructional leaders defined as able to align the strategies and activities of
the school to the school’s academic mission and focus not only on leading, but also on managing
(Hallinger, 2005).
Instructional Leadership
The literature found by the researchers for this review about education, reveals there is a
belief that principals must be instructional leaders and that their leadership capabilities have an
effect in raising student achievement (Fullan, 2002). Instructional leadership models emerged in
the early 1980s from research focused on effective schools and identified directive leadership
focused on curriculum and instruction from the principal (Hallinger, 2003). Hallinger and Heck
(1996) found that this was the most common leadership style used during their review of
empirical research from 1980-1985. Although research increased on the topic of instructional
leadership in the 1980s, during that same time period relatively little reference was made in the
school setting to teachers, department leads, or assistant principals in their role as instructional
leaders (Hallinger, 2005). Moreover, principals as instructional leaders were viewed as culture
builders. They sought to create an academic culture that fostered high expectations and standards
for students, as well as for teachers (Barth, 2002).
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

34
Currently, principals are at a crossroads between accountability and school improvement
with an increasingly explicit expectation that their role will function as an instructional leader
(Hallinger, 2005). There is also substantial research discussing the responsibility of principal
preparation programs to teach principals how to be instructional leaders, yet many preparation
programs are not setting principals up to do this role (Eckman, 2004; Goldring et al., 2009;
Jazzar, 2015; Leithwood, 1994; Scribner et al., 2011; Taylor-Backor & Gordon, 2015). Despite
this lack of preparation, principals are being called to act as instructional leaders in schools
today.
Instructional leadership is viewed as an influential process where leaders identify a
direction for the school, motivate staff, and work to improve teaching and learning (Hallinger &
Murphy, 2012). Furthermore, a principal’s instructional management behavior affects two basic
features of the school’s social organization: the climate and instructional organization (Bossert et
al., 1982). After much review of the literature, Hallinger (2005) found the following
characteristics as being typical of an instructional leader...
creating a shared purpose, setting clear goals focused on student learning, fostering
continuous improvement, developing a climate of high expectations, creating a school
culture focused on improvement of teaching and learning, coordinating curriculum,
monitoring student learning outcomes, shaping the reward structure to match the school’s
mission, organizing activities aimed at continuous staff development, being a visible
presence in the school, and modeling the desired values of a school’s culture. (13)
Hallinger (2005) also summarized instructional leaders as those who set clear, academic goals in
order to get the organization moving in the desired direction where the principal takes a hands-on
role in coordinating instruction. Bossart et al. (1982) had similar findings that instructional
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

35
leaders create a school climate focused on learning, a focus on instruction, high expectations for
students and staff, and a system to monitor student progress. Elaborating on this, the authors
stated that the principals of these schools were strong, programmatic leaders who allocate
resources effectively. Another similar definition was found in the literature by Cudeiro (2005)
stating that instructional leadership is defined as ...
having content expertise in instructional strategies, using student performance data to
guide instructional decisions, creating and supervising targeted professional development
for teachers and other staff in effective instruction, and conducting classroom visits to
monitor implementation of professional development strategies. (5)
The author also found that the most effective training for principals as instructional leaders
connects expertise in instructional practice with expertise in supervising instruction, provides
tools for using data to make decisions, and involves on-site coaching. A principal support
framework focusing on a shared vision of principals as instructional leaders, a system of
developing principals as instructional leaders, and making it possible for principals to be
instructional leaders are some of the ways in which districts can support principals (Fink &
Silverman, 2014).
Hallinger and Murphy (1985) found that studies of the instructional leadership role of the
principal focus on three categories: defining the school mission, managing the instructional
program, and promoting a positive learning climate. They further delineate 11 sub-functions
under the three categories that combine principal policies, practices, and behaviors.
Mission and vision.
The role of instructional leaders in schools can be described as strong, directive leaders,
culture builders, goal oriented with a clear direction for the school, ability to align with the
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

36
school’s mission, and focused on managing and leading (Hallinger, 2005). Furthermore, schools
are most effective when they function as professional learning communities with a shared vision,
collaborative teams, a commitment to continuous improvement, and a results orientation
(DuFour, 1998). With this in mind, the work of leadership and principals is to ensure that
mission and vision statements have real meaning and that there is commitment and passion
coupled with a daily pursuit to achieve them (McGowan & Miller, 2001). Instructional leaders
typically set clear, time-based, academically focused goals in order to get the organization
moving in the desired direction (Hallinger, 2003). Principals are found to be effective because
they held and communicated clear visions and values which were shared by all the stakeholders
in the school (Day, Harris & Hadfield, 2001). Vision, goals, and mission are necessary
vocabulary of principals who wish to succeed in the evolving environment of school reform
(Hallinger, 2005). The daily activities of a principal must be aligned to the vision because the
vision represents and defines what is important (Covey, 2004). The principal’s daily and
intentional activities represent venues in which the principal as an instructional leader helps to
create a coherent picture to connect purpose to activities and decisions. From this perspective,
instructional leadership happens in conversations in the halls, during PTSA meetings, when
leading the staff, and more (Hallinger & Murphy, 2012). The vision of the principal is a concept
repeatedly found in the literature as being one of the most important jobs of the principal as an
instructional leader and factors in to creating an effective school (Covery, 2004; Day et al., 2001;
DuFour, 1998; Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Hallinger &
Murphy, 2012; McGowan & Miller, 2001).

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

37
Managing instruction and teachers.
It is the responsibility of the instructional leader to align the school’s standards and
practices with its mission and to create a climate that supports teaching and learning (Hallinger,
2003). When the principal is an effective instructional leader, student achievement escalates
(DuFour, 1999). It is at the core of the principal’s instructional management role to understand
how school and classroom organization affects the learning experiences of children (Bossert et
al., 1982). DuFour (1999) also found that the best strategies for improving a school are to
delegate authority, enlist faculty in decisions, pose questions rather than solutions, and to create
an environment where teachers could continually grow and learn together. All of these ideas
encompass the sub-category of managing instruction and teachers in Hallinger and Murphy’s
(1985) model of instructional leadership.
Instructional leaders focus on building capacity in their teachers through a focus on
instruction but it is the context and culture of any given school that plays the largest role in
deciding whether a professional development program will make a difference or not (DuFour,
1998). When principals are acting as instructional leaders they must provide staff with relevant
information and research and ensure that teachers are receiving training and coaching so that
they can be more effective in achieving the goals of the school (DuFour, 1999). Principals make
1,200 decisions every day and enacting their role as instructional leaders requires principals to
find ways to use those decisions to promote learning and teaching (Hallinger & Murphy, 2012).
Managing the instructional time is an important facet of the principal’s role as instructional
leader because it is only when the school functions to promote efficient learning in classrooms
that teachers have much more probability of succeeding in addressing student needs (Purkey &
Smith, 1983).
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

38
Positive school climate.
It is meaningless to study principal leadership without reference to the school context.
The context of the school is a source of constraints, resources, and opportunities that the
principal must understand and address in order to lead (Hallinger, 2003). School climate is a
more problematic area than instructional organization yet it is important for the principal to
consider the school climate in terms of establishing an environment that supports the
improvement of instruction (Bossert et al., 1982). Principals who are effective instructional
leaders are those that have the capacity to motivate teachers and to work towards the
transformation of a school from a workplace to a learning place (Barth, 1986). Educational
leaders can contribute to student improvements through the transformation of school culture
(Karadag, 2015).
Additionally, instructional leadership can be characterized as transactional because it
seeks to move members of an organization towards a predetermined set of goals yet it also seeks
to influence conditions that directly impact the quality of instruction in the classroom (Hallinger,
2003). Day et al., (2001) found that principals empowered staff by developing climates of
collaboration by applying high standards to themselves and others. It was found that principals
should lead through shared vision and values, enlist faculty members in the school’s decision
making process, provide staff with information, and training, be results orientated, and should
concentrated on posing the right questions rather than imposing solutions (DuFour, 1999). This
all-encompassing school culture as evidenced by the literature, reflects the characteristics of a
positive school climate created through an instructional leader.
Barth (1986) describes this kind of positive school culture as a community of learners
where teachers, principals, parents, and students engage in teaching and learning. In his
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

39
findings, this notion of a community of learners shapes the school into a context for lifelong
growth for both students and adults. Creating a school climate that is conducive to student
learning is a fundamental part of the principal’s instructional management role (Bossert et al.,
1982). This kind of school climate requires leaders and school staff to view instructional
leadership as a collective identity and a set of shared responsibilities. Instructional leadership
cannot be a solo performance by the principal but instead needs to focus on shared leadership
where all stakeholders play a role in the success of the students (Hallinger & Murphy, 2012).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is based off of the instructional leadership
model developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) and is one of the models that has been used
frequently in empirical studies and scholarly journals (Goldring et al., 2009; P Hallinger, 2003,
2005, 2007, Philip Hallinger & Heck, 2003, 1996; Philip Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Hallinger
& Murphy, 2012; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Lee, Walker, & Ling Chui, 2012; Leithwood & Jantzi,
2005; Scribner et al., 2011; Shirley, 1990; Wolf, 1988). This explanation of instructional
leadership focuses on three dimensions for the role of the principal: defining the school’s
mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive school learning climate
(Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985) Within each category are a total of 10 sub-
categories that focus on principal policies, practices, and behaviors (see Figure 1).

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

40
FIGURE 1 Instructional Management Framework (From Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).
These concepts will be used throughout this study in identifying characteristics of
superintendents and principals as instructional leaders. It will also be used in the examination of
how superintendents build capacity of these specific skills within their secondary principals so
that they can be instructional leaders. Within his original framework, Hallinger (2005) suggests
a focus on the following concepts that will also be examined in this study:
● Creating a shared sense of purpose
● Clear goals focused on student learning
● Fostering continuous improvement of schools
● Developing a climate of high expectations
● School climate aimed at innovation and improvement of teaching and learning
● Monitoring student learning outcomes
● Using the school’s mission to shape a reward structure
● Being a visible presence
● Modeling the desired values of the school’s culture
Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) conducted a large analysis of student leadership
research and identified some of the same characteristics of effective leadership including
defining a school mission and goals, facilitating instruction, a focus on the school climate,
supporting positive teacher morale, and supporting effective curriculum and instruction. It is
clear that these same topics that appear continually in research are the framework for school
leadership and the role of the principal as instructional leader. It is through these common
characteristics that the overarching categories of school mission and vision, curriculum and
instruction, and school climate will serve as the foundation for this study in examining strategies
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

41
Southern California superintendents employ to build capacity in secondary principals as
instructional leaders.
Conclusion
The Chief State School Officers of Washington D.C, (2015) suggests that the model
principal supervisor (superintendent) falls into three broad categories developing principals as
instructional leaders, get the board to buy in so that the superintendent can balance time spent
with the board and at individual sites, and improve the capacity and effectiveness of the principal
as a leader. Collaboration between stakeholders, including but not limited to the superintendent,
principals, board members to agree to non-negotiable achievement and instruction goals, that
school board aligned, and support district goals are a step in the right direction (Marzano &
Waters, 2006). Good principals are widely acknowledged as the cornerstones of good schools.
Without their leadership, efforts to raise student achievement in a school are unlikely to succeed
(Gareis & Tschannen-Moran, 2007). As complex as the job of the principal sounds, it is equally
important for superintendents to ensure that their principals possess the self-efficacy beliefs to
navigate the rigorous demands of the job (Gareis & Tschannen-Moran, 2007). School leaders at
both the district level and site level need to be well versed in the instructional leadership model
and other theories of leadership that support effective schools. The support of the secondary
principal from the superintendent immensely impacts their ability to carry out district goals and
ensure that students are prepared for college and/or career by high school graduation (Marzano &
Waters, 2006). The literature supports that it is crucial that superintendents ensure that secondary
principals are indeed instructional leaders and leads to the questions of this study in the strategies
superintendents use to build capacity in their secondary principals as instructional leaders.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter includes a brief restatement of the problem, purpose, and research questions
that guided this study. It also includes an overview of the design of the study, as well as a
description of the participants, setting, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and the
methods of data analysis. It concludes with a summary of the research methodology and preview
of chapters four and five.
Restatement of Problem
The research has found that principals are being asked to perform the role and act as an
instructional leader despite a disconnect in administrator preparation programs (Eckman, 2004;
Goldring et al., 2009; Jazzar, 2015; López, 2003). Principals are no longer just managers but are
asked to assume the role of manager, politician, and instructional leader, while still raising
student achievement (McGowan & Miller, 2001). With this in mind, principals need support for
their new role as instructional leaders. The shift in role expectations has begged the question of
how superintendents prepare, train, and support principals as instructional leaders. Specifically,
how do superintendents in Southern California build capacity in their secondary principals as
instructional leaders, if at all.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to examine how superintendents in Southern California build
capacity in their secondary principals as instructional leaders. This study examined the supports
provided, and the perceptions of the supports provided, by superintendents to secondary
principals in relation to the principal’s role as an instructional leader. By examining this
question through the lens of superintendents it provided reflection on how superintendents could
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

43
form a more collaborative and supportive relationship that meets the principal’s needs as a
leader.
Research Questions:
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. What support systems do Southern California superintendents in Orange and San Diego
counties provide to assist secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders?
2. What are superintendents’ in Orange and San Diego counties perceptions of the support
provided to principals in becoming instructional leaders?
3. What supports do Southern California superintendents in Orange and San Diego counties
provide to their secondary principals as instructional leaders?
4. What strategies are seen as most valuable by superintendents in Orange and San Diego
counties in affecting principals’ roles as an instructional leader?
Selection of the Population
Purposeful and convenience sampling were the methodologies chosen for this study.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discuss how probability sampling is not the goal in qualitative
studies and that purposeful sampling provides information rich and unique data. Purposeful
sampling supports qualitative research questions in the need for detailed descriptions that help
the researcher in understanding process, perceptions, and meaning making of the concept being
studied. Purposeful sampling is also used to achieve representativeness or typicality of
individuals, capture the heterogeneity in the population, select individuals that are critical for
testing the theories of the study, illuminate the reasons for differences between settings or
individuals, and to select groups with whom you can establish a relationship (Maxwell, 2013).
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

44
The goal of this study is to understand the perceptions of one group and the support that they
provide for another group of individuals, making purposeful sampling appropriate.
Participants in this study were superintendents currently serving in Orange/San Bernardino
county during the 2018-2019 school year. Superintendents were chosen based on a search of
current superintendents in their respective counties. These participants are appropriate because
this study directly examines superintendents and their perceptions of the support that they
provide secondary principals as instructional leaders. Twenty-two superintendents participated
in an online survey and from there 6 superintendents volunteered to participate in an interview.
The survey and interview participants were current superintendents of public school districts
ranging from 2,500 to 70,000 students. Table 1 below displays the survey and interview criteria
for the superintendents.
The researcher surveyed and interviewed these superintendents to gain a clearer
understanding of the perceptions and strategies that are used to build capacity in secondary
principals as instructional leaders. The knowledge gained from these surveys and interviews will
support superintendents in sharing best practices for building capacity in their principals as well
as allow principals to gain an understanding into how they can expect support from their
superintendent.
Table 1
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
Survey Interview
______________________________________________________________________________

Years of experience: 2 years or more Years of experience: 2 years or more
Serving in public school district with student Serving in public school district with student
population from 2,500 to 70,000 population from 2,500 to 70,000
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

45
Serving in California Serving in California
Serving in Orange and San Diego County Serving in Orange and San Diego County
______________________________________________________________________________
Design Summary
This study used the principles found in Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell (2013)
to conduct a mixed methods research study. Specifically, a mixed methods approach was
utilized because it allowed the researcher to gain insight into the different perspectives being
studied through the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative methodology was used
because it has a focus on understanding, meaning making, and allowed the researcher to develop
detailed descriptions, integrate multiple perspectives, describe process, and learn how events are
interpreted (Weiss, 1994). This mixed methods approach allows the researcher to understand the
data at a more detailed level by using qualitative follow-up data to help explain quantitative data
collected from the survey (Creswell, 2014). The most evident benefits of a mixed-method design
is that it draws on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative designs, is appealing to those
at the forefront of research due to its sophistication, and provides a more complete understanding
of research problems (Creswell, 2014). Using both qualitative and quantitative approaches also
allowed the researcher to triangulate data that could support and provide evidence for the
research questions as well as reduce the risk of biases (Maxwell, 2013).
Methodology
This study addressed how superintendents build capacity in their secondary principals as
instructional leaders. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used and it involved
collecting quantitative data first and then explaining the quantitative results with in-depth
qualitative data. In the first quantitative phase of the study, a survey was used to collect data
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

46
from superintendents to assess and begin to understand their perceptions of support and
strategies used to support secondary principals. The second qualitative phase was conducted as
follow up to the quantitative results to help explain the quantitative results. In this exploratory
follow-up, the researcher explored how superintendents provide support and what they view as
being most effective in supporting secondary principals as instructional leaders.
Additionally, the process of completing qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys as
a part of the data collection process allowed for a mixed methods approach and a triangulation of
data (Maxwell, 2013). This triangulation allowed the researcher to gain insight into different
perspectives from different points of view that interviews or surveys alone might not have
provided. It was necessary to interview and survey superintendents to better understand the
systems of support provided to the principal in their role as an instructional leader. Further,
interviewing and surveying secondary principals was necessary in order to understand their
perceptions of the support provided by their superintendent. Conducting interviews and surveys
helped to eliminate researcher biases and check for participant perceptions versus reality.
Triangulation of survey and interview data in this mixed methods study helped to ensure internal
validity.
Instrumentation and Protocols
A pilot survey and interview were conducted with a current superintendent to provide the
researcher with feedback on question format, sequential order, and length of time of the
interview. This pilot enabled the researcher to move beyond the conceptual framework in an
effort to ensure that the data collected would answer the research questions.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

47
Quantitative Instrument
Quantitative data was gathered through a Google Form, an online survey tool. Fifteen
questions were designed for the survey based off a review of the literature, the conceptual
framework, and the feedback from the pilot study. The survey questions addressed the following
focus areas with regards to secondary principals being instructional leaders: (a) strategies used
by superintendents; (b) superintendents’ implementation of supports; (c) superintendents’
perception of supports offered; and (d) strategies seen as most valuable by superintendents.
The quantitative survey was comprised of the following types of questions: (a)
demographic questions; (b) a question to determine the willingness to participate in the follow up
interview; and (c) likert style questions (Appendix A) associated with the four research
questions. The questions in the survey were written as closed questions. The researcher also
made sure that the questions would be meaningful to the respondents, by using standard
language rules and minimizing the use of biased words and phrases (Fink, 2009).
Survey questions asked superintendents to rate their agreement with a variety of
questions that define instructional leadership based on the conceptual framework by Hallinger
(1985). These questions used a likert scale ranging from 1 - 3 where “1” signified not effective,
“2” signified effective, “3” signified highly effective. This format enabled the researcher to
quantify the level of support for each specific survey item. The survey designed for this study
was created to provide the researcher numeric descriptions of the attitudes and/or perceptions of
the 22 county superintendents (Creswell, 2009).
Qualitative Instrument
The interview protocol for this study followed a semi-structured approach. While
structured interviews allow for more comparability between groups, the more unstructured
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

48
balance allows for better internal validity and contextual understanding by allowing the
researcher to be direct and ask questions specifically about the topic or probe for further details
(Maxwell, 2013). The semi-structured approach also made it possible to report on proportions
and correlations, experiences and meaning, and richer question examples (Patton, 2002; Weiss,
1994).
The interview protocol was developed to specifically answer the research questions and
was based on Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional leadership. There were 35
questions total (see Appendix B). A variety of question types and probes were used including
experience and behavior, sensory, feeling, opinion, ideal, devil’s advocate, interpretive, and
knowledge (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
Data Collection
All data collection decisions for both interviews and surveys were based on the literature
around qualitative and quantitative inquiry (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Bogdan & Biklen, 2007b,
2007a; Merriam &Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994; Weiss, 1994).
Surveys were sent to 32 superintendents using the previously mentioned criteria to collect
quantitative data. A cover letter was sent with the survey link to explain the purpose of the study
(Appendix C).
After the survey data was collected, qualitative data follow up was conducted through in-
depth interviews with 6 of the superintendents who volunteered to participate in an in person
interview. Each interview was conducted at the requested time and location of the participant to
maximize convenience. Interviews were set up through email exchanges with appointments
lasting for one hour. The time of day of the interview was based on the availability of the
participant and each varied. The researcher took detailed and rich notes during each interview
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

49
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). At the discretion of the participants, each interview
was recorded for posterity. This allowed the researcher to focus on the participant and not solely
on writing down detailed notes, even though some notes were taken during and after the
interview (Patton, 2002). Due to the quick pace of the interview, interview notes were reviewed
afterwards which provided time for the researcher to make observer comments to provide for a
richer and more detailed analysis. The recorded interviews were professionally transcribed to a
Microsoft Word document using Rev software. A final ethical concern of transparency was
addressed throughout the process to limit the appearance of impropriety (Merriam &Tisdell,
2016).
Consideration was given to ethical standards during this study. Glense (2011) describes how
much of the ethical discussion and consideration in qualitative research concerns the nature of
relationships with research participants. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) had similar views that
ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge with the collection of data or the dissemination of findings,
with the underlying issue being the relationship between the researcher and participant. Both
pieces of literature highlight using informed consent to maintain ethical standards. All
interviewees were asked about the use of a recording device during the interview and the
researcher upheld the moral standards listed in IRB (Glense, 2011; Rubin, Rubin, & Sage, 2012).
The researcher also maintained the participant’s right to privacy by not using their names,
school, or school district which protected their anonymity (Glense, 2011).
Data Analysis
This study utilized a mixed-method explanatory sequential approach, incorporating both
the quantitative data from surveys and the qualitative data from interviews. All of the items in
the survey and interview protocols were directly linked to the research questions. The research
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

50
questions guided the data analysis for this study. Data was analyzed concurrently during the
interview data collection and was consistently compared to the quantitative survey results
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At the conclusion of the study, the research findings were compared
to the body of literature to further validate the significance of the study.
Quantitative Data Analysis
22 surveys were completed via Google Forms, an online survey program, and the results
from the data were disaggregated in accordance with the conceptual framework. Questions were
grouped and disaggregated by three overarching categories which Hallinger (1985) defines as the
three roles of instructional leadership: managing instruction, positive school climate, and mission
and vision. The mean scores for each question and category were compiled and compared,
allowing the researcher to determine the level of agreement with each research question. This
initial round of data was analyzed to come up with preliminary conclusions towards the research
questions. Additionally, it enabled the researcher to review the interview protocol to ensure that
the findings from the survey matched the questions being asked of superintendents during the
interview process. probing questions provided the researcher with in depth questions that would
answer the research questions. This also follows the explanatory sequential study design by
reviewing the data from the quantitative survey first, followed by the data from qualitative
surveys.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The four-step process outlined by Harding (2013) was used in the analysis of the
interview data. The first step was to identify the initial categories based on reading the interview
transcripts. Key phrases were underlined/circled to obtain a general sense of what the data was
saying. The second step was to code the transcribed interview notes. The researcher followed
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

51
Harding's (2013a) recommendation to summarize, select, and/or interpret the data into
manageable codes to help the researcher see beyond the details. In an effort to be thorough, the
researcher went back through transcripts to check for codes that may have emerged from later
data sets that were analyzed. The third step was to review the list of codes and determine which
codes appear in which category. To facilitate this process, the researcher placed the codes into an
excel spreadsheet and then assigned them specific categories, which ultimately determined the
foundations for the overarching themes. This was the fourth step of the process.
In addition to the method outlined in Harding (2013), the researcher also used strategies
found in Corbin and Strauss (2008) to move from open codes to analysis. The use of questioning
was used as an analytic tool to help the researcher become acquainted with the data as well as
think outside the box (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). By asking questions, the researcher was able to
better understand the problem from the participants’ perspective and was also able to analyze the
data at a deeper level by avoiding shallow findings. In addition, theoretical questions were asked
to help make connections between concepts derived from the data.
Validity and Reliability
The two main threats to the credibility and trustworthiness of data are bias and reactivity
(Maxwell, 2013). While there are a large number of ways in which to minimize the threat to
data, the researcher used triangulation, rich data, and numbers to maintain the credibility and
trustworthiness of data. Maxwell (2013), Merriam and Tisdell (2016), and Miles, Huberman,
and Saldana, (2014) all discuss the importance of using triangulation when analyzing data.
Maxwell (2013) discusses how triangulation involves the analysis of different sources such as
interviews and observations or using documents. He states that this strategy reduces the risk of
chance associates and systematic biases and allows for a better assessment of the explanations.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

52
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) found that triangulation is a powerful strategy for increasing the
credibility of research. By collecting and analyzing data from both interviews and surveys, the
researcher was able to look for any common trends that would make the data more credible by
getting multiple instances from different sources and methods (Miles, Huberrman, & Saldana,
2014). This also minimized threats to the validity of the data. By collecting rich data and using
descriptive note taking, a full and revealing picture of how superintendents build capacity in their
secondary principals as instructional leaders was available to the researcher (Maxwell, 2013).
This also enhanced the possibility of the results transferring to another setting (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The researcher also used the number strategy described by Maxwell (2013) to
make the data more explicit, and precise. This also allowed the researcher to test and support
any claims against the amount of evidence that supported those assertions.
Summary
This study used a mixed-method explanatory sequential approach, drawing quantitative
data from surveys followed up with in depth qualitative data from interviews. The data collected
from superintendents in Southern California was analyzed to target the four research questions:
support systems that superintendents use to assist principals as instructional leaders,
superintendents’ perceptions of support, what support is provided, and the strategies that are
perceived as most valuable by superintendents. These findings have been presented in chapter
four, with a discussion of the findings in chapter five.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

53
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
Superintendents support their principals in a variety of ways including shared leadership,
teachers as leaders, accountability for results, and a continued focus on development as an
instructional leader (Spanneut & Ford, 2008). The current literature describes the superintendent
principal relationship (Hitt & Tucker, 2016) but this study aims to fill a gap in the literature
focusing on strategies used to build capacity in principals as instructional leaders. The role of
the principal is at a critical intersection with a focus on improving teaching and learning due to
the increased accountability (Fink & Silverman, 2014). Principals are no longer just managers
but are asked to assume the role of manager, politician, and instructional leader, while still
raising student achievement (McGowan & Miller, 2001). The research has found that principals
are being asked to perform these roles and act as instructional leaders despite a huge disconnect
in administrator preparation programs (Eckman, 2004; Goldring, Porter, Murphy, Elliott, &
Cravens, 2009; Jazzar, 2015; López, 2003). Now more than ever, principals need support for
their new role as instructional leaders.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the strategies superintendents in Southern
California use to build capacity in their secondary principals as instructional leaders. This study
examined the supports provided and the perceptions of the supports provided by superintendents
to secondary principals in relation to the principal’s role as an instructional leader. Examining
this question through the lens of superintendents allowed the researchers to reflect on how
superintendents could form a more collaborative and supportive relationship that meets the
principals’ needs as a leader.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

54
Coding of Data
A thematic approach was used to analyze data because qualitative data analysis focuses
on identifying themes, categories, patterns, and answers to research questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). By collecting and analyzing data from both interviews and survey responses, the
researchers were able to look for any common trends that would make the data more credible by
getting multiple instances from different sources and methods (Miles, Huberman, et al., 2014).
This also minimized threats to the validity of the data. Additionally, Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) found that triangulation is a powerful strategy for increasing the credibility of research.
The researcher simultaneously analyzed data while collecting data. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
talk about this method and the importance of not waiting to analyze data till the end of the data
collection phase. Following this approach, the researcher used the conceptual framework of this
study for the first cycle of coding. These a priori codes were categories that already existed
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The researcher then went through a second time to look for smaller
patterns, commonalities, and more detailed themes during a second cycle of coding (Miles,
Huberman, et al., 2014). These new codes became emergent codes that were used to describe in
more detail the findings (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Harding, 2013). The researcher then used the
process Harding (2013) describes of reviewing and revising my codes. During this phase the
researcher looked for frequency in evidence to later support various assertions and findings
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). After all the data was formally coded, formal analysis was conducted
to create the findings from the study that were directly tied to the research questions.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

55
Presentation of Findings
This chapter begins with an explanation of two main components of this study, a
description of the survey respondents and interview subjects and then a descriptive analysis of
the findings is provided as they address the guiding research questions:
Research questions:
1. What support systems do Southern California superintendents in Orange and San Diego
counties provide to assist secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders?
2. What are superintendents’ in Orange and San Diego counties perceptions of the support
provided to principals in becoming instructional leaders?
3. What supports do Southern California superintendents in Orange and San Diego counties
provide to their secondary principals as instructional leaders?
4. What strategies are seen as most valuable by superintendents in Orange and San Diego
counties in affecting principals’ roles as an instructional leader?
Descriptive Characteristics
Survey Data
The participants in this study were selected from four target regions of comparison: San
Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. The two researchers split the study for
comparison by each selecting two counties. When looking specifically at school districts within
Orange and San Diego Counties, there are six Union High School districts in San Diego, 13
unified school districts in San Diego, three Union High School districts in Orange, and 12
unified school districts in Orange county. This makes the total number of possible
Superintendents to be surveyed 34. The criteria and the characteristics determined by the
researcher as having at least two years of experience in the role of superintendent eliminated two
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

56
of the school districts making the total (n) 32. The survey was sent electronically by the
researcher to the 32 eligible participants and 22 responded for a participation rate of 69%. More
specifically, the 22 respondents had the following characteristics: 12 were female and 10 were
male; 31.8% (7) had between 9,001-20,000 students within their district with the next closest at
27.3% (6) had between 30,001-50,001 students; 45.5% (10) had been a superintendent for 2-3
years at their current district and 31.8% (7) had been a superintendent for 4-8 years at their
current district; 40.9% (9) have served as a superintendent for between 4-8 years overall and
22.7% (5) have served as a superintendent for 9-15 years overall; 59.1% (13) have an
educational background focused in secondary education; and 27.3% (6) have 8-10 secondary
principals in their districts compared to 22.7% (5) have 4-7 secondary principals and 22.7% (5)
have 11-14 secondary principals in their district.
Interview Participants
Table 2
Interview Respondents
Interview Participant # of Years as a
Superintendent
overall
# of Years at Current
District as
Superintendent
# of Secondary
Principals currently
overseeing
County of School
District
Superintendent A 13 9 5 Orange
Superintendent B 16 1 10 San Diego
Superintendent C 3 3 10 Orange
Superintendent D 5 5 23 San Diego
Superintendent E 12 6 6 Orange
Superintendent F 2 2 7 San Diego

Glesne (2011) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) highlight using informed consent to maintain
ethical standards. The researcher obtained verbal consent from the interviewees prior to
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

57
interviewing and recording them. The researcher also maintained the participant’s right to
privacy by not using their names in the final paper which protected their anonymity (Glesne,
2011).
Research Question 1: What support systems do Southern California superintendents in
Orange and San Diego counties provide to assist secondary principals in becoming
instructional leaders?
Findings
Cycle of Inquiry Aligned Goal Setting
Southern California superintendents provide and create a variety of systems of support to
assist secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders. Table 2 shows that all 22
superintendents (100% of survey respondents) self-reported that they often or almost always
support their secondary principals with the tasks of framing school goals, communicating school
goals, promoting professional development, and maintaining visibility.
Table 3
Ways in which Respondents Provide Support
f %
Often support with framing goals 9 41%
Always support with framing goals 13 59%
Often support with communicating goals 11 50%
Always support with communication goals 11 50%
Often support with promoting PD 9 41%
Always support with PD 13 59%
Often support with visibility 4 18%
Always support with visibility 18 82%
Note. n=32

This can be compared to only one superintendent who self-reported almost always
supporting secondary principals in providing incentives for teaching and learning. Specifically
in regards to school goals, Superintendent E said that,
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

58
So my role is really, then here’s the district vision and mission that we created with the
board and then what does that look like at your site? What is your theory of action? So
that is totally done with the guiding coalition or instructional leadership team and that
they teachers and classified staff and so we set the expectation, but at the same time we
see what support do you need.
This system of goal setting and alignment created by the superintendent allowed the
principal to create a cycle of inquiry that was directly related and aligned to the school goals.
Superintendent C also described how they were able to create a system in which the secondary
principals could work on their goals with the superintendent while at the same time receiving
specified support and stated that,
and so the thing I did was develop an opportunity for principals to come in, work with
myself ... let’s look at the student achievement data. Where are the gaps? Let’s just
develop our problem of practice. How are we going to put plans in place and increase
student achievement? And from that they developed what their goals were then the
district would fill in with resources to ensure that they were successful.
Superintendent A also described the cyclical system of creating goals at a secondary site
and how alignment is critical to the principal’s success: “Well the school board is key in that
[goal setting]...and then underneath each one of those goals, the staff prepares priorities in order
to move the ball in that area...and then the principals line their goals up with the priorities and
their evaluation is based on their progress.'' The idea of creating a cycle of inquiry aligned to
school goals as a system to support secondary principals as instructional leaders was mentioned
in five out of six interviews. As evidenced by the above examples, this is one of the main
systems of support for secondary principals as instructional leaders.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

59
Professional Development
Additionally, 95.5% (21) of respondents self-reported that they provide systems of
support to secondary principals as instructional leaders through money spent on professional
development and 86.4% (19) reported that they support secondary principals as instructional
leaders through district provided professional development. The theme of professional
development was also consistent through all six interviews conducted with superintendents as a
system that they use to continually support their secondary principals as instructional leaders.
For example, in regards to an upcoming district wide professional development day,
Superintendent B stated that,
We have assigned all of our principals and APs will be sitting in on sessions, not leading
it...sitting in to show that hey, were here. It’s important...when we do professional
development, that’s often just teachers. So we find a way at times to get our different
administrators in those sessions as well.
Superintendent C described how professional development needs to be tailored to the
individual needs of each school and how there needs to be a system where a partnership exists
between the school and the district. They stated that,
So the support, whether it’s through the lens of professional development or site-based
coaching, all of that needs to be based in a partnership with the schools…The district
partners with each high school to provide support and instruction, and any multitude of
PDs that they might need...We’re not here to tell you what to do, but what is it that you
need.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

60
The variety of professional development topics was discussed at length with
Superintendent D. The superintendent also focused on the importance of the alignment of
professional development systems to the overall goals and expectations, stating that,
so we have monthly, what we call, leadership development training for the principals,
where we focus on instructional practices, instructional supervision, equity and culture,
and systems...and so those leadership training opportunities are aligned with the goals
and aligned to the expectations as well. It’s all aligned.
Professional development systems also varied in the type provided to secondary
principals. Two different superintendents talked about how they use leadership books and
discussions with all of the principals district wide to provide additional professional development
to their secondary principals as instructional leaders. Two additional superintendents mentioned
how they use leadership retreats each year as a system of professional development. Three of the
six superintendents interviewed also discussed how they use site walks and instructional visits as
a way to both build relationships with their secondary principals and provide professional
development aligned to instruction. For example, Superintendent E talked about how important
it is that they as the superintendent participate in instructional rounds with principals both
formally and informally. Superintendent C described how professional development and support
for instructional practices needs to be a systematic approach where there is coherence across the
organization through different approaches like site visits. The superintendent said that,
we needed to make sure that they weren’t isolated, that this was also supporting them in
terms of changing instruction on the site. That the district office ... also visited to see
what was going on, so they could have a framework for what was expected, and how the
instruction was changing in the classroom. That’s a way you support the principals in
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

61
instructional change, because sometimes they have a harder time making that change,
especially in a large K-12 unified school district ... they need some support from the
district in terms of identifying the problems, and then helping them to get the resources to
implement that.
From the interviews and survey results, the researcher found it evident that two of the
main systems of support that superintendents provide to their secondary principals to support
them as instructional leaders focus around the ideas of the creation of systematic goals aligned to
the district vision and cycle of inquiry and a variety of professional development opportunities
with the superintendent, other principals, and their staff. These support systems align with all
three branches of Hallinger and Heck’s (1985) model of instructional leadership by focusing on
the school's mission and goals, monitoring student progress and the instructional program, and
creating a positive school climate through the promotion of professional development.

Research Question 2: What are Superintendent’s in Orange and San Diego counties
perceptions of the support provided to secondary principals in becoming instructional
leaders?
Findings
Disconnect in Support Perceived and Provided
The survey data found that 13 superintendents self-reported that secondary principals often lack
the skill needed to supervise and evaluate instruction while 15 superintendents self-reported that
secondary principals rarely lack the skills needed to frame clear school goals. Based on the
analysis of research question #1, this shows a trend towards the most support being provided to
secondary principals in their role as instructional leaders in the areas of framing and
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

62
communicating school goals when the most support is needed in the areas of supervising and
evaluating instruction. The findings show a disconnect between the perceived areas of support
provided and the actions of the superintendents to provide support. Superintendent C stated that
“My experience is high school principals do need support, and the stronger the district is at
recognizing where those challenges and opportunities are the more successful they are.” From
this disconnect, it is important that superintendents look at providing support to secondary
principals in all 10 elements of Hallinger and Heck’s (1985) model of instructional leadership.
This will ensure that secondary principals are well-rounded in instructional leadership and that
superintendents are able to provide support for the perceived areas in which principals are
lacking skills.
Layers Between the Principal and Superintendent
Some of the perceptions of superintendents interviewed were based around the notion of
the size of the district and the amount of positions in the hierarchy between the secondary
principals and the position of the superintendent. Superintendent A who oversees 5 secondary
principals, described the superintendent’s role as more of a cheerleader because the directors and
assistant superintendents are more involved in the day to day running and oversight of the school
sites. Superintendent A also described how secondary principal evaluations are done by assistant
superintendents so there is a tendency for secondary principals to ask for help from assistant
superintendents rather than the superintendent. Superintendent C who oversees 10 secondary
principals, had a similar structure and described how although within their role they did not
directly supervise secondary principals, it offered them an opportunity to meet with the
principals during structured, planned, meetings with the assistant superintendent. Superintendent
C also noted some similarities as Superintendent A by saying that the secondary principals will
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

63
normally go to their coach or an executive director for questions prior to asking them
[superintendent] for help. Both Superintendent A and C described this hierarchy as creating a
sense of authority for the superintendent and fear in the secondary principals. Principals could
be seen as weak or unknowledgeable if they ask a question and because of that, tend to ask those
in positions between themselves and the superintendent for help first. In relation to this point,
both Superintendent A and C noted how important it is to build a strong relationship with
secondary principals despite the sense of fear and hierarchy so that they are still able to support
and guide as needed. Despite only overseeing six secondary principals, Superintendent E
stressed the importance of having a relationship despite the layers of positions and stated that,
and so there are assistant superintendents that supervise and support principals, then I
have an associate superintendent. Those two people are between me and the principal,
right, in the big district. Even given all that, we have this great conversation.
Superintendent D who oversees 23 secondary principals, described how important the
hierarchy in positions is in providing support and getting buy in for decision making. They
described how over the past four years serving as superintendent, they have renamed and created
four different assistant superintendent positions, aligned to their four LCAP goals, under each of
which is a committee, and then the school leadership teams. Superintendent D went on to
describe how about 18-20 people per site get together to form a district wide committee, focusing
on those four areas as well. Lastly, Superintendent F discussed in general how difficult it can be
to support secondary principals as instructional leaders and that the size of the district does
matter by stating,
Depending on the size of the district...your immediate influence is removed by several
concentric circles. I'm small enough that I can impact that but if you're a superintendent
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

64
in a larger setting it is fairly important to hire assistant superintendents to oversee those
principals...and that there is alignment between instructional leadership all the way
through the top and up and down the organization.
Leaders versus Managers
During the interviews, all six superintendents also discussed how the importance of being
a leader and a manager was something that influenced their perceptions and direction for support
provided to secondary principals as instructional leaders. Superintendent B talked about how the
idea of being a leader versus a manager is a topic frequently discussed at their principal meetings
and stated that,
And the way I look at it, leadership is most important, but you can’t be a great leader if
you’re not managing the workflow. If you can’t keep your calendar straight, if you can’t
respond appropriately to emails, can’t make sure that the work orders are taken care of,
that’s a problem. So you have to have that base organization that allows you to be seen
as a leader.
Superintendent C also discussed the importance of being both a manager and a leader but
stated “...just to be a manager would be catastrophic...you have to be with people. You have to
lead them. You have to set an example and that goes beyond just the instructional piece.”
Similarly, Superintendent E felt strongly about how important it is for principals to be both
managers and leaders by saying that,
that’s why this job is hard...it is that role and I think part of what we struggle with is that
balance of that role. You are not just an instructional leader or just an operations
manager, balancing that you’ve got to be a pretty magical person.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

65
Superintendent F had the same opinion by stating “Yes, I completely agree...you need to have
your eye on both.”
It is evident through the survey and interview data that superintendents’ perceptions of
the support provided to secondary principals as instructional leaders is shaped by the size of the
district and the importance of being both a manager and a leader at their school sites. The data
also showed that their perceptions are disconnected by providing more support in the area of goal
framing while identifying instructional evaluation as an area in which principals need support.

Research Question 3: What support do Southern California superintendents in Orange and
San Diego counties provide to their secondary principals as instructional leaders?
Findings
Communication and Relationships
Initial findings after analysis of the survey data shown in Table 3 show that 68.2% (15) of
superintendents self-reported that they communicate with their secondary principals between one
and three times a week on average. Table 4 shows that 100% of superintendents indicated that
they call or email as a way to communicate with the secondary principals in their district
followed by 95.5% (21) use text messages to communicate. 90.9% (20) reported that support is
provided through phone calls and 90.9% (20) use district sponsored professional development as
a way to communicate with secondary principals. This communication is tied directly to how
superintendents are using relationships and specifically their relationship with secondary
principals to support them as instructional leaders.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

66
Table 4
Frequency of Communication between Superintendents and Secondary Principals
f %
Less than once a week 4 18.2%
1-3 times a week 15 68.2%
4-8 times a week 1 4.5%
9 or more times a week 2 9.1%
Note. n=32

Table 5
Methods of Communication between Superintendents and Secondary Principals
f %
Phone calls 22 100%
Text messages 21 95.5%
Email communication 22 100%
Weekly meetings 1 4.5%
Bi-monthly meetings 8 36.4%
Monthly meetings 16 72.7%
District Provided PD 20 90.9%
Site Visits 3 13.6%
Other 2 9.1%
Note. n=32

All six superintendents interviewed discussed the importance of forming relationships in
order to support secondary principals despite the traditional hierarchy and variety of positions
that can come between a principal and the superintendent. Superintendent A described how they
talked to their secondary principals at least once a week but that the conversations were more
relationship driven rather than content driven. Superintendent A stated: “I want to make sure
that the relationship’s good so that when something hard happens, which it will, we’re in a good
place to work on it together.” Superintendent E described the positive changes in their district
since they have started to focus on relationships over the past five years by stating,
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

67
Five years ago there was no way a principal would’ve felt safe to have the kinds of
conversations and the feedback they give now. I think they would tell you [that now it is]
just a different culture where they feel support first and accountability second.
Superintendent E later went on to describe how the open communication and strong relationships
that the superintendent has with their secondary principals has helped the superintendent to
provide more specific and targeted support to the principals and school sites. The superintendent
stated that,
We survey them and ask them. What do you need in order to implement this theory of
action? What are you most struggling with? Do you need help with…? And they’re
really great about telling us this is what I need help with and so [we’re] about to have that
back and forth and then provide in time support around whatever the topic is.
Superintendent F shared that the superintendent makes time to have coffee with
principals as a way to informally connect with their principals one-on-one in a safe setting that
allows their relationship to grow between the two of them, despite the size of the district.
Superintendent D had similar thoughts about the importance of relationships and building
relationships with other stakeholders in order to be an effective instructional leader. The
superintendent stated that,
It’s always about the relationship. If you can develop that relationship where the teacher
feels safe and you ask them enough guiding questions and inquiry based questions around
their practices, then I think they’ll be more open to taking risks and trying something
new.
Superintendent C connected the idea of relationships and their importance to creating
instructional change on campus by saying that,
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

68
Part of being a very effective high school principal...is being able to put together a team
which has the skillset to develop very complex programs that meet the needs of very
diverse students...you [principal] have to have a vision, and the foundation of being able
to do any instructional change is about building relationships.
As discussed in the examples above, forming strong relationships was a repeated theme
in both the quantitative and qualitative data collected. This topic was brought up repeatedly as
an important factor in determining a secondary principal’s success and helping to define their
role as an instructional leader.
Coaching and Modeling
Another way in which superintendents support secondary principals as instructional
leaders is through coaching and modeling. Three of the six superintendents interviewed
discussed how they coach secondary principals by posing questions rather than solving problems
for them. Superintendent C stated that “It’s all about creating a culture of excellence and making
sure that every student fulfills their potential...And then you start posing the questions. But you
can’t come up with the solutions as the superintendent.” Superintendent D had a similar opinion
on coaching through using questions and said “...it’s all about asking questions. It’s not about
telling, it’s about inquiring.” Five out of six superintendents also discussed the use of principal
coaching programs as a way to mentor or coach principals. Superintendent E stated that “I have
done a lot of work to informally mentor young administrators. I take one or two on every year
and meet with them and coach them and support them.” Superintendent A described how the
superintendent uses the principal meetings as a time to coach principals by stating,
we have principals meetings a couple of times a month that are instructional and there’s a
lot of modeling of processes and coaching on different contents and strategies...One
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

69
[way] is to make sure they know what the teachers are being coached in as far as
strategies so that they can help lead and support it.
Superintendent B was able to specifically describe how they coached a first year principal
during the previous school year by saying “I took the time last year to observe and see how she
was interacting with them...making clear to her how I can support her moving forward in a more
collaborative manner…” or how they coached a different new principal by stating,
...this is your school and don’t sit in your office. In the morning, be out there high-fiving
students, saying hi to parents that drop the kids off, seeking out those teachers that you
need to seek out and saying hi to them in the morning...absolutely critical.
Superintendent D created a principal coaching program and an aspiring administrators
academy to create growth opportunities for current staff members in various roles throughout the
district. The idea of coaching principals through explicit or non-explicit feedback is one way in
which superintendents provide support to secondary principals in their role as an instructional
leader.
Superintendent B discussed the importance of modeling as a way to teach best practices
of instructional leadership that secondary principals can take back and use at their own school
sites. The superintendent stated that “I model from them what my expectations are so that they
know that I'm prepared and what they should be doing with their staff.” Superintendent E also
discussed modeling and said “So, I think you have to be a good model ... they see me get up and
do professional development myself ... I practice and show them how I am changing systems,
what I do, I am transparent about my thinking and we’re lead learners by asking good questions.”
Superintendent F shared how expectations are continually modeled to help create a positive
school climate throughout the district and expect the secondary principals to mirror this at their
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

70
respective school sites. Superintendent D also focused on modeling expectations through their
own actions as a way to set expectations for secondary principals as instructional leaders. The
superintendent said,
My role as superintendent is I’m at every PLT all day long. I’m at every principal
leadership meeting all day long. So I’m part of it, but I’m just not leader it all the time. I
might go through some aspects of it with them, but I’m present. I think it’s really
powerful that the superintendent is in there when the teachers are getting training and
when the principals are getting training.
The ideas of coaching and modeling were themes brought up by five superintendents as
ways in which they could demonstrate behaviors, expectations, and teach needed skills to
secondary principals to ensure their success as instructional leaders at their own sites.
The quantitative and qualitative data results show that superintendents are supporting
secondary principals in the role of instructional leader through an open relationship built on
consistent communication combined with direct coaching and modeling provided from the
superintendent throughout the year. These supports relate to Hallinger and Heck’s (1985) model
of instructional leadership by allowing superintendents to coach principals in the 10 specific
elements they have defined as instructional leadership.

Research Question 4: What strategies are seen as most valuable by superintendents in
Orange and San Diego counties in affecting secondary principals’ roles as instructional
leaders?
Findings
Professional Development
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

71
Table 5 shows that all 22 survey respondents reported that professional development and
money spent on professional development are effective or highly effective strategies for
developing secondary principals as instructional leaders. Table 6 shows that 21 out of 22
reported that having the superintendent themselves lead the professional development was an
effective or highly effective strategy in developing secondary principals as instructional leaders.
Table 6
Superintendent Perceptions of Money Spent on Professional Development for Secondary
Principals
f %
Highly Effective 15 68%
Effective 7 32%
Not Effective 0 0%
Note. n=32

Table 7
Superintendent Perceptions of Leading Professional Development as a Method of Support for
Secondary Principals
f %
Highly Effective 10 45%
Effective 11 50%
Not Effective 1 5%
Note. n=32

Superintendent A described their approach to professional development by stating that
“What we’ve tried to do is provide leadership for them in two ways. And then also leadership on
leading the campus, solving problems in a collaborative way, doing effective evaluation.”
Superintendent E spoke specifically to their role as a superintendent in creating a collaborative
professional development process by stating that,
We’ve done a lot of work collectively in revamping the evaluation system so that it’s
more student centered … So I feel like the work we do is very collaborative and we take
the time to do it well. And so my role is to help, support, and manage expectations of the
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

72
community and the board and the principal’s role is to fully participate in these
conversations and giving feedback because once it’s decided were all moving forward
with whatever that is.
Superintendent F described how valuable existing professional development curriculum
can be adapted to individual needs while still focusing on strong instructional practices. The
superintendent described using the National Institute of School Leaders Framework and
following that curriculum during the one day a month meetings that the superintendent holds
with the secondary principals as valuable ways to support secondary principals in their roles as
instructional leaders.
More than half of the superintendents interviewed discussed the idea of professional
development and growth focused around the “tight and loose.” Superintendent D defined this as
“There’s some what we call defined autonomy, so we had the framework but then based on
where the school was, they determined which essential element they were going to focus on at
the school in the first year.” With this style of professional development and guidance from the
district and superintendent, the principals are given a consistent framework but are able to pick a
direction that meets the specific needs of their site and their school population. This
individualized professional development is helpful for principals as instructional leaders to be
able to continue to move their sites forward and make appropriate changes that are applicable to
their site’s needs.
Getting Buy-In/Large Decision Making Bodies
Only 12 of the superintendents surveyed indicated that it was somewhat important that
secondary principals coordinate curriculum and provide incentives for teaching and learning as
an instructional leader. Despite a little more than half of the survey respondents indicating the
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

73
importance of the role the principal plays in regards to curriculum and instruction, all six
superintendents interviewed talked about how important getting buy in from all stakeholders is
when making decisions or changes regarding curriculum. Specifically, all six superintendents
have some form of a large decision making body made up of teachers, administrators, district
administrators, counselors, union representatives, and more in order to hear from a wide variety
of voices. Superintendent A has “subject matter groups...called subject councils. and principals
attend those variously” while Superintendent B stressed the importance of buy in by stating that
“... nothing is going to happen on a high school campus if you don’t have the buy in of the
teacher. So then the principals bring it back, have the conversation, and they start to identify
where they need resources.” When describing the various committees that exist in
Superintendent D’s district to hear from a wide variety of stakeholders including site principals,
they stated that “And so we’re really big on including stakeholders in the process. It’s not top
down.” This purposeful effort to get buy in and get all stakeholders together in the same room
when making decisions was seen as a valuable strategy and way in which superintendents can
support secondary principals as instructional leaders. This allows superintendents to set the
direction, provide the framework, and guide the task, while still giving principals the ability to
lead their own site and manage their instructional program.
Consistent Communication and Alignment
Another theme that was discussed and seen as valuable throughout all six of the
interviews with superintendents was the idea of alignment throughout the district using
consistent communication and messaging. For example, Superintendent B stated that,
Each school has to build upon the district vision and personalize it to their own school.
And so the principal, it’s critical that they interface with the school community, the
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

74
students, the staff, and listen and build upon it and, share, Hey here’s the district vision
and here’s how were going to operationalize that at high school B ... And so our LCAP
goals, our vision, and our WASC goals should all be tied together.
Superintendent C, D, and F, also referred to alignment and coherence of communication
throughout documents such as the LCAP, SPSA, WASC Action Plan, district vision, and district
goals.
Superintendent A discussed how social media and a unifying vision specifically play a
role in their consistent communication. The superintendent stated that,
Even our teachers use the hashtag we are ABCD District. And so we wrote a pledge ...
people like it. And so we recite it when we’re together, when somebody gets a promotion,
or we bring new people in and it finishes, I am ABCD District.
Along the same lines, Superintendent B described how the superintendent uses posters to
create a consistent message across the district by stating “So we put our LCAPs up now
everywhere. they’re outstanding goals. They’re on communication or on posters. Everybody
now knows what they are.” This consistent communication and alignment help to guide
principals as instructional leaders by creating a framework and direction for them to move
towards. It also creates a common language that principals can begin to use with their staff and
show a unified front between district and site officials. Consistent communication and the
creation of a common language also lead to trust which will allow the principal to implement any
site changes necessary in their role as an instructional leader.
Visibility
20 superintendents shared that they think maintaining visibility is very important for
secondary principals as instructional leaders. Four of the six superintendents interviewed
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

75
discussed how their visibility and the visibility of the principal is key in helping to support
principals as instructional leaders. Superintendent B said that “I try and visit them [secondary
principals] and sit with them on a regular basis after school ... I also try to build in that we walk
around a little bit so that the staff visibly sees me there with them.” Visibility is seen as a
valuable strategy that superintendents use to support secondary principals as instructional leaders
because it helps to build a positive culture and a culture of trust on campus. Visibility also has a
direct link to Hallinger and Heck’s model and definition of instructional leadership as one of the
10 essential elements and part of creating a positive school climate.
Through these interviews and survey results, the researcher found it evident that
superintendents associate targeted, collaborative professional development, the importance of
getting buy in from a variety of stakeholders through the use of large decision making bodies or
committees, alignment through consistent communication from the district office, and
maintaining a high visibility as strategies most valuable in supporting secondary principals in
their roles as instructional leaders.
Discussion
This chapter presented the findings of this mixed methods study using two forms of data
collection, surveys and interviews with superintendents from San Diego and Orange county
school districts. Twenty-two out of 32 superintendents participated in the survey and six
superintendents were interviewed to gain a more in depth understanding of the support provided
to secondary principals as instructional leaders. This data collection was intended to understand,
evaluate, and answer the four provided research questions. It began with a description of the
thematic approach used to code and analyze the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016) and further went on to describe the characteristics of the survey and interview
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

76
participants. Next, the survey data was aligned to the analysis of superintendent interviews to
present the findings for each research questions. As indicated in the findings, there were
repeated themes of purposeful and a variety of professional development opportunities,
communication, and relationships as all impacting how superintendents build capacity and
support secondary principals in their roles as instructional leaders. The findings gathered from
this study indicated that many superintendents perceive their role to be as a coach or a mentor to
secondary principals in guiding them as instructional leaders and that not directly evaluating
principals, allows them to assume this coach role. Moreover, the findings revealed that through
the role of a coach, superintendents are able to model best practices that principals can use as
instructional leaders on their respective school campuses. Further, the findings also suggested
that independent of how the support is provided, it is imperative that the superintendent create
alignment throughout the district with consistent communication, visibility, and stakeholder buy
in. The research and findings support Hallinger and Heck’s (1985) model of instructional
leadership by having superintendents provide support in the areas of defining the school mission,
monitoring student progress, and creating a positive school climate through promoting
professional development and maintaining high visibility. However, the findings show very little
support provided to principals in other areas of Hallinger and Heck’s (1985) model such as
supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating curriculum, providing incentives for
teachers, or providing incentives for learning. No large differences were found between San
Diego and Orange county school superintendents. The findings also demonstrated no large
differences in support based on the number of secondary principals a superintendent oversaw.
With this in mind, all of the superintendents discussed how a larger school district can affect the
organizational structure in relation to the support provided, but how it was still important to
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

77
maintain a personal relationship with each secondary principal. Lastly, despite the various years
of experience overall as a superintendent and years of experience in their current district as
superintendent, there was a consensus on the need to support secondary principals in framing
school goals by providing principals with a framework, most often in the form of board goals or
the LCAP, and then allowing principals the freedom to implement an action plan or cycle of
inquiry that was most relevant to their school site and their specific needs.
In chapter five, there will be a discussion of the research, further conclusions, and
implications of the research. Finally, recommendations for future research will be reported and
limitations of this study discussed.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

78
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
Introduction
Chapter five provides a summary of the study, including a statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, a review of the literature and methodology used,
followed by findings related to the four research questions. It concludes with implications for
practice, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future studies.
Statement of the Problem
It is important to examine and understand the complex relationship that superintendents
have with their principals and how this relationship impacts each person’s role as an instructional
leader. Even with a large amount of research on the role of the superintendent and their
effectiveness, there is still a gap in the literature in relation to the superintendent’s new role in
building the capacity of their principals, specifically in regards to the principal’s role as an
instructional leader. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature focusing on strategies used
to build capacity in secondary principals as instructional leaders. With the shifting role of the
principal to instructional leader, support is needed to ensure the principal’s success.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the strategies that superintendents in Southern
California use to build capacity and support their secondary principals in their role as an
instructional leader. This study examined the supports provided and the perceptions of the
supports provided by superintendents to secondary principals in relation to the principal’s role as
an instructional leader. By examining this question through the lens of the superintendents, the
study provides reflection on how superintendents could form a more collaborative and supportive
relationship that meets the needs of secondary principals as instructional leaders.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

79
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What support systems do Southern California superintendents in Orange and San Diego
counties provide to assist secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders?
2. What are superintendents’ in Orange and San Diego counties perceptions of the support
provided to principals in becoming instructional leaders?
3. What supports do Southern California superintendents in Orange and San Diego counties
provide to their secondary principals as instructional leaders?
4. What strategies are seen as most valuable by superintendents in Orange and San Diego
counties in affecting principals’ roles as an instructional leader?
Review of the Literature
Principals are no longer just managers but are asked to assume the role of manager,
politician, and instructional leader, while still raising student achievement (McGowan & Miller,
2001). The research has found that principals are being asked to act as instructional leaders
despite a huge disconnect in administrator preparation programs (Eckman, 2004; Goldring,
Porter, Murphy, Elliott, & Cravens, 2009; Jazzar, 2015; López, 2003). As complex as the job of
the principal sounds, it is equally important for superintendents to ensure that their principals
possess the self-efficacy beliefs to navigate the rigorous demands of the job (Gareis &
Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Wolf (1988) also described how in the mid-1970s superintendents
were expected to provide direction and leadership to improve teaching and learning while at the
same time remaining the efficient manager of funding, facilities, and day to day activities. With
all of the challenges facing the superintendent role, research still finds that superintendents play a
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

80
major role in improving student learning (Cudeiro, 2005; Eck & Goodwin, 2010; Waters &
Marzano, 2006).
The current school system requires that principals and administrators should be able to be
both managers and leaders (McGowan & Miller, 2001). The principal must be able to further the
enthusiasm and spirit within a school, advocate for their staff, establish procedures, and perform
a participatory function at community events (Hertz, 1980). The role of the principal is at a
critical intersection with a focus on improving teaching and learning due to increased
accountability (Fink & Silverman, 2014). Riehl (2000) also defines the role of a school
administrator as communicating vision, promoting inclusion, and building relationships. More
recently, there seems to be a need for superintendents and principals to dialogue together about
role definition, expectations, school board relationships, and the place of teaching and learning
(Wolf, 1988). Superintendents support their principals in a variety of ways including shared
leadership, teachers as leaders, accountability for results, and a continued focus on development
as an instructional leader (Spanneut & Ford, 2008). Much of the literature surrounding the topic
of the principal as an instructional leader points to the how administrator preparation programs
are not providing adequate training for principals in this new role (Bolman & Deal, 1994; Cray
& Weiler, 2011; Eckman, 2004; Goldring et al., 2009; Jazzar, 2015; Olson, 2000; Scribner et al.,
2011; Wolf, 1988). Effective principals must work with their staff members to articulate clear
and measurable goals, to identify indicators that offer evidence of progress, and to develop
systems for monitoring those indicators on a continuous basis (DuFour, 1999). Fullan (2002)
takes it one step further and discusses how schools need leaders who can transform the learning
culture of a school and that defining the principal as an instructional leader alone is too narrow a
concept for the kinds of reforms that will create the schools needed for the future. Through their
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

81
role as managers and instructional leaders, it is widely understood that principals play a pivotal
role in the improvement of teaching and learning, yet many districts have not created the
necessary conditions for principal success (Fink & Silverman, 2014).
The solution to this dilemma of manager versus leader cannot be found with old models
of the principal as a disciplinarian but instead with the principal as leading learning (DuFour,
1999). Instructional leadership is viewed as an influential process where leaders identify a
direction for the school, motivate staff, and work to improve teaching and learning (Hallinger &
Murphy, 2012). According to Hitt and Tucker (2016), instructional leadership has been viewed
as foundational work for principals since the 1980s. Cudeiro (2005) also found that the most
effective training for principals as instructional leaders connects expertise in instructional
practice with expertise in supervising instruction, providing tools for using data to make
decisions, and being involved in on-site coaching. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) found that
studies of the instructional leadership role of the principal focus on three categories: defining the
school mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive learning climate
(Figure 1).
Methodology
This study used the principles found in Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell (2013)
to conduct an explanatory sequential mixed methods research study. This mixed methods
approach allows the researcher to understand the data at a more detailed level by using
qualitative follow-up data to help explain quantitative data collected from the survey (Creswell,
2014). Using both qualitative and quantitative approaches also allowed the researcher to
triangulate data that could support and provide evidence for the research questions as well as
reduce the risk of biases (Maxwell, 2013). Conducting interviews and surveys helped to
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

82
eliminate researcher biases and check for participant perceptions versus reality. A 16 item
survey questionnaire was developed and administered to participants. The survey designed for
this study was created to provide the researcher numeric descriptions of the attitudes and/or
perceptions of the superintendents in Orange and San Diego counties (Creswell, 2009).
Additionally, a semi-structured interview was completed with six superintendents to allow for
better internal validity and context understanding by allowing the researcher to be direct and ask
questions specifically about the topic or probe for further details (Maxwell, 2013). The semi-
structured approach also made it possible to report on proportions and correlations, experiences
and meaning, and richer question examples (Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994). Both the quantitative
survey instrument and the interview protocol were developed by the researcher to answer the
research questions and were aligned to Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model of instructional
leadership. Data was analyzed concurrently during the interview data collection and was
consistently compared to the quantitative survey results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By
collecting and analyzing data from both interviews and surveys, the researcher was able to look
for any common trends that would make the data more credible by getting multiple instances
from different sources and methods (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). This also minimized
threats to the validity of the data.
Key Findings
The key findings of this study represent the attitudes and perceptions of superintendents
from San Diego and Orange county school districts. Based on the four guiding research
questions, key findings included repeated themes of professional development aligned to best
instructional practices and the use of principal and/or site goal setting aligned to a cycle of
inquiry and the overall district goals and vision. These support systems were found to be ways in
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

83
which superintendents assisted secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders.
Superintendents were found to support secondary principals in the role as an instructional leader
through communication, a focus on relationships, and through coaching and modeling. These
methods of support were mentioned throughout the data collection process as ways to build
capacity in secondary principals as instructional leaders. Additional key findings reflected that
superintendents in both Orange and San Diego counties found alignment, getting buy in from
multiple stakeholders, visibility, and professional development as valuable strategies in affecting
secondary principals’ roles as instructional leaders. A key finding provided insight into
superintendents’ perceptions of the support provided where the topics discussed included the
many layers of the hierarchy between principals and the superintendent and the idea of being a
leader versus a manager. An interesting finding showed that there was a perception that
secondary principals lack the skills needed to build and align curriculum but the most
professional development is provided toward goal setting. This finding demonstrates a level of
disconnect between the support provided to secondary principals and the perceptions of areas of
growth for secondary principals as instructional leaders.
Comparing and Contrasting between Counties
Upon the conclusion of the data analysis, the two researchers analyzed the data to
compare and contrast the results from Orange, San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino
counties. Superintendents from all four counties discussed how they use communication,
coaching, and a focus on relationships to support their secondary principals as instructional
leaders. Additionally, superintendents from all four counties had similar perceptions of the
support being provided to secondary principals to assist them in becoming instructional leaders.
The researchers found that within all four counties there was a disconnect or disparity in the
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

84
areas where support was provided versus the areas which were identified as weaknesses and
areas of growth for secondary principals. The data also showed that superintendents from all
four counties stressed the importance of secondary principals being both managers and leaders in
their role as instructional leaders. A key finding showed that superintendents from Orange and
San Diego counties saw professional development, using stakeholder decision making bodies,
aligned communication, and visibility as most valuable in affecting secondary principals’ roles
as instructional leaders. Superintendents from Riverside and San Bernardino saw professional
development led by the superintendent specifically, monthly meetings, and money spent on
professional development as strategies that were most valuable in affecting secondary principals’
roles as instructional leaders. While the idea of professional development was discussed as a
valuable strategy in all four counties, the specifics of the professional development differed
between San Diego and Orange county, and Riverside and San Bernardino county. Another key
finding showed that superintendents in San Diego and Orange counties use professional
development and goal setting that is aligned to a cycle of inquiry as support systems that assist
secondary principals in becoming instructional leaders. Different from this, superintendents in
San Bernardino and Riverside counties use the creation of a shared vision and the coordination
of curriculum as support systems that assist secondary principals in becoming instructional
leaders.
Implications for Practice
The results and findings of this study emphasize the importance of the superintendent-
secondary principal relationship and the role which superintendents in Orange and San Diego
counties play in supporting the secondary principal in their role as an instructional leader. This
study adds to the current body of literature for instructional leadership by identifying the
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

85
common strategies used to support principals and superintendent perceptions of the support
provided. The study helps to confirm that the role of a secondary principal is complex and
support is required from the superintendent in order to build their skill level and enact change as
instructional leaders on campus. In a broader sense, the goal of the study was to provide a
clearer understanding of Orange and San Diego county superintendents’ relationship with
secondary principals in relation to their ability to build capacity for the role of instructional
leader.
Limitations
As mentioned in chapter 1, there are further limitations to the current study. By
exploring a research topic that had not been extensively studied previously, there is a lack of data
to compare findings from this study. Both the data collected from the survey and the interviews
were self-reported by the Orange and San Diego county superintendents which limits the
perceptions to that of only those who participated. Additionally, in utilizing survey questions
with predetermined options, the researchers recognized that data regarding types or methods of
support for secondary principals may have been underreported. With this in mind, survey
respondents did have a menu of options from which to select, but also had the option of “other”
to fill in school or site specific strategies of support used by Orange and San Diego county
superintendents when applicable. The sample size also provides a limitation by selecting a small
number of participants from particular regions which can lead to potential bias and does not
allow for the data to be generalizable. Additionally, secondary principals were not interviewed
to see if their perceptions of the supports provided align to their respective superintendent’s
perceptions of the support provided.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

86
Recommendations for Future Research
Given the importance of addressing support for secondary principals as instructional
leaders, the researcher recommends that the following be considered for future studies:
● Adding more schools to the research would help to compare and contrast results across
the state of California as well as across the nation.
● Adding schools would also increase the generalizability of the findings and decrease the
chances of bias or reactivity with the participants
● Collecting data from secondary principals would enable future researchers to see what
their perceptions were of the support provided by superintendents and what they think are
the most effective ways to build capacity as instructional leaders
● Collecting data to compare union high school districts to unified school districts would
allow a deeper comparison of how much the structure and hierarchy of a district impacts
the superintendent’s ability to support secondary principals
● Collecting data to delve deeper into larger school districts and the layers between the
superintendent and secondary principals to see if that affects the support provided
● Further analysis of the role assistant superintendents play in supporting secondary
principals as instructional leaders
● Adding observational data to continue to triangulate and validate the data collected
Conclusion
This study adds to the growing body of literature surrounding instructional leadership and
how superintendents can best support secondary principals in their role as an instructional leader
at their school site. The collected data revealed that support is provided through a variety of
strategies like professional development, relationships, alignment to district goals and vision, and
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

87
the creation of a coaching environment where secondary principals feel safe to ask questions and
ask for help. The study found that further data showed that there is a perception among
superintendents in Orange and San Diego counties that principals are lacking skills needed as
instructional leaders such as aligning curriculum but that little support is provided to them in this
area.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

88
References
Andero, A. (2001). The changing role of school superintendent with regard to curriculum policy
and decision making. Education.
Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 6-11.
Bjork, L., & Gurley, D. K. (2003, April). Superintendent as educational statesman. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Data analysis and interpretation. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (pp. 159–172).
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007a). Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods (pp. 82–102).
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007b). Qualitative data. In Qualitative research for education:
An introduction to theory and methods (pp. 117–157).
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/0803973233
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing orgainizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rown, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). The instructional management role
of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 34-64.
Council of Chief Stat School Officers. (2015). Model Principal Supervisor Professional
Standards 2015. Washington, DC:CCSSO.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In Basics of Qualitative
Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed., pp. 65–86).
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

89
Cray, M., & Weiler, S. C. (2011). Principal preparedness: Superintendent perceptions of new
principals. Journal of School Leadership, 21(6), 927–945. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ986246&site=ehost-
live%5Cnhttps://rowman.com/page/JSL
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.
Cudeiro, A. (2005). Leading student achievement. School Administrator, 62(11), 16–19.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No
Child Left Behind.” Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320701503207
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. (2007). Preparing school leaders
for a changing world: Executive summary. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univerisy, Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute.
Day, C., Harris, A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school
leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(1), 39–56.
https://doi.org/10.1080
Deming, D. J., & Figlio, D. (2016) Accountability in US educaiton: Applying lessons from K-12
experience to higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 3, 33-55.
Doremus, R. (n.d.). The superintendent as teacher. Educational Leadership.
Dufour, R. P. (1999). Help wanted: Principals who can lead professional learning communities.
NASSP Bulletin, 83(604), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659908360403
DuFour, R. (1998). Why look elsewhere?: Improving schools from within. School Administrator,
55(2). Retrieved from
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

90
https://auth.lib.unc.edu/ezproxy_auth.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=eft&AN=507622064&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (2010). Autonomy for school leaders. School Administrator, 67(1), 24–
27.
Eckman, E. W. (2004). Similarities and differences in role conflict, role commitment, and job
satisfaction for female and male high school principals. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40(3), 366–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03257835
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.msu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/62223248?accountid
=12598
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. Educational Forum, 69(2), 134–142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984677
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The ALbert
Shanker Institute.
Fink, S., & Silverman, M. (2014). Principals as instructional leaders. Education Digest, 80(4),
22–26. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=54069bed-3355-4fca-9284-
dba1fa0cf6c6%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3D%3D#db=aph
&AN=99624569
Firestone, W., & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to
improve student learning? In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for research
and educational research. New York: Teachers College Press.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

91
Fisher, D., Frey, N., (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the
gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, (May).
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.774610
Fullan, M. (2002). The Change Leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Glass, T. E. & Franceschini, L.A., The State of the American Schoool Superintendency: A Mid-
Decade Study. American Association of School Administrators. Rowman & Littlefield
Education. 2007.
Glense, C. (2011). Crafting your story: Writing up qualitative data. In P. Smith (Ed.), Becoming
qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Goldring, E., Porter, A., Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., & Cravens, X. (2009). Assessing learning-
centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current practices.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760802014951
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(6), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244793
Hallinger, P. (2007). Research on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership:
Retrospect and prospect. Australian Council for Educational Research.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WCPEC.2006.279563
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2003). Understanding the contribution of leadership to school
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

92
improvement. In M. Wallace & L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in educational
leadership and management. Sage Publications.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–
44.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the Iistructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247. https://doi.org/10.1086/461445
Harding, J. (2013a). Chapter 5: Using codes to analyse an illustrative issue. In Qualitative data
analysis from start to finish.
Harding, J. (2013b). Identifying conceptual themes and building theory. In Qualitative data
analysis from start to finish (pp. 107–126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hatchel, J. (2012). Trust-building characteristics of superintendents and their impact on
principals. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/eric/docview/1651840551/810EF5C971B4359PQ/32
Hertz, K. (1980). The superintendent and the high school principal - Related roles. American
Secondary Education, 10(4), 61–63.
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–
569. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911
Jazzar, M. (2015). Instructional or managerial leadership: The principal role!
Lash, TL.: Fox, MP.; Fink, AK. Applying Quantitative Bias Analysis to Epidemiologic Data.
Dordrecht: Springer; 2009.
Lee, M., Walker, A., & Ling Chui, Y. (2012). Contrasting effects of instructional leadership
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

93
practices on student learning in a high accountability context. Journal of Educational
Administration, 50(5).
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498–518.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research
1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244769
López, G. R. (2003). The (Racially Neutral) Politics of Education: A Critical Race Theory
Perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68–94.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239761
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design, An Interactive Approach (Third ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McGowan, P., & Miller, J. (2001). Management vs. leadership. The School Administrator (AASA
Web Edition), (November).
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: Aguide to Design and
Implementation (4
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, Huberrman, & Saldana. (2014). Drawing and veryfing conclusions. In Investigating the
Social World: The Process and Practice of Research (pp. 293–317).
https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs.2011.100352
Murphy, J. (1988). The unheroic side of leadership: Notes from the swamp. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 69(9), 654–659.
Neal, Derek. 2013. "The Consequences of Using One Assessment System to Pursue Two
Objectives." NBER Working Paper 19214.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

94
Norton, M. S., Webb, L. D., Dlugosh, L. L. and Sybouts, W. (1996). The school
superintendency: New responsibilities, new leadership, Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Olson, L. (2000). New thinking on what makes a leader. Education Week.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ramsden, P. and L. A. (1998). Learning To Lead-Personal Development As An Academic
Leader.
Riehl, C. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review
of normative, emperical, and critical literature on the practice of education administration.
Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55–81.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070001055
Rosin, M., Frey, S., & Wilson, K. (2007). Superintendents and principals: Charting the paths to
school improvement. Retrieved from EdSource website: https://edsource.org/wp-
content/publications/admin07.pdf
Rubin, H. J., Rubin, I. S., & Sage, S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnership. Qualitative
Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, 85–92.
Scribner, S. M., Crow, G. M., Lopez, G. R., & Murthada, K. (2011). “Successful” principals : A
contested notion for superintendents and principals. Journal of School Leadership, 21(3),
390–421.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Leader’s New Work : Building Learning Organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 31(1), 7. Retrieved from
https://library.gcu.edu:2443/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/docv
iew/224967033?accountid=7374
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

95
Shirley, M. (1990). Images of superintendents’ leadership for learning. Austin, Texas.
Spanneut, G., & Ford, M. (2008). Guiding hand of the superintendent helps principals flourish.
National Staff Development Council, 29(2), 28–34.
Superville, D. R. (2014). Study finds principal mobility takes toll on budgets, learning; "Churn:
the high cost of principal turnover." Education Week, (12).
Suarez-Orozco, M. (2009). Rethinking Education in the Global Era.
Suarez-Orozco, M., & Baolian Qin-Hilliard, D. (2004). Globalization: Culture and education in
the new millennium, (2004), 56–77. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rc7FRbkkzsEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Glo
balization,+Culture+and+Education+in+the+New+Millennium&ots=jjkBi5sGT1&sig=Is46
kotYiO5bbQUn6O0gbRA93Xc
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills. In 21st Century Skills.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1719292.1730970
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a
promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410554070
Valentine, J. & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership and
student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5-
30.
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. (2006). The Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student
Achievement. Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, (September), 454–487.
Weiss, R. (1994). Interviewing. Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative
Interview Studies.
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

96
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Introduction. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: The Free Press.
West, C. E. (2011). School leadership teaming. Principal Www.Naesp.Org, (January/February),
10–13.
Wolf, E. (1988). The school superintendent in the reform era: Perceptions of practicioners,
principals, and pundits. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(4), 9–30.
https://doi.org/10.3751/64.4.13
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4
th
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zaleznik, A. (2001). Managers and Leaders. Are they different?. Harvard Business School
Publishing Corporation

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

97
Appendix A
Survey Questions

1. Please identify your gender
Female
Male
Trans
Other

2. How many students do you currently serve in your district?
Less than 2,000
2,001 - 4,000
4,001 - 9,000
9,001 - 20,000
20,001 - 30,000
30,001 - 50,000
50,001 - 70,999
71,000+

3. What is your total years of experience as the superintendent of your current district?
1 year or less
2 - 3 years
4 - 8 years
9 - 15 years
16+ years

4. What is your total years of experience as superintendent overall?
1 year or less
2 - 3 years
4 - 8 years
9 - 15 years
16+ years

5. What is your educational background primarily in?
Elementary
Secondary
Business Services
Human Resources
Other

6. How many secondary (6-12) principals are in your district?
1 - 3
4 - 7
8-10
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

98
11-14
15 or more

7. How frequently do you communicate with secondary principals in your district?
Less than once a week
1 - 3 times a week
4 - 8 times a week
9 or more times a week

8. Please check all of the ways in which you communicate with secondary principals?
Phone calls
Text message
Email communication
Weekly meetings
Bi-monthly meetings
Monthly meetings
District provided professional development
Other

9. Please check all of the ways in which your support is provided to secondary principals as
instructional leaders?
Money spent on professional development
Superintendent lead professional development
Phone calls
Text messages
Email communication
Weekly meetings
Bi-monthly meetings
Monthly meetings
District provided professional development
Other

The following question will ask you to rank your opinions on a variety of topics surrounding the
role of the secondary principal (6-12) as an instructional leader. Instructional leadership for
these purposes is defined as defining the mission of the school, instructional program, and
positive school climate.

Question 10: In your opinion, how effective are the following strategies for developing
secondary principals as instructional leaders:

(1=Not effective, 2 = Effective, 3 = Highly Effective)

Money spent on professional development 1 2 3
Superintendent lead professional development 1 2 3
Phone calls 1 2 3
Text messages 1 2 3
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

99
Email communication 1 2 3
Weekly meetings 1 2 3
Bi-monthly meetings 1 2 3
Monthly meetings 1 2 3
District provided professional development 1 2 3
Other

The following question will ask you to describe actions taken by your secondary principals as
instructional leaders. Instructional leadership for these purposes is defined as defining the
mission of the school, instructional program, and positive school climate.

Question 11: Please describe the degree to which your secondary principal does the
following:

(1=rarely, 2 = often 3 = almost always)

Frames clear school goals 1 2 3
Communicates clear school goals 1 2 3
Supervises and evaluates instruction 1 2 3
Coordinates curriculum 1 2 3
Monitors student progress 1 2 3
Protects instructional time 1 2 3
Promotes professional development 1 2 3
Maintains high visibility 1 2 3
Provides incentives for teachers 1 2 3
Provides incentives for learning 1 2 3

The following question will ask you to rank the importance of actions done by secondary
principals as instructional leaders. Instructional leadership for these purposes is defined as
defining the mission of the school, instructional program, and positive school climate.

Question 12: In your opinion, how important are the following roles for secondary
principals as instructional leaders:

(1=Not important, 2 = Somewhat important, 3 = Very important)

Framing clear school goals 1 2 3
Communicating clear school goals 1 2 3
Supervising and evaluating instruction 1 2 3
Coordinating curriculum 1 2 3
Monitoring student progress 1 2 3
Protecting instructional time 1 2 3
Promoting professional development 1 2 3
Maintaining high visibility 1 2 3
Providing incentives for teachers 1 2 3
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

100
Providing incentives for learning 1 2 3

The following questions will ask you to describe the support YOU provided to your secondary
principals as instructional leaders. Instructional leadership for these purposes is defined as
defining the mission of the school, instructional program, and positive school climate.

Question 13: Please describe the degree to which you support your secondary principals in
the following:

(1=rarely, 2 = often 3 = almost always)

Framing clear school goals 1 2 3
Communicating clear school goals 1 2 3
Supervising and evaluating instruction 1 2 3
Coordinating curriculum 1 2 3
Monitoring student progress 1 2 3
Protecting instructional time 1 2 3
Promoting professional development 1 2 3
Maintaining high visibility 1 2 3
Providing incentives for teachers 1 2 3
Providing incentives for learning 1 2 3

14. In your opinion, do your secondary principals lack any of the following skills?

(1=rarely, 2 = often 3 = almost always)

Framing clear school goals 1 2 3
Communicating clear school goals 1 2 3
Supervising and evaluating instruction 1 2 3
Coordinating curriculum 1 2 3
Monitoring student progress 1 2 3
Protecting instructional time 1 2 3
Promoting professional development 1 2 3
Maintaining high visibility 1 2 3
Providing incentives for teachers 1 2 3
Providing incentives for learning 1 2 3

15. Would you be willing to participate in a 30 minute follow up interview to gain further
insight into the role of the superintendent and secondary principals as instructional
leaders?
Yes
No
Maybe
If yes or maybe, please click the link
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1XEX3xIxlRpSj3DaRFnbVa4D8aXU3lpPvNhLSxadgGaA/edit
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

101
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you again for agreeing to participate in my study today. I have some questions to ask you
specifically about your role as a principal/superintendent and your relationship with your
principal/superintendent. Feel free to be as specific as possible when answering questions. The
interview should take about an hour.

Before we get started, I wanted to give you some background on me and this study as well as any
questions you might have about this interview. I am currently in the doctoral program at USC
studying strategies superintendents used to build capacity in their secondary principals in their
role as instructional leaders. Do you have any questions for me about the study?

I also just wanted to note that this interview is strictly for research purposes and it is in no way
evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on you as a leader, your school, or your school
district. This interview is also confidential and your name will not be shared with
anyone. Additionally, I will use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will work to
de-identify any data that I gather from our interview here today. The data from the interview
will not be shared with other teachers, principals, or districts. However, I want to let you know
that I do plan on using some of your direct quotes in the final report to provide for a more rich
and purposeful analysis. I am happy to send you a copy of the final report if you are interested.

Know that all the data from this interview and any data related to this study will be kept in a
password protected file and destroyed after 3 years.

I am going to take notes during the interview but I also have a recorder with me here so that I can
accurately capture your perspective on this topic. This is only for my purposes and will not be
shared with anyone. Do I have your permission to record our conversation?

Setting the Stage
I want to start by learning a little bit more about you and your background in education.
1. First, could you tell me about your background in education?
How many years have you been superintendent?
How many school districts?
2. With how many secondary principals have you worked with?
Do any stand out in your mind?
For what reason?
What characteristics make a good secondary principal?
3. How many secondary principals do you currently oversee?

Heart of the Interview
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

102
Now I would like to ask you some questions about your relationship with your secondary
principals. For the purpose of this interview, secondary principals refers to principals at a
high school site.
4. Describe for me your relationship with your secondary principals.
5. How frequently do you talk to them?
For how long?
6. What is the nature of these conversations?
What do you talk about with them?
What would an example be of a recent conversation you had with them?
Walk me through a typical interaction with them.
7. How do you define expectations with your secondary principals?
What does this look like?
Describe for me a time in which you defined expectations for one of your secondary
principals.

I would like to ask you some questions about instructional leadership, specifically on creating
and defining the school vision .
8. Tell me about how you create a vision for the district.
What role do secondary principals play in setting this vision?
What role do secondary principals play in enacting this vision?
9. What methods are used to communicate the vision for the district?
If I were to ask a secondary principal how they are expected to create their vision for
their school site, what would they say?
Can you describe a time in which you helped one of your secondary principals with this?
10. What are the expectations of secondary principals for communicating the vision for their
school site?
What role do you play in assisting your secondary principals communicate a vision at
their own school site?
11. Give me an example of how you encourage faculty members to work towards the same
goal.
Provide an example of how your secondary principals encourage faculty members to
work towards the same goal at their school site?
12. How do you help your secondary principals to establish priorities for school goals?
13. Tell me about the last time that you assisted a secondary principal in evaluating their
progress towards the achievement of school goals?

Next, I would like to ask you about a different part of instructional leadership, managing the
instructional program.
15. Who is involved with the process of aligning curriculum at your secondary sites?
16. What steps do your secondary principals take to align curriculum at their own sites?
How do you assist your secondary principals to work with their staff to align curriculum
at their own sites?
17. How are teachers evaluated in this district?
18. What kind of professional development, if any, are secondary principals provided about
the teacher evaluation process?
19. What types of assessments are used to track student progress at your secondary sites?
SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

103
20. Describe the last time that you helped your secondary principals work with their staff to
track student progress at their own sites?

Now, I would like to ask you some questions about creating a positive school climate.
21. What steps have you taken to create a positive school climate throughout the district?
What role do secondary principals play in creating this positive climate?
22. If I were to walk a campus with you, what would an ideal positive school climate at a
secondary site look like?
23. What supports have you provided your secondary principals to create a positive school
climate at their own school site?
24. Describe for me a time when one of your secondary principals struggled/failed to create a
positive school culture at their school site.
How did you respond to that?
25. Give me an example of how you demonstrate high expectations for the district’s faculty
as professionals.
26. If I were to ask a secondary principal how you support them in demonstrating high
expectations for their site’s faculty as professionals, what would they say?

Additionally, I would like to ask you about professional development that you provide.
27. Tell me about the professional development you provide to your secondary principals, if
any.
What is the nature of these PD opportunities?
How frequently do they happen?
Who is present?
What is your role in this PD?
28. How do you provide for extended training to develop the knowledge and skills that are
required of secondary principals as members of the school faculty?
29. How do you provide the necessary resources to support secondary principals’
implementation of the school professional development?
30. What PD is most valuable in supporting your secondary principals as ILs, if any?

Last, I would like to ask you some questions about your role as an instructional leader .
31. Some people say that principals need to be both managers and instructional
leaders. What are your thoughts on this?
32. What role, if any, does the superintendent play in secondary principals as instructional
leaders?
What does this support look like, if at all?
33. What do you perceive to be the most important supports for principals as instructional
leaders?
34. How do you define IL?

Closing Question
What other insight would you like to share about principals, superintendents, and the role of an
instructional leader that I might not have covered today, if any?

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

104
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today. I appreciate your time and your
answers will be beneficial for my study. If I have any follow up questions that need clarification,
is it okay if I email you? I want to be sure that I have accurately described your answers in my
study. Thank you again for participating.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

105
Appendix C
Participant Cover letter
July 5, 2019

RE: USC Doctoral Research, Superintendent Survey and Input Needed

Dear Superintendent _________,

My name is Keely Hafer and I am currently an Associate Principal at a High School in Southern
California. Based on your success with supporting students in your district, I would like to invite
you to participate in my research study. The study is being conducted under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita as part of my doctoral studies at the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California. This study seeks to identify the strategies employed by superintendents in
Southern California used to build capacity in their secondary principals as instructional leaders.

I understand that your time is both extremely valuable and limited. The survey has been piloted by
a current superintendent and will take less than ten minutes to complete. Your voluntary
participation would be much appreciated. It will provide an important contribution to the research
on the supports provided and the perceptions of the supports provided by superintendents to
secondary principals in relation to the principal’s role as an instructional leader.

Your relationship with the University of Southern California and parties associated with the study
will not be affected whether you choose to participate in this study or not. There are no known
risks associated with participation in this study. As a fellow Trojan, I appreciate you taking the
time to read this email and participate in this study through your valuable survey responses.

Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. Your
participation in this survey adds tremendous value to the research and the topic, however, your
involvement is entirely voluntary.

The survey has 15 questions and should take no longer than ten minutes to complete.

Please click below to begin the survey.

https://forms.gle/tf2294BdVxUyLpfo8

If you are interested in participating in a 30 minute follow up interview about this same topic,
please email me at hafer@usc.edu to set up a time that is convenient for you. Your participation
in the survey does not require participation in the interview. Additionally, I am happy to send you
a copy of the final report if you are interested.

Your contribution to this study is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance and please contact
me if you have any questions.

SUPERINTENDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP

106
Keely Hafer, Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education
3335 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
(c) 858.442.5593

Fight on!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Research has shown that some superintendent leadership practices have a positive correlation to student achievement (Cudeiro, 2005

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Strategies Riverside and San Bernardino county superintendents employ to build capacity in secondary principals as instructional leaders

PDF

Elementary principals attitudes, perceptions, and their ability to support students with autism and emotional behavioral disturbances in inclusive settings

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in southern California

PDF

Female elementary school principals and building capacity for teacher leaders

PDF

The influence spouses have on superintendents in Los Angeles County school districts

PDF

Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by San Diego County superintendents

PDF

Leading for educational equity: how superintendents champion the importance of equity-based change

PDF

Professional learning communities: secondary site and district leaders’ role in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California

PDF

Best practices to improve mathematics achievement of middle school Latina/o students

PDF

Uncovered leaders in hidden schools: effective leadership practices in California Model Continuation High School principals

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Effective transformational and transactional qualities of 7-8 intermediate school principals who create and sustain change in an urban school setting

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

Selecting the 21st century school principals: preparation, recruitment, and retention strategies

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices for elementary classroom teachers in third through fifth grade in Los Angeles County urban schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Hafer, Keely (author)

Core Title Strategies Orange and San Diego county superintendents employ to build capacity in secondary principals as instructional leaders

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/08/2020

Defense Date 02/18/2020

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

Tag education,instructional leader,instructional leadership,Leader,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,Relationship,secondary principal,Southern California,superintendent,support

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Roach, John (committee member)

Creator Email keelyhafer@gmail.com,keelyhafer@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-302891

Unique identifier UC11664042

Identifier etd-HaferKeely-8461.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-302891 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HaferKeely-8461.pdf

Dmrecord 302891

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hafer, Keely

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA